Latest / Reformed Thinking / Not the Word of Men: Living Under the Word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

Transcript

Not the Word of Men: Living Under the Word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13) · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to Reformed Thinking, the deep dive where we take a
0:03
statement of faith, a single verse even, and we really unpack
0:06
it until hopefully you get that aha moment of clarity.
0:09
Today we are taking a really concentrated look at just one
0:13
verse, First Thessalonians chapter 2, verse 13.
0:16
Yeah, it's a short one, but it packs a huge theological punch.
0:20
It really does. It seems to draw this clear line
0:22
in the sand. It defines what Christian
0:24
revelation is, and maybe just as pressing what it is not.
0:28
That's right. So we're asking you, the
0:30
listener, to think about this with us.
0:33
In a world that is just saturated with human opinions,
0:36
with commentary, with endless content, how do we tell the
0:40
difference? The difference between what's
0:41
just optional human advice and what is, well, what is a message
0:46
that carries divine authority. A message that demands our full
0:50
allegiance. How can we be sure we're
0:52
actually hearing this speech of God Himself?
0:54
Well, to get at that distinction, we've pulled
0:56
together a lot of notes and some detailed exegesis that's focused
1:00
entirely on Paul's Thanksgiving in First Thessalonians 2.13.
1:04
And we have to put it back in its context.
1:06
We do. We have to place this first back
1:08
in its original and I think we can say hostile setting.
1:11
We're talking about Roman Thessalonica.
1:13
Not an easy place to be a new Christian.
1:14
Not at all. For that early church,
1:17
recognizing the authority of this message wasn't an academic
1:21
exercise. It was a matter of life, of
1:24
social rupture and of facing real persecution.
1:28
So what's our mission today? Our mission is to carefully
1:31
dissect the four key phrases inside this one verse.
1:35
These clauses, they all work together to spell out three
1:38
essential truths. First, the objective status of
1:41
the word, what it actually is. Second, the right posture for
1:45
receiving it. And 3rd, it's continuous
1:47
energetic operation in the lives of those who believe.
1:50
So this one verse is almost like a shortcut to understanding the
1:53
nature of biblical authority itself.
1:55
I think so. It's a perfect microcosm of the
1:57
whole doctrine. OK, let's unpack this.
1:59
Then before Paul even gets to the content of the message in
2:02
verse 13, he spends what, the 1st 12 verses of chapter 2
2:06
defending his own ministry almost preemptively.
2:09
Why is establishing the integrity of the messenger, you
2:11
know, Paul, Silas and Timothy? Why is that so vital as a
2:16
backdrop before he even talks about the message itself?
2:19
That defense is absolutely essential.
2:21
You can't understand verse 13 without verses one through 12.
2:26
He was working in a Greco Roman world that was just saturated
2:30
with itinerant teachers. You had philosophers, traveling,
2:34
sophists, and many of these men, you know, they were after
2:37
wealth, social status, personal glory.
2:39
They used persuasive rhetoric, but philosophy for them was
2:42
often a commercial venture. Something to be solved.
2:45
It was so Paul had to prove to the Thessalonians that his
2:49
preaching, his whole ministry, belonged to a completely
2:52
different category, a category that was defined by sincerity
2:55
and by sacrifice. So his defense is basically a
2:57
list of things he didn't do compared to those sophists.
3:00
Precisely. He goes down the list.
3:02
He assures them he didn't preach out of error or what the Greek
3:05
calls plena, not out of impurity at catharsia or out of deceit
3:09
dolos. He's drawing a very clear
3:11
contrast. A very clear 1.
3:13
He says directly he wasn't looking for glory from people,
3:18
didn't use flattering words, he wasn't trying to hide greed.
3:21
The point was to show that his motives were pure.
3:25
Why? Because he was entrusted with
3:26
the gospel by God. There it is.
3:28
He says he was approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel.
3:32
So he speaks not to please man, but to please God, who tests our
3:37
hearts. It's all about the source of the
3:39
Commission. Right that ethical that
3:41
sacrificial sincerity in the first part of the chapter that
3:44
provided the necessary human context for the divine nature of
3:47
the message in verse 13 to really.
3:49
Shine, I see, if he had been a charlatan.
3:52
The message would have been tainted.
3:53
You would have questioned the whole thing.
3:54
And he used some really powerful, almost domestic
3:57
imagery to describe his posture among them.
4:00
This is a point that I think often gets glossed over.
4:03
He wasn't just a professional religious lecturer.
4:05
He took on these, you know, intimate family roles.
4:07
It's one of the most tender passages in all of his writings.
4:10
He uses 2 specific and I think complimentary figures to show
4:15
the sincere care and character of his work, and these would
4:18
have been striking in Roman society.
4:20
What were they? First, he says, he was like a
4:22
nursing mother, a trophos. He was gentle, Epioi cherishing
4:27
them. That image conveys so much
4:30
tenderness, vulnerability. Constant presence, sacrificial
4:34
self giving. A nursing mother gives life from
4:37
her own body. It's a picture of total selfless
4:40
care. But he doesn't stop there.
4:42
No, then he shifts. He doesn't stay only as the
4:44
gentle nurturer. Second, he takes on the imagery
4:47
of a father exhorting, encouraging, calling them to
4:50
walk in a manner worthy of God. So you have both sides.
4:53
You do this dual imagery, the gentle nurturer and the
4:57
authoritative guide was so crucial.
4:59
It showed his motives were purely pastoral.
5:01
They were aimed at their spiritual maturity.
5:04
It demonstrated that the work was authentic, grounded in deep
5:07
personal care and aimed at their holiness.
5:10
That mother, father combination, it really gives you the full
5:12
scope of ministry, doesn't it? You have the care, but you also
5:15
have the direction. So if we look at this whole
5:17
section as a kind of narrative arc from faithful ministry to
5:20
faithful endurance, where does the Thanksgiving in verse 13
5:24
actually fit? It's the theological hinge.
5:27
It ties everything together. How so?
5:29
Well, Paul's integrity in ministry in verses 1 to 12, it
5:32
demands a pure message, right? And the genuineness of the
5:36
Thessalonians response in verse 13 that validates both the
5:40
messenger and the message. The verse links that faithful
5:44
ministry to their faithful reception.
5:46
Which then leads to their endurance.
5:47
Which then leads directly into their faithful endurance and
5:50
their imitation of the persecuted churches in Judea,
5:53
which he talks about in verses 14 to 16.
5:55
You just can't have one without the other.
5:57
So there's a sequence. A clear sequence, faithful
5:59
ministry, leads to faithful reception, which results in
6:02
faithful endurance, and the theological center of that whole
6:06
sequence is the constant Thanksgiving of verse 13.
6:09
And that Thanksgiving, he says, we also thank God constantly for
6:13
this. It's aimed directly at God, not
6:15
at the church. Why is the destination of that
6:18
gratitude so significant for how we understand spiritual cause
6:22
and effect? The direction of the gratitude
6:24
tells you the source of the success.
6:27
Paul and his team are doing the action.
6:28
They are thanking, but the only object of that thanks is God.
6:32
They aren't flattering the church.
6:34
No, and they aren't boasting about their successful marketing
6:37
strategy either. They interpret the Thessalonians
6:39
reception of the Word, their recognition of God's voice as
6:43
evidence of God's gracious work in their hearts.
6:46
Not their own clever insight. Not their own clever insight or
6:49
their spiritual superiority. The very fact that these former
6:52
idolaters living in this Roman centric, politically charged
6:55
city recognize the gospel message as the speech of the
6:59
Creator of the universe is for Paul, a supernatural event.
7:02
It had to be. It had to be that recognition of
7:05
divine authority in human speech was a theological judgment.
7:09
It confirmed that God caused the spiritual change.
7:12
So this continuous gratitude is Paul recognizing that what
7:15
happened in Thessalonica was a divine action, not just human
7:18
cleverness. I want to focus now on that
7:20
central conflict within the verse.
7:22
He says you accepted it not as the word of men, but is what it
7:25
really is, the word of God. This is the key distinction.
7:28
It is. Let's start with the negative
7:30
part. What did they avoid doing?
7:33
What does it mean to not receive it as the word of men?
7:36
It means they consciously refused to put the Apostolic
7:40
message in the category of ordinary human talk.
7:43
OK, I mean, think about what the word of men includes.
7:46
It's rhetoric. It's political commentary,
7:49
philosophy, religious speculation, tradition, or just,
7:52
you know, human ideas about how the universe works.
7:54
And in the ancient world, that was all based on the skill of
7:57
the speaker. A lot of it was the persuasive
7:59
skill, the strength of their personality, the logic of their
8:02
argument. So by rejecting it as the word
8:05
of men, they were refusing to judge it by those human
8:08
standards. They didn't care if it was
8:10
fashionable or acceptable or intellectually appealing.
8:13
They didn't treat it like just another speech.
8:15
They avoided the temptation to treat Paul's message like any
8:19
other piece of public discourse, where you know, you listen, you
8:21
evaluate, you accept the parts you like, and you safely ignore
8:24
the rest. And this has huge implications
8:26
for us today, especially when you think about the sheer volume
8:29
of information we consume. What does treating something as
8:32
the word of men look like in a Mani context?
8:35
What's the real difference between God's Word and justice?
8:38
Opcional Content. Well, the word of men is almost
8:41
always treated as optional. We look at opinions, slogans,
8:45
social commentary, even sermons that don't have a real
8:49
scriptural basis or devotional literature, and we consume them
8:53
as a detached observer. We approach them as critics.
8:57
As critics or judges, we select according to our preferences,
9:00
our comfort level, our political alignment.
9:02
If a human idea inconveniences us, we just discard it.
9:06
There's no moral consequence. Right.
9:08
If you read a political commentator, you weigh their
9:10
opinion, but you don't submit your whole life.
9:12
To it? Of course not.
9:13
Or if you read a self help book, you treat the advice as a
9:16
suggestion. You might try it if it seems
9:19
like it'll work for you. The moment we approach the
9:21
Scriptures that way, asking if it's convenient, if it fits our
9:24
current cultural moment, or if it appeals to a reason, we've
9:28
reduced it to the word of men. And if the Thessalonians had
9:31
done that? They would have fled the city
9:32
the second the persecution started, no question.
9:34
OK, that makes the negative side really clear to their negative
9:38
reception. It cleared the ground for the
9:40
positive, receiving it as what it really is, the Word of God.
9:44
What kind of response does Paul's language suggest here?
9:47
The specific verb Paul uses for accepted is dicami.
9:51
Now, this isn't just passive hearing or, you know, detached
9:54
intellectual agreement. It's more active.
9:56
It's much more active. It carries the sense of
9:58
welcoming, of receiving favorably, of embracing
10:01
something that's offered to you, often with a receptive
10:04
submission. It implies A voluntary taking
10:07
hold of something that has been handed down to you.
10:09
They didn't just hear the words, they welcomed the reality that
10:12
the words are. And this is so crucial.
10:14
Their acceptance was an act of alignment with the objective
10:18
status of the message. Yes, the message possesses
10:21
authority. In reality, it is God's word
10:24
whether anyone acknowledges it or not.
10:26
But their faith was just them recognizing that.
10:29
Their faith consisted in recognizing and humbly
10:32
submitting to that pre-existing reality.
10:35
Their act of acceptance didn't grant authority to the Word.
10:38
It was just the appropriate spirit worked response to the
10:40
authority it already possessed as the speech of the living God.
10:44
I want to just pause on that linchpin distinction, advice
10:47
versus authority. If it's the word of men, it's
10:50
optional. If it's the word of God, it
10:53
requires this radical realignment of your whole
10:55
allegiance. It requires A paradigm shift.
10:58
If it's human philosophy, it's advice we can safely ignore when
11:01
it becomes painful or inconvenient.
11:03
But if it's the Word of God, it's a voice before which we
11:06
must bow in absolute obedience. It claims everything.
11:09
It claims the entirety of the person mine, will and affection.
11:12
The difference is between a suggestion and a divine command.
11:16
And This is why that persecution context is so vital.
11:19
It is the message required a costly allegiance from them,
11:23
enduring reproach, losing their livelihoods, experiencing real
11:27
pain. Why would anyone endure that for
11:29
mere human speculation? You wouldn't.
11:31
It would be irrational. Exactly.
11:33
The fact that they stood fast proved that they recognized a
11:36
source and an authority that far surpassed the power of the Roman
11:39
government or the pressure of their neighbors.
11:42
Their actions were the external demonstration of their internal
11:45
submission to divine authority. Let's widen the aperture a bit
11:49
now, when we move from Paul's description of their faith to
11:52
the deeper systematic theological principles, where
11:57
does the authority of this message actually rest?
12:01
What does it tell us about the nature of Scripture itself?
12:04
Well then, within the Reformed tradition, the answer is very
12:07
clear. The authority rests wholly upon
12:09
God, who is truth itself, the Author thereof.
12:12
This is where we talk about the objective status of Scripture.
12:15
So it doesn't depend on us. It doesn't rely on the testimony
12:17
of any person or any church council or some historical
12:20
affirmation. Its authority is self derived.
12:23
It's from itself. Right.
12:24
The Apostolic message is divine and its sourcing and character
12:27
not just because it talks about God, but because it was
12:29
literally the speech of the living God delivered through
12:32
human agents. We often use terms like inherent
12:36
and objective authority. For someone listening, you're
12:39
trying to really grasp that nuance.
12:41
What does it practically mean that the authority is inherent?
12:44
That it's independent of human acceptance.
12:46
It means the message has truth and weight, even if every single
12:51
person on earth rejected it. Its status is objective.
12:54
It exists outside of and before our subjective experience of it.
12:58
The moment Paul preached in Thessalonica, that message was
13:02
God's Word. The Thessalonians faith then,
13:05
was their ability to correctly discern and submit that reality
13:09
that was already there. Their acceptance wasn't the
13:12
catalyst for the authority, it was the consequence of their
13:14
recognition of it. And that's a key point for the
13:17
role of the. Church a huge point.
13:19
If the authority depended on the church's acceptance or some
13:22
decree, then the church would be above the Word.
13:24
It would make the Word secondary and debatable.
13:26
But if the authority is inherent, the Church stands
13:29
under the Word as a servant and a recipient, receiving and
13:33
obeying what is already true. Now this brings up a crucial
13:35
tension, doesn't it? The word is divine in origin,
13:39
but it was received through human mediation.
13:42
Paul and his coworkers. How do we reconcile the divine
13:46
source with the very acknowledged human delivery?
13:49
This is the mystery of divine accommodation.
13:52
God was pleased to speak through chosen human instruments who
13:55
spoke in human language, reflecting their own
13:58
personalities, their own vocabulary, their own cultural
14:01
context. So the message was handed down.
14:03
It was delivered as an authoritative teaching that was
14:05
handed down. It was not an independent
14:08
individual invention by Paul. So if Paul was faithful in his
14:12
proclamation, if he was proclaiming the gospel, the UN
14:15
Jailian, then the person listening was confronted with
14:19
God himself. That's right.
14:20
To hear the apostles faithfully proclaiming the gospel was to
14:24
hear the address of God to his people.
14:26
And this confirms the unique, the foundational role of that
14:29
original Apostolic witness. Which leads us directly to the
14:32
doctrine of the self authenticating word.
14:34
This seems like the necessary complement to inherent
14:37
authority. It is.
14:38
If the Word is truly God's speech, how does a human
14:42
listener who is naturally blind and opposed to God recognize it
14:45
as such? It's not just an intellectual
14:47
process. That's the key question.
14:49
In the absence of some big external proof, you know an
14:53
Angel descending from the sky, how does the human mind
14:56
recognize God's voice in the human words of Paul?
15:00
Well, the word itself carries internal marks of its divinity.
15:04
You have the majesty of its subject matter, its internal
15:07
consistency, its spiritual efficacy, that is, its ability
15:11
to convict the conscience and change a life.
15:13
But those are things you might only see after the fact.
15:15
True. So the ultimate ground of our
15:17
subjective certainty is the inward witness of the Holy
15:20
Spirit. And this isn't some private
15:22
mystical revelation separate from the text.
15:24
It's not a new word. Instead, the Spirit bears
15:26
testimony by and with the written Word in our hearts.
15:29
OK, so the Spirit and the Word work together.
15:31
Always together, the same Spirit who inspired the writing of the
15:34
Word now uses that same Word to illuminate the mind, to create
15:38
faith, and to draw us to obedience.
15:40
The Thessalonians recognition of God's voice was therefore Spirit
15:43
enabled discernment. They didn't just figure it out
15:46
through being smarter than everyone else.
15:48
No, they were enabled to see what was already objectively
15:51
true about the message they were hearing.
15:53
And this stance, it has major repercussions for contemporary
15:58
preaching and for how we understand the scope of the
16:00
Bible. If only the original Apostolic
16:02
witness is fully inspired, how does that differentiate it from
16:07
faithful contemporary preaching? It establishes a clear
16:10
hierarchy. Modern faithful preaching is
16:13
truly the Word of God, only in a derivative sense.
16:15
What do you mean by that? In so far as it faithfully
16:18
expounds and applies the written Scriptures, the authority of the
16:21
written Apostolic message is material and normative for all
16:25
subsequent teaching. Everything else, our Church
16:28
traditions, our best commentary, even our deepest spiritual
16:31
feelings, all of it must be tested against the fixed,
16:34
objective standard of the text. And if we don't maintain that
16:37
hierarchy. If we begin to confuse the
16:40
commentary on the Word with the Word itself, we slip right back
16:43
into the trap Paul condemned. We start treating God's Word as
16:47
the Word of men because we are elevating human interpretation
16:50
or tradition to the level of a divine command.
16:54
The entire episode rests on keeping that categorical
16:56
distinction. Let's move to the external proof
16:59
of the words nature. This is found in that final
17:02
clause of verse 13. Which is it working, you
17:04
believers? The distinction between divine
17:06
speech and human speech isn't just theoretical, it's something
17:10
you can see. What exactly does this work look
17:12
like? This is where we define the
17:14
efficacy of the word. The divine message doesn't just
17:16
claim a divine origin, it proves it by what it accomplishes.
17:20
Human speech can't do that. Human speech might inform, it
17:23
might entertain or persuade in a temporary way, but it cannot
17:26
fundamentally recreate the human heart or sustain spiritual life
17:30
when things get hard. And the language Paul uses is
17:33
very active. Very the the verb he uses for is
17:37
at work is energer. It's where we get our word
17:39
energy. And the use of the present tense
17:42
here is so crucial. It denotes A continuous, active
17:45
and powerful operation. So it's not a one time thing.
17:48
Not a static event that just happened once at conversion.
17:51
It's an ongoing vital process. The word is not a piece of
17:56
historical information that's just lodged inertly in your
17:59
memory. It is a living, energetic agent
18:03
working within the soul of the believer.
18:05
So if the Word of God is at work, that means it is
18:07
successfully achieving the purpose God sent it to
18:09
accomplish. Since God sent it, it cannot
18:13
fail. So this addresses the question,
18:15
what did that energy in that work look like in the lives of
18:18
the Thessalonians? Well.
18:19
Paul had already spelled out the concrete observable fruits in
18:22
the preceding chapter and really throughout the letter.
18:25
These served as external confirmation of the messages
18:27
divine nature. What's the first one?
18:29
The 1st and most dramatic evidence was conversion and
18:32
repentance. The Word successfully turned a
18:35
group of polytheists and idolaters to serve the living
18:38
and true God and wait for His Son from heaven.
18:41
This requires a supernatural act.
18:44
It's the Word demonstrating its ability to convince and convert
18:47
sinners. And #2.
18:48
Second, the Word brought about perseverance under suffering.
18:52
The Thessalonians were willing to endure reproach, loss and
18:56
pain for this message. Their willingness to accept
18:59
persecution to become imitators of the suffering churches in
19:02
Judea confirms the words active operation.
19:06
That's a critical point. The suffering itself is a kind
19:08
of validation. It is.
19:10
If the message were just human opinion, the rational response
19:13
to suffering would be to renounce it and go back to the
19:16
comfortable status quo. What about the holistic
19:19
reshaping of their lives beyond just endurance?
19:22
Well, the continuous energess of the word visibly reshaped their
19:25
lives in multiple relational areas.
19:27
It created genuine brotherly love.
19:29
Philadelphia. It was seen in their missionary
19:32
witness. How so?
19:33
The word of the Lord sounded forth from them, which shows
19:35
that the message they received immediately became the message
19:38
they proclaimed, and it sustained their eschatological
19:41
hope, ensuring they weren't just focused on earthly struggles but
19:44
were actively waiting for Christ's return.
19:46
So the proof of its divine origin is its spiritual effect.
19:50
The word works. That confidence seems
19:53
particularly vital today, encountering the temptation to
19:56
rely on worldly methods for spiritual growth or for church
20:00
expansion. It leads to the assurance and
20:02
the sufficiency of the Word of God.
20:04
If we truly believe the word works, that it is a living
20:07
energetic force, then our metric for spiritual health has to be
20:11
the extent to which believers lives are brought into
20:13
conformity with the doctrine of that word.
20:15
Not some other metric. Not church size or budget or
20:18
cultural influence. A church that rests on this
20:21
belief resists the temptation to adopt worldly models, marketing
20:25
tactics, or psychological techniques to achieve spiritual
20:28
results. Why substitute human methodology
20:31
when the message itself is the divine means for creating faith
20:34
and holiness? The word is always adequate for
20:36
the task. The continuous energous of the
20:39
word means the word is always adequate.
20:41
Let's circle back to the original social setting, drawing
20:43
those first couple sections together.
20:46
Why was this submission so costly for the Thessalonians in
20:49
particular, why did accepting this message require immediate
20:53
and sustained endurance under pressure?
20:55
Thessalonica was not just any city.
20:58
It was a major bustling port city, a capital of the Roman
21:02
province of Macedonia, and it held the privileged status of a
21:06
free city, a Lutheria. What did that mean for the
21:09
people living there? It meant the citizens prized
21:12
their Roman connections and their local political autonomy.
21:16
They were expected to be fiercely loyal to Rome, and this
21:19
loyalty was mainly shown through participation in the imperial
21:22
cult. The worship of the Emperor.
21:24
Yes, allegiance to the traditional gods and crucially,
21:27
the Sebastos, or imperial cult, the worship of Caesar as a
21:30
divine son and savior. It wasn't optional.
21:32
It was woven into the economic, the social, the political fabric
21:36
of daily life. It was part of the guilds, part
21:38
of trade. So their conversion wasn't just
21:40
a private of it personal change. Not at all.
21:43
It was a public rupture. To turn to God from idols meant
21:47
rejecting the economic systems, the social gatherings, and the
21:50
political ideology of their hometown.
21:52
This change would have been immediately noticed, and it
21:55
would lead to social, economic, and eventually legal hostility.
21:59
It. Sounds like the conflict was
22:00
just built into the geography and the political system of the
22:04
city itself. What was the direct challenge
22:07
their faith posed to the political authority embodied by
22:10
Caesar? This is the nub of the political
22:12
threat. The gospel message they received
22:15
proclaimed Kurish ayosis, Christos curious Jesus Christ is
22:18
Lord. And in a Roman free city.
22:21
To confess that Jesus is Lord was immediately understood as
22:24
denying that Caesar is ultimate Lord.
22:26
This wasn't a subtle theological disagreement, it was a competing
22:29
allegiance that Rome correctly identified as potentially
22:32
treasonous. This.
22:32
Is a direct challenge. A direct challenge, their
22:35
decision to wait for his Son from heaven, Jesus, to deliver
22:39
them from the coming wrath. That distinctly eschatological
22:42
hope was a rejection of the peace and security, the Pax
22:46
Romana that was promised by the reigning Caesar.
22:50
Their faith was necessarily costly, public and
22:52
controversial, which is why they became targets of opposition and
22:56
suffering, just as it's described in Acts 17.
22:59
So their willingness to suffer reproach, loss and pain, it
23:03
confirmed the objective status of the message they had
23:05
received. Absolutely.
23:06
We come right back to the distinction.
23:09
If Paul's message had been just human speculation, a nice
23:11
philosophy, or a piece of optional content, they would
23:15
have exercised common sense. They would have compromised and
23:17
safely ignored it when the riots started.
23:19
But they didn't. Didn't.
23:20
The fact that they continue to assemble, to proclaim and to
23:23
suffer proves they were gripped by the conviction that this
23:26
message was the authoritative, active word of God.
23:29
Their actions prove their conviction.
23:31
Their perseverance and affliction confirmed that the
23:34
message they accepted was not human talk, easily discarded,
23:38
but the true speech of the living God at work within them.
23:42
That conviction that the Word is God's voice was really the only
23:46
rational explanation for their willingness to suffer everything
23:48
they had for a gospel that came through a couple of Jewish
23:51
itinerants, Paul and Silas. So we have spent this time in
23:54
First Thessalonians 2.13 and we've seen that the message Paul
23:58
delivered possesses an inherent objective authority.
24:01
It stems wholly from God himself, regardless of our
24:03
feelings or our acceptance. We've also seen that it's
24:06
reception must be characterized by submission, by recognizing it
24:10
as God's voice rather than human advice or just optional content.
24:14
Right? And finally, as truth is
24:16
demonstrated by its ongoing visible efficacy, continuously
24:20
reshaping lives, enabling repentance and fueling and even
24:24
under extreme pressure. So if the Word of God is a
24:27
living, energetic force that is continuously at work and
24:31
believers today, how might recognizing its objective
24:34
status, receiving it as what it really is, change the posture of
24:39
expectation you adopt when you open the Scriptures or sit under
24:42
its faithful proclamation tomorrow?
24:44
That's a searching question. It is if you know this is the
24:46
speech of the living God. What level of preparation and
24:49
submission must you bring to that hearing?
24:51
That is the question Paul's Thanksgiving poses to all of us
24:54
today.