A question from a novice!
Barry D. Murrell
bmurrell at skyinet.net
Mon Mar 20 07:00:44 EST 2000
As with most words which are intended to carry a basic POSITIVE meaning, couldn't AGAPE also be abused in a selfish way... i.e. "doing what is BEST (negative sense) for SELF regardless of how I feel about it? (I DID indicate this possibility in my definition, but just so that there won't be any misunderstanding in what I was attempting to say, let me clarify a bit.)
In such cases as you brought out below we find AGAPE being applied in a way which is at odds with the way Jesus told his people to apply it. It is AGAPE being used in a selfish context. Actions of a "best interest" nature become directed selfishly toward self. Nonetheless, my point regarding the inherent meaning of AGAPE still stands. The actions being done were in the best interest of someone indeed.. themselves. (That is why Jesus used them as an example of how NOT to AGAPE, don't you think?)
The Pharisees did what was best for themselves... going after the chief seats and the respectful greetings.
Men love the darkness (they do for themselves what is in their OWN best interest). It is action which is not inherently tied to emotion, but .
Demas DID what was best for himself. While I have no doubt that Demas was attached to the world I would suggest to you that saying that Demas was overly attached emotionally because of the use of AGAPE might be reading more into the text than was intended. One passage which I found intriguing in my study was James 4:4 where we find OUK OIDATE OTI H FILIA TOU KOSMOU EXQRA TOU QEOU. Here FRIENDSHIP is the word we find in the text. This one definitely carries accurately the attachment picture you described of Demas, don't you think?)
As has been carefully pointed out by several during the thread. AGAPE IS NOT a word which was coined by the Christian religious community. It was a word which was used in the common vernacular. It does not does not carry in itself the definition of "goodwill". That is the application in a Christian context of what Jesus taught his followers to do. AGAPE only has inherent in it the idea of action which is more neutral in emotion.
After looking at the passages in John which you supplied I once again simply ask if it is not possible that the POINT which was being stressed by the writer was on the devotion of actions? If that was what the use of AGAPE emphasized in their time then that would seem to be what the writer here was wanting the readers to catch. Using it would not mean that there were no feelings between the parties involved, it would only mean that by using that particular word instead of one of the others the writer's emphasis here in that case would be more upon the actions between the parties than upon the emotional attachment.
I think the Lazarus passage in John 11 you cited is especially pertinent to the discussion. We do find Jesus being described as one who had AGAPE for Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. Did Jesus have deep feelings for the family? Yes he did, but this reference would communicate to the readers that Jesus' relationship toward the family was action oriented-as ANY DEEP relationship ought to be. But did you notice how, when Jesus arrives at the tomb where Lazarus was laid, and immediately begins weeping, that the Jews DID NOT remark, IDE PWS AGAPA AUTON? (John 11:36) I would suggest that in our search to differentiate how the writers used the different words for LOVE to indicate different points of emphasis that this is significant. (I would like to get other's thoughts on this.)
As for the other references, does the Father have warm emotions toward the Son? Of course, but was THAT the point the writer was trying to emphasize when using AGAPE? Or was it perhaps the way the father cares for the Son and does what is best for him?
I really struggled with John 21:15-17 for a long time (and I still wonder a lot about all that is passing between them in that short conversation), but I noted how interesting it was that Jesus asked Peter if he had AGAPE for him and Peter kept responding by saying that he had FILIA for Jesus. It wasn't until I came to understand a little Greek that I realized that this conversation was MUCH MORE about action than emotion!
Once again I would like to stress that PERHAPS our modern paradigm of "love" stands in the way of our coming to a more accurate understanding of what the text is trying to emphasize to us.
Thanks,
Barry Murrell
Missionary/Director
Christian Learning Center
Cebu City, Philippines
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Lo Vullo
To: Biblical Greek
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: A question from a novice!
Barry,
There is, no doubt, much truth to what you say regarding AGAPAW and its derivatives in many, if not most, contexts in the NT. However, to say "it always shows itself through actions of goodwill," and that its basic meaning is "doing what is best for someone ... regardless of how you feel about them" I think confuses contextual usage with inherent meaning. For example, how did the Pharisees' love (AGAPATE) for the "chief seats in the synagogues" and "respectful greetings in the marketplaces" (Luke 11:43) exhibit "actions of goodwill" or "doing what is best for someone?" The surrounding context shows that they had very little regard for the well-being of others, and their actions substantiated this. Or take John 3:19. How does the love (HGAPHSAN) of men for darkness show "actions of goodwill" or "concern for others," particularly since they love this darkness rather than Christ himself (the Light that has come into the world). Then there is John 12:43, which states that Jesus' opponents "loved (HGAPHSAN) the approval of men rather than the approval of God." Certainly they were not possessed of an attitude of goodwill for others, or doing what was best for them; they simply used others to bolster their own self-image, and that at the expense of pleasing God. One more example should suffice. In 2 Timothy 4:10 Paul says "Demas, having loved (AGAPHSAS) this present world, has deserted me." Now, what sort of goodwill and concern for Paul does this action reveal? And does not this verse indicate that AGAPAW in certain contexts does connote emotional attachment? After all, it was not an action of "goodwill" toward the world or "doing what is best" for the world that motivated Demas to desert Paul, but a sinful emotional attachment to it. And speaking of emotion, what about texts like John 3:35, 10:17, 11:5, 13:23, 14:31, 19:26, and 21:7. Does the love spoken of in these verses contain no emotional element at all, no tender affection?
Please do not misunderstand. I appreciate the insights you offered in relation to how AGAPAW and its derivatives are used in many contexts in the NT. But I think we must be careful as a general rule not to equate usage and inherent meaning. This is a habit that will drive us to pigeonhole words without giving due consideration to their semantic range and contextual usage.
Steve LoVullo,
Madison, WI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/20000320/65bd7a87/attachment.html
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list