Skip to main content

Some Greeks Ask To See Jesus (John 12:20-26)

 Some Greeks come to the apostle Philip, and ask to meet with Jesus. He told Andrew, and they went together to tell Jesus. Jesus says the hour has come for him to be glorified, which means his death on the Cross. The way St. John uses the word "hour" is not necessarily about a time of day, or referring to 60 minutes. Instead, it usually means that something of great significance is about to occur. St. John and Jesus both know that how things may appear is different than how they are in reality. God attaches different meanings to things than we do at times.

Jesus uses the metaphor of the grain of wheat to talk about what will happen with him. He will die, but it will bear much fruit. The challenge that he then gives to us seems strange at first, but I think we know that a person who lives for others and serves them has a better life than someone who serves himself or herself. We can get a little bit worried about the word "servant," but truly, Jesus seems to connect service to friendship, and to love. He is inviting us to be his friend. If we are friend of Jesus, God the Father will honor us.

In the mind of St. John, and in the minds of other Israelites, there are only two kinds of people in the world: Jews and non-Jews. That's why this is here: everyone who is not a Jew is an outsider. St. John is hinting that soon, the message of Jesus will go to the whole world, not just to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (whom God calls "Israel.").

You'll notice that the Greeks never get to see Jesus. That's because the time for signs and interactions with people has ended. Everything that you will read now is the last week of the life of Jesus, at least on this side of the Cross.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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
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

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un