Skip to main content

The High Priestly Prayer, Part Three (John 17:20-26)

 Now Jesus prays for us, because we are the ones who have heard his message through his apostles. Jesus prays that we would be united to the apostles, and to one another, through his saving message. He prays that we would be united in the same way that he is united to the Father, and in the way that both the Father and the Son are united with the Holy Spirit. This is a mystery of deep prayer and contemplation, because he is inviting us to be in the fellowship of God Himself. Even this has a purpose beyond the enjoyment of it, because it will prove that the Father has sent the Son, and loved us to the end through him.

There is another mystery here, in the fact that Jesus wants to share the glory of God with us. We don't by nature have the ability to participate in the glory of God, or to share fellowship with Him. God has given us the grace to be friends with him, to be supernatural people.

Jesus prays for the apostles to receive the gift of heaven. Heaven will be the place of seeing the full glory of Jesus, which he shares in fellowship with the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus mentions again that he has been rejected by "the world," but he finds his solace in the Father, and in the fact that the apostles believe Jesus was sent by the Father. And everything in the end is bonded by love. Love is what makes heaven to be heaven. God makes heaven to be heaven, but God is Love.

St. John has never been able to contain his joy at this mystery, and it spills over to his other letters: 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John. God loves us and wants to enjoy our company forever. I don't understand it completely, but fortunately, we don't need to understand it, in order to enjoy it.

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

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

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