How To Study The Bible
Vern Peterman · Sep 1, 2002
How to Study Bible (2001-02), No. 48
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/4826224737729

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

Alright, we're continuing through the third chapter of the Gospel of John and we've been going at it in fine detail here, a little bit faster here as we proceed through the quarter. Before we move into it, there's a few things we need to take a look at here. One thing is that I plan on finishing, we'll see if I succeed, I plan on finishing the third chapter through verse 21 today. And the topic I would like to have a switch to when we get together next is to answer the question.

Rather than look at a passage, now let's answer a question. Can we demonstrate from Scripture that when The New Testament is talking about death, particularly in Paul's epistles. Does it mean death meaning termination, annihilation? Or does it mean separation?

So we'll be taking a look at that question next time we get together. We will have time, I expect, after that, and so what I would like you to ponder is, is there a subject or a passage that you would like for us to spend, say, a couple of weeks on at the end? To apply some of these things, maybe it's a passage that you're thinking, man, this is a real tricky one. How do we nail this down? Or maybe you're thinking, here's a topic that I'd really like to dig into and see if we can Dig into it.

The truth is, you know as well as I, that for almost every scripture passage out there, within Christendom, there's a half dozen interpretations. And yet, as we talked early on, when the writers wrote, they did not intend six different things. When we said, let's meet at Holly Hills Bible Church at 9 o'clock on Sunday morning, We didn't think six different things, right? We had one intent in mind, and that's what we communicated. Same thing with scripture.

Scripture does not intend to convey all the different interpretations. At least all but one is wrong. And I would submit to you, and this is an issue we've addressed earlier, I'd submit to you that Scripture intends to convey truth, truth with a capital T, and not leave us in a sea of uncertainty. There is absolute truth, and that's something this world has dismissed long ago.

But scriptures stand on it. So that's one thing. You might be pondering, and feel free to get back. If you think about it, hey, let's look at this passage, this verse, If you think, aha, I've got one and are snickering, well, that's OK. We'll take it on. So anyway, think about that. The other thing is, next week I won't be here. So, no, wait a minute. Next week I'll be here. It's the week after that I'll be gone.

So what we'll probably do for that Sunday is maybe just have you shift into the major Bible themes because it's a topical thing where you'd be there just for one Sunday. So anyway, we'd make that kind of a shift and then come back for the last times here and take a look at your challenge passage or topic you've always been wondering about or something that for sure this will stump Vern or whatever you want to do there. Alright, so anyway, now I've got something that will stump you.

How many of you have red letter edition Bibles? Okay, alright. At home, I've got a few of them. And one of the things that you'll notice as you see these red letter edition Bibles, where do you find the red stopping in this passage in 3 John? It goes from verse 1 till until 21. Anybody have anything different in terms of the red letters stopping somewhere after verse 21? Nobody has anything different than that. Okay. Here's what I'd like you to do. I'd like you to start off, read verses 1 through 21 with this in mind.

Have they put the letters in red at the right place. So read the first 21 verses thinking through that question. Have they put the letters in red in the right place? Or should they have started with some black somewhere before the end of verse 21? I want you to read that and see what you think. This is John chapter 3 verse 21. you. Okay, the first question is, is Verna heretic for asking this question? Why is it reasonable for us to ask the question, are the red letters stopping and starting in the right place? Why is that a reasonable question?

The original Greek didn't have red letters. That's right. In the original Greek, they didn't have red letters. They didn't change their ink color. It was all black. Our idea of putting red lettering is a modern addition, if you will. And it is basically the editor's or the publisher's interpretation of things when they put in red letters here and there. In some cases, it's very clear as to when it stops and starts. Alright, now, having read it, what do you think? Is it in the right place? Tom?

There seems to be some repetition between one verse and the next verse in this whole scheme. Between 15 and 16 it seems to be, okay, Jesus is speaking about words. in 14 and 15, and in the Son of Man, and in 16, it looks like he's repeating himself or clarifying himself, or our author is saying the clarification. Okay, alright. Thanks. Any other thoughts on this? I think after, either before or after verse 13, I think that Jesus was speaking Is that something? Okay. And what leads you to that conclusion?

Well, because of the subject matter. Right. It doesn't seem like that's something he would be telling, something told about him. Right. Okay. Yeah. Some of it, I'm sorry. I was going to say, there are the 13, no man has been lifted up to heaven but he that came down from heaven. And before that, he was talking about I, I guess. Okay.

About the middle of where we've been studying here, there's a definite shift away from a direct interaction, I and you, right? All of a sudden that seems to shift away. Does it ever come back? The I and you issue seems to drop out, doesn't it? So that's one thing that kind of leads us to wonder, you know, is this really still Jesus talking or is this John? kind of editorializing appropriately.

Yes? Okay. Yes, and that's something else. It's not only the I and the you issue. It's also a matter, as you start looking at the verb tenses, there are patterns of these verb tenses as you go through right about that same place, that changes too. That pattern of usage of the verbs. Okay? So that's another good point. Is there anything else that you notice? What else do you see? What else have you seen in that passage there? Come across anything else?

Towards the end, and we're going to look at it here shortly, the discussion, he starts talking about light. And something interesting is later on in John, you'll see the Lord Himself talking about light and even saying He is the light. But the discussion about light also shows up in the first chapter of John.

And 1 John 1.5 and following also talks about light in a narrative fashion and not directly. And it sounds actually like some of that discussion. It sounds actually like some of that discussion. Here's something else.

What does Jesus usually call Himself? Son of Man or Son of God? What's that? Son of Man is more commonly what He calls Himself. And as you look at, you know, throughout Scripture, in the Gospels, and that's the context we're in, he'll call himself the Son of Man, the Son of Man, the Son of Man. Once in a great while he will call himself the Son of God, but it's actually fairly rare. And yet what you see here, reference to the Son of God in this passage in the last half.

So I bring this up just so that we keep in mind, when you're looking at your When you're looking at your English Bible, remember that some of what is coming across in our English text may be the editor's interpretation, the publisher's interpretation, and not from the original text.

So we need to feel free to question that, because what was originally written is inspired and infallible. What we have here in English is something we need to dig into. Is this really the case? Sometimes, for example, you'll have a word capitalized indicating this is Christ or the Spirit or something of that sort. The original Greek doesn't have that, just like it doesn't have red lettering. How about our verses and chapter breaks? Those were added later. Chapter breaks are roughly the year 1200. Verse breaks not until the middle 1500s.

If you came up to somebody in the year 1400 and said, hey, tell me what John 3.16 says, he'd say, huh?

He wouldn't have any idea what you're talking about, even though he may know the Scripture well. It is one of the reasons you will see even where the New Testament is quoting the Old Testament, it will say something as vague as somewhere it says, or where it says, or it is written. That kind of phrase.

Why? Because there wasn't a reference system. So we need to, as we're examining scripture, to think, okay, what's the original language saying? Because we've got to be careful we don't take what has been interpreted for us as necessarily infallible. Even what's given to us as the red letter, the words of Christ, not necessarily.

The other thing is John wrote it. Yes. So he was recalling what Jesus said. I'm sure he didn't take notes at the very time and said this is the exact words, but I'm sure that God gave him the recall to at least know what and accurately write down what Jesus said.

I think that the red letter kind of sometimes tends to, well, you know, bring out something like Jesus is doing the actual Yes, there is a tendency with the red letter to think that somehow this is more inspired. So when I'm saying maybe Jesus didn't say this stuff that's at the end of this passage we're looking at. I'm not challenging its inspiration whatsoever. All I'm saying is let's be careful that we're certain. Is this really what Jesus said or is this somebody's interpretation? All scripture is inspired. All scripture is inspired. So to say that the last part of this may not be Jesus' words is not diminishing its inspiration and truth and validity whatsoever.

Tom? There is one thing that makes me think about why the publisher kept them in red, and that one aspect is Jesus told the apostles and those he was teaching, you may not understand everything I say, but when the Holy Spirit comes, he will bring these things to you. So with that possibility in mind, I think that's why the publisher might have kept them in red later.

Yeah. Part of what happens sometimes is sort of gets to be traditional in a sense, too, in terms of this is kind of the way it's been done. So we're going to put an addition. Let's keep it that way. I was just thinking that perhaps there is more harm than good. Could be. Yep.

I think the skeptic of the Word of God would be skeptical about the validity of the entire text. Therefore, something that's highlighted to be the words of the Lord Jesus Christ would get more priority than saying, this is Paul. In fact, as you just pointed out, the entire text is equally inspired. If anything, in the church age and the body of Christ that I'm in, I would prefer Paul's I mean, but the point is that the skeptic will look at only a certain text and say, well, see, this contradicts what the Lord Jesus Christ would say and not consider the entire word.

Yeah, yeah. It is, I think, valuable for us to understand what is inspired and what is not. And your point brings that forward. that if we are coming up with something and we start putting it in print like that, it's something that looks like you're claiming infallibility for it, when in fact you can't stand on that. There are times, for example, I mentioned the chapter and verse breaks. There are times when a chapter or a verse break may interfere with our ability to properly interpret a passage.

Because Psalms will just start off in a chapter, as in fact admittedly we did here in John chapter 3, and lose the context. It will start off a chapter with therefore, right? What's the therefore therefore? But it's to base it on what's been said before.

So a lot of times we'll get a mental break. There are places that I've found where, you know how some of your Bibles will have sort of subject titles over different sections? There are places where I've found those subject titles in the middle of a sentence, what is in the Greek, in the middle of a sentence. Extremely disruptive to the interpretation of the passage.

With that, let's take a look at the last three verses here of this passage we've been looking at. In verse 19, John is continuing to write explanation. And notice his use of words like for and that. Those kinds of words John is trying to state clearly logic, and sequence, and because of this, this, and giving us reasons and justification. There are people who will try to present Christianity as some sort of a mystical leap into the dark. John is doing the exact opposite. He's saying for, and that, and because, and making logical connections. And he's doing that exactly here.

And this is the condemnation. And this is the condemnation that light has come into the world. Because he's already in the previous verse talked about what? Condemnation, right? He says, those who don't believe are condemned already. They're already in a position of condemnation. There's believing that takes them out of that position, right? So he's explaining the condemnation. rather than just telling us, well, they're condemned already.

He's explaining that. So that's what verse 19 is telling us here. And this is the condemnation that light has come into the world. What's he mean by that? Light's come into the world. Is he talking about this stuff we've got overhead here because of the fluorescence? Light's come into the world. What's that about? Divine truth. And do we know anything beyond that? In what ways has light come into the world? Light is false. False, okay. Okay. It's perpetual. Okay, good point. And there is darkness.

And what we'll see is John, of all the writers of the New Testament, makes more of that very issue than any other writer. So, one of the tools that we have for study is comparison with other scriptures, right? John gives us a wealth of information on light and darkness to compare with, doesn't he? We can start at the beginning of the Gospel of John, go through it multiple times, he brings up the subject of light and darkness. As we go even into his writings like 1 John, he doesn't get through the first chapter before he brings the issue up again.

So lots of material to work with, isn't there? And light is revealed truth. You started to say something, Wayne? back to Genesis when, when Ann fell, their eyes were open to good and evil. Okay. Was light brought in before that? Okay. Where? Light and darkness. And at that point, let's look at something, at that point was having light and darkness, was the darkness bad? No. Now why was it okay then? Because remember he said, God looked at all they had made and what did he say? It was pretty good? No. It was good, right? So now we've got light and darkness. Why all of a sudden then is darkness now something bad? What's happened? What's happened?

Okay. Ah, okay, alright. And what's the difference? Do we need to make a distinction here? Alright, and what's that distinction? What's going on? Okay, alright. If there is no evil, okay, then darkness does not take on its evil overtones. But with the introduction of evil, now all of a sudden the contrast between light and darkness matters, doesn't it? See that? So this offering, your eyes will be opened. Oh yes, they'll be opened. But the problem is that opening will show there is light and there is darkness. And this passage here gives an indication of what that distinction now means. Go for it.

The darkness was present before the stars, correct? The divine darkness. Tell us more about this. Presumably the light was from heavenly places, correct? So where is darkness? Yeah, yeah There there are some aspects about light and darkness before the fall that are frankly a little hard to comprehend aren't they and in yet He could separate the light from the darkness darkness could be present and God could still call it good. That's interesting but there's something that happens spiritually and morally and after the fall where John repeatedly is able to point out the contrast between light and darkness, and it's a very fitting picture, and we have then even the clarification where God is light, Christ is the light of the world, those kinds of statements, all of a sudden the light and darkness contrast has a significance it didn't have before.

The light has come into the world. What kind of light is that? Helmet. Is there light at all? I'm sorry, what? Is there light at all apparent if there is no dark? Would you be able to see light if there was no dark? Does it show light for what it is? How about that? The light and darkness contrast shows light for what it is, doesn't it?

How many of you have had a chance to be in one of these deep, dark caverns and they turn the lights out? Ever been in one of those? The intensity of the darkness is amazing. And then at that moment, even to just light a match, the match is just amazing in terms of the difference that it makes. Amazing difference, just one match. Here's this light is come into the world. What do we know about that light is come? We've got this little code here, PFI. Anybody have that listing here in terms of what the verb code is?

Yes, it's a perfect, now what's the perfect tense mean? Completed past action. ongoing results. So it doesn't say the light is coming into the world, it has come. It has come, it's completely come, the past action is completed, it has ongoing results into the future. That's the meaning of this little code there. The light has come, completed past action into the world, and men, is that just males? What is it, Winnie? It's human beings. This is Anthropos. So this is mankind, if you will.

Mankind loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. What insight did we just get out of this? Tom? Man will play a game with himself and say, well, it's dark. God can't see this. This darkness thing is something, they scurry for it.

It's kind of like cockroaches. If you've ever been in a room, we found that lesson down in Texas when we moved down there. You turn the light on and boy, all of a sudden there's movement. The floor starts moving, but there's a tendency to go towards that which is unseen. And furthermore, even in the heart of man, there's a tendency for man to hide more and more underneath and kind of in the shadows to conceal everything because he doesn't want things to come out to the light. Love darkness rather than light.

Now notice that it wasn't just a gravitation towards it externally. Notice there's a loving of it. It's Agape. Fascinating! It's Agape! Now I thought Agape was only God's love. What's going on here? What is this? Do we misunderstand Agape here? No, but it certainly sets the stage for something that is beyond the capability of man on earth. Right.

It's like magnetism for the cathode and the anode, that agape is so connected that there's nothing that can separate them. Agape love is the love of the will. That's an important distinction. Phileos is a mutual, interactive attraction. This is different. This is a love of the will.

So it's saying in this context, this agape love is talking about man willfully gravitates towards the darkness. See that? So when it says man loves the darkness, it's not that the darkness has some sort of interactive feeling. But there is a willful gravitation. That's what this love is talking about. This agape love has a willful gravitation towards darkness.

The man was created with that. It's just the direction in which he chooses to put that love, right? Yeah, man has a will. God created that initially. Here, what happened, because man fell, he's saying that the nature of man is to gravitate towards the darkness, because the deeds are evil. That's the place where I can hide. That is the place consistent with the nature of man.

Something else. Remember, one of the principles that we said is where there is no article in the Greek. And this is remember the code that we look for. A-N means anarthros, no article, whereas this A-R-T means there is an article. Notice here, the light. See the article there? THE light has come into the world.

The English translations don't always bring that across. But here, notice evil is in ourselves. It's not THE evil, it's the character of evil. If there's no article, the emphasis is on character. If there is an article, the emphasis is on the identity. See the distinction there? So you have light, and it has the article, so it's THE light has come into the world. But when we're talking about, and even darkness has the darkness, but when we talk about evil, there's no article that means the focus is on character.

We could say this, because their deeds were by character evil. By character evil. Okay? Alright. For everyone that doeth evil, hateth the light, neither cometh the light, lest his deed should be reproved." Now, there's something, again, let's look at the articles here and these little codes here. For everyone that doeth evil, and what do you notice about this doeth? See this code? There's an article there, right?

Furthermore, it's a present active participle. So our English translations are kind of weak here. Here's what this is telling us. Everyone that is the one doing, because a present active participle has an ing, everyone that is the one doing evil, doing evil of a character, hates the like, and it has the article in front of like. Everyone that is the one doing what is a character of evil, Hates the like. See that? That's what comes out of the Greek here. And this hates is a present indicative. So what's that telling you?

He right now hates it. He doesn't just hate it sometime in the past or once in a while. He right now is continuing to hate it. See, that's what this PIN here, this present indicative, is telling us. He hates the light. He doesn't come to it. Otherwise, his deeds would be reproved. They would be exposed for what they are.

Yeah. Nice continuation in 1 John 1.9. Yes. Okay. Because we know that we all fall short of the glory of God. The source of that is not the new man, correct? Yeah. So the hated in the present tense indicates right now, right? Right. The present indicative means, in the typical sense, right now continuing. Right now continuing is the general meaning of the present indicative. Right. Right.

He is right now continuing to hate the light. It's ongoing. He didn't just used to hate the light or he isn't just going to hate it. He's right now hating it. So sin is a matter and that never changes obviously. Yeah. It's ingrained because he's stuck in it. He right now is continuing to hate it. Make sense? Let's ask another question here.

This is showing darkness and light. This is a contrast for the person that believes and the person that doesn't. Is there ever an instance where a believer finds themselves scurrying from the light? Has that ever happened? All right. What's going on there? Does that run in conflict with what John's saying? What's happening when that takes place? What's that?

Okay. I'm sorry, what? We want to do what we want to do? Okay. But this comes down to an issue that doesn't come up immediately in this context, but I think it's important for us to ask, because what he's describing there, I could look at it and say, well, gosh, I've experienced that as a believer, or I know believers who demonstrate this. So what's going on? Does that mean this person isn't a believer? What's happening? And that's why Paul particularly gets into Romans and starts talking about chapter 6, especially chapter 7, and then you get into even Galatians.

The believer is separated, and this is an issue we'll get into when we talk about death as separation. The believer is separated from the old sin nature in terms of his position. That old sin nature is separated so he is dead unto that sin nature, but that is not the same as that sin nature being terminated, annihilated, and eliminated. So while the believer in his position does not stand next to or upon that old sin nature, that old sin nature is still something upon which the believer can rightfully rely upon at some moment.

Yes, it's the issue of the will, isn't it? It's the issue of the will. A characterization that I like to use because I think it's helpful is to think of the old sin nature as a deposed monarch. And when we encounter this situation, this deposed monarch will not rightfully so, but will scream and holler to try to claim the place that it once had. The analogy I like to use is, remember Marcos in the Philippines? He was completely out of power, but he kept clamoring and screaming to get back the place that he once had. He could scream and holler and yell, but he had no right to the power. His position was separated from the Philippines.

Take that back to our situation, the old nature is not eliminated and eradicated so long as we are here on planet earth, but we are separated from it. We have died unto it. So now, as we look at this here, we need to be sure that we understand the position of the unbeliever, but also recognize that while we are here on planet earth, our relationship to that old nature is such that we are dead unto it, but we will see at times as a believer relies upon the old sin nature, behavior that looks like this. Anyway, a bit of a side trip from this passage, but an important distinction to make.

So what this is saying for everyone that is the one doing evil. That's the way the Greek comes across there. Between everyone and the one doing, there's a lot of focus on each individual. Each individual comes across there. Notice this. You see the similarity in pattern?

Slight difference in the word, but we also have the article and the present active participle. He that is the one doing is again the emphasis here. But there's a difference. The one doing evil is anarthrist, no article in front of it, right? So the one doing evil is doing evil as a character. This one is, but the one that is doing the truth. How about that? Evil is vague, the truth is specific. See that?

A distinction that comes out even in spite of the similarity in this, the one doing here in terms of the structure. But he that is the one doing the truth, and then this cometh, that's the present indicative middle, is coming of himself right now, continuing to come of himself to the light that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God. Someone have another translation that gives us a better sense of what does this mean that they are wrought in God. And I'm going to have a different translation there that gives some insight on that. What's that talking about? What is he saying there in verse 21? What's the message?

Go for it. Okay. Yeah. This word rot, is there a synonym for that? You're just saying sourced? Okay. Okay. God is the source. He is the one who is doing it. He is the one who is making it happen. Okay. The bottom line is either we are going to be the one doing the truth, and who is the truth? Okay. We're going to be living life as Christ life, or else this vague thing called evil is going to be what's doing it.

Do you see the distinction? Evil does not have a specific personage. It's just vague. It's lacking the life. It's lacking the truth. The truth is specific. He that is the one doing the truth, So he's making a contrast here. There's going to be darkness, which has a character of evil, but it is nonspecific and it is not driven by something specific.

Evil is a vague... because what is darkness? What's darkness? It's an absence of light. So one of the things that John's doing in what he's written here is he's saying light is specific. And yes, there is the darkness, but any time he characterizes what's that darkness like, it's evil and he doesn't put an article in front of evil.

It's this vague evil. Or you can have the truth and the light. So do you like vagueness? You like that spiritual and moral ambiguity? That's the character he's painting here. That's the darkness. If you want specificity, if you want the life, if you want the real genuine article, that's Christ. That's what he's spelling out here. Contrast between light and darkness. And each of those has definite right now consequences. Each of those has definite right now characteristics. Yes, what?

Why isn't there an article on Star Trek? That's all right. There are places where you'll find the God and there are other places where it's not there. Let me turn that back to you. What does the lack of the article indicate? Remember, having an article in the Greek means what? It's specific as to identity. Lacking the article refers to what? It's character. Lacking, just like evil. Without the article, evil isn't the evil. It's referring to the character of evil. So when you have the name God there, the article is lacking, the reference is not specifically to pointing out it's God's doing it, it's God's character. Yeah, Bob? Well, verse 17 begins with, for the God sent on his son, right? So the whole text of the day has been passed through. Yes, yeah. Following the latest day of the son, right? Yeah. Yep. The specific God.

It's interesting, you know, in our English frequently that article gets sometimes included, sometimes not. It's presence or absence in the original language matters. Because it's saying, lacking the article, it's talking about character. What's that? Well, here is the light. Is there a particular place you're looking at where it doesn't have the article? Oh, I see.

You're talking about the character of God. Yes. One way to expand this to bring it over in English, for they are wrought or sourced or made in the one who is of character, God. That's kind of the emphasis that's coming across here versus having something that's talking about, as Bob pointed out earlier in verse 17, THE God. And then you're looking at specifically this one. As opposed to this instance where the article is missing and then the focus is looking more at the character of Him. It's all on purpose. It's all on purpose. Alright, next week We'll go and take a look at this issue of is death separation? Bob, you had kind of brought up this issue last week.

There is an argument among those who are in theological circles, the Calvinist versus the Arminian. The Calvinists frequently are in a position of saying if you're spiritually dead, you're out on a slab cold dead, therefore here's the sequence. You're out on a slab cold dead and therefore you can't believe. So God first has to choose you and then if he chooses you then he regenerates you and then he gives you the gift of believing and so then you believe.

That's the sequence that frequently is taught in more of a reformed background. And we're going to take a look at that issue here, because that sequence is critical even to the identification truths, as we'll soon see. So anyway, we'll take a look at that next week.

And let's pray. Lord, we thank You, just as we look at Your Word, for the light that it sheds, and for the understanding that we have from Your Word. We just pray that it would not be simply, you know, parts of speech and verb codes and things of that sort, but that indeed, Lord, you would be applying it to our hearts and lives so that as we speak to one another, as we go out from here, that this would be used of you, that it would be your work and your accomplishment in our lives. And we just pray this in Jesus' name. Amen.