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?