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.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
17 comments
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...
Post a Comment
Read more