Some things remain universal beyond the boundaries of chronology.
As it is with the modern day, it does seem like many (if not most) people of Jesus' day were comfortably happy with the mode of religion constructed for them by the religious authorities. Perhaps the religious programmes that were institutionally constructed helped them to feel a sense of security. "Do this and this and that, and participate in this ritual and that ritual, and you're all right."
In as much as we would like to think that people are beginning to seek reasons for their faith and to question the meaning of their existence (and hence, together with the significance of familiar religious symbols), this is perhaps not characteristic of the vast majority of the masses. Perhaps most religious people are simply secure in their unquestioning state, preferring to stay with prevalent religious conventions.
This presents the dilemma of preaching a revolutionary Christ, who by his very nature of being God, questioned the religious order of his day. He was the oddly strange person who seemed to be dissatisfied with what conventional religion had to offer to the human dilemma. And yet, how could anyone know if his revolutionary ideas were truly those that God desired? It was an insane risk to follow him. Some did anyway.
To those who were desperate for some fresh answers to their lives' concerns, Christ's message seemed inspirational and refreshing. To those who were "all right" because the religious institution said so (since they were abiding by all the prescribed religious requirements), Christ probably seemed to be a psychologically displaced oddball.
Perhaps those who did listen to his message were simply the misfits who had nothing left to lose in life. When there is much to lose, much of the revolutionary message of the Gospel has to be sifted through the lenses of our vested interests; the message of Christ needs to be "neutralised" so it becomes less distasteful.
After centuries of "preaching the Gospel to all the world", the dilemma of preaching the authentic Gospel abides. And I wonder just how much "evangelicalism" (if this term even means anything anymore) is contributing to this dilemma.