Our culture is obsessed with love, and unfortunately has a skewed perception of what true love really is. In the 80’s, the great sequel to Karate Kid featured a Peter Cetera ballad called “The Glory of Love.” Although it’s a sweet and cheesy love song, it does not truly capture the essence of true love. However, as the title suggests, there is a connection between “glory” and “love.”
In John 13:31-38, the author captures the essence of true love as taught by, modeled, and commanded by Jesus Christ. Having just washed the feet of his disciples and preparing for his voluntary sacrificial death on the cross, Jesus gives a “new commandment” to his disciples- much like marching orders to this community of believers.
1. Glory: the revealed character of God (vv. 31-33). Both in his incarnation and his mission, Christ reveals the character of God: dwelling with his people and then willingly dying as a substitutionary atoning sacrifice for them.
2. Love: the commandment (vv. 34-35). Love is not a fuzzy feeling, but an action of service. Christ sets the standard by modeling this love and commands that this is to be the defining characteristic of his followers; not big flashy programs nor theological degrees, but love.
3. Grace and the response of faith (vv. 36-38). The love and glory of Christ is not merited; it’s a gift of grace. Whereas other religions, philosophies, and ideologies may offer “good advice” to help you “become a better person,” Christ shows us that in and of ourselves we cannot achieve righteousness. This is the Gospel: righteousness is imparted to us by Jesus Christ- our response is faith.
1 John 4:10, “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”
Romans 5:8, “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
Listen to the podcast “A New Commandment” recorded at the WELL
1. If Christ died to provide a “substitutionary atoning sacrifice” then how does that reveal anything about God other than an image of a cruel and demeaning supernatual abusive father who can’t forgive without the spilling of blood? Isn’t it our LACK of faith that leads to development of rigid doctrines like that? If we truely have a trusting faith in the transformational power of God then we won’t need human doctrines to provide comfort to our anxieties about death and afterlife. Do we have enough faith to drop our attempts to build human rules for inclusion and exclusion?
2. I like this point! Beautiful analysis.
3. I like this point, but I think it may be in poor taste to say “other religions” without an explanation of which ones. Otherwise it could sound like a biggotted blanket statement (I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way). I’ve studied a great many religions and have rarely if ever encountered the scenario you propose (except maybe in rigid Christianity or new age self-help spirituality). For example, Buddhists NEVER teach that their practice is for the sake of “becoming a better person”. It is always about ending our selfish attachments for the sake of ending the suffering of others. You may WANT to create an artificial differentiation with some religions to make youself feel better about your own, but that isn’t an argument you could win once all the facts are on the table.
I really like your statement: Christ shows us that in and of ourSELVES we cannot achieve righteousness. I agree! It is only when we die to our SELVES that we become like Christ. Buddhists call this a state of no-self or anatta. Paul agrees and makes that a central theme in his letters about “dying to self”.
You’ve raised some good points for discussion and reflection. Thanks for the post!