Skip to main content

The High Priestly Prayer, Part Two (John 17:6-19)

 Jesus says that he has made the Father's name known to his apostles, and he says that the Father gave the apostles to him. Jesus also says that the apostles believed what he shared with them, which is probably a generous interpretation of what the apostles said and did. Then again, when God writes our story, he is often more generous to us than we would be to ourselves.

Jesus says that everything he has is from the Father, which is what you would expect the obedient Son to say. Jesus also says that all the words he spoke were the words the Father gave him to say. Maybe what we could say is that the apostles had to believe fully in Jesus before Jesus could honestly pray this prayer. There may be many gifts that the Father intends to give us, but we are not yet ready to receive them.

Jesus is praying for his apostles, which is truly an amazing thing, and is a great mystery, because true prayer takes humility. And the mystery is that the glorious Son of God would humble himself at all. Not only that, but he humbles himself for these frail men, as well as us. Jesus says he is not praying for the world opposed to God, but for these chosen, who were called by the Father. Jesus then says basically that he and the Father share everything, including us.

What a great mystery, that Jesus would say that God is somehow glorified in the apostles and us! Jesus says the apostles will remain here in the ordinary sinful world that we know, while he goes to the Father. Jesus asks the Father to keep them in His name, which only Jesus knows. Jesus prays for this so that the apostles would be united in one purpose. The unity that the apostles will display is the same unity that exists between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said that he protected the apostles while he was with them, and this is what the Good Shepherd would do. Not one of the apostles is lost, except for Judas Iscariot the betrayer. Judas represents the only known instance of an actual person confirmed in hell. This is not to say that he is the only one, but Jesus tells us directly that Judas is a "son of perdition," in fulfillment of the Scriptures.

Jesus is praying this prayer, he says, so that the joy of Jesus would be fulfilled in the apostles. This is a great mystery, and a wonderful blessing, because the joy of Jesus is powerful, and without limit.

Jesus gave the apostles the Father's word, and he says they are hated because they are not of the world, even as Jesus is not of the world. Jesus does not pray that the Father would take them out of this world, but that the Father would protect them from the evil one.

When Jesus prays that they would be "sanctified" in the truth, that means two things: first, to be sanctified is to be purified from sin. Second, to be sanctified is to be set apart for some holy purpose. The priests would do this for many of the sacred objects in the Temple, so Jesus is praying that they would be like sacred objects in his hands, and in the "hands" of the Father.

Jesus says that he is sending the apostles into the world, just as he was sent into the world by the Father. And here in verse 19, we recognize that Jesus does not need to be sanctified in that first sense of being made pure from sin, because he has no sin. In this way, the translators have chosen a word that means "set apart for some holy purpose," and that is the meaning of the word "consecrate." As Jesus is consecrated, he also consecrates the apostles in the truth given by the Father. This is a mind-blowing truth, and it frees us to trust God even more deeply.

Comments

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...

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...

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...