No God but One: Allah or Jesus?: A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity

by Nabeel Qureshi

what we think God is like has a tremendous impact on how we see the world he created. Why did God create humans: to share intimacy with them or to test them? What does he think about people: are they his servants or his children? How does he want us to live: focusing on love or focusing on law? What does he tell us about the afterlife: to anxiously anticipate unknown judgment or to have joyful faith in his grace? The Islamic view of God and the Christian view lend themselves to different answers, and how we answer these questions changes how we see ourselves, other people, and the world around us. Both Muslims and Christians believe that there is no God but one, but is he Allah or is he Jesus?

Tolerance meant always accepting people, without always accepting their ideas.

Perhaps the most surprising shared feature is reverence for Jesus. Both Islam and Christianity teach that Jesus was born of a virgin and that he was the most miraculous man who ever lived. Both the Bible and the Quran teach that Jesus cleansed lepers, healed the blind, and even raised the dead. Indeed, both books teach that Jesus is the Messiah, and Muslims await his return, as do Christians.

According to Islam, the way to paradise is sharia, a code of laws to follow that will please Allah and earn his favor. Sharia is literally translated “the way.” According to the Christian message, the gospel, the way to eternal life is Jesus. He said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). In Islam, sharia is the way, and in Christianity, Jesus is the way.

It is important to note here that the concept of prophet in Islam does not mean the same thing that it does in the Bible. Prophets in Islam have a higher status than all other people, being men chosen by God to lead mankind. The Quran uses the term to mean a divinely appointed leader, not necessarily one who prophesies. Adam is considered the first prophet, but also mentioned in the Quran are Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Job, Moses, Jonah, Aaron, Solomon, David, and of course, Jesus (e.g., Quran 4.163). Since these people all submitted to Allah, they practiced submission (i.e., Islam). Thus they are considered people who submit (i.e., Muslims). All who followed these prophets in submitting to Allah are also considered Muslims, even if they were born ages before Muhammad. Allah revealed his guidance to each prophet as the people needed it and as they could bear it. For example, Moses’ people needed to rebel against the Pharaoh, so Allah revealed “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.” But Jesus’ people needed to be peaceful, so Allah taught them to “turn the other cheek.” Both Moses and Jesus, as well as other prophets, were given divine scripture. Angels dictated Allah’s revelation to them, and the revelation was written down as Torah, Injil (gospel), and other books (e.g., Quran 5.46). Tragically, people did not faithfully follow the prophets that Allah sent to them. So in his mercy, Allah sent Muhammad and gave him the Quran. Thus, Allah gave mankind the final, per...

In regards to right belief, the emphasis is on the Islamic conception of monotheism: Allah is not a Father, and Allah is not a Son (Quran 112). He is an absolute unity, a monad. The other basic components of aqeeda have already been mentioned above: belief in the prophets, belief in divinely inspired books, belief in angels and the unseen, belief in the day of judgment, and belief in Allah’s predestining sovereignty. Together, these are called the Six Articles of Faith. There is much, much more to Islamic belief, but this is the core. Right practice in Islam is learned through Islamic Law, called sharia, which is understood as “the way to water.” Especially for a desert people, the concept is powerful: Following sharia is the way to life itself. Sharia dictates virtually every aspect of a devout Muslim’s life, from what foods to eat, to proper forms of currency, to exact words to recite during prayers. Of all Islamic practices, five are paramount: proclaiming the Islamic motto, the shahada: “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his Messenger”; praying the five daily prayers; fasting during the month of Ramadan; giving alms; and undertaking a pilgrimage to Mecca. Together, these are called the Five Pillars of Islam.

In the beginning of the Christian worldview is the one God, Yahweh. He exists as three persons who love each other perfectly. Thus, the one God is love in his very essence. Out of this love, God created mankind in his image, that God might love man and man might love God. It is important to note that this concept of love is often misunderstood by Muslims due to the various ways the word love is used in English. The specific concept of love we are discussing is often called agape love. It is not the kind of love we envision in a romantic relationship; it does not imply much emotion at all. The Bible gives a beautiful description of this love in 1 Corinthians 13, but it is essentially this: a selflessness that delights in others. That is who God is, almighty yet most humble, the center of the universe yet selfless. He created mankind so he could delight in us, and we in him, with selfless love.

The result of sin is death because it is a rejection of the Source of Life. That’s why, in the Christian worldview, sin against God is more than just doing something wrong. It is rebellion against the Sustainer of the universe. It is the most destructive force in the cosmos, the ultimate root of every pained heart, every broken family, every pointless war, every heinous genocide. Sin spreads through generations like a malignant cancer, and it razes civilizations like a plague. The effect of sin is cataclysmic. Like taking a sledgehammer to a mirror, sin shatters the image in which man is made. When Adam sinned, the image of God in man was irreparably broken. This is the Christian worldview: Sin has ravaged our souls and the entire world. There is no way for us to un-sin. We cannot simply do a few good deeds to unshatter our souls. There is nothing on earth that we can do. It would take a miracle, an act of God, to restore us and save this world.

But in the Christian message, there is good news. In Greek, the word for good news is euangelion, which in English is translated “gospel.” And the good news is this: Even though we cannot get to God, out of his great love, God has come to us and made a way for us. God himself has paid for our sins and will eternally restore our souls. All we have to do is repent of our rebellion, have faith in what he has done, and follow him.

Those who go further along the path of being like Jesus even reflect him in their willingness to die for others, just as Jesus was willing to die for us. They become more like God: selflessly delighting in others.

Since Islam teaches that every person must bear their own sin, Muslims often question the doctrine of original sin: How does Adam have anything to do with our standing before God? Thankfully there is a bridge of understanding between Muslims and Christians here, as Muslims do believe that Adam was cast out of the garden when he sinned. Also, it is helpful to note that there are different views of original sin in Christian thought. The view that I found most helpful when I was still a Muslim points out that, when the dust settles, Muslims and Christians do not disagree on much here. According to this view, the Bible teaches that no man is responsible for the sin of his father (Deut. 24:16; Ezek. 18:20), which means that people are not guilty of Adam’s sin itself. When we are judged, we will be judged for our sins alone, but Adam’s sin is where it all started. Remembering the Christian view of the destructiveness of sin, when Adam sinned, it was as if his soul was pulverized. Even though Adam was created in the image of God, it was the shattered, irreparably distorted image of God that Adam’s progeny inherited (Gen. 5:3). Since mankind inherited the broken image from Adam, all humans are broken and prone to sin. They are not judged for his sin, but because of his sin, we, his progeny, have all been born broken. Because of his sin, we all ultimately sin. No matter our view of original sin, though, Christians believe that everybody does sin, and their own sin is enough to brin...

According to the basic principles of Islam, Allah will weigh good deeds against bad deeds when he judges us. In broad strokes, Muslims believe that someone who has sinned very little has little to worry about. For this reason they often ask why God would demand justice for even the smallest sin. As the da’ee in Hong Kong pointedly asked me during our debate, “Would it be just for a judge to sentence you to execution for jaywalking?” This was a fair question, and when I was a Muslim asking the same question, I found that Christians often did not give satisfactory answers. Usually, they would point me to Romans 6:23, which teaches that “the wages of sin is death.” My response would always be honest: “That’s another reason not to trust the Bible. It does not make sense. Why give the death penalty for even the smallest of sin?” I was not surprised when the da’ee made the same challenge during our debate. Nor was I surprised when he asked the corollary question: “How can God be just if he is willing to forgive serial killers and genocidal dictators? You’re telling me Hitler could have gone to heaven if he had become a Christian?” It is an emotionally charged question, but one that deserves a thorough answer. To fully understand, we need to remember two things: the nature of sin and the nature of God. Remember that, according to Christian teaching, sin is not just doing something wrong. It is a rebellion against God, the Source of Life. Death is not a punishment for our actions ...

HOW CAN JESUS DIE FOR THE SINS OF MANKIND? This is perhaps one of the most commonly asked questions in Muslim-Christian dialogue, and it is important to recall the Muslim impetus for the question: Islam emphasizes that each person will be responsible for their own sins. No human can intercede for another. But here is another example where agreement is close at hand: Christians also believe, as Muslims do, that no mere human is in the position to bear another’s sins. In order to come to that realization, though, I had to remember that Christians believe Jesus is God. Muslims believe that God is able to forgive sins, and that is exactly what Christians teach through the gospel: that God is the one forgiving the sins of mankind.

Instead of just forgiving us on the day of judgment in the distant future, he has paid for our sins at a very real point in time and space: in the first century, on the cross. Another question follows closely: “Is it just for God to transfer sins? No one is able to bear the burdens of another, because that would be unfair.” Here, it is helpful to note two things. First, people voluntarily bear the burdens of others all the time, and it is completely just. For example, when young adults want to obtain a loan from a bank but do not have any credit, they have to find a cosigner, usually a mother or father, to vouch for them. If they then fail to pay the loan, the bu...

Something else that is helpful to point out, though, is that the Quran actually does not teach that no one can bear the sins of another. Looking carefully at the relevant Quranic verses, all five of them teach that “no bearer of burdens can bear the burdens of another.” It is not that no person can bear the sins of another, but that anyone who is already a sinner is in no place to bear the sins of others. Since Muslims believe that Jesus did not bear any sins, theoretically Islamic theology should be compatible with Jesus bearing the burdens of others.

WHAT REASON DO CHRISTIANS HAVE TO DO GOOD? When the young siblings in Hong Kong asked me their question, I briefly considered the ways I could answer. Sitting down next to them, I nodded toward their mother and asked them a question in return: “Do you love your mom?” Slightly taken aback, they answered emphatically, “Of course!” Smiling, I asked them a simple question: “When she asks you to do something, like clean your room, what do you think would make her happier: if you cleaned your room because you love her, or if you cleaned your room because you were afraid she would punish you?” Without hesitation, the sister answered, “Because we love her.” And as the words left her lips, the realization was apparent on her face: obedience under the shadow of threat is hardly obedience at all, but compulsion. Christian obedience, devoid of threat and rooted in love, is what God truly wants. I began to explain to her and her brother that when we respond to the gospel and live as children of God, our Father changes our hearts and makes us want to obey out of love.

Islam diagnoses the world with ignorance and offers the remedy of sharia, a law to follow. Christianity diagnoses the world with brokenness and offers the remedy of God himself, a relationship with him that leads to heart transformation.

From my perspective, the gospel resonates with reality: People are broken in their hearts and souls, and no matter how educated or self-reflective we become, it does not appear that following rules will be enough to address the problem. The problem of mankind is deeper than what we do; it is embedded in who we are. Having spent some time working with the dejected and downtrodden, such as those whose lives have been ravaged by various addictions, I do not think ignorance is their problem. It is brokenness. Having seen families torn apart by abuse or anger, I know the answer appears to lie not in knowledge or following rules but in transformed hearts.

This leads me to a second observation: Mankind seems incapable of saving itself. In our natural selves, we perpetuate cycles of destruction. Our hearts are broken, so we break other hearts. We were abused, so we abuse in return. Our families were fractured, so we leave fractured families in our wake. When loved ones are killed, we kill in revenge. This is the way of humanity, and we need an otherworldly solution—something radical to break these cycles. We need God to save us. The gospel is that radical solution. It teaches us that God gives us that otherworldly grace, forgiving us no matter what our sins. His love is extravagant: “Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God” (Rom. 8:38–39 NIV). He loves us, and we are forgiven. Our souls can rest in our loving Father and his all-embracing grace.

The gospel is all about God and what God has done. God introduces life into the world, and when we rebel, God saves us. When we sin against God, God pays for our sins. When we sin against one another, God gives the grace of restoration. This message is all about him, not at all about what we can do or have earned for ourselves.

Although many challenge the notion that Islam was spread by the sword, there is no question that the sword featured prominently in Islam’s early history. It was with the sword that Muslim armies swept North Africa and conquered Persia in the years immediately after Muhammad’s death. The caliphs, Muhammad’s successors, were soon after beset with high-profile assassinations: Umar, the second caliph of Islam, was slain by avenging Persians; Uthman, the third caliph of Islam, was besieged and then slaughtered by Muslim rebels; Muhammad’s cousin Ali, the fourth caliph, was also assassinated by dissidents, but not before he had marched against the army of Aisha, Muhammad’s young bride. That was the first Islamic civil war, often called the First Fitna, and on that day ten thousand Muslims killed one another on the field of battle. With the spilling of their blood were sown the first seeds of Shia and Sunni discord. The sword was ever unsheathed in these earliest years of Islam. Following the age of the Companions of Muhammad, the Umayyad Caliphate governed the Islamic empire for a short ninety years until, through revolt and open war, the Abbasid Muslims took control and established a dynasty that lasted for 750 years. The reign of the seventh Abbasid caliph is fascinating, for it was he who imposed the Mihna, the Islamic Inquisition. Al-Mamun became caliph in AD 813, after a struggle for power that ended in the beheading of the previous caliph, his brother. From the start, al-M...

Where this philosophical debate mattered most was on the issue of the Quran. It was understood that the Quran is the Word of God, his attribute of speech. Is the speech of Allah eternal? If so, something apart from Allah, his speech, would be eternal. It would exist in eternity past alongside Allah.

That is why when al-Mamun declared the Quran to be a created book, he justified his proclamation by saying, “He who does not confess that the Quran is created has no belief in tawhid.” Those who believe in the eternality of the Quran, argued al-Mamun, are “the worst of the Muslims” and “the tongue of the devil.” He instituted their inquisition. Over the course of fifteen years and the reigns of three caliphs, Muslim thinkers in major cities who believed in the eternality of the Quran were interrogated, flogged, and threatened with execution because of their challenge to tawhid. One such man, Ahmad bin Nasr al-Khuzai, was brought before Caliph al-Wathiq, who questioned him about the Quran. When it became clear that Ahmad did not subscribe to its createdness but believed in its eternality, the caliph flew into a rage and personally decapitated him. Ahmad’s head was taken to Baghdad and displayed publicly as a warning to others who might be tempted to make the same mistake.

Although the Islamic inquisition thus came to an end, the arguments about the Quran did not. Ultimately, the majority of Muslims espoused a view exactly contrary to the defenders of tawhid. Based on the position of a man named al-Ashari, the average Muslim today believes that the Quran is eternal despite the problem this creates for tawhid. And how did al-Ashari counter the arguments of the rationalists? How can the Quran be eternal without challenging the absolute unity of Allah? His response is famous: bila kayf, or “without how.” In other words, there is no rational resolution; it is just true that the Quran is eternal and this does not contradict tawhid. In this proclamation al-Ashari emphasized revelation and tradition over reason and rationality, and his method has remained dominant among Muslim thinkers ever since. Over time, and entirely without logical defense, al-Ashari’s position on tawhid became the standard view, changing the history of Islam forever. His position is so firmly entrenched that, ironically, those who take al-Mamun’s position today face persecution. In 1995 a highly respected Egyptian scholar named Nasr Abu Zayd was declared an apostate by sharia courts on account of his belief that the Quran is partially created. His marriage was officially annulled, he received death threats, and he was effectively forced into exile. However, in more tolerant Muslim environments like Turkey, debates about tawhid and the Quran continue unabated.

As a practicing Muslim, I simply had no idea of the contradictory forms of tawhid, nor of how volatile intra-Muslim relations had been on account of them. I, and most Muslims I knew, simply thought that Islam’s doctrine of God was clearly defined, unanimously agreed upon, and entirely unproblematic. In other words, we uncritically believed that tawhid was an impervious doctrine. But the Mihna illustrates that Muslims have significant disagreements over tawhid, and there are multiple views in Islam. We have already explored the two views of tawhid in the Mihna that were contrary enough to cause bloodshed. A third, equally divisive view is that of many Sufis, called wahdat al-wujud. Literally translated “unity of being,” this doctrine teaches that the entire universe is God. It is so offensive to some Muslims that they denounce Sufis as kafir, infidels, under charges of pantheism. By contrast, Sufi Muslims often believe that their knowledge of Allah is the most intimate and refined form of Islam. These are just three of the divergent views on tawhid that have been widely held by devout Muslims throughout Islamic history. The average Muslim is not aware of this. Perhaps more than any other reason, my ignorance was why I was so confident in lodging criticisms against the Trinity. I would point out that the word Trinity is not found in the Bible and that the doctrine took hundreds of years to iron out. How could a doctrine so central to Christian theology have had such a long a...

The Trinity is just like every other monotheistic doctrine in teaching that there is only one God. If we miss this, we miss everything! Christianity has always taught that there is only one God. Where Christian theology differs from other forms of monotheism is not on the number of gods, but on the concept of God’s personhood. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the one God exists as three persons. It is at this point that Muslims often level a charge of self-contradiction, but it certainly is not, and here is why: person is not the same as being. Your being is the quality that makes you what you are, but your person is the quality that makes you who you are. For example, we are humans. That is what we are. That is why we are called human beings. But what we are is not the same as who we are. If someone asks, “Who are you?” I should not respond by saying, “A human!” That answers the question of what I am, not who I am. Who I am is Nabeel; that is my person. What I am is a human; that is my being. Being and person are separate. Unlike a human being, which has only one person, God has three persons. He is one being, Yahweh, in three persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. He’s more than able to exist like that because he is God. If we say God must have 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.

We are in no position to determine the intricacies of God’s nature. If he were to inform us that he is one being in one person, we are obligated to believe him. If he tells us, “I am one being in three persons,” who are we to say no to God? As believers in revelation, we must turn to divine Scripture to learn about God.

there are five elements found repeatedly throughout the Bible’s text that are best interpreted through the lens of the Trinity: There is only one God (e.g., Rom. 3:30) The Father is God (e.g., John 6:27) Jesus is God (e.g., John 20:28; Rom. 9:5; 2 Peter 1:1) The Holy Spirit is God (e.g., Acts 5:3–5) These three are distinct persons (e.g., John 14:16–17)

A verse that indicates the unity of these three distinct persons is Matthew 28:19, which says, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (NIV). All three persons in this verse share one name, because they are one being.1

Why did God not even give a hint of the Trinity before?” My answer often surprises them: He did, starting with the very first verse of the Bible. Genesis 1:1 reads: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (NIV). If we look more closely at the word we translate “God,” Elohim, we see it is plural. If we were to translate it literally, we would translate it “Gods.” But the reason we do not translate it that way is because the verb in the sentence is singular. The word Elohim is plural, but the verse treats it as a singular noun. So, in the very first verse of the Bible, we see that God is in some sense plural, but in some sense singular. This fits the model of the Trinity perfectly: God is in one sense plural in terms of his persons, but in another sense singular in terms of his being. A monadic interpretation of God makes less sense of the verse. Of course, if it were just this one instance, there would not be much of a case, but we find three indications of God’s plurality in Genesis 1. The second is found in verse 26, where God says, “Let us make man in our image” (NIV). He refers to himself in the plural. Why would God call himself “us”? Some people respond that it is a plural of majesty; a king might refer to himself as “we,”

Biblical Hebrew does not use the plural of majesty, and it is probable that such a literary device had not been invented yet. To say that the Bible is using a plural of majesty is to apply later manners of speaking and writing to the Bible, which is poor methodology. God is not referring to himself here with a “royal we.” God is pointing out that, in some sense, he is plural. Another indication of his plurality is found in verse 27, which reads: “And God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” After emphasizing that God created mankind in his image, the Bible then says he created them male and female. That’s not to say God has genders, but it is to say that there is plurality in his image. This is reflected in Scripture’s use of him to refer to mankind, and then its switch to them. Mankind is in one sense singular, one humanity, but in another sense plural, composed of men and women. That is the image of God: both singular and plural.

Before moving on, it is worth mentioning that the Trinity is implicit throughout the Old Testament. In Genesis 18, we find Yahweh coming as a man to speak with Abraham, informing him that he will destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Then, in verse 19:24, the Bible says, “Yahweh rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from Yahweh out of the heavens.” Yahweh appears to be both on earth and in the heavens, the person on the earth raining down sulfur from the person in heaven. Lest it appear that this is not what Genesis is saying, Amos 4:11 confirms this interpretation: “ ‘I overthrew some among you as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah . . .’ declares Yahweh.” Here, Yahweh refers to God in the third person. This makes little sense within a monotheistic framework unless we read the Old Testament through the lens of the Trinity. Finally, an example of a passage in the Old Testament that features the deity of all three persons of the Trinity can be found in Isaiah 48:12–16. The clarity of the statement can be lost because of the many statements emphasizing the sovereignty of the speaker, but if we remove the intervening statements, the passage reads: “ ‘I am he; I am the first and the last. Indeed, my own hand established the earth . . .’ and now the Lord God and his Spirit have sent me.” Here, the Alpha and the Omega says he was sent by the Lord God along with his Spirit. The next verse calls the speaker “Yahweh,” “Redeemer,” and “the Holy One of Israel.” In this passage, Yahweh...

Just as the Bible is the reason Christians believe in the Trinity, the Quran is the reason Muslims deny it. The clearest rejection of the Trinity in the Quran is 4.171. After denying the deity of Jesus, it says: “Do not say ‘three.’ (It would be) better for you (if you) stop. Only Allah is God. One.” But when we study the Quran more carefully, it appears the Quran is not actually denying the Trinity but rather polytheism, that Jesus is a second deity alongside God. For example, after denying that Jesus is God, 5.73 says, “Certainly they are infidels who say, ‘truly, God is the third (of) three.’ There is no god but one God.” If the Quran envisions the Trinity as three gods, with Allah as one and Jesus as the second, who is the third? Apparently it is Mary, as is most clear in 5.116, where Allah says to Jesus: “Did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as two gods in addition to Allah’?” So the trinity that the Quran denies is actually tritheism, three gods: Allah, Jesus, and Mary. At this point, some Christians argue the Quran gets the Trinity wrong, and this disproves the Quran. Muslims often argue in response that there very well may have been Christians that worshiped Mary, Jesus, and God as a trinity, and that the verses of the Quran are directed toward them. I choose to avoid this discussion, emphasizing instead that the Quran effectively denies polytheism, three gods, not the concept of a triune God as Christianity has traditionally taught.2

The Quran never rejects the possibility of one God subsisting in three persons. The omission is noteworthy, as this had been the orthodox doctrine of Christianity for centuries before Muhammad and the advent of the Quran.

The other word, al-Wadud, is more promising, as it does mean “the Loving” and is used twice in the Quran. But when we look more closely at the word, it seems an expressive idea is in view rather than a relational idea, as in “the Affectionate.”

Only one of Allah’s ninety-nine names could imply he wants intimacy with man, and looking carefully at this word yields nothing that necessitates a relationship.

This may come as a shock to Muslims who grew up as I did, being taught that Allah loves us. It is a common teaching among Muslims, but it is not the teaching of the Quran. A verse that is often used to suggest that Allah is close to us is 50.16, which says that Allah is nearer to people than their jugular veins. What I was not taught, and what most Muslims I know are not taught, is that this verse is in the context of an extended threat: Allah is so close to you that he knows your subversive thoughts very well, and he throws doubters into hell.3

As my eyes opened to the deeper truths of the world, I accepted that complexity does not somehow invalidate the Trinity. Why must we assume the Creator is any simpler, any easier to understand, than his creation? I might suggest that the opposite must be true: By definition, we cannot comprehend God. If God created our minds, then he must be greater than their comprehension. Who are we to demand that he be simple enough for us to understand him? But as we have seen, the Trinity is not contradictory. There is no contradiction in asserting that the one God exists in three persons. The common challenge from Muslims that the Trinity is unrealistically contradictory and complex is not a valid problem. Quite the opposite, as we have already learned through the story of the Mihna, the Islamic formulation of divine simplicity causes problems in explaining the eternality of the Quran. As we will learn now, the simplicity of tawhid has another flaw.

Let us consider again the basic teaching of tawhid: God is absolutely one. This means that, in eternity past, before he had created anything, Allah was alone. One person, all by himself. It was not until he chose to create the universe that Allah had anything to relate with. This is a significant theological problem because, through the ninety-nine names and otherwise, Islam teaches that Allah is a relational being. But if he had nothing to relate with before creating the universe, how could he be a relational being?

The word for “one” used in the shema is echad, and this is often the word the Old Testament uses to refers to a composite unity. To illustrate, let’s revisit Genesis 1. Verse 5 says that evening and morning make one day. In other words, one day is a composite of evening and morning. Since the Scripture is referring to something that is one but made up of multiple components, it uses the word echad. In Numbers 13:23, a cluster of grapes is referred to as echad, since the one cluster is composed of many grapes. In Ezekiel 37:17, Ezekiel is told to hold two sticks together as if they were one; again, in Hebrew the word echad describes this compound unity. As a final example, referring back to the image of male and female, the Bible says that, through marriage, man and woman become one. The word the Bible uses to express two-in-one? Of course, echad.

The Old Testament, starting from the first page, frankly suggests that God is multiple in persons, and the shema uses verbiage we would expect if Yahweh wanted us to know that he is one God in three persons.

But the belief that Yahweh was multiple in person or expressions goes beyond the mystical rabbis to the time of Jesus himself. Alan Segal, a Jewish scholar, argues that some first-century Jews held a “binitarian” notion of God.5 Daniel Boyarin, himself an orthodox Jew and a scholar, argues that rabbis declared such notions to be heretical only in response to Christian theology, not before.6 In other words, according to some notable Jewish scholars, views like the Trinity were present among Jews when Jesus was teaching in Israel. Only after Jews and Christians parted ways did rabbis declare such notions heretical, as a reaction to Christian theology.

A Muslim can obey out of selfish purposes, such as a desire to avoid hell or obtain heaven, or he can obey out of a selfless desire to please God. So theism, as in the case of Islam, offers a more deeply grounded form of altruism. But the Christian model of theism goes further still. Much further. Remember that the eternal love of God is intrinsic to who he is; each person of the Trinity loves the others selflessly. It was out of this selfless love that God created mankind. In other words, we were made in the image of a selfless, loving God, so in our very nature we are designed to be selfless and loving. When we are self-centered instead of selfless, we act against our very nature.

From the Christian perspective, people ought to be selflessly loving toward others not just because it is a good idea, not just because it helps our species survive, not just because it earns us a reward, and not just because it pleases God. People ought to be selflessly loving because it is who we are. Humans are made in the image of a selfless God; loving others is what makes us truly human.

it was often repeated that Christians decided to take books out of the Bible at the Council of Nicaea and put other books in. I had challenged David with this assertion many years prior, but when we studied the council together, we discovered that it was entirely baseless. The books of the Bible were not even discussed at Nicaea.

All 318 bishops present agreed that Jesus was divine. No one suggested that Jesus was just a human. And when both sides had heard all the arguments, over 99 percent were in agreement that Jesus is no lower than God himself. Not just human, not just a prophet, not just a god, but God: “very God of very God.”

what Muslims generally “respect” is the Islamic understanding of Jesus, not the Christian understanding.

As an example, a family member who is particularly close to me once lamented that Muslims respect Jesus even though Christians do not respect Muhammad, yet in the very next breath he said that Jesus was “a weak and impotent God” if he died on a cross. When I objected that this was disrespectful to Jesus, he simply did not see it. It took a few moments to show him that, from my perspective, this was extremely offensive. He had a hard time understanding the offense, though, because he was so immersed in his own perspective.

As we saw in the previous chapter, the Quran explicitly says that Allah remains behind a veil, so Muslims conceive of God as a being who does not enter this world. Christians do not believe this, though, because their Scriptures teach exactly the opposite: The Bible repeatedly shows God coming among his people. Starting with the third chapter of Genesis, the very beginning of the Bible, we find God walking in the garden where Adam and Eve were (Gen. 3:8). In Genesis 18, God appears to Abraham as a man and talks with him. In Exodus 34:5–6, God stood with Moses and walked in front of him. In Exodus 24:9–11, Aaron, Moses, and seventy-two elders all saw God at the same time and even dined with him. In an even more tangible experience, Jacob wrestled with God in Genesis 32:24–28. In Exodus 13:21, when the Hebrews needed guidance in the desert, God personally led them as a pillar of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night. In another, rather important account, God commanded the Hebrews to make him a tabernacle, a place where he would descend and “dwell among them” (Ex. 25:8–9 NIV). After they built it, God filled the tabernacle with his glory (Ex. 40:34). These many appearances of God on earth are often called theophanies. Another theophany in the Torah, Exodus 3:4, actually has parallels in the Quran. In this passage, God calls to Moses from a burning bush. The bush was burning on account of the very presence of God, which is why God says, “Take off your sandals, for the pla...

During the days of Isaiah the prophet, God informed his people that he was about to do something special: He would be born into this world as a child. In Isaiah 9:6, the Bible says, “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.” Christians from the very beginning have understood this verse as being fulfilled in Jesus: God, having come to this earth repeatedly before, is announcing his coming incarnation. The Mighty God will be born as a child. This comes just a few chapters after Isaiah 7:14, which says, “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” Putting this together, Christians believe that hundreds of years before Jesus, the Hebrews were told that God would be born among them.