Skip to main content

A New Commandment (John 13:31-35)

 Everything Jesus says for the rest of this chapter he says without Judas the betrayer being present. It is fitting, because betrayal and murder certainly is not consistent with love.

Yet Jesus starts off talking about being glorified, which means being crucified. If we are honest, we don't see the glory of the Cross with our human eyes. Also, what does it mean to say that God the Father is glorified in Jesus? I think that God is glorified in the life of Jesus as much or more than he is in the death of Jesus.

Jesus says that his time there with them is growing short.

No one quite understands that Jesus will ascend back into heaven, after his death and resurrection. We assume that St. Peter is honestly confused, rather than thinking Jesus is crazy, as his opponents probably did.

We have to think that we are able to follow Jesus later because he will give us the power to get to heaven with him. I don't think it's too much of a reach, because St. John told us all the way back at the beginning that those who received Jesus would have the right to become children of God.

We have to talk about what St. John means--and Jesus means--when they say "love." On the one hand, we can look around at our world, and see people arguing and shouting, knowing that no matter how right they might be, that isn't love. On the other hand, love is not a feeling. We can't decide what love is necessarily by how it feels. If you have ever seen the movie "Million Dollar Baby," you know that Clint Eastwood's character doesn't want his fighter to suffer, after she is injured in a fight. She won't walk again. He might've thought that he was being compassionate, by not letting her live in such a state. But to truly love, we must will the good for someone else. If it's not good to kill her because she is hurt, then killing her is not an act of love, no matter how well-intentioned it was.

"Love" for St. John is supernatural fellowship with God. Since God is love, the love that St. John is talking about, and that Jesus is telling us about, is sharing in the life of God itself. We don't have that power on our own, but God gives it to us, because he wants us to be with him in heaven.

So there is a balance: we often know love when we see it, but sometimes we can be tricked by our feelings. If you've ever had to tell someone that they are being foolish or dangerous, and they don't necessarily receive it very well, you know the tension of trying to be loving, but not necessarily being popular.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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...
Post a Comment
Read more
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...
17 comments
Read more

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...
Post a Comment
Read more