How To Study The Bible

Alright, several things to take a look at before we move into the passage. One, and I decided I wanted to wait until Joanne got back, because she had a question. A few weeks ago, I recommended, because there's a good deal on, and I think it's still on, CBD has a four volume waste set for like $25 plus shipping.

And I recommended it. And lo and behold, any time I recommend something, Joanne looks at it and finds some really good question about it. So she did that again. And one of the questions was this. And I printed this out. And I apologize because some of the letters were a little fresh when I printed it out. So they're actually more readable on here than they are on the overhead. But Weiss makes this point, and I've highlighted it in yellow.

In verses 3 and 7, he says, that second birth having the same source as the first one. And then he repeats it again in verse 7. That second birth having the same source as the first one. And he not only has a complete, his own translation of the whole New Testament, but he also has for some portions of it that show up in, I think, the first three volumes. For those portions, he's got specific kind of commentary on it. And one of them, where he brings up this exact issue, is in Volume 3. It's part of what he calls treasures from the Greek New Testament. He says this.

He says, Our Lord in John 3.3 uses it in this determined context. That's this again or from above.

Anoson is the Greek word there. Nicodemus understands him to speak of a second birth as he says, ìHow can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his motherís womb and be born?î There are two words in Greek meaning ìagainî. One refers to the mere repetition of an action, the other to the repetition action, the repeated action having the same source as the first act. The latter is used here. The second birth has its source in the Spirit. The first act was the impartation of divine life in Adam.

As I look through this, in looking through every Greek source that I have, in every commentary I have, I did not find anybody else who came up with this point. What's that? Joanne just pointed this thing out. She didn't come up with it. She just was questioning it. As I look at this, he doesn't say here, even in his commentary, where he gets this. He doesn't footnote it, and I don't find it anywhere else.

My personal reaction would be to say, that's interesting, but because I don't see confirmation of it, I certainly wouldn't teach it. I would want to say, until I confirm it, and this is kind of the principle that comes out of the Old Testament but is confirmed in the New, two or three witnesses, I'd be looking for some confirmation before I jumped on this bandwagon. So, excellent question. The thing is, and I've said it in here before, don't believe anything I tell you.

You want to check everything out. And even something like this, because I think there are a lot of places he has some good things to say, but check everything. He may be right on this, but I can't find any other place, and he doesn't say where he got the idea. I'm not sure that he isn't off on some kind of a wild hair here, so I would be very reluctant to just turn around and teach that. in order to tell anybody else that's what the situation is, okay? So just check everything. It's good to just check, you know, somebody makes a statement. I still don't see the question. I'm a little slow.

The second birth having the same source as the first one. The other translations don't say that particular phrase that's in yellow. Because if you say everything comes from God, Yeah, but what he's saying, I understand what you're saying. The point being everything comes from God. He's saying the word means that they have the same source.

And my point being, I can't find anything else that tells me that that's what the word means. So I would say, it's very interesting, I'd still call it hypothesis until I find some other confirmation. And I wouldn't go around teaching it or repeating it as this is the truth. You mean the Greek? Yeah, that's his point. He says the Greek word means it's from the same source.

I don't find confirmation, so I would consider it, okay, that's Weiss theory until we come up with something to confirm it. Something else. Here's a for instance. Suppose you come across somebody, he's a Greek scholar, he writes a commentary, and like this guy here, he's an Amillennialist. It's the Bible background commentary.

Is this useful, even though he's not a millennialist? A mild yes from Winnie. What's your mild yes, Winnie? Well, this is at one point of his tribulation, when it's going to occur, I don't think it's necessarily true that he doesn't know much about Indiana. One thing is to look at what is the area that they're writing on. Because you're right, he may have something to contribute.

Example, a lot of the Greek scholars out of the 1800s, this is like Alfred, Nicole, those guys, a lot of them came from an Amillennial background. What you're going to get is you're going to get good insights from the Greek. but you have to weed out their Greek insights from their interpretation. See the difference there? Here, this is a Bible background commentary, and I even gave you some copies of it earlier for the John 3 passage we're looking at. He's going to give you some cultural insights which could be helpful, and those are true. But you will need to discern his cultural insights, which would be true statements, from those things which are interpretation that's based on some error, based on this all-millennial understanding of things. You see the difference there?

So there may be places where you're going to look at some of these Greek scholars and have a difference of understanding with them. One of these issues that has come up that I've had to take a look at, for example, is here's Wiest again, who frequently has good insights on the Greek, He'll make the statement, for example, that the particular construction in 1 Timothy 3, that's commonly translated, husband of one wife, in the Greek it's mias gonaikos andra, that construction, Weiss notes, he says, that construction refers to character.

He's right. And you can confirm that with other Greek grammars. He then moves on immediately to say, and therefore someone who has been widowed, or is now a widower, should not be an elder or a deacon and be remarried. Now, what has he done? He's right on his Greek observation.

He's wrong on his interpretation. We have to be able to discern between those two. He's wrong in his interpretation for a couple reasons. One is because he just jumped this character issue. What does that have to do with character? How is that based on character? Secondly, Romans 7, first few verses, gives an exact opposite instance where there's a husband and wife, one dies, the other remarries.

It's allowed. He's given correct insight on the Greek. He's gone wrong in his interpretation. As you're looking at commentaries, Greek, you know, don't just look at, well he's an expert, you know, I'm going to believe what he says. Look at what are they saying that is the truth and where are they possibly jumping ship when it comes to making an interpretation based on what they really are truly an expert on. Make sense there? You see the difference?

So there are things, I frequently get things out of what this guy says. But I also discern, whoops, he's now a millennialist so he now is in telling me what that means, making an interpretation. He will correctly come up with things that are cultural, that provide insights, but I have to discern his interpretation from that. Cultural understanding should illuminate the meaning, not eliminate the meaning.

Make sense? Now let's go into the passage we're looking at here. We're moving on, and remember I started off this by setting the fuse aflame here by saying John 3.16 may not mean what you think it means, right? And of course that got everybody ready to, you know, shoot me.

Anyway, what's that? Yah! Yah! Yah! That's the only thing that keeps you here, right? Wait, what on earth is he talking about? Well, we're coming right up to that this morning. Here is John 3, and we'll look at it again from this Complete Word Study New Testament. And by the way, I've got to bring up one other subject that this shows up.

What's the color of all these letters here? It's red, right? And how many of you have red letter edition Bibles? You see those? I have some that are red. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? What's that? It's easy. But what do you think? Good thing or bad thing? Okay, what are the good things about it? What's that? Okay, it stands out, here's what Jesus is saying. Okay, what else?

Yes, it may be easier to find something you're familiar with. Yeah, it stands out. Here's the other way, it comes in real handy because almost everywhere, with a few exceptions, mostly going to show up in the Gospels. You can find the Gospels real easy when you're flipping through things. So it's helpful from that standpoint.

Okay? What are some possible downsides to having red letter editions? This is the entire Word of God, not just... Ah, okay, yes. It implies, and I actually have heard people go to this, that it's somehow super inspired. But, you know, this is Everything's inspired, but the stuff Jesus wrote is super inspired, and we put that as priority. And one fellow has kind of led a small following where he says, just read the words of Jesus, don't read the rest of the stuff.

So you can get off track with it. Here's one other thing, and it's something that Winnie brought up. In some cases, and this is a passage in point, some cases it may be hard to tell What is the words of Jesus and what is not? Where does it start and where does it stop? And if that's the case, what you're doing is you're allowing the people who are printing the Bible to decide for you. They're interpreting for you instead of you studying it. So a word of caution there. So there's pluses and minuses. Now with that, Jesus is continuing his conversation with Nicodemus He says, if I have told you earthly things and you believe not, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things? Okay?

Now, what are some things you notice just looking at verse 12 there on the Complete Word Study New Testament? Anything come out of these codes and whatnot? Okay, what do we notice looking at verse 12? And again, especially looking at these codes that we have here, these numbers and these green letter codes that we have.

What are some of the things that jump out at you? Looks like there's an article before something. Yeah, this kind of, they kind of roll it over into the next line. But first of all, yes, there is an article in front of here, because notice this applies to whatever is immediately before it. So that would say, I have told you the earthly things. Okay. All right. So in the Greek it has the in front of it. All right.

That's one thing. What else do you notice? What else do you see? I would say the heavenly things. Ah, good point. So you notice that. It's here and here. It is not just sort of vague, you know, some earthly things and some heavenly things. Just sort of scatter a few here and there. It's the heavenly things, the earthly things. Excellent point. Good observation. What else do you see? There's more. Of is italicized. Ah! Translating that. Yeah, in other words, that of kind of means about. And in fact, it's an insertion in the English. The Greek doesn't have that. That's the idea of these italics, right? So the Greek doesn't have it. Good.

What else do you see? Earthly things is one word. Ah, you see this? They've done something interesting here, and I'm not sure why they chose to do it that way. But you notice this applies to what is two English words and the same thing. Actually, they probably should have just left this off. Earthly things is actually one word. OK, actually just one word and not and not two.

And so if you look at this, Let's get an insight here from the Greek before we jump ahead. This earthly thing, Strong's number 1919, epigaios, earthly, belonging to the earth, or wrought in men upon the earth, in this case here particularly things that are characteristic of the earth. Actually the word things is not really there. It's an English insertion to try to make it a little bit more understandable.

You've heard it said, we're seated with Christ in the heavenlies. The word heavenlies is the same thing here. And you'd do the same thing with earthly. Let's switch this back here, and based on what we've talked about, let's do a little retranslation. If I have told you the earthlies, and you believe not, how shall you believe if I tell you of the heavenlies? Do you see that? That's the sense of what he's saying here. Good. What else do we see in here? Here's something else, frankly it drives me nuts and Bob brings up the point.

There are many places in scripture where they use the word if and it would much better be translated since because it makes for a probability. Another word that is frequently used, and again it drives me bananas, is might. There is a cult that Nancy and I knew several couples and a single fellow down in Texas who had come out of this cult called the two-by-twos. From what I understand, I've run across and want to understand, Denver is a hotbed for this cult called the two-by-twos.

What they do is they take these ifs and mights. Elsewhere you'll see mites. And they keep dangling that in front of the people. Well, you better toe the line, because it's if. You'd better be careful, because it's only might. You might be saved. You might. See what they're doing? So that's why I think here Bob brings up a good point. We understand it, because we've been taught to think that way.

But in fact, it would be much clearer and avoid... Jesus does not, in the Greek, imply any ambiguity. Has he talked about heavenly things? So it's not a question of if. It would be better said, since. Since I have, because this have means he did, right? Yes, in other words, the problem is where they put it is they make it an if, maybe, and it should be a since, stating that it has happened. So let's re-translate this again to clarify it. Since I have told you the earthlies and you believe not, how shall you believe if I tell you the heavenlies? Bob? Okay, here's why I would be disinclined to do that. And here's why.

It's because the had implies it's a done deal. And this is an aorist tense, which can be used to say that, but to be most specific, you'd want to use a perfect tense. Because this also, if I tell you these kinds of things, are talking about it has been going on but he is implying that he is going to continue doing so. Whereas the perfect tense says past completed action, ongoing result. So he didn't use that tense. He leaves the door open with the tense that he uses to continue to tell him these things. You see the difference there? So Bob's point is well taken here.

What else have we got here? How about this word believe? Is that the same word, believe, as we're seeing elsewhere in Scripture? Or is it different? We have in English some interesting things. We use believe, faith, and trust. And we kind of have some different shades. Greek is interesting because it has different words for love and different words for another. But when it comes to believing, You're at Pistou and that's it. And that same word is faith and trust, believe. Those are all the same idea in Greek.

They don't differentiate in those. You're going to believe or you don't. And they don't sit there and try to play shades with the thing. They don't do that. So this is the same as the others. And you'll see this word believe show up again. Exact same word. Good point. That's right. So let's look at that.

How shall you believe since I tell you? And this tell you implies that there's sort of a present tense. This aorist puts a past action on it. Okay? And so what that's telling you is is, since I have been telling you. Yeah? For the clarification on that, I mean, Ares, I think it's though Yadus points out that Ares can mean one time only, but not necessarily be past. Is that the picture? It's usually past. That's correct. Ares, let's put it this way.

The Ares tense is typically the past, unless the context tells you otherwise, okay? But we know that he has been telling you about heavenly things. So the context would tell me he's talking about the past. The aorist tense is the most generic form that I can speak in, in the Greek language. So people try to nail down, what does this aorist mean? The aorist tense is a very general form, and if you want to be specific, you use another tense.

But my understanding, and correct me if this is incorrect, is one time it happened once. It doesn't mean it can't happen again, but then it would be heiress on another application, correct? Yeah, heiress does not explicitly mean it only happened once. Because you can have an heiress that's repeated or an ongoing, and it leaves the door for things to continue going.

So it is only context that tells us this happened just that one time, if it did. and not the specific verb tense. Eris is the most general tense. It can be used in a present sense, it can be used in a past tense, but it doesn't have the definiteness except in context. It doesn't have by itself the definite sense that like the perfect tense has that says this is the way it was, you know, and it was done and it's completed. So anyway, yeah, sure. Does it also imply fact? Yes, it says this is real. However, the most explicit way to state that is with like an indicative. That's the most direct way to state that this is fact.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes. Okay, this is 1437, 1487. Frankly, I'd have to look that up. My suspicion is that it just has to do with the part of the sentence that it is, that it's in. But I have to look that up to be sure. And offhand, I don't know. Leave it to Joanne to ask questions and I can look up. She's good.

Well, when you have conditions of sentencing, that word which precedes, like the word is here for if, if they're different, doesn't it usually mean they're different if first, second, third, fourth, fifth? Well, yeah, you need to look at the context, including those words that will give you an indication of what the condition is.

So Jesus says, if I tell you of him anything, does it mean the thing is, obviously he's already told it, but if I, maybe I will, maybe I won't. I don't believe that. Yeah, I don't think that it clarifies that issue per se, but the thing that I look at here is, it is obvious he has already spoken of these things.

And so the if leaves open for the person, unfortunately like these cult groups, to take that and to imply uncertainty. And in this case it may not be quite as bad, but some cases were talked specifically that you might be saved. And then they'll sit there and dangle it in front of them and say, well, you might be saved, but you're not sure, you know. Yeah, and so they sit there and hang the uncertainty over them, where in fact the original Greek is not saying uncertain.

And so that's where I think you have to be real careful. Pardon? Yeah, in other words, What you want to do is to look at this and say, given the context, is it uncertain? And if it's not uncertain, don't carry it across that way. What I would say, because of the fact that a lot of our translations out of translation tradition carry over this if and might pattern, to just look carefully at the context and as you're thinking of it yourself, or if you have the opportunity to teach and speak to others about it, to convey, look, the context tells us that this if is not hanging the sword of is over you, and it's not trying to hold this uncertainty over your head. It's simply a matter of saying an if-then is a logical statement. So anyway, you can by context learn which one it is, and that's really the situation that we have. It's more context that tells us than real specifics about the grief. The Article D is interpreted in a more global sense, right?

That means, did Nicodemus really hear about all of the heavenly things, or the heavenly things that have been mentioned in context, or those that preceded this date? So, the fact that he did, it could be somewhat second or third class conditional to the extent that maybe he answered told him about all heavenly things. Yeah, I hear you. Translating the Greek article into English does not always make sense, and there are some cases where it would sound in English rather strange. But the point to take is that when there is an article, that there is an intention to be specific. So if you would interpret this, since I've already told you all about heavenly things, right? In other words, a more encompassing interpretation. Yeah, look at what is the basic heavenly thing that he's focusing on here? It's salvation. Born again. Right. You must be born again.

I've laid it on the line here, Nicodemus. That's the issue in front of you. Obviously, it's apparent from later on in John that Nicodemus does become a believer. It doesn't explicitly say that, but the things that he says and the things that he does, I think he comes around. So for this stage, what he's laid out for him is this is the heavenly perspective. These are the heavenly things I've told you.

And the other thing is we don't have the whole conversation most likely here. We're getting a sampling, and he may well have said a whole lot of other things. They are definitely different. I need to take a look as to what the differences are. No, no, no, and she's pointed out that they actually are two different words. Yeah, they are two different words. Yes, but they are two different words, but it may be simply a matter of what part they are in the sentence. Like I said, I need to take a look at it. I don't know offhand from what I have in front of me. It would be rather strange to have the two ifs be different because they imply essentially the same. Yeah, and the difference may in fact simply be parts of grammar, just grammatical differences. Because they do things with that in Greek that we don't. We arrange the sentence in Greek. If I say a ball, you don't know when I say the word ball whether I'm talking about the subject of the sentence or the direct object. In Greek, you do.

So that's the point I'm making here. Depending on where it fits in the structure, It may have the same meaning, except for the form of the word may be telling you where it fits in the sentence. Okay, let's move on here. Verse 13. And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven. Okay, now, what's that telling us? What do you see about that verse? What strikes me is that he kind of says he is in heaven already.

Isn't that interesting? Yeah, that always struck me kind of strange. Well, yeah, let's take a look at that. Which is, and that isn't a past tense. This is a present active participle. Right? So he's saying, here it is, he's saying which is, and it's an ongoing condition. Yes, Joanne. Well, it says here in the Thessalonians, verse 13, it says, and no man has gone up into heaven except the one out of heaven having come down. But the man doesn't say which is in heaven. I'd have to take a look at that. Is that the King James? No, this is the Thessalonians. Okay. I mean, you look under the English. Right. Translations of the Greek. Right. Read that for us again. Okay, this is just under the Greek.

Okay. And no man has gone up into heaven except the one out of heaven having come down, the Son of Man. Okay. It doesn't have witches in heaven in there. No. Okay. And that goes on and on at the service. Yeah. In other words, the last phrase is different. Yeah? In the New King James, it has it in there. It says, that is the Son of Man who is in heaven. But there's also a note here that says the NU, which is the... Right. What is it? The NU? NU? I don't know what you're referring to. I'm reading upside down. Yeah, the letter NU.

Right. It's a textual difference between the Nestle Alond text and the Textus Receptus that's the basis. What you'll see is the footnote is not an obligation, but it's a courtesy that it would be nice if they put there to show the difference. Right, the Textus Receptus. The truth is that there are variations between those texts. What you find is that no major doctrine is impacted by those, and this is an instance. All it is is that witches in heaven is actually a supplement or repetition of the same idea. But let's take a look.

Why does he say this? He's just told them this. Why does he say this? What does that tell you? Why has he said it? I think he's reaffirming... Since nobody has the authority to tell... Okay, alright. And you've hit onto another real important point. What did you have? He's reaffirming his authority for saying so. Okay, he has his authority for saying so. Here's something else.

In the Jewish system of law, of which Nicodemus is an expert, in order to testify about anything, what do you have to be? Qualified? Qualified, exactly. And how are you qualified? A witness. You have to be a witness. And how are you going to be a witness? To see it. You have to be there. That's right. He is telling Nicodemus here, I'm qualified to tell you. Because I've been there. Exclusively. No man. Okay?

You see that? Nicodemus recognized Exeter back when he says, No man can do these miracles that thou hast done, except God be with him. Nicodemus is seeing something. Nicodemus is starting to see that fork in the road, this no man. Jesus is building on this same idea.

You said no man? I'm going to say no man. And now he didn't just say, like Nicodemus, you're kind of different. Jesus is saying, this is the difference. And he's saying, I alone am uniquely, by the law, I alone am uniquely qualified to testify. Because he's been there. So he's landed out to Nicodemus.

Now, what else do you see in here? That he's referring to the Son of Man? Yeah, he's calling, and what does the Son of Man mean? What's that phrase all about? Okay, alright. Where does that phrase come up? What is that talking about, Bob? Yeah, Luke focuses on it. John uses it too, but Luke focuses on it a lot. And if you're a Jew, what does that phrase, Son of Man, mean to you? One of us. And in fact, Ezekiel uses it that way frequently. Common in Ezekiel. Real common phrase. One of us.

And what else does it tell you, Bob? The second Adam's Cometh, I mean, was that what the best time says? Yes. In other words, there is an aspect here, you look at it, Christ is not coming down in some sort of ethereal form. He could have. Just come down in some sort of ethereal form and say, hey, I'm here, I'm the son of God, listen to me and I'll be leaving after a while. Like the Theophanies of the Old Testament? Yes. Yeah. That's right. It isn't just an appearing where I've created for your benefit an appearance of presence.

This is He comes literally, really as a man. So that when He ascends, what is He? A man. When we are seated with Christ, we are going to be seated with a man. He will not have this body. He will have a resurrection body, but it will be a human being. that will also be the Son of God.

So this Son of Man phrase, there's a lot built into it. The other thing is, and we'll see it not only this morning, but we'll see it in the next service, this phrase, Son of Man, is one that Daniel particularly uses as specifying the Messiah. Daniel 7, 13 and 14, I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven, one like a Son of Man was coming. and he came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion, glory, and a kingdom that all the peoples, nations, and men of every language might serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away, and his kingdom is one which will not be destroyed."

This is the Messiah. So it's interesting, Nicodemus is saying, well, you're a rabbi, you're a teacher, you're kind of exceptional. He uses that no-man phrase. But Jesus is cutting away the ambiguity. He's saying, Son of Man. The Messiah. This one. And He didn't say, a Son of Man. Let's go back to the... Notice that. Even to the point where you could come across in the English, the Son of the Man. With that kind of a sense here. So here is... Here is the, they bring it forth in English strongly here, the son of man.

And what kind of man is this? Is this man male or man human? Human. Human, excellent. It's Anthropos. It would be Andros if it was explicitly male. He's saying, I am of a human kind. I am of a human flesh, like you. The Son of Man, this is the Messiah, one who is God, born on the planet Earth as a human being.

We'll get into this more because there's more into this and especially into the next verse that we can't leave alone. Since he just talked about you must be born again, he starts to parallel his life with what we've been through. He's giving a veiled introduction to the identification truth, as we'll see into the next verse here. It's veiled because it's left to Paul to explicitly lay it out. But now that we have Paul's insight, we can see what is beginning to be introduced here.

Let's pray because we're running out of time. Lord, we thank you for your word. What a marvelous set of truths you laid before us, Lord. and how uniquely and amazingly you have been qualified to testify, to bear witness. And Lord, we pray for hearts that would readily soak up the truth, the testimony that you've laid out before us. We just pray this in Jesus' name. Amen.