Skip to main content

Who Is This Jesus? (John 7:25-36)

 Some of the people knew that Jesus had begun to get an infamous reputation, and that some of the leaders wanted to kill him. Maybe they were taken aback by his gentleness, or they wondered why the leadership would hesitate, if they were so set in their opinions against Jesus.

Some leaders thought they knew where Jesus had come from, because they knew his family. They could not account for his special knowledge, which he did not get from studying; he got it from His divine nature. Jesus once more speaks of his special relationship with the Father, and that he is the one whom the Father has sent. To say this is not very prudent, because it is not an accepted custom for an Israelite to speak about God so intimately. St. John tells us that the reason why the leaders could not lay hands on Jesus is that his hour had not yet come. This means that everything that will happen in Jerusalem is a spiritual mystery that will unfold according to the Father's plan, and not a moment before.

Some holy citizens start to recognize that the coming of the Messiah will bring miracles, and they ask the natural question, "Will the Messiah do more miracles than this man?" It's a good question. It's not necessarily the case that every miracle worker is the Messiah, but it was generally believed that a person who did miracles was most likely sent by God for some purpose.

As you might expect, growing support for Jesus among the people did not go over well with the religious and political leadership of the nation. Jesus is well aware of what is happening, but he also knows that they won't succeed in arresting him until the Father permits it. He is speaking in a spiritual way about his death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. But again, without the grace to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, everything Jesus says would sound completely crazy.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...