Why did Jesus Weep?

“When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. “Where have you laid him?” he asked. “Come and see, Lord,” they replied. Jesus wept. Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?” Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance.” -John 11:33-38

I have seen countless social media posts about the story of Lazarus in John 11. Specifically, why does Jesus weep in verse 35? You typically hear one of two interpretations.

One, he was mourning over Lazarus. This makes no sense to me. When you read verses 1-6 it’s plain that he purposely waited for Lazarus to die. As Jesus indicates, God and his son would be glorified through his death. As well as, so that they would believe through that glory. As indicated by verse 14. From his point of view, Lazarus wasn't really gone. 

Two, that he was grieving with Mary and Martha. This also makes no sense. If he had decided right then to bring him back, it would. However, as we already established Lazarus’ fate was already decided. Why waste time mourning with them when he was about to take away the reason for their sadness? We must look closer and probe beyond the misleading details to realize he was weeping for them, and not with them.

Some translations may have a heading like 'Jesus comforts the sisters of Lazarus.' This is not part of the original text and helped perpetuate this misunderstanding I am about to reveal.

The story also documents a few witness reactions. When this happens in the gospels, it often highlights their misunderstanding of the situation. This scene is no different. They are not an accurate gauge of what is really going on. It's a testament to how thick-headed the people were, and still are. 

However, there is one definitive detail here that clarifies everything. Notice the phrase ‘deeply moved’ is used twice above. This often leads us to assume empathy on the part of Jesus. However, the original Greek tells a very different story. The word in both cases is embrimaomai, and the deep movement it expresses is one of indignation, not sympathy. It means to snort in anger, to sternly warn, or to groan. Some older translations are far less vague by using the word 'groan.' The Message paraphrase is actually the most literal by saying “a deep anger welled up in him.” Not that I am trying to portray Jesus as completely without empathy. Rather say it's kinder to correct people for their obvious errors, instead of patronizing them only to enable them to repeat their mistakes.

Knowing this we can see that Jesus wept because, in his eyes, they were showing a lack of faith. Proving they did not understand what the messiah was capable of, or what that truly meant for his followers. I dare say we still don’t understand, and he still weeps over us because of our weak faith, and pathetic understanding.

This begs the question, Why? Poor translations aside, there is an apparent desire to water down his actual intent of correction. This may be a sign we love and cherish our mortal lives too much. We are not acting as if we truly believe it’s a mere drop in the ocean of eternity. That we are more concerned with our comfort, and short-term emotional distress than our long-term spiritual well-being. We want a God who takes trials and tribulations away so we don’t have to face them, instead of strengthening us by guiding us through them.

For example, God could have guided the Israelites around the Red Sea, it was a shorter path. (Exodus 13:17) He could have made the Red Sea disappear, but he chose to guide them through it instead. He could have parted it the moment the Hebrews got to the shore. Yet he waited until the Egyptians caught up to them. Yet by doing it the way he did, God's power is revealed. Also, the pharaoh would never be able to make trouble for them again. Deep down we want to be God’s spoiled children, not his victorious heirs. We want just enough faith to get by in the wilderness, not take hold of the promised land. We don't want to endure our hope, faith, and trust being tested for a second. We want to remain spiritually immature so we don’t have to take on the responsibilities of fully adult heirs of the kingdom who are set apart for a purpose. Yet we wonder why our virtual pharaoh keeps returning to haunt us.

This poor attitude definitely shows in the present-day church. What will you do about the fact Jesus may still be weeping over your lack of progress in your spiritual journey?

The Visual PARABLEist

 Jesus wept at the triumphal entry as well and for the same reason. Few talk about this passage though.

“As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he WEPT over it and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes.” -Luke 19:41-42

State of the Church

In previous years I have done other state of the church posts like What’s the matter with church and Revival. I do this because if we don’t hold ourselves accountable, who are we to correct anybody else. (Matt 7:5) It seems like an apt time to revisit the basic idea and address recent trends, and my growing understanding of the creed. Faith is ultimately a journey. As much as we may realize we need to be at point D, we need to complete A-C first. That can be hard to do when everyone around you is fixated on points E or F and pushing you to meet them where they are. Disrespecting the process of Ever-increasing Glory. (2nd Cor. 3:18) Yet they never consider that so much lies beyond point F.

The biggest issue is the root of many others. People are only going as deep as their comfort will allow. Often reducing the gospel to simply being a good boy. So we frequently don’t challenge ourselves to become better disciples or more righteous people. Let alone set apart for a purpose. Getting stuck in maintaining our clean slate, instead of allowing our story to be rewritten. Many churches may even cater to this by only going deep enough to maintain attendance, rather than risk frightening people with uncomfortable truths. For example, we live in an age where belief, knowledge, and action are seen as separate and very distinct things. Yet in Christ’s time if you truly believed something you would educate yourself about it, and act upon that knowledge. Your belief was not seen as authentic otherwise. So this idea of “just believe” is not as passive as we often portray it. (James 1:22)

This brings us to my next point. Confusing validation for restoration. As I often say "God made us, and the world breaks us, but Christ can remake us." Yet in a culture so motivated by acceptance, we value the approval of the world that broke us, more than being remade in the image of our Creator. So we end up identifying with and making communities around our trauma, instead of the wholeness Christ offers. We have seen this phenomenon in popular music for decades. People feel less like outsiders when their feelings are validated through music when nobody else will. But if an action is unholy, self-destructive, or harmful to others; validation changes none of that. It only makes us feel better about our bad behavior for a time. It doesn't save us from the inevitable consequences.
   Offering empathy and understanding can open the door to exploring a fuller truth and eventually living that truth. Unfortunately too many only go deep enough to get to the door, yet never enter it where a transformed victorious life lies. It’s far easier to stay with the wounds we are familiar with than the healing we are not. Consider this. When we validate our brokenness, we're also rationalizing the actions of anyone who may have had a hand in breaking us. Is that what you want to do? Still, your healing is between you and Christ, not the offender. Why would you give them that power over you, other than to avoid facing your scars?

This leads to my next point. Our relationship with our past. We often see opposite extremes on this one. One side uses past trauma as an excuse to behave badly, not mature, and never become born again as a new creature. (2nd Cor 5:17) The other extreme just says to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, even if they are too worn and tattered to do so. Either way, both are avoiding truly facing and overcoming the past. Grace may absolve us of our past wrongs. But healing of the scars behind the sins is a completely separate entity. This is critical for overcoming our continued slavery to sin that trips us up in our walk. If more people embraced healing and overcame, rather than relied on greasy grace. More people would be inspired to choose restoration, rather than mere validation. 

   The consequence is that the church is merely offering shallow legalistic definitions. Instead of offering the in-depth advice of someone who has been there. Such people tend to be very prideful in their correction. Pride ultimately uplifts self more than glorifies God. No wonder God opposes the proud and the whitewashed validation that goes with it. (Matthew 23:27, Proverbs 3:34)

This is probably why we rely more on tradition and convention than in-depth knowledge and understanding. Which is my final point. (Matt 15:6, Mark 7:8) It's an easy answer that offers a mere illusion of complete truth.  Tradition has a habit of getting watered down over time if we don’t maintain its foundation through continued education of its intended purpose. Revolving the tradition around the truths we are most comfortable with, yet glossing over the details we don’t like as much. Plus, systematizing truth lacks sincerity in practice since it’s often followed more out of sentiment, than God’s will.

As you can see these points are interconnected. All of which feed a shallow, powerless, and insincere faith that inspires nobody. So it’s no wonder the church is struggling and in such a sad state. What are you going to do about that?

The Visual PARABLEist