1 Thessalonians by Mike Sullivan (2018)

The Word of God

Photo of Mike Sullivan
Mike Sullivan

1 Thessalonians 2:13

Summary

Paul encourages the Thessalonians to accept and obey the Bible as the Word of God. But is it really from God, or merely written by men? Evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament as the inspired Word of God is examined.

Listen Now
1x
0.5
0.75
1.0
1.25
1.5
1.75
2.0
2.25
2.5

Download Materials

Outline

#

This is the third week of our study of Paul's letter to the Thessalonians. Paul was a leader in the early Christian movement who wrote this around 51 A.D.2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

But how can we be sure what Paul spoke and wrote is the word of God? And, as long as we're being skeptical, what about the Bible? Why should we regard the Bible as God's word?

I do believe the whole Bible is the word of God—both Old and New Testaments. But because our verse focuses on the teaching of Paul, a New Testament author, and because this is a complicated topic, for the sake of time, let's focus on this question:

IS THERE REASON TO BELIEVE THE NEW TESTAMENT IS THE WORD OF GOD?

Years ago I was hanging out with several people and we were talking about what President Clinton was like. We were sharing our views based on what we had heard in the news. One person was silent the whole time, so we finally turned to him and asked, "what do you think?" He said, "well, my dad and I had lunch with Bill Clinton a few years ago…" At that point, of course, our focus completely shifted to what he had to say! His words carried more weight.

Think about it. If his words carried more weight, how much more weight would New Testament books like 1 Thessalonians carry if they truly contained the words of God! If this is God's word, few things would be more important than understanding and applying what we are reading.

So, is the NT the word of God? To get at this, we'll cover these areas:

What is scripture?

How were all the New Testament books recognized as scripture?

Is there evidence that the apostles were actually writing God's word?

Does our New Testament today reflect what the apostles actually wrote?

If the New Testament is from God, what does that mean for us?

What is Scripture?

The Bible uses the term "scripture"2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

According to Paul, writings considered to be scripture are "inspired." They aren't inspired in the artistic or emotional sense, they are "God-breathed"—from the mouth of God. Books of scripture contain information God has revealed to us about himself, about the way of salvation, about the direction history is headed in, etc., and, because they are inspired, these writings are true and not tainted, undermined or distorted by humans. They are the very words of God.   

What documents does the Bible explicitly refer to as scripture?

When Jesus used the term "scripture" he was referring to the books in our Old Testament, because the New Testament books hadn't been written yet.

1 Timothy 5:17 Elders who do their work well should be respected and paid well, especially those who work hard at both preaching and teaching.18 For the Scripture says, "You must not muzzle an ox to keep it from eating as it treads out the grain." And in another place, "Those who work deserve their pay!"

Paul says he is quoting from scripture. The first quote about the ox comes from Deuteronomy 25:4, but the second is a verbatim quote from Luke's gospel, chapter 10, verse 7! So Paul believed the Gospel of Luke which was really one work, Luke-Acts, was scripture just like the Old Testament scriptures.2 Peter 3:15 And remember, our Lord's patience gives people time to be saved. This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him—16 speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture…

Summary: So, when we talk about scripture being inspired, we mean it is God-breathed. And by the Bible's own testimony, not just Old Testament, but at least the gospel of Luke, Acts, and Paul's letters are also put forth as scripture.

How were all the New Testament books recognized as scripture?

When I was a student at OSU, my Bible as Literature professor told us Paul and the other apostles would have been shocked to learn that their writings would later become revered as scripture. But if you read what Paul wrote carefully, it is clear he believed wrote with God's authority:

1 Corinthians 14:37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment.

Paul believed his authority to write God's word came from God appointing him to be an apostle.

Galatians 1:1 This letter is from Paul, an apostle. I was not appointed by any group of people or any human authority, but by Jesus Christ himself and by God the Father, who raised Jesus from the dead.

Further down, speaking again about role as an apostle, Paul says…

Galatians 1:11 Dear brothers and sisters, I want you to understand that the gospel message I preach is not based on mere human reasoning. 12 I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ.

The apostle John made similar statements about his authority as an apostle (1 John 4:4-6; Revelation 22:6, 18, 19). And Peter elevated the authority of the apostles to that of the Old Testament prophets!

2 Peter 3:2 …you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles.

This verse is important because in it Peter establishes who is authorized to speak and write for God: prophets in the Old Testament and apostles in the New Testament. That's why every single New Testament book is either written by or under the direction of an apostle."But the Shepherd was written by Hermas in the city of Rome quite recently, in our own times, when his brother Pius occupied the bishop's chair in the church of the city of Rome; and therefore it may be read indeed, but cannot be given out to the people in church either among the prophets, since their number is complete, or among the apostles for it is after [their] time." – Muratorian Fragment, lines 73-80.

Is there evidence that the apostles were actually writing God's word?

We have defined what scripture is, and shown that in the New Testament, scripture was written by apostles. But can the apostles' claim that they are writing God's word be supported?

Let's consider this question from two angles:

Are there any disqualifiers? Are there problems with the New Testament itself that undermine its claim to be the word of God?

Is there any positive evidence that God is speaking to us through the NT authors?

Disqualifiers

Historical inaccuracy.

The apostles wrote that Jesus rose from the dead. So if we dug up Jesus' skeleton, that would be bad. And if we found ancient historical records that contradicted key parts of the Bible, that would also bad.

Fortunately, archaeology overwhelmingly confirms the trustworthiness of the New Testament. Again, this is a big topic and I could give you dozens of examples. Let's just pick one related to the Thessalonians.

According to Acts 17:6, Jews from the synagogue in Thessalonica dragged Paul and Silas before the city officials. Luke, the author, calls these officials politarchs even though the word politarch appears nowhere in contemporary Greek literature. Because of this, scholars assumed for years that Luke just had it wrong. But more recently, 19 inscriptions have been dug up dating back to the first century that make use of the title politarch, and five of these 19 are in reference to Thessalonica!We take this for granted, but if you have a study Bible there are maps in the back, with real place names. Why is that even possible? Because the New Testament is anchored in history. When we go dig up settlements and cities, what we find expands our understanding of the New Testament, it doesn't contradict it.

This is also true of historical records outside the Bible. They confirm key events in the New Testament. Here, for example, is the Roman historian Tacitus writing about Jesus' crucifixion: 

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate…" – Tacitus, Annals, book 15, paragraph 44.

I could add details here about how accurate Luke's history is in the book of Acts, but you get the idea.

Internal contradictions.

There are some apparent contradictions in the New Testament. For example, the gospel of Mark says that as Jesus was leaving the town of Jericho a blind man called out to him and Jesus restored his sight (Mark 10:46). Luke's gospel, talking about the same event, says it happened as Jesus was approaching Jericho (Luke 18:35). So it sounds like a contradiction.

Is there is a resolution? In the first century, there were actually two Jerichos: the old one, the one mentioned in the Old Testament, was just a small Jewish settlement. The new one, built by Herod the Great, was about two miles to the southeast. So this one event could have happened between both locations. That is a reasonable resolution of the problem.

If you study the gospels carefully, many so-called contradictions can be harmonized. And not just harmonized. If you look at them closely, you'll see evidence of "interlocking." Let me explain how this works with an example.

There is a story in all four gospels where Jesus feeds 5,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish near the Sea of Galilee. In this story, Mark mentions people sitting on "green grass" (Mark 6:39). Why bother to mention the color of the grass? It turns out, grass in this region was usually brown. It was only green in the spring time.

John says nothing about the color of the grass in his account of the same event, but he does say it happened just before the Passover (Jn. 6:4), in the spring.

So, these two innocuous comments, one in Mark, and one in John, indicate that Mark and John were accurately reporting different, but complementary details about the same event.

In another example from the same story, John's account has Jesus asking Philip, "where can we buy bread to feed all these people?" (Jn. 6:5). Luke mentions that this happened near Bethsaida (Lk. 9:10), a detail that John leaves out. But that fits perfectly because John tells us Philip was from Bethsaida (Jn. 1:43-44; 12:21)! Philip knew the area well, that's why Jesus asked him of all people, "where can we buy food?"

Do you see how these authors are adding complementary details? I could show you many other examples like this. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John's accounts are not identical. If they were, we should be suspicious. Instead, their reports of what happened "interlock"—each supplies complementary details to give us a fuller picture of what actually happened. That gives the gospels a mark of authenticity.

Summary:

Is the NT disqualified by historical inaccuracies? No, the New Testament is very accurate. Are there internal contradictions? No, in fact the accounts interlock in very compelling way.

Positive evidence

The apostles' writing may not be disqualified, but is there any positive evidence that what they wrote was from God? Yes! 

First, Jesus says so.

I know, that sounds like circular reasoning, but consider this. While Jesus was with the apostles, he told them their words would carry his authority.

John 16:13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.14 "He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would give the apostles special abilities needed to write scripture.

So Jesus authorized the apostles to speak and write for God.

Why should what Jesus says matter to us?

Well, there are very good reasons to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, God in human form (Is. 9:6). So if he said the apostles would speak God's word, we should take that seriously.

Whatever you think about Jesus, you have to admit he is amazing.

Our calendar revolves around his birth.

He is the most written about person that has ever lived.

As we stand here today, more than 2 billion people would get down on their knees and worship him.

Why is he so revered? For many reasons, but one of the biggest is that he fulfilled hundreds of prophecies that were made about the Messiah. These prophesies were written hundreds of years before Jesus lived and he fulfilled them all. This is something you can verify for yourself if you look into it. No other figure in human history can say that.

And there is very good evidence that he rose from the dead.

So, when Jesus says, "the apostles are my authorized spokesmen. They will speak and write the very words of God," that's worth considering.

I realize, though, that may not be enough for you. So consider this…

Second, the writings of the apostles contain amazing predictions that have come true.

This is the topic of "fulfilled prophecy," something we normally associate with the Old Testament. But there are incredible examples of fulfilled prophecy in the New Testament writings of the apostles.

Just before he died, Jesus made this prediction to his disciples:

Matthew 24:14 "And the Good News about the Kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, so that all nations will hear it; and then the end will come."

Incredibly, over the last two millennia, that is exactly what has happened! If you don't think that's amazing, then you try it! Make up some sayings, whatever you want, and then start telling people your sayings will be preached to all the nations. See how that works out. We take statements like this for granted, but when Jesus uttered these words, he was talking to a dozen men, and he was about to be crucified as a criminal in a remote corner of the Roman Empire. And yet, against all odds, what Jesus predicted has come true.

If you don't believe the NT has amazing predictions about the future. Go home and read Luke 21:20-24 for yourself. It predicts the Jews will be displaced from Jerusalem for a long, long time and then, after many years, they will return. That amazing prediction came true in 1967, during the Six Day War, when the Jews regained control of Jerusalem. The nation of Israel was wiped off the map for centuries, but against all odds, the Jews have not just survived as a people; they have reappeared as a nation in their ancestral land!

Ask yourself, how could the apostles writing these words see into the future unless they were hearing from God? Just 50 years ago, futurists predicted there would be flying cars, moonbases, and so on, but they were so far off! And yet in the New Testament we have a document written 2,000 years ago that is correct every time! How do you explain that?

Summary:

The New Testament is historically reliable, internally consistent, endorsed by Christ (who we have good reason to believe is God), and it contains fulfilled prophecy.

For these reasons and for others we don't have time to cover, we believe that the New Testament (along with the Old Testament—a teaching for another day) is the word of God!

Is the New Testament we have what the apostles wrote?

Maybe you're ready to accept that Jesus gave his apostles the authority to speak and write on behalf of God, but you're still not sure if the New Testament we have today is what they apostles originally wrote. Has the New Testament has changed too many times to recover the original?

The Roman historian Livy started working on his History of Rome around 28 B.C. Today, we have 473 manuscripts. It is one of the better preserved documents from near the time of Christ. If you study Livy in a college history class, there won't be a raging debate about whether we actually have what Livy wrote. Why? Think of the copies of an ancient books like twigs fanning out at the top of a tree. By comparing and contrasting copies, we can work our way back to the branches, further back to the larger limbs, and eventually to the trunk of the tree—the original document. The process is called textual criticism, and because we have numerous copies of Livy's work, we are confident our version today is very close to the original.

Fortunately, in the case of the New Testament, there are, at last count, 5,856 Greek New Testament manuscripts in existence. The New Testament is, by a far and away, the best preserved ancient document in all of antiquity. We can have a high degree of confidence that the New Testament we are reading is very, very close to what the original authors wrote.

Summary:

The New Testament is historically reliable, internally consistent, and endorsed by Christ (who we have good reason to believe is God). It contains fulfilled prophecy, and it just happens to be the best preserved document in the ancient world!

If the New Testament is from God, what does that mean for us?

If you accept that Paul's writings and, further, the entire New Testament are from God. So what? What are the implications?

First, there are no new scriptures being written. Why? Because the original apostles have all passed away! To be an apostle, you had to be an eyewitness of Jesus' resurrection (Acts 1:21, 22). And after providing a list of the apostles in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul says he was the last one (1 Cor. 15:8). So the men Jesus authorized to teach and write God's word are now dead and gone."For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed and glorified Paul. He, when among you, accurately and steadfastly taught the word of truth… And when absent from you, he wrote you a letter, which, if you carefully study, you will find to be the means of building you up in that faith which has been given you…" – Polycarp, The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, chapter 3.

Maybe you have heard of other writings that claim to be written by the apostles that were not included in the New Testament. The problem with these books is that the earliest of them, the Gospel of Thomas, dates to the middle of the 2nd century."Simon Peter said to them, 'Let Mary leave us, because women are not worthy of life.' Jesus said 'Look, I shall guide her so that I will make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit, being like you males, for every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.'" – The Gospel of Thomas, saying 114.

And what about latter-day prophets like Joseph Smith, the guy who wrote The Book of Mormon, or any other church leader who claims to have apostolic authority? What should we say about people today who claim to be an apostle who can speak or write the words of God? They don't have and could not have the right qualifications.

The true apostles who Jesus picked to write the word of God are dead and gone. If you want to read the word of God that Jesus authorized, read the New Testament!

Second, the inspiration of the NT means ALL of it is the word of God—not just what it teaches about Christ and salvation, but also what it teaches in many areas.

Imagine being a co-pilot on a commercial airliner coming in to land and hearing the pilot tell the control tower, "I'm not really resonating with all the direction you're providing. I think I'm going to use the Force today. I just want to feel my way down to the runway." If you were the co-pilot, what would you be thinking? Would you want to be on that airplane? That would be a catastrophe!

We're in a similar spot. Like that airplane, there are so many things happening around us, so many different situations we face, so much potential good and potential danger. We need guidance from the outside to sort it all out and God wants to provide it. God built you, he knows you, he loves you, and he wants to guide you, through his word, for your benefit.

When we get to chapter 4 and Paul brings up sexual ethics and says,

1 Thessalonians 4:3 "…this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality…" 

…it is because God cares.

When he says later in chapter 4,

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 We tell you this directly from the Lord: We who are still living when the Lord returns will… be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

…it is because God wants you to know he has a plan for your future.

In these areas and many others…

How we conduct our relationships

How we relate to leaders in the church

Our work habits

How we run Christian meetings like this

…we'll have to decide if we will receive these words as wise words of life from a God who loves us, or if we'll just choose what we like and throw out the rest.

When I think about that pilot, feeling his way down to the runway, there are so many things he doesn't know—the flight paths of other planes, what's happening on the tarmac, changing weather conditions. He lacks the big picture, and we do, too. That's why it says in Proverbs

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding. 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight.

He's not saying put your brain on the shelf. We have seen great reasons to believe the New Testament is God's word. But he is calling for the humility to recognize you need words of truth from God. They are life itself.

What will happen (and I'm talking to you here if you are a Christian)… what will happen in this church if we only receive teachings from the New Testament we like and reject what we don't? We will become indistinguishable from the culture around us which is adrift in a sea of moral options. God's word can provide guidance through moral chaos, mayhem, and misery and point us toward a better way to live. But you must receive it for what it really is, not the word of men, but the word of God.

Third, the central message of the Bible, the gospel, is an invitation from God to you.

If you read God's word, Old and New Testaments, cover to cover, you'll be struck by one simple main message. It's a message called the gospel. It's the good news that God will freely forgive anyone who owns their sin and calls out to him for mercy. Jesus made our forgiveness possible when he died on the cross for our sins and rose again. That is the most important message God has for you in the Bible. It is an offer from the God who really is there and who has revealed himself in his word. And I hope you take him up on it.



Matthew: Early church writings state that the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel named for him.

Papias (140 AD) states that "Matthew composed the oracles in Hebrew, and each one interpreted them as he was able." - Eusebius, Penguin Classics: Eusebius, The History of the Church (New York: Penguin Books, 1984), p. 152.

Irenaeus (180-192 AD) states: "Matthew, among the Hebrews in their own dialect, brought out also a gospel while Peter and Paul in Rome were preaching and founding the church." - Eusebius, Penguin Classics: Eusebius, The History of the Church (New York: Penguin Books, 1984), p. 210.

Mark: John Mark was Peter's amenuensis—an understudy who researches or writes under supervision. Paul and Peter both used amenuenses in some of their letters. See Tertius in Rom. 16:22 and Silvanus in 1 Pet. 5:12; Paul also implies that he used amenuenses in Gal. 6:11 and 2 Thess. 3:17.

Papias said that "Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately all that he remembered..." - Eusebius, Penguin Classics: Eusebius, The History of the Church (New York: Penguin Books, 1984), p. 152.

Irenaeus says that "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also himself committed to us inscripturated the things being preached by Peter." - Eusebius, Penguin Classics: Eusebius, The History of the Church (New York: Penguin Books, 1984), p. 210.

Tertullian (200 AD) also states: "…that (gospel) which Mark had published may be affirmed to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was." - Tertullian, Against Marcion, book 4, chapter 5, in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, ed., (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1980) vol. 3, p. 350.

Luke/Acts: Luke functioned as Paul's amenuensis.

Irenaeus said of the gospel of Luke: "...Luke, the follower of Paul, the gospel being preached by that one (Paul) he put down in a book." - Eusebius, Penguin Classics: Eusebius, The History of the Church (New York: Penguin Books, 1984), pp. 210,211.

Origen says that Luke, "composed for Gentile converts…the Gospel commended by Paul." - From Origen's Commentary on Matthew, preserved in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 6, chapter 25, paragraph 6.

Tertullian called it "Paul's gospel written by Luke." - Tertullian, Against Marcion, book 4, chapter 5. See Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1980), vol. 3, p. 350.

Recall that Luke and Acts have the same author. - See Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1970) pp. 100-101.

Hebrews: Hebrews is of uncertain authorship, although it is theologically and conceptually connected with Paul. At the same time, the grammar and vocabulary are quite different from Paul's other books. Two options are possible:

1. Clement of Rome (quoted by Eusebius) said that the epistle to the Hebrews was Paul's, originally written in the Hebrew dialect but later translated by Luke into Greek for use among Greek Christians. - Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, VI. 14.

This would account for the obvious difference in vocabulary and style between Hebrews and Paul's letters.

2. One of Paul's companions may have written it under his supervision, possibly Timothy (see Hebrews 13:23). Barnabas (a Levite) and Apollos are also possibilities.  This would explain the difference in style and vocabulary, as well as the author's third-person reference to the apostles in Hebrews 2:3, 4.

Before we procede to James and Jude, notice how all of the quotes above show leaders in the early church were very concerned about the issue of apostolic authorship. That was clearly their main concern when deciding whether or not to include a book in the New Testament canon.

James: There were three apostles named James—James the son of Zebedee, James the son of Alphaeus, and James, the half-brother of Christ who was designated as an apostle after Jesus' resurrection. Herod had James the son of Zebedee "put to death by the sword" (Acts 12:2) probably in 44 A.D., making it unlikely that he wrote this letter. Most commentators attribute this epistle to Jesus' half-brother James.

Jude: This author calls himself "the brother of James," suggesting that his brother was well known. The best known James at this time was Jesus' half-brother James, the apostle and leader of the church in Jerusalem. Jesus had another half-brother named Jude and two others: Joseph and Simon (Matt. 13:55). All four brothers became followers of Christ after his resurrection (Acts 1:14,15). There is some evidence that Jesus' brothers were regarded as apostles (see 1 Cor. 9:5). And Harris points out, "If James had disbelieved his half-brother at first (John 7:5) but became an early believer and distinguished leader after having seen the risen Christ, it is only a small step to think that his brother Jude was also accepted as a special apostle..." - R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures (Greenville, South Carolina: A Press, 1996), p. 273. The other possibility is that Jude the apostle (one of the original twelve and likely brother of James, son of Alphaeus) wrote this letter. In either case, the notion that this letter has apostolic origins is supported by Tertullian's (155-230 A.D.) reference to the author as "the Apostle Jude." - Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women, book 1, chapter 3.

 

More In This Series