So this has been lingering in the back of my head for a long time. But it recently came to life during a Bible study, so I thought I'd share it. In an attempt to keep it reasonably short, I've not spent much time distinguishing aspects of character (intellect vs. emotion, mind vs. heart, spirit vs. soul, etc.). Rather, I've focused on the principles. I hope this doesn't confuse anyone.

We all too often skim over passages of scripture without thoroughly reading them and gaining all the insights we can. Even if we skip one little word, we can miss out on a huge blessing. 1 John 5:12 is one such verse. It says that if we have Jesus we have eternal life. But there's this great little phrase hidden in there, "This life is in the Son...." Yup, the life is in the Son, and we have to be connected to Him to have life. Fits well with Rev. 3:20. But, let's compare scripture with scripture - this is cool.

1 Cor. 15:53 says that at the second coming of Christ, "this mortal shall put on immortality." Paul, a man with eternal life calls himself a mortal - because the eternal life is in Christ, not in himself. Yet he tells us that the day is coming when God will grant to him (Paul) immortality.

Consider immortality. Indestructibility is what the Oxford dictionary has to say about immortality. God only has immortality - why? Because only God cannot die. So if man were immortal, man could not die. Take that to its ultimate conclusion: even God could not destroy an immortal human. Did God reserve for Himself the right to destroy that human, he (the human) would not have immortality, rather, it would be temporary life indefinitely granted until further notice. Whoa, almost sounds like heresy, but it's true. If God could destroy an immortal human, there would have been no fear of Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of the tree of life in Eden after they sinned. Yet Genesis 3 records that God said, "lest he...live forever, therefore the Lord God sent them forth from the Garden of Eden."

God did not want man to partake of the tree of life because He knew that once they did, He Himself could no longer destroy sin - His hands would be tied.

So, back to Paul. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul declares that man will one day have immortality. Not life through the Son, dependent upon a connection with the Son, but life in ourselves. (If immortality apart from God is possible in a fallen state, i.e. Eden, how much more so in an unfallen state?) Seems a bit risky on God's behalf, doesn't it?

However, we do have the promise of Nahum 1:9 that sin will be ended and will not rise a second time. I used to think that meant that God would destroy anyone who rebelled, being perfectly justified in doing so. But this gave rise to the question, "Given enough time, would there be anyone left?" In the context of 1 Cor. 15:53, however, it becomes clear that nobody will ever rebel - after all, if they did, God has no recourse. But God is not rash or irresponsible - He has an extremely high standard.

But it's not that bad. After all, in a perfect world, who would ever want to rebel anyway? I don't want to take up all your time with this point, but I feel it necessary to run through it really quick: Rebellion = sin = transgression of the law. The law = transcript of God's character. Therefore, rebellion = transgression of God's character, or "rebellion is any ungodly character trait." Hmmm... Maybe it is that bad...

Every human being that receives a glorified body at the resurrection, must be trustworthy enough to never, throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity, manifest even the slightest hint of an ungodly character. If there was ever even the possibility that someone might do so at any point in the vast future, they're automatically disqualified from receiving eternal life - it's too risky.

Suddenly, the question posed in Rev. 6:17, "Who shall be able to stand" seems a lot more relevant. "Who will meet the criteria?" Surely not I. Yet someone says, "we'll be changed when we're glorified - when we receive our new bodies." That's wishful thinking, my friend. The only change that the Bible tells us of is physical - your character remains the same. When Christ returns, there's a choice - do you posses a character He can immortalize for all eternity or not? Can you be trusted to never, for all eternity, harbor ungodly traits? In case you were tempted to say "yes," read Jeremiah 17:9 before answering.

It is impossible for me to stand. No chance. My heart is wicked - so wicked, in fact, that I can't even know what it's up to. Its scheming transcends my own comprehension. My wicked little heart (character) is one step ahead of me, not the other way around. I can't change it, and I can't trust it. God can't trust it and He knows it. Is the outlook dismal enough yet?

My only hope is found in Psalm 51:10. God's standard is incomprehensibly high - that, through His mercy, He create a new heart within me, is my only hope. It should be in every prayer. It must be our greatest desire, that God create in me a heart that can be in harmony with Him; a heart that can love Him; a heart He can trust; a heart like His own.

Josiah Jones in his daddy's shoes - size 12 1/2, those are some big shoes for a little guy to fill (hmm, is there an object lesson in there?)

One wasn't enough. After I snapped the first picture he said, "okay, again!" And posed for the camera - this went on for some time...

Marianna and Jeffrey are getting married. It's been fascinating to observe them and how they interact while making their wedding plans. On Sunday Marianna came home with her arms full of those fancy glossy paper bags with the little rope handles that you only get at very prestigious clothing stores.

You know the kind - you're tempted to ask the cashier (in theses stores they're called "clerks") if it costs extra, but you're afraid you'd look cheap and that they might kick you out because you're not rich enough to shop there, so you don't say anything and walk out of the store with a fancy bag containing a pair of socks (because that's all you could afford at that store), feeling like a thief. So you go back and ask, just to be sure, and they give you that condescending smile you were afraid of and assure you that the bags are free. In reality, you paid for 17 or 18 of those bags just by buying that over-priced pair of socks - and you thought you were treated well because they gave you such a fancy bag for "free"!

Anyway, when I saw her with her arms full of these bags I said, "You can tell she's getting married."

"Yes, she's always smiling", was Toni's reply.

Not exactly what I was thinking...

Later that evening Marianna made it very clear she had not been shopping (or, "spending any money," as she put it). I guess we know what she and Jeffrey have been talking about...

Then I post this picture of Jordan from Jesse and Annie's wedding. And everybody reacts the same, right? NO! You're wrong! C'mon people! Have you not read anything I've been saying? So far the guys response has been something like, "it's Hilarious" and the girls think it's "Depressing" (this is based upon more responses than those posted). Those are very different adjectives to describe the same reaction, aren't they?

A certain individual, who shall remain unnamed for the sake of their reputation, refers to the opposite sex as the "other species" because the differences are so drastic. And I must admit that I find myself perpetually amazed by the differences between men and women. Sometimes the differences compliment one-another, at others they're so marked and distinct that it's almost impossible to compare the two. Like trying to compare birds and bees (maybe there was sense to that old adage), or a wallaby and a walrus: how can they be compared - especially if I don't know what a wallaby is?

Sometimes being single ain't all that.