Tag Archives: christ

Hebrews 9:15-28 – Christ Died for Our Sins

For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the violations that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance (Hebrews 9:15).

For this reason. Because all this is true that was said before this verse about Jesus and His “once for all” sacrifice, and “once for all” entrance into the Most Holy place, heaven itself.

He is the mediator of a new covenant.  It does not carry the idea that Jesus is somehow negotiating terms between a holy God and sinful people.  It rather carries the idea of this layer between a holy God and sinful people.There was this clear understanding that the presence of God dwelt in the Holy of Holies, and that could only be accessed by the high priest, and only once a year.  So, the people were very clear that there was this layer, this mediation layer (sanctuary, sacrifices, High priest system) between them and a holy God in the Old Covenant. So, Christ is now the mediator of a new constitution between God and the whole human race, distinguished here from the old covenant between God and the Israelites.

Since a death has taken place for the redemption of the violations that were committed under the first covenant. Because of Jesus, this long-awaited redemption and atonement for transgression has already taken place for those under the old covenant or first covenant, as those sins could not be really atoned from the blood of bulls and goats. Because of its repetition, the old covenant ministry could not convince the worshipper that his/her confessed sin had actually been cancelled and “cleansed” (Heb 10:1-11).  Their conscience was not clean. However, that blemish is not carried over into the New Covenant. Christ has already redeemed every daily sin and every Day of Atonement residual sin confessed in the Old Testament (and also the New Testament). This makes Ellen White’s often repeated “The blood of Christ..was not to cancel sin” nonsense.

Those who have been called. All people under the old and New covenant who are called to be his children.

May receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. This knowledge of receiving the promise of eternal inheritance is a present reality for the believer and not a fact that needs to be determined based on a future investigation (1844) as SDAs teach.

For where there is a covenant, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when people are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.  (Hebrews 9:16-17)

Covenant used here is like what we would say a last “will” or a testament. When somebody creates a will, that will may be full of promises, but those promises do not have legal force. They are not fulfilled or acted upon until that person dies.

Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood (Hebrews 9:18)

The first covenant had to be initiated, inaugurated, dedicated, sanctioned, consecrated, with the blood of animal. We should expect to hear how the new covenant is inaugurated as well very soon as the author is contrasting the old and new.

For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” (Hebrews 9:19-20)

For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law. That included all the law including the ten commandments.

He took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop. Blood of “the sacrificial victims”, and “water and scarlet wool and hyssop” used for purification is what is meant here.

Sprinkled both the book itself and all the people. In Exodus 24:8 no mention is made of the sprinkling of the book, only of the people. Sprinkling upon the altar, upon which the book of the covenant might lie is probably meant.

This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you. This is the blood by which the covenant is ratified. 

And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood (Hebrews 9:21)

He sprinkled both the tabernacle. Probably not at the same time that he sprinkled the book and the people, for then there was no tabernacle; but afterwards, at the time that it was set up.

All the vessels of the ministry with the blood. All the furniture employed in the service of God. The altar, the laver, the censers, dishes, bowls, etc (Exodus 40:10-11).

And almost all things are cleansed with blood, according to the Law, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22)

And almost all things are cleansed with blood. For some things were purified by fire and water (Numbers 31:22-23), but almost all things are cleansed with blood. Cleansed (katharizō) implies not only purification from sin, but also dedication or consecration like when Moses sprinkled with blood both the “book”, and “tabernacle” and “all the vessels” to consecrate them, and to inaugurate them, to initiate the earthly sanctuary service. After all, there was no sin in the “book” or “vessels” to purify from blood. 

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. The bottom line is there is no salvation but through the sacrificial death of Christ, and to prefigure this, the law itself would not grant any remission of sin without the blood of a victim.

Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these things, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these (Hebrews 9:23) 

Therefore. “Therefore,” is given based on everything mentioned in the previous seven verses concerning the shedding of the blood of the covenant-victim and the purification or dedication of the things associated with the tabernacle, people, its implements, and its rites. If the earthly tabernacle was dedicated in type by blood, we can expect something to be said about the heavenly things themselves in the following words.

It was necessary. According to the appointment of God, it was necessary. There was no other way.

For the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these things. It is the heavenly which is the pattern, and it is the earthly which is a copy.  These “copies of the things in the heavens,” meaning the earthly tabernacle, people and associated implements, “should be cleansed (katharizō) with these things.” The word “these” is speaking of the blood of dedication obtained from the covenant-victims. It was necessary for the earthly sanctuary to be initiated, inaugurated, cleansed, consecrated with blood of sacrificial victims.

But the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. However, to inaugurate and initiate the heavenly things themselves, where the ultimate presence of God is, it required better sacrifices than the blood of animals.In the actual presence of God, to actually make payment for sin, what would be required would be more than that! It would take something more than merely the blood of bulls and goats.  It would take the long-awaited death of the Messiah. Therefore, this verse is teaching that the Old Covenant inauguration needed to be fulfilled by a better inauguration sacrifice in order to bring in a New Covenant.

Moreover, under the Old Covenant, the author has already said that all things were sprinkled with blood in order to purify them, including “both the book itself and all the people” (Hebrews 9:19). As we are the purpose of Christ’s coming, meaning the redemption of man, then it is necessary that the people be purified by Christ’s shed blood. Hence, the heavenly things required not only the perfect sacrifice to inaugurate the new covenant, but also Christ presented Himself before the Father to purify or cleanse those things which will be accepted into His eternal realm. That is all His people, who are being built into “a dwelling of God in the Spirit” (Ephesians 2:22). When did this happen? From the resurrection of Christ, when the new covenant was inaugurated, not in 1844.

Hence, the “cleansing of the sanctuary” is not about removing sin from the sanctuary per the old covenant day of atonement pattern. Hence, this verse is not speaking of cleansing heaven from defilement of sin or anything unclean that entered heaven. Rather it is about a new pattern which cleanses the believer [the temple of the living God] with the sinless blood of Christ (which happened when Christ inaugurated the heavenly sanctuary at His ascension, not in 1844).

There is not a single Bible verse anywhere in the Old or New Testament that says that confessed sins are transferred into the heavenly sanctuary and then defile the sanctuary in any way to be cleansed only on a future day of atonement. In the Old Covenant sanctuary, the Bible says that the entire sanctuary was cleansed on the Day of Atonement and not merely the Most Holy Place (Leviticus 16:20). In the Adventist sequence Jesus (at least) ministered in the Holy Place until 1844. This would have required that the Holy Place be cleansed first long before 1844. SDA’s to fit their cultic theology only cleanses the Most Holy Place in violation of the Old Testament type.

For Christ did not enter a holy place made by hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us (Hebrews 9:24)

For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands. So Jesus did not come to be assimilated into the old covenant tabernacle or the temple like a Jewish high priest.  Jesus would not simply go into the tabernacle and go through the routine of the Levitical Priestly system. That’s what an earthly high priest would do who entered into a sanctuary made by hands.

A mere copy of the true one.The earthly sanctuary was just a picture of the true one, not the exact thing, and was so formed as in some sense to correspond to it.

But into heaven itself. For the sanctuary into which Christ entered is not a copy or a token of the things in the heavens, but heaven itself. Since Christ is the veil (Heb 10:20), there are no separate “rooms” in God’s dwelling place. No sane person would quote this text to prove that God lives in a 2-room house in heaven.

Now to appear in the presence of God for us. We cannot doubt that these words continue the contrast between the true High Priest and the high priest on earth. As the Jewish high priest appeared before the shekinah, the symbol of the divine presence in the most holy, so Christ appears before God himself in our behalf in heaven itself at the ascension. The “presence of God” means exactly what it literally says. Contrary to the Old Covenant pattern, God’s throne room in Revelation contains a rainbow, 24 elders, 7 Spirit-lamps of fire before the throne, a sea of glass and 4 creatures surrounding the throne — all in contrast with the Old covenant patterns (Rev 4:2-8). The 1844 theology of two rooms or two phases is pure nonsense and cultic (Heb 9:24).

Nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Holy Place year by year with blood that is not his own (Hebrews 9:25) 

As the high priest enters the Holy Place year by year with blood that is not his own. Again, this is talking about the once-a-year entrance of the Jewish High Priest into the most holy place. The earthly high priest had to offer sacrifices often to enter the Most holy place, but Jesus does not have to offer himself often to enter heaven itself. That is the whole point this verse and the next verse is showing. The sacrifice of Christ is not like that of the Jewish high priest, which must be offered every year to enter the Most holy place. If Christ sacrifice is like bulls and goats, then he would have to suffer often, and enter the sanctuary often.

Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (Hebrews 9:26) 

Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often. But Jesus wasn’t going to offer Himself year after year (he offered once for all). Otherwise, He would have to die every year since the foundation of the world. If Christ had not ended the patterns, then he must repeat them! If Christ did not end the daily sacrifices, then he must still die daily. If Christ did not end the yearly sacrifices (Day of Atonement), then he must still die yearly. Because he offered “once for all”, He entered the most Holy place (heaven itself) once for all. Notice again.

But now. “Now” refers to the first century, it is a reality when the apostle is writing these words. “Now” the Old Covenant sanctuary had already been replaced by “heaven itself.” The Aaronic priesthood had already been replaced with the non-Hebrew Melchizedek priesthood (Heb. 7:11-18). The everyday shadow rituals of the literal altar of burnt offering, the water laver, the loaves, the candlestick, and the altar of incense had all ended in the reality of Christ. Christ does not have to offer often as the High priest. Therefore.

Once. Once for all; once in the sense that it is not to be repeated again.

At the consummation of the ages. This is referring to the days of Christ’s ministry on earth called the last days (Hebrews 1:2), the end of the ages (1 Corinthians 10:11), the fulness of the time (Galatians 4:4), when Christ appeared at His first coming.  This is saying it was time for the old covenant to be fulfilled, to usher in a new age, a new covenant through Christ our High Priest. 

While SDAs proclaim 1844 as the heavenly Day of Atonement and as a last day event warning about the nearness of the end of the age, they ignore 9:26b which clearly places the event at the “now” of Calvary. Last days began with Christ’s first coming. This same “consummation of the ages”, “end of the age,” “fullness of time” and “these last days” is found in Acts 2:17; 1 Corinthians 10:11; Galatians 4:4; Ephesians 1:10; Hebrews 1:2 and First Peter 1:20 — and none of these refer to 1844, but the time between His first and second coming.

New Covenant believers need to stop thinking about the New Covenant using Old Covenant terminology. “Christ is not” in a tiny building in heaven that has compartments like that of the Old Covenant. “Christ is not.” entering heaven many times. Again, He “is not.” He is “in heaven itself.” Since the first century He is “now” already in the “presence of God for us” –- in the Most Holy since his ascension to the right hand of God.

He has been revealed. He revealed himself as God in flesh at His first coming.

To put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. That’s a legal term. It means to render sin void.  Literally for the “the annulment of sin”. How? By the sacrifice of Himself. Hebrews 9:25-26 clearly tells everybody (except SDAs) that “now” Christ has appeared to “cleanse” or “put away sin” by the sacrifice of Himself, not in 1844, but at His ascension and enthronement, and is now in the very presence of God. No body can have a clear conscience under the SDA doctrine of investigative judgement, or pre-advent judgement, because like the Old Covenant sanctuary pattern, sins have not been completely dealt with. On the contrary, Jesus has appeared to put away sin “now”, not in 1844. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous, so that He will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John `:9). “The one who believes in Him is not judged; the one who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” (John 3:18)

And just as it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment (Hebrews 9:27)

Destined for people to die once. Just as certainly as we die once.

After this comes judgment. Every single person will die, and you will stand face to face with a holy God and give an account whether we accepted Christ’s perfect sacrifice or not- this is the final judgement or white throne judgement (Rev. 20:12). If there was an investigative judgement going on now to determine who will receive the eternal inheritance, the author would have said “Just as it is destined for people to die once, and before this comes judgement”. No! Those who disobey the gospel are judged already now (John 5:24). According to the Scriptures, God doesn’t require any further judgement to decide who are his children before we die. After we die, we will face the final judgement. In that moment, do you really think it will be adequate to say, “I was very religious; I did some rituals; I did some activities; I did some good works?”  Do you really think that’s going to cut it in that moment?  What the writer of Hebrews is saying is that has never been the basis of salvation. From Genesis three on, there has always been a message that someone will have to die. The consequence of sin is death.  Someone had to die our death for God to grant us forgiveness, and God himself provided us that means of sacrifice through His Son.

So Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him (Hebrews 9:28)

So Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many. Just as certainly as we die once and then face judgment, so Jesus only had to die once (not repeatedly, not continually) to bear our sins.

Will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin. That is, when be comes again he will not make himself a sin-offering; or will not come in order to make atonement for sin. Rather to usher them to the salvation of the new heaven and the new earth, where there is no reference to sin.

Tawhid or Trinity

One of the most common points on which our Muslim friends question Christians is on the whole question of the nature of God: in short, is God uni-personal or multi-personal? Does the doctrine of Tawhid (God’s oneness in being and person) or Trinity (God’s oneness in being and pluralness in person) better describe who God is?

Of all the chapters of the Qur’an, there is one Muslim’s recite more frequently than any other. It is Surat-al-Ikhlaas, chapter 112, and its second verse contains the message: “God is not a Father, and He is not a Son.”. Above all doctrines, that is one of the teachings that is taught to a Muslim, the concept known as ‘Tawhid’, that God is absolutely one and cannot be Father or Son. Indeed, in Muslim-Christian engagement, it often becomes the central issue with Muslims painting the Christian as believing in three gods. Hence, a Muslim’s reaction to God’s pluralness is seen as nonsensical, polytheistic blasphemy; self contradictory, a nonsense doctrine in which God could be three and one at the same time.

Our Muslim friends often like to claim that the Islamic concept of God’s oneness is simple (more on this later), in contrast to the complex doctrine of the Trinity. However, simplicity does not equal truth. If it did, we’d have to reject higher mathematics, and quantum physics. Science shows us that there are things in this world so tiny that we can only view them through microscopes, and yet they are incomprehensibly complex. For example, light defies the minds of scientists, being both a particle and a wave, yet this apparent contradiction is demonstrably true. If the world is so complex that it baffles our minds, what about the One who created the world? Now if my Creator has to be simple so that I can understand Him, then I have made Him in my image.

Contrary to the assertion that ‘God is not a Father or He is not a Son‘, the Old Testament, the Jewish scriptures had already referred to God as a Father, and a Son, long before Jesus the Messiah came.

“Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?” (Malchi 2:10)

“For to us a child is born, to us a Son is given. And he will be called… Mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6).

Muslim friends (and others, you know who) say that the word Trinity is not in the Bible, therefore the concept or the doctrine must be wrong. But the word Tawhid is not found in the Quran either. So is the concept that it teaches wrong as well? Our Muslims friends will say the concept of Tawhid is there. Similarly, Christian’s claim about God’s oneness and pluraness is based on Scriptures. Hence, to discover whether tawhid is qur’anic or the Trinity is biblical, we can’t simply look for a magic word — we need to see what is actually said in each case about the nature of God.

Though the Bible does not use the word “Trinity”, the teachings are certainly there.

Jesus commands us to:

“Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (plural).” (Matthew 28:19-20)

When Jesus commands us to baptize people, it must be done in the ‘name,’ not ‘names,’ of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That’s because there is ONE name, ONE being, the Yahweh of Scriptures, who exists in three Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

The doctrine of Trinity teaches that God is ONE being and three persons. This is not a contradiction, because ‘being’ and ‘person’ are two different things. Your being is that which makes you what you are, your person is that which makes you who you are.

  • Plants have being, but they are not persons.

  • I am ONE being, a single human being, and ONE person, Stephen.

  • Yahweh is ONE being, a single divine being, with THREE persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. Complex? Yes. Unique? Yes. Nonsensical? No.

If someone asks you who you are, you don’t reply, “I’m a human.” You respond by sharing your name, which identifies you as a person. Similarly, when we say God is One being, we are describing the what of God. When we speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we are referring to the who of God.

God is more than able to exist like that because he is God. If we say God must be only one person, like humans, then we are making God in our image. Who are we to limit God? It is up to God to tell us who He is, and Jesus commands us to be baptized into “one divine name consisting of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. God of the Bible is absolutely indivisible in substance and nature (one) , but distinct in identity (plural).

The doctrine of Trinity:
  • Does not teach that each persons are three individual gods; that is polytheism or tritheism
  • Does not teach that each persons are three beings like the teachings of Ellen White of the Seventh day Adventists or the Mormons.
  • Does not teach that the three persons are three parts of God.
  • Does not teach that three persons are freakish-looking, three-headed gods
  • Does not teach that three persons are different nature “gods” like in paganism
  • Does not teach that the three persons are: Father, Jesus, and Mary.
  • Does teach that there is only one God or one divine being
  • Does not teach God is one and three in the same sense; which is self-contradictory. Instead, teaches that God is one in ‘being’, three in ‘persons’; being and persons are two different things.

The Bible teaches that the One God is tri-personal not uni-personal. These three persons are co-eternal, co-substantial, and co-existent with each other. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit never began to exist. One God of the Bible is eternal, the creator, the truth, omnipresent: that’s why the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are said to share in the same attributes only a Divine being has (see below).

Father is Son is Spirit is
God is Eternal “from everlasting” (Psalm 90:2) “from everlasting.” (Micah 5:2) Eternal Spirit” (Hebrews 9:14)
God Is Creator “one father created us?” (Malachi 2:10) “All things were made by Him (John 1:1) “The Spirit of God has made me” (Job 33:4)
God is Truth God’s word is truth (Psalms   25:5) “I [Jesus] am the Truth” (John 14:6) “The Spirit of truth” (John 15:26)
God is Omnipresent “Who can hide in secret places” (Jeremiah 23:24) Jesus said, “I am with you always” (Matt. 28:20) “Where can I run away from the Spirit of God” (Psalm 139:7-8)

That’s why Jesus applies to himself, the same titles and attributes applied to Yahweh of the Old Testament. No prophet would do such a thing:

Yahweh is the: Jesus is the:
I AM (Exodus 3:13-14) I AM (John 8:58-59)
First and Last (Isaiah 44:6) First and Last (Revelation 1:17-18)
Truth  (Psalm 31:5) Truth (John 14:6)
Light (Psalm 27:1) Light (John 8:12)
Lord of Lords (Deuteronomy 10:17) Lord of Lords (Revelation 19:16)
Resurrection (1 Samuel 2:6) Resurrection (John 5:25-29)
Judge (Psalm 9:7-8) Judge (Matthew 25:31-32)

Our Muslim friends and others ask us where is this concept of God’s oneness and pluralness found in the Old Testament? Is it not just an after-the-fact justification? If the doctrine of the Trinity is true, then why don’t we find more explicit references in the Old Testament? We will show where in the Old Testament this concept is present. But remember, the culture in which God revealed His will and Scriptures. Israel was surrounded by nations who were all polytheistic – they believed in many gods. It was important for Israel to realize that the God of the Bible is the only God who existed. After this truth was firmly understood by Israel then the Lord revealed further truth about His basic nature: Father, Son and the Spirit. God revealed more of his nature with the coming of Messiah, and we would be foolish to ignore his revelation.

In the first book of Moses, Genesis, we have an indication for God’s oneness and pluralness:

In Genesis 1:26, the One God says, “Let Us make man in Our image”.

A common response is that such wording is a literary device to reflect the “Royal Plural” as in the Quran. Often times kings and rulers would speak in third person (i.e. the plural of majesty); however, the plural of majesty was not used among the Jews nor was it used in the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures, and so such explanation does not adequately address why it is used in Genesis 1:26 and in other places.

Even Genesis begins with the first verse that hints of God’s singularness in one sense and pluralness in another sense:

In the beginning, God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).

The Hebrew word for God is Elohim. Elohim is a plural noun but it is used here with a singular verb bara. In the remainder of the Old Testament, when Elohim is used of the true God, it is always used with a singular verb. The conclusion to be drawn is that in some sense God is singular and plural in another sense.

A number of Muslims point to the Shema as evidence for Tawhid. However, instead of supporting Tawhid, it in fact supports the concept of God’s pluralness (ECHAD).

“Hear O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one (ECHAD).” (Deuteromy 6:4).

Unlike the Hebrew word YACHID, which corresponds to  TAWHID from the Arabic, which is the Islamic notion of an abstract numerical oneness , the Bible uses the word ECHAD for God, a word that stands for unity, such as exists between a husband and wife, constituting them “one flesh” (Gen 2:24), or between morning and evening, constituting them “one day” (Gen 1:5), or such as Christians profess when they say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are “one being”, “one essence”, or “one God” or “one” or “echad”.

Moses shows that God is one yet plural in persons. There are two persons called Jehovah active in Genesis 19:24:

‘Then the LORD (Jehovah) rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah from the LORD (Jehovah) out of the heavens’ (Genesis 19:24).

In Gen 19:24, there are two individuals called Jehovah, one on the earth who talked to Abraham and called fire down from the other Jehovah in the heavens.

Similarly, there are two persons active as per prophet Amos:

I [Jehovah] overthrew you, as God [Jehovah] overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and you were like a firebrand snatched from a blaze; Yet you have not returned to Me,” declares the LORD (Amos 4:11)

Isaiah shows all three persons active in the following verse:

“Come near to Me [Christ], listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD [Father] has sent Me [Christ], and His Spirit [Holy Spirit].” (Isaiah 48:17)

Jesus himself confirmed in many places that there is one God, yet plural in persons, and then He confirmed it further through His apostles who spearheaded His teachings under the New Covenant.

Jesus said, “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name [Christ], will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (John 14:26)

‘May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all’ (2 Corinthians 13:14).

Does God’s oneness in being and pluralness in person better describe who God is? The Scriptures and words of Jesus says so. It is neither illogical nor insane to assert that one God exists in three persons as there is a difference between person and being. Yahweh is one being who exists in three persons and this concept of the Trinity is clear in the Scriptures. It teaches that there is only one God (Deut 4:35), but He is somehow plural (Gen 1:1, Dt 6:4, Jn 1:1), and these three persons share the name of Yahweh (Mt 28:19; Phil 2:11 cf. Isaiah 45:22-23). Unique? Yes. Nonsensical? No. Contradiction? No. If the world is so complex that it baffles our minds, what about the One who created the world? If God can exist without a beginning, an idea that is nonsensial and unimaginable, yet God is eternal without a beginning or end, how much more unique is our creator? Now if my Creator has to be simple so that I can understand Him, then I have made Him in my image.

How simple is Tawhid?

Our Muslim friends (and others who insist the same) says Tawhid is a simple doctrine, yet the doctrine of tawhid does not resolve the complexity of God. Quite the contrary, it creates its own set of challenges. According to tawhid, God is absolutely one. This means that in eternity past, before he created anything, Allah was alone. It was not until he chose to create the universe that Allah had anything, or anyone, with whom to relate. This presents an enormous theological problem for Islam, which teaches that Allah is ar-Rahman and ar-Raheem, the Gracious and the Merciful. These qualities imply that Allah is relational in the way he interacts with his creatures.

So, in order for Allah to actually be gracious and merciful, he first has to create an object of his grace and mercy. Put another way, Allah’s attributes are contingent upon creation.

Allah may act graciously toward certain people, but he cannot be eternally gracious by nature, only by acts of the will.

On the other hand, the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that One being have always existed in the three persons, agreed in purpose, and loved one another with a selfless love. Unlike Allah, Yahweh does not merely love; He is love (1 John 4:7). He does not merely extend mercy; He is merciful (Jeremiah 3:12). His grace and mercy are not contingent on creation because they are expressions of His eternal nature.

Because of tawhid, Allah depends on mankind in order to be Allah. Because of his triune nature, Yahweh is truly independent and self-sufficient. So the simplicity of tawhid proves to be a fatal flaw for orthodox Islam; it makes Allah contingent upon his creation.

There is a crucial difference between the monolithic oneness of Allah and the triune oneness of Yahweh. Only Yahweh is eternally loving and relational. His attributes are not contingent on creation. And He creates people with capacity for personality, selfless love, and relationships.

Adapted: https://www.christianity.com/god/trinity/turning-from-tawhid-to-the-trinity.html

See also:

E-Book: Jesus – He is Who He is

The long wait is over! I always wanted to share a defense on the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity or Godhead of the Bible. The more I spoke to Christians, not the Jehovah Witness’ and Muslims, I found that they were not very clear about the divinity of Jesus, and the doctrine of the Trinity. In my e-book, available now on Amazon, I have responded to some of the main arguments against the Divinity of Christ, and shown how the Bible shows the doctrine of the Trinity.

My e-book covers the following topics:




“The author has done a nice job of explaining the biblical concept of the Trinity and tackling several common challenges. This looks pretty thorough for a relatively brief booklet” – Christopher L. 

“This booklet expanded my understanding of God as it lays down key truths about Jesus’s divinity in a simplified manner from the Bible. I have shared this with my youth group, and they loved it” – Christina  Wijesinghe

Here’s the link to my e-book: