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

Jesus is God, Al Warith

 

Where are the names of the Apostles of Jesus (ʿĪsā ibn Maryam) in the Qu...

Where are the names of the Apostles of Jesus (ʿĪsā ibn Maryam) in the Qur’an?

If ʿĪsā was truly a Muslim—a servant of Allah preaching Islam—then his closest disciples, the men who lived with him, followed him, suffered for him, and spread his message, must also be Muslims.

So the challenge is simple and textual:

Which surah and ayah mention the names of Jesus’ apostles?

Why does the Qur’an never name a single apostle of Jesus, not Peter, not John, not James, not Matthew—none?

If Allah claims to have sent Jesus with guidance, revelation, and followers:

Why does the Qur’an erase their identities?

Why does it preserve no chain of discipleship, no eyewitnesses, no named transmitters?

If the Qur’an cannot name even one apostle of Jesus:

Was Jesus leading nameless followers?

Or is the Qur’anic account historically detached from the real Jesus?

If Muslims fail to provide clear Qur’anic evidence, then the conclusion follows logically:

Jesus was not a Muslim,

The Qur’an is not infallible in its account of Jesus,

And Islam’s claim to continuity with Jesus collapses.

Additional Follow-Up Questions (Escalating the Challenge)

Textual Questions

Why does the Qur’an name Muhammad’s companions repeatedly but refuse to name Jesus’ apostles even once?

Why does Allah allegedly forget the names of the very men who spread Jesus’ message?

If the Injīl was revelation, who transmitted it, and why are they anonymous in the Qur’an?

Why does the Qur’an call them al-ḥawāriyyūn (disciples) but provide no historical detail about them?

Theological Questions

How can Jesus be a Muslim prophet if none of his closest followers are identifiable as Muslims?

Can a prophet of Allah fail to successfully teach Islam to his own disciples?

If Jesus preached pure Islam, why did his disciples immediately preach his divinity—something the Qur’an never explains?

Why does Allah blame Christians for corruption but never names who corrupted the message?

Historical Questions

Why does the Qur’an contradict first-century historical sources that clearly name and identify Jesus’ apostles?

Why do Christian sources preserve names, places, martyrdoms, and writings, while the Qur’an provides silence?

Why does Islam rely on late reinterpretation instead of early eyewitness testimony?

Why does Allah wait 600 years to “correct” Christianity but still omit basic historical facts?

Consistency Questions

If Allah is all-knowing, why does He give less historical detail than secular historians?

Why does the Qur’an demand belief in Jesus but disconnect him from real history?

Why does Islam affirm Jesus but deny the very people who knew him best?

Closing Challenge

If Islam claims continuity with Jesus,

name his apostles from the Qur’an.

If it cannot, then Islam is not restoring Jesus’ message—it is rewriting it.

And a revelation that cannot identify the closest followers of one of its own prophets is not divine correction—it is historical revisionism.

Shalom

Dr Maxwell Shimba from Shimba Theological Institute

Jesus is God, Alpha and Omega

 

Why is the wife of Adam not mentioned by name in the Quran?

Why is the wife of Adam not mentioned by name in the Quran?

Provocative Questions on Adam’s Wife and the Quran’s Omissions

Why does the Quran never mention the name of Adam’s wife, while the Bible clearly names her Eve? If it claims to affirm previous scriptures, isn’t this a glaring omission?

If the Quran claims to be a complete and detailed revelation that supersedes prior books, why leave out the name of one of the first humans, the very mother of humanity?

Does the omission of Adam’s wife’s name suggest selective storytelling, rather than the perfect, complete knowledge that Allah claims to convey?

How can the Quran claim to confirm the Torah and the Gospel while leaving out such a foundational detail known to all earlier revelations?

If Allah is omniscient and every detail of creation is under His knowledge, why leave such a critical figure nameless?

Could the absence of Adam’s wife’s name indicate a theological or ideological motive, rather than historical accuracy?

If Muhammad were a perfect messenger conveying God’s knowledge, why omit a universally known fact from the prior scriptures?

Does this omission reflect a lack of concern for genealogy and human history, which are otherwise detailed in both the Bible and other historical accounts?

If the Quran is meant to guide humanity perfectly, how can it leave a major character in the origin story undefined?

Could the Quran’s omission of Eve’s name undermine its claim of being a faithful continuation of the Torah and Gospel?

Why provide details about Adam but completely erase his wife’s identity? Is this consistent with divine justice and omniscience?

If the Quran claims to be a book of clarity and guidance, why deliberately omit such a basic, well-known fact?

Does the lack of her name suggest that the Quran was written without full knowledge of the prior scriptures?

How does the Quran’s silence on Adam’s wife reconcile with the Biblical account that emphasizes her role in the Fall?

If Allah intended to preserve the truth of previous scriptures, why change or erase this specific historical fact?

Could the omission reflect a broader pattern of vagueness in the Quran when it comes to women’s roles and identities?

If the Quran truly supersedes prior books, why not give Adam’s wife the recognition she receives in the Bible?

Does the Quran omit her name to make the story more abstract and less tied to human history?

If the Quran is infallible, why leave such a universally known fact about the origins of humanity ambiguous?

Could this omission be evidence that Muhammad or the early compilers relied on oral traditions rather than direct divine revelation?

Why mention Adam in detail but leave the mother of all humans nameless? Is this consistent with a God who values every human life?

If the Quran is meant to be the ultimate guide for humanity, how can it omit such a critical figure without creating confusion or incomplete understanding?

Why does Allah’s revelation in the Quran provide exhaustive details about some events but intentionally leaves out basic, universally known facts from creation history?

Does the Quran’s silence on Eve’s name suggest a selective editing process influenced by cultural, social, or political factors in 7th-century Arabia?

How can the Quran claim divine perfection when such a glaring omission exists, one that any careful reader of the prior scriptures would immediately notice?

By Dr Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Where is the evidence from Sahih Hadith where Muhammad is saying Paul wa...

Where is the evidence from Sahih Hadith where Muhammad is saying Paul was a false Nabi and Rasul? If Muslims will share the sahihi authentic Hadith, I will convert to Islam.

Where is the Sahih Hadith in which Muhammad explicitly declares that Paul the Apostle was a false Nabi (prophet) and a false Rasul (messenger)?

If Islam claims doctrinal continuity with the Gospel and insists that Paul corrupted the message of Jesus, then this accusation must be grounded in authentic, early Islamic sources—not later polemics.

So I ask Muslims plainly:

Produce one Sahih Hadith—Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, or Ibn Majah—where Muhammad names Paul and condemns him as a false prophet or messenger.

If such a Hadith exists and meets the standards of Sahih authentication, I will publicly embrace Islam.

If it does not exist, then the claim that Paul falsified Christianity is a later theological invention, not a prophetic declaration.

More Aggressive / Confrontational Version

Muslims frequently claim that Paul corrupted the teachings of Jesus, yet Muhammad himself is completely silent about Paul.

So here is my challenge:

Show me a single Sahih Hadith where Muhammad identifies Paul by name and declares him a false prophet, a false messenger, or a corruptor of Jesus’ Gospel.

No blogs.

No YouTube imams.

No modern scholars.

No weak (da‘if) narrations.

Only Sahih Hadith.

If Muhammad never condemned Paul, then who gave Muslims the authority to do so—Allah or later theologians?

Islam claims to affirm the Gospel (Injil) while rejecting Pauline Christianity. However, such a rejection demands primary-source evidence from Muhammad himself.

Therefore, the question is simple and methodological:

Where in the Sahih Hadith corpus does Muhammad:

Name Paul the Apostle?

Accuse him of falsifying the message of Jesus?

Declare him a false Nabi or Rasul?

If no such Hadith exists:

On what epistemological basis does Islam reject Paul?

How can Islam claim to “confirm” the Gospel (Qur’an 5:46–48) while rejecting its chief first-century interpreter?

Silence in Sahih Hadith is not evidence—it is a theological vacuum.

Logical Trap Version (Short & Sharp)

If Paul corrupted Christianity, Muhammad—Allah’s final messenger—should have said so.

So:

Where is the Sahih Hadith where Muhammad condemns Paul?

If none exists, then:

Either Paul was not a corrupter

Or Muhammad failed to warn the world

Which one is Islam willing to admit?

“No Sahih Hadith against Paul = no Islamic authority to reject Paul.”

“If Paul was the greatest corrupter of Jesus, why did Muhammad never mention him?”

“Islam rejects Paul without prophetic evidence—only post-Qur’anic opinion.”

“Silence from Muhammad is louder than modern Muslim accusations.”

Closing Provocation (Optional)

Until Muslims produce a Sahih Hadith where Muhammad condemns Paul, the rejection of Pauline Christianity remains un-Islamic, un-prophetic, and historically unsupported.

Shalom

Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Whatever We Are Doing Is Part of God’s Sovereign Will

 Whatever We Are Doing Is Part of God’s Sovereign Will

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Key Texts:
“But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases.” — Psalm 115:3 (NKJV)
“You can make many plans, but the LORD’s purpose will prevail.” — Proverbs 19:21 (NLT)

---

Introduction: The Reign of the Sovereign God

The doctrine of God’s sovereignty stands at the very heart of biblical theology. Scripture consistently affirms that God reigns supremely over all creation—history, nations, individuals, and even the unseen spiritual realm. Psalm 115:3 declares without ambiguity that God is in heaven and does whatever He pleases. Proverbs 19:21 complements this truth by acknowledging human planning while asserting that it is ultimately the Lord’s purpose that prevails. Together, these texts establish a theological framework in which all human activity unfolds under God’s sovereign will.

God’s Sovereignty Defined

God’s sovereignty means that He possesses absolute authority, freedom, and power to accomplish His purposes without external constraint. Unlike human rulers, whose authority is limited and often contested, God’s rule is uncontested and eternal. He does not react to circumstances; rather, circumstances unfold within His eternal decree. To say that God “does whatever He pleases” is not to suggest arbitrariness, but perfect wisdom, righteousness, and consistency with His holy nature.

Human Plans and Divine Purpose

Proverbs 19:21 acknowledges a fundamental reality of human existence: we plan. Planning is not sinful; it is part of human responsibility and stewardship. However, Scripture is clear that human plans are not ultimate. The Lord’s purpose prevails. This verse does not negate human agency but places it within a higher divine framework. Our choices are real, our intentions meaningful, yet God’s sovereign will encompasses and transcends them.

This theological tension—between human responsibility and divine sovereignty—does not call for resolution through reductionism but for humble submission. God’s will is not threatened by human decision-making; rather, human decisions are mysteriously woven into the fulfillment of God’s eternal purposes.

Whatever We Are Doing: Within God’s Sovereign Will

To affirm that “whatever we are doing is part of God’s sovereign will” is to recognize that nothing occurs outside God’s knowledge, permission, or ultimate purpose. This does not mean that God morally approves of all human actions. Scripture clearly distinguishes between God’s sovereign (or decretive) will and His moral (or revealed) will. Human sin does not escape God’s sovereignty, yet God remains holy and not the author of evil.

Biblical history testifies to this truth. Joseph could say to his brothers, “You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good” (Genesis 50:20). The crucifixion of Christ—humanity’s greatest injustice—occurred “by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). Thus, even actions rooted in rebellion can be sovereignly redirected to fulfill God’s redemptive plan.

Pastoral and Practical Implications

The doctrine of God’s sovereignty offers profound comfort and stability. In times of uncertainty, suffering, or apparent chaos, believers can rest in the assurance that God is neither absent nor overwhelmed. Our lives are not random sequences of events but chapters in a divinely authored narrative.

At the same time, God’s sovereignty calls us to humility and obedience. Since His purposes will prevail, wisdom lies not in resisting God’s will but in aligning ourselves with it through prayer, discernment, and faithful living. Trust in God’s sovereignty does not produce passivity; it produces confidence, perseverance, and hope.

Conclusion: Trusting the God Who Reigns

Psalm 115:3 and Proverbs 19:21 together invite us to a deeper trust in the God who reigns from heaven and whose purposes never fail. While we plan, labor, and make decisions, we do so under the sovereign hand of a God whose will is perfect and whose purposes are unstoppable. Whatever we are doing—whether we fully understand it or not—exists within the scope of God’s sovereign will. The call of Scripture, therefore, is clear: trust Him, submit to Him, and find peace in the certainty that the Lord reigns.

— Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute