thanks
I almost entirely agree with your reply. I don’t agree that the warning is simply about works righteousness, or not in any obvious way.
The context of that comment (combined from two Synoptic accounts of the same incident, but I’ll primarily follow the more detailed Matthean account for now) indicates Jesus is talking about people who not only had doctrinal knowledge (their appeal to Him with the double “Lord Lord”) but also had been granted exorcism and miraculous attesting signs to be worked in Jesus’ name!
I don’t think Jesus’ criticism was about any simple works righteousness, though, with people doing works in order to enter into the kingdom; because the same context has Jesus introducing this prophetic criticism by complaining “Why do you call Me ‘Lord’ and do not do what I say??” The irony is that these people will have been specially empowered by Christ to do what He says, and will have been doing what He says in significant ways, and yet will be regarded (in a typical Synoptic reversal against their expectations) as being only workers of lawlessness who are (in some more important way) not doing what He says.
So the context is in fact about faithfully doing the work of Christ (including the subsequent famous parable of the two foundations in GosMatt), and of being punished for not doing so. Consequently Christ’s critique cannot be simply against works righteousness; but neither does He say specifically what the ground for judgment is, other than that these doctrinally astute and miraculously empowered people, evangelizing in His name, are somehow not doing the will of His Father Who is in the heavens. (There are major topical parallels with the judgment of the sheep and the baby goats in Matt 25, too.)
The immediately preceding comment in GosMatt, however, may give some clues, as it is a denunciation of false teachers (7:15-20). But the people who will be judged with the departure declaration won’t have been false teachers in doctrine or in evangelical power and authority. They will have to have been “ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing” in some other way, producing bad fruit along with the good fruit of their teaching and works: a bad fruit that results in them being unexpectedly judged against.
The preceding statement in GosMatt again is about the narrow and broad ways, the former leading to life (which few find) and the latter leading to destruction (which may find). But the statements preceding that for quite a while are about how we should not judge lest we be judged (for in the way we judge, we shall be judged, and by what standard we measure, it shall be measured to us); and how we should not hypocritically judge the speck in our brother’s eye when the log is sticking out of ours; and about how God is a good Father Who gives good things to His children, not evil things, and we should expect Him to do so; and about how we should not be concerned because our Father in the heavens loves us more than the flowers of the field which are destined for the fire tomorrow; and treat other people the way we want to be treated, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
So I think a good guess would be that the people Christ shall denounce as unexpectedly being workers of lawlessness, despite being evangelically empowered and doctrinally astute, are failing in regard to these things. For example, if they interpret sayings like 7:13-14 in fashions which void Christ’s teaching from, say, 6:25-7:12. (Or from Luke 6:20-45, which is a much shorter version of the same scene.)
That’s what I have come to understand anyway. 
Because I used to interpret sayings like 7:13-14 in fashions which voided Christ’s teaching from the preceding contexts. And sayings like the “Depart from Me”, too! I understood that the warning was aimed at myself, and what would happen to me if I didn’t change my ways and what I was teaching about Christ’s judgment.
(And yes, I know Jesus repeats the same teaching later in a scene reported in Luke 13:22-30, with some notable variations. Referring back to this earlier scene and its contexts helps in interpreting what Jesus’ answer there is about: it’s a warning to the one who asked “Are there only a few who are being saved?” But there are characteristics of that scene even by itself which also point in such a direction. “You be striving to enter,” i.e. you, the one asking the question, are the one who needs to be worrying about this, for you will be the one who is standing outside, and you will be the one weeping and gnashing your teeth when you see many from the east and the west and the north and the south reclining at the table with the patriarchs and the prophets and you being cast outside. “Now be getting this!–Some are last who will be first and some are first who will be last!”)
Hello Jason
This passage is one of the more difficult passages to understand within the teaching of UR. But, in my humble estimation, I think the key is in the context. Here we have two parables which lead us into an eschatological event. The parables declare that the Kingdom of God is like ten virgins who are waiting for a groom, and a wealthy lord who goes traveling to a far country. These set the stage for the Son of Man coming in glory. With this in mind, I start looking for the themes in the parables.
-
The parable of the 10 virgin… The kingdom of heaven is like ten virgins are waiting for a groom. Five virgins are prepared with plenty of oil, five virgins are unprepared. The five who are unprepared leave their watch to buy additional oil. The groom returns and the five unprepared miss the arrival. The five unprepared virgins ask to enter. The groom (contrary to the gracious spirit of the occasion) says “I don’t know you.” The moral is to watch. If you snooze (and miss the grace of the groom) you lose.
-
The parable of the talents… The kingdom of heaven is like a man who traveled to a far country, who gave five talents to one servant, two talents to a second servant and one talent to third servant. When the traveler returns the first two servants have doubled their talents, while the third servant buried his talent for fear of his lord. The traveler returned and praised the two servants for their good management. However, he criticized the third for burying the talent (an act which seems to be contrary to the gracious nature of the traveler). “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. Cast the unprofitable servant into outer darkness…”
The way I understand this is that the traveler is a man of grace. To those who accept grace, more will be given. To those who reject the grace, that which they have will be given to others.
In the Mark parallel, the moral, like the parable of the ten virgins, is to “watch”. In Luke the moral of “watch” is contrasted against those who frivolously carouse.
- Now, when the son of man comes in all his glory… He will gather the nations of the world and separate the sheep from the goats. Those who were gracious with others will receive the grace of the kingdom. Those who refused to offer grace to others will not receive the grace of the kingdom. This seems to echo the message about forgiveness. He who is forgiven, forgives. Grace leads to grace. But to him who rejects grace, even what grace he may have will be taken away.
I take it that the everlasting fire and the outer darkness do not require that those who enter it be there for everlasting eternity in order for God to find it worthwhile to offer them grace.
Would appreciate comments…
RVallimont
RValli,
I tend to agree, but I thought I should focus on the most pertinent example of “depart from Me” I could think of in reply to Oxy. (Especially since that’s also the only example I could recall of the strongest version of the denunciation, “I never knew you”. Though as you point out there are similar examples of the precept elsewhere, although not with that particular wording.)
Obviously I agree that the key is in the context, or I wouldn’t have spent so much effort and attention on the context of the “I never knew you” warning.
I haven’t written much about the context of the first two of the three Great Judgment Warnings at end of Jesus’ teaching in GosMatt; but I and everyone else regards them as being explained in principle by the third Warning, the parable of the sheep and the goats. And I’ve had quite a lot to say about that in the past year or so. 
I agree it is very much a warning against those who refuse to cooperate with the Good Shepherd (and the mature flock) in offering grace to others. (Search for “baby goat”.)
Question for All
When thinking of “reconciliation” a question comes to mind.
“Salvation” is offered by God from the wages of sin, which is death.
Those who embrace God’s saving grace are spared from the wages of sin leading to death.
Those who do not accept God’s saving grace will (presumably) be subjected to the wages of sin and death.
Does “reconciliation” require “salvation”? Or does “reconciliation” refer to some state of relationship other than “salvation” (e.g., being reconciled to ones fate)?
Relative to such words as “salvation”, “sanctification”, “redemption”, “atonement”, and others; what does eternal reconciliation mean?
RVallimont
Those are fine questions, but maybe you should create a new thread to ask them (rather than here at the tail end of a thread with a rather different particular topic).
Do you know how to create a new thread, or would you like us to help? (I recommend somewhere other than the “discussion negative” category, too. Maybe “soteriology”.)
Thanks for the suggestion, I’ll do that!
RV