Over my years as a Christian, I have heard the phrase, “a simple gospel message,” used quite a number of times. People have expressed their appreciation for preachers who have preached such a message. Those training others for ministry have exhorted their students to preach such messages. Interestingly, I do not recall ever having anyone explain how the Scripture teaches us to preach such a message or what exactly constitutes such a message.
Because of the seemingly widespread use of this phrase and the desire for ministers to preach such messages, we would do well to consider how we would answer the question, “Does Scripture teach us to preach a simple gospel message?” To try to answer this question, we will consider several points.
“Simple” and “Simplicity” Do Not Teach Us to Preach “A Simple Gospel Message”
The phrase, “a simple gospel message,” does not occur anywhere in Scripture. The adjective, “simple,” is not found anywhere in explicit teaching concerning the gospel.
The noun, “simplicity,” is found three times in the NT (Rom. 12:8; 2 Cor. 1:12 and 11:3). The first occurrence is not relevant because it concerns the manner of our giving. The second is in a general statement about conducting our lives in the world and does not directly pertain to what we are to preach.
The third occurrence is in Paul’s teaching in 2 Corinthians 11 and does concern proper preaching. To the Corinthians, Paul wrote that he feared, “lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (11:3). He then explained his concern by saying,
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostle. But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been thoroughly made manifest among you in all things. Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely? I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service (11:4-7).
Three occurrences of two keys verb for preaching and two references concerning the gospel show that this is an important passage concerning our preaching the gospel. Paul’s references to the serpent’s beguiling Eve and to the preaching of another Jesus show that he is concerned about the preaching of a false Jesus and a false gospel by false apostles (cf. 11:12-15). In that connection, he mentions his being “rude in speech” in contrast from the false apostles who touted their speaking abilities in their attempt to draw away the Corinthians from Paul.
He did not mention his lack of eloquence in preaching, however, to teach that gospel preaching should be characteristically simple concerning the content of what is to be preached. As we will see below, Luke’s records of key instances of the preaching of the gospel display considerable complexity and depth in the content of the evangelistic messages by the apostles.
In Paul’s latter reference to the preaching of the gospel (11:7ff.), Paul contrasts himself with the false apostles when he speaks of his foregoing remuneration for preaching the gospel. Neither concern in this context has anything to do directly with the content of his preaching the true gospel being simple.
The Gospel Messages at Pentecost and Gentecost Were Not “Simple”
An examination of the two premier apostolic evangelistic occasions, Pentecost and Gentecost, verifies this interpretation. Peter’s Pentecost message contains statements that interpreters struggle to explain fully even today (Acts 2:16-21). Peter’s abundant testimony to both the Father and the Son along with several references to the Holy Spirit (2:17, 18, 33, 38) show that he evangelized his hearers with a message that was highly Trinitarian and not simply preaching about Jesus Himself and the events that He experienced.
Moreover, Peter’s explicit statements about God’s approving Jesus (2:22), doing miracles through Him (2:22), raising Him (2:24, 32), exalting Him (2:33), giving Him the Holy Spirit (2:33), and making Him both Lord and Christ (2:36) intensely challenged the hearers with content concerning Jesus as God’s agent; Peter’s focus was not solely or even primarily on the deity of Jesus. He thus forced his hearers to have to reckon with Jesus’ humanity in relation to His deity as well as His agency in relation to His deity.
Peter’s message of the gospel at Pentecost was not a message that was concerned with testifying to Jesus alone with a primary focus on His deity. The Church thus began with his message that was not “a simple gospel message” with respect to its content.
Peter’s message at Gentecost similarly was not a “simple gospel message” about Jesus alone as deity. As he did at Pentecost, Peter preached a Trinitarian message that abundantly referred to both God and Jesus, including an explicit statement of how the Father anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power (10:38a). He also forced his hearers to have to reckon with the existence of evil in the supernatural realm by proclaiming Jesus’ healing all who were oppressed by the devil (10:38b). Moreover, instead of focusing on Jesus’ miraculous works as proof of His deity, Peter emphasized God’s empowering Him (10:38a) and accompanying Him (10:38c).
As he did at Pentecost, Peter strongly emphasized Jesus’ agency (10:36, 38), including a unique explicit statement about Jesus as the God-appointed Judge (10:42) that does not easily fit in with many contemporary perspectives about evangelism and missions. This statement presents other challenges to interpreters as well, including the precise nature of its relation to the next verse concerning the forgiveness of sins through believing in His name (10:43).
These two preeminent evangelistic messages in church history do not line up with the notion of preaching of “a simple gospel message” either with reference to its content overall or with reference to a focus solely on Jesus and His deity. Should we then hold that the Scripture teaches us to preach “a simple gospel message”?
Possible Response: Acts 8:35 and 16:31 Support Preaching “A Simple Gospel Message”
In response to this line of reasoning, some may point to the evangelistic accounts about the salvation of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40) and of the Philippian jailor (16:25-34) as evidence that supports the preaching of “a simple gospel message.” Although Luke does provide fairly lengthy overall records of these evangelistic encounters, he does not provide much information about what was actually testified to the lost people.
In future articles, I plan to look carefully at these accounts to see if they support an approach that does not make the Pentecost and Gentecost accounts (along with 1 Cor. 15:3-5) the primary models for our learning to preach the gospel. For now, I say that it is highly improbable that these very brief summary statements (Acts 8:35; 16:31) of what were undoubtedly much longer messages are intended to be normative for our evangelism in preference above the records of the premier evangelistic messages for both Jews and Gentiles that are recorded in Scripture.
Conclusion
There does not seem to be any clear scriptural teaching that teaches us to preach “a simple gospel message” in the sense discussed above. Hence, we would do well to adjust what we say to one another in this respect, especially in our discipleship activities that are geared toward training ministers and personal workers in evangelism.
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
If I asked you what the gospel was, what would you tell me?
1 Cor. 15:3-5 gives the gospel in summary form. Acts 15:7 says the Gentiles heard the word of the gospel by Peter’s mouth and believed.
All of that is true, but the gospel in one word is reconciliation. The gospel is in one verse, 2 Cor 5:18. God has reconciled us to Himself by His Son, Jesus Christ. That is a “simple gospel message”. Our ministry in Gainesboro, TN is to very poor, very uneducated people. I have watched there eyes glaze over as men have presented a complex gospel. If you have a church full of educated people, it can and should be complex. If you have a church full of people who can’t read or even write their own name, it better be simple.
Unnecessary complexity is never good, and adjusting to one’s audience is important. Oversimplification is a problem, and leaving out information like testimony to the Resurrection does not give the sinner the essence of the gospel.
So then the new question is, how much adjusting can you do before you move away from the models you have cited? As to the resurrection, there are other things left out by your example. The fall for instance (why we’re lost), or God’s wrath (what happens if we don’t get saved). How we preach changes by every situation.it may be that I have to go from the fall through judgment for them to believe. But for some it’s as simple as” we done wrong,and God sent his son to make it right”.
If there were no controls on what we could or could not “adjust” (which I am confident is not the position that you are advocating), who or what would decide what would or would not need to be presented? I am not omniscient to know the sinner’s heart or prior knowledge, so I am not going to take anything for granted in my evangelism. Every sinner that I witness to is going to hear from me about who the Christ is and that He died . . . was buried . . . rose again . . . and was seen. I am also going to interpret the significance of those events for both God and the sinner biblically. Depending on my audience and other circumstances, such as, for example, how much time I have available, I will adjust the vocabulary, illustrations, etc. that I use, but I am not going to leave out essential content such as the Resurrection, especially in a preaching context. I will endeavor to explain all important concepts to every sinner, but depending on the age of the sinner, background, etc., I may vary how I explain them.
To go back to your earlier comment, I do not believe that inability to read and write equals inability to understand spiritual truth, even complex truths. The Holy Spirit is the One who illumines the mind of the sinner, and that illumination does not depend on the sinner’s intelligence (unless they are so severely handicapped so as not to be able to understand much of anything at all). In fact, none of us can even begin to thoroughly understand many truths about God and His Word, but we are required to believe them nonetheless. For example, believing that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” requires faith that submits to what cannot be humanly understood fully.
Concerning making our witness “simple,” what about how Jesus challenged Nicodemus with truth that he had great difficulty understanding, and He did so in an evangelistic context. Jesus did not just give to Nicodemus John 3:16 in His witness to Him.
I do believe that some things change by the situation that I am in, but I do not believe that essential content is to be left out. In those instances when God graciously saves people in spite of such omissions, I believe that it is because the sinner has already been exposed to those truths beforehand in some manner, and the Spirit uses the truth that was already there in the sinner’s mind along with the new information that was given to him to bring him to repentance and faith. Since I cannot know what truths he has already heard before, accepted, understood, and still remembers, I am going to do all that I can in my power to see that I testify to essential truths to every sinner.
So your position is this as best I can tell: the gospel in it’s delivery can be explained in different ways according to the audience (less big words for a simple audience), but yet the content must remain the same (death, burial, resurrection, etc.). To that I agree. But then that changes this discussion from simple verses complex to true verses false gospel. Without the blood they are preaching a false gospel. If the point of saying “preach a simple gospel” means not using lots of big words or terms people won’t understand, then I agree with them. But if they mean water it down so we can get more people in the pews, they are the enemies of the cross of Christ. Either they are ignorant of the gospel, or they leave out Christ on purpose. Either way it is a false gospel.
I’m fine with your first statements concerning a differing delivery, etc. But, my concern in this discussion has not at all been about preaching a false gospel versus a true gospel. (I need to go back and make sure that I have not said things to suggest such a concern.) None of the people that I know who have talked about preaching “a simple gospel message” are enemies of the cross in any way. They do not leave out the blood, and they do not “leave out Christ on purpose.”
My concern is to promote carefulness and thoroughness in communicating all the essential content regardless of the audience. The delivery can and should change depending on the audience, but the essential content does not. For example, whenever preaching “a simple gospel message” becomes a message that is heavily focused on the Crucifixion and leaves out testimony to the Resurrection, I believe that we have a major problem. Even when that is done, however, God can (and does) still graciously save people because of their prior exposure to truth about the Resurrection, etc.
That explains your position very well. Thank you.
You are welcome. Thanks for the feedback. It has helped me to understand better some things that I need to do in the future.
As to Nicodemus, the dialogue did not stop when he said “how can these things be”. Christ then clearly (simply) explained salvation to him.
But, He still did challenge Nicodemus with truth earlier that he had trouble understanding. Moreover, Jesus’ later statement hardly seems to me to be “simple”: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven even the Son of man which is in heaven” (John 3:13). To a devout Jew who was the teacher of Israel, this reference to Himself as the “Son of man” certainly would have directed Nicodemus’ mind to Daniel 7. Doing so, Jesus communicated truth to Nicodemus that is often not thoroughly accounted for in most treatments of this passage.