The Parable of the Two Builders: An Analogy Between Christianity and Islam

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Jesus’ parable of the two builders (Matthew 7:24–27) provides a profound metaphor for distinguishing between enduring truth and fragile deception. The wise man who built his house upon the rock represents those who anchor their lives upon Christ, the eternal foundation. Conversely, the foolish man who built his house upon sand exemplifies those who construct belief systems upon unstable human authority. This parable offers an illuminating lens through which to compare the theological foundations of Christianity and Islam.

Christianity: The House Built on the Rock

Christianity stands upon the unshakable rock of Jesus Christ—His person, His work on the cross, and His resurrection. The Apostle Paul affirms, “For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). Jesus Himself declared, following Peter’s confession of His divinity, “On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).

The Fathers of the Church consistently echoed this conviction. Augustine of Hippo clarified, “Christ is the Rock, not Peter; the Church is not founded upon a man, but upon Christ, who gave to Peter the name of Rock”.¹ John Chrysostom, in his Homilies on Matthew, explained that the storms in Jesus’ parable signify persecutions and heresies, yet the house built on Christ remains immovable: “The Rock is unshakable, and whoever builds upon it will not fall.”² Tertullian similarly argued against heretical distortions, reminding his readers that “That Rock was Christ, and on Him the Church is founded.”³

History bears out this theological truth. Despite persecution under the Roman Empire, opposition from Islam, challenges from atheism, and the rise and fall of world ideologies, Christianity has endured. Bibles have been burned, Christians martyred, and churches destroyed, yet the faith has not collapsed. Its resilience lies not in human ability but in divine reality, for Jesus Christ is “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).

Islam: The House Built on Sand

By contrast, Islam exhibits the characteristics of a house built upon sand. Its entire structure rests upon the claims of one man, Muhammad, and the Qur’an attributed to him. Unlike Christianity, which is grounded in centuries of fulfilled prophecy (Luke 24:27; John 5:39), Islam depends exclusively on the testimony of a single individual without corroboration from the broader biblical witness. The Apostle Paul warned against such innovations: “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8).

The fragility of this foundation is revealed in the frequent defensive hostility displayed when Islamic teachings are questioned. The violent responses to criticism suggest not confidence in divine truth but insecurity in human claims. Chrysostom contrasted Christian endurance with worldly instability, observing that “nothing is stronger than the house founded on the Rock, for it cannot be overthrown, neither by flood nor storm.”⁴ Conversely, a house built on sand requires compulsion, censorship, and violence to maintain its stability.

Followers of Christ, by contrast, are called to endure persecution with meekness: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:10). Truth, unlike error, does not require force to preserve itself. As Jesus declared, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).

Truth in the Age of Scrutiny

As the information age progresses, Islam faces increasing scrutiny. Historical inquiry, textual criticism, and ethical reflection expose weaknesses in its foundational claims, eroding its credibility. Christianity, however, has always welcomed honest investigation, for truth does not fear inquiry but shines brighter under examination. The Apostle Peter urged believers to “always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). Augustine echoed this sentiment: “The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.”⁵

Thus, the parable of the two builders is more than a moral lesson—it is a prophetic picture of spiritual reality. Christianity, built upon the eternal Rock who is Christ, will endure eternally. Islam, constructed upon the shifting sands of human claims, will ultimately collapse with a great fall (Matthew 7:27).

---

References

---

Would you like me to expand this further into a publishable journal-style article (with abstract, keywords, and conclusion), or keep it as a strong apologetic essay format?

1. Augustine, Retractationes, Book I, Ch. 21. ↩

2. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily 24. ↩

3. Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. 22. ↩

4. Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily 24. ↩

5. Although often paraphrased, the sentiment is attributed to Augustine; cf. Sermon 23A. ↩

The Finished Work of Christ and the Misconception of Prophetic Finality in Islam

 The Finished Work of Christ and the Misconception of Prophetic Finality in Islam

Author: Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract:
This article critically examines the Islamic assertion that Muhammad is the final prophet and that his message perfects prior revelation. Through a detailed exegetical analysis of John 19:30 (tetelestai) and the Quranic affirmation of earlier scriptures, the study highlights profound theological and hermeneutical inconsistencies in the Islamic claim of prophetic finality. It demonstrates that Muhammad’s role cannot logically supersede Jesus’ completed salvific mission, nor can it reconcile with the Quran’s acknowledgment of the gospel and prior prophets.

---

Introduction
The doctrine of prophetic finality (Khatam an-Nabiyyin) occupies a central role in Islamic theology, claiming that Muhammad’s advent completes and perfects God’s monotheistic revelation initiated with Adam and transmitted through Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (Quran 33:40; 5:48). Yet, this position raises an inherent theological paradox: Christianity asserts that Jesus’ redemptive work was fully accomplished, epitomized in his final exclamation on the cross: tetelestai (“It is finished”) (John 19:30). This article interrogates the Islamic claim of finality in light of canonical Christian texts, the linguistic and theological import of tetelestai, and the Quran’s explicit affirmation of the Torah and Gospel.

---

Jesus’ Declaration: Completion, Not Defeat
In the Greek New Testament, tetelestai conveys more than cessation—it signals the perfect completion of God’s salvific plan. Christ’s pronouncement marks the fulfillment of Old Testament messianic prophecies and the comprehensive enactment of divine redemption. Theologically, this declaration precludes the necessity of subsequent prophetic intervention to “finish” what had already been accomplished. Any assertion of additional prophetic succession therefore implies the incompleteness of Christ’s mission, a proposition directly contrary to the scriptural record.

---

Islamic Theology and Prophetic Finality
Islamic doctrine presents Muhammad as a universal prophet, whose message addresses all humanity across temporal and geographic boundaries (Quran 2:129, 5:48). This universality is juxtaposed against the historically localized ministries of prior prophets, including Jesus. From the Islamic perspective, Muhammad perfects prior revelation, correcting human deviation and codifying divine law. However, if Jesus’ mission was indeed complete as John 19:30 affirms, Muhammad’s purported role as final prophet introduces a theological contradiction: it assumes a deficiency in Christ’s work, undermining the Christian understanding of salvation.

---

The Quran’s Affirmation of Previous Scriptures
Significantly, the Quran repeatedly affirms the Torah and Gospel as authentic revelations (Quran 3:3; 5:46; 10:94). This creates an internal tension for Islamic theology: the Quran positions Muhammad’s mission as a confirmation of prior scriptures, yet the claim of finality presupposes that these scriptures, including the gospel, were somehow incomplete or in need of correction. If Muhammad merely affirms the gospel, how can he simultaneously supersede it? This hermeneutical tension challenges the coherence of the Islamic concept of prophetic finality.

---

Critical Analysis
A rigorous historical-theological analysis exposes the dissonance between Islamic claims and both the biblical narrative and Quranic affirmation of previous prophets. Muhammad’s finality cannot reconcile with Jesus’ completed salvific mission without contradicting canonical texts. Islamic scholarship often relies on selective exegesis to validate prophetic finality, yet a holistic reading of the Quran and biblical texts demonstrates that Jesus’ work stands as complete and divinely sanctioned. From a Christian theological standpoint, any subsequent prophetic claim seeking to perfect or supersede Christ’s work is not only redundant but theologically untenable.

---

Implications for Interfaith Dialogue
This study underscores the necessity of careful textual and theological analysis in interfaith discourse. Claims of prophetic finality must be critically examined in light of primary sources. Understanding the intrinsic completion of Jesus’ mission challenges the Islamic assertion of Muhammad as the final prophet and encourages a more historically and theologically consistent engagement between Christian and Islamic perspectives.

---

Conclusion
Jesus’ declaration tetelestai affirms the completeness of God’s salvific plan, rendering any subsequent prophetic mission unnecessary from a Christian standpoint. The Islamic assertion that Muhammad is the final prophet, intended to perfect prior revelation, is both textually and theologically problematic. The Quran’s affirmation of previous scriptures further complicates this claim, exposing a hermeneutical inconsistency. Therefore, Muhammad’s supposed finality cannot be reconciled with the historical and theological reality of Christ’s finished work.

---

References

• The Holy Bible, New International Version. John 19:30.

• Quran, Surahs 2, 3, 5, 33.

• Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah. Yale University Press, 1994.

• Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Zondervan, 1994.

• Lings, Martin. Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources. Inner Traditions, 1983.

• Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Islamic Life and Thought. Routledge, 2001.

Christ’s Finished Work and the Misconception of Prophetic Finality in Islam: An Intertextual and Hermeneutical Analysis

 Christ’s Finished Work and the Misconception of Prophetic Finality in Islam: An Intertextual and Hermeneutical Analysis

Author: Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract
This article examines the Islamic assertion that Muhammad is the final prophet (Khatam an-Nabiyyin) and that his mission perfects prior revelation. By integrating intertextual analysis of John 19:30 (tetelestai), classical Christian patristic sources, and Quranic exegesis (tafsir), the study highlights inconsistencies in Islamic claims regarding prophetic finality. It argues that Muhammad’s purported finality cannot reconcile with the completed salvific work of Christ or the Quran’s affirmation of the Torah and Gospel, exposing a hermeneutical tension in Islamic theology.

---

Introduction
Islamic theology asserts that Muhammad’s prophetic mission is universal, eternal, and final, completing the divine plan initiated with Adam and transmitted through Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (Quran 33:40; 5:48)^[1][2]. Christianity, however, affirms that Jesus Christ’s redemptive work reached definitive completion with his crucifixion and resurrection, summarized in his final utterance: tetelestai (“It is finished”) (John 19:30)^[3]. Patristic scholars, including Augustine (Enchiridion) and John Chrysostom (Homilies on John), interpret this term as denoting the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and the perfect completion of God’s salvific plan^[4][5]. This paper evaluates Islamic claims of prophetic finality against this theological framework, highlighting intertextual and hermeneutical inconsistencies.

---

Jesus’ Declaration: Tetelestai as Fulfillment
The Greek term tetelestai conveys the perfection and completion of divine purpose. Patristic interpretations emphasize that Christ’s mission fully satisfied the law and fulfilled messianic prophecy^[6]. Augustine observes that Jesus’ death consummated redemption for all humanity, leaving no further prophetic intercession necessary^[7]. The declaration is universal, historical, and divinely ratified, affirming that any claim of subsequent prophetic necessity, such as that proposed by Islamic theology, misrepresents the nature of Jesus’ work.

---

Islamic Conceptions of Finality in Classical Tafsir
Classical tafsir literature, including Ibn Kathir (Tafsir al-Quran al-Azim) and Al-Tabari (Jami’ al-bayan), underscores Muhammad’s finality as universal and eternal^[8][9]. The Quran itself affirms the authority of prior revelations: “And We sent down the Book in truth, confirming that which came before it” (Quran 3:3)^[10]. Other passages confirm the Torah and Gospel as guidance (Quran 5:46; 10:94)^[11][12]. Tafsir interpretations often assert human corruption of prior scriptures, yet these interpretations cannot negate the Quranic acknowledgment of divine preservation (tanzil) and the legitimacy of Jesus’ ministry^[13]. If Muhammad’s mission were to “perfect” prior revelation, it would imply incompleteness in both the Torah and the Gospel, which contradicts the Quran’s affirmation of their divine origin.

---

Intertextual Analysis: Gospel Affirmation vs. Prophetic Finality
The Quran repeatedly positions Muhammad’s mission as confirming, not superseding, prior revelation. Classical Islamic commentators, including Al-Qurtubi, assert that Muhammad upholds the moral and legal principles of previous scriptures but introduces correction where human alteration allegedly occurred^[14]. However, this interpretive framework creates a paradox: affirming Jesus’ salvific work while claiming finality inherently contradicts the gospel’s universality and the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. Patristic commentators such as Cyril of Alexandria stressed that any attempt to “complete” Christ’s mission would undermine the divine plan, a principle incompatible with Islamic claims of finality^[15].

---

Hermeneutical Implications
The Islamic assertion of finality reflects selective exegesis privileging Quranic authority over historical and textual consistency. Jesus’ tetelestai constitutes a universal, historically verified, and theologically complete declaration of redemption. Any reinterpretation implying incompleteness introduces a hermeneutical tension. Furthermore, the Quran’s recognition of prior scriptures amplifies this tension, demonstrating an internal inconsistency in Islamic theology regarding prophetic succession.

---

Conclusion
This study concludes that Muhammad’s purported finality cannot reconcile with the completed salvific work of Christ. Jesus’ declaration tetelestai affirms the perfection of God’s plan, and the Quran’s acknowledgment of the Torah and Gospel confirms this completion. Islamic claims regarding Muhammad’s finality, therefore, present both theological and textual inconsistencies, revealing a misinterpretation of Christian doctrine and a selective hermeneutical approach to scripture.

---

References

1. Quran 33:40.

2. Quran 5:48.

3. The Holy Bible, John 19:30, New International Version.

4. Augustine of Hippo. Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love, Ch. 21.

5. Chrysostom, John. Homilies on John, Homily 86.

6. Origen. Commentary on John, Book 10.

7. Augustine, City of God, Book 22, Ch. 30.

8. Ibn Kathir. Tafsir al-Quran al-Azim, Vol. 4.

9. Al-Tabari. Jami’ al-bayan fi tafsir al-Quran, Vol. 3.

10. Quran 3:3.

11. Quran 5:46.

12. Quran 10:94.

13. Al-Tabari, Vol. 3, Commentary on 5:48.

14. Al-Qurtubi. Tafsir al-Jami’ li Ahkam al-Quran, Vol. 3.

15. Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on John, Book 12.

16. Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah. Yale University Press, 1994.

17. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Zondervan, 1994.

18. Lings, Martin. Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources. Inner Traditions, 1983.

19. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Islamic Life and Thought. Routledge, 2001.

 

Music, Prophecy, and the Question of God: A Theological Critique of Islam’s Ban on Music

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

Music has long served as a vehicle of divine revelation, spiritual joy, and prophetic utterance within the Judeo-Christian tradition. In striking contrast, Islamic jurisprudence—rooted in both Qur’anic interpretations and Prophetic hadith—often condemns musical expression as sinful or demonic. This article interrogates these theological disjunctions, contrasting the Biblical theology of music with the Islamic prohibition of instruments, and argues that the divergent positions reveal fundamental incompatibilities between the God of the Bible and Allah of the Qur’an. Drawing upon patristic writings, classical tafsīr, and canonical hadith collections, this study advances the claim that music is not merely ornamentation but an essential expression of divine-human communion—a reality rejected by Islamic orthodoxy.

---

1. Introduction: Music as Theological Proof

In interfaith dialogues, one often appeals to metaphysical arguments regarding the nature of God. Yet cultural and liturgical practices can offer equally decisive insights. Music, in particular, is not peripheral but central to how a faith conceives divine-human relations. The God of Israel reveals Himself amid song (Exod. 15:1–2), prophecy (1 Sam. 10:5), and worship (Ps. 150), whereas Islamic sources routinely depict Allah as prohibiting instruments, likening music to adultery, wine, and vanity (Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ 5590). This polarity cannot be ignored if one is to conduct serious comparative theology.

---

2. Music in the Biblical Canon

From the earliest stages of Israelite history, music emerges as both prophetic and sacramental. When Saul was anointed king, he encountered “a company of prophets…with harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre, prophesying” (1 Sam. 10:5, ESV). Here, the prophetic word is inseparable from musical accompaniment. Similarly, Elisha summoned a musician before prophesying: “As the musician played, the hand of the LORD came upon him” (2 Kgs. 3:15).

The Psalter, the prayer book of Israel, is suffused with commands to employ musical instruments in worship. Psalm 150 offers a catalogue of instruments—trumpet, lute, harp, timbrel, strings, pipe, cymbals—insisting that “everything that has breath praise the LORD” (Ps. 150:6). Far from rejecting instruments, God sanctifies them as conduits of praise.

Early Christian voices echo this vision. Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus, II.4) interprets music as a reflection of the Logos, arguing that Christ Himself is the “New Song” harmonizing creation. Augustine (Confessions, IX.6) confessed that sacred music moved him to tears, describing it as a form of prayer that lifts the soul heavenward. Thus, patristic theology firmly linked music with divine communion.

---

3. Islam and the Prohibition of Music

In stark contrast, Islamic orthodoxy demonstrates deep ambivalence toward music. While the Qur’an does not explicitly outlaw instruments, exegetes such as Ibn Kathīr (Tafsīr, commentary on Qur’an 31:6) interpret “idle talk” (lahw al-ḥadīth) as music, warning that it leads believers astray. Al-Qurṭubī concurs, asserting that music constitutes a diversion from the remembrance of Allah (Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī, vol. 14).

More explicit is the hadith corpus. In Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (5590), Muhammad declares: “There will be among my followers people who will consider as permissible illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks, and the use of musical instruments.” Here, instruments are grouped with fornication and drunkenness, marking them as grave moral transgressions. Muslim jurists such as Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328) intensified this stance, equating music with satanic deception (Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, vol. 11).

Islamic spirituality thus presents revelation without music. Unlike the prophets of Israel, who prophesied with instruments, Muhammad’s revelations came in states of physical trembling, heavy breathing, or while under the coverings of Aisha (Muslim 2432; Bukhārī 3728)—modes devoid of musical accompaniment or joyful worship.

---

4. Intertextual Theological Critique

The disjunction here is not incidental but ontological. The God of the Bible employs music to reveal His Spirit; Allah, by contrast, condemns music as corruption. One cannot harmonize these positions without negating one tradition. To argue that Yahweh and Allah are identical requires ignoring the radical divergence in how each conceives human creativity, worship, and prophecy.

The prophets, psalmists, and early Church Fathers testify that music is a gift—a miracle distinguishing humanity from the beasts. No donkey composes psalms, no ox crafts symphonies. Music is uniquely human because it reflects the imago Dei. To silence music is to silence an essential expression of divine image-bearing.

Thus, if one bans music, one opposes the Creator’s design. The Christian tradition sees Satan as the perverter of worship (Ezek. 28:13–17, interpreted by many Fathers as describing Lucifer’s fall from being a musical being of heaven). By this measure, a deity who bans instruments, condemns musicians, and likens melody to fornication cannot be the God who commands, “Sing to Him a new song; play skillfully with a shout of joy” (Ps. 33:3). Rather, such a deity aligns with the adversary of sacred song.

---

5. Conclusion

Music, therefore, becomes a theological litmus test. The God of the Bible affirms music as prophecy, prayer, and praise. Allah of Islam condemns it as corruption. The gulf between these positions cannot be bridged by appeals to common monotheism. This divergence reveals not merely different emphases but fundamentally different deities. To worship the God who inhabits the praises of His people (Ps. 22:3) is to reject the pseudo-god who silences them.

---

References

• Augustine. Confessions. Trans. Henry Chadwick. Oxford: OUP, 1991.

• Clement of Alexandria. Paedagogus. ANF, vol. 2.

• Ibn Kathīr. Tafsīr al-Qur’an al-ʿAẓīm. Cairo: Dār al-Ḥadīth.

• al-Qurṭubī. Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1967.

• Ibn Taymiyya. Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā. Medina: King Fahd Press, 1995.

• al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.

• Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj. Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.

---

✍️ Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

 

Jesus is God and We Must Worship Him: Apostolic Confession, Patristic Witness, and Interfaith Theological Discourse

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

The confession of Jesus Christ as God remains the central tenet of Christian faith and the cornerstone of Christian worship. This article re-examines the apostolic testimonies of Christ’s divinity, situates them within early patristic theology, and engages with both interfaith critique—especially Islamic tafsīr traditions denying Christ’s divinity—and contemporary theological debates. By analyzing texts such as John 20:28 and Titus 2:13, alongside patristic witnesses like Athanasius, Augustine, and Chrysostom, this paper asserts that the worship of Jesus as God is not merely a later theological construction, but rather the original faith of the apostles.

---

1. Apostolic Confession of Christ’s Divinity

The apostle Thomas’s declaration to the risen Christ, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28, NIV), remains one of the clearest and most profound affirmations of the deity of Jesus in the New Testament. Unlike earlier christological titles such as Messiah or Son of Man, Thomas’s confession explicitly identifies Jesus with theos, thereby collapsing the distinction between the worship due to Yahweh and the reverence given to Christ.

Jesus’ response to Thomas—“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29)—universalizes this confession, extending it beyond the apostolic circle to all subsequent Christians. This provides not only a hermeneutical foundation for faith in unseen realities (cf. Heb. 11:1) but also establishes an ecclesiological standard: the Christian community exists precisely as those who confess Jesus as both Lord and God.

---

2. Pauline Witness and Eschatological Expectation

Pauline theology confirms this confession. Titus 2:13 describes the believer’s eschatological hope as “the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” Here, the Greek grammar (τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) conforms to the Granville Sharp rule, identifying one referent: Jesus Christ as both theos and sōtēr. Patristic exegesis—most notably by Chrysostom—recognized the unity of divine and salvific identity in this passage, countering later Arian claims that attempted to divide Christ’s status from God’s essence.

---

3. Patristic Continuity: From Apostles to Nicene Orthodoxy

The patristic era consistently interpreted John 20:28 and Titus 2:13 as affirmations of Christ’s deity. Athanasius of Alexandria, in his Orations Against the Arians (Orat. II.22), argued that Thomas’s confession was not hyperbolic reverence but literal acknowledgment of Christ’s consubstantiality with the Father. Augustine, in De Trinitate (Book I), used Thomas’s confession to demonstrate that the church’s worship of Christ was already present in the apostolic witness, not a later development.

Furthermore, the Nicene Creed (325 CE), which declared Christ as “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,” formalized this apostolic and patristic consensus against Arian denials.

---

4. Interfaith Engagement: The Qur’anic Rejection of Christ’s Divinity

Islamic theology explicitly rejects the worship of Jesus as God. The Qur’an asserts: “They have certainly disbelieved who say, ‘Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary’” (Qur’an 5:72). Classical tafsīr sources such as al-Tabari (Jāmi‘ al-bayān on 5:72) and Ibn Kathīr (Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘Aẓīm) interpret this as a repudiation of Christian confession, reducing it to shirk (associationism).

However, such Islamic critiques fail to account for the textual and historical rootedness of Christ’s worship within the apostolic era itself. The Christian response is not innovation, but continuity: from Thomas’s confession, through Paul’s letters, to Nicene orthodoxy. Whereas Islamic theology frames the divinity of Christ as a corruption of prophetic monotheism, Christian theology insists it is the fullest revelation of God’s self-disclosure.

---

5. Conclusion: The Necessity of Worshiping Jesus as God

To deny Jesus’ divinity is to deny the very core of the apostolic kerygma. The earliest Christian witnesses worshiped Him, the fathers of the church defended His divinity, and the ecumenical councils formalized it as dogma. Interfaith discourse must therefore grapple not with a later theological accretion, but with the earliest Christian experience of Christ as God incarnate. The question is not whether Christians may worship Jesus, but whether they can be Christians at all without doing so.

---

References

• Primary Sources

  • Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV).

  • Athanasius of Alexandria, Orations Against the Arians.

  • Augustine, De Trinitate.

  • John Chrysostom, Homilies on Titus.

  • The Nicene Creed (325 CE).

• Islamic Sources

  • Al-Tabari, Jāmi‘ al-bayān ‘an ta’wīl āy al-Qur’ān.

  • Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘Aẓīm.

• Secondary Sources

  • 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.

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

  • Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978.

 

Living Before God: Divine Intimacy, Fear of the Lord, and Daily Discipline

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

From the beginning of creation, humanity has held a unique place within God’s order of life. Unlike any other creature, man possesses the capacity to converse with God, to discern His will, and to live in a covenantal relationship with Him. This divine-human dialogue is grounded in man’s endowed faculties: ears to hear, eyes to see, intellect to comprehend, language to communicate, and above all, free will to respond. In this sense, man is both participant in, and steward of, God’s revealed purposes.

God’s intention has never been merely to create humanity, but to cultivate in man a companion who walks with Him, fears Him, and shuns evil. This is the heart of God’s economy of salvation: a continual invitation for man to offer his heart, to be purified and equipped by God, and to live in reverent fellowship with Him.

Theological Reflection on Divine Companionship

Scripture testifies to the relational nature of God. From Adam walking in the Garden with the Creator (Genesis 3:8), to Abraham called “a friend of God” (James 2:23), to Christ inviting His disciples into intimate communion (John 15:15), the divine project is consistently marked by God’s desire for companionship. This companionship, however, is not casual familiarity but covenantal intimacy—a relationship marked by fear of the Lord, obedience, and holiness.

As God Himself declares, only when humanity offers its heart to Him does the divine intention of creation reach fulfillment. The human heart purified and sanctified becomes the dwelling place of God (Ezekiel 36:26–27). Fear of God and shunning of evil thus emerge as inseparable virtues. One who truly lives before God cannot but be restrained in word and deed, discerning what is pleasing to the Lord, and avoiding all that is loathsome in His sight (Proverbs 8:13; Ecclesiastes 12:13).

The Discipline of Living Before God

The practical expression of this theological truth lies in the discipline of living continually before God. To live before God is not to abandon life’s ordinary duties but to sanctify them through conscious awareness of His presence. God does not call believers to forsake their daily responsibilities in the name of spiritual devotion, but rather to infuse those responsibilities with divine mindfulness.

Prayer, contemplation, meditation on Scripture, and the singing of hymns are not restricted to sacred times but can permeate daily tasks. Whether cooking, working, or resting, the believer is invited to cultivate an interior posture of peace before God. This is the essence of Paul’s admonition: “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17). Such constant communion does not suspend normal life but transfigures it into a life lived in the presence of God.

When circumstances allow, one must enter into focused prayer and meditation. When circumstances do not permit extended devotion, the believer’s heart can still inwardly draw near to God, offering silent prayers and reflections amidst labor. This rhythm of devotion and duty ensures that the heart is continually oriented toward God’s presence, allowing His Word to purify, discipline, and guide daily living.

Conclusion

The heart of Christian spirituality lies not in mere outward performance of rituals, nor in the neglect of ordinary responsibilities under the guise of devotion, but in the integration of divine presence into every aspect of life. God desires companions who walk with Him—those who fear Him, shun evil, and allow their hearts to be continually examined and purified by His Spirit.

Living before God, therefore, is not an occasional act but a lifelong discipline, shaping the believer into one who embodies reverence, obedience, and intimacy with the Creator. In this lies the true fulfillment of humanity’s vocation: to converse with God, to share His heart, and to walk faithfully with Him until eternity.

 

Jesus as God: A Theological Reflection on Johannine and Apostolic Witness

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

The identity of Jesus Christ as God has been one of the most profound and debated themes in Christian theology. The Gospel of John records the Jews’ accusation that Jesus, being a man, made Himself God. This paper examines the biblical basis of that claim, not from the perspective of blasphemy, but through the evidence of Christ’s divine works, the apostolic witness, and the prophetic testimony of Scripture.

---

Introduction

The confession of Jesus Christ as God stands at the center of Christian faith. The early Church recognized this as the decisive truth of the gospel, distinguishing Christianity from both Judaism and the Greco-Roman world. In the Fourth Gospel, the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy precisely because His words and works implied divine identity (John 10:33). Modern scholarship affirms that John presents Jesus not merely as a prophet or moral teacher but as the incarnate Logos, equal with the Father in essence and mission.¹

---

Jesus’ Self-Revelation and the Accusation of Blasphemy

In John 10:32–36, Jesus’ dialogue with the Jews reveals the depth of His claim:

“For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”

Jesus appeals to Psalm 82 (“Ye are gods”) not to deny His divinity but to show that if Scripture could apply divine language to human judges, how much more to the One sanctified and sent by the Father.² His works—healing the blind (John 9), raising Lazarus (John 11), forgiving sins (Mark 2:7)—reveal divine authority.³ As Athanasius later argued, “He became man that we might be made God,” affirming that Christ’s divinity is expressed precisely through His saving acts.⁴

---

Apostolic Witness: The Incarnation as Divine Manifestation

The apostle John expands this in 1 John 4:3, 9–12, where he identifies denial of the incarnation as the mark of antichrist. The incarnation is:

1. The manifestation of divine love – God’s sending of His only begotten Son.

2. The work of atonement – Jesus as the propitiation for sins.

3. The presence of God – through love, “God dwelleth in us.”

As Raymond Brown notes, Johannine theology consistently links Christology and soteriology: the Son’s divine identity is revealed in His saving mission.⁵

---

Pauline Confirmation: Resurrection and Righteousness

Paul underscores the futility of Christianity without Christ’s divinity and resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15:19, he writes:

“If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.”

The resurrection is not only a vindication of Jesus but also the ultimate divine act proving His lordship (Romans 1:4).⁶ Without this, faith collapses into futility. As Gordon Fee remarks, Paul’s Christology is inherently high: “For Paul, Christ is to be worshipped because He shares the identity of the one God of Israel.”⁷

---

Prophetic Call to First Love

The book of Revelation emphasizes perseverance in recognizing Christ’s divine identity. In Revelation 2:4–5, Jesus warns against abandoning the “first love,” the devotion rooted in acknowledging Him as Lord. Similarly, in Revelation 19:10, the angel directs worship away from creatures and toward God alone. The testimony of Jesus is identified as “the spirit of prophecy,” meaning that all authentic revelation points to Christ as divine.⁸

---

Conclusion

The charge of blasphemy in John’s Gospel paradoxically confirms the central doctrine of Christianity: Jesus is indeed God. He makes Himself God not by presumption but by performing divine works—granting life, forgiving sin, and conquering death. The apostolic and prophetic witness affirms this reality, grounding the Christian hope. To deny this is to embrace the spirit of antichrist; to confess it is to live in the fullness of God’s love.

---

References

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

2. D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 395–402.

3. F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1983), 187–190.

4. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, trans. John Behr (Yonkers: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011), 54.

5. Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John (Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1982), 499–503.

6. N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 207–213.

7. Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 35–41.

8. G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 433–439.

Thou, Being a Man, Makest Thyself God

 

“Thou, Being a Man, Makest Thyself God”: A Christological Provocation in Intertextual and Interfaith Perspective

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

John 10:33 records the Jewish charge against Jesus: “You, being a man, make yourself God.” This article argues that Jesus’ divinity is not a later ecclesiastical invention but embedded within the fabric of the New Testament witness itself, rooted in Old Testament imagery, confirmed by apostolic testimony, and interpreted robustly by patristic tradition. Furthermore, this study confronts Islamic exegetical traditions that deny Christ’s divinity, using both Qur’anic references and classical tafsīr to demonstrate how even Islamic discourse inadvertently confirms the unique Christological claims of the New Testament. The thesis advanced here is unapologetically provocative: Jesus is God, not metaphorically, but ontologically—by doing what only God can do.

---

Introduction: The Blasphemy That Defines Orthodoxy

The accusation of blasphemy in John 10 functions as a theological watershed. The Jews recognize in Jesus not merely a moral teacher but one who “makes Himself God” (John 10:33). The paradox is striking: the charge that condemned Him becomes the confession that defines Christianity. As Augustine insists, “If He were only man, He would be a liar; but since He is God and man, He is the Truth.”¹

By contrast, Islamic theology—while revering Jesus (ʿĪsā al-Masīḥ) as prophet and Messiah—rejects His divinity outright. The Qur’an declares, “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is Christ the son of Mary” (Q 5:72). Yet this very rejection presupposes that Christians, from the earliest centuries, confessed Christ as divine. The intertextual tension between Gospel and Qur’an thus exposes a fundamental theological fault line.

---

Johannine Intertextuality: Works That Only God Can Do

John’s Gospel repeatedly frames Jesus’ identity through divine works:

• Healing the blind (John 9) echoes Isaiah’s eschatological prophecy that YHWH alone will “open the eyes of the blind” (Isa. 35:5).

• Raising Lazarus (John 11) invokes Ezekiel’s valley of dry bones (Ezek. 37), a resurrection act attributed solely to God’s Spirit.

• Forgiving sins (cf. Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21) presupposes prerogatives of God alone.

Thus, Jesus’ works are not “good deeds” but divine acts—performative theology in which the Logos incarnate manifests the Father’s authority. Athanasius, in De Incarnatione, interprets this as ontological proof: “For He was not man and then became God, but He was God, and then became man, and that to deify us.”²

---

Apostolic Witness: Incarnation as Polemic Against Antichrist

The First Epistle of John explicitly polemicizes against any denial of the incarnation:

“Every spirit that does not confess Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God; this is the spirit of antichrist” (1 John 4:3).

This anticipates later Islamic and Gnostic denials of Christ’s full divinity.³ Irenaeus in Against Heresies directly linked such denials to satanic deception, contrasting them with the apostolic proclamation of the Logos’ fleshly manifestation.⁴ Thus, Johannine theology fuses Christology with soteriology: only God can save, and He does so by entering human history in Christ.

---

Pauline Christology: Resurrection as Divine Vindication

Pauline texts likewise integrate high Christology. In 1 Corinthians 15:19, Paul warns that if Christ is not truly divine and resurrected, “we are of all men most miserable.” For Paul, the resurrection is divine vindication—Christ “was declared Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by His resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:4). Tertullian argues in Adversus Praxean that this proves Christ’s consubstantiality with the Father, since no mere creature could conquer death itself.⁵

---

Patristic and Islamic Parallels: A Clash of Interpretations

Early Christian Fathers embraced the scandal of divinity. Augustine saw Christ’s claim in John 10 as “the humility of God” rather than blasphemy.⁶ By contrast, classical Islamic commentators attempted to neutralize Christian claims.

• Al-Ṭabarī (d. 923), commenting on Q 4:171, insists that Jesus was only a prophet, rejecting divine sonship as shirk (associationism).⁷

• Ibn Kathīr (d. 1373) similarly stresses that miracles attributed to Jesus (e.g., healing the blind, raising the dead) were by Allah’s permission, not His own authority.⁸

• Al-Qurṭubī (d. 1273) frames Christian confession of Christ’s divinity as theological corruption, a deviation from the prophetic line.⁹

Yet ironically, these commentaries confirm the radical uniqueness of Jesus: no other prophet is debated in Islamic tradition as persistently for supposed “divine” claims. The polemic itself testifies to Christ’s unparalleled identity.

---

Revelation and the First Love of Christ

In Revelation 2:4–5, the Risen Christ warns the Ephesian church: “You have left your first love.” Patristic commentators like Andrew of Caesarea interpret this as a loss of Christological devotion.¹⁰ Similarly, Revelation 19:10 reminds believers to worship God alone, yet identifies “the testimony of Jesus” as the spirit of prophecy, implying that Christ is the hermeneutical key to all revelation.

---

Conclusion: The Provocation of Christ’s Divinity

The Jewish accusation—“You, being a man, make yourself God”—is, paradoxically, the truest confession of Christian faith. Jesus makes Himself God not by presumption but by revealing Himself through divine acts: granting life, forgiving sins, conquering death. The patristic tradition affirms this as ontological reality; Islamic tafsīr denies it yet cannot escape grappling with the uniqueness of Jesus.

Thus, Christ’s divinity remains the most provocative claim in religious history: blasphemy to Jews, heresy to Muslims, but the cornerstone of Christian orthodoxy. To deny it is to embrace the spirit of antichrist; to confess it is to participate in the eternal life of God.

---

References

1. Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 43, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 7, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994).

2. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, trans. John Behr (Yonkers: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011).

3. Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 121–126.

4. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. A. Roberts & J. Donaldson (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999).

5. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994).

6. Augustine, Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, Sermon 126.

7. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-bayān fī taʾwīl āy al-Qurʾān, trans. J. Cooper (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), on Q 4:171.

8. Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, trans. Trevor Le Gassick (Riyadh: Darussalam, 2000), vol. 2, 459–463.

9. Al-Qurṭubī, Al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān (Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya, 1967), vol. 6, 21–23.

10. Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse, trans. Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2011).

Jesus is God, The Name above all Names

 

 

JESUS IS GOD THE I AM