Tagged: Bible

The Parable of the Ten Minas

Following is chapter 17 (the final chapter) of The Kingdom According to Jesus. You may order the entire study from a number of the nation’s leading booksellers.

Luke 19:11-27

11 As they were listening to this, He went on to tell a parable because He was near Jerusalem, and they thought the kingdom of God was going to appear right away.
12 Therefore He said: “A nobleman traveled to a far country to receive for himself authority to be king and then return.
13 He called 10 of his slaves, gave them 10 minas, and told them, ‘Engage in business until I come back.’
14 But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We don’t want this man to rule over us!’
15 At his return, having received the authority to be king, he summoned those slaves he had given the money to so he could find out how much they had made in business.
16 The first came forward and said, ‘Master, your mina has earned 10 more minas.’
17 ‘Well done, good slave!’ he told him. ‘Because you have been faithful in a very small matter, have authority over 10 towns.’
18 The second came and said, ‘Master, your mina has made five minas.’
19 So he said to him, ‘You will be over five towns.’
20 And another came and said, ‘Master, here is your mina. I have kept it hidden away in a cloth
21 because I was afraid of you, for you’re a tough man: you collect what you didn’t deposit and reap what you didn’t sow.’
22 He told him, ‘I will judge you by what you have said, you evil slave! [If] you knew I was a tough man, collecting what I didn’t deposit and reaping what I didn’t sow,
23 why didn’t you put my money in the bank? And when I returned, I would have collected it with interest!’
24 So he said to those standing there, ‘Take the mina away from him and give it to the one who has 10 minas.’
25 But they said to him, ‘Master, he has 10 minas.’
26 ‘I tell you, that to everyone who has, more will be given; and from the one who does not have, even what he does have will be taken away.
27 But bring here these enemies of mine, who did not want me to rule over them, and slaughter them in my presence.’”

A similar parable appears in Matt. 25:14-30. Yet these parables differ in several respects. The parable in Matthew is spoken after Jesus enters Jerusalem; the parable in Luke, while He is on His way there. The parable in Matthew is delivered on the Mount of Olives; the parable in Luke, in the home of Zacchaeus. Finally, the parable in Matthew is delivered to teach Jesus’ followers the necessity of improving the talents committed to them; the parable in Luke, primarily to correct the false notion that the kingdom of heaven would immediately appear.

The context

Jesus is passing through Jericho and has dined in the home of Zacchaeus, chief of the tax collectors, amidst grumblings from onlookers that “He’s gone to lodge with a sinful man” (v.7). Upon Zacchaeus’ declaration of repentance, Jesus announces that salvation has come to his home, consistent with His words to the chief priests and elders in Matt. 21:31 that “Tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you!” Now, with the crowds listening and thinking that “the kingdom of God (is) going to appear right away” (v.11), Jesus tells the parable of the 10 minas.

Central theme

The central theme of this parable is that the kingdom of heaven will come in its fullness at a later time. Jesus’ followers “thought the kingdom of God was going to appear right away” (v. 11). His parable corrects that shortsighted view. At the same time, the central theme feeds two other truths: first, the Jews would be judged for their rejection of the Messiah; and second, the King would hold His servants accountable for their stewardship.

The day is coming when all believers must “stand before the judgment seat of Christ” (Rom. 14:10 KJV). At that time, “each may be repaid for what he has done in the body, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10). The apostle Paul writes that this judgment is like a fire that refines good works and consumes dead works (see 1 Cor. 3:11-15). For faithful believers who wisely use all that God has entrusted to them while He is in “a far country,” they will receive rewards, referred to throughout the New Testament as “crowns” (see 1 Cor. 9:25; Phil. 4:1; 1 Thess. 2:19; 2 Tim. 4:8; James 1:12; 1 Peter 5:4; Rev. 2:10).

Central character

The central character in this parable is the nobleman, who leaves the country to receive authority to be king and then returns. This clearly represents Christ, who tells His disciples He must “go away” (John 16:7) but promises to return (John 14:3). Like the nobleman who is “hated” by his subjects, who send a delegation after him saying, “We don’t want this man to rule over us” (v. 14), Jesus is “despised and rejected by men” (Isa. 53:3). Further, “He came to His own, and His own people did not receive Him” (John 1:11). Jesus gives His listeners a clear message that the kingdom cannot come in its fullness until He completes the work of salvation and goes to His Father in heaven, returning one day “on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Matt. 24:30).

An interesting side note is that in Judea in Jesus’ day, the Roman emperor had to formally recognize the right of a prince or king to rule. To acquire this authority, the prince or king had to travel to Rome. Archelaus, a son of Herod the Great, went to Rome to obtain a confirmation of the title his father had left him. Previously, his father had done the same thing to secure the aid ofAntony. Agrippa the younger, grandson of Herod the Great, also went to Rome to obtain the favor of Tiberius and to be confirmed in his government. So Jesus’ listeners clearly understood the concept of traveling to a far country to receive authority to be king.

Details

The slaves are the followers of Christ, who expect to be made princes, judges and rulers at once if the kingdom comes in its fullness as Jesus enters Jerusalem. The apostles have dreamed of sitting next to Jesus in His kingdom, sharing His authority. But Jesus instead tells them they are slaves with much work to do. The number of slaves summoned – 10 – does not appear to have any special significance, much as the number of virgins in the parable of the 10 virgins does not reveal any profound truth other than that was the minimum number of people required to hold synagogue, have a wedding, etc.

The Hebrew maneh, or Greek mina, translated “pound” in some versions, is a measure of weight equal to about 1.25 pounds. When used in a monetary sense, it is about $34 in silver or $510 in gold by 1915 standards (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia). A marginal note in the New American Standard Bible says one mina is equal to about 100 days’ wages. In any case, the nobleman tells his slaves to “engage in business” or put the money to work until he returns. “The pounds here denote the talents which God has given to his servants on earth to improve, and for which they must give an account in the day of judgment” (Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament).

The “subjects” symbolize the nation of Israel, and particularly the Jewish religious leaders, who have rejected Jesus as Messiah. They are fully aware that Archelaus had gone to Rome to obtain from Augustus a confirmation of his title to reign over the portion of Judea left to him by his father, Herod the Great. The Jews, opposing him, sent an embassy of 50 to Rome to ask Augustus to deny the title, but they failed. While Jesus is in no way of the same character as Archelaus, He is letting the Jewish leaders know that they have even less chance of successfully petitioning the Heavenly Father against Him than they had petitioning Augustus against Archelaus. Verse 27 may be seen as a dual prophecy in which Jesus foretells the destruction of Jerusalem and the Diaspora in 70 A.D., as well as the final judgment of unbelievers before the great white throne (Rev. 20:11-15).

The rewards granted by the returning king should not necessarily be applied literally to the believer’s reward at the judgment seat of Christ. Faithful believers may or may not be given cities to rule over. The point is that our reward in heaven will be in proportion to our faithfulness in improving our talents on earth.

The response of the third slave, who was entrusted with one mina, calls for a closer look. He wraps his mina in a cloth, or napkin, trying to convince his master that he has taken great care of it. Many gifted people guard their abilities but never employ them in the work of the kingdom and thus will be in a similar situation at the final judgment. Next, notice how the slave thought of his master – as someone to be feared, tough and demanding. In fact, the word translated “tough” or “austere” is commonly applied to unripe fruit and means sour, unpleasant, or harsh. Further, his reference to his master as one who collects what he doesn’t deposit (v. 21) is used to describe a man who finds what has been lost by another and keeps it himself. “All this is designed to show the sinner’s view of God. He regards him as unjust, demanding more than man has power to render, and more, therefore, than God has a right to demand” (Barnes Notes on the New Testament).

The master tells the slave, “I will judge you by what you have said, you evil slave” (v. 22). Even though the master is neither unjust nor austere, the slave’s supposing that he is should have spurred him to be obedient to the master’s command. A sinner’s mischaracterization of God does not excuse him or her of accountability on the day of reckoning.

Finally, the master orders that the mina be taken away from the unfaithful slave and given to the one who earned 10 minas. Some are surprised at this and object, “Master, he has 10 minas” (v. 25). But the master’s response illustrates a kingdom truth: To every person who is faithful and improves what God gives him or her, God will give that person more. As for the evil slave, it is interesting to note that he is not slaughtered with the rebelling subjects (v. 27). Perhaps instead Jesus is telling us what Paul writes about in 1 Cor. 3:11-15, in which the believer who fails to build upon the foundation of Christ escapes the judgment, “yet it will be like an escape through fire.”

Spiritual application

One day all believers will “stand before the judgment seat of Christ” (Rom. 14:10 KJV) and give an account of our stewardship. That judgment will not determine where we spend eternity, but how. We will have to give an answer for how we employed our time, talents, spiritual gifts, relationships, material possessions – all that Christ has entrusted to us while He has gone into heaven, preparing His return as King of kings and Lord of lords.

How should we understand Revelation?

LISTEN: “How should we understand Revelation?” Podcast

READ: “How should we understand Revelation?”

The four major views of the end times – postmillennialism, amillennialism, historic premillennialism, and dispensational premillennialism – are based on biblical interpretation and may be found on a scale that ranges from a strict, literal interpretation of scripture to a figurative understanding of biblical passages concerning the Day of the Lord. So how do proponents of these views understand the Book of Revelation?

There are five major interpretations of the so-called Apocalypse of John, but one cannot say, for example, that all postmillennialists hold to a certain interpretation and all premillennialists to another. Nevertheless, in general terms, premillennialists tend to view Revelation through a literal lens, while post- and amillennialists see the text more figuratively.

The five major views of Revelation are: preterist, historicist, futurist, idealist, and eclectic:

  • Preterists see the events of Revelation, for the most part, to have been fulfilled in the first centuries of the church age, either at the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. or at both the fall of Jerusalem and later at the fall of Rome in the fifth century. The book was written, preterists say, to comfort Christians who suffered persecution at the hands of the Romans and the Jews. Many biblical scholars favor the preterist view.
  • Historicists view the events of Revelation as unfolding throughout the course of history. This view meshed with the thinking of the Protestant Reformers, who equated the papal system of their day with the Apostle John’s vision of the Antichrist. This view largely has fallen out of favor due to the difficulties of matching historical events to biblical prophecy, requiring constant revision.
  • Futurists argue that the events of Revelation are largely unfulfilled, especially chapters 4-22. Premillennialists tend to embrace a futurist interpretation of the Apocalypse. And while many scholars favor the preterist view, it may be said that the masses prefer the futurist interpretation.
  • Idealists see Revelation as setting forth timeless truths concerning the battle between good and evil – a battle that continues throughout the church age. Instead of predicting future events, Revelation inspires and encourages believers of all times as they endure persecution at the hands of God’s enemies.
  • Eclectics glean the strengths of the other four views while avoiding their pitfalls. Many leading evangelical scholars today have embraced the eclectic approach, arguing that it provides a balanced approach to scripture.

Let’s take a closer look at each of these interpretations.

The preterist view

Those who hold a preterist (past) perspective of Revelation relate the book to the Apostle John and his immediate audience. In other words, they emphasize that John addresses his writings to  real churches that face real challenges in the first century A.D. John uses symbolic language to tell his readers how God will intervene on their behalf to deliver them from persecution by the Jews and the Romans.

There are two main schools of thought in the preterist camp. The first prefers an earlier date for Revelation and sees the book as a prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The beast is Rome and Babylon is unbelieving Israel, which cooperates with Rome in persecuting the church. Armageddon is the siege of Jerusalem. This view, however, is at odds with a multitude of scholars who date John’s apocalyptic writing to the last decade of the first century during the reign of Domitian (81-96 A.D.) rather than the reign of Nero (54-68 A.D.).

The second school of thought holds that Revelation predicts the fall of the Roman Empire (Babylon the Great) in 476 A.D. and allows for late-first-century authorship. The Roman system comes under judgment for oppressing Christians, who worship God alone, not the emperor. John urges his readers to stay faithful to the Lord and assures them that He will deal harshly with their enemies.

Two historical challenges provided the impetus for Revelation, according to Ken Gentry Jr.:

In the first place, it was designed to steel the first century Church against the gathering storm of persecution, which was reaching an unnerving crescendo of theretofore unknown proportions and intensity. A new and major feature of that persecution was the entrance of imperial Rome onto the scene. The first historical persecution of the Church by imperial Rome was by Nero Caesar from A.D. 64 to A.D. 68. In the second place, it was to brace the Church for a major and fundamental re-orientation in the course of redemptive history, a re-orientation necessitating the destruction of Jerusalem (the center not only of Old Covenant Israel, but of Apostolic Christianity [cp. Ac. 1:8; 2:1ff; 15:2] and the Temple [cp. Mt. 24:1-34 with Rev. 11])” (Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, pp. 15-16).

The preterist view may be traced to the rise of postmillennialism, which teaches that Jesus Christ will return after the Millennium, a period of peace and blessing brought about by the conversion of the nations as they respond positively to the gospel message. Daniel Whitby (1638-1726), a Unitarian minister in England, generally is credited with developing the postmillennial view.

The historicist view

The historicist approach argues that Revelation provides a prophetic overview of church history from the first century until the return of Christ. This view was especially popular during the Protestant Reformation and was embraced by Martin Luther, John Calvin and other prominent Christian leaders of their day. Reformers identified the Antichrist and Babylon with the pope and Catholicism. More recently, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Finney and Charles Spurgeon advocated a historicist approach to Revelation. Over the years, the so-called “newspaper approach” to apocalyptic literature has led historicist interpreters to identify the Antichrist with figures like Charlemagne, Napolean and Hitler.

Classical or historic dispensationalists generally interpret the letters of Revelation 2-3 using a modified historicist approach. In addition to the immediate and local applications of the letters, many expositors believe the messages to the seven churches picture the chronological development of church history. The letter to Ephesus, for example, seems to describe conditions in the church during apostolic times, while the progression of evil climaxing in Laodicea seems to foreshadow the final state of apostasy that signals the return of Christ.

While the historicist approach helps the interpreter make sense of Revelation, its weaknesses outweigh its singular strength. For example, the historicist approach sees fulfillment of Revelation’s prophecies mostly in light of the Western church. In addition, because characters like the beast of Revelation 13 are usually seen as fulfilled in people contemporary to the interpreter, the historicist approach is constantly being modified as new world leaders emerge and new political, economic, social and religious realities come to pass. One final weakness of this view is that it would have held little relevance to the first readers of Revelation. For these reasons, the historicist view has largely fallen out of favor with biblical scholars today.

The futurist view

The futurist approach to Revelation argues that Revelation 4-22 relates primarily to a future time before and after the return of Christ. Rev. 1:19 is seen as a key to the rest of the book: “Therefore write what you have seen [Rev. 1], what is [Rev. 2-3], and what will take place after this [Rev. 4-22].”

Many early church leaders held to some form of the futurist view, but it gave way to the allegorical method of interpreting scripture and the amillennialism of Augustine. But by the Protestant Reformation, and especially by the 19th century, the futurist view made a comeback, and today many evangelical leaders hold to some version of it. Two forms are prominent:

  • Dispensational futurism holds to a very literal interpretation of Revelation and argues that God’s plan of salvation unfolds in stages or dispensations. God elected Israel as His covenant people and has not abandoned them; in fact, there will be national revival in the last days as multitudes of Jews receive Jesus as Messiah. Meanwhile, the church holds a parenthetic place in the plan of God as Gentiles pour into God’s kingdom. At the end of the church age, Christians will be raptured, or removed from the earth, and a seven-year tribulation will follow, during which the Antichrist will rise to power and wage war against believing Jews. Christ will then return, defeat the Antichrist and his armies, and bind Satan for 1,000 years, during which time Jesus will sit on the throne of David and preside over a period of unprecedented – but not perfect – peace. Satan will be loosed for a short time after the Millennium, but Christ will defeat him, cast him into hell, resurrect all unbelievers and summon them before the great white throne. After they are given final judgment and cast into hell, Jesus will create new heavens and a new earth.
  • Historic futurism reads Revelation as prophetic-apocalyptic literature, where the images often represent other realities. Revelation does not unfold in a chronological sequence. This view does not see the church as a parenthesis in God’s work through Israel; rather, the church is the true Israel and the fulfillment of God’s plan. The church will enter the

tribulation before Christ returns to rescue His people and establish His millennial kingdom. Following the defeat of Satan and the final judgment, believers will enjoy eternal life in the new heavens and earth.

Those who challenge the futurist view say it removes Revelation from its original setting so that the book has little meaning for its initial audience. Futurists respond that the second coming of Christ has always been imminent and is therefore relevant at all times throughout the church age.

The idealist view

The idealist view sees Revelation as a symbolic description of the ongoing battle between God and the forces of evil. Instead of predicting future events, Revelation inspires and encourages believers of all times as they endure persecution at the hands of God’s enemies.

This view gained a foothold through the allegorical method of interpretation promoted by church fathers such as Origen and Clement. Along with Augustine’s amellennial view, the idealist view became the dominant interpretation of Revelation for a period stretching from several hundred years after the ascension of Christ until the Reformation. The view is popular today as well among scholars who see Revelation’s meaning neither in church history nor future events, but in the ongoing struggle between God’s people and God’s enemies.

The idealist view points to the symbolic language of Revelation, arguing that the seals, trumpets and bowls are judgments that fall on unbelievers of every age, and anti-Christian leaders of all times are depicted in the beast, false prophet, and Babylon. Meanwhile, the millennium describes the present church age and the prophecies underscore the biblical truth that ultimately God will conquer evil.

This approach to Revelation appreciates the prophetic teachings of John, embraces the theological importance of the book, and highlights the spiritual importance of its message for all Christians throughout the present age. However, it has been criticized for failing to pin any of Revelation’s symbols with historical events. “If there is no particular historical fulfillment of the prophecies of Revelation, in what sense are its ideals really relevant?” (Dictionary of Biblical Prophecy and End Times, J. Daniel Hays, J. Scott Duvall, C. Marvin Pate, p. 206).

The Eclectic View

This approach tries to combine the strengths of the other views while dodging their weaknesses. It agrees, for example, with preterists that Revelation must have meant something to its first readers; therefore, we should study the historical context carefully. It agrees with futurists that some portions of Revelation await fulfillment; therefore we may wait expectantly for the Lord to defeat evil at a future time. It agrees with idealists that Revelation has a relevant spiritual message for the church of every age; therefore we should seek to mine its depths for insights that have practical application today.

Many leading evangelical scholars today have embraced the eclectic approach, arguing that it provides a balanced approach to scripture and avoids the dangerous tendency to carry any view to extremes.

Much of the information for this article came from the Dictionary of Biblical Prophecy and End Times by J. Daniel Hays, J. Scott Duvall, C. Marvin.

Why are there so many Christian denominations?

This is the fifth in a series of occasional posts from Kuala Lampur, Malaysia, where I have the privilege of serving with Michael O’Neal, a church planter/pastor/teacher from Tennessee, and missionary Scott Carter to teach Christian apologetics to fellow believers and assist local pastors in their discipleship and church-planting efforts.

Oct, 1, 11:45 p.m. — The Off-House, Subang  Jaya

The Q&A is simultaneously the most terrifying and invigorating part of any apologetics presentation — at least for me. It’s affirming to field a question for which you are prepared, and a bit sickening to get one that’s so unexpected you wonder if the person is serious. Such as: “What do you know about a secret society called the Illuminati that is Satanically inspired and plotting to take over the world?” A safe answer seems to be the one given to the question about the meaning of life in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy:”  Forty-two.

But the question I have gotten nearly every night at various student centers and churches in Kuala Lampur is one I would not have guessed to be much of an issue in a nation that is officially Muslim but celebrates its religious diversity: “If the Bible is true, why are there so many Christian denominations?”

Here are some thoughts:

The Handbook of Denominations in the United States (12th Edition) lists more than 200 Christian denominations in 17 broad categories, from “Baptist Churches” to “Community and New Paradigm Churches.” If Jesus prayed that His followers would be one (John 17:11), and if there is to be “one body and one Spirit … one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:4-5), why can’t Christians get along? Even within denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention there have been major splits over issues such as the inerrancy of Scripture and the role of women in the church. Doesn’t all this contentiousness prove a fatal flaw in the Bible, since even people who study it and say they believe it can’t agree on what it teaches?

First, it should be noted that many of the disagreements among Christians are over matters of conscience, such as which day of the week to worship, dietary restrictions, or which translation of the Bible to use (see Rom.14:1-23; 1 Cor.10:23-33), or they focus on lesser points of doctrine, such as church polity or the manner in which missions activities are organized and funded. “The point of these divisions is never Christ as Lord and Savior, but rather honest differences of opinion by godly, albeit flawed, people seeking to honor God and retain doctrinal purity according to their consciences and their understanding of His Word” (“Why are there so many Christian denominations?” found in www.gotquestions.org).

Second, it should be acknowledged that Christians often have engaged in petty squabbling, internal power struggles and political wrangling, resulting in unnecessary divisions in the body of Christ, not to mention damage to the church’s reputation. The New Testament implores believers to be gracious toward and forgiving of one another (Eph. 4:32); clearly, this has not always been the case.

Christian denominations generally developed out of a desire for fellowship and joint ministry between individual churches – a biblical concept (Acts. 11:27-30), according to Charles Draper (“Why So Many Denominations?” The Apologetics Study Bible, p. 1709). In addition, denominations many times began as renewal movements. The Reformed movements of the 1500s sought to restore the doctrines of the sovereignty of God and justification by faith to the church, which had all but abandoned these biblical teachings. In time, some Presbyterians drifted toward liberalism and new conservative Presbyterian groups emerged to preserve the Reformed teachings. Baptists came along within the Reformed tradition. Pentecostals and Charismatics formed new unions based on their view of the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts.

There is a rich diversity among Christian denominations, and the differences between them often are not as wide as they appear. This is not to say that all differences are minor, or that all should be set aside for the sake of unity, for in Scripture Christian unity is the product of God’s Spirit working in the hearts of regenerate people and anchored in the truth of God’s Word.

Some separations are, in fact, necessary. In the New Testament, many false teachers are disciplined or leave the churches (see 1 Tim. 1:18-20; 1 John 2:19). In addition, the apostle Paul warns the church that false teachers will rise to prominence in the church in the days before Christ’s return (2 Tim. 3:1-9). The church today should be on guard against those who preach “another Jesus … a different spirit … a different gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4). For example, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to be Christian in their theology and practice, yet both organizations deny the central teachings of Scripture, particularly those having to do with the person and work of Christ, the person and work of the Holy Spirit, and the gospel.

In fact, it is important to differentiate between: (1) denominations within the body of Christ; (2) cults (or counterfeit forms of Christianity); and (3) non-Christian false religions. Southern Baptists, Presbyterians and Lutherans, for example, are Christian denominations. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (Jehovah’s Witnesses) are cults (religious organizations whose members claim to be Christians and who use the Bible and Christian terms, yet who deny the central beliefs of historical Christianity). Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are non-Christian false religions.

Within Christian denominations, diversity is a good thing, but disunity is not, according to Gotquestions.org: “If two churches disagree doctrinally, debate and dialogue over the Word may be called for. This type of ‘iron sharpening iron’ (Proverbs 27:17) is beneficial to all. If they disagree on style and form, however, it is fine for them to remain separate. This separation, though, does not lift the responsibility Christians have to love one another (1 John 4:11-12) and ultimately be united as one in Christ (John 17:21-22).”

So what is a believer to do when looking for a church home? “The most important thing to do is to examine a church’s teaching and practice to see if it is consistent with Scripture,” writes Charles Draper in The Apologetics Study Bible. Gotquestions.org adds the following recommendations: “Pick a church on the basis of its relationship to Christ, how well it is serving the community. Pick a church where the pastor is preaching the Gospel without fear and is encouraged to do so. Christ and His church [are] all about your relationship to Him and to each other. As believers, there are certain basic doctrines that we must believe, but beyond that there is latitude on how we can serve and worship; it is this latitude that is the only good reason for denominations. This is diversity and not disunity. The first allows us to be individuals in Christ, the latter divides and destroys.”

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?

This is the fourth in a series of occasional posts from Kuala Lampur, Malaysia, where I have the privilege of serving with Michael O’Neal, a church planter/pastor/teacher from Tennessee, and missionary Scott Carter to teach Christian apologetics to fellow believers and assist local pastors in their discipleship and church-planting efforts.

Sept. 30, 10:15 p.m. — ConneXion Nilai (university student ministry center)

For the third night in a row, I have the privlege of meeting with college students who have come to Kuala Lampur to study from all over the world. And tonight 47 students, representing nearly a dozen countries from Uganda to India, have gathered in the student ministry center to hear about the uniqueness of Jesus. After presenting an hour-long Bible study on Jesus’ outrageous claims, convincing proofs, and finished work on the cross, missionary Scott Carter and I open the floor to questions.

They come non-stop: If God is good, why is there so much evil in the world? If God knows who is going to be saved, what’s the point of evangelism? If a baby dies in her mother’s womb, does she go to heaven or hell? As was the case last night at Nottingham University and the night before at ConneXion Subang, I am worn out before the students are and the student ministry leader has to call the Q&A to a close. But not before a series of questions about Islam, including: “Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?”

Here is a link to a previous blog post that formed the basis of my response.

The short answer is no. While there are some similarities between Yahweh and Allah, the differences are so significant that it cannot be said Christians and Muslims worship the same God. It’s not necessarily what people want to hear — especially in a multicultural world that increasingly values the concept of many paths to God. But it is the truth, and even our Muslim friends would agree that the Christian God and Allah cannot be reconciled.

As yourself: Does God know me (and can I know Him)? Does God love me? And did God die for me?  Only Yahweh, the God of the Bible, answers all three questions affirmatively.

What about those who have never heard of Jesus?

This is the third in a series of occasional posts from Kuala Lampur, Malaysia, where I have the privilege of serving with Michael O’Neal, a church planter/pastor/teacher from Tennessee, and missionary Scott Carter to teach Christian apologetics to fellow believers and assist local pastors in their discipleship and church-planting efforts.

Sept. 28, 11:32 p.m. — ConneXion Subang (university student ministry center), Subang Jaya

The question was inevitable. After two and a half hours of teaching on the uniqueness of Christ and addressing a series of challenging issues with university students who have gathered here for Bible study and prayer, a coed raised her hand and asked sincerely, “But what about those who have never heard of Jesus?” She and her fellow Christian students from countries in Africa and Asia are serious about effectively sharing their faith with their Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist and atheist classmates, and for them this question is key.

But it’s not a question given to soundbite responses — or easily dismissed as an unbeliever’s barb. True believers wrestle with this question as well, and I doubt that any of us can fully plumb the depths of God’s mind on this issue — at least on this side of heaven. However, here are some important biblical truths to ponder:

  1. Christ is the only Savior (John 14:6; Acts 4:12).
  2. God loves all people and desires their salvation (John 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).
  3. God is truly just and will judge all people justly (Job. 34:10-12; Ps. 9:8; 98:9; Jer. 11:20; Acts 17:31; Rom. 2:5-11).
  4. All people are aware of the existence of God (Rom. 1:18-23). They have failed to act responsibly on what God has already revealed to them, whether through the light of creation (Rom. 1), the light of conscience (Rom. 2), or the light of Christ (Rom. 3).
  5. All people are sinners and know it. God has written His law in their hearts and all people are aware that they have violated the law of God (Rom. 2:1-16). No one will be able to stand before God in judgment and claim that they never willfully did wrong.
  6. Men and women are not sentenced to hell based upon whether they heard of Jesus Christ. Rather, they are justly and fittingly condemned based upon the fact that they are sinners (Rom. 3:10, 23; 6:23).
  7. It appears that if people respond to the light they do have, God will send them the light of the gospel (the Ethiopian eunuch, for example, in Acts 8:26ff, and Cornelius in Acts 10:25ff). Because no one has been kept in the dark about God’s existence, we’re all accountable directly to Him (Luke 12:47-48).
  8. Evidently, God will judge people based on their response to the light He has given them as expressed in their deeds (Rom. 2:6), words (Matt. 12:36-37) and thoughts (Heb. 4:12). This does not mean people are saved by good works; rather it means their response to God in faith, or lack thereof, is evident in their thoughts, words and actions.
  9. It appears there will be stricter judgment for those who have rejected the gospel than for those who have never heard (John 3:36; 12:48). Jesus also told the Jewish leaders – who had greater degrees of knowledge of the Scriptures – they would receive “greater damnation,” and He pronounced many “woes” on them (Matt. 23).
  10. Christian evangelism is essential for three primary reasons: 1) God commands us to go and make disciples (Matt. 28:19-20); 2) the preaching of the gospel is the means by which people hear and are saved (Rom. 10:13-17); and 3) all people should share in the blessings of eternal life, not only in eternity, but now (John 10:10).

Some other considerations:

  • People in Old Testament times were saved even though they didn’t know the name of Jesus (Heb. 11). Consider, for example, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Rahab and others, who are considered “heroes of the faith.”
  • Christ’s substitutionary and sacrificial death on the cross works forward and backward in time to pay the sin debt for those who respond to the revelation God has given them. His death once and for all paid humanity’s sin debt.