A Muslim friend of mind recently recommended I read the 2019 book Apostate: From Christianity to Islam in times of secularization and terror, written by the recently converted Muslim, Joram van Klaveren. The well-written book describes van Klaveren’s journey from Dutch Reformed Protestantism to Islam, from Christian to Muslim.

While there is much to agree with, my conclusion after reading the book is that van Klaveren has abandoned a Christianity that he never fully embraced. I mean that respectfully. Throughout the book, van Klaveren admits that he’s always had intellectual struggles with concepts like the Trinity, the dual natures of Christ, and the idea that divine forgiveness requires a blood sacrifice.

I love Muslims, so I wanted to read this book to better understand some of their objections. At the heart of the disagreement between Christians and Muslims is Jesus Himself—His person and work. My great desire is to see my Muslim friends come to know Jesus personally as their Lord and Savior.

But when I share the gospel of a crucified and risen Jesus, a dilemma immediately presents itself. The Quran—the text all Muslims believe is the revealed word of Allah (God)—declares that Jesus (Isa) never even died on a cross (Surah 4:157). Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet, but not the eternal Son of God. The Quran clearly states, “The Messiah son of Mary was no other than a messenger before whom similar messengers passed away, and his mother was a saintly woman” (5:75).[1]

Jesus: Prophet of Allah or Son of God?

In Apostate, van Klaveren lays out some of the nagging issues he had with Christian theology for many years, which eventually led him to outright reject the faith and convert to Islam. His biggest struggle is with the deity of Christ. He quotes Colossians 1 as saying Christ is “the firstborn of every creature” (Colossians 1:15, KJV). And then asks, “If Christ is created, has there then existed a time before he was created? God, however, is eternal.”[2]

Here, van Klaveren seems to have a misunderstanding about the incarnation of Christ. Christians have never believed that Christ is created. The New Testament repeatedly teaches that Christ is the Creator of all things. In fact, van Klaveren fails to quote the very next verse, which says that Christ is the Creator of all things (v. 16). I’ll quote the passage in context in the English Standard Version (ESV):[3]

“He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:15-17, ESV)

His confusion seems to be rooted in his understanding of the King James translation of verse 15, which says, “He is the firstborn of every creature.”

Van Klaveren seems to think that “firstborn” indicates “first created.” But the Greek word prototokos (firstborn) does not mean “first created” one. We have to ask what Paul the Jew meant when he first wrote this. When we turn to the Old Testament, we find that “firstborn” certainly can mean simply “first one in birthing order.” But there is also a well-developed understanding of the “firstborn” as the one with a special status before God. For example, Moses tells Pharaoh, “Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son” (Exodus 4:22).

We also see the term taking on messianic significance when God speaks of David, who was a prototype of the Messiah. God says of David: “And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:27, ESV). All this rich background to the term firstborn seems utterly lost on van Klaveren. Ironically, the very term Paul uses to emphasize Christ’s exalted status as Lord, he takes to mean “less than God.”

I can understand why van Klaveren would have questions about why Paul would call Jesus “the firstborn of creation.” But even without the Old Testament background on the term, if he simply read the passage in context, he would see that Paul is repeatedly emphasizing Jesus’s deity throughout. Christ created all things (v. 16). All things were created for Christ (v. 16). Christ is before all things, and He holds all things together (v. 17). In everything, Christ is to be preeminent (v. 18). In Christ, all the fullness of God dwells bodily (v. 19; 2:9). There’s really no escaping what Paul intended to teach: Jesus is the Creator God in human flesh.

Did Jesus Deny that He is Divine?

Rather than questioning the Bible’s accuracy, van Klaveren is convinced that the biblical Jesus denied He is God. He approvingly quotes Abdal Hakim Murad:

“In the Bible, Jesus sometimes appears explicitly to deny that he is Divine. Texts include, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone’ (Mark 10:18), and ‘The son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing’ (John 5:19).”[4]

Again, context is crucial to our understanding of what Jesus intended to convey. As we will see below, there are countless times that Jesus did affirm His own eternally divine nature. First, let’s consider the Mark 10 passage.

In context, Jesus is responding to a young rich ruler, who has just said, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Mark 10:17, ESV). Jesus responds with a question of His own, which He often did as a way of leading people to the truth. “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone” (v. 18). Notice that Jesus does not explicitly deny that He is God. He asks a question that corresponds to the man’s starting assumptions.

Jesus is leading this self-righteous young man to reevaluate his concept of goodness. Believing Jesus to be a wise teacher, the man is happy to consider Jesus “good.” He probably was willing to call many rabbis “Good Teacher.” He also considers himself good, asserting he has not broken any of the commandments since childhood (v. 20). But Jesus can see through his self-confident exterior. In reality, this young man worships money, not God. That is why Jesus calls him to sell all his possessions and give to the poor before following Him. The man is hoping to add Jesus to his wealth rather than come to Jesus as Lord and Savior. He is not yet recognizing his desperate position as a sinner accountable to a perfectly good God.

The other passage mentioned, John 5:19, does not deny Christ’s deity either. In fact, in this very passage Jesus clearly expresses His deity. Interestingly, Murad does not quote the whole verse, which reads:

Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” (John 5:19, NIV)

When Jesus says, “the Son can do nothing by himself,” He is speaking about His obedience to the Father. According to the Bible, the plan of redemption originated in the Father, who sent the Son into the world to accomplish redemption. The Son, who is coequal and coeternal with God, is nevertheless functionally subordinate to the Father. That’s why Jesus frequently says He can do nothing apart from the Father’s will (e.g. John 6:38). This is a statement about their difference in roles, not difference in nature.

Murad cuts off Jesus’s statement that “whatever the Father does the Son also does” (v. 19). How could someone less than God be said to do whatever God does? In Apostate, van Klaveren argues that when Jesus is called “the son of God,” in the Jewish context that term didn’t suggest that He was literally divine, “but rather refers to an exalted status because of his exceptionality.”[5] But that’s only partially true. When Jesus spoke of God as “My Father” and Himself as “the Son,” He clearly taught His equality with God.

In the immediately preceding verses, we are told:

In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (John 5:17-18, ESV)

A little understanding of context goes a long way in clarifying many of Jesus’s statements. The Bible teaches that, as a man, the sinless Jesus was subject to many limitations such as being hungry, tired, thirsty, had to learn and grow, and was even subject to temptation. But that is with respect to Christ’s human nature. As God, Jesus could also make statements no mere man could make:

“For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.” (John 5:21-23)

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” (John 5:39-40)

“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” (John 6:35)

In terms of roles, the Father has the highest authority. That’s why Jesus can say, “I do not speak on my own authority” (John 14:10) and “the Father is greater than I” (v. 28). But at other times, Jesus speaks to their shared divine nature, such as when Jesus says, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (v. 9) and “Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me” (v. 11).

Furthermore, we cannot overlook all the times that Jesus received worship. In Scripture, godly men and angels always refuse to be worshiped (see Acts 10:26; 14:12-15; Revelation 19:10; 22:9), and wicked men like Herod seek to be worshiped as a god (Acts 12:21-23). So, how could Jesus be merely a man—especially a godly man—since He always welcomes worship?

And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (Matthew 14:33, ESV; cf. Matthew 28:9)

Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:28-29, ESV)

Is the Trinity a Late Invention?

Van Klaveren’s other main objection to Christianity seems to be that the doctrine of the Trinity is a confusing mystery and “intellectual impediment.” This is a common view among Muslims I have interacted with on college campuses. The Trinity is viewed as an obscure or nonsensical belief that was added into the Bible many years later.

Van Klaveren states that “the most evident Trinitarian reference” is 1 John 5:7-8, but this is a later addition to the original manuscripts. I found it interesting that van Klaveren, a self-proclaimed former Christian, would say this, because while it remains a common argument Muslim apologists make, it’s also a very outdated and unconvincing argument. Here’s what I mean. He is referring to the King James Version, which renders the verses:

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (1 John 5:7-8, KJV)

Certainly, van Klaveren is right that the earliest manuscripts we have do not include “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one,” but instead only include “the Spirit, the water and the blood” as the three giving testimony. But nearly all our modern translations reflect what we find in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts. Furthermore, I don’t know of any Christian scholar who would appeal to 1 John 5:7-8 to make a case for the Trinity.

For example, in his 200-page book defending the Trinity, Christian apologist James White never even mentions 1 John 5:7-8.[6] Why? Because the New Testament as a whole is thoroughly Trinitarian. In other words, so many statements made by Jesus and the New Testament authors cannot be rightly understood apart from the doctrine of the Trinity. While the word “Trinity” is never found in the New Testament, the concept clearly is. The following facts can be gathered from a careful reading of the New Testament:

1. There is only one God (John 17:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 Timothy 2:5).
2. God exists as three divine persons who share the same eternal divine nature (John 10:30; 14:9): the Father is God (1 Corinthians 8:6), the Son is God (John 1:1), and the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4).
3. The Father is a distinct person from the Son (John 16:9), and both are distinct persons from the Holy Spirit (John 15:26).

When you put all three together, what do you get? There is one God who has eternally existed as three distinct, coequal, and coeternal persons. That is the definition of the Trinity. So, to say that the best reference to the Trinity is also a late addition to the Bible is misrepresenting the facts, and it fails to interact with the multitude of passages that so clearly teach God’s triune nature.

Truly Man, Truly God

The late Christian apologist, Nabeel Qureshi, has said that when he was a Muslim, he was taught that the Trinity was nothing but “veiled polytheism.”[7] But if you actually follow the history of how the Christian church came to understand God as Trinity, it’s clear that they were simply working out the implications of New Testament teaching. It should be added that from the earliest records outside the New Testament, the Christian church has always affirmed Jesus’s deity.

Writing around AD 107-110 (about 460 years before Muhammad was born), Ignatius wrote, “God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life.”[8] This was long before the Arian controversy was settled at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. In AD 180, Irenaeus similarly affirmed that Jesus was “truly man” and “truly God.”[9]

While van Klaveren is right in one sense that the Trinity is a deep mystery we cannot fully grasp, that is not an argument against its veracity. After all, we are talking about the nature of the infinite Being. If God has revealed Himself as triune, who am I to say I won’t accept it simply because I cannot rationally comprehend it? We finite creatures are in no position to tell God what He can or cannot be like. Ultimately, only the Holy Spirit can reveal these truths to our hearts. As Paul wrote, “And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual” (1 Corinthians 2:13, ESV).

The overwhelming testimony of the New Testament is that Jesus is the divine Messiah and Lord of the world. John could not have been clearer when he wrote:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:1-3, 14, ESV)

Have thoughts on this post? Feel free to comment below!

---

[1] There are times when the Quran seems to misunderstand what Christians believe about the Trinity. In one passage, Allah asks, “O Jesus son of Mary! Did you say to people: ‘Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah?’” (5:116). The Trinity that is refuted here includes Jesus, Mary, and Allah, and is a polytheistic group of three gods (“two gods besides Allah”). But this is not what Christians have historically taught about the Trinity.

[2] Joram van Klaveren, Apostate: From Christianity to Islam in times of secularization and terror (2019).

[3] I believe the ESV is a more accurate translation than the KJV for two important reasons: 1) It depends on the earliest and most reliable NT manuscripts, which were not available during the first publication of the KJV. 2) It uses language that strikes a balance of matching original word choice in Koine Greek with comprehensibility in modern English.

[4] Murad, 2013, quoted in van Klaveren, Apostate, 43.

[5] Van Klaveren, Apostate, 45.

[6] James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity (1998).

[7] “Nabeel Qureshi explaining the Trinity.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zc9ee08JeM Accessed on May 29, 2023.

[8] Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 19, quoted in Allison, Historical Theology.

[9] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.6.7, in ANF, 1:469.

Photo from cover of Apostate by Imam Malik Islamic Centre, Leiden