How To Study The Bible

We were looking at interpretation options on John 3.5, but I'd like to take a bit of a side trip for a minute. Can you handle a side trip? Okay, I hope so. This last Tuesday at the Men's Study, which meets in here along this table, something came up and it was something I hadn't really seen before.

We've talked about the use of this complete Word Study New Testament, how just with that last little letter over each of the verbs reveals whether something is passive voice. Obviously, if it's passive voice, we're not doing it. It's being done to us. A few passages came out, and in some cases, the passive voice, you'd say, okay, I understood that.

But in some cases, it comes up and it almost makes you think, man, I need to rethink what I thought this said. Let me give you some examples. Here was one of them that we looked at. And this one here is probably less radical, if you will, than some of the other passages we'll look at, but we'll look at it just the same.

Philippians 3, 8-10, More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss. In other words, the suffering He says, I have suffered the loss, that's passive voice, which means that the suffering isn't any of his doing, it's been done to him without his action. The loss of all things, and count them rubbish so that I may gain Christ and may be found, so that being found is not his doing, may be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the law, In other words, this being found isn't something I have to work at doing, right? This is done to me. Not having a righteousness of my own derived from the law, again, this is a denial of something that I do, right?

But that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed, passive voice, to his death. Do you see that? The being conformed is God's doing. He's the one doing the conforming. Does that make sense?

It's not a, boy, I've got to work real hard so that I can be like Christ. I guess in the translation it says, there's a little off of that, but it does focus more on what we're looking at here, having Christ doing the action in your person's life and not we ourselves. But Captain, about rubbish, the word rubbish there isn't just plain, yeah, a seed in a Kleenex and you throw it in a can, or you write off a letter and you get the junk mail and you throw it in a can. It's not that.

It's a little more gross. The bottom line is a lot of our English translations are pretty mellow in the way it comes across. It's actually more severe. Let me move on to the next part of that passage. This is the part of it that I think struck a lot of people when we pointed out this was passage of voice. There's actually a few people in the class, people who don't go to this church, who seems somewhat irritated with me for bringing this up.

But look at what it says. Starting in v. 11, or in Philippians 3 still, "...in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead, not that I have already obtained it, or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus." Now, brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet, but one thing And it says, I do, that is not in the original language, and in fact is actually in sharp contrast to what the original language says. Because that implies that this is my doing.

The original language says, but one thing, forgetting, and that's a passive voice. How about that? The forgetting is not something I do, and that's where Putting in the words there, I do, is exactly the wrong meaning. But this one thing, forgetting what lies behind is passive voice, it is not something I do, it is done by the Lord.

We neither have to dredge it up nor repress it, that's not our business. There's a battle among believers, you know, one who wants to sit there and be the modern psychologist and dig up the past. and turn it all over and that's going to lead to sanctification. There's the counter reaction to that that says, no, I should just intentionally ignore all that stuff. This doesn't go either way.

It says the forgetting is God's to do. In us, we are the recipient of the forgetting. How about that? And forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward is also passive voice. How about that? It's not our forgetting and it's not our reaching forward. God is the one who is reaching forward. How about that?

To me, I saw that and frankly it was the first time I'd ever seen it. But it turns the meaning of that verse, of that passage, upside down from what typically comes across in our English understanding of it. So just realizing that that I do is not in the original Greek, but it's an insertion that is actually, from what we know from the rest of the passage, entirely inappropriate. It should not be there. Because it is not something we do. It is, by those passive voices, explicitly something God does and we do not do. If anything, you could put in there, this thing I do not do.

Then he says, I press on towards the goal. That is actually something he says that I do. You see the difference there? Now, we could spend a whole lot more time than we can today digging into that, but to me that was like a marvelous revelation to see that this is passive voice, this is something God does. It is more of what God is accomplishing and not what I am striving and all that. I am certain that whole sermons have been preached with the direction of, you know, you better be reaching and forgetting. And the reality is that it is not our doing. It is God's doing.

That's what Paul's original statement here was. So, let's take a look at another passage similar to this that jumps out. Colossians 1 25 through 29 and we've looked at this passage before but look at the pastor voices that jump out. Of this church I was made a minister, this is Paul speaking of course, according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the Word of God that is the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations but has now been manifested. That manifesting is Again, a passive voice has now been manifested to a saint, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ.

For this purpose I also labor, striving, and the striving is passive voice. Now, again, there's probably been a whole sermon preached on, boy, you better get striving. And who's the striving? The striving is not my doing. And as a matter of fact, the rest of that verse spells that out. Striving according to His power. The striving is not my doing. It is God striving with and in and toward me such that things are done by His power. It's God's striving, not my striving.

Isn't that a radical difference? That's right. It is the Lord doing the striving towards us and not us striving. And furthermore, one little additional thing, that's not in a command mode to begin with. It's not saying, you know, you better get striving. But it is not only that, but given the passive voice, the striving is not something that we are to do or we are being described as doing to begin with. This is God's striving.

Striving according to His power, which mightily works within me. The which mightily works within me is further reinforcement that it's God that's the one that's doing the striving and not us. So what Paul has done is he has used the passive voice for the word striving He is used according to His power. And He said, which mightily works within me. All three of those things are underscoring that it is Paul laboring, but God is the one who is doing it in him and through him.

Yeah, Tom. There's a little chorus, and I'll just say the words. We won't take up time for the music, but it goes like this. Of course, we know it's the voice of the Spirit working in us along with Christ. The Spirit of the Lord is strong within you. The Spirit of the Lord is strong in my life. Yeah, that's exactly it. And the reality is that a great deal of Christendom has put so much focus on what I've got to do, I've got to do, I've got to do, I've got to do.

And Paul is saying, for this purpose I labor. And he's not denying that he labors, but he's essentially by the passive voice and then the next two phrases said three times, this is God's doing, not mine. I labor, and he'll make that statement once. But three times essentially after that, underscore that it's God doing it. It's God's accomplishment. It's God's striving. It's God's working. It's Him that is doing it mightily within. Isn't that neat? I think that's neat stuff. Here is one more that came up, and it's just continuing on in that passage. Colossians is folding into the next chapter.

For I want you to know how great a struggle I have on your behalf and for those who are allowed to see you, for all those who have not personally seen my face, that their hearts may be encouraged having been knit together past the voice." The knitting together is not their doing. The knitting of hearts together. knit together in love and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery that is Christ himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I'm going to move ahead here into verse 6.

Therefore, as you have received Christ the Lord, so walk in him, having been firmly rooted. That is passive voice, so the firmly rooted is not our doing. And the having been is perfect tense. Remember, the perfect tense is completed past action with ongoing future results. So this is not an effort that we can put forth. They're firmly rooted in God's doing.

Furthermore, it says, and now being built up is also passive voice. It's God doing it. God's the one doing the building up. Build up in Him. Let me move this up here so we can read it. build up in him and established," here we go, another passive voice, okay, "...and established in your faith just as you were instructed," okay, and that's obviously, you know, Paul speaking with a passive voice because that's what he did to them. He instructed them, okay? So you put this all together here, and it is God who is the one who is accomplishing these things.

We can really easily, especially as we just kind of read the English, get the idea, oh, it must be something I've got to do. And as you see these little passive voice indications come up through these passages, it is insightful, sometimes almost shocking. Like I say, I was in here last Tuesday, and I was amazed. There were people kind of bristling, saying, well, this is passive voice. They started saying, well, don't you think this and don't I think that?

I said, it doesn't matter what I think. I said, this is what it says. This is what is laid out in the original writing. This is what Paul intended to say by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So we need to listen to it. So anyway, this is neat, neat stuff. Side trip, but I think it's valuable. Okay. It's hard for me to believe that I didn't become a believer. You know what I'm saying? Right. You know, that occurred to me early. For knowledge, I mean, sometime a long time ago. Uh-huh. Then the other flip side of that is, does that mean that there are some, you know, who won't become believers? Right. Right. Okay. Let's back up.

Notice that all these passive voices apply to those who are Christians and what God is doing there. So none of these, as I see it, explicitly or directly deal with the question, was my original belief Something that I had anything to do with Of course theologians have argued about that, you know more than we have time to go over this morning, but I would just say just say this that all human beings believe in something We're we're you know, people have made it said it this way human beings are incurably religious But the bottom line is and another way to look at it Belief by itself isn't necessarily spiritual per se, and it isn't something unique to Christians.

It's where that belief is placed. That's the difference. In whom or in what do I place that belief? Because all human beings believe in something, so there's only a question of where that's directed. So that's why I like the reformed theologians will get into saying, well, you can't have faith until God gives it to you and things like that. I don't buy that because the bottom line is people already believe.

It's just a question of what and where and who. Where is that directed? And that's the difference. By faith are you saved and it's by faith in Christ versus all the other things you could put your confidence in. We're all trusting in something. And even without thinking of it, you're trusting in your chairs.

There was a pastor I heard speak some years ago, and he was a fellow who was deaf. His name was Ben Isham. He said, I first became a believer and, you know, I thought, well, Lord, you know, let me help you. And then he said, after a while, I learned, no, that's not quite right. Lord, you help me. And he says, any more. He says, I'm thinking, I need to learn how to get out of the way.

And that's a kind of a growth process that we have to go through just to kind of come to that place because initially, How do we make this happen? But that issue that is brought up is how did that initially take place is a real question mark and in fact a battleground for a lot of believers. And it really rose up roughly speaking around the year 1600 and there are reasons I think why it It took that long for it to really boil to the surface the way it did.

It was not a minor tussle. We talk about Calvinism and Arminianism and the TULIP acronym. The Dutch government sponsored basically a public review of this issue and actually decapitated a man as a result. This was not just some sort of, hey, let's decide something. They decapitated one fellow and some others were severely whipped. for their Arminian stance here. So this isn't some little tiny minor side issue. The battle is still going on, a little bit more civilly, but it's still a big one.

In fact, I think a lot of people are locked into unbiblical positions and thinking on this whole issue, largely because they're not just looking at the Scriptures and saying, What does God's Word say? That's one of the reasons we're looking at things the way we are here. We want to look at God's Word and say, What does God's Word say? And not try to impose philosophies that are really humanly based. I think that's true of both Arminianism and Calvinism at the extremes. They're really humanistic.

Rather than coming to God's Word and saying, What does God's Word say? Understanding the Scriptures has to be based on biblical humility. And if it's coming with, I know, then we've lost. We've lost the battle. We will not understand what God's Word says if we come to it with that arrogance.

Tom? Well, I don't want to sound arrogant, but it does seem to be more that way because I see now the difference between what God's Word says in general, how extreme Calvinism is, I think of Monte Calvin, let's make a deal. Yeah. There is a human tendency to start getting polarized based on what makes sense to us as humans, rather than recognizing that God has revealed what he has chosen to reveal. and our tendency to want to make everything fit to what we understand and what we comprehend and to extend human logic beyond its biblical bounds. It's forced people into this kind of arrangement where it's like you're saying, let's make a deal, it's all human, isn't it? You're not going to make deals with God about this. The Lord indeed has laid out what is true and what He wants us to know of what is true, and we have to be careful about projecting and extrapolating beyond that.

Well, we've gotten so sidetracked here, we've got maybe 20 minutes left to look at the passage we were looking at, but let's do that. We talked last time about these five, and essentially with that little asterisk there, actually nine possibilities as to what this John 3, 5 means. Now, you know what?

When Jesus was talking, I don't think he meant nine things. Do you? I don't think that's what he had in mind. I don't think he was thinking, let me say something so that people will interpret it nine different ways and they'll all be right. Or at least they'll be fighting about and wondering what's right. You think that's what he had in mind? I don't think so.

We talked last week about the first interpretation, and it's the one held by the church down the street and across the way here, the Church of Christ, and basically other denominations and groups within Christendom, that that water baptism is what is meant by the water. So that's interpretation number one. The next one that we look at here says, are really quite similar in one respect.

They all assume that the spirit refers to the regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Now what do we mean by regeneration? Just so we're not throwing words around here. What do we mean by regeneration when we say that? Birth again. Right, it's birth again. Typically we use that in the sense of giving life. And why do we use that sense, giving life? Why does that come out of that word? Okay, eternal life versus what?

Fallen life. The condition in which we were before, right? Paul describes our condition in Ephesians 2, the early verses, and what does he say? dead, right? We were dead in our trespasses and sins. So regeneration can be compared to birth, but there is also the sense of giving life as opposed to the death that we were in.

Yes, and that is key, and this is also has been the root of a lot of squabbling. If death means that until we came to life in Christ, if death means that we're out on a slab, cold dead, basically annihilated, terminated, if that's what death means, then really we cannot choose. But if instead death means separation, that's a different matter altogether. Different matter altogether. And I think as you look at the way Paul uses the word death, that he does indeed mean separation. And that puts a whole different light on it. Romans 7, the first several verses, he talks about a husband and a wife. And the death was not meaning that the one that died was terminated, but it means that the paths of the two are separated. And that's, I think, what he's indicating here.

So when we talk about regeneration, is talking about giving us life, but not in what many of the hard Calvinists and those of the Reformed persuasion have stated. Not that we're out on a slab, cold dead, unable to respond, but that instead we are separated from the life of God.

And that the only choice that we have, because an unbeliever really doesn't have any choice, does he? The only choice available to the unbeliever is the choice to accept the salvation and the provision that God has made through Christ. That's the only choice that he has. Everything else that he does is subject to his nature which is fixed apart from Christ. That nature that he has apart from Christ is fixed. So when we talk in here about the regeneration by the Holy Spirit, we're talking about that separation from the life of God being ended because of what Christ has accomplished.

Make sense? Okay? So anyway, these all have that in common with the exception, you know, we kind of scratched off the first definition here of water baptism being the indication. Now, how are we going to resolve the rest of these possibilities then? Essentially we're in a position, we're either in a position of saying, It is so obvious that it's this one that the others can't be true, or eliminating some of the others for various reasons. Or both. So, how are we going to resolve this and come down to what Jesus intended? A lot of people when I read don't. They say you're entering the theological ground, brother. How about that? Okay. Here's a question that I have. I like to bring people down this line. We started off with this earlier.

Is there such a thing as absolute truth? Has the absolute truth been given? Is it knowable? The bottom line is that people get to something and they just say, I don't know, and they throw up their hands. It isn't a question of trying to go beyond what's been revealed, but just saying what's been revealed is indiscernible, I've got a problem with that. Because it means that there is absolute truth, God revealed it to us, but we're saying we can't know it. And that's a problem. It's unknowable? I'm sorry, I can't go there.

I believe that God gave his word so that we can know what it says. And that's why 2 Timothy 3, 16 and 17, that we've been given the Scriptures inspired by God for teaching and reproof and all those things. And if we don't know what it says, all those things that he lists are useless. All Scripture is inspired by God so that...

You see the difference? The bottom line is either it was given for those things and it has value in those things, Or else we're just lost as anybody else. We have the foggiest idea of what God said. Yes? Nicodemus must have been looking at it as theologians looked at it, because he was still looking at the human viewpoint. Yes. And I think... Therefore, I think that's the problem. Yeah. Putting in man's ideas. That's an excellent insight. Nicodemus' problem was that he was looking at it from a human standpoint. Every solution that Nicodemus came up with, though he believed in God, depended upon man for the solution.

Now, there are times when understanding the Greek is very helpful. We've just, for example, spent some time looking at the passive voice and the impact of that feature of the Greek language. There are other times, and I think this is one of them, when in fact understanding the Greek is only minimally helpful.

And the reason is Because I think what is going to lead us into what the truth is, is the full context. The context. Let's see what that means. For example, we've got an instance here. The water refers to the water of John the Baptist's baptism, meaning repentance. Is John the Baptist's baptism any part of this context? Has that been anything that's been part of the discussion? So it's kind of a reach, isn't it? If Jesus' intent was to clarify, does that clarify? If He refers to John's baptism as the water?

I would think not. Something else. Nicodemus has just brought up what kind of a birth? Physical birth, yes. He says, am I supposed to go back into my mother's womb? So Jesus' clarification would need to have reference to exactly what Nicodemus said in order to say, okay, here's where you're connecting, Nicodemus, and then here's where you're disconnecting. And Jesus' statement would need to clarify based on what Nicodemus has said, right? Does that make sense? So what that tells me as I look at this is some of these other solutions here. Yes, they're a battleground. Let them go ahead and battle. But the context here is going to tell us what he's talking about and what he's not talking about. Number three talks about John the Baptist's baptism. And while the book of John does make reference to that, There's nothing in the immediate context of this discussion that would reveal that that's the case. Christ Himself was baptized by John.

It was an outward symbol. It smacks a little bit more of number one, doesn't it? It also basically tries to say that this water means repentance. That doesn't relate to what Nicodemus just said. Nicodemus is still thinking physical. So Jesus is going to lay a fork in the road here that says physical and spiritual.

How about the water is the Word of God? Does that make sense as an interpretation? That's number four. Does that make any sense as an interpretation? Is there anything in the context that refers to the Word of God as water? Not in that context, huh? Yeah. Okay.

Yeah, the only place where the Word of God is referred to as water is Ephesians 5.26, right? And that's Paul's reference here. Now, how about number five? The water and the spirit both are symbols of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

Anybody look up those Isaiah 44 and Ezekiel 37 passages? Anybody look those up? Folks have made reference to that and said, well, these are both just symbols that Jesus draws from out of the Old Testament. And when you read those passages, you look at it and you say, well, it's tough for me to make that leap. Tough to make that leap.

As I go down through these various proposed interpretations, and I look at the context, I see number two here, the water refers to the water of physical birth as fitting the context because Nicodemus has just talked about that and that would be very much in their mindset as Jews.

It fits the context. It fits the mindset and cultural background. Farther down, he says, that which is flesh is flesh, and that which is spirit is spirit. And so there's a reference to there. And when I take that, that's another indication. Here's this fork in the road, the distinction.

There's a physical birth, and there's a spiritual birth, Mr. Nicodemus. And you need to understand there's a difference between these two. Nicodemus' confusion was to try to force them both into the physical, wasn't it? You see that? So if that's Mr. Nicodemus' problem, Jesus is going to come and say, you're right about one thing.

There is this physical birth, which is born of flesh as flesh. There's being born of the water. It's a physical birth. And there is being born of the Spirit. That's regeneration. That's being birthed into a new family. The physical birth births you into one family. The spiritual birth births you into another. And there are different paths. But that understanding fits the context.

These others don't. These others are grabbing at something way outside the context that doesn't fit the character of the discussions, both before and after this verse. Does that make sense? So anyway, out of that, I look at the five, and like I say with the asterisk, that gives you nine interpretations.

To me, it's a matter of by the time I look at the context, the others drop out. It's context. Remember the first three rules of interpretation? Context, context, and context? This is an instance where get as fancy as you want with the Greek. It's the context that's going to lay it out.

It doesn't matter if you're a Greek scholar, you're not going to get any more insight than the person reading the English because it's the context that is going to give you the insight and not something else. Most of these other interpretations appear to me to be reaching, kind of way outside of what the context seems to be reinforcing. What's the line of thought of Nicodemus and what is Christ trying to clarify? A number of these other interpretations are also, in some cases, appear to be imposing somebody's prior thought and concept. trying to put that on top of the passage rather than saying, again, what does God's Word say? What does it say in context?

Leave that at the door. When we come up with, I think this is what this means, before really examining things, we can end up with all kinds of conclusions. But when we simply come to the passage and say, what does God's Word say? Those simple words. We end up being able to sort out and comb out a lot of the other extraneous stuff because people are frequently coming into a passage with things that the passage itself is not trying to say.

It's just like if I say, okay, we've got to be out of here in four minutes. You really aren't puzzled. What on earth is Vern talking about? He must mean a half dozen different things by that. I don't think so. The reality is these are not written so that you might ponder, wonder, and be baffled into eternity.

These are written so that you might believe. These are written for you to understand. You can't believe what you don't understand. These are written so that you might believe. To believe, you have to have a definite and defined object of that belief. These are written so you know the truth. Thy word is truth. So we have to be able to understand it.

It was interesting, Joanne, your observation. You read some guys who just said, well, this is a battleground, and it's like, don't get in the middle of that mess. They give you the options, but they never reach us. And I must have read five or six different ones. Oh, yes. And it's not helpful. It's not helpful at all. We either need to be able to come to the truth, or let's all go home. Well, it doesn't seem like it makes any sense for Jesus to lead me to be in the pocket of Isaiah and Ezekiel and those passages.

Well, and those passages are kind of a best fit, but it's like, where do you come up with that? Yeah, yeah, good. Thank you. Tom? He didn't think Nicodemus needed a simple-minded explanation, even though he'd been steeped in all these alternate explanations, alternate interpretations, alternate dissonance. Take Hillel, take this other fellow, take that other fellow. Being Greeky.

Messinesque. In verse 5, Nestle says that's a small antispirit. and the A.B. editors say it's the largest script. And in verse 6, Nestle doesn't have vitamins like us. Nestle's use comes out of a capital letter. The Greek texts, they didn't capitalize or not capitalize it one way or the other.

And so you'll find people arguing and then placing it into the text that it means this or that. And I think that's inappropriate. It goes outside the bounds of what their proper role is in terms of determining what does the original text say. Because Greek has some things that are very different from English in terms of what's capitalized and what's not. We go around capitalizing according to our rules, and the Greeks didn't use the same rules. And that's why you'll have the argument, well, it means this or it means that. You can't tell from the Greek text which one it is. Again, what does it come to? Context. Context is the point. And so you'll have, you know, the Nestle may come up with one thing, you know, and they may look at something else by another authority.

Some of the best Greek manuscripts we have are written in all caps. And very well written, clearly written, nice clear text. So it's all caps. And others were written in lowercase, all lowercase. And there were patterns over certain periods of time that they went one way or the other. But there's no way to tell from the text which way it is.

It's context. It's the same thing that we use in our language. I use the example of the word bow. If I put B-O-W, you don't know whether I'm talking about what a dog says or what I shoot arrows with or that thing in the sky when the sun starts coming out after it rains. It's the context that tells you which one it is. Apparently one of those is talking about the human spirit.

When you're talking about regeneration, This is something that the Holy Spirit does, and not something we do. So, anyway, it's strange that they would essentially step out of bounds. I'm afraid they stepped out of bounds doing that. They shouldn't, because it implies a certainty out of the Greek text that just isn't there. It's not written that way. Technical fail for you. Yeah. Yeah. Free strikes, you're out.

Yes, and that's where I frequently will quote from people who hold to views that I don't agree with because they may have a proper technical insight into something and yet reach conclusions that I most certainly can't go along with. This is an instance where people have overstepped what's their proper role in terms of revealing what that means. If their role is to determine what did the original text say, it doesn't have capitals and lower case to tell us that. So they just plain stepped out of bounds. I don't know what else to say. They somehow feel strongly they ought to do that, but they shouldn't. Leave that to the next step. Well, let's pray. We're out of bounds. Okay, let's move on to verse 6.

We're going slow, and that's on purpose, because I don't want to just hit the high spots. But the intent is that as we go through this, that we learn how to wrestle with it and arrive at how do I understand what God's Word says. Including just kind of practicing coming to the passage saying, what does God's Word say? What do I want God's word to say?

That's a different deal. Let's pray. Lord, we're thankful that you have indeed desired to lay out for us the truth. You, through Jude, said that we are to contend for the faith. In numerous places you have spelled out the faith and not the faiths, plural. Lord, ultimately the object of our faith is to be in you. Lord, there are not multiple yous, but simply one Lord Jesus. So we acknowledge your lordship and shepherding, Lord, over our very lives. Thank you for the marvelous ways that you have blessed us. We just pray these things in Jesus' name. Amen.