The Narrow Path Ministries

On the show this week several callers were calling in about Jesus saying that He goes to prepare us a place, that he spoke of mansions, etc. I was kind of baffled by some of the responses, but I must say I think Jesus was not speaking about stick built houses.

I believe Jesus is speaking of the future bodily ressurection.

Hi Jim-

I know that Steve teaches along the same lines as you state and that jesus wasnt talking about literal dwelling places, etc.

i have small problem with that, because i wonder what the disciples actually thought he was saying. i bet they thought he was saying that he was going to prepare them literal dwelling places, not the more "mystical" interpretation. why would Jesus purposefully mislead them?

TK

First, in speaking of "my Father's house," the disciples would naturally have thought of the temple (though He meant by it His body. It is interesting that the same book records their confusion (until after He rose from the dead) over a comment on a similar subject: "Destroy this temple..."

Naturally, the Jews (including the disciples) misunderstood Him to be talking about the temple (which is also the way they would have initially understood the reference to "my Father's house." "But He was speaking of the temple of His body. Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said" (John 2:19, 21)

There simply is no reason in the world to think the disciples would understand Jesus' term "my Father's house" as a reference to "heaven." It was not part of Jewish thinking to associate the kingdom of God or the destiny of Israel as being "in heaven" (cf., Acts 1:6).

Second, in speaking of many "rooms" or "dwelling places" that are in His Father's house, it would seem more natural for them to think of these rooms primarily as places where God dwells (they are, after all, rooms in His house), rather than places where we shall dwell. This agrees with His use of the same term in verse 23, as I have often mentioned. Of course, Jesus is saying that He is preparing a place in His Father's house for the disciples also. For this, He had to go away. Why? Because our place, or our inclusion, in the Body of Christ (God's house—1 Tim.3:15/ Eph.2:19-21/ 1 Pet.2:5) is effected by the Holy Spirit, who would not come unless Jesus would go away (John 16:7).

is effected by the Holy Spirit, who would not come unless Jesus would go away (John 16:7).





I've sometimes wondered why the Holy Spirit would'nt come until Jesus left, anyone know?

Steve's explaination of this passage seems very logical to me (and always has) but there's a good reason people are confused here. Here's the NET translation:

“Do not let your hearts be distressed. You believe in God; believe also in me. There are many dwelling places in my Father’s house. Otherwise, I would have told you, because I am going away to make ready a place for you. And if I go and make ready a place for you, I will come again and take you to be with me, so that where I am you may be too. And you know the way where I am going.”

Steve suggested the reason Jesus had to go away and later take the disciples with Him (the part that confuses everyone) is because the Spirit had to come, something the same author (John) alludes to just a bit later. But I'm not sure why we take that information and think we've made sense of it. If I said, "I'm leaving this form because my wife will be joining you guys soon" I don't think anyone would see that as a logical inference. I think Steve is saying that Jesus will return to them in the person of the Holy Spirit but then why did Jesus say he would take the disciples with him?

Jesus didn't say He would take the disciples with Him—i.e., to heaven or anywhere else. He said He would receive them or "take" them unto Himself upon His coming to them. Whether this "coming" refers to the descent of the Holy Spirit (as I think probable) or to the second coming, it says nothing about the believers going anywhere. All the motion is on Jesus' part. He goes away, and He comes back. Upon His coming back, He "receives" or "takes" the disciples to Himself. This might or might not involve movement on their part. When a man takes a woman as his bride, this may or may not result in relocation. In the present case, by including them in His body, He may be said to be receiving them unto Himself.

The theory that His receiving (or taking) us unto Himself means His gathering us up and taking us away to some other place is an assumption imported by teachers, which is entirely unwarranted by anything in the text. If Jesus wants to translate people to heaven, presumably, He can do so without unseating Himself from His throne and coming here for them. The passage speaks of two motions on Jesus' part: 1) going away, and 2) coming back. There is no hint that, once He comes back, He will go away again, taking us with Him. And why should He go away again? Isn't He (along with ourselves) supposed to reign here forever (Psalm 2:8-9/ Rev.5:10; 11:15)?

Also, people tend to be confused because Jesus says that He will go away to prepare a place, and we naturally assume that the "place" that He prepares is in the location to which He is going (heaven). But this is neither stated nor necessitated by logic. In His glorified state, I believe that Jesus is able to be all places simultaneously ("Lo, I am with you always...."). As a result of His descent to the lower parts of the earth (His incarnation) and His subsequent exaltation above all things, He now "fills all things" (Eph.4:9-10).

That means that, though the physical body of Jesus has gone elsewhere, His real presence is everywhere. If this is true, then His activity (preparing a place) might well take place anywhere in the universe, regardless where His physical body may be located. We know from the rest of scripture that the one place in the universe that He intends to inhabit now and for eternity is this planet. This is where He has always maintained His dwelling place (His house) among men, and this will always be the case (Rev.21:3).

The "place" that He has prepared for each of us is a position as that of a stone in a building (1 Peter 2:5). Each stone has its proper "place" prepared for it, and for which it has been prepared. The preparation of the place for each stone takes place before the stones are actually collected and assembled. This preparation may be seen as the drawing up of the blueprints for the building, or even as the site preparation. However, these preparations were made by Jesus once He ascended to heaven, and, ten days later, He came by His Spirit (John 14:16-18) and began to assemble the stones and set them in their proper places. If we shift the metaphor from that of a building to that of a body, we find that God has "set" each member in the body in its designated place and assigned it its individual function—or "gift." This is said to be the doing of the Holy Spirit, and required His "coming" in order to do it (1 Cor.12:4-7, 13, 18, 24, 27-28).

As for the question of why Jesus must go away in order for the Holy Spirit to come, we must remember that, in one sense or another, the Spirit of God has always been around since the creation (Gen.1:2). In the days before the flood, He was "striving with men." Later, he came upon some of the judges and upon Saul, David and the prophets. He filled John the baptist from the womb of his mother. In Christ, the Holy Spirit was already present with the disciples (John 14:17). Yet, there was a sense, prior to the resurrection and glorification of Jesus, in which the Holy Spirit "was not yet given" (John 7:39). It is this special indwelling of the Spirit in the church that could not happen before Jesus' departure.

The reasons for this, I suspect, are multiple. A key reason is that the coming of the Spirit would transform the group of followers into the actual body of Christ and the habitation of God (temple) on earth. However, while Jesus remained on earth, He alone was the body of Christ and the temple/tabernacle of God on earth (John 1:14; 2:19—notice how much of this explanation is found within John's gospel itself).

He who alone was the body of Christ complete had to be exalted to the place of headship before His followers could become members or extensions of that body. Being the body of Christ requires the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ (Rom.8:9-11). During His earthly tenure, Jesus possessed the Spirit "without measure" (John 3:34), and in order for some of that to be shared with His disciples, I believe, He had to be exalted to the place from which He could "pour out" His own Spirit upon them (Acts 2:33).

I don't pretend to be able to explain how or why this all works. It is a fantastic and mysterious reality. However, it seems unavoidable that the Spirit could not come and morph the company of disciples into the body of Christ on earth until Jesus Himself vacated that position by being exalted to the place of headship in heaven.

Steve, you make good observations. I naturally thought Jesus was either talking about Heaven or the Second Coming when I first read John 14, without having heard a commentary or sermon on it. It was just my honest observations based on a perhaps limited grasp of the "whereness" of Christ. It's hard to grasp Jesus "going away," "coming again" and yet "always with you." Can you make sense of those statements? The same is true of the Holy Spirit's activities which are likewise puzzling. Is this something we're not supposed to figure out? I've learned to "appreciate the mystery" on a great number of subjects but it seems like John, especially, wants us to get a handle on this.

thanks, steve for taking the time to explain this more fully. i have to confess, though, that I am not sure I "get it" 100%, but at least I have a better understanding of what you are saying, and it does make sense.

TK

The presence of Christ on earth in the incarnation was simply a different mode of His presence on earth from those of earlier or later times. Even before the Word was made flesh (John 1:14), he "was in the world...but the world did not know Him" (v.10). Jesus as God's Word created the world, and came "to His own" (v.11) through the law of Moses (Isa.5:25), through the burden of the prophets (e.g., 1 Sam.3:1, 21) and through the enlightenment of the wise (Ps.119:130)—see Jer.18:18. In these manifestations, He was largely rejected.

Then He came in human form. References to His being "with" the disciples often refer to this special theophanic episode, though not always. It is assumed that, since the ascension, the Word (who was incarnate in Jesus), has been present in another sense—embodied in the community of His disciples, through the indwelling of His Spirit. This period can be spoken of as a time of His absence from us (2 Cor.5:6), or of His presence with us (Matt.28:20)—depending upon context and shade of meaning.

When Jesus spoke of "going away" and "coming again," it seems that He was referring strictly to His presence or absence with us in His earthly vessel. He made it plain, however, that He would be present with us (in another mode) even when He was physically absent. I think that is one lesson He was trying to get across when He appeared to Thomas, along with the twelve, and repeated to him the exact words that Thomas had uttered eight days earlier, when Jesus seemed to not be present. He was clearly demonstrating that, even when invisible, He was still always around paying attention.

Modalism within the personhood -- where's Paidion when we need him

By the way, there was an excellent and very intriguing discussion of the Trinity on the Unbelievable (UK) radio broadcast this past week (available by podcast).

http://www.premier.org.uk

This week on Unbelievable : Can we trust the doctrine of the Trinity?

Is the doctrine of the Trinity to be found in the Bible? Was Jesus really "of one substance" with God the Father? US Christian apologist James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries returns to defend the doctrine of the Trinity as he discusses key Old and New Testament texts with Sir Anthony Buzzard of the Restoration Fellowship. James believes the doctrine of the Trinity is implicit and explicit at various points throughout scripture. Anthony disagrees and claims the Doctrine of the Trinity is one of the most costly mistakes the Christian church ever made.