The Apostolic Gospel: Sinfulness

To review, the mood of the apostolic gospel as recorded in the Book of Acts consists of the Creator's goodness in calling sinful humans to gracious reconciliation with himself. Underlying this message are two fundamental presuppositions: monotheism and human sinfulness. The latter shall now be considered.

In harmony and continuity with the Jewish prophets of antiquity, Jesus and his apostles after him assumed the moral accountability of humanity to the one and only holy, almighty Creator, and the universal sinfulness of humanity. The Book of Acts explicitly includes the sin problem in nearly all of the gospel proclamations by means of various kinds of calls to repentance, warnings of judgment, and promises of forgiveness. Of the twelve instances I have identified in Acts which specifically record the content of the gospel proclaimed by the apostles, only two have no overt reference to human sinfulness as indicated by the aforementioned calls, warnings, and promises.

Nevertheless, I am persuaded that sinfulness was also addressed in each of these two instances. In the case of Paul's meeting with the local Roman Jewish leaders (Acts 28:17-28), several items raised by Paul clearly suggest that human sinfulness was an underlying theme in his communication of the gospel. These items include the kingdom of God, the law of Moses, and the concept of salvation. In the instance of Paul's proclamation in Thessalonica (Acts 17:2-3), the absence of an overt reference to human sinfulness is surely due to the brevity of the account given by Luke. Given that Paul was "explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead," it is to my mind inconceivable that this would not include the implicit subject of human sinfulness, especially in light of the evidence given in the other accounts of his gospel proclamations.

In addition, it's worthwhile to consider the cultural-religious milieu in which the apostles communicated the gospel. In their first century context two types of “guilt” and corresponding “sin” consciousness were generally prevalent among the people to whom the gospel was preached. The Jews of course were well aware of the concepts of personal and corporate sin against a holy God and the corollary of human guilt. Since the gospel arose among the Jewish people in the first place, there was no major breach of categorical thought to be surmounted concerning these issues when the gospel was communicated to them.

It’s the Greco-Roman peoples however that generally had a different kind of “guilt” and "sin" consciousness. Their polytheistic worldview held to a pantheon of capricious gods whose intermittent displeasure with humans resulted in various kinds of human suffering. But such divine displeasure was not necessarily tied to human violations of some moral code or of some human failure to conform their inner character and/or external conduct to some form of divine righteousness. The challenge for the Greco-Roman peoples from their point of view was to discover how to avoid the displeasure and curry the favor of such unpredictable gods. Thus, they had a concept of “guilt” and "sin," but in a typically different sense from that of the Jews.

Exactly how the apostles breached this gulf in understanding of human sinfulness is not entirely apparent, yet there are clues. Luke’s summaries of Paul’s preaching in the various Greco-Roman cities focus more on the failure of the peoples to honor God in terms of true monotheistic worship and the general concept of doing what pleases him, rather than their failure to conform to specific elements of the Mosaic code. This is especially true in the two instances where it appears that the entire audiences were comprised of Greco-Romans to the exclusion of Jews (Ac 14:8-18; 17:16-34). Although Paul did enumerate behavioral "sin lists" in his epistles, these are directed to those who already believe the gospel as he seeks to help them understand what pleasing God looks like.

It appears that Paul, and quite likely the other apostles, focused more on the forgiveness that was readily available through Jesus to a people who regularly lived in fear of displeasing the gods, than on elucidating a litany of specific Mosaic laws which the people were breaking. This is not surprising given that Greco-Roman peoples lived with the pervasive belief that they were regularly in some way potentially guilty of offending some deity and that such offenses were typically tied up with a failure to render proper worship to the deity.

Human sinfulness was an essential element of the apostolic gospel, but in terms of its articulation in first century preaching to the Gentiles it may have been a bit more nuanced than its typical current Evangelical formulation. To a contemporary biblically literate audience or one that is at least still strongly imbued with a Judeo-Christian worldview and corresponding concepts of guilt and sin, an understanding of sinfulness can be assumed and addressed in a similar manner as the apostles did when addressing the Jews. But to a people who are ignorant of an accurate understanding of such concepts, careful thought must be given to how to address human sinfulness when the gospel is proclaimed. Exegeting the recipient's moral-ethical-religious worldview, assessing how receptive it is to the implicit gospel concepts of sin and guilt, and determining how to breach any significant gap in understanding is essential to effective gospel communication. This is certainly becoming more of a critical issue in the Western world, which is to varying degrees becoming more and more post-modern and post-Christian in its worldview.

Next to be considered will be the communicative form by which the apostolic gospel was proclaimed.