John 17 and Unity
September 26th, 2007 by Steve Sensenig
’m going to do something out of the ordinary for this blog. Instead of writing out a whole bunch of thoughts on a subject and then getting your responses, I’m going to open up a question and let the discussion run before I post my thoughts.
I may not be around much on the blog over the next few days, but will try to follow along as much as possible. I’ll hopefully post my thoughts early next week.
The question: What is the unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17 and is it primarily (or even solely) eschatological in nature? (In other words, is it a future promise of unity in eternity?)
Thoughts?
Posted in Scripture Interpretation, Church, Relationships | 
Print This Post
|
Steve,
This is a great question! A couple of months ago I wrote a post on unity in John 17:20-23 called “John 17 and Unity“. I’ve continued to think about and write about this topic, because I think - based on John 17 - we are missing the boat when it comes to unity. There are a couple of things that I’ve been thinking about that will show how I would answer your questions:
1) Our unity is defined as being in the Father and in the Son in the same way that they are in one another. I would suggest that this makes our unity very real and very present.
2) Also, the fact that our unity is in the Father and the Son, discounts many other sources of our unity - such as, common doctrines, common beliefs, common leadership, common geography, common political stances, common ethnicity, etc. Unity based on anything other than being in the Father and in the Son is not the kind of unity for which Jesus was praying.
3) Because of our unity, Jesus said that the world would know that the Father sent the Son, and the world would know that the Father loves them. This seems to be not only present (i.e. not only eschatological), but also demonstrable! Just as people should recognize us as followers of Jesus because of our love for one another, they should also be able to see, touch, feel, recognize our unity in the Father and in the Son.
4) Our unity is somehow related to the eternal glory of the Son. Jesus first says that the Father has given him glory. Then, Jesus says that he has given us his glory so that we may be one. There is a cause/effect relationship here. Perhaps, a lack of unity also demonstrates a lack of glory that Jesus promised us.
I don’t know what all of this means, except this: unity is very important, and we have shirked our responsibilities as followers of Jesus Christ to maintain the unity that he has created in us through his Spirit.
-Alan
The tenor of the passage in John 17 is that Jesus is going to the Father, but the disciples aren’t. Instead He is sending them out into the world and wants them to be strengthened and kept from the Devil. The purpose of their unity is for the sake of evangelism. I don’t think some *future* eschatological unity will do much to bring folks to Christ *today*.
People talk about the harmony/unity of the gospels being a great evidence for Jesus. I think the harmony and unity of His Church is a superior witness/evidence that Jesus is the Christ. Our Lord seemed to think it was rather important Himself, in that regard.
Some will say that this unity is not meant to have a doctrinal/hierarchical component, but I just don’t see that in Scripture. It seems to me that it is essential that unity has a doctrinal and hierarchical component. Otherwise, the unity is shallow and ineffective in bringing others to Christ. God the Father and God the Son don’t have different doctrine. Unity among Christians mirroring the unity shared by the Father and the Son is essential to true unity between God and Christians. I’m not alone in that interpretation either. Folks who walked and talked with John the Apostle who penned those words seemed to think the same thing.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.ii.v.html
MB
People are always welcome at the table. Shared food is always the most filling.
Some folks will refuse the invitation. Some show up just to eat the natural food and checking out what else might be for them. A few come to argue a point as their whole agenda in life is to prove their point is right (I can be prone to this in my natural state, but it is no longer my goal in life.) 8^) Many share the food and partake of the fellowship around the table.
The ones with whom unity flourishes are the ones who know the rest in the Father through Christ within them. These always find it easy to give and receive love.
uh…I guess that means I think we are to experience unity now; first in response to the evidence that Jesus desires us to be in unity, and second, how could a prayer by Jesus go unfulfilled by the Father?
Alan, I’m very embarrassed to not only take up a topic that you wrote about so recently, but to even use the same identical title! I went back and read your post, and I’m honestly not sure how I missed it when you wrote it.
Your royalty check is in the mail
MB, would you mind elaborating on the following:
Some will say that this unity is not meant to have a doctrinal/hierarchical component, but I just don’t see that in Scripture. It seems to me that it is essential that unity has a doctrinal and hierarchical component.
What do you mean by a “hierarchical component”?
ded, I like the metaphor of the table. And our times of shared food with you are very, very precious to me!
Steve,
Don’t be embarrassed! Actually, I did not notice that our posts had the same titles until you pointed it out. This is a very important topic - one that needs to be discussed and lived out. As a matter of fact, I hope to extend this discussion on unity over at my blog, adding in the dimension of the source or foundation of our unity.
-Alan
Obviously, the difficulty in this passage comes from the present outworking in practice. Even in the apostle’s time, there was division in practice (”I follow Paul, I follow Apollos”, etc.). So division is not a problem that is peculiar to our own age, and we should not create more division in the church by treating it as such.
An immediate transgression in this comes when we begin saying of others, “THOSE people are divisive.” There is only one unity that is possible, and that is a unity of humility, considering others as better than ourselves. That humility only comes in Christ, and I believe that this is the glory that He bestows upon us.
All too often I impute wrong motives upon those who have different doctrinal interpretations than me. A pastor from my childhood had a great saying; “If you saw that person at the foot of the cross, would you approach the cross yourself?” This is the ultimate expression of unity, and once again, it is exemplified by the service of the table.
Blessings to you.
The many references to our relationship to the world (in the world but not of the world) seem to point away from a primarily eschatological reading.
I must confess I’m a little depressed this morning as my denomination is pulling me into a controversy that I have little interest in. I’m tempted to rework something Kierkegaard once wrote into the following:
The American pastor announces to his congregation that his text for the morning is John 13:35 “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” and nobody laughs.
My depression aside, however, it seems to me Jesus is praying for a unity that, among other things, takes place in the world rather than just at the end of the world.
Looking at John 17 from an eschatological viewpoint seems to be an excuse not to live in it.
Given my view of eschatology (you know what I mean
) I don’t think this eschatalogical but is very practical. There have already been some good comments given on this question.
The only thing I would add is something that I have been learning lately. There is a perspective of unity in the body of Christ that is from God’s point of view. I believe it is very similar to what God sees when He looks at a believer who is robed in the righteousness of Christ. I believe when God looks at the body, He sees it as already being unified in Christ.
Just as individual believers should strive to make their life reflect their standing in Christ, so should the church endeavor to demonstrate the unity that God already sees in us. Could this be what Paul meant in Eph. 4:3?
I don’t think we can dismiss the eschatological fulfillment of it. There are things that we are doing here that will not be worked out in fullness until God wraps it all up. As with Abraham, we may not see the ultimate fulfillment of the promise, but that does not negate our acting according to faith for whatever part God gives us.
A faith that excuses itself from obedient action on the basis that it will all be worked out in the eschatology is indeed no faith at all. A faith that acts obediently to God’s call and command, fully dependent on God’s promise for the result whether or not it is seen in this life, is a true and active faith.
In my experience, very little unity comes from crying, “Unity! Unity!” Much unity comes from humble and contrite spirits fixing their eyes on the Author and Perfecter of their faith.
Steve,
Such an important topic.
Alan’s and Gordon’s answers embody much of what I would want to say. An important matter is that UNITY is not necessarily UNANIMITY.
I have noticed that a congregation, whose major focus is upon the Lord Jesus Christ, and all that pertains to Him, then,upon serving their fellow believers (the one anothers of Scripture), and then outward ministry to the wider community, has a unity which is an almost indescribable blessing in which to participate.
Notice, that SELF doesn’t come into the equation! SELF is the criminal who murders unity, starting with “I did it MY way” leadership.
Aussie John, in one of the final scenes of the Lord of the Rings trilogy we see that evil eye floating above a high tower. Literally it is a letter “i”. “i” at the center of a malevolence that would engulf all that was known of human existence. “Self” is the opposite of unity.
Spiritually, I am either opposed to God in lifting myself up in the spirit of the anti-Christ,or I am submitting to Christ within me.
As I’ve been thinking about John 17:20-23 today, I’ve been able to have several conversations related to unity and this passage. One friend pointed out that I should consider vs. 24 as well. In John 17:22, Jesus said that he gives us his glory so that (showing purpose) we (meaning those who would follow after the apostles) would be one. Then, in John 17:24, Jesus said that we would see or observe his glory when we are where he is. Is this an eschatological “seeing”, or is it more akin to John 15 - abiding in him? Could Jesus be saying that as we abide in him, we would then see his glory, and we would then be one?
-Alan
That’s an interesting question, Alan. My first take is that the glory in verse 24 is eschatological because of verses 11 and 12 where Jesus emphasizes that he is no longer in the world whereas his disciples are in the world. The glory in verse 22, however, is not, it seems to me, future because Jesus says he has given (perfect) it to his disciples. So he has given us glory in order that we might be one and see his eschatological glory.
This raises a lot of questions. What glory do we have now? How is that related to being one?
Steve,
ded! I can only respond, “Amen”!
Craig,
John 17:24 could be talking about eschatological glory. But, it would seem that John 17:20-23 is about contemporary time (not eschatological) and John 17:25-26 seems to be about contemporary time (not eschatological). So, if the glory in John 17:24 is eschatological glory, then it is the only part of the passage that is eschatological, without any indication of a change in context. Because of this, I seem the glory as well as being with Jesus of John 17:24 as contemporary (not eschatological). This is certainly not the only option, however.
If John 17:24 does concern eschatological glory, then I love the implications of your comment: the Father gives glory to the Son who gives glory to us in order that we might be one and thus see his eschatological glory. Great!
-Alan
Steve,
I’ll do my best to elaborate on the doctrinal and hierarchical component to unity that I referred to earlier. I hope you will forgive the long explanation. It is not a simple question, and I’m not smart enough to condense it down.
The opposite of unity, as I see it, is a split among believers over a doctrinal issue where they stop worshiping together and become separate groups without a common understanding of what doctrinal issues are critical and/or without a common doctrine in those critical issues. Looking at Scripture, the most prominent instance of a doctrinal dispute that threatened to split the Church in NT times was the issue over what to do with the Gentiles who wanted to join this Jewish sect that considered Jesus to be the Messiah. Some thought the Gentiles should be circumcised and become Jews in order to follow Jesus. Others disagreed. Apparently, Jesus didn’t have enough foresight to give explicit instructions on this basic question or didn’t think that he needed to leave explicit instructions on how to handle every potentially schismatic question. Whatever the case, the leaders of the church got together and decided. In their own words, they said, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things…” They were even gutsy enough to say that their decision was in complete compliance with the direction of the Holy Spirit and to demand obedience in this decision. Perhaps, that power grab by the apostles and elders is why some people who didn’t agree with them followed them around, stirring up the Jews in various gentile communities against them an inciting persecutions and having folks like Paul thrown out of the synagogue.
Today, we have many issues that are potentially divisive to the point of causing schism. The ordination of gays is in our day tearing the Anglican communion asunder. It must break God’s heart to see such a split going on with Christians on both sides not agreeing on the proper interpretation and application of His Word, and thus by extension obviously not listening to and being guided by the Holy Spirit. There are many other issues that have split various groups over the centuries. I believe that Acts 15 gives us not just an example, but a pattern for settling contentious doctrinal disputes that threaten to split the Church. The pattern is thus. The leadership of the church meets and decides. The rest of us follow. This is hard because of pride and obvious human sinfulness. Peter not too long before this decision had denied the Lord… and he was an apostle who actually tried to stick close to Jesus instead of immediately fleeing like most of the others. These guys were sinful failures, just like the rest of us. Why was their discernment of the Holy Spirit’s voice more valid than other people’s discernment? How can we say for sure that the apostles and not the Judaizers had applied the Scriptures and the teachings of Christ properly in this case? Ultimately, it comes down to trusting that God protected and directed the decision of the apostles, in spite of themselves. It’s easier to minimize our own faults and trust our own ideas than to trust that God is guiding another sinner (who’s obviously not rightly discerning the teaching of the Holy Spirit when they disagree with us).
Some people may say that the first apostles and elders were in a special situation, and that we can’t trust our leadership today, nor should we. Some may argue that because the apostles wrote the Scriptures, they had special authority that is not possessed by Church leaders today. Some may say that it just isn’t practical anymore given the thousands of church splits that have occurred over the centuries. I find nothing in Scripture to support such ideas, and it is clear to me that the people the apostles ordained and taught (e.g., Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp) would agree on that point. What we find in the early church, is that there were many persecutions and people who would come up with their own ideas on what Jesus *really* taught and/or meant by what He taught. The early Christian church of the 1st and 2nd centuries very closely identified unity with Jesus and unity with the local bishop, as a reading of their writings clearly shows. The upshot of that very practical, hierarchical and doctrinal interpretation of John 17 was growth of the Church that has rarely been replicated since. It is, in my mind, a practical example of the fulfillment of the prayer of Jesus. “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, **so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me**”
MB
Alan,
That’s a good point. There are hints of the future throughout the passage, but I think you’re right in pointing out that the present is dominant. The more I look at it the more I think I’m not sure what Jesus means when he says “I desire that where I am they also might be with me”.
MamasBoy,
I’m jumping into this conversation a little late, but better late than never right?
I totally understand what you are saying and probably partly agree. The objection that I foresee is not that the Apostles had some sort of special ability that we do not have. I believe all Christ-followers are embodied by the Holy Spirit, and are all gifted in different ways both by the Holy Spirit and naturally gifted. The only objection I can think of is how our current “leaders” are chosen today. My experience is pretty much limited with the SBC; so I will refrain from applying this to others - but generally in the SBC we chose our leaders based on educational qualifications. I wonder if this is why we so often have leaders who “mislead” people. I think what you are saying might work like it did in Acts 15 better if we recognized leaders who were mature in the faith, rather than mature in the education.
To give a modern day example, I consider Alan to be one of my leaders/elders/whatever. I don’t want to puff him up or anything, but I believe he closely matches the characteristics put forth by Paul in 1 Timothy 3. We do not necessarily agree on everything, but I consider his advice whenever he gives it. Often times we discuss issues, I believe I have even convinced him of a position or two. I do not meet with him on Sunday mornings, I meet with a different group. I do not consider the man who leads the group on Sunday mornings to be my leader/elder/whatever for various reasons. But he is being paid to do the job.
This is where the tension comes in, in my opinion. We have leaders who are not really leaders, being paid to lead us. They do things that are not of the Spirit, they lead in directions away from God, and then we get people who scream that the Apostle’s must have had a special ability. I think rather that we are looking to the wrong people, we are hiring people who are educated, rather than people who are leaders. (obviously there are people who are being paid to be leaders based on their education, but who are actually leaders too)
I know this is a bit of a rabbit chase, but ultimately this causes divisions, splits, etc. - basic disunity in the body.
Anyways, that is my two cents.
Great conversation everyone!
God’s Glory,
Lew
MamasBoy,
I’m jumping into this conversation a little late, but better late than never right?
I totally understand what you are saying and probably partly agree. The objection that I foresee is not that the Apostles had some sort of special ability that we do not have. I believe all Christ-followers are embodied by the Holy Spirit, and are all gifted in different ways both by the Holy Spirit and naturally gifted. The only objection I can think of is how our current “leaders” are chosen today. My experience is pretty much limited with the SBC; so I will refrain from applying this to others - but generally in the SBC we chose our leaders based on educational qualifications. I wonder if this is why we so often have leaders who “mislead” people. I think what you are saying might work like it did in Acts 15 better if we recognized leaders who were mature in the faith, rather than mature in the education.
To give a modern day example, I consider Alan to be one of my leaders/elders/whatever. I don’t want to puff him up or anything, but I believe he closely matches the characteristics put forth by Paul in 1 Timothy 3. We do not necessarily agree on everything, but I consider his advice whenever he gives it. Often times we discuss issues, I believe I have even convinced him of a position or two. I do not meet with him on Sunday mornings, I meet with a different group. I do not consider the man who leads the group on Sunday mornings to be my leader/elder/whatever for various reasons. But he is being paid to do the job.
This is where the tension comes in, in my opinion. We have leaders who are not really leaders, being paid to lead us. They do things that are not of the Spirit, they lead in directions away from God, and then we get people who scream that the Apostle’s must have had a special ability. I think rather that we are looking to the wrong people, we are hiring people who are educated, rather than people who are leaders. (obviously there are people who are being paid to be leaders based on their education, but who are actually leaders too)
I know this is a bit of a rabbit chase, but ultimately this causes divisions, splits, etc. - basic disunity in the body.
Anyways, that is my two cents.
Great conversation everyone!
God’s Glory,
Lew
The Pursuit Online Store
Lew,
If people can’t trust their denominational leaders and need to go individually hand pick them, doesn’t that make for less, not more unity? I would think that the more customized and individualized doctrine becomes, the more disunity there will be.
MB
Steve,
I am very long in the tooth. Most of my life spent as an elder, a large part in an evangelical denomination, and I can assure Mamasboy that trusting denominational leaders certainly does nothing for unity. If they are trusted,they may contribute to unanimity, but never unity. Even trusted ones contribute to and foment disunity.
Every human being is fallible, and therefore not totally trustworthy. I have consistently warned congregations who sat under my preaching and leadership to not trust me, but check out my every utterance against the word of God, who alone, is trustworthy, and competent to have rule over my soul and life, as well as theirs.
That doesn’t mean I cannot respectfully listen to what they say and teach, nor does it say I cannot love them as Christ loved.
http://www.1723initiative.org/
I would imagine that Jesus did not instruct on circumcision because it wasn’t important enough to get into.
When it became a matter leading to disunity, then the apostles addressed it. Even then, they tried as much as humanly possible to keep their teachings from being disruptive. Peter said works-of-the-law weren’t required, but then he went along with those who recoiled from those outlaw gentiles. So Paul called him on it, before (I think before) Paul then had Timothy circumcised to appease the Jews.
They set their rules. They compromised in an attempt to get along with one side. They messed up when the compromise hurt the other side. Who was right?
The ones who said: That hurts, but we’re family, and family sticks together, even when we don’t like what each other is doing.
As I understand it, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom so that (Peter/the apostles/the apostolic succession) could make administrative decisions. His expectation was that guidelines would be made so that we would not be in continual conflict.
But we do remain in continual conflict, because it’s convenient to have an “important” excuse for not getting along with people I don’t want to get along with, or with people that might need something I want for myself.
“An important matter is that UNITY is not necessarily UNANIMITY.” Aussie John
I must weigh in and agree with Aussie John. I was in a church for years that used “unity” as a means of control. If you had a different view or wanted to suggest a different way of seeing things, you were not in unity and, therefore, wrong. Since the leadership had “prayed about it” and “God had showed them” their theological position, you were not disagreeing with them, but with God. This was very oppressive.
Now, I see unity a little differently. As Scripture says, “iron sharpens iron,” so we will not always agree perfectly. But,we realize that we are all God’s Children, and seeking the common goal of glorifying God. We love each other despite our differences, which is a HUGE testimony to the world!
PS Hi Steve! It was good to see you at the coffee shop. I’m going to check out your wife’s blog now.
Steve and company,
I saw a book today that caught my eye. Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution–A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First.
The descripion on the back had this to say:
The “dangerous idea” lying at the heart of Protestantism is that the interpretation of the Bible is each individual’s right and responsibility. The spread of this principle has resulted in five hundred years of remarkable innovation and adaptability, but it has also created cultural incoherence and social instability. Without any overarching authority to rein in “wayward” thought, opposing sides on controversial issues can only appeal to the Bible—yet the Bible is open to many diverse interpretations. Christianity’s Dangerous Idea is the first book that attempts to define this core element of Protestantism and the religious and cultural dynamic that this dangerous idea unleashed, culminating in the remarkable new developments of the twentieth century.
The book’s topic seems to be the problem with the question asked here. And honestly, with most debates, conversations, arguments, etc, that take place concerning religion, God, Jesus, scriptures, etc.
It caused me to pick up this book, The Birth of Christianity : Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus, of which I am just now finishing up the prologue.
Has anyone read these books?
It just strikes me as being very ironic that as western christianity tries to keep the world out of it sphere, it gathers many of its arguments/ideas for doing so from various secular cultures over time. I say this in reference to the idea of eschatology and applying it to scripture.
Honestly, its no wonder I find myself drifting further and further away from interaction with other Christians, though not entirely. The more I dive into the history of Christianity, the more I realize that many ideas or schools of thought were created or used to gain power or solidify a particular viewpoint; regardless of damage to the unity of the body and no matter how utopian in nature thay may have started out.
Mike
Mike — I’ve not read those books, but they, and your comment (The more I dive into the history of Christianity, the more I realize that many ideas or schools of thought were created or used to gain power or solidify a particular viewpoint; regardless of damage to the unity of the body and no matter how utopian in nature they may have started out.) all strike a chord with me.
I have some missionary acquaintances who were booted from their mission sponsor because they came to believe a mid-trib doctrine. Consequently I’ve been curious about the bases for differing doctrines, and recently I was scanning Ryrie’s Basic Theology. Ryrie mentioned that some competing doctrinal proponents will rely on the same scriptures to reach differing positions. That was insightful, as has been an exploration of differing doctrines in a variety of areas.
My point — which no doubt you hoped I’d get to soon — is that I too “drifting further and further away from interaction with other Christians, though not entirely.” Where I drift away is on most doctrinal debates, especially because so many I encounter do not consider these doctrinal debates, but debates between “what every Christian must believe” and heresy. As I’ve learned that at least some of my positions are not unconventional, but in fact conventional to a different convention.
One brother and I have increasingly annoyed one another over doctrine for a few years now, but recently we realized that we are united in doing Christianity, albeit not in what we express doctrinally. So by not arguing doctrine but keeping our interaction on doing together, the unity increases while the sum of interactions decreases.
A key point to remember: Jesus did not say, “By this all men will know you are my disciples, because you have the right view on the Rapture (or Atonement, or tongues, or the right church structure or [insert your favorite here]).” He said, “because you love one another.”
C.S. Lewis wrote–in several places, including his fiction–that one of the Devil’s most useful tricks is to get us to take an important thing and try to make it The Most Important Thing. And when we do so, we neglect The Most Important Thing, and damage others and ourselves.
There are an awful lot of things that people argue about that are really of lesser importance, and some that are of greater importance, but still not The Most Important. We need to keep our priorities straight on these matters. And no matter how sure we are of our interpretations on some of these other matters, we must remember that God has the final say. Therefore, even though I may have an opinion about the timing of the Rapture, or Young Earth/Old Earth Creation, or whatever, if it turns out God didn’t do things the way I expected, I am not going to blow my top and stomp out of heaven over it!
Something that came to mind while I was reading many of the responses was 1 John 4:7-8, and what came to mind was replacing “love” with “unity” or “one”. What brought it to mind was God telling Israel “Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One Lord.” Or Jesus telling the Jews “I and the Father are One.” and finally Jesus praying “..that they may be one, just as We are One…”
Thus we get:
Beloved, let us be one, for unity comes from God. Everyone who is in unity is so from the oneness of God. Whoever does not have unity does not know God, for God is One.
But that’s obviously not how it reads. An important part of this, I think, is the line where Jesus tells God “I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.”
The evidence of our being disciples of Christ comes from our evident love for one another. Jesus said “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, by your love for one another.” But a far more important proof is the proof of the Godhood of Christ, and that evidence comes from our Unity. Because more than love for one another (you can be in complete disagreement and still evidence love) is the incontrovertable proof of the supernatural in that “everyone had all things in common.” We are guided not by our understanding, which causes disagreement, but by the mind of God, which is One.
What I hate is that I missed this discussion altogether because it’s been a while since I’ve been here. If anyone has ever read my writing (which is a big if - smile), much of what i’ve written in the past on posts and comments has been about unity and also John 17. So, I hope to add a little on your next post as I have time.
Good stuff and it can never be overemphasized. I do think Alan Knox has written some inspired thoughts on the subject as well.
[…] time ago (in blog terms), I started talking about John 17 and unity (here and here). It seems that the subject of unity has popped up on a number of blogs that I read, and I […]