At Pentecost, the apostles were “all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4). In Jerusalem, there were “Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven,” (2:5) who heard them speaking to them in their “tongues, the wonderful works of God” (2:11).

In response to some who mocked the apostles by saying, “These men are full of new wine” (2:13), Peter authoritatively explained that they were “not drunken” (2:14-15). He explained that rather God had poured His Spirit on them, as the prophet Joel had prophesied (2:16-21).

Because his hearers were devout Jews, Peter’s lengthy citation to them of this important OT prophecy communicated much more truth to them than just what the words that are recorded directly express. To these men who already knew the teaching of the book of Joel and no doubt much else that is in the OT, this citation forcefully confronted them with the truth of God’s future judgment in the Day of the Lord.

Peter ended his citation by saying, “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (2:21). The flow of thought shows that this statement concerns salvation from the judgment that the Lord would bring in His Day.

Keeping this teaching in mind is vital for interpreting aright Luke’s final remark about Peter’s ministry at Pentecost: “And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this untoward generation'” (2:40). In view of his earlier teaching, this lengthy exhortation for his hearers to save themselves must be understood as having in view their being saved from the judgment to come on “this untoward generation” in the Day of the Lord.

Moreover, earlier, Peter had climaxed his message by declaring that God has made Jesus Lord (Acts 2:36). The flow of thought throughout the record of Peter’s ministry at Pentecost, therefore, shows that in his final exhortation (2:40), he challenged his hearers to be saved from the judgment that Jesus in His Day will bring as the One who has been appointed as Lord.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In order to assess properly the relevance of an account in Acts for our own evangelism, we must carefully consider various aspects of the account that many people often overlook. Stephen’s speech (Acts 7) is a good example of a passage that illustrates some overlooked aspects that need to be handled more accurately.

Through the activities of certain people of a synagogue who were unable to resist his ministry (6:9-10), Stephen was accosted and brought before the Jewish council (6:11-12). False witnesses set up by his enemies then testified against him (6:13-14).

The high priest challenged him concerning the testimony borne by them (7:1). Luke records at length Stephen’s answer to the high priest (7:2-53) followed by the people’s very hostile response (7:54), further testimony by Stephen (7:55-56), and his martyrdom (7:57-60).

In the 56 verses of the testimony by Stephen that Luke records, we do not read of his explicitly testifying to the resurrection of Jesus. How should we understand the significance of his seeming lack of testimony to this key truth?

First, we should note that Stephen’s speech, strictly speaking, is not an evangelistic message as much as it is a defense speech.

Second, in keeping with what I argued in Parts I and II of this series, we must keep in mind that we cannot be certain that Luke has given us an exhaustive account of what Stephen did testify. This uncertainty should cause us to be cautious in what we dogmatically say about what he did not testify.

Third, it is very important for us to note specifically to whom Stephen spoke on this occasion. Some of those whose actions resulted in Stephen’s arrest and being brought to the council were people who had been unable to resist his ministry to them (6:9-10). Luke, however, does not tell us anything about what those people had already heard from Stephen.

Based on what we read about the apostolic testimony in all the preceding evangelistic accounts in Acts 2-5, we have every reason to believe that his testimony similarly included extensive witness to the resurrection of Jesus (cf. 1:22). It is, therefore, almost certain that they had already received prior testimony to the Resurrection from Stephen himself before his speech to the council.

Furthermore, concerning not just these people from the synagogue, but also the others present at this occasion (the men whom the synagogue people suborned [6:11]; the people, the elders, and the scribes [6:12]; the false witnesses [6:13]), an earlier statement by Luke must also be taken into account.

In Acts 5, Luke recorded that the high priest had asked the apostles when they had been brought before the Council, “Saying, ‘Did we not straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us'” (5:27-28). Here, Luke’s record of the high priest’s charge against the apostles reveals that the high priest knew that the apostles had filled Jerusalem with their doctrine, which preeminently included testimony to the Resurrection (cf. 1:22).

Based on the high priest’s statement, therefore, we are justified in holding that the people present when Stephen gave his speech had already received prior testimony to the Resurrection. In fact, we know that the Jewish “rulers, and elders, and scribes, and Annas the high priest, and Caiphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest” (4:5-7) did receive such testimony (4:10). We also know that “the captain with the officers” (5:26) and the Council and the high priest did receive such testimony (5:30).

Thus, even if Stephen had not borne any testimony to the Resurrection in his speech, which we cannot be certain of, his omission would have been before people who already had received testimony to the Resurrection. His omission, then, would not at all be exemplary for us in what we should do with first-time hearers in our evangelism.

The preceding analysis of Stephen’s supposed omission of testimony to the Resurrection in Acts 7 shows that we cannot be certain that he in fact did not bear such testimony. Furthermore, even if he had omitted such testimony in that speech, he would have done so with people who already had heard about the Resurrection.

For these reasons, we should not view Acts 7 as an account that teaches us that testimony to the Resurrection is sometimes optional in our evangelism with first-time hearers. At most, it shows that, if we do choose to omit such testimony, it should only be with hostile people whom we know have already received that testimony beforehand.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Part I of this series, I pointed out the two explicit indicators in the Pentecost account that tell us that we do not have an exhaustive record of the testimony that Peter gave at that occasion. Based on that evidence, I argued that we should not hold that any record in Acts of an evangelistic encounter provides us with sufficient evidence to argue that testimony to a particular truth was not given in that encounter.

An analysis of three other passages in Acts reinforces this point.

Acts 9

Very soon after his salvation, Paul “preached Christ in the synagogues that He is the Son of God” (9:20). He “confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ” (9:22).

After Paul had come to Jerusalem, Barnabas informed the apostles that Paul “had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus” (9:27). In Jerusalem, Paul then “spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus” (9:29).

Some have argued from these statements that Paul preached only about Christ in these messages. Luke’s later record of Paul’s own testimony before king Agrippa about his ministry in Damascus shows that it is illegitimate to argue in this manner:

Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance (26:19-20).

Paul emphatically testified that he had declared first in Damascus that the Gentiles “should repent and turn to God.” This testimony shows that Luke’s earlier record of Paul’s same ministry in Damascus is not exhaustive and is not intended to be taken as evidence that Paul had not preached repentance toward God in those messages.

Acts 13

Luke informs us that Barnabas and Saul entered a synagogue in Antioch in Pisidia on a Sabbath day (13:14). He tells us that there was a reading of the law and the prophets (13:15) followed by Paul’s message (13:16-41).

Many have overlooked the contribution of the reading from the OT to the total testimony received by Paul’s hearers on this occasion. We have no way of knowing what content his hearers received through that reading prior to his message. We, therefore, cannot legitimately assert with certainty that they did not receive testimony in this evangelistic encounter to any particular truth that is taught in the OT.

Acts 16

Following the miraculous events that took place, the Philippian jailor asked Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (16:30). They responded, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (16:31).

Based on these statements, a person argued with me years ago that the jailor was saved without testimony to the resurrection. The next verse, however, makes clear that he was not saved just hearing that one sentence: “And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house” (16:32).

Paul and Silas testified more from the word of the Lord than just what verse 31 records. Luke does not tell us what that additional testimony was. Because we know that the record of the testimony that the jailor received is not exhaustive, it is illegitimate to say with certainty that he did not receive testimony to any particular truth, especially to God’s raising Jesus from the dead.

The following verses implicitly confirm this assessment. Luke tells us that the jailor was baptized (16:33), but he does not tell us how it came about that he knew that he was to be baptized and that he assented to that act. Plainly, we are to understand that Paul and Silas bore testimony to him to do so.

Luke concludes his record by saying, “And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house” (16:34). Although it is possible that Luke intends for us from this statement to believe that these people believed in Jesus as God, it is at least equally likely that this statement reflects their salvation through belief in testimony about God the Father’s raising Jesus from the dead and through their subsequent confession of Jesus as Lord (cf. Rom. 10:9-10).

Along with the statements in Acts 2, these statements from Acts 9, 13, and 16 further teach us that we should not take the lack of mention of any particular truth in an evangelistic account in Acts as proof that no testimony to that truth was given in that encounter.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

Scripture provides us with numerous evangelistic accounts, especially in the book of Acts. Because such material comprises a sizeable portion of one key book of the NT, we should be all the more diligent to handle it as accurately as possible.

Over the years, however, I have observed recurrent problems in the handling of the evangelistic accounts in Acts. One of the most problematic aspects has been the widespread unwarranted assumption that what the evangelist(s) testified in a given evangelistic encounter was limited to what Luke records. In his very first account, Luke provides us with explicit indications that such was not the case.

Acts 2 records Peter’s message at Pentecost. Luke provides us with a lengthy record of the witness that Peter gave, including 23 verses about his actual message (2:14-36). He, however, also provides us with two explicit statements that show that we do not know the entirety of the witness given on this occasion.

First, prior to Peter’s message, Luke records that the crowd were “all amazed and marvelled” because of what they were hearing (2:7). They said, “We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God” (2:11). Luke does not tell us anything more about what this testimony included, and we have no definitive way of accounting for what information the crowd received at this time that prepared them for Peter’s message. Because the filling of the Holy Spirit supernaturally produced this testimony (2:4), we must hold that this was information that played a divinely ordained part in the ultimate salvation of the approximately 3,000 people that were saved that day (2:41).

Because we do not know exactly what testimony the crowd received immediately prior to Peter’s message, we cannot say with certainty that Peter did not testify a particular truth to them. Thus, this aspect of the record of Peter’s evangelism at Pentecost teaches us that it is not legitimate to use this passage as evidence for arguing against other teaching about what we should testify in our evangelism (for example, 10:42).

Second, Luke records that the crowd responded to Peter’s message by saying, “Brethren, what shall we do?” (2:37). Peter responded with authoritative direction (2:38) and an explanation of that direction (2:39). Luke then adds, “And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this untoward generation'” (2:40).

Luke specifies that Peter gave them “many other words” of testimony and exhortation and summarizes that ministry with a six-word statement that plainly does not record all that Peter gave them at this time. Saying this, Luke provides us with a second explicit indicator that he has not given us a record of all the testimony that these people received on this occasion. We thus do not and cannot know exhaustively what these people did hear to be saved.

Because the Pentecost account is the first evangelistic encounter that Luke records, we are justified in approaching it with special regard from that literary standpoint. Given that fact, Luke’s giving us two explicit indications that he has not given us an exhaustive record of the testimony given on that occasion is noteworthy and implicitly instructs us that we should not regard any of the following accounts in the book as an exhaustive record.

Furthermore, because the Pentecost account records both the first instance of apostolic evangelism after the Ascension and the beginning of the Church, it is one of the most important evangelistic accounts in Scripture. It is also one of the longest recorded evangelistic accounts. In addition to its being the first recorded evangelistic account in Acts, these facts make Luke’s not giving us an exhaustive record of it even more significant.

Based, therefore, on the two explicit indicators from the Pentecost account about its not being an exhaustive record (2:11, 40), we should learn to handle the evangelistic accounts in Acts more accurately by not viewing them as exhaustive records of what was testified on those occasions. The lack of mention of a particular truth in any of the accounts in Acts does not definitively tell us that there was no testimony given to that truth in that evangelistic encounter.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.