Skip to main content

The High Priestly Prayer, Part One (John 17:1-5)

 When Jesus had finished saying what we have recorded in chapter 16, he began to pray. Jesus is a prophet and the true King of Israel, but he is also the true high priest of the new covenant. This is the prayer that Jesus prays for the apostles, and for all of us. Priests offer prayers and sacrifices to God, and Jesus doesn't see a reason to change what we would expect.

He asks the Father to glorify him, so that he may in turn glorify the Father. Jesus tells us through his prayer that receiving eternal life is a matter of believing in the one true God, and in him, whom the Father sent. We see once more that Jesus considers himself to be fundamentally the one who was sent by the Father.

What is Jesus praying for, if God has no needs, and God has glory in Himself? Jesus wants the glory of God the Father to be seen in this world. If the goal of our lives is to be in relationship with God forever, then a life well lived will show this glory, the same glory that Jesus is praying for. He says he has brought the Father glory on earth.

We could ask an important question: what was the work that Jesus was given to do? A big part of the work was to glorify the Father. Jesus also came in order to complete the story of the people of Israel. The people had been in exile in Babylon (mostly modern-day Iraq) since Jerusalem was invaded and destroyed about 600 years before this. The people wondered if God would keep his promises to the great kings David and Solomon, that one of their heirs would sit on the throne forever. Now the last King of Israel is here.

Yet Jesus says that he had far more glory in the intimate presence of the Father than any earthly king could ever manage. We are touching the great mystery of Jesus, and His eternal existence as the Son of God. He took on our human nature, but he did not begin to exist when he did that. Jesus has always been, and always will be.

It is a matter for prayer, to consider that Jesus took on human nature for us, and is not ashamed of it. We should recognize the goodness of our bodies, even if they trouble us, because Jesus took on a human body. He dignified and glorified the human body, and human nature, forever.

Let's think about this, when we are tempted to hate ourselves, or to hurt ourselves, or each other. Our destiny is with God, and it will be with the human nature that he gave us. Better, and not subject to death, or weakness, or any other thing, but human, even so.

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