How to Avoid Intellectual Dishonesty

John chapter 1, starting in verse 43, and we'll read to the end of the chapter.

Please stand with me for the reading of God's word. On the next day, he desired to go into Galilee and he found

Philip. Jesus said to him, follow me. Now, Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

Philip found Nathanael and said to him, we have found him of whom

Moses and the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

And Nathanael said to him, can anything good come out of Nazareth? Philip said to him, come and see.

Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him and said about him, behold, truly an

Israelite in whom there is no deceit. Nathanael said to him, from where do you know me?

Jesus answered and said to him, before Philip called you when you were under the fig tree,

I saw you. Nathanael answered him, Rabbi, you are the son of God.

You are the king of Israel. Jesus answered and said to him, because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe?

You will see greater things than these. And he said to him, truly, truly,

I say to you, you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the son of man.

Heavenly father, pray that you would be with us now as we learn from this passage.

God, would you open our minds to receive your word? We pray this in the name of our Lord and savior,

Jesus Christ, amen. You may be seated. How to avoid intellectual dishonesty.

In a blog post dealing with this topic, intellectual dishonesty, one author described the signs of intellectual dishonesty versus intellectual humility.

This is really the idea of being unteachable or being teachable. The writer started with the question, but what is intellectual dishonesty?

In the article, it says this, a good starting point is to explore how intellectual dishonesty differs from regular dishonesty.

When someone is being simply dishonest, they are often misrepresenting a clear fact.

One example might be, no, I did not take that last cookie. As I'm thinking about that,

I'm thinking about, did I take the last cookie last time we had fellowship? But that's something that can be refuted.

This is just a clear fact. Nope, I didn't do this. Nope, this isn't the way this is.

If that is the case, they probably just need to focus on how to stop lying. Intellectual dishonesty is not applying the same intellectual rigor or weighting your own beliefs as you do to the beliefs of others.

It may not be as simple as someone lying. Someone may just ignore the holes in their own thinking or logic as it doesn't fit with their intended outcome.

Intellectual dishonesty also often relates to being closed -minded and not being open to another point of view.

People react by being intellectually dishonest to make the facts suit their opinion.

Avoiding other opinions or new information makes it much easier to reach your own intended conclusion.

The author contrasted being intellectually dishonest with being intellectually honest, as she explained later in a follow -up blog, the idea of intellectual humility.

If someone is genuinely intellectually honest, they are willing to change their opinion, even if it may not suit their goals.

They care more about having high standards of truth than being right.

Intellectual humility means recognizing that the things you believe dearly could be wrong.

Unlike general humility, it is not centered on having a low view of one's own importance or a lack of competence.

No, rather it is a way of thinking. At its heart, it incorporates accepting the possibility that what you think might be wrong.

In addition to be intellectually humble, you must be keen to learn from others or their experiences.

Intellectual humility demands for you to think about your own limits. So why is it important to be able to admit we could be wrong about what we think?

Well, for one thing, it will make us less defensive when challenged about our beliefs.

And it matters too where the source of that challenge comes from. Of course, we're talking about the word of God.

But to be less defensive when challenged about your beliefs. This approach also forces us to think about our blind spots, opening up new lines of inquiry we may not have seen before.

So here are five common signs or techniques of someone being intellectually dishonest.

Number one, ignoring or avoiding the question. You just ignore it.

Like ignore or avoid the question. Number two, employing double standards. What works here doesn't work here, but you're happy to cite the one and go by that.

It's a double standard. Number three, never admitting error. Never admitting error or pretending things make sense when they don't.

When scrutinized, it just falls apart. But you don't admit it, you don't look at that. Never admitting error.

Number four, being vague in your answers. Vague, nonspecific responses often to deceive others or to deceive yourself, to go with that that you know is not true.

And number five, being dismissive. Being dismissive of others' arguments without giving a proper reason.

So how do we do this in the church? Well in the church, this manifests in having an unteachable attitude.

Unteachable attitudes. Intellectual dishonesty comes to the surface when the pastor of the church teaches something from the

Bible that you disagree with. The first step comes out, avoidance of the pastor.

You avoid the pastor, you avoid the elders. Being withdrawn and making sure not to comment on the topic, we just won't bring it up.

Next, the double standard, the double standard. Double standards are standards and principles that are applied to similar things but in a different manner, typically without proper justification.

An example might be a father who allows his 16 -year -old son to stay out until midnight but doesn't let his daughter go out past 10 p .m.

And as I'm thinking about that example, I would say that's just good parenting. I don't know if I disagree with that one. But you point to one thing, there's a standard here but you don't apply that same standard in every situation.

I'm going to go to this activity in church but this other stuff I'll ignore because I don't feel like it.

So there's a standard that's being chosen and it's not uniform across your life. Both are taught in the

Bible but you pick and choose what you agree with. They're both taught in the

Bible but you get to pick based on your double standard. You apply a double standard.

In the church, you may cite examples of overt obedience while participating in covert disobedience.

I'll obey here, everyone can see, I won't obey here, I just won't bring it up. So there's a double standard being applied.

I'll attend sometimes on Sundays but I'm going to keep doing my own thing when I find something more entertaining coming along.

I'll pick and choose what works for me and even cite the Bible when it validates those decisions.

But if the Bible teaches you to do something you don't like then it's feigning of ignorance.

You'll feign ignorance or you'll ignore those verses. I just, I can't see it.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. All of a sudden the brain stops working. This is number three.

Having the attitude that you're not wrong about anything, being unteachable and then your brain suddenly stops working when the pastor points out something in the

Bible that doesn't match your life or attitude in the church. Statements like, I just don't see it in the

Bible. I just don't see this. I've heard questions like this. The word

Trinity isn't in the Bible, true. Is the doctrine in the Bible? Yes.

The word rapture isn't in the Bible, true. But is the doctrine of the rapture in the

Bible? Yes. Actually, you could say the word rapture's in there hard to be snatched away. Fill in the blank.

You just fill in the blank. I don't see this in the Bible. Fill in the blank with whatever teaching of Christ you're currently in disobedience to.

And then we have unteachability. This is where number four comes in.

There will be vague and nonspecific reasons for not listening to the pastor or elders of the church.

Broad statements that don't address the specific chapter in verses that the pastor cites in the sermon or in Sunday school.

And that leads to being dismissive of the pastor and the teaching from the Bible. A flippant or dismissive attitude.

In verses 43 through 51, the apostle John describes the calling of Philip and Nathanael on the fourth day since the witness of John the

Baptist. So that you can see a biblical example of how to avoid being unteachable.

Four examples from the calling of Philip and Nathanael to avoid intellectual dishonesty.

First is Philip's example. So these four examples will be broken down in two with Philip, two with Nathanael.

Here's the four examples. Number one, attend. Attend, to pay attention, verses 43 through 45.

Number two, agree. Agree, to accept, verse 46.

And number, that was number two. Number three is to ask. So number one, attend.

Number two, agree. Number three, to ask. Ask, to inquire. This is

Nathanael's example, verses 46 and 48. And then number four, acknowledge.

Acknowledge, to admit, verse 49. Four examples from the calling of Philip and Nathanael to avoid being unteachable.

First is Philip's example. Number one, attend, to pay attention.

In verse 43, the Apostle John continues this example, this narrative, this eyewitness account of the testimony of John the

Baptist. And now we're moving on from that testimony and we find ourselves in the fourth day from the eyewitness testimony here.

Verse 43, on the next day, he desired to go into Galilee and he found

Philip and Jesus said to him, follow me. The Apostle says, on the next day.

So at this point in the record, we're on the fourth day from this eyewitness account. We've moved on from John the

Baptist. Following his account of the Baptist's testimony over a three -day period,

John then transitioned to describe how Jesus had started to call the apostles.

He really started the transition on the record of the third day when he described Jesus calling

Andrew and his brother Peter. Now it's the day after Jesus called Andrew and Peter, which was the same day he called

James and his brother, the Apostle John. We know that from the other gospels. Matthew four is helpful here.

Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon, who was called Peter, and Andrew, his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.

And he said to them, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. And immediately, they left their nets and followed him.

And going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James, the son of Zebedee, and John, his brother, in the boat with Zebedee, their father, mending their nets, and he called them.

And immediately, they left the boat and their father and followed him. That's Matthew chapter four, verses 18 through 22.

John was an eyewitness, so he's telling the events in the order they took place.

John is saying, the day after Jesus called Andrew, Peter, my brother

James, and me, this is what happened next, on the next day. And he says

Jesus desired to go into Galilee. And the word he uses here is not just wanting to do something as a wish or want.

This isn't I hope to, I wish to, I want to. It can mean that, but there's a deeper purpose here for Jesus, and John is illustrating the motive of Jesus resolving to go to Galilee.

John is saying Jesus desired, as in to have something in mind for oneself.

This is a purpose or resolve. And the immediate context gives the reader more insight to what

John is referring to here. Look at chapter two, verse 11. Says Jesus did this in Cana of Galilee as the beginning of his signs and manifested his glory and his disciples believed in him.

Jesus was ready to reveal himself to the people of Israel as the son of man prophesied by the prophet

Daniel. And that revealing starts in our passage this morning, and then

Jesus would begin his sign wonders to authenticate his messianic claims.

The text tells us Jesus found Philip and commanded him, follow me, follow me.

The verb here to follow is an imperative command. That has the figurative meaning to follow someone as a disciple, to be a disciple, to follow.

This isn't just merely come with me, this is come with me as a disciple.

In the preceding verses, we see Philip attended or paid attention to the

Christ's command. Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

John gives another precise detail here, that Philip was also from Bethsaida.

Historical detail that brings the witness from a real point to the reader.

If it is the next day after Andrew and Peter were called, then it makes sense that Philip and Nathaniel are in the same vicinity, or at least within a day's travel.

In this case, John tells us Philip was also from Bethsaida. The sharp observer could ask,

I thought Peter's house was in Capernaum. Isn't his house in Capernaum? And so we see this, what could on the outset be a perceived contradiction,

I say perceived. Historically, and according to Mark's gospel, Peter's house was in Capernaum, Mark chapter one.

And immediately he called them, referring to Christ, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, and went away to follow him.

And they went into Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbath he entered the synagogue and began to teach.

And immediately after they came out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew with James and John.

Peter and Andrew likely grew up in Bethsaida and later went to live in Capernaum.

Think of it like this, Jesus was always identified with his hometown, his hometown of Nazareth, yet he lived in other places later, but he was always described as being

Jesus of Nazareth. What could be merely just a perceived contradiction just adds extra weight of credibility and accuracy when compared with the other gospels.

Philip found Nathanael and said to him, we have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, and here it is.

It's Jesus, Jesus from Nazareth. He's the son of Joseph.

The first example of avoiding intellectual dishonesty in Philip in paying attention is seen in the implication that he attended to Jesus in listening to him.

The next thing we are told after John's addition of historical data in where Philip came from is how he responded to Jesus's communication.

In this case, it was a command, but Philip listened and paid attention. We see that in the obvious implication that he listened and took what

Jesus said at face value. His response transitions from paying attention to a willingness to agree or accepting.

Philip paid attention and he accepted. He was open -minded and recognized the truth.

His response isn't doubt or questioning. He took Jesus at face value and accepted what he was told.

His response of agreement is demonstrated in seeking his friend Nathanael to tell him what he had learned.

We have found him of whom Moses and the law and also the prophets wrote.

Just that statement really is a crystallized synopsis of John's gospel as a whole, that Jesus is the literal fulfillment of the entire

Old Testament, the Old Testament fulfilled in this man. And so we can break that statement down,

Moses and the law and also the prophets. Moses and the law, certainly he's referring to Deuteronomy 18.

Yahweh your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers.

You shall listen to him and also the prophets. We've heard from some of them the last couple of Sundays as we've considered

John the Baptist's witness. And at this point, Jesus has not performed many miracles, but things had happened that led the

Old Testament reader to be ready. One of those things is a massacre of children.

A massacre of children would happen at Messiah's birthplace. We see that in Jeremiah, Jeremiah chapter 31.

Thus says Yahweh, a voice is heard in Ramah wailing and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children.

She refuses to be comforted for her children because they are no more. Everyone who was alive at this time would have remembered the slaughter of the babies under King Herod.

The Old Testament reader may have made the connection and been waiting for the Messiah. Philip understood what he saw in light of the

Baptist ministry and took it at face value. A messenger would prepare the way for Messiah.

Remember, John the Baptist quoted Isaiah 40 and applied it to himself. Look again at chapter one, verses 22 and 23.

Therefore, they said to him, who are you? Who are you? So that we may give an answer to those who sent us.

What do you say about yourself? John the Baptist said, I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the

Lord as Isaiah the prophet said. He applied it to himself.

Messiah would be preceded by a forerunner. Malachi chapter three, behold,

I am going to send my messenger and he will prepare the way before me.

And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says

Yahweh of hosts. Philip didn't need to see miracles. He didn't have doubts, he didn't have questions.

He took what he saw and what he heard in an open and honest way. How to avoid intellectual dishonesty.

Number one, Philip attended or paid attention to the Christ's command and claim.

He paid attention to the Christ's command and claim. He paid attention, he listened and accepted.

And we can see the agreement here and in verse 46. Here, Philip agrees to the point that he's explaining to Nathanael that the one that Moses and the prophets wrote about was here and not in some mystical way.

The prophet Isaiah said the Messiah would be called a Nazarene and that he would bring light to Galilee.

Philip accepted the one Moses and the prophets wrote about was

Jesus, not in a mystical way. This is Jesus, Joseph's son, who came from Nazareth.

And Nathanael said to him, can anything good come out of Nazareth? Philip said to him, come and see, come and see.

And here we see the human response to such an amazing claim. It's like, what, what are you saying?

Can anything come good out of Nazareth? What are you talking about, Philip? Verse 46 is a helpful transition to introduce

Nathanael, but also to put a pin in Philip's intro. For now, we can look at Nathanael's human response and say he's actually an example of intellectual dishonesty that we want to avoid.

But verse 47 clears things up as we hear Jesus' assessment of Nathanael. We'll actually see that Nathanael is an example of intellectual humility and honesty.

Albeit with an unfiltered honesty. That response, can anything good come out of Nazareth?

The verse tells us a lot about Nathanael, but just as much about Philip. A willingness to back up his claims.

A willingness to back up the claims. He says, come and see, come and see.

He didn't get offended with what on the outset seems like a sarcastic or even derogatory comment.

He just simply replied, let me show you. Let me show you, come and see.

Again, Philip demonstrates paying attention to a claim and accepting. How to avoid being unteachable.

Well, the second example from Philip is that Philip listened and agreed. He accepted without a false motive.

He accepted without a false motive. Not an emotional response based on feelings.

He answers the objection devoid of prideful passion and helpfully points

Nathanael to the truth. Philip is a great example for us as he interacts with Jesus.

He's teachable. We can think about this in our own lives and consider whether we are teachable in all areas.

Especially the Bible's teaching. Nothing more important as professing followers of Christ that we follow

Christ and his teaching. Are you teachable in areas of biblical teaching or are you intellectually dishonest?

This is usually manifested in our interactions with the distinctives of our faith where we have a tendency to pick and choose what to agree with.

But the question is, are you doing that for biblical reasons or for worldly reasons as the culture seeks to influence your mind?

What are these distinctives that you have made a decision about and are those decisions based on the word of God or what they used to do at another church or how you were brought up?

How is the culture or religious tradition influencing you away from biblical teaching?

And we can think of a few examples from our distinctives. The first, one of the big ones today is literal six day creation.

Evolution versus creation. And I've heard this. Isn't there a scientific consensus?

All the scientists agree that it's evolution. Isn't there a scientific consensus? No, there's not.

No, there isn't. There's a website called descentfromdarwin .org.

Look that website up. There's over a thousand names now. These are all PhD level scientists. All PhD level scientists.

A thousand at this point who say this is wrong. Evolution is not correct. So isn't there a scientific consensus?

And then you would say no, there's not. Here's this website. Go look. Well, they're probably all Christian creationists so they're biased.

No, they're not. There's many atheists on the list. This is secular science. Atheists. Yeah, but there isn't a consensus.

It's like wait a minute. You just cited that there was a consensus. That's why you don't believe in creation. Now I'm telling you there's not.

Oh, well, it's not a consensus. The reality is even if there was a scientific consensus and every secular scientist who ever lived agreed in full 100 % unity that the

Big Bang and Darwinian theory and evolutionary biology was wrong, it wouldn't matter because that person has already made up their mind and is being intellectually dishonest.

They don't care about the truth. And they're not asking the honest question to learn or understand.

They're just asking a question but not to learn. They're not seeking the truth. The Bible says literal six -day creation.

I want to know the truth. It's what the Bible teaches. That's it. That's the truth. No more needed.

We all have something like this. We all have something like this. What is your spiritual blind spot?

How are you intellectually dishonest when it comes to the Bible's teaching? Another big one is the prosperity gospel or what we would even say is charismatic theology.

And I've heard this. You're saying the Holy Spirit doesn't work today? You're saying the

Holy Spirit doesn't work today? Can the Holy Spirit work today without speaking in tongues?

Absolutely. Absolutely. The danger of being intellectually dishonest puts the person in the place of judge over the scripture.

The charismatic's intellectual dishonesty puts the Holy Spirit in a box by mandating that the

Holy Spirit can't be working in the world if he's not allowing the gift of tongues. You see, that's restricting the

Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can do whatever he wants. He can certainly work without tongues.

The Bible says the signed gifts will cease, not the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Bible says the signed gifts will cease.

I want to know the truth. If the Bible teaches it, that's it, that's the truth, no more needed.

And then we can think about other areas. Think about our culture, where we live, the LGBTQ community.

Isn't it unloving not to affirm? Isn't it unloving not to affirm? Well, that's not what the

Bible teaches. Does that matter to you? How about church membership?

Can't we just be here on Sundays and have no accountability? That's not what the Bible teaches.

Does that matter to you? Or how about baptism? Why does it matter if it's not a salvation issue?

Can't I just do whatever I want? Isn't this up to me? Well, that's not what the Bible teaches.

Does that matter to you? The end times is a really big one. Doesn't the genre of apocalyptic writing mean we can't take anything literally in Revelation?

That's not what the Bible teaches. Does that matter to you? We have to think about that.

Are we looking for reasons to not believe the Bible based on something we have grown up with?

Maybe your best friend has a certain belief and you just like the way that sounds better than the clear teaching of the scripture.

So there's an unteachable attitude. Our example from Philip is that he listened and accepted.

Philip listened and accepted. And then the apostle continues in verse 47.

Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him and said about him, behold, truly an

Israelite in whom there is no deceit. As the text transitions to Nathanael, we see a very clarifying statement from Jesus about the man.

Nathanael inquired and then admitted. In verse 46, we see what really seems to be arrogance or even a condescending attitude.

What could come out of Nazareth that's any good? But Jesus pronounces that Nathanael was asking an honest question.

He wasn't being dismissive or deriding of Philip. He was looking for the truth.

What are we to gather from this comment from Jesus about Nathanael given what we've just heard from him with this seemingly sarcastic question?

Jesus uses the word for deceit. That conveys taking advantage through craft and underhanded methods.

Deceit, cunning, treachery. Obviously, no other human man ever had zero deceit or sin other than our

Lord Jesus. Yet Jesus declares Nathanael is without cunning or treachery, zero.

And the omniscience of the Lord is on display here as he can see the heart motive of Nathanael as we'll see later in the account from John.

Over and over again, Jesus knew their hearts. He didn't have to hear what they were saying.

He already knew what they were gonna say. Jesus declares there is zero taking advantage through craft and underhanded methods.

No deceit in this man. Nathanael was merely conveying the Jewish thought of that time upon hearing that the

Messiah would be coming from Nazareth in Galilee. John shows us later in his gospel account,

John chapter seven, really verses 41 and 52. Others were saying this is the

Christ. Still others were saying no, for is the Christ going to come from Galilee?

They answered him, are you also from Galilee? Search and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee.

But remember, Philip and Nathanael had the Old Testament prophecies about the

Messiah, that he would bring light to Galilee, Isaiah chapter nine.

But there will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish. In earlier times, he treated the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with contempt,

Naphtali. But later on, he shall make it glorious by the way of the sea on the other side of Jordan.

Galilee of the Gentiles, the people who walk in darkness will see a great light.

Those who live in the land of the shadow of death, the light will shine on them.

That the Messiah would bring light to Galilee. And it makes us even more aware as he desired to go to Galilee, as John says.

Also, that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene. The Messiah would be called a

Nazarene. Isaiah chapter 11, verse one, then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse and a branch from his roots will bear fruit.

And here's an example where we can try to be intellectually honest. You could say, well, I don't see the word Nazarene in there.

So he's not from Nazarene. Yeah, but Jesse, you see Jesse, the father of David and King David were born in Bethlehem.

The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. And guess what's in Bethlehem? Nazareth, Nazareth.

So Isaiah is telling you where the Messiah is gonna come from. We can make this connection because the gospel of Matthew makes it for us.

Matthew chapter two, then after being warned by God in a dream, Joseph departed for the district of Galilee and came and lived in a city called

Nazareth. So that what was spoken through the prophets would be fulfilled, the

Messiah shall be called a Nazarene. One commentator said this about Nathanael.

Nathanael was from Cana, another town in Galilee. While Galileans were despised by Judeans, Galileans themselves despised people from Nazareth.

In light of John chapter seven, verse 42, Nathanael's scorn may have centered in the fact that Nazareth was an insignificant village without seeming prophetic importance.

Jesus's point was that Nathanael's bluntness revealed that he was an Israelite without duplicitous motives who was willing to examine for himself the claims being made about Jesus.

The term reveals an honest seeking heart. The reference here may be an allusion to Genesis 27 where Jacob, in contrast to the sincere

Nathanael, was known for his trickery. The meaning may be that the employment of trickery characterized not only

Jacob but also all his descendants. In Jesus's mind, an honest and sincere Israelite had become an exception rather than the rule.

So not to be missed here in verse 47 is that Nathanael has responded to Philip and was going to see

Jesus based on Philip's claim. How to avoid intellectual dishonesty, number three from Nathanael, Nathanael asked and then he responded with a willing honesty.

He asked and then responded with a willing honesty. He went to inquire face to face without being dismissive.

There's an implication that he wanted to know the truth sincerely. And then in verses 48 through 51, the

Apostle John concludes this section. Nathanael said to him, from where do you know me?

Jesus answered and said to him, before Philip called you when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.

Nathanael answered, Rabbi, you are the son of God. You are the king of Israel. Jesus answered and said to him, because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe?

You will see greater things than these. And he said to him, truly, truly, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the son of man.

Clearly, something is going on here with Jesus's knowledge of Nathanael's location.

Again, we can see the omniscience of Jesus as the God man. The omniscience of God deals with what

God knows. The term literally means all knowing, all knowing, understanding

God's knowledge to be exhaustive in both the past, present, and future.

But also in the comment in verse 48, we can see the divine attribute of omnipresence displayed by Jesus in this moment.

He claims he was with Nathanael at the fig tree. This is a helpful definition.

God's omnipresence is a comforting truth. If God is everywhere, then we know he is never far away and can come quickly to our aid.

Because he is present everywhere, we can know that he is acting in each and every place according to his holy will for our good and to achieve his purposes.

This is true even when he seems to be far away. And that's what Nathanael responded to.

There's an implication in the passage that Jesus had a firsthand knowledge of a private or intimate time

Nathanael had alone under the fig tree. Most commentators agree here this implies a firsthand knowledge on Jesus' part of a possible private time of prayer and communion with God that only

Nathanael would have known about. So by Jesus saying he saw him there under the fig tree with what may have been some private time between God and Nathanael, Jesus was saying

I was there with you, I saw you. Nathanael clearly took this to be some kind of declaration of knowing private knowledge about him.

We see that in his immediate declaration of Jesus' deity. You are the son of God.

And Nathanael also connects Jesus as Messiah as the true king of Israel in verse 49.

Zechariah chapter nine says this, "'Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion. "'Make a loud shout,

O daughter of Jerusalem. "'Behold, your king is coming to you. "'He is righteous and endowed with salvation, "'lowly and mounted on a donkey, "'even on a colt, the foal of a pack animal.'"

Now we know from the gospel accounts that this was directly fulfilled. When Jesus entered

Jerusalem on a donkey at the start of Passion Week, leading to his death and resurrection, Nathanael was connecting the dots.

How to avoid being unteachable? Number four, Nathanael was willing to acknowledge the truth even if it meant admitting error.

Nathanael was willing to acknowledge the truth even if it meant admitting error. In verses 50 and 51,

Jesus asks with an explanation that if Nathanael believed because of his presence with him at the fig tree, that he will see even greater things than these.

It gives us a clue that there was a supernatural event at the fig tree in terms of Jesus knowing and being present while he was not physically present for Nathanael to see or perceive.

And the term truly, truly is an emphatic statement used often by Jesus. He would use this term again and again to highlight the importance of the truth claim being made in the following statement.

Jesus gives us a foreshadow of the eschatology John will discuss later in his gospel.

Eschatology is simply the word that means the last things, the study of the last things, the end times.

Jesus has much to say about his return and warns us about the wrath of God and gives us the doctrine of hell.

For now, John records the statement here that Jesus not only accepted the title of Messiah, son of God and king of Israel, but also the one who will be the culmination of human history at the climax of the end as the

Messiah rules and reigns forever. His quote is a compilation of Old Testament scripture.

Jesus quotes Ezekiel 1 .1. Now it came about in the 13th year on the fifth day of the fourth month while I was by the river

Kibar among the exiles, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God.

And Genesis 28, he had a dream and behold, a ladder was set on the earth with its top reaching to heaven and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it.

And of course, Daniel chapter seven. 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 came near before him and to him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom to all the peoples, nations and men of every tongue might serve him.

His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not be taken away and his kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.

Every time Jesus uses the term son of man, he is making an end time statement.

I am the Messiah and I will reign upon this earth over all the nations and I will reign for all eternity.

Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the son of man.

What an amazing statement. Jesus is now the ladder. He's the way we get to heaven.

A lot going on in that simple statement. There were many Old Testament predictions about Jesus. Many, many

Old Testament predictions. Jesus applied many of those prophecies to himself in his then present ministry and what he claimed would happen in the future.

Some of those had not yet happened for Philip and Nathanael to see. Some had and were happening in front of them.

They took the scriptures about Jesus at face value. They took Jesus's words at face value.

Philip and Nathanael didn't need proof validations. They didn't ask to see his credentials.

They weren't challenging. They didn't need proof validations in the form of Old Testament scripture completion.

And you think about this, all of these prophecies in the Old Testament that point to Jesus. I read this about Bible prophecy.

Some scholars suggest that there are more than 300 Old Testament prophetic scriptures completed in the life of Jesus Christ.

Circumstances such as birthplace, lineage, method of execution were beyond Christ's control and could not have been accidentally or deliberately fulfilled.

In the book Science Speaks, the authors discuss the statistical improbability of one man, whether accidentally or deliberately, fulfilling just eight, just eight.

Now remember, there's 300. Just eight of the prophecies Jesus fulfilled. The chance of this happening, they say, is one in 10 to the 17th power.

So just to give you an idea of that, we have millions, we have billions, we have trillions, and then we have quadrillions.

This isn't one quadrillion, this is 100 quadrillion. It's so much that our brains can't picture how much it is.

That's 10 to the 17th power, 10 with 17 zeros behind it, and it's one in 10 to the 17th power for just eight prophecies.

One author presents a scenario that illustrates the magnitude of such odds. Suppose that we take 10 to the 17th silver dollar, so 100 quadrillion silver dollars, and we laid them on the face of Texas.

They would cover all the state two feet deep. Now mark one of those silver dollars, so you just get a

Sharpie and mark one of those, and stir the whole mass thoroughly over all the state.

Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say, this is the right one.

What chance would he have of getting that right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote using their own wisdom.

The mathematic probability of 300, or 47, or even just eight fulfilled prophecies of Jesus stands as an evidence that we can look at to say this is beyond human possibility.

It's impossible. These men this morning didn't need all of that prophetic fulfillment.

They didn't need it. Our example from Nathaniel is that he asked and acknowledged these men were teachable and humbled themselves under the teaching of Jesus.

Philip was open -minded and accepted because he paid attention. Nathaniel had honest questions and admitted his misunderstanding.

Both men are an example of intellectual humility. They were teachable. If there's a clear biblical teaching about whatever your favorite hobby horse is in theology, whatever your hobby horse topics are, if there is a resistance to obey a certain area of scripture despite your pastor or elders making a clear biblical case in Sunday school or from the pulpit, ask yourself, has the world infiltrated your thinking?

What is the source of your resistance? How has your religious tradition or past experiences infiltrated your thinking?

Intellectual dishonesty that resists in biblical obedience takes this form.

I just don't see it. I just don't see it. Or how about this? Who are you to tell me?

Who are you to tell me? Another pastor that I had before you never brought it up.

These kind of statements reveal a heart that is not seeking the truth, a heart that is resistant to obey the word of God.

The resistance is not to the pastor or the elders. It is to the word of God to Christ himself.

The pastor or elders are called by Christ to teach and give oversight to his people.

An unteachable heart is an unteachable heart toward Christ, not the pastor.

So let me ask you this morning, if you were shown with the scripture from the pulpit in Sunday school from a private meeting or a helpful resource that reinforces the teaching and preaching, would you humble yourself under the authoritative word of God?

How much credential and training do you require before submitting yourself to the pastor or elders?

Is five years of seminary enough? And I'm asking this, is five years enough?

Is a master of divinity or additional certifications enough? Will you submit to the authority of the word of God in the teaching and preaching ministry of the local pastor if he has a doctorate?

He doesn't have a doctorate, I don't need to listen to him. If the pastor that God has placed over your soul doesn't have the same winsome or friendly personality of your old pastor, will you still listen to him?

In other words, this pastor teaches biblical truth, but he's not like fill in the blank.

In other words, this pastor teaches biblical truth, but he's not like my favorite podcast or YouTube pastor.

I'll just dismiss this teaching and I'll do what's right in my own eyes. Is that you this morning?

Is that you this morning? Are you intellectually dishonest when it comes to obeying biblical truth?

In verses 43 through 51, the apostle John describes the calling of Philip and Nathanael on the fourth day since the witness of John the

Baptist so that you can see a biblical example of how to avoid being unteachable.

Four examples from the calling of Philip and Nathanael to avoid intellectual dishonesty.

Philip's example, number one, attend, to pay attention. Philip attended or paid attention to the

Christ's command and claim. Number two, agree, to accept. Philip listened and agreed.

He accepted without a false motive. And Nathanael's example, number three, ask, to inquire.

Nathanael asked and then he responded with a willing honesty. And number four, acknowledge, to admit.