i think the semantics He chooses to use are deliberate and true, and that if we can figure out why they are exactly the perfect thing for Him to say, in all truth, then it will inform doctrine.
i mean, yes, it's a semantic matter. the semantics are enigmatic, which to me raises a little flag saying "this is marvelously profound"
I would just disagree that the semantics are that enigmatic.
I think the context, and the general chain of events, serve to make the semantics understandable.
Now, are there still layers of depth and profundity below the surface of each verse?
Sure.
We can study any passage, and find more depth, and more understanding of the divine.
But I just don't find the basic, general understanding of this passage to be terribly enigmatic.
I think Christ is just using well known, and common, patterns of speech to say something like,
"there is a sense in which I'm already parted from you, because my work here is finished, and the future is set."
I would say the "specific sense" in which he's already parted would be in the sense of talking about his "path" or his "future."
His "path" and his "future" are already set, and already in motion... his path of separation from the disciples is already enacted.
If you were to join the military, and have a goodbye party, you would say the same things.
You might cry and hug your family, and say, "I'm am no more in this house"... just as Jesus said, "I am no more in this world."
You would speak as if the future has already occurred, because the causal chain is set.
This is a very common use of language, used to talk about our "path", or our "chain of certain future events."
We use this language to speak about the causal chain when we know it is certain, because if the causal chain is certain, then there is a sense in which it is already done.
We use this kind of language all the time... it's very common.
...
...