How should church leaders view their calling to preach the gospel? Is it something that needs to be adapted and modified to different people or tailored to match the spirit of the age? The Apostle Paul is an example for us today of intentional preaching that sought to motivate the hearers without compromise or corruption of the gospel message. For Paul, preaching was an act of obedience to the commission of Christ, and he could not adapt his message to gain men's favor. This is the model men of God need to follow today.

Let's pick up reading in verse 3. First Thessalonians chapter 2. We have been approved by God to be entrusted with the Gospel, so we speak, not as pleasing men but God who examines our hearts. For we never came with flattering speech, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed, God as witness. Nor did we seek glory from men either from you or from others even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority.

After Paul's initial statements here in chapter 2 that we've just considered together, he goes on to deal with the criticisms that he has received. His message is being criticized and his motive is being questioned. Those are the two particulars that I want to draw out of this passage. I, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, have been given the negative Nancy section of the text. Paul, along with the other missionaries, the apostles who were traveling with him on this journey had paid a high price to carry this exhortation, verse 3, that he refers to, to the Thessalonians.

It is beyond reason that they would be suffering for simply a man-made message. The message that Paul brought to Thessalonica was God's message. He was confident of that. This exhortation he refers to it as, It's an entreaty to come alongside. He's coming into the city and asking them to come to Christ.

It's a wooing proclamation of salvation. Your translation may say an appeal, an urgent summons to respond. That's how Paul shows up in Thessalonica. The term does not describe or deal at all really with the content of the preached message, but with the intended outcome, with a goal in mind, which begs the question for us, do we preach with intent in order to elicit a response? Do we have a goal in mind of moving people from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light through the preached gospel?

From point A to point B along their spiritual journey of sanctification. There is a danger that we may fall into a trap of being too concerned with the content only of our messages, of our sermons. I have a friend, he's my oldest friend, not a friend for the longest time, but actually in age, who makes a sharp distinction that is helpful for me between preaching and teaching. And he summarizes it this way, teaching informs, preaching moves. For our exhortation, Paul says, does not come from error or impurity or by way of deceit.

When Paul shows up after being beaten in Philippi and he shows up at Thessalonica, his goal is to elicit a response from the people. He desires that the Thessalonians repent of their sins and accept the free offer of grace in the Gospel, which many did. Look back at chapter 1 verse 9. You turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God. His proclamation of the Gospel, his preaching the good news of Jesus Christ resulted in people being transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of Jesus.

It doesn't come from error, from impurity, or by way of deceit. It's a triple negative nullification. Not error. Not impurity. Not deceit.

The exhortation, the message, the gospel that they're coming with is not coming from error. Paul's saying we're not self-deluded imposters. There's no human error in it. Not because Paul was a genius, but because the message was from God. Paul had received the message himself from Christ.

He was not risking his life for a doctrine that he doubted. He was confident of the message he was proclaiming. Our exhortation does not come from impurity. There are no adulterated motives. Our motives, Paul says, were not for personal enrichment, not in financial gain at any way, nor is it tailored for mass approval.

If that's the case, he's a failure. Paul preached for the sake of others, that they might know Christ, not for his own sake or any personal gain. Thirdly, our exhortation does not come by way of deceit. We didn't show up in Thessalonica with any kind of tricky techniques, no underhanded ulterior motive, Not in guile. It wasn't bait and switch being used to catch them with a hidden hook.

Paul was open and he was straightforward in his preaching. And he's direct and to the point here he's quickly and easily pointing out that his message was true to God's Word. Which again begs the question for you and me, can the same be said for us? Are our sermons faithful to the text or mere musings of man?" Paul's message was criticized And he responded with a triple negative nullification. It's not from error, it's not from impurity, and it's not from deceit.

Not only was the message criticized, the motive was questioned. In contrast to the previously stated denials, Paul offers a direct refutation of these accusations that have been made. Their preaching of the Gospel was in strict accordance with the commissioning, with God's commissioning them to preach the good news. We might call it in Paul's life the constraining commission of Christ. He could do nothing else.

Look at the way that he says it. Verse 4, just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel so we speak just as so we speak God entrusted them with the gospel therefore they were obligated to speak that very message not an alteration of it not an adaptation of it that very message from God When we stand to preach week in and week out, are we preaching the very message that God has given us through his Word? There was an exact correlation between the commission and the carrying out of the commission. The obligation in the commission both motivated Paul in the beginning and orchestrated his ministry all along the way. Paul as well as the other missionaries were approved by God in the actual work of the gospel locally we might say before they were called to minister in the wider sphere of missionary service.

And because they had conducted themselves in a manner worthy of the gospel, the same gospel that they proclaimed, they could reasonably expect that their converts would live in a manner worthy of the gospel that they had received. Do our lives, the choices that we make, give our people easy excuses for poor living? Our exhortation does not come from error, impurity, or deceit. We've been approved by God and trusted with the gospel, so we speak not as pleasing men. Surely when we read that we hear Paul also saying elsewhere, I become all things to all men.

But that doesn't mean that Paul is some sort of a fence sitter adapting his message to suit each audience. In fact, the clearest definition is from the Apostle himself when he writes to the church at Galatia, am I now seeking the favor of men or of God? Or, am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. You cannot please both.

It's an impossibility. Paul had no interest in pleasing the Thessalonians. And the fact that they chased him out of town and even followed him to the next town in Berea is evident that he wasn't concerned about pleasing them. He was concerned, as he writes here to the church at Thessalonica, he was concerned about pleasing God. Not pleasing men, but God.

God who examines our hearts. Paul knew that praise from men was far more dangerous than the rejection and the persecution that he was receiving in every town that he visited. We should probably also point out that pleasing God rather than men does not require us to be insensitive and offensive when we are dealing with people. Paul suggests that we should seek to please God because it's God who examines our hearts. That's what the writer of Proverbs says.

Proverbs 17, 3, the Lord tests the hearts. The psalmist, the righteous God tries the hearts and minds. The prophet Jeremiah, oh Lord of hosts who judges righteously, who tries the feelings and the heart. Luke records in Acts 1 24, You Lord, who know the hearts of men. The human eye, our intellect, cannot perfectly discern the inner motive of fellow man.

So Paul appeals to the omniscience of God. God knows it all. He knows my motives. Some people cannot imagine that a minister of the gospel can undergo sacrifice of time and energy and comfort and sometimes reputation with a pure desire for the well-being of others. But here Paul says our message and our motives are God approved, God entrusted and God examined.

He gave it to us because he trusted us. He approves of the ongoing work. He continues to see and test, examining us. Each statement here from Paul expresses the sense of responsibility that he felt about his commission from Christ and his desire to obey it. So that's the triple negative nullification we looked at initially.

And then Paul begins dealing with the motives being questioned. And finally, verses 5 and 6, what I've called a triple denying denunciation. I was raised Southern Baptist. I got the Southern out of me but not the Baptist yet. Amen.

Paul says, never did we come with flattering speech. Never did we come with a pretext for greed. Never did we seek glory from men. We never came, we never stooped and resorted to flattery. Never.

Not a single time. We never gave in to tailoring the truth to fit popular opinion, which is the exact opposite of the boldness in verse 2. As you know, the appeal of the Apostle to the omniscience of God previously and now to the recollection of the facts by those who had been eyewitnesses of their ministry methods again and again as you know from 1st Thessalonians Paul is appealing to the evidence that they had witnessed while he was in town with them. What Paul is claiming here is exactly what they knew in their experience. Furthermore, it's not just, it's not just not impure motives, but Paul says I'm operating from the purest of all possible motives.

And you know that. You witnessed it. And not only that, but God is a witness. He sees all and knows all. And then finally, we do not seek glory for men, not from you, not from anyone else.

Even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority. The apostles could have demanded honor. It was rightly those they chose not to take hold of what could have been theirs. Doesn't it make Philippians 2, the theme of Philippians 2, ring in our minds when the God-man did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped? The apostles didn't stand on their own status.

But here we find Paul and the other missionaries with him standing on the evidence of their lives. They didn't stand on their status. They stood on their lifestyle. Do we expect honor from others based on our status alone? Do the choices that we make deserve honor from those that were ministering among?

Paul's answering the critique of his message and the question of his motive. And I'll leave us with one thought from God's perspective. Consider those two things in our own ministries. The message that we're preaching, our doctrine, and the lives that we're living, our lives, from God's perspective, let's lay ourselves open and bare asking him to be the witness regarding our doctrine and our lives for the sake of our people, for the sake of their souls. That's how Paul didn't minister.

The next verses will pick up with exactly how he did minister among the Thessalonians.