What the Apostles Preached

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

Your contention that the apostles and early evangelists did not preach hell or appeal to the self-interest of potential converts has led me to search the Book of Acts and compile a list of the theme of their preaching. I was struck by how briefly Luke describes what was preached. Often he says no more than that they "preached the gospel", "preached the Lord Jesus", "preached the kingdom", etc.

I found the following themes emphasized, with my count following:

1. Jesus as Christ, Jesus as Savior, Son of God, preached Jesus - 14x

2. Resurrection - of Jesus, of righteous and wicked, general resurrection - 9x

3. Gospel, good news of kingdom, Kingdom of God - 7x

4. Repent, repentance - 6x

5. Sins wiped out, sins washed away, forgiven, forgiven through Jesus - 5x

6. Believe in Him, believe in Lord Jesus - 4x

7. Crucifion of Jesus - 3x

8. Salvation, be saved - 2x

9. Turn from vain things, righteousness, self control - 2x

10. World to be judged, judgement to come. - 2x

11. Baptism - 1x

12. The word of God - 1x

13. Inheritance. - 1x

14. Sanctified by faith. - 1x

15. Turn to God. - 1x

16. Perform deeds appropriate to repentamce. - 1x

17. Proclaim light to Jews and Gentiles. - 1x

I found it interesting to note that much of what they preached must have been unrecorded by Luke. For example, Luke's telling of the story of the encounter of Philip with the Ethiopian eunuch makes no mention of Philip instructing the Eunuch regarding baptism, but we know there is a high probabability Philip did because the Eunuch asked to be baptized. Likewise all through Acts we find people being baptized with very little mention of baptism being preached.

To my mind the preaching of the need for sins to be forgiven and the judgement to come strongly implies the preaching of the consequences if they failed to repent. And what might those consequences have been? I think hell is a good candidate.

It is not a strong argument you have about hell not being mentioned by Luke; it is difficult to prove it because of Luke not mentioning it, especially in light of his extremely brief description of the content of their sermons. It does seem to be implied, while there is no mention or even a hint that anyone was instructed that they must deny self, bear their cross, leave or forsake everything, die to self, etc. We can not prove that nothing was said about these things, but it is curious that Luke never mentions these ideas.

It is interesting that when Jesus appeared to Paul he instructed Him simply to:

"...open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me."

As always, I will be interested in your comments.

God bless, Homer

[steve]

Hi Homer,

I appreciate your going to the effort of combing these details out of the apostolic preaching. I know it would have been a lot more trouble, but I wish you had given the references for each of the occurrences, because I have not discovered in my similar analysis all of the instances you seem to have located. I am curious to know whether all of them actually came from the evangelistic sermons, or whether you included non-evangelistic speeches—like that of James at the Jerusalem Council or Paul's farewell address to the Ephesian elders or his defenses before the Sanhedrin, Festus or Agrippa—none of which were actual evangelistic sermons. If we are going to include non-evangelistic statements of the apostles, we should also include their epistles in the analysis. I have never denied that the apostles believed in hell, heaven, or salvation in the afterlife, and occasionally can be found to have said so. My point is that their actual gospel appeals to sinners did not include such incentives. The case of Acts 26:18, which you may have included (because you quote it), is not a specimen of preaching to the lost, but Christ's own summary of the effects that Paul's preaching would accomplish, given to the now believing Paul on the occasion of his commission to preach.

I agree that not every detail of the sermons is recorded by Luke, but it seems strange that he would omit entirely any reference to the consequences that befall those for whom the judgment does not go well, if such information played any prominent role in their preaching of the gospel. I have never denied that there are benefits to salvation that were sometimes mentioned—like the forgiveness of sins (mentioned surprisingly seldom in the sermons, compared to modern preaching emphasis), but it is only our assumption that the forgiveness of sins was valued primarily for its benefits in the afterlife (going to heaven is never actually mentioned or alluded to). No doubt grace does bring great benefits after death, as well, but people who desire a relationship with God here and now might well consider forgiveness and reconciliation with God things in themselves to be treasured.

The most frequent item in your list is "Jesus as Christ, Jesus as Savior, Son of God, preached Jesus"—one or another of which, taken collectively, you found 14 times. The interesting thing is that in only two of these 14 instances is Jesus referred to as "Savior" (Acts 5:31; 13:23)—in the first of which, He is called "a Prince and a Savior"—emphasizing His lordship primarily and His role as Savior secondarily (as in Romans 10:9). By contrast, the references to Jesus as "Lord" and as "Christ" (a term connoting kingship) in Acts are legion.

I am glad that you, good Berean that you are, were led by my claims to search the scriptures, to see if these things are so. Your analysis pretty much confirms the results of my research, and my assertion that the sinners were presented with the lordship claims of Christ, and were commanded to repent, turn to God, believe, be baptized, etc. based upon those claims, almost to the exclusion of any mention of escaping eternal consequences. Again, I do not deny that such eternal consequences were believed in by the apostles, but they did not seem to find any reason to mention them in their evangelistic preaching. Curious, isn't it?

[SteveF]

It is interesting that when Jesus appeared to Paul he instructed Him simply to:


"...open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me."

Thanks for the list Homer. I just wanted to add that Paul immediately told the King how he obeyed these instructions given by Jesus.

Act 26:18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'
Act 26:19 "Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,
Act 26:20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.

It seems that Paul is providing us with a brief summary of the essense of his message to Jews and Gentiles

[steve]

Also, "...a place among those who are sanctified" might sound to us (with our conditioning) as a geographical or celestial "place" (i.e., "heaven"). It certainly would not have to mean anything like that to people whose Bibles had never mentioned anything about the righteous going to heaven. I believe that we all, as Christians, right here and now, have been given a place among the sanctified—in the Body of Christ.

[steve7150]

It is not a strong argument you have about hell not being mentioned by Luke; it is difficult to prove it because of Luke not mentioning it, especially in light of his extremely brief description of the content of their sermons. It does seem to be implied, while there is no mention or even a hint that anyone was instructed that they must deny self, bear their cross, leave or forsake everything, die to self, etc. We can not prove that nothing was said about these things, but it is curious that Luke never mentions these ideas.




It's not just that hell isn't mentioned in Acts but the primary individual subject person in Acts that being Paul goes on to write several of his own letters and also never mentions eternal hell. Paul does mention the wrath of God and judgment and almost all Christians believe that there is a judgment to come.
However eternal hell is such a horrendous fate it's irrational to me there would'nt be dire specific warnings all over Acts & Paul & Peter's epistles if this was the fate of unbelievers. The main theme in the NT does seem to be about repentence & knowing God.
Repentence is one thing but bearing your cross, denying yourself, forsaking everything, dying to self, hating your father & mother etc sound like Jesus was either taking things to another level then the Apostles taught or perhaps using some hyperbole to emphasize consecration to God, or perhaps Jesus gave different instructions to the first disciples.

[Homer]

Replying to Steve and steve7150,

I appreciate your going to the effort of combing these details out of the apostolic preaching. I know it would have been a lot more trouble, but I wish you had given the references for each of the occurrences, because I have not discovered in my similar analysis all of the instances you seem to have located. I am curious to know whether all of them actually came from the evangelistic sermons, or whether you included non-evangelistic speeches—like that of James at the Jerusalem Council or Paul's farewell address to the Ephesian elders or his defenses before the Sanhedrin, Festus or Agrippa—none of which were actual evangelistic sermons. If we are going to include non-evangelistic statements of the apostles, we should also include their epistles in the analysis. I have never denied that the apostles believed in hell, heaven, or salvation in the afterlife, and occasionally can be found to have said so. My point is that their actual gospel appeals to sinners did not include such incentives. The case of Acts 26:18, which you may have included (because you quote it), is not a specimen of preaching to the lost, but Christ's own summary of the effects that Paul's preaching would accomplish, given to the now believing Paul on the occasion of his commission to preach.

I agree it would have been good to include a list of all the scriptures that I compiled but that would have been quite tedious for me as the list would be rather long. I am slow of speech, slow of thought, and even slower at typing. I must be as economical with words as those pioneers who moved west into what would become West Virginia. When it came time to name their state, "Virginia" had already been thought of and it didn't take a lot to come up with "West", being that they were west of Virginia.

Some of what I included would not have been evangelistic in the sense of preaching to unbelievers, however my intent was to compile a list of every clue as to what they preached. For example in Paul's farewell to the Ephesians I did include what he said in 20:21 as relevant because it appears that he indicated he had testified publicly about repentance and faith in Christ. I did not include anything from the council of Jerusalem.

I agree that not every detail of the sermons is recorded by Luke, but it seems strange that he would omit entirely any reference to the consequences that befall those for whom the judgment does not go well, if such information played any prominent role in their preaching of the gospel. I have never denied that there are benefits to salvation that were sometimes mentioned—like the forgiveness of sins (mentioned surprisingly seldom in the sermons, compared to modern preaching emphasis), but it is only our assumption that the forgiveness of sins was valued primarily for its benefits in the afterlife (going to heaven is never actually mentioned or alluded to). No doubt grace does bring great benefits after death, as well, but people who desire a relationship with God here and now might well consider forgiveness and reconciliation with God things in themselves to be treasured.

One of the problems we have in discovering from the book of Acts what was preached is that Luke seems to be focused on other things. As I noted, baptism must have been a consistent topic in their preaching as we find converts were routinely being baptized but Luke makes no mention of it being preached other than his description of Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost.

I read recently something I considered profound, and promptly forgot the source. The idea presented was that in reading any communication between other people, over half of what is communicated between them is unwritten. And Paul's letter to the Corinthians came to mind. Think of the controversy we encounter among Christians today regarding the "head covering" issue in Chapter 11. We ask why the man is brought into the discussion, why the comparison to the a woman's head being shaved, why is the woman's hair brought into it, is hair an adequate covering, what was the nature of the head covering that was at issue, who were the angels that are mentioned, and what was the "custom" Paul referred to? We may confidently think we know the answers, but there is a good possibility we do not. And the point of the idea that much of the communication between Paul and the Corinthians was unwritten regarding the head covering issue seems valid because It would seem that the familiarity of the parties with each other and the situation at Corinth would have enabled the Corinthians to understand exactly what Paul was saying on all we puzzle over. And I think we are not on strong ground when we contend that the Apostles and evangelists never preached about heaven or hell due to the scant mention of the afterlife in Acts. In 1 Corinthians Paul says that Christ sent him to preach the gospel, and that he preached Christ crucified. I can not believe he never elaborated on the consequences of rejecting Christ. I do acknowledge that all the "threats" in the New Testament seem to be directed to believers but this may be due to their being the persons addressed in the letters.

The most frequent item in your list is "Jesus as Christ, Jesus as Savior, Son of God, preached Jesus"—one or another of which, taken collectively, you found 14 times. The interesting thing is that in only two of these 14 instances is Jesus referred to as "Savior" (Acts 5:31; 13:23)—in the first of which, He is called "a Prince and a Savior"—emphasizing His lordship primarily and His role as Savior secondarily (as in Romans 10:9). By contrast, the references to Jesus as "Lord" and as "Christ" (a term connoting kingship) in Acts are legion.

Yes, this is interesting. It might be explained by a natural inclination of those who heard the gospel to warmly accept a Savior while not so willingly accept a Lord. This is a problem today. I believe the message was "no Lord, then no Savior", despite what Ryrie, et al might say.

Also, "...a place among those who are sanctified" might sound to us (with our conditioning) as a geographical or celestial "place" (i.e., "heaven"). It certainly would not have to mean anything like that to people whose Bibles had never mentioned anything about the righteous going to heaven. I believe that we all, as Christians, right here and now, have been given a place among the sanctified—in the Body of Christ.

Agreed

(steve7150) Repentence is one thing but bearing your cross, denying yourself, forsaking everything, dying to self, hating your father & mother etc sound like Jesus was either taking things to another level then the Apostles taught or perhaps using some hyperbole to emphasize consecration to God, or perhaps Jesus gave different instructions to the first disciples.

I have puzzled over this and also have considered that Jesus' statement that no one could be His disciple without leaving everthing, forsaking everything, etc., might have been applicable to the situation of His earthly ministry. He seems to have been continually on the move; how else could anyone have been his disciple? This seems to be the understanding of the Christians post-resurrection who continued to own homes. Even the story in Acts 4/5 of the early Christians selling property to share the proceeds with those in need does not actually say they sold all they owned. I am curious with the lack of mention in Acts of leaving or forsaking all as a prerequisite to becoming a disciple, can anyone think of any instance of this being taught in any of the epistles? Stewardship seems to be the ideal.

May God bless you both! Homer

[steve7150]

I have puzzled over this and also have considered that Jesus' statement that no one could be His disciple without leaving everthing, forsaking everything, etc., might have been applicable to the situation of His earthly ministry. He seems to have been continually on the move; how else could anyone have been his disciple?







I think your right Homer that these instructions were directed toward folks following Jesus during his earthly ministry but can be applicable to anyone with a full time ministry now yet "repentence" and "bearing fruit" is the general message in the NT. I can't remember similar instructions given after Jesus death & resurrection to the general populace.

[steve7150]

He seems to have been continually on the move; how else could anyone have been his disciple?




Paul said "I die daily" (1Cor 15.31) , where based on the context Paul probably meant he was subject to death daily , but many people believe he was giving a command that everyone must die to sin daily.

[steve7150]

He seems to have been continually on the move; how else could anyone have been his disciple?




Paul said "I die daily" (1Cor 15.31) , where based on the context Paul probably meant he was subject to death daily , but many people believe he was giving a command that everyone must die to sin daily.