Skip to main content

Truly "God With Us" (John 14:18-24)

 Ever since we heard about the Incarnation--Jesus becoming man--we have had the opportunity to consider the prophecy from Isaiah: "and they shall call his name "Immanuel," which means, "God is with us." In some translations, it is simply "God with us."

It is an intimate and special thing for Jesus to do this, but this section prepares us for a deeper intimacy with God than simply Jesus sharing our human flesh. Jesus says that God Himself--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--will live within us. The theologians and teachers call this "the divine indwelling." There is still great mystery here that we will not understand in our lifetimes, but apparently sharing in the life of God will not be symbolic or metaphorical.

The other Judas asked him how the apostles will know Jesus and his mysteries, without everyone else knowing the mysteries. In a certain way, that question answers for us another question, which is, "Why doesn't Jesus just make everything about himself and his message clear to everyone?" Part of that answer is that God allows some people to disbelieve, in order that others may believe. Another aspect is that we know probably of people who could witness a miracle in broad daylight, and somehow they could disbelieve whatever or whomever that miracle was about. God is not looking for superior knowledge, but love. It is love for God that truly determines success or failure in this life.

Therefore, this call to obedience is actually rooted in the love and grace that God has already given to us. It is not something that we do only in our own power. Then Jesus reminds us that obeying him is actually obeying the Father. We will see God more clearly, as we love Him.

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