Exactly what does Jesus mean when He says "For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you" in John 16:7?

[TexasT2U2]

I am trying to discern exactly why Jesus says “But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.” in John 16:7.

In preceeding Chapters we learned Jesus will send another Advocate, -Jesus being the first- and this new advocate will: fill us with a Spirit of Truth, -of rightness. and the Spirit will convict the world, and glorify Jesus.

Why is it the Advocate will not come if Jesus does not go?

Is it similar to fasting while the bridgegroom is still here? or for fullfillment of prophesy?
Any insight is appreciated.
TXT

 

[NeedImprovement]

Hi Texas T2U2 .

Here’s a link to the Encyclical letter **Dominum et Vivificantem **(Lord and Giver of life) by, Pope John Paul II :
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_18051986_dominum-et-vivificantem_en.html

The letter isn’t very long as encyclicals go, but the answer is there for sure. Your question caught my attention because I had asked myself the same question for a number of years.

The Encyclical, in my opinion is saying: Think of it this way - Jesus is saying, “If I am not crucified, the Advocate will not come to you.”

If you read the Encyclical once for context , placing your main emphasis on the second paragraph of # 8 (excerpt provided below) , I believe you’ll have the answer plus a whole lot more.

*Ioannes Paulus PP. II
*Dominum et vivificantem
On the Holy Spirit in the Life of the Church
and the World

1986.05.18

EXCERPT. # 8(b)

“Here it should be noted that, while all the other promises made in the Upper Room foretold the coming of the Holy Spirit after Christ’s departure, the one contained in the text of John 16:7 also includes and clearly emphasizes the relationship of interdependence which could be called causal between the manifestation of each: “If I go, I will send him to you”. The Holy Spirit will come insofar as Christ will depart through the Cross: he will come not only afterwards, but because of the Redemption accomplished by Christ, through the will and action of the Father.”

God Bless

 

[ryanoneil]

The “advantage” is the greater blessing and power recieved when the Spirit dwells within them at Pentecost.

 

[TexasT2U2]

Wow, thanks for the direction to the encyclical.
This really is full of marvelous information and I’m sure it will take me several readings for the grace to sink in.

It really does directly address and answer my question- Praise be to God,

& Thanks to you!

Now I need to know , is ‘Convict’ synonomous with ‘Convince’ ? see #27 paragraph 1 & 3
NAB uses convict, BJPII uses convince.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I’m not the world’s greatest interpreter of encyclicals (see my username ) but maybe I could suggest something that might help out the orientation.

I have this nice little Oxford dictionary which used to belong to my dear mom. It’s a 1964 edition. Here’s how those terms are defined in it :

convince , v.t. Firmly persuade (of, that) ; produce in (person) a moral conviction (of sin etc.)

conviction , n. proving or finding guilty; *summary * ~ (by judge or magistrates without jury) ; act of convincing ; settled belief ; (Theol) awakened consciousness of sin .

Interesting how each word has used the other in at least one of its definitions … isn’t it ? Whether synonomous, interdependent, or interconnected … would seem to depend on the implication intended. My own personal choice would be to form a general concept out of all the definitions pointing in the same direction using the definition of convict as to* awaken consciousness of sin* for the tip/point of the compass , since it is the definition which was listed in a theological sense and because the Holy Spirit also enlightens us ( any CAF theologians please feel free to jump in anytime).

Then (if we are speaking of our Blessed Lord’s words “…convict the world of sin.”) I would begin by applying its meaning to the Cross as suggested to me in paragraph 4 of # 27 of **Dominum et vivificantem **- Excerpt:

“In its turn, and in the context of “sin” and “righteousness” thus understood, “judgment” means that the Spirit of truth will show the guilt of the “world” in condemning Jesus to death on the Cross.”

Just my own limited opinion. I hope it can be useful.

 

[Reuben_J]

I am trying to discern exactly why Jesus says “But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.” in John 16:7.

In preceeding Chapters we learned Jesus will send another Advocate, -Jesus being the first- and this new advocate will: fill us with a Spirit of Truth, -of rightness. and the Spirit will convict the world, and glorify Jesus.

Why is it the Advocate will not come if Jesus does not go?

Is it similar to fasting while the bridgegroom is still here? or for fullfillment of prophesy?
Any insight is appreciated.
TXT

The Advocate is the third person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit.

While Jesus was alive there was no need for the Holy Spirit because Jesus acted in all but as ‘the Advocate’. When they (the apostles) had problem, Jesus was there to solve it for them. When they were asked difficult questions Jesus was there to answer for them and to explain to them later. When they were in danger, like in a storm, Jesus was there to put the danger out. When they could not feed the hungry, Jesus was there to multiply food so that everybody had enough to eat. Jesus was there to heal, to deliver from demon, to cure and even to raise the deads to life.

But once Jesus was not there anymore by his death, the apostles would still need him and thus the sending of the Advocate; it would be as if Jesus never leave them. But now, it is better still, because the Advocate, because he is Spirit he can be anywhere, anytime, unlike Jesus the man who had to be physically at one place at any one time.

God bless.

 

[JRKH]

The Advocate is the third person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit.

While Jesus was alive there was no need for the Holy Spirit because Jesus acted in all but as ‘the Advocate’. When they (the apostles) had problem, Jesus was there to solve it for them. When they were asked difficult questions Jesus was there to answer for them and to explain to them later. When they were in danger, like in a storm, Jesus was there to put the danger out. When they could not feed the hungry, Jesus was there to multiply food so that everybody had enough to eat. Jesus was there to heal, to deliver from demon, to cure and even to raise the deads to life.

But once Jesus was not there anymore by his death, the apostles would still need him and thus the sending of the Advocate; it would be as if Jesus never leave them. But now, it is better still, because the Advocate, because he is Spirit he can be anywhere, anytime, unlike Jesus the man who had to be physically at one place at any one time.

God bless.

This is a good answer.
Though I see it just a bit different.

As long as Jesus remained on earth, even in His Glorified State, everyone would be trying to physically come to Him for answers instead of looking into themselves and developing their own relationship with The Father and deepening their understandings of His teachings.
We can think of it like this. While Jesus was on earth, He embodied fully the entirety of the Holy Spirit. By Leaving He allowed that spirit to be released into the entire world.
We can see this sort of thing throughout history where a charismatic leader holds a movement together but things go awry after their death because people have not “internalzed” the crux of their teachings.

By physically leaving the disciples, Jesus knew that they would be forced to seek God in their hearts, as Jesus had taught them, and by so doing the Holy Spirit (God’s Spirit) would be able to enter into them (all of us) wherever we are.

Peace
James