How To Study The Bible
Vern Peterman · Jul 14, 2002
How to Study Bible (2001-02), No. 41
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://www.hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/4826224457872

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

Let me kind of go over this again, so we make sure we're all on the same page, okay? And we got this Nicodemus guy. Poor Nicodemus. You know, I mean, we keep picking on him, don't we? But anyway, we got this Nicodemus guy, and he's coming up with, how can these things be?

Jesus responds to him, and you know, you're the teacher of Israel, and you don't know these things. And then he comes up with this, verily, verily, and remember we talked about that. This is truly, truly, of all truths, this is one of those that are pivotal. I say unto thee, we speak that we do know and testify that we have seen, and ye receive not our witness. Now, the question that we left you with was, who is we? Who is we? Is this we the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Is this we Jesus and John the Baptist? Is the we Jesus and His disciples? Or is the we all the above, or some combination thereof?

You remember earlier Nicodemus had used a we, right? He was kind of vague about what that meant. We could conclude from what we read later on in John that there was perhaps a small group of those who were of the Sanhedrin who were actually beginning, maybe they didn't understand it all, but they were saying there's something about this. And we get an indication of that from, here's Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, and there may have been others with him, but at least those names come forward. who were involved in actually getting permission to take Jesus' body and to give Him a decent burial. Nice Jewish thing to do, right?

But there's no real strong indication of we. Now Jesus, some verses later, comes up with His own we. And who is we? And how are we going to determine what's we? You started to say something? Okay, so you think it's Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Okay, it's definitely Jesus. Cheryl, who had to step out here, brought up a point, and that is at least one translation, or was it... I can't remember who it was. Anyway, I thought it was Cheryl.

Some of the translations actually will have a capital W in there. And one distinction we want to make is that the Greek doesn't do that. And so when they do that, it's interpretation built into the translation, not just straight translation. The straight translation doesn't have any different form of we. and the straight translation doesn't bring forth a capitalization that is in the original Greek. Neither one. So in truth, putting a W there is interpretation, not something that straight comes out of the Greek that we ought to just look at, stand on, and move ahead with. We still need to look at it.

Okay? Yes. King James uses that we speak, and it's capitalized, but that we know, or do know, and that we isn't. Isn't that interesting? And testify that we have seen. And that we is not capitalized. So interesting. It's almost like they're separating the we's. Yeah.

And again, the truth of the matter is that the original language does not communicate that translation except by interpretation. The translation itself, there's nothing evident in the Greek that stands out. Here's a distinction, for example, that has tended to come into place in varying degrees among Christians, and that is we'll speak about God and use thee and thou, and we'll talk to other people and use you and he and those kinds of things, and that distinction is not in the original language either. specialties and vows for God and that kind of thing. Now it's not to say, you know, I'm not saying, you know, somehow inherently wrong. I'm just saying the distinction isn't there and built into scripture. It's not a biblically mandated distinction. Make sense? Good morning.

Yeah. When Moses asked God who he was, he said, the great I am. Right, yes. And then he didn't say, he said, we are. Ah, okay. I mean, that's starting. Of course, when you separate the three and put Christ on earth and the Holy Spirit around all of us and one God, then there's a point to make it as a plural. Right. Because he always talks of the Father and of the Spirit. But God before and with Moses didn't make an issue. Yeah, but? Okay.

But between what both of you brought up, a key thing coming out of the Old Testament, and we need to think of that in terms of the context that Nicodemus at least could have understood, that the Old Testament reinforces both the unity of God as well as this Trinity. You can see passages that talk about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. You can see passages, as Helmut has brought up, where, you know, who should I tell I'm a sent me?

I am. Singular. And yet, one of the words for God in the Old Testament is Elohim, which is a plurality. Whenever you see the I am at the end of the Hebrew word, that's a plural. That's our S. as we would put it in English. So here's this plurality. And even it shows up very early in Genesis, let us make man in our image. So you've got the plurality in us, and you've got in our image. So the plurality is built in as well as the singularity.

The truth is, it is difficult in simple language to easily convey both those truths. It's kind of like in English. How would you spell there are three twos in the English language? See, our language has some difficulties, doesn't it, when it comes to that?

So, when we come to this here, this we, we've got the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That's one possibility. And are there ways or places where we see that? Are there ways or places where we can find that out see that aspect of it, that it might be Jesus is talking about the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Okay, why don't you read that for us. Okay, he's bearing witness. And what else do you see, Heidi? Okay, there's this talking about the father. I say what? I say what the father told me to say. There's this relationship going on. And does he ever talk about his relationship with the father in we terms? I and the father are one.

Okay, can you think of others? Yeah, in John 17. Okay, John 17. Let's talk about that. It talks about the unity. It talks about the unity, okay. And the Holy Spirit and compare it to the follower disciples or the followers of the believers or the church as unity. Right. How about even what is titled the Great Commission? at the end of Matthew. We looked at it not too long back. How do you see that as a plurality and a unity all in one? How did Jesus say to baptize them? Baptize them in the what? Names? In the name of just the Father, right?

So singular name. but all three persons. Isn't that interesting? He didn't use the we there, but doesn't that sound like a we? So there's the singularness and the plurality all in one. And truth is, we're getting into a whole separate subject of what's the character of God, aren't we, as we start talking about this. As a matter of fact, we could say, we'll put John 3 aside for a while, we'll just study the Trinity for a while, but we can't do that. But I think very quickly you get the idea, just reading passages even right out of the Gospels, that the singularity as well as the plurality is there, and that this use of we could apply to that.

How about Jesus and John the Baptist? There are some people who propose that that's what he's talking about. Do you see any substance to that? Well, they had already rejected John the Baptist, so that could be an immediate rejection. Okay, so Jesus and John, in what ways could we give credence to that?

Is there support for that idea? I say some people have said, hey, that's what it is. Can you give support to that? Does scripture support that idea? That it's Jesus and John the Baptist, that that's the we he's talking about? I don't think they were the only witness. Ah, okay. Two people, explosive Jesus and John the Baptist. Okay. And I don't think you can Let's look at it. Can we exclude John? Let's take that approach. Can we exclude John the Baptist? Is he outside of this we?

I'm not sure if I'm making sense, but Jesus is trying to convey something spiritual to Nicodemus. And I think John was not the I mean, of course he was a spiritual person, but I think something so important would not have been his backlog or whatever. Was John an Old Testament guy or a New Testament guy? And I don't mean just about what books he shows up in. But was John of the Old Covenant or of the New? John is really still an Old Covenant guy, right?

But he is the one who's been given the assignment to make straight the paths. The custom that they would have in those days is when a king was known to be coming through, the local officials and all the people would pitch in and they would straighten out the roads and get the rocks out of the roads. I mean, what the farmers would do, the farmers didn't want the rocks in the fields, right? So they'd go and chuck the rocks into the road. And so they'd go through after that and they'd chuck the rocks back in the field. So in any places that were too much of a rise or too much of a bend, they'd go in and straighten them out because the King's coming. So that's what this, make straight the paths, it means clean up the road, get the things smoothed out.

So John's kind of laying the path for things, but he isn't quite really with the the testimony in the full sense, because he's really an Old Testament guy. He's, if you will, kind of the last of the line of the Old Testament style prophets in that sense. Jesus and John the Baptist, some people have jumped to that's what it is, but as I look at it and I make the dispensational distinction, it's not a real good fit. But let's go on.

Jesus and his disciples. Some of his disciples didn't even get it. Okay, so the disciples really weren't getting it. He was teaching them. They might have been teaching other people. Were they totally out of the loop? Were they partly out of the loop? Where do they stand in this thing?

I think they had a little clue about what was coming but they didn't, I mean because they didn't know what Jesus was explaining to them and he said to them before he left that when the spirit will come it will reveal all the things that he had told them.

Okay. I think you have to say the we's at that time. You can't say, well, some are and some aren't, because I don't think he was wishy-washy at this point. I think he was saying we, and he had a definite we. If you put the disciples in there, that's not a definite. I think you'd have to exclude it. If you look at it, let's back off here.

This is after the point where the disciples have been called. We know that, but we also know that A great many events after this revealed that there was a whole bunch that these disciples didn't get yet at this time of speaking. And in truth, we get to the day of Pentecost, it's almost a decade before those disciples understand the Gentiles are a part of the picture. We're talking at this point in time something like a dozen years before these disciples get around to the place of understanding the Gentiles are a part of the picture. and it would be some years after that before they even start writing the earliest scriptures.

See that? These guys, they're at the start of beginning to understand things. Now, we have this set of options here. I get the impression as we look at this that folks are thinking, what, that this is This is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Is that the impression I'm getting? I'm sorry, what? Point that back to the same people that God has already revealed, and it's his plan. Okay. It's what he has in mind. Yeah. Let's step this thing ahead. I'm going to test out this idea here. Let's step this thing ahead. Suppose you were to fast forward this tape and put the same conversation 20 years later, if that were ever possible.

Would Jesus include the disciples in the we? Now you said, boy, that was not any hesitation at all. Man! Okay, now why do you say that? Because that would be the we of the church. Okay. There is something that is going to change that picture, isn't there? Okay. Let's take a look at a few passages and Let's take a look and see if we can get some discernment as to what this is pointing to. Let's see if I can straighten that out, too.

Here's Matthew 11. All things have been handed over to me by my Father. Does that sound like we? And no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. What does that tell you? Is this we a closed door? No. Because I'm wanting to go to some real revealing. Okay. Alright. So what does that tell you? There are going to be more witnesses. Ah.

In other words, what's happening here is you've got this we and we know it's the Father and the Son. How does that revealing take place? and it's not disclosed in this verse most likely, but how is that? Through the Holy Spirit. So we have the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and ultimately the revelation comes by means of the Holy Spirit. So the we includes all three, right? They're involved in it. And that we has an open door, not that we become God, but that we get included in that testimony and understanding that truth. Then there's always who we are in Christ, so it's still the Holy Spirit that's witnessing through us.

Okay, and did that take place when Jesus was talking to Nicodemus? Oh, okay. Well, let's continue to move on. There's more to take a look at here. This is still in John 3, so this is not too far out of the context When I read this before, I always thought it was just meant to be very general and that it had no reintercation of Christ and God, but that anybody who speaks that we do know. Okay.

And anybody speaks what they think they know and testify those things we have seen. In a general sense, that's true. That's what you hope for, right? People speak what they know and they testify what's true. So in a general sense, almost in a legal sense in a way, that's a true statement.

It's just in the context, as we look at what Jesus is saying in context, He is applying that general truth to the picture of the truths that he's conveying, trying to get Nicodemus to understand, that Nicodemus apparently doesn't understand at this point. Let's take a look. Here's farther on in the same passage.

He who comes from above is above all, and he who is of the earth is from the earth and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. What he has seen and heard of that he testifies, and no one receives his testimony. He who has received his testimony has set his seal to this, that God is true. For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God, and he gives the Spirit without measure. The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life, but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

What does that tell you about we? And this is right in the context, right? So what does that tell you about who the we is? The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Does it include anybody outside of that? but the people on earth. I mean, from the earth. That includes somebody from the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. Here's what's interesting is the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit don't just sit there and talk to each other and say, well, that's it. We're just talking to each other and we're the only ones that talk.

That isn't the way he leaves it, is he? All this is intended to communicate something to us that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit at least have the option to say, hey, this is our deal, and everybody else is just out of the loop. But that's not the picture you get here, is it? Either by implication, because it's been communicated to us, or by direct statement, there's this testimony, there's this speaking to us, see?

So there's two levels at which the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not exclusive in what they're conveying. Let's take a look at another one here. John 8, 28 and 29. So Jesus said, when you lift up the Son of Man, and we'll be seeing something very much like that here shortly. When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He. And I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.

So what weed does that talk about? Now, this doesn't speak of others, does it? It just speaks explicitly of that relationship between the Father and the Son. Now, here's John, and we're jumping decades ahead, so we have to keep that in mind. What's the time frame of these passages? But notice some of the word similarities and message similarities between what we've read in this passage in 1 John. He starts off 1 John this way, ìWhat was from the beginning what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands concerning the word of life. And the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify, and proclaimed to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us.î What we have seen and heard, we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us, and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ."

Now, this is decades later, but do you see the similarity between The we in John 3.11 and this we.

What's going on there? What's happening? So he's including all the labors, but those that are regenerated because that's what he's been telling us. Yeah. Yeah. That's got to be the we. See, if you look at this thing, Jesus is conveying a truth that in that particular context, you really have a tough time putting John the Baptist in. Really.

And at that point in time, people will try to just sweep the disciples in there, but it's like they're pretty young in the process, and yet by the time we get to here, this we that originally, and this makes reference, to the relationship among the Trinity. And yet, what you see is, now it's our turn. Now it's us as human beings, again, admittedly some decades later, who are carrying out what was initially just between the members of the Trinity. You see that? I see your hand or your head bobbing. Bob. Yeah. Did you have something you wanted to say?

I mean, in context, what the Lord Jesus Christ is describing in Nicodemus is this concept of being born of a flesh and born of a spirit. Yes, yes. Within the framework, I mean, Nicodemus was a God-fearing man. Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah. Above was something to relate to, but being born of a spirit was a new concept, right? Yeah, he certainly wasn't getting it. Because if you look at verse 11 out of context, you're kind of amplified why Christ all of a sudden would be developing the Trinitarian concept. Yes. The fact that Nicodemus' foundation was in the God, Jehovah.

Right. And now Christ is portraying this new birth, if you will, through the Spirit. Then the identification through the Father, Son, and Spirit in context, right? So I think that helps me to look back and see what preceded it. Yeah. One of the things that we've been saying is it's like in real estate, it's location, location, location. In Bible interpretation, it's context, context, context.

And as we look at this here and are proceeding through this, yeah, that's the distinction that he's trying to get Nicodemus to see, what's happening on a spiritual level. And somebody read for us, well, here, let's see if I can proceed through it. Okay, we're looking at verse 11. Let's take a look at verse 12. If I have told you earthly things, and you believe not, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things? Does that give us some insight?

Donna? Well, what I kind of got hung up was on that no. When he talks about the no there, and here again, when you read through that, I'm not sure of the full measure, but that I, is it Ido? Yeah, okay. It's more of a factual sense, right? There are several different words for no. They're translated no. What you're getting at is what's the implication of this. We have this word no, K-N-O-W, in English, but in Greek they would have several different words for that. This particular one, this ido, is talking about what we perceive with the senses, not what we know intuitively. Right, but it's a reality. to your senses? Yes, it's reality-based.

That's one reason why I brought up this 1 John. He doesn't use that word 1 John 1, 1-3-3. He doesn't use that word no. But what he does do is he starts talking about what we have heard, seen with our eyes, looked at and touched. We've sensed this. We've experienced it. So what he's doing, he's not using that word know by our senses, but he's using all the other descriptors such as to leave no doubt that this is definitely what he personally has witnessed and testified to and can say this is the truth. Now, Jesus uses that word, and that's a good point. Jesus uses that word. Let's switch back to it.

Let's take a look at this because if we look at this verse A lot of people might be inclined to think, okay, we've got our bodies and we've got our physical senses, and when you get into the spiritual realm, you just kind of get into this misty, foggy, floaty thing. And yet, here's Paul in Ephesians 1, and around verse 18, he's praying for the Ephesians. What does he say?

That the eyes of your hearts might be opened. There is in the spiritual realm a sensing. That is, our physical seeing and touching is really kind of a physical analogy to what's going on spiritually. So here's the Lord Himself saying, we speak what we do know, what we spiritually are taking in with our spiritual senses. And He's speaking, frankly, way ahead of where the disciples are. The disciples aren't there.

If we look back, and Heidi brought it up, here's this, let us make man in our image. That's not some misty, foggy, indistinct kind of a statement. They, as three distinct persons, could speak to one another, and in saying that, let us make man in our image, they had an explicit understanding of what that meant. There wasn't a physical realm, a clarity, and a distinction. in that statement and in those words. We speak what we do know by, and this isn't the physical kind of sensing, but it is in the spiritual realm of a reality that is of that same character, even more so. Solid. They had to look ahead to the cross. Yeah. Yes.

So it would be an experience at the end doing the Holy Spirit. How about testify? Excuse me, what? That would have been experiential knowledge. Yes. The word testify, what do you testify about? Instantly, this word testify is the same one that was used in legal context. Okay, what would that mean spiritually? We testify what we've seen. That's just regular, you know, if you put that in a legal context in terms of, hey, these are the facts, you spell out what you saw, And yet he speaks of that in a spiritual sense. What's that talking about?

No, it's absolutely true. It is confirmed by a legal status. Yeah, if you're put on the stand and raised the right hand and all that, you don't just give best guesses. You know, as best I can tell, I had this dream while I was in the shower and this vision came under my left armpit.

We don't have that, do we? We don't testify about that. We testify about things that we have good certainty of. I witnessed this. And so here's what Jesus is testifying. Testify that we have seen. You receive not our witness. You have these words that talk so consistently about something that actually has a legal kind of implication where you say what the facts are. And then look at verse 12. And we call it verse 12, but it's just the next sentence in what Jesus is saying.

I've told you earthly things, do you believe, you know, if I tell you heavenly things? Now, I think it was the Great I Am speaking to us. Isn't that something? The Great I Am knows all. Yeah. Certainly, the Jews were always looking for a sign. And so many signs were there, and yet they still didn't get it. Yeah. There's plenty of things to see.

If we look at the time context that this was given in, and look at reading the context of what he said, we know we're talking about spiritual things, and he even reinforces here heavenly things, doesn't he? It's too early for this to include the disciples.

I think as we look on like that 1 John passage, later on it's transitioning towards that, Essentially what's happening is the church is being given the opportunity to testify at the same level, if you will, as the testimony that we read about here in 311. Because we notice in that 1 John 1 passage how close the wording was and how close the testimony is to what we read about right here. Much the same words. And why is that? Things change from John 3 to the point where the church finally grows towards and moves towards.

And when we're seated with Christ, we've got something to testify about that those disciples didn't have yet, right? They weren't there yet. They weren't able to do so. But now we say, somebody says, well, how do you know that stuff? Well, I'm seated with Christ. So it was moving in a direction where the disciples could be included. But as I put out the options earlier, is this the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit? Is this Jesus and John? Is this Jesus and the disciples?

It was going to move towards that point, but not here. Not at this point. Not yet. But Jesus is very definitely in here testifying and witnessing, talking about things He has seen. And by the way, what's this code mean here? We have seen, what is that? Okay, be careful about that.

Perfect indicative. Perfect indicative. And what's the perfect tense? Remember what the perfect tense means? Yes, it's a done deal, past completed action, ongoing. So this isn't a process. This is something that happened in the past, it's all done. Do you see that? So there's no doubt about it. This isn't something we're just kind of getting started on. This is a done deal. So what's being testified about is all happened. Yeah. So he further clarifies it. Okay.

Again, this is the purpose of our doing this here is to look at what are the things that we look at. We'll look at the context. We'll look at the words. We'll even look at these indications here about what's the verb tense. Just that one little code there, that perfect, tells me this is a done deal. It's a past completed action with ongoing results into the future. Are becoming a part of that witnessing and testifying and seeing are the results into the future. Okay? Do you see that? But the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is a past completed action. You're not going to add to it.

Does that make sense? So as we look at this, both the little details as well as the larger context give us the picture. Make sense? So anyway, let's go back to these options. While at different places, you know, this Jesus and his disciples, that's later on going to make sense. In the historical context, right here in John 3, is number one. And the verb tense makes it clear. And the adjacent context, especially 12 and 13, just lay it flat out. That's only one, but you're right.

Let's pray. Lord, we just marvel as we look at this. Here is an intimate relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As we read it in today's text, it's clear that it is limited to those three, and yet Lord, what an incredible thing that you have chosen to include us in that, that we see and hear and can testify because we are seated with you. Lord, we give you thanks for that marvelous truth and that tremendous opportunity. We just give you thanks for it, in Jesus' name, amen.