Hard Sayings of Jesus

     In John chapter 6 Jesus called himself "the bread of life," and he said, "The one
who comes to me never hungers, and the one who believes in me will never thirst
again." (verse 35) The Jews began to complain because of this (verse 41), and
Jesus went on to say, "Most assuredly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son
of Man, and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves." (verse 53) "Therefore
when many of his disciples heard it, they said, 'This is a hard saying; who can listen
to it?' " (John 6:60) In what sense was the Lord's word "hard?" The Greek word
translated "hard" is skleros, and in this context it means difficult or uncompromising.
Jesus taught many things that were unpleasant or hard to take! Let's notice some
of the unpleasant teachings of Jesus and look at why they were unpleasant.

     "Hate one's own father and mother and wife and children and brothers
and sisters and even their own life." (Luke 14:26) Those were the words of
Jesus to the crowds that accompanied him. The Greek word translated "hate" is  
miseo. In this context it means to disregard, to refuse preferential treatment, to love
less. Jesus' followers must have single-minded loyalty for the Master, and nothing
is  to  be allowed to get  in  the way of  faithful  discipleship! Why  is this a "hard"
saying? Because it involves one of the strongest obstacles in the path of truth, and
that obstacle is human emotions. Most people will not place Jesus before their own
parents, siblings, spouse, and their own selves. And they think of the command to
do so as repulsive. If  a  person  desires  to  be  the  Lord's disciple, they must be
prepared to reject anyone and anything that stands between them and following
the Lord.

     "No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) Contextually,
Jesus had told the apostles that he was going to prepare a place for them. He told
them they know the way where he is going. "Thomas said to him, 'Lord, we do
not know where you are going; how are we able to know the way?' " It was then
that Jesus said, "I am  the  way and  the  truth and the life; no one comes to
the Father except through me." Why  is  this  a  "hard"  saying?  Because  of  the
exclusivity of  the  Lord's words. Jesus  is  the only person through whom people
can gain access to the Father. We cannot come to the Father through  Mary the
mother of Jesus, or through the pope of Rome, or through the apostle Peter. In
today's religious circles people do not like to think in terms of exclusion. It doesn't
fit well with the ecumenical and politically correct thinking of the majority. Most
people consider phrases like "no one comes except through me" to be bigoted
and arrogant. It is neither, it is a true statement! Jesus said so.

     "Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter into the kingdom
of heaven." (Matthew 7:21) Those  words  are  among  the  concluding  part of
Jesus' famous teaching on the mountain. Why is this a "hard" saying? Contrary to
popular opinion, Jesus states that mere lip service, or making a "profession" of
religion is not sufficient to gain entrance into the kingdom of heaven. A person
must do the Father's will to enter the kingdom of heaven. If one must do the
Father's will, then works of obedience are essential to entering the kingdom of
heaven, and since works of obedience are essential, a person is not saved by
faith alone, grace alone, love alone, or anything else alone. Most of the religious
world will never accept this saying because it is difficult. It is difficult because it
contradicts what they have always been taught, and human tradition, even when
wrong, is like the talons of an eagle in a fish. It is hard to break the grip of human
tradition. It is also difficult to accept because in their mind, it indicts some within
their  family and the so-called good people of the world. Their "gut" reaction is
often outrage. Even  though  Jesus  said  what  he  said,  their  human  emotions
refuse to let them yield to the Lord. The Lord's unpleasant words make them
react as Pharaoh did when Yahweh sent Moses to him. Hardening of  heart
occurs.

     "Whoever divorces his wife except for sexual immorality, and marries
another, commits  adultery." (Matthew 19:9)  In  this  context, the  Lord  is 
responding to the question  posed  by  the  Pharisees, " 'Is it lawful for a man to
divorce  his  wife  for  every  reason?' " (Matthew 19:3) The  Lord  in  essence
answered "No." Why is this a "hard" saying? Because it goes against the popular
tide of moral looseness with regard to marriage and divorce. The Lord implies
there is one basis for divorcing a spouse and marrying another, and that is upon
the ground of sexual immorality committed by the person who will be divorced.
It is reported  statistically  that  one  half  of all marriages end in divorce. When
Hollywood celebrities, sports' figures, politicians, legal authorities, and the rich
and famous marry and divorce "on the whim," they are only hurting themselves,
for they cannot mock God. (Galatians 6:7) Human emotions weigh heavily on
issues like this. People would rather stay with someone they "love" even though
they have no right to them, than to "love" God and abandon unlawful marriage
relationships.

     "Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life." (Matthew 6:25)
The phrase "do not worry" is an  imperative. Jesus'  disciples  are told to stop
worrying. This is another difficult saying of Jesus.  Why?  Because  nearly  every
person I have ever known worried about life, health, clothing, or something they
considered a necessity but were lacking. A person has no more right to worry
about such things than they do to commit adultery, steal, murder, or blaspheme.
Why do most people worry? Because they doubt God's ability to deliver them
out of life's dungeon, or they have convinced themselves that worry helps the
situation. The fact is, worry causes stress and stress causes bodily ailments that
can lead to death!   Noah didn't worry about the flood. Abraham didn't worry
about whether God would provide the sacrifice. David didn't worry about
Goliath. Paul did not worry about his incarceration and impending death. Each
of them believed God. (Hebrews 11;13:5-6) May we learn from the hard
sayings of Jesus.
                                                                                                      R. Daly

Copyright 2013

A Greek Professor's Blunder

     Archibald Thomas Robertson, better known as A.T. Robertson, born 1863
and died in 1934, was "distinguished" professor of  New Testament Interpretation
at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He succeeded
John A. Broadus to that position. His most extensive work was in the field of New
Testament Greek. He spent 26 years preparing A Grammar of New Testament 
Greek In The Light Of Historical Research. It consists of 1454 pages of detailed
analysis of New Testament Greek, and remains the most exhaustive Greek grammar
written. It is a massive volume and though dated, it continues to be a useful resource.
Professor Robertson knew a lot about the language of the New Testament, but his
scholarship is sometimes marred by his Baptist theology.

     He was the author of a six volume set of books titled Word Pictures in the New
Testament. Overall it is a useful set, but he makes a few blunders that raise the hair
on the head. When he gets to Acts 2:38 he cannot refuse to allow his theology to
override his scholarship. A. T. Robertson knew as well as any man alive what the
Holy Spirit through Peter meant when he told the Jews to "Repent and be immersed
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ into the forgiveness of your sins, and you
will  receive  the  gift  o f the  Holy Spirit."  Regarding the words (eis aphesin ton 
hamartion humon) he says, "In themselves the words can express aim or purpose..."
(volume 3, page 35) On the next page he says, in defiance of the Holy Spirit, "My view
is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught
baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission.
So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned
(repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the
forgiveness of sins which they had already received."

     So, according to the professor, they had already received forgiveness before
they were immersed. But, he doesn't prove his "view." He asserts but gives no proof.
This is not typical A.T. Robertson. In his massive grammar of New Testament Greek
he generally lays out his case in a meticulous technical fashion. Yet in his Word 
Pictures when he addresses many of the texts that relate to salvation and immersion,
he lays out his case in a ridiculous denominational fashion.

     One simple point will expose the "view' of professor Robertson not only to be
religiously biased but  also  fatally  wrong. If  the  Jews  "had  already  received"
forgiveness before they were immersed, they had received the same forgiveness
before they changed, because the Holy Spirit made the relationship between the
change of heart and immersion equal in securing forgiveness through the blood of
Christ. Peter's command was "repent and be immersed." There is no way to
disjoin what God joined! Since "Godly sorrow works repentance into/to salvation,"
how can one be saved before he repents? (2 Corinthians 7:10; cf. Acts 11:19)
Likewise, since a person is to "be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ into the
forgiveness of sins," how can one be saved before he is immersed? (1 Peter 3:21)
It is not the blunder of Peter, Paul, or the Holy Spirit. It is a Greek professor's
blunder.
                                                                                                       R. Daly

Copyright 2013  

The Immersion Of Jesus: Mark 1:9-11

     The record of Jesus' immersion  by John  the  Immerser  is  placed between
John's declaration , "There comes one after me who is mightier than I, the strap
of whose sandals I am not worthy to bend down and unloose," (Mark 1:7) and
the testing of the Lord by Satan in the wilderness. (Mark 1:12-13) This is
theologically significant  because  it  shows  the  Lord's  public  ministry  began 
with  an act of submission to the Father's will, and it was also preparatory for the
onslaught of Satan, the archenemy of righteousness. It is interesting that Matthew's
record of the Lord's immersion states Jesus said to John, "It is proper for us to
fulfill all righteousness." (Matthew 3:15) Mark says "immediately" after Jesus was
immersed that "the Spirit drove him out into the wilderness." (Mark 1:12) Fulfilling
all righteous led to an encounter with the enemy of all righteousness. Let's take a
closer look at the immersion of the Messiah by the hands of John.

      First, Jesus was immersed by John in the Jordan river. The water was not
bought to Jesus; he went to the water. Not only did he go to it, he went into the
river.  The New Testament knows nothing of the prevalent practices of sprinkling
and pouring as so-called modes of "baptism." And if we correctly translate the
word baptisma as immersion, we see the foolishness of talking about immersion
by sprinkling and pouring! The word translated "in" is the Greek preposition eis.
Earlier in this chapter, Mark says those of Judea and Jerusalem were "immersed
by John in the river Jordan." (verse 5) He uses the preposition en in that passage.
The switch from en to eis appears to be significant. It seems to indicate that Jesus
was immersed  "into" the Jordan in preparation for "coming up out of the water."  
He went into the water without hesitation, and came up out of the water without
hesitation. Much work lay ahead. 

     Second, all those whom John had immersed in the Jordan river, submitted to
"the immersion of repentance into the forgiveness of sins." (Mark 1:4) They came
to John "confessing their sins." (Mark 1:5) Jesus had committed no sins for which
he needed forgiveness, therefore he had no sins to confess. He was Yahweh's
sinless Son. (Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 1:22) Others obediently went to the Jordan
in order to be cleansed. Jesus obediently went to the Jordan in order to cleanse.

     Third, when Jesus came up out of the water, the heavens "tore open" and the
Spirit descended like a dove. The Spirit came down from heaven in order to
identify  Jesus   as   the  Messiah  and  to  show  approval  for  his   obedience. 
(John 1:32-34) Note the distinction between Jesus coming up and the Spirit
coming down. (Mark 1:10) Two distinct acts by two distinct persons. Jesus
and the Spirit are as distinct as the acts of coming up and coming down. So, the
doctrine of the United Pentecostal Church that Jesus is the Father and the Spirit
is not only false, it defies scriptural logic! The deity consists of three distinct
persons: The Father, the Son , and the Holy Spirit.

     Fourth, when the Spirit descended, the Father spoke from the heavens, "You
are my beloved Son, with you I am well pleased." (verse 11)  The word "beloved"
is agapetos. It  indicates a very special relationship between the Father and
the Son. The Son is dearly loved by the Father! Speaking of the Father, Jesus
said, "I always do the things that are pleasing to him." (John 8:29) The Father was
not  merely  pleased   with  the  Son,  but   Mark  says  he  was   "well pleased."
The word is eudokeo in  Greek  and  it  means  to  take  delight  in,  or to find
satisfaction in something. 

     In many ways the immersion of Jesus sets the stage for his mission on the
earth. We see his submission to the Father's will, public identification as the
Messiah by the Spirit, an acknowledgement of the Son's unique relationship
by the Father, and the notable confrontation between righteousness and Satan.
  
                                                                                                      R. Daly

Copyright 2013
                                                                                                        

What Do I Expect From A Biblical Commentary?

     Commentaries on sacred scripture are important resources for the study of
God's word. They often contain useful  geographical, historical, lexical, and
practical information that it would take years to learn through the detailed study
of original and secondary literature.  But a biblical commentary should never be
the first court of appeal. The student should first become well  acquainted with
the Bible itself. Read, read, read. Study, study, study. Investigate the words of
the text. Study the immediate and remote context of the passage under scrutiny.
Examine all the books and/or letters penned the biblical writer. Try to determine
the overall picture of  the text you are studying. After you have attempted to
determine what you believe the text teaches, reading a commentary can be a
useful exercise. What do I expect from a biblical commentary?

     First, I will  state  what  I do not expect  from  a commentary. I do not
expect it to be perfect. If I demand a commentary  to be perfect, I will be
disappointed because  commentaries are written by human authors, and the
result is  an imperfect resource. Some of the worst commentaries are  written 
by men  with  high  academic credentials,  and some of the best are written
by men who are not graduates of Princeton, Harvard, and Yale.

     Next, I do not expect a commentary to necessarily agree with me. If I am
wrong in the conclusions I have reached, and if the writer of the commentary
agrees   with   me, then  both of    us  are  wrong. Neither  do  I  expect  a
commentary to make everything easy. The road  leading to knowledge has
encumbrances along the way.  I must be willing to climb the mountains, swim
the oceans, and crawl across the valleys in order to ascertain the information
I seek. I do not expect a commentary to answer all the questions. I should
be willing to mine the rich ore of divine truth. Not only will doing so give me
self satisfaction, it will also make the journey memorable.   

     Second, I do expect a commentary to respect the text, deal with it honestly,
and make me think through the text! If at the end of the day, a commentary
has made me think my way  through  the  text, my  journey  will  have  been
pleasantly successful. The commentaries I find most useful are the ones that
exegete the text, and tell why and how they arrived at their conclusions. That
friends, is what I expect from a biblical commentary.
                                                                                                        R. Daly
Copyright 2013

Accurate Speech

     Those of us who have reverence for God and respect for the sacred writings, should
diligently try to speak accurately regarding the book of God. When we read from the
pens of denominational writers, we must be careful not to be influenced by the errors they
promote. We must not swallow everything everybody says in religion. "If the blind guide
the blind, both will fall into a pit." (Matthew 15:14) We should think through the text.
Luke tells us the Bereans "examined the scriptures to see whether the things were so."
(Acts 17:11) Their example is worthy of imitation.

     It is quite common to hear denominational theologians speak of the books of Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John as "gospels." Unfortunately some of the Lord's own people use the
same terminology in their preaching and writing. The fact is, there is only one body of
literature known as the gospel. (Galatians 1:6-9)  Accurately  speaking, Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John are "books" that constitute biographies of the life of Jesus the Messiah.
They  detail  his  life, teaching,  miracles,  claims,  death,  burial,  resurrection, and his
uniqueness as the Son of the living God. In the minds of those writers Jesus was the one
about whom the law and the prophets spoke, he was God in  the  flesh,  the  world's
redeemer, and  the  hope  of  the human race. Their writings, along with the other writings
of the new covenant, form the composite picture of what is known as the gospel. 

     Another example of inaccurate speech is referring to the letters of Paul to Timothy and
Titus as "pastorals" or "pastoral epistles." It is widely believed that Timothy and Titus were
"pastors" and that Paul wrote to  instruct  them  about  how  they  were to superintend or
"feed" the congregations under their oversight and care.  First, the word "pastor" is a term
that describes the work of shepherds within local congregations. They were also known
as elders-presbyters (Acts 20:17), overseers-bishops (Acts 20:28), and shepherds-pastors
(1 Peter 5:1-2). No  one  was  a  pastor  just  because  he  was  a  preacher.  God  gave
qualifications    that    had    to    be    possessed    before   one   could   be   a   "pastor."
(1 Timothy 3; Titus 1) They  had  to  be  married,  have  children,  and  be  older  men of
experience. A   man   may   preach   even  if  he  possesses  none  of  those qualifications.
(2 Timothy 4:1-5)    Second,  the   letters   of    Paul   to  Timothy   and   Titus   are   not
"pastoral epistles," that  is, letters  to  young  "pastors."  They  are  letters  to  preachers,
explaining how to live, what to teach, how to deal with those who teach  error within the
congregations of Christ, and how to  organize  the  local  congregations for efficient service
and work. (1 Timothy 1:3; 4:16; 2 Timothy 3:1-10; Titus 1:10-13; 2:11-12; 3:9-11)

     The  way  to  ensure  that we use accurate speech in teaching God's word is to think
through the text, and  to  refuse  to  accept  any  doctrine  or  practice on the basis that
someone alleges the things are true. "If  anyone  speaks,  they  should  do so as one who
speaks the very words of God." (1 Peter 4:11)

                                                                                                                        R. Daly
Copyright 2013