Quantum Physics Points to God

A Reflection for a Curious World

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

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

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

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

---

Quantum Physics Reveals the Glory of God

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Author: Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract:

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

---

1. Introduction

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

---

2. The Christian Prophetic Standard: Divine Communication as Validation

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

• Who brought the Quran? Jibril.

• Who says he was sent by God? Jibril.

• Who confirmed Jibril’s identity? Muhammad.

• Who confirmed Muhammad’s prophethood? Jibril.

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

---

5. Comparison with Biblical Revelation and Christocentric Fulfillment

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

• Fulfilled Old Testament prophecies.

• Direct statements from God the Father.

• Miracles, resurrection, and historical eyewitnesses.

• The enduring impact of the Gospel and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

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

---

6. Conclusion: The Theological Crisis of Islamic Origin

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

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

---

References:

• The Holy Bible (NKJV, ESV, KJV)

• Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Ibn Ishaq – Sirat Rasul Allah

• The Qur’an, Translations by Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, and Saheeh International

• John of Damascus, Critique of Islam (8th Century)

• Norman Geisler & Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam

• William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith

• Sam Shamoun, Islamic Dilemma and the Prophet’s Credentials

---

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

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

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

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

---

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

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

Textual Analysis:

• Genesis 4:12 (ESV): “When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.”

• Genesis 4:17: “Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.”

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

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

---

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

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

Textual Analysis:

• Jeremiah 36:30: “Therefore thus says the LORD concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: He shall have none to sit on the throne of David…”

• 2 Kings 24:6: “So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers, and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his place.”

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

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

---

3. Ezekiel 26 – The Destruction of Tyre

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

Textual Analysis:

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

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

1. Nebuchadnezzar (vv. 7–11) would lay siege to Tyre and destroy its mainland settlements (“your daughters”). This was fulfilled historically when Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre for 13 years (586–573 BC), devastating the mainland and forcing Tyre to pay tribute.

2. “They” (plural, vv. 12–14)—a shift in pronoun from singular to plural—refers to subsequent conquerors, culminating in Alexander the Great’s conquest in 332 BC, when the island city was finally demolished and scraped “like a bare rock.”

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

---

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

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

Textual and Linguistic Analysis:

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

Response:

1. Linguistics of ʿalmāh:
   The claim that ʿalmāh cannot mean “virgin” is linguistically inaccurate. While bĕtûlāh often denotes virginity, ʿalmāh is used only for unmarried young women of marriageable age, which implies virginity in the cultural context. The Septuagint (LXX), translated by Jewish scholars two centuries before Christ, rendered ʿalmāh as παρθένος (parthenos), which unequivocally means “virgin.”

2. “Immanuel” – God With Us:
   Ancient Hebrew naming conventions were theological, not literal. Names often described a person’s mission or nature rather than being their personal name. For example, Jacob was called “Israel,” and Jesus was called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6).

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

---

Conclusion: Misunderstandings Do Not Equal Contradictions

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

• Conditional and typological language

• Partial and progressive fulfillment

• Symbolic naming and metaphors

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

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

---

References:

• John Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Baker, 2018)

• Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Zondervan, 1982)

• R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT, 2007)

• Bruce Waltke & M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Eisenbrauns, 1990)

---

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

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

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

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

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

---

1. The Textual Context of Isaiah 29

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

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

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

---

2. Islamic Interpretation

Islamic scholars often argue:

1. The “book” in Isaiah represents the Qur’an.

2. The “unlearned person” is Muhammad, who could not read prior to receiving revelation.

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

---

3. Classical Biblical Scholarship Perspective

1. Historical context: Isaiah lived in the 8th century BCE, centuries before Muhammad.

2. Literary context: The passage describes Jerusalem’s rebellion and spiritual blindness, using metaphorical language.

3. No explicit reference: There is no mention of Arabia, Muhammad, or a prophet outside Israel.

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

---

4. Comparative Verification Table

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

---

5. Challenging Questions for Critical Thinking

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

1. Historical Challenge: How can a passage written in the 8th century BCE, concerning Jerusalem and Judah, be verified as a prophecy about someone living in 7th century CE Arabia?

2. Textual Challenge: Does Isaiah 29:12 explicitly mention Arabia, Muhammad, or the Qur’an? If not, how valid is the claim of prophecy?

3. Contextual Challenge: Considering the broader context of Isaiah 29 (judgment on Jerusalem), how does the Islamic interpretation account for verses 1–11 and 13–24?

4. Logical Challenge: If the “book” is the Qur’an, and the unlearned man is Muhammad, why does the text describe judgment and spiritual blindness rather than the reception of divine truth?

5. Comparative Challenge: Are there other biblical passages where prophecy is clearly fulfilled in someone outside Israel? How does Isaiah 29 compare to these examples?

6. Epistemological Challenge: Can theological interpretation alone (without historical or textual support) be considered sufficient evidence for prophecy?

7. Verification Challenge: What sources outside the Islamic tradition (archaeological, historical, linguistic) could confirm or contradict the claim?

---

6. Conclusion

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

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

---

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

---

A Trinitarian Analogy in Physics and Theology

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

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Abstract

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

---

1. Introduction

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

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

---

2. Concurrent Forces in Physics

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

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

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

1. Distinct contributions: Each force has a unique magnitude and direction.

2. Unified effect: Despite differences, the forces collectively balance each other.

3. Point of convergence: The forces act at a single point, producing stability.

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

---

3. The Trinity: Distinction and Unity

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

• The Father: The origin and source of divine will (John 5:26; Romans 11:36).

• The Son: The Word incarnate, executing redemption and revelation (John 1:14; Philippians 2:6–8).

• The Holy Spirit: The sustaining presence, guiding and sanctifying creation and believers (John 14:26; Hebrews 9:14).

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

---

4. The Analogy: Forces and Persons

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

1. Distinct Roles: Just as each force in a system has its own magnitude and direction, each Person of the Trinity has a distinct role—Father as source, Son as redeemer, Spirit as sustainer.

2. Unified Action: Despite distinctions, the total effect is one unified outcome. The three Persons act inseparably to accomplish divine purposes, analogous to how balanced forces produce stability.

3. Point of Convergence: In physics, equilibrium requires forces to act at a single point. In the Trinity, all divine actions converge at the singular essence of God, ensuring coherence and harmony.

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

---

5. Biblical Foundations

The analogy is rooted in Scripture:

• John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” Unity in action.

• Philippians 2:5–7: Christ, though in the form of God, humbles Himself, demonstrating distinct yet harmonious roles in salvation.

• Hebrews 1:1–3: The Son executes God’s will and sustains all things, reflecting divine coordination.

• Romans 11:36: “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.” The totality of divine action originates, flows, and is perfected in God.

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

---

6. Implications for Theology and Life

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

1. Spiritual Harmony: Believers are called to reflect divine harmony by integrating distinct gifts and roles into a unified spiritual purpose (1 Corinthians 12:4–6).

2. Relational Unity: Just as forces do not counteract one another in equilibrium, Christians are called to maintain unity in diversity within the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:3).

3. Theological Clarity: Analogies grounded in observable principles, like physics, can aid comprehension of complex theological truths without compromising the mystery of God.

---

7. Conclusion

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

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

---

References:

1. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

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

3. John 1:1–18; John 10:30; Philippians 2:5–11; Hebrews 1:1–3; Romans 11:36.

4. Hibbeler, R. C. Engineering Mechanics: Statics. Pearson, 2017.

---

Allah: A God Who Demands Love but Does Not Love

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

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

The Christian God: The God Who Loves and Chooses

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

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

The Islamic Allah: A God in Need of Love

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

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

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

Knowing God Through Christ Versus Not Knowing Allah

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

---

References

• The Holy Bible, New International Version.

• The Qur’an.

• Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid. Ihya Ulum al-Din (Revival of the Religious Sciences).

• Lewis, C. S. The Four Loves. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1960.

• Stott, John. Basic Christianity. Downers Grove: IVP, 2008.

• Carson, D. A. The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. Wheaton: Crossway, 2000.

---

Where Do You Want to Spend Your Eternity?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

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

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

The Qur’anic Contradiction

On earth:

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

In Paradise:

• “In it are rivers of water incorruptible, rivers of milk of which the taste never changes, rivers of wine, delicious to those who drink.” (Qur’an 47:15).

• “They will be given to drink a pure wine, sealed; the seal thereof is musk.” (Qur’an 83:25–26).

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

Questions Islam Cannot Answer

1. Why would Allah choose the imagery of Satan’s handiwork to describe eternal bliss?

2. If the “wine of Paradise” is allegedly different, why does the Qur’an still use the same word (khamr) that elsewhere is condemned?

3. Why does Jannah focus on sensual pleasures—wine, women, couches, and luxury—rather than holiness, righteousness, and communion with God?

4. If heaven is to be free of sin, why would Allah reintroduce what he once condemned as sinful?

5. Does this not reduce Paradise to a carnal projection of Muhammad’s desires rather than a holy dwelling with God?

6. Why does Islam offer bodily indulgence while Christianity offers eternal communion with a holy God (Revelation 21:3–4)?

The Biblical Contrast

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

• Jesus offers “living water” that becomes “a well springing up into everlasting life” (John 4:14).

• Paul describes eternal blessing as the “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:22–23)—love, joy, peace, and righteousness, not drunkenness.

• The book of Revelation emphasizes God’s presence: “Behold, the dwelling of God is with man… He will wipe every tear from their eyes” (Revelation 21:3–4).

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

Apologetic Conclusion

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

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

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

---

References

Qur’anic Sources

• Qur’an 5:90 – Condemnation of intoxicants as Satan’s handiwork.

• Qur’an 47:15 – Rivers of wine in Paradise.

• Qur’an 76:21 – Heavenly goblets of drink.

• Qur’an 83:25–26 – Sealed pure wine in Paradise.

Biblical Sources

• John 4:14 – Jesus offers living water.

• Galatians 5:22–23 – Fruit of the Spirit.

• Revelation 21:3–4 – Eternal communion with God.

• Revelation 21:6 – The water of life given freely.

Scholarly Works

• Geisler, Norman L. & Saleeb, Abdul. Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross. Baker Academic, 2002.

• St. Augustine. The City of God. Penguin Classics, 2003.

• Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad at Medina. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956.

• Al-Tabari. Jami‘ al-Bayan fi Ta’wil al-Qur’an.

• Al-Qurtubi. Tafsir al-Qurtubi.

---

🔥 

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

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

---

Introduction

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

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

---

Exegesis of 1 Timothy 6:15–16

Paul’s doxological proclamation provides several critical affirmations:

1. The Only Sovereign (ho makarios kai monos dynastēs)
   Jesus is identified not as one among many rulers but as the sole sovereign. In Greco-Roman political language, sovereignty was reserved for emperors. By applying this title to Christ, Paul elevates Him above every earthly authority.

2. The King of Kings and Lord of Lords
   These titles echo Old Testament designations of Yahweh (cf. Deut. 10:17; Ps. 136:3; Dan. 2:47). By applying them to Jesus, Paul affirms Christ’s full participation in the divine identity of Israel’s God.

3. Immortality and Unapproachable Light
   Jesus is said to alone possess immortality and dwell in unapproachable light, attributes reserved exclusively for God. This echoes John’s Gospel, which describes Jesus as the true Light (John 1:9) and as the possessor of life in Himself (John 5:26).

4. Worthy of Honor and Eternal Power
   Paul concludes with a doxology directed toward Christ, showing that worship belongs to Him as God. In Jewish monotheism, worship was due only to Yahweh; for Paul, the worship of Jesus is fully consistent with faith in the one true God.

---

Jesus as God in Broader Biblical Witness

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

• John 1:1–3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

• Colossians 1:15–17: Jesus is the image of the invisible God and the agent of creation.

• Hebrews 1:3: Christ is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of His nature.

• Revelation 19:16: Jesus is again called King of kings and Lord of lords, affirming His eschatological supremacy.

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

---

Theological Implications

1. Christ’s Sovereignty Over All Powers
   As King of kings, Jesus rules not only over human authorities but over principalities, powers, and cosmic forces (Eph. 1:21). His sovereignty dismantles any human claim to ultimate authority.

2. The Unique Mediator
   Because Jesus is God, He alone can mediate between God and humanity (1 Tim. 2:5–6). His divine nature ensures the efficacy of His atonement and the permanence of salvation.

3. Worship and Devotion
   The worship of Jesus as God is central to Christian liturgy, prayer, and devotion. As Thomas declared: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28), so the church throughout history has confessed Christ’s deity.

---

Responding to Skeptical and Islamic Objections

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

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

---

Conclusion

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

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

---

References

• The Holy Bible, Christian Standard Bible (CSB).

• Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

• Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

• Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

• Oden, Thomas C. Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology. New York: HarperOne, 1992.

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

---

✍️ Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---