Confident Assurance

I'm currently reading through Jerry Bridges' The Gospel For Real Life and though I have a fair amount of disagreements with what he has to say in this book, one thing struck me this morning. Speaking about pursuing Christian virtues, Bridges says, "However, the doing of these things...is not the basis of the rich welcome. Rather, it is the means...whereby we make our calling and election sure. In other words, it is a way we assure ourselves that we have been made new creations in Christ and do have the hope of eternal life."

Maybe take a second to read that one more time.

Wow. I know it's true that our works are not the justification for our access to eternal life, but I never thought about the fact that our sinlessness and our pursuit to become more like Christ are simply a way to assure ourselves of our coming inheritance. In other words, we can be filthy rotten sinners who are committed to Christ, and by Christ, we are justified before God, but by living this way we will lack the confidence that God prompts us to have in this life.

Does this make sense?

In John 10:10, Jesus told us that he came to give us abundant life. But this abundant life is only accessed when we truly give up our own sinful desires and focus our desires on Christ. Christ offers us the confident assurance in this life of His coming Kingdom and of our place in that Kingdom, and in order to engage with that confidence and with the abundant life that Jesus offers, we must pick up our cross daily and follow Christ.

Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." -- Matthew 16:24-25

Waiting in Trust and Expectation

David's awareness and trust of God's promises earned him the title "a man after God's own heart." There is a phrase he uses often throughout the psalms: Wait on the Lord. But what does this phrase mean?

If I wait on someone, that means that I am probably waiting for a person to show up to a scheduled meeting. After all, you don't wait for someone you don't expect to show. I would not wait for someone who, five minutes past the scheduled time, had still not arrived and was a generally untrustworthy person.

The implication of waiting is expectation. You only wait for the person that you expect to 'show up.' The implication in David and God's relationship is obvious: David expected God to show up.

Also, you don't wait for someone who you don't want to show up. Perhaps you would, but not without the burden of obligation. This is not the situation between David and God. David's waiting is free of obligation and loaded with expectation. David desperately wants God to show up while also trusting that God will show up.

In Psalm 27:14, David says, "Wait for the Lord; be strong, and let your heart take courage; wait for the Lord!"

So I guess this begs two questions of ourselves. First, in accordance with waiting on the Lord, do we expect God to show up? Do we expect God to be in our situation? Do we know that God will be there when we need him and that he is trustworthy? 

Second, do we want God to show up? Many may say, "Well of course I do!" But is that true? Think about it. Are you ever afraid of what God may have to say to you if he were to show up? Are you ever worried that you won't be able to take to heart what God has to say? 

Do you want God to show up? Do you trust God to show up?

Are you waiting?

Do 

A 3-Day Eternity?

Here's my thought.

If the punishment for the most minor slight against God is -- as generally confessed -- an eternal punishment in hell (which in and of itself irks me), how did Jesus' death and three day visit to Sheol compensate for the sins of those who would believe in him?

Do you see the discrepancy?

And I know... Jesus is God and he lived a perfect life, so in some ambiguous way, this discrepancy is reconciled through these truths.

But I'm not satisfied. Even if it's only 1 billion people who ever truly believed in Christ by the time Jesus returns (and that is a major low-ball), that is still 1 billion eternities in hell and somehow Jesus' three hours of pain and three days of death satisfied that wrath?

My first thought is that either the punishment for sin is not an eternity in hell as we've assumed, or that Jesus died for something beside our sin. Both dangerous assumptions in our anti-intellectual Christian culture that has developed.

But I'm still wrestling.

Possessive

Did you know that a lot of stories in the New Testament are not in chronological order? It’s because Jewish people were less concerned about order of events than they were about importance of events. 

In Matthew 19:13-15, there is a story Jesus tells his disciples about how the Kingdom of heaven belongs to children. Immediately after this story in verses 16 through 22 is the infamous story of the Rich Young Man. 

A quick synopsis. A rich man comes to Jesus and asks him what good acts he must do to acquire eternal life. Jesus responds that he must keep the commands God have given. The rich man then informs Jesus that he has already kept all of these commands, but sensing that Jesus isn’t finished, asks, “what do I still lack?” to which Jesus responds, “Go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” When the rich man hears this, he goes away sorrowful because, the scripture says, ‘he had great possessions.’ 

Why would Matthew choose to put the story of the children immediately before the story of the rich man? Here’s my thought.

What do children possess? Nothing. In fact, not only do they have no possessions, they are themselves a possession. They are property. Even in today’s culture, children do not have the same rights as an 18 year old adult. Now times that lack-of-rights by ten and you understand the culture of Matthew’s time.

But, to these children, to these possessions, belongs the Kingdom of Heaven.

And then the story of the rich man. He has everything he needs and yet it isn’t enough. Jesus tells him to give everything up and he doesn’t because of his ‘great possessions.’ Interesting contrast, don’t you think? 

And the question for our own asking is a simple one. Are we the child or the rich man? Not in terms of how much money we have, or how big our house is, but in terms of possessions. You see, the child’s identity is wrapped up in his father — because he is a possession of his father. But the rich man’s identity is wrapped up in the stuff he has accumulated.

The question before us is this: are we a possessor or a possession? 

The Kingdom of God belongs to those of us who are possessed by God, but for those of us who are busy doing the possessing; well, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for that person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. 

Trusting My God

This morning, I read, “David also said to Solomon his son, ‘Be strong and courageous, and the work. 

Do not be afraid or discouraged, for the Lord God, my God, is with you. He will not fail you or forsake you until all the work for the service of the temple of the Lord is finished.’” - 1 Chronicles 28:20

If you don’t know, Solomon, David’s son, is about to become king and David, the current king, is giving him a pep-talk.

Most of us are familiar with similar encouragements from the scriptures. For example, the phrase ‘be strong and courageous’ is used elsewhere as well was the phrase ‘do not be afraid or discouraged.’

But what caught my eye about this scripture was David’s clarification to his son that I italicized in the scripture — ‘my God.’ Why does David say this? Is it not enough to claim that God is God and that’s all there is to it? Why is Solomon being reminded that the Lord God is David’s God?

Could it be because David was proud of his association with this God? When I read this, it was as if David was saying to Solomon, “Do you remember the stories of when I faced Goliath? Or how about when I screwed up and God still took me back? What about the promises that God made to me? This God is with you! This same God that has given me the courage to do these things will give you that same courage!”

Surely, Solomon knew his dad’s accomplishments. And here his dad is, passing those on to his son, claiming that they will all be done though his son by the power of his God. 

This morning, I wonder if I can claim that same thing. Can I tell others that the way I trust my God should merit their own trust in my God? In other words, does the way I trust my God produce in other people the same trust in my God?

Does your trust for God reach beyond yourself and prompt others to follow suit? What if you could say to a doubting person, “you can trust Jesus, my Jesus.”

Peter, Do You Love Me?

"Do you love me?" Jesus asks peter three times. By the third time, Peter says, "of course I love you, you know that!" Peter had just denied Jesus three times, and here, accordingly, Peter affirms Jesus three times. But what does this imply? Does this mean that for every sin we commit, we must confess, and what then if we forget to confess a sin? Is our destination then hell? Are we not forgiven by God unless we counter our mistakes with un-mistakes?

Jesus does not tell us why he asks Peter these questions. But what if it isn't for Jesus? I mean, Jesus died on the cross for Peter, allowed a dying thief to enter the Kingdom of heaven, and told people their sins were forgiven without any effort on their part and will Jesus then require more of Peter?

In the garden, God clothes Adam and Eve, and I believe that is what is happening here with Peter. Jesus is saying to Peter, "do you love me," not for the affirmation of Jesus but for the restoration of Peter. It is not about restoring Peter's status before God, but about restoring Peter's status before Peter.

Have we not been there? Where we make a mistake and lose ourselves in an array of guilt and depression. Then as we pray before God trying desperately to confess our mistakes, it's as though God asks us, "do you love me?" And what is always our response? "Of course I love you God! You know that! I make mistakes, but you know I love you!" And then comes God's encouragement, "Then feed my sheep."

Move forward. God knows you love him.

Sandal Straps And The Marriage Of Eternity

"And he preached, saying, 'After me comes he who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.'"

The beginning of Mark's gospel contains this proclamation about Jesus. I don't know about you, but this has always been a confusing verse for me. I mean, why would John not be worthy to stoop down and untie Jesus' sandal? It would make more sense to me if John claimed that he wasn't worthy to lead Jesus anywhere, or he wasn't worthy to be the baptizer of Jesus (which I believe John actually does claim right before he baptizes Jesus), but why this obscure statement about untying Jesus' shoes? Firstly, why doesn't John feel worthy to untie Jesus' sandals, and secondly, why does Jesus need his sandals untied? 

Well I did some studying and here is one interesting theory I found about this scripture. In Jewish understanding at the time, the pulling off of one's sandal was representative of a refusal to marry. Let me explain. 

Let's pretend that a Jewish man, Joe, and a Jewish woman, Josephine, were married. Everything was going great in their marriage except that they have not yet had kids. Suddenly Joe fell off a cliff discovering the art of rock climbing and died. After Joe died, his jewish brother, Jordan, now has a pretty serious obligation. Jordan is obligated under Jewish law to marry his dead brother's wife and produce the kids that Joe didn't have a chance to produce. That way, Joe's bloodline would not dissipate. 

Let's further pretend that Joe had bad taste in women and Josephine was particularly unattractive to Jordan. Jordan was allowed to refuse to marry his dead brother's wife. However, and this is where it gets weird, if Jordan did refuse to marry Josephine, then she was to go up to him, spit in his face, and REMOVE HIS SANDAL as a representation that this man refused to marry his brother's wife. 

So perhaps what John is saying is, "I'm not Israel's groom, but Jesus, who's sandal will not be removed, is. Jesus, who won't refuse to marry his groom, even though his groom is particularly unattractive." 

Jesus did not refuse to marry me, to marry us, even though we, his bride, crucified him. He willingly kept his sandals on and followed through with his duty of marrying us, even though we are unworthy of marrying HIM. 

And furthermore, what does it mean that Jesus married us? It means that he is committed to us. It means that he is going to lovingly sit with us as we make mistakes. It means he is going to graciously redirect us when we get off path. Do I trust in Jesus this morning? Am I willing to believe and trust that Jesus followed through with this marriage WHEN HE KNEW what he was doing? And am I equally prepared to follow through with my commitments to people and to God? Am I prepared to follow through with my commitment to my wife and stop looking at other women? Am I prepared to commit to other people and be a disciplined listener and question-asker? 

Jesus' commitment to us is a reminder of the steadfast, no-giving-up sort of commitment we all need to make to each-other. It reminds me this morning that I need to stick with people even when they hurt me. It reminds me that I need to stay committed to loving people when they don't love me back. It reminds me that when other people are tripping up, I need to tighten my sandal straps, wrap some duct tape around my feet, and not allow my sandals to slip off. 

What does it remind you of?

Do You Trust God's Leadership?

How much does God dictate your life?

It's an answer that might surprise you and is shockingly easy to reason your way to.

First, we have to know the main factors that determine who we become as a person, and the route that our life take's altogether.

Probably the foremost factor that effects every individual and creates them into who they become is other people. For example, the way your parents treat you, your boss at work, your best friends, your childhood teachers, etc... People is the main factor because other people determine your success, your place of residence, your happiness, pretty much everything! Weather is another factor that could effect your life span and when you die, but people seem like a much greater factor.

So then, the question is...

Does God control other people?

If God does control other people, that would mean that he also controls me and you, which would obviously mean that he controls absolutely everything in our life (we know he has control over weather conditions and the earths cycles). However, if we reject that God controls other people, that would mean that he also doesn't control us (perhaps a bit more comforting of an assumption on the surface). But we then run into a problem, God isn't really sovereign then, is he? Because if God doesn't control people, he can't answer your prayers that revolve around life-change in people, or for that matter, any prayers that relate to people at all.

The Bible clearly describes our God as a God who has a plan for the earth and all it's people (Proverbs 16:9, Proverbs 19:21).

So, if it is true that God controls your life, he controls my life, he controls every individual's life (even though practically this doesn't seem to be the case), what are we to do?

Well there is only one question to answer.

God controls your life. PERIOD.

Do you trust his leadership?

Are You Just Saying You Believe in God?

"I believe in God," says the Christian, the Agnostic, the Muslim, the Mormon, and practically every other religion on the face of the planet.

What are we to do with this statement? We, as Christians often want to stand on this foundational statement without realizing that a huge portion of the world would agree with us, but perhaps not in the respect that we would like.

When we say "I believe in God," we desire to not only proclaim our awareness of God as creator and ruler of the earth, but also the salvation from our sins offered through Jesus Christ.

But is even this ambitious enough for the Christian's intended meaning of "I believe"?

We know that James 2:19 tell us "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe -- and shudder!"

No, it is not enough to believe in God. For even the demons are very aware of God and Jesus. And not only are they aware, but they tremble in fear!

The demons have such an awareness of his power that they shudder at the thought of it.

And here the American Christian sits, in luxury at home without a second thought of God's supreme ability to bless and to remove blessings, to give life and to end life, to accept offerings and to reject offerings. The hours go by without a moment of introspection, without a moment of desire for God's people, without a moment of pity for the weak and dying, without a moment of fearing God when sin has clouded our judgement.

But tomorrow, you will say, "I believe in God."

You do not flinch before God's hatred of sin, you do not do as he commands in his Word, you do not give to the poor, love the hurting, and accept persecution freely.

But tomorrow, you will say, "I believe in God."

I hope for the sake of these people that our God is of the utmost ignorance.

Do you think you can fool God? Do you think he doesn't know the intentions of your heart? Do you really think God is that blind?

What then, is belief? Or better yet, what then, is faith?

Faith is feeding the hungry because you are existentially aware of God's commands and his power to punish those who don't follow his will. Faith is accepting persecution freely because you are so aware of God's love that you know other's approval isn't necessary. Faith is saying, "yes, I believe in God" when the consequences are real, and your life, your dignity, or your paycheck is on the line.

So...

Do you believe in God?

Why do I do the things that I don't Desire to do?

"For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate." - Romans 7:15

Why do people have to fight obesity? Why do people have to fight laziness?

Because their desires and their actions conflict. 

They desire to be thin and they desire to be disciplined, but they aren't, and often, they aren't successfully pursuing these goals.

What could an explanation be for this phenomenon?

It could be that it is naive generosity to assume that an obese person actually wants to be thin. Perhaps their greater desire is for the pleasure food brings, not so much for the health or wellbeing that thinness brings.  Though I think that anyone in this position, if asked, would strongly agree that they desire to be thin, but they seem to lack the capacity to make it happen.

Here it is critical to distinguish between our cognitive desires (that which we desire cognitively) and our sensational desires (that which we desire because it brings pleasure to our senses). The desires that are often at conflict is between that which we are sensationally addicted to and that which we cognitively desire. 

For example, I sensationally desire food because it feels good, but I desire to exercise because I am cognitively aware that it will make me feel even better than the food in the end. 

When God created us, he must have created these two facets of human desire (Cognitive and Sensational). If we look at Genesis 3, we find the first struggle between these two facets of desire:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 

Genesis 3:1-6

The text above says that when Eve "saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes." Right here, we have sensational desire. It continues and says, "the woman saw...the tree was to be desired to make one wise." Right here, we seem to have cognitive desire. 

Now, in a perfect world, these facets of desire would necessarily be perfectly aligned with each-other -- there would be no struggle between what we cognitively desire and what we sensationally desire. In other words, the sensational desire to be in God's presence would overwhelm all other desires and we would cognitively be aware that this is the healthiest option for our lives as well. 

Adam and even failed to keep both of these desires for God, but Jesus does not. Jesus is tempted by the devil in the wilderness, after forty days of not eating. The devil says, 

“If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”  - Luke 4:3-4

Jesus essentially says, "yes, I desire bread, but there is more to life than bread." 

Here's what's fascinating, I would argue that Jesus' sensational desire was for bread, yes, but his greater sensational desire was for the presence of his heavenly Father. 

So the question isn't: is your only sensational desire for God?

No.

The question is: does your sensational desire for God overwhelm all other sensational desires?

Do we enjoy the presence of God above everything else?

Many people will say that they cognitively desire the presence of God -- that is, they believe that a relationship with God is healthy for them. But only those who really love God will desire God, not for what they can get from the relationship, but for what the relationship creates:

The constant presence of God in your life. 

So...

Does God satisfy you more than anything else?

The One Question to Answer that Will Reveal if you're a Christian

"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love." - 1 John 4:7-8

The first question to be answered is, what is love? For if love is the foundational way that we can know whether we are actually a believer or not, it is incredibly important to know what love is, and even more important to know the burning question:

Do you love?


To answer this question, I find it appropriate to again see what John has to say just a chapter earlier.

"This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?" - 1 John 3:16-18

John says, as I posted at the top, "anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love." In other words, with the previous definition of love that John gives us, this seems to be saying, anyone who is not willing to lay down every aspect of their life for people in need does not know God. 

Why?

Because God is love. In Jesus, we see just the sort of selfless love that God actually possesses.

If God is love, it follows that those that God manifests himself in by way of the holy spirit must physically, emotionally, mentally, and existentially experience this sort of love for those in need. 

Notice the difference.

The actions here are not the key. 

The key is the experience. It's not whether you actually give to those in need, it's whether you experience a reality that pity's those who are in need. 

I'm not saying that doing isn't part of it. In fact, it's an important part of it. Those who experience a reality of pity for those in need will do. There are those, however, who do apart from experiencing a legitimate desire to help. 

Why, someone will ask, would someone help who doesn't have the desire to help?

This question assumes that every person always does the very thing that they really want to do. But human experience tells a different story. Why are people constantly fighting their struggle with obesity? Why are people constantly fighting a lifestyle of discipline? 

People fight these things because the thing they really want in life is in direct opposition to what they are doing. Thus it is completely possible that someone would donate to charity, feed a homeless man, or volunteer at a homeless shelter for reasons other than, they simply want to. 

Some of these reasons often include a desire to be seen or a desire to be fulfilled through helping. 

Here is the beauty of Christianity and of God living in us:

It's simple.

We don't love because we want to be seen, we don't love because we want to be fulfilled in our souls. 

No.

We love because we want to.

It's really that simple. That is the single thing that sets the Christian against the rest of the world. The single thing that makes us different. We don't love out of obligation, we love out of a simple, nonsensical, and profound desire to love.

So, the questions isn't, do you love?

The question is:

Why do you love?

"We love because he first loved us." - 1 John 4:19

Why Would a Loving God Create Self-Destructive People?

So here we are.

You have your struggles and I have my struggles.

But why?

Why would a God who loves us create us with tendencies, desires, and sometimes even passions for things that hurt us? For example, depression or anxiety. Both of these symptoms in many cases are, to an extant at least, proven to be neurologically wired in a person's brain. If God "knit me together in my mother's womb" (psalm 139:13), why did he tweak some of the stitching and intentionally leave holes in the cloth?

For surely, God could have created perfect beings without any self-destructive tendencies.

Now, at this point, many people will bring up the point that God gave us free will and he valued our free will above making us perfect against our will. I think however that this point has a faulty premise. For it could be argued back that God could have simply created people with desires and passions that were not self-destructive. But then, of course, someone will argue that a persons passions and desires are not created by God, but created by man's own experiences and devices. This argument runs into the problem that if I continue to ask you the question "where did that desire come from?" for any individual and so on for the next individual and the next back to the beginning of everything, you must eventually say "God created." And in creating, God knew, thus he must have planned. For there is no blind creating with God, only purposeful creating.

For the above mentioned reasons, I'm going to dismiss the theory that self-destructive tendencies exist because God desired to give man free will. For there is something more to this. God, for some very specific and intentional reason gave man desires that have the potential to destroy him if submitted to.

The two possible reasons seem to be that

1. God gains from our self-destructive tendencies.

and/or

2. Man gains from his self-destructive tendencies.

These seem to me the only plausible reasons for creating humans with self-destructive tendencies. Either because God is going to be more glorified in some way, or because man is going to benefit in some way.

I'd like to note a somewhat interesting phenomenon at this point. What is absolutely fascinating about self-destructive tendencies including people who struggle with depression and anxiousness, is that these people nonetheless often come to believe in Christ. Rarely does a person logically and fully renounce God because of a difficult experiences in their own life, but more often because of difficult experiences in others' lives.

We don't renounce God because our mom died, we renounce him because of all the suffering in Iraq. It is at least peculiar that our anger towards God regarding suffering is more often enflamed outside the realm of suffering than it is within. Basically, we don't disbelieve in God because our mom died, we disbelieve in God because our friends mom died. We disbelieve in God because of general suffering in the world, not specific suffering that effects us personally.

Nonetheless, I think that the two possible reasons listed above hold truth about our scenario.

God gains from our self-destructive tendencies

At first glance, no one likes the looks of that title. How would God possibly gain from the suffering in the world? Here, we have to step outside our comfort zones to examine the mind of the creator.

A few possibilities.

1. It reminds humans that God is God and they are not. 

When we have things we personally struggle with in life, it is a great reminder that God is all-powerful and we are not. Perhaps the very problem with Satan when he fell from heaven was that he believed he had no bad tendencies and that made it that much easier to consider himself without need of God. This benefits God because God desires that his creatures glorify him, and creating creatures who have certain self-destructive tendencies reminds them often that they need God to sustain them.

2. It makes for a more glorifying big picture.

It would be easy to read to the middle of any great novel, act as though that is where the story ends, and become enraged by the horrible ending (actually the middle). That is what we humans do with the story of the earth and humanity. We read the part we play and the parts that have come before and are dissatisfied with the story. Have we forgotten that the hero usually saves the day at the end of the story? Have we forgotten that the best stories include great suffering? Let me suggest for a moment that perhaps the end of the story is going to magnify God's glory that much more because of the difficulties found in the middle of the story.


Man gains from his self-destructive tendencies

This seems like a bit of an oxymoron, but again, we must examine the big-picture.

1. It reminds humans that God is God and they are not.

Yes, the same as the first one for God. It's basically the same idea. Anything apart from it's creator, when it is made for the purpose of being in relationship with its creator will be miserable. So perhaps we benefit because it reminds us to pray to God, to depend on God, which then leads to our greater satisfaction in the end.

2. Humans get to be the hero now and again.

When you have experienced something self-destructive in your own life, you are more equipped to help someone, experiencing a similar thing, overcome it in their life. It can be argued that God should have just created us to not have self-destructive tendencies in the first place, thus this is more of a secondary benefit that makes humans feel purpose in their life as they get to be the hero and help others.


The important thing is not to have all the answers, but to recognize you don't have all the answers. Simply recognize that there are other possible reasons that God created man to have self-destructive habits. The fool's choice is to say either God is evil or he doesn't exist, but this is faulty reasoning.

"'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares the Lord."- Isaiah 55:8

Our Relationship with Jesus and the Consequences of the Covenants

In Matthew 7:21-23, we read this teaching of Jesus.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’"

I want to focus on the "I never knew you" statement. 

I think this statement begs the question, how could Jesus not "know" a person? Jesus is God, giving him, at least in the end times, the same knowledge and abilities as any other part or portion of the rest of the God-head.

The first distinction that must be made is about what sort of "knowledge" Jesus is speaking. We know that Jesus is aware of everyone, so thus the sort of cognitive awareness to which is often referred to as knowledge must be excused. Jesus, being omniscient just as the rest of the God-head, is aware of every being's desires, ambitions, and motives. So how is it that Jesus could not "know" someone?

The word for "know" in the greek used here in this passage is Ginosko and it means knowledge gained through experience. This knowledge Jesus refers to is a knowledge that is limited by the extent to which both parties experience each-other in a relationship. Perhaps the simplest illustration is the deep intimacy or Ginosko an old married couple experience over years and years of commitment to each-other. 

Since it is that we are talking about relationship, it is at least helpful, if not critical to note that all relationship is guided, domineered, and made possible by boundaries either generally accepted or uniquely implemented. For example, at the beginning of my covenant with my wife, I vowed to her that I would never be unfaithful to her and my commitment would be to her alone until death swallows either of us up. If I were to go and find satisfaction in another woman, my wife would no longer be obligated by her portion of the covenant, just as any reasonable agreement. Both parties are obligated to hold up their end of the agreement until the other has failed to do so. 

Let's apply these rules of relationship to us and God. We read in Genesis 17, when the Lord makes a covenant with Abraham...

“I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.”

And a relationship was born. What was man's part of the covenant to hold up? To be blameless before God. But we have not held up our part of the covenant.

Romans says...

“None is righteous, no, not one."

What then are we to do? In every relationship, a covenant can be redone. If I were to be sexually unfaithful to my wife and she said to me, "Let's try to make things work nonetheless," the covenant would be a completely new covenant, not a renewed covenant. For the previous covenant is now an impossibility for me to continue in relationship under because it allows for no unfaithfulness, and yet that is what I have committed. In the new covenant, my wife (the victimized party) allows my sins to effect her and hurt her without allowing them to completely ruin our relationship.

This is what God has done with us. No man is righteous, but yet God has said, "Allow me to make a new covenant where you are able to have an affair, and I will simply bare the pain and suffering myself." In Jesus, a new covenant has been created, because under the old covenant we have all failed to hold up our end of the bargain.

For someone who does not accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, relationship is still impossible because they have not entered into the new covenant but remain under their own failures of the old covenant. 

When Jesus says, "I never knew you," it quite simply declares, "our relationship was never possible because you rejected the covenant that made it possible and remained under the covenant that made it impossible." 

It is a declaration, not of a lack of awareness of you, but of a lack of relationship with you. 


For more thoughts and encouragements, check out Refresh Ministries on Youtube. They put out some great content: https://www.youtube.com/user/RefreshHawaii

For 

Why did Jesus Weep Over a Man He Was on His Way to Resurrect?

"Jesus wept" - John 11:35

The shortest verse in the Bible.

Let me tell you the story that leads up to Jesus' tears.

John chapter 11 tells the story, but here is a quick version if you don't know the story.

John 10:39 tells us that Jesus escaped getting arrested by the Jews because they got pissed off at him, as was their custom. Well, chapter 11 of John starts off by telling us that a certain man named Lazarus became ill and was dying. Lazarus was a friend of Jesus' so he ended getting relayed the message.

Jesus responds by saying, “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”


Jesus stays where he is at two days, Lazarus dies, and Jesus says to the disciples with him, “Let us go to Judea again.”


Now this is where it gets interesting. 


The disciples respond, “Rabbi, the Jews were just now seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?” Jesus explains that they can go at night so as to not be spotted. He then tells them that Lazarus has died and he needs to go to him. 


Also note that Jesus says,“Lazarus has died, and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.” 


Thomas, one of the disciples, responds perhaps a bit sarcastically, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”


So keep in mind at this point that Jesus is going back to a place where previously, the Jews were trying to arrest and kill him. This is risky for Jesus to do and it could lead to some worse consequences. So Jesus stays outside the city and lets the sisters of Lazarus come to him to talk. Messages are relayed between them for a bit and then one of the sisters comes to Jesus with tons of her Jew friends and says, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”


Then...


"When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in his spirit and greatly troubled. And he said, 'Where have you laid him?' They said to him, 'Lord, come and see.' Jesus wept."


Jesus then decides to go into the town, to Lazarus' tomb and raise him from the dead.


What's interesting is immediately after Jesus raises him from the dead, we read the end of John 11, under the title of "The Plot to Kill Jesus." 


We read...


"Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him, but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they made plans to put him to death."


Okay, what does all this mean?


I always found it odd that Jesus would weep over a man that he was literally on his way to resurrect, so let me suggest a theory. 


I believe that part of Jesus' sadness was brought on by the simple desperation he saw in Mary. However, I believe there may have been something much greater going on here. Perhaps Jesus wept because he knew, that in saying the words "show me where you laid him," he was committing himself to the cross. Perhaps the reason Jesus wept was because his love for Lazarus truly outranked his love for himself. 


He decided essentially, 


"I'm going to raise Lazarus. But to do so, I must die myself."


And these overwhelming thoughts brought him to tears.


Isn't that what Jesus does with us?

"Yes, I love you and I want to see you live abundantly, I'm going to die so you don't have to."

Perhaps this is a story about God's crazy, scandalous, and beautiful love that brings us dead human beings back to life through the sacrifice of Christ.

Think about it.


Also, looking for some daily words of wisdom or encouragement?

Check Matt Arnett and his videos he makes on facebook. He has some great stuff to say.

https://www.facebook.com/matt.arnett.75?fref=ts