Evangelism | A People for His Name

Archives For Evangelism

Is "Heads Bowed, Eyes Closed . . ." Inherently an Unscriptural Manipulative Practice?

July 17, 2012

Many believers today hold that the giving of an invitation at the end of a service is inherently an unscriptural manipulative practice. They believe that this is especially the case if the minister instructs the congregation to bow their heads and close their eyes with no one looking around and then forcefully challenges people to respond to the message by coming forward. They often assert that Scripture provides little to no support for the giving of such an invitation.

Instead of using an invitation, some ministers end their services typically with a brief time of prayer in which people are encouraged to respond to what they have heard. Often, this instruction is coupled with a statement that the minister will be available after the service to talk with any people who are interested in learning more.

Does the Scripture support these perspectives about what should and should not be done in services after the preaching?

Heads Bowed, Eyes Closed?

Preachers routinely ask their people to bow in prayer with them in numerous contexts, such as before receiving the Lord’s Supper, ordaining deacons, and dedicating children. The (legitimate) assumption in these settings is that people will close their eyes when they bow their heads.

Scripture supports a sinner’s bowing his head (presumably with his eyes closed) in the presence of Deity, when approaching God, or encountering a messenger of God:

“And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, ³ And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant” (Gen. 18:2-3).

“And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, ¹⁶ And fell down on his face at His feet, giving Him thanks: and he was a Samaritan” (Luke 17:15).

“And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18:13).

“And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last” (Rev. 1:17).

These passages (and others like them) support instructing people to bow their heads and close their eyes when they are approaching God in prayer. Telling lost people, many of whom have had no prior instruction about how to approach God properly, to do so makes perfect sense and is fitting with guiding them in approaching God with humility, as they must.

No One Looking Around?

Instructing people to close their eyes should make saying that no one is to be looking around unnecessary. These words probably, therefore, are spoken to put at greater ease people who want to respond but who also worry about other people’s seeing them respond to the message.

Is this a biblical perspective? The only passage in Scripture that actually records a church service taking place does not seem to support this notion:

“But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: ²⁵ And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you [plural you] of a truth” (1 Cor. 14:24-25).

The act of falling down on one’s face and reporting to the congregation what God has done in your heart does not support merely making a private response. It also does not support putting sinners at greater relative ease for making a response. (For a fuller treatment of 1 Cor. 14:23-25, see my post The Consummation of Public Worship)

Come Forward?

Telling people to come forward after a message is consistent with the response related above in 1 Corinthians 14:25 in which a sinner who is convicted in a church service publicly abases himself and publicly reports to the congregation that God has truly worked in his heart through their ministry to him. It is also consistent with other Scriptural teaching that God requires abasing oneself from those who would come to Him for forgiveness (2 Chron. 7:14; cf. Jonah 3:5, 6, 8).

Conclusion

Instructing sinners to bow their heads and close their eyes as they approach God in prayer is biblical. Informing them about pastoral availability after the service is one possible way to encourage them to go beyond praying.

Challenging sinners whom God has convicted in a service, however, to come forward is supported by epistolary teaching showing that a fitting response in such a situation involves publicly abasing oneself and informing the congregation about what God has done for them. Such a response is consistent with other passages about what God demands from sinners who would come to him for forgiveness of their sins.

Although Scripture thus supports the use of a “head bowed, eyes closed . . .” invitation, such invitations have often been misused in years past. A minister who uses such an invitation must do so with great care so that he is not manipulative in what he does.

In Evangelism, Ministry, Preaching

Learning Interpretation from an Examination of Jonah 3

July 9, 2012

The evangelistic accounts in Scripture have often been handled in ways that obscure a proper understanding of apostolic doctrine and practice. A close look at Jonah 3 brings out a key point that many believers need to pay more attention to when they handle such accounts.

Jonah “began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, ‘Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown’” (3:4). He briefly records their response to his preaching: “So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them” (Jon. 3:5).

Jonah also informs us that the king had heeded his warning properly: “For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes” (3:6). Not only did the king respond rightly himself, but he also directed his people to do so as well:

⁷ And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: ⁸ But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. ⁹ Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

Jonah ends the account by recording that God graciously spared Nineveh: “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not” (3:10).

Several points about this account that are easily overlooked instruct us about how we should handle other evangelistic accounts as well.

First, Jonah makes clear that the people’s right response was the result of their heeding a decree from the king (and his nobles) that instructed them about what they were to do in response to Jonah’s preaching: “So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth . . . For word came unto the king . . . and he caused it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let . . .” (3:5-7a).

The people’s response, therefore, was not just due to their own response to what Jonah had preached to them; it was due both to their believing his preaching to them and to their heeding the directive they were given by the king about how they were to respond.

Second, Jonah informs us that the king directed the people to respond in at least four specific ways:

(1) Fasting – “Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water”;

(2) Covering with sackcloth – “But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth”;

(3) Praying to God – “and cry mightily unto God”;

(4) Turning from evil – “yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands” (3:7b-8).

This four-fold response may be summarized as their needing to repent and pray to God.

Third, Jonah explicitly records that the people heeded three of the four aspects of the king’s decree: fasting (“proclaimed a fast” [3:5]); covering with sackcloth (“and put on sackcloth” [3:5]); and, turning from evil (“God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way” [3:10]). He, however, provides no explicit indication that they obeyed the aspect of the decree that commanded them to pray to God.

How this lack of an explicit record of their praying should be interpreted points to a vital aspect of interpreting this evangelistic account properly: Does the lack of explicit mention of their praying to God mean that they disobeyed the king’s directive to pray? Or, did they heed his directive to pray, and the writer expects us to understand that they did so even though he does not bother to mention it explicitly?

The flow of thought from verse 5 to verses 6-10 shows that we are to hold the latter understanding as the correct one. Verse 5 is the writer’s summary statement of their response; it is not exhaustive, as verse 10 plainly shows. Verse 6 explains that what they did was because of the directive they had received from the king, which Jonah explains in verse 8 as having including direction to pray to God.

We, therefore, should hold that the Ninevehites did pray to God as part of their response to Jonah’s preaching. Furthermore, verse 10 says that God responded graciously to them, which would not have been the case had the people refused to “cry mightily unto God.”

On this reading, Jonah 3 teaches us that evangelistic accounts that say that the people believed and/or repented should be understood as summary statements that indicate that they also prayed to God, whether or not the passage records explicitly that they did so. This interpretation has important ramifications for many NT passages that some see as evidence that the people who were saved did not pray as a part of their salvation experience.

Support for this approach to interpreting evangelistic accounts is provided by a comparison of Acts 9 and 26. Acts 9:20 inform us that Paul preached in the synagogues of Damascus that Christ is the Son of God. Luke provides no information about Paul’s preaching repentance to them; should we then hold that Paul did not tell the people in Damascus to repent?

Acts 26:20 states that Paul did preach repentance in Damascus, which indicates to us that Luke did not intend for us to conclude from the lack of mention of that content in his report of Paul’s preaching in Acts 9:20 that Paul in fact did not preach repentance in Damascus. The comparison of these two passages instructs us not to interpret the lack of mention of specific content in an evangelistic account as evidence that no testimony to that content was in fact given on that occasion.

Based on the evidence from Jonah 3, we should hold that evangelistic accounts that record people’s getting saved but do not say that they prayed to do so are not evidence that they did not pray as an aspect of their salvation experience. Rather, we should hold that they did pray, and that the Scripture writers expect us to understand that they did do so in spite of the lack of explicit statements in the accounts that inform us that they did pray.

In Evangelism, Interpretation

Hope for the USA Based on the Amazing Parallel between 2 Chronicles 7:14 and Jonah 3!

July 6, 2012

Hearing Jonah’s proclamation of the upcoming destruction of Nineveh (Jon. 3:4), the Ninevehites responded with faith (3:5a) and repentance (3:5b-c; cf. “And God saw their works that they turned from their evil way” [3:10a]). Because they did so, God relented of the punishment that He had purposed to bring upon them (3:10b).

The people’s right response to the warning of impending judgment was brought about by the proper response of their king (and his nobles) to that warning (the causal connection is clear from the word for that causally links 3:5 with 3:6-9):

Jon 3:5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.

⁶ For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.

⁸ But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.

⁹ Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

The king humbled himself (3:6) and directed that the entire city be given specific direction about what they were to do (3:7-8). In addition to fasting (3:7b), all were to cover themselves with sackcloth (3:8a), which would be an outward act of humbling themselves in keeping with their humbling themselves in their hearts.

The king also decreed all to “cry mightily unto God” (3:7c) and turn each one “from his evil way” and from their violence (3:7d). He explained that the intent of the decree was that they might not perish if God perhaps would relent from punishing them for their wickedness (3:9).

God did spare them from His judgment, and this analysis shows that He did so because they believed, repented, and prayed to Him (3:10).

Moreover, the decree by the king of Nineveh strikingly parallels the instruction that God had given to Solomon many years earlier:

Instruction to Solomon	Instruction in the Decree by the King of Nineveh
“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves,	“So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. . . .He [the king] arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. . . . , Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth”
and pray, and seek my face,	and cry mightily unto God:
and turn from their wicked ways;	yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (2 Chron. 7:14).	And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not” (Jon. 3:5-10).

This parallel shows that the truth of 2 Chronicles 7:14 was fulfilled for a pagan nation that very likely had never heard anything about that great promise of God to His own people! How much more would the truth of 2 Chronicles 7:14 be fulfilled for the USA, a country which has had far more knowledge of God than the Ninehevites ever had, were we to believe God, repent, and pray to Him, as they did!

In the hope that the amazing parallel between 2 Chronicles 7:14 and Jonah 3 provides for us who are alive today in the USA, let us all humble ourselves, pray, seek His face, and turn from our wicked ways while there is yet time. Let us also make known to as many other people as we can the great hope that God holds out for our country if we all will believe Him, repent, and pray to Him!

In Evangelism, Exhortation, Interpretation

Forgiveness of Sin through a Directive both to Repent and to Pray

June 26, 2012

Hearing Philip’s preaching of the gospel, Simon “himself believed also” and was then baptized (Acts 8:13). A close look at the subsequent record of his life (8:18-24) brings out an important point that is often overlooked in current discussions of evangelism.

Upon observing that believers had received the Spirit through the laying on of hands by the apostles, Simon offered them money to obtain the same authority (8:18-19). Peter sternly rebuked him for his ungodly request: “But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God” (8:20-21).

Peter then instructed Simon what he needed to do in order be forgiven by God: “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity” (8:22-23). Simon showed that he was unrepentant by refusing to pray (8:24).

This account explicitly records an apostle’s demanding that a sinner do more than just repent (and believe) and thereby trust in the finished work of Christ. Peter demanded that Simon repent and pray to God for the forgiveness of his sin.

This passage does not support the assertions that some have made that Scripture has no evangelistic accounts where someone was directed to pray in order to receive the forgiveness of their sins. Peter’s evangelistic dealing with Simon provides us with explicit biblical basis for directing sinners to repent (and believe) and pray to receive the forgiveness of their sins.

Moreover, in the flow of thought of the passage, Peter’s directive to Simon was not just a demand that he pray generically concerning his sinfulness. Peter specified that Simon repent and pray in order that his wicked thought, which Peter had specifically confronted him about earlier (8:20), might be forgiven.

From Peter, therefore, we learn not only to direct the sinners that we evangelize to pray in addition to their repenting (and believing) but also to direct them to pray specifically for the forgiveness of their sins that God has confronted them with through the previous evangelistic ministry that they have received. The account of Peter’s evangelizing Simon thus provides valuable instruction that needs to be accounted for properly in contemporary discussions about what we should do in evangelizing sinners.

In Evangelism

Learning Evangelism from a Vital Facet of Jesus' Evangelism

May 24, 2012

Jesus’ evangelizing a rich young ruler is recorded by each of the writers of the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 19:16-26; Mk. 10:17-27; Luke 18:18-27). Mark’s account reveals a vital facet of Jesus’ evangelism that teaches us key truths about our evangelism:

Mar 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

¹⁸ And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

¹⁹ Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

²⁰ And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.

²¹ Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

²² And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

This accounts relates how a rich young ruler knelt before Jesus and asked him a question that showed that he had a wrong focus on trying to earn his salvation (“what shall I do”; 10:17). Jesus responded with initial teaching (10:18-19) designed to challenge the young man, to which he responded, “Master, all these have I observed from my youth” (10:20).

Jesus then challenged him in a way that brought him to a decisive point where he would have to repent of his sinfulness (10:21). The young man was saddened by Jesus’ statement that confronted him with his need, and he departed in grief (10:22).

Mark is the only Gospel writer to record a particular aspect of how Jesus responded to this young man’s wrong first response to His evangelizing him: “Then Jesus beholding him, loved him” (10:21a). Amazingly, Jesus responded to this lost young man’s sinfulness by loving him!

The significance of this remarkable response is heightened because the record ends with the young man departing still unsaved. Even though he had been lovingly evangelized by the only perfect Evangelist, this young man failed to repent.

Scripture provides us with no further information about this man, so we have no way to know whether this man was ever saved. We are left with an account that reveals to us that perfect evangelism that included the expression of perfect love from a perfect evangelist still did not result in the salvation of the lost person being evangelized.

Based on this analysis, we learn several important points that should inform our evangelistic endeavors:

1. To be like Jesus in evangelism, we must love the people that we evangelize even though they may respond wrongly to our witnessing to them.

2. Such love must direct us to continue our witness to them in a way that confronts them decisively with their need to repent

3. Even when we faithfully and lovingly evangelize people as best as we can, there is no guarantee that they will respond correctly.

4. Rejection of our efforts to evangelize people lovingly as Jesus did should not be automatically interpreted as failure on our part

In Evangelism

Paul or John: A Noteworthy Comparison

May 12, 2012

Who went further in the knowledge of God—the apostle Paul or the apostle John? The following comparison points to an answer to this question that may be at odds with certain perspectives that many believers have been taught, especially concerning their understanding of gospel ministry.

COMPARISON

Based on the information that we have available, eight points of comparison between Paul and John should be noted:

Contact with John the Baptist

Paul : no information about his having contact personally with John the Baptist

John: disciple of John the Baptist

Discipleship experience with Jesus

Paul: disciple of Jesus after His resurrection appearance to Him; no information that Paul knew Him personally during His earthly ministry

John: disciple of Jesus since His earthly ministry who knew Him personally

Extent of knowledge of Jesus’ Miracles

Paul: no information that he knew of the miracles that Jesus did that were not recorded in Scripture

John: had first-hand knowledge of a multitude of signs that Jesus did that were not recorded in Scripture

Contact with Mary

Paul: no information about contact with Mary, the mother of Jesus

John: knew Mary personally; cared for her in his home after the Crucifixion; thus he very likely knew a vast amount of information about Jesus that we have no way of determining if Paul also had that information

Contact with the glorified Jesus

Paul: saw the glorified Jesus

John: last disciple to see the glorified Jesus

Vision of heaven

Paul: had a vision of heaven and saw and heard things that he was not allowed to share; thus we have no way of determining what Paul did or did not know as a result of that vision

John: had a vision of heaven and saw and heard a vast number of things that he was directed to write about for our profit; we have no way to know if Paul ever knew of this information or not; it is very likely that he never knew all that John knew in this respect

Profiting from other Scripture

Paul:

-likely had no knowledge of what John wrote in at least his letters and in Revelation;

-perhaps he also had only limited knowledge of much of what John wrote in his Gospel;

-may have profited from 1 & 2 Peter and Hebrews

-very likely did not have any access to the book of Jude

John:

-likely profited from all of Paul’s epistles for at least a decade and a half before writing any of his books

-very likely profited from 1 & 2 Peter and Hebrews

-likely profited from the book of Jude

Authoring of Scripture

Paul:

-Wrote 13 epistles; did not write a Gospel; did not write any book comparable to Revelation

-Did not write any of the final five books of the NT in the current topical order

-Did not write any of the final five books of the NT chronologically

John:

-Wrote 3 epistles (7 more epistles in Revelation 2-3); wrote the final Gospel long after the Synoptic Gospels (and also all the Pauline epistles) had been written; also wrote Revelation— John thus wrote three different genres of inspired NT books while Paul only wrote one; he has the unique honor of being the only one chosen by God to do so

-Wrote four of the five final books of the NT in the current topical order, including the last book

-Wrote all five of the final books of the NT chronologically; John thus gave us all the final inspired revelation that we have

DISCUSSION

Based on this information, it seems that we should hold that John, and not Paul, had the most profound knowledge of the things of God of any of the writers of Scripture. His writings, therefore, should be viewed as at least as theologically advanced as anything that Paul wrote.

Thus any analysis of a subject that does not thoroughly account for whatever John may have written about that subject is necessarily lacking and should not be accorded ultimate authoritative status for the doctrine and practice of the people of God. Moreover, when formulating our understanding of any subject, we should value whatever John may have written about that subject at least as much as anything that Paul has written.

APPLICATION

A key area in which our understanding of biblical truth and our practice needs to be addressed in light of the discussion above is our understanding of apostolic gospel ministry. Specifically, we must recognize that God did not give us everything that we need to know about this subject through Paul’s writings. For if he had, what need would there have been for yet another Gospel to be written after the Synoptics and the Pauline Epistles had already been written?

We must not, therefore, attach undue importance to passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 at the expense of key truths that we are taught through John’s record of Jesus’ own dealings with people in salvation accounts. For example, when each of the salvation accounts in John 3, 4, and 5 are thoroughly analyzed, we see that Jesus evangelized lost people with an emphasis on truths that are not mentioned explicitly in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (e.g., Jesus as the One sent by the Father; Christ as God’s judicial agent).

Our understanding, therefore, of apostolic gospel ministry cannot be limited basically to what Paul taught in this passage. We must fill out our understanding of it through truths that are taught in many other key passages, including several that are found in John 3-5.

In Gospel, Interpretation, Theology

Did Saul Inquire of God or Not?

May 5, 2012

First Samuel 28:6 says that Saul did inquire of the Lord, but 1 Chronicles 10:14 says that he did not:

1Sa 28:6 And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.

1Ch 10:13 ¶ So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; ¹⁴ And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.

How should we understand these seemingly contradictory statements?

John W. Haley argues,

It is sufficient to notice that two different Hebrew words [שָׁאוּל֙ vs. דָרַ֥שׁ ] of diverse meaning are employed here. Or, it may be correctly remarked that Saul’s attempts at inquiry were of so unworthy a nature that it would be an abuse of language to speak of him as really “inquiring of Jehovah.” (Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, 360)

Matthew Henry comments on 1 Samuel 28:6,

In this distress Saul enquired of the Lord, v. 6. Need drives those to God who in the day of their prosperity slighted his oracles and altars. Lord, in trouble have they visited thee, Isa. 26:16. Did ever any seek the Lord and not find him? Yes, Saul did; the Lord answered him not, took no notice either of his petitions or of his enquiries; gave him no directions what to do, nor any encouragement to hope that he would be with him. Should he be enquired of at all by such a one as Saul? Eze. 14:3. No, he could not expect an answer of peace, for, 1. He enquired in such a manner that it was as if he had not enquired at all. Therefore it is said (1 Chr. 10:14), He enquired not of the Lord; for he did it faintly and coldly, and with a secret design, if God did not answer him, to consult the devil. He did not enquire in faith, but with a double unstable mind. 2. He enquired of the Lord when it was too late, when the days of his probation were over and he was finally rejected. Seek the Lord while he may be found, for there is a time when he will not be found. 3. He had forfeited the benefit of all the methods of enquiry. Could he that hated and persecuted Samuel and David, who were both prophets, expect to be answered by prophets? Could he that had slain the high priest, expect to be answered by Urim? Or could he that had sinned away the Spirit of grace, expect to be answered by dreams? No. Be not deceived, God is not mocked. (Commentary on the Whole Bible, 431; bold is in italics in original)

On 1 Chronicles 10:14, he remarks,

It is said (1 Sa. 28:6) that Saul did enquire of the Lord and he answered him not: but here it is said, Saul did not enquire of God; for he did not till he was brought to the last extremity, and then it was too late. (Ibid., 567; bold is in italics in original)

Robert Jamieson comments on the words and enquired not of the Lord in 1 Chronicles 10:14,

He had done so in form (1 Sam. xxviii. 6), but not in the spirit of a humble penitent, nor with the believing confidence of a sincere worshipper. His enquiry was, in fact, a mere mockery, and his total want of all right religious impressions was manifested by his rushing from God to a wretched impostor in the service of the devil. (JFB, 1:475).

These sources provide satisfactory explanations that resolve the apparent contradiction between 1 Samuel 28:6 and 1 Chronicles 10:14.

These passages should warn us about inquiring of God in a manner, in a way, or at a point in time such that He would regard our doing so as our not inquiring of Him at all.

In Apologetics, Interpretation, Prayer

Does "All" Mean "All" in Acts 26:29?

April 19, 2012

In Caesarea, at his final defense before he was taken to be tried before Caesar in Rome, Paul testified before King Agrippa, Bernice, the chief captains, the principal men of the city, and the governor, Festus (Acts 25:23-26:32).He concluded his testimony before them by saying, “I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds” (26:29). Does all mean all in this statement?

Several commentators believe that Paul desired that his entire audience would become Christians. Bock remarks:

In verse 29 Paul’s reply is that whether it takes a short or a long time . . . , he would pray that all who are listening to him might become a Christian as he is, with one exception, namely, that they not share his chains of imprisonment. The reference to prayer indicates that Paul desires to intercede on behalf of all the audience to become Christians. . . . The reply clearly expresses his heart.

—Darrell L. Bock, Acts in ECNT, 723

Polhill comments:

His real prayer was that not just Agrippa but everyone in the audience room would become a Christian believer. At this point Paul may have made several gestures, turning and directly addressing all in the room.

—John B. Polhill, Acts in NAC, 509

Peterson says:

Paul expresses his desire to Agrippa in very personal terms . . . In so doing, he consciously widens his appeal to everyone present. Previously, he acknowledged that many in his audience might be skeptical about talk of resurrection of the dead (v. 8). However, just as in Athens he preached about ‘Jesus and the resurrection’ to Jews and Gentiles alike (17:18), so now he addresses all together.

—David G. Peterson, Acts in PNTC, 676.

In agreement with the views of these scholars, taking Paul’s use of all to mean the totality of his hearers on this occasion seems clearly to be the only natural reading of the text.

Given the composition of his audience on this occasion, Paul’s statement is thus striking because we do not read of any previous evangelistic encounters that he had had with authority figures and other prominent people that would have given him hope that all his present audience might become Christians (see Acts 17:32-34 for an example of an encounter with authorities that did not result in the salvation of his entire audience). Even so, Paul still desired that they would.

We should learn from Paul’s example here that in spite of our previous negative experiences and regardless of the seemingly unlikely-to-become-Christians composition of an audience whom we are evangelizing, we should desire that they all would become Christians.

In Evangelism, Interpretation, Quotes

Following Paul’s Evangelistic Emphasis in Challenging People about Doing “Works Meet for Repentance”

April 17, 2012

Paul repeatedly teaches that salvation is not earned through works that people do (Rom. 4:4-8; Eph. 2:8-10; Titus 3:5-6). A focus on this teaching, however, has led many to overlook an equally important Pauline evangelistic teaching concerning works: Paul emphasized that in his evangelism of all people everywhere, he challenged them that sinners must “do works meet for repentance” (Acts 26:20).

Peterson explains this emphasis well:

Paul recalls the geographical scope of his mission, ‘first to those in Damascus’ (cf. 9:20-25), ‘then to those in Jerusalem’ (cf. 9:26-30) ‘and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles’. He indicates that he conveyed the same message to all, declaring (apēngellon, ‘reporting’, ‘announcing’, ‘proclaiming’) ‘that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds’ (cf. 20:21). Challenged to preach repentance for the forgiveness of sins and a share in the messianic salvation …, Paul was as serious as John the Baptist in calling for deeds to demonstrate the genuineness of repentance (cf. Lk. 3:8; Acts 20:21). He understood conversion ‘not only in terms of forgiveness and faith, but also in terms of a full ethical transformation’

—David. G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles in PNTC, 670

Based on Paul’s testimony to this crucial emphasis that he had in his evangelism, we should be diligent to challenge the people to whom we witness “that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance” (Acts 26:20).

In Evangelism, Quotes

Evangelistic Testimony to Jesus' Miracles

April 13, 2012

At both Pentecost and Gentecost, the two premier accounts in Scripture of apostolic evangelism, Peter testified to Jesus’ miracles:

Act 2:22 ¶ Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Act 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

His testimony on both occasions highlights the work of God the Father in Jesus’ doing the miracles that He did: “miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him”; “healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.”

Peter’s example of doing so with both Jews and Gentiles strongly suggests to me that we should likewise emphasis the work of God the Father in our evangelistic testimony to Jesus’ miracles.

In Evangelism

Archives For Evangelism

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: