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.