Note: As we approach the final days of these Lenten devotionals, I would like to thank you for your commitment to the Perspectivalist. Your support had me marching through these 40 days of devotionals and notations. In Eastertide, these posts will be shrunk to 2-3 per week. I hope you will bite the bullet and spend $4 a month to support this aging writer and lover of words.
The Perspectivalist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
On Thursday of Holy Week, Jesus celebrated the Last Supper with his disciples. It is traditionally known as “Maundy Thursday.” The word “Maundy” is derived from the Latin “mandatum” which refers to the “commandment” that our Lord gave to His disciples “to love one another.”
“My children…A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”
We see Jesus' tenderness displayed as he addresses his disciples as his children. For Jesus, they belonged in his kingdom. Therefore, our Lord had to protect them from what was ahead, which only Jesus could undergo.
“Where I am going, you cannot come,” Jesus said.
The Lord gives them this new commandment to hold on to as they continue kingdom work. But why is this a new commandment? Didn’t Moses already give us this imperative in Leviticus 19:18 when he said, “To love your neighbor as yourself?” Indeed. However, this new commandment is unlike Leviticus. In John’s Gospel, Jesus says, “Love one another, just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.” The difference is God became flesh and loved his disciples for three years.
The disciples now have God in the flesh as an example of what love truly looks like. Yes, it is a new commandment: Love one another. But when Jesus says, “Do this,” it is because he has already demonstrated what it looks like.
Love is the center of Christian discipleship. How will the world know who we are? It should not be because of our intellectual expertise or professional accomplishments but instead because of our love for one another at our tables, living rooms, workplaces, and in the place of worship.
Christian history triumphed because God has loved us in his Son, and Christians have reacted to that love by loving one another. Without love, there is no Christian faith; without love, we are noise-makers, clanging cymbals, and self-delusional religionists, but when we obey this new commandment, the world sees us, and they will know that we are disciples of the Crucified King, Jesus Christ.
Prayer: O Lord, of heaven and earth, we are undeserving of such love, yet, you love us still without hesitation. We are your disciples and pray that your love would overflow in our hearts so that we might display this love to those around us by listening, cherishing, serving and encouraging our neighbor in the Name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Notations
Brock and Sutanto’s introduction to Kuyperianism argues that “historic neo-Calvinism was a Dutch enterprise for the sake of the whole church under the theological minds of Kuyper and Bavinck that included at its core an immense ecclesiological movement, a return to the fathers and the catholic, confessional faith in a modernist context” (5). They spend their introduction correcting various misconceptions of Neo-Calvinism. Among them is the assertion that it is some form of transformationalism that views the church as a social project (4). I am always grateful to engage new Kuyperian works and thankful to Lexham Press for sending me a copy of this work.
One proposal for I Corinthians 11 is that Paul is arguing for absurdity on head-coverings. In 11:6, he says that women should wear headcovering before prophesying. But we know that in 14:34, he says a woman should stay quiet in the assembly. So why would Paul argue for speech in 11 when he knows that a woman cannot assume a liturgical role in 14? The answer may be that for Paul, the argument for liturgical distinctions between male and female is so clear that a woman would have to go through the absurdity of playing the role of a priest—covering her head—to act like one. But since she can’t, she should be satisfied with her natural hair as a clear distinguishing feature.
According to my dear friend, Scott Aniol, Baptist theology is incongruent with any idea of Christendom. Scott notes that historic Baptist theology must always desire a separation between the state and the church. But Christian nationalists of different varieties argue that Church and State relationships are harmonious if Christ is ruler over all. While spheres have different roles, they must engage one another for the good of society. I favor the Christendom party arguing strongly for triple commitments from family, state, and church in the application of goodness, beauty, and truth derived from Holy Scriptures.
My take on John 13 is that Jesus is setting a model for pastoral ministry. Ministry is full of betrayals and denials, but the only sustaining models are sacramental, Baptism and the Supper. The foot-washing is a mini-baptism rooted in the priestly language of Exodus 28-29 (garments, basins, water, feet), and washing gives access to the Table. Water precedes war against traitors.
Through these wonderful lenten devotionals (as a former Anglican), there is now injected an absurd mockery made of God's biblical visible creed of creation. Attack the word of men in the Apostle's, Nicene or Athanasian creeds and all hell would break loose. But this is the church maturing.
Through these wonderful lenten devotionals (as a former Anglican), there is now injected an absurd mockery made of God's biblical visible creed of creation. Attack the word of men in the Apostle's, Nicene or Athanasian creeds and all hell would break loose. But this is the church maturing.