By RajeshG on
Forum category
Bible, Theology & Philosophy
Topic tags
hermeneutics
Acts
NT interpretation
1

In my more than 36 years as a believer, I have encountered several serious problems with viewpoints about the book of Acts that other believers have held that I believe show that they have not handled the book properly. I have had many intense discussions with people about them and have sought in various ways to address these problems, including through preaching, teaching, and writing articles about them.

Many of these problems concern viewpoints about what the apostles did or did not preach when they evangelized people. Most recently, the problem concerned to what extent authentic demonic activity extends into the book of Acts.

Without exception, all of these problematic handlings of the book of Acts have had at least one thing in common---faulty claims made from comparing and contrasting what is actually recorded in the various accounts in the book. How such differences in the accounts should be correctly handled is certainly an important hermeneutical matter for a right understanding of NT interpretation.

0
0

Discussion

Sun, 10/04/26

In his book, "Missionary Methods: St. Paul's or Our's?", Roland Allen asserts the following concerning Paul's preaching at Athens:

There is no setting forth of the Gospel. . . . It is important to notice how carefully St Luke calls attention to the meagre results of the preaching in Athens. It is almost certain that the emphasis which St Paul puts upon 'the Cross' in his preaching at Corinth marks, and is meant to mark, a difference between his preaching at Athens and his preaching at Corinth. . . . The charge made against St Paul at Thessalonica was that he was preaching the Kingdom of Christ, 'that there is another King, one Jesus'. But of this there is not a hint in the speeches [at Lystra and at Athens].

In the light of these facts, it is, I think, impossible to maintain that the speeches at Lystra and Athens represent St Paul's Gospel. (66-67)

By drawing wrong conclusions from his faulty comparisons of the records in certain passages in Acts to other passages in Acts and the Epistles, Allen, in effect, wrongly asserts that Paul did not preach the gospel in Athens.

He claims that Paul did not preach about the Cross at Athens and did not speak about Jesus as the King because those truths are not mentioned in Luke's summary of Paul's preaching in Athens.

I have repeatedly observed similarly faulty handling of many accounts in Acts through people's arguing that what is not mentioned by Luke in various accounts shows that testimony to certain facts or truths was in fact not given in the messages in those accounts. Asserting that Luke's not mentioning something in a given account in Acts shows that testimony to that thing was not given in that account is faulty hermeneutics.

0
0

Fri, 10/09/26

Agree that when we see a sermon in narrative, we are not necessarily seeing the whole thing.

My conclusion on the Athens sermon is that we do not know if Paul included the gospel or not. Because Luke, as inspired, chose not to include it, we can at least conclude that the gospel was not Paul’s emphasis there. By omission, Luke does not emphasize it.

I’m not sure the results at Athens were “meagre” though. What I mean is that everywhere isn’t the same. We don’t do the same things necessarily, but even if we did, people do not have the same starting point everywhere. Every individual is unique. Every group of individuals is unique.

So there is a comparison we are not able to make with the information we have:

  • Results at Athens without a strong gospel emphasis
  • Results at Athens with a strong gospel emphasis

We do not get to see it playing out two different ways to compare the results.

We also don’t know long-term results vs. short-term results of the strategy Paul chose there.

To me, the apostle’s approach in Athens absolutely makes sense and the results do as well—not because it was poor strategy but because it was that kind of audience.

A takeaway: We should always talk to the people in front of us, not talk “at” them using some canned, pre-chosen, one-size-fits all approach.

Consider Jesus’ ministry. He does not talk to Nicodemus the same way He talks to the Samaritan woman. Other examples exist.

Have a real conversation. Even it’s a ‘pulpit’ style talk, have a real conversation.

(Edit to add this argument: God is not so weak that He needs us to spell things out in every single conversation/sermon. In other words, He is going to do just fine in His process of drawing those He will redeem—and He is more than able to use a pre-evangelistic/pre-gospel interaction as part of that process. We are not limiting Him if we don’t get the whole gospel story out every time. There is planting. There is watering. God gives the increase.)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

0
2

Sat, 10/10/26

Aaron Blumer wrote: My conclusion on the Athens sermon is that we do not know if Paul included the gospel or not. Because Luke, as inspired, chose not to include it, we can at least conclude that the gospel was not Paul’s emphasis there. By omission, Luke does not emphasize it.

My view is that Paul definitely preached the gospel in his sermon at Mars Hill, and Luke has chosen to include it. The very essence of the gospel is the resurrection of Christ--Luke explicitly tells us that Paul preached that God raised Him from the dead:

Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. 30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

More than 15 years ago, I wrote the following brief post that explains my view that Pauline gospel ministry at its very essence was to evangelize Jesus and the Resurrection:

Evangelize Jesus and the Resurrection!

Rajesh GandhiFebruary 15, 2011

Concerning apostolic evangelism, few chapters in Scripture provide as much important information as Acts 17 does. With great skillfulness, Luke presents the Apostle Paul’s evangelistic ministry in multiple settings. The chapter records Paul’s evangelizing in three cities (Thessalonica, Berea, and Athens) on at least five separate occasions. We learn of his gospel ministry to Jews and Gentiles, men and women, rich and poor people, devout people and philosophers, and people in synagogues, in the marketplace, and at the Areopagus.

Thorough attention to all that Acts 17 records shows emphasis on Pauline proclamation of “Jesus and the Resurrection” at the beginning, the middle, and the end of the chapter (17: 3, 18, 32). Despite this consistent element of his preaching, some scholars and not a few preachers have asserted, in effect, that Paul more or less “failed” in his gospel ministry at the Areopagus. Lack of explicit record to his testifying concerning faith in the name of Jesus, the Cross, and Jesus as Savior lead many to regard this passage as a record of his departing from his normal evangelistic strategy . . .

0
1

Wed, 10/14/26

There is a lot in Acts 17:29, for sure. And I’d forgotten how much is there!

If we take 1 Cor 15:1-5 as the definition of the whole gospel message, the key elements are sin, Jesus’ death and His resurrection. There are some necessary inferences there also, though: that we are all accountable to God and need of redemption. That’s kind of packed into the word ‘sin.’

But did Paul preach the gospel at Athens if he did not name the name of Jesus?

Ah, but he must have. I had a whole post written then had to rewrite it because of Acts 17:18

Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean.” 21 Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2025. Print.

So, I’m compelled to agree with you, Rajesh, that Paul did preach the whole gospel at Athens.

The way he shapes his message is quite interesting, but the fact that he focused so much on resurrection argues for a kind of wise confrontationalism strategy. It’s well packaged for the audience, but he does not hold back—I mean, he had to know the resurrection in particular was not a place he was likely to find common ground.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

0
1

Wed, 10/14/26

pvawter wrote: Who is Roland Allen? What makes his view representative or important?

I found the following information online about Roland Allen and his book:


Author:

Roland Allen

Title:

Missionary Methods: St. Paul's or Ours? Roland Allen Author

ISBN:

0802810012

The following text was generated with support from AI programs.

About the work

The work Missionary Methods by Allen, Roland explores the historical and practical evolution of how Christian outreach has been conceived, organized, and enacted across cultures and generations, making it a foundational text for students of missiology and church history. The full title and 13-digit ISBN are Missionary Methods (9780802810014).

Summary

Roland Allen surveys classic and contemporary strategies of mission work, tracing the shift from direct evangelism to institutional structures and back toward a more intimate, context-driven approach. He examines the motives, methods, and consequences of missionary practices, emphasizing the central role of local leadership, indigenous churches, and the gospel's adaptability to diverse sociocultural landscapes. The book blends historical analysis with practical guidance, challenging readers to rethink prescriptive models and to prioritize mission that empowers communities rather than perpetuates dependency.

About the author

Roland Allen (1868–1942) was a prominent Anglican missionary and theologian renowned for his critical examination of missionary methods and ecclesiology. His work combines rigorous historical scholarship with a fervent, reformist passion, advocating for autonomous, self-sustaining churches rooted in local contexts. Allen’s ideas influenced subsequent missiological thought and sparked debates about missionary authority, contextualization, and sustainable church planting.

In brief

Missionary Methods challenges conventional strategies by urging methods that empower indigenous leadership and contextualized, Gospel-centered church growth.

I profoundly disagree with his treatment, "The Substance of St Paul's Preaching," in this book. His views are representative of much wrong handling of Acts and of faulty claims made about apostolic evangelism that I have repeatedly encountered in my years as a believer. He is a published example of someone who was influential in the past who came to faulty views because he drew wrong conclusions from comparing accounts in Acts and making erroneous claims based on differences among the accounts.

0
0

Wed, 10/14/26

Aaron Blumer wrote: The way he shapes his message is quite interesting, but the fact that he focused so much on resurrection argues for a kind of wise confrontationalism strategy. It’s well packaged for the audience, but he does not hold back—I mean, he had to know the resurrection in particular was not a place he was likely to find common ground.

Throughout my Christian life, I have endeavored on numerous occasions to inform believers of the centrality of the Resurrection in biblical evangelism. I have found it very disturbing how wanting so many writings about evangelism are in emphasis on the Resurrection. One of the most problematic is Grudem's treatment of the gospel call in his theology in which he shockingly does not speak of the Resurrection! (I do not know if more recent editions of his book have addressed this matter or not.)

0
0

Thu, 10/15/26

RajeshG wrote: views are representative of much wrong handling of Acts and of faulty claims made about apostolic evangelism that I have repeatedly encountered in my years as a believer.

If his views are truly representative, then I'd think you could show us some others who have published similar opinions. I'm not really clear on what you mean by apostolic evangelism and what kind of faulty claims are prevalent. Is it just this question of whether Paul preached the gospel in Athens?

0
0

Thu, 10/15/26

pvawter wrote: If his views are truly representative, then I'd think you could show us some others who have published similar opinions. I'm not really clear on what you mean by apostolic evangelism and what kind of faulty claims are prevalent. Is it just this question of whether Paul preached the gospel in Athens?

I do not think that you are understanding what I am wanting to address. In my Christian experience, numerous people have mishandled passages in Acts because they have claimed that because one passage says that something was said in that evangelistic encounter, but another passage does not have that same content in it, that means that testimony to that content was not given in the event recorded in the second passage.

For example, I have had Christians argue with me that the Philippian jailor was saved without hearing about the Resurrection of Christ because Acts 16:31 does not mention anything about the Resurrection of Christ.

Similarly, some have said that sometimes the apostles preached that people should repent and other times they preached that people should believe and sometimes they told people to do both.

A careful handling of Acts and other content in the NT shows that such claims are based on a faulty handling of many passages based on what is and is not recorded in those passages.

0
0

Sun, 10/18/26

So is this based on one conversation you had with a random person years ago? What I'm trying to figure out is if there is a defined hermeneutical method that you're reacting to or isolated errors you've encountered.

0
0

Mon, 10/19/26

pvawter wrote: So is this based on one conversation you had with a random person years ago? What I'm trying to figure out is if there is a defined hermeneutical method that you're reacting to or isolated errors you've encountered.

I believe that there is definitely a hermeneutical issue here that needs attention. I have already presented evidence from what Allen and Grudem have said that is faulty. Add to that at least one conversation with another Christian training for ministry about his holding that people were saved without hearing about the Resurrection based simply on an account's not mentioning testimony to the Resurrection.

In addition, I have found at least one church website and several gospel tracts that do not mention anything about the Resurrection in their treatment of the gospel. Moreover, in a class that I had many years ago, those training for ministry were given printed material that was supposed to provide us with a model evangelistic sermon. It's been too long for me to remember now exactly what was the problem with that material, but it was either that there was no mention of the Resurrection in it or there was a very minimal and profoundly inadequate presentation of it.

There is a widespread mishandling of the book of Acts that stems from a wrong handling of comparisons about what the passages do or do not explicitly say.

0
0

Tue, 10/20/26

In my latest blog post, I bring out another aspect of apostolic evangelism that has been widely misunderstood through a wrong handling of the book of Acts.

By drawing wrong conclusions from comparisons of what is and isn’t mentioned in the various accounts in Acts, many have come to faulty conclusions about apostolic evangelism.

Whether repentance was preached in a particular evangelistic encounter or not is a key aspect of apostolic evangelism that has been misunderstood through such mishandling of Acts.

Holding that repentance was not preached in any recorded encounter in Acts if the summary record of that encounter does not explicitly say that repentance was preached is a profoundly wrong handling of the book of Acts because comparing certain accounts of apostolic evangelism to other statements about apostolic evangelism shows us that such was not the case, as follows.

The earliest accounts of Pauline evangelism in Damascus do not have any explicit statements about his proclamation of repentance:

Acts 9:20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

Acts 9:22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.

Acts 9:29 And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.

Concluding that he therefore did not tell anyone to repent in these evangelistic encounters is refuted by Paul’s own emphatic statements at a much later time in his life that explicitly mention what he did in Damascus:

Acts 26:19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: 20 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.

Based on the multifacetedly comprehensive nature of what Paul testifies in these verses about his practice everywhere throughout his apostolic lifetime, the correct approach to understanding what he did in his evangelistic encounters in Damascus and in every subsequent Pauline evangelistic encounter recorded in the book of Acts is to hold that Paul did tell those people to repent and do works fitting for repentance—regardless of whether the report in the book of Acts says that he did that or not.

0
0