In today’s Christian culture, we can sometimes get the idea that there is “the right way” or “the best way” to share Jesus with someone. There are all kinds of techniques and methods, many presented by well-meaning Jesus followers, but they are pitched to us as the “most effective” or “most biblical” approach to preach, teach or explain the gospel. If it’s true that there is one best, most effective and biblical way, then by all means, let’s use it! But it seems to me that the Bible paints a different picture regarding the options we have when giving the good news.

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Paul lays out the content of the gospel with these 5 points: 1. Jesus is the Messiah (v. 3).[1] 2. Jesus died for our sins according to the Scripture (v. 3). 3. Jesus was buried (v. 4). 4. Jesus was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (v. 4). 5. Jesus appeared to others (v.5).[2] In this passage, we find crystal clarity on what the core of the gospel entails. But we just have to look at one chapter of Acts to see that even Paul, who spelled out the contents of the gospel above, didn’t present the gospel in the same way every time he shared it.

In Acts 17:1-9, we read that Paul had to reason, explain and give evidence for the contents of the gospel to the Jewish and Greek Thessalonians.[3] When he left there and went to Berea, Acts 17:10-15 records that the gospel conversations between Paul, the Jews and the Greeks took the form of an Old Testament Bible study, since the Bereans accepted the contents of the gospel. But as Paul then moved to Athens, where the unbelieving crowd knew Greek philosophy rather than the Old Testament Scriptures, Acts 17:16-33 tells us that Paul used general cultural and religious observations, and cited pagan poets, before giving the contents of the gospel.

In all three of these contexts, Paul presented the core of the life-changing gospel of Jesus. But in each of these three contexts, he presented the contents of that gospel in different ways, depending on the people to whom he was speaking. So, brothers and sisters, when the Holy Spirit prompts you to share the gospel with someone, while you want to be sure that WHAT you say is grounded in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, know that HOW you say it should depend on whom you are speaking with and what will best allow them to understand our amazing Savior.

You may be asking, “but what about results; how do they factor into the evangelism equation?” Acts 17 is helpful here, as well, if we assume that Paul is a faithful example as an evangelist. We see that some in Thessalonica “were persuaded” (v. 4), but that he was run out of town by an agitated, angry mob. In Berea, “many of them believed” (v. 12), but he was run out of that town, too. Finally, in Athens, “some men [and at least one woman] joined him and believed” (v. 34). So, Paul’s varied evangelism strategy in these three cities has a textbook case of mixed results.[4] Since this is true, we clearly can’t measure our effectiveness in presenting the gospel by how people respond. It seems much better to use the “metric,” which is more like a posture, laid out by James Sire. He’s primarily addressing the apologetic task but his approach is applicable to the evangelistic task, as well, as he rightly points out.

What we need to develop is an apologetic that is both cogent … and persuasive to as many people as possible. But we must not be discouraged and think our apologetic is ineffective if many or even most people find our arguments unconvincing. Success in witnessing is simply communicating Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit and leaving the results to God. Similarly, effectiveness in apologetics is presenting cogent and persuasive arguments for the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, and leaving the results to God.[5]

The most biblical way to present the gospel, then, is the way that your audience will hear it. This requires maintaining biblical fidelity, retaining cultural sensitivity, discerning contextual relevance and expressing dependence on the Spirit.[6] Balancing all of these can be a challenge, but that’s what the Bible calls us to. And once we’ve faithfully presented the good news of Jesus, we let the Holy Spirit be in charge of the results.

Notes

[1] Some commentators claim that 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 contains only three points, like C.K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, HNTC (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1968), 337-41. Others conclude that the passage contains four points, like Mark Taylor, 1 Corinthians, NAC 28 (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992), 371-74. I opt for five points because Paul intentionally uses “Christ”—his main messianic title—to signify that it is Jesus as Messiah who died, was buried, rose again, and appeared. Gordon D. Fee, while breaking the Gospel down into four points, indicates the special significance of Paul’s use of “Christ” as a messianic title in this passage. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1987), 721-29.

[2] For other Pauline articulations of the gospel, see Romans 1:1-4, Galatians 3:8, and 2 Timothy 2:8. Matthew W. Bates provides a helpful, even if at times idiosyncratic, overview of Paul’s gospel message, including a focus on I Corinthians 15:3-5, in his article, “Gospel,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 2nd ed., ed. Scot McKnight, Lynn H. Cohick, and Nijay Gupta (Downer Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2023), 380-392.

[3] See Douglas S. Huffman, The Story of Jesus Continues: A Survey of the Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2025), 421, for an explanation as to why Paul had to explain a suffering, dying and rising Messiah to a Jewish audience.

[4] Huffman, The Story of Jesus Continues, 421, 424, 435, 437. See also, Darrell L. Bock, Acts, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 548-49, 553, 557, 570. Bock summarizes the Thessalonian episode with words that easily capture the reality of all three encounters: “All of this leads to the mixed and culturally debated reception Paul receives. This mixed reaction is the way the world responds to the Gospel” 548-49.

[5] James W. Sire, Why Good Arguments Often Fail: Making a More Persuasive Case for Christ (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2006), 70-71. See ch. 10 for Sire’s philosophical breakdown of Paul’s time in Athens from Acts 17.

[6] John B. Pohill, in his concluding comments on Acts 17, calls Paul’s method “bridge building.” “Paul was attempting to build bridges with the intellectuals in Athens in the hope of winning some (cf. 1 Cor 9:19). He used their language, quoted their poets, and sought to reach them in terms they would understand. …Bridge building is essential in Christian witness, particularly when addressing different cultures. … Paul’s Areopagus address provides both a precedent and a pattern for this essential task.” Acts, NAC 26 (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992), 377-78. I believe Pohill’s “bridge-building” applies to Paul’s efforts in Thessalonica and Berea, as much as it does in Athens.