A question from a novice!
Steven Lo Vullo
doulos at chorus.net
Tue Mar 21 00:46:31 EST 2000
Barry,
Please allow me to point out what I think are some flaws in your reasoning. Some of them are logical, others grammatical.
1. Keep in mind that AGAPAW and its cognates always (by your estimation) contain the elements of (a) doing what is best for someone ("acts of goodwill" in a previous post), (b) regardless of feelings. Others on the list have added (c) without expecting anything in return. With this in mind, it is difficult to see how actions that, according to Jesus, will lead to one's destruction can be described as "doing what is best for oneself" or "acts of goodwill" toward oneself. If what you mean is that they think they are doing what is best for themselves, even though they are not, you still have a problem. For in that case you would have to alter your definition to include the provision that AGAPH need not mean actually doing what is best for others, but merely what one thinks is best for others. But of course that is not what Jesus commanded. Also, if we expand the definition to include merely what one thinks is good for oneself, we run into a problem with (b) of your definition. For who in every instance does what he thinks is best for himself regardless of feelings? Shall we conclude that the adulterer, in every act of adultery, thinking he is doing himself good, commits adultery regardless of how he feels? Does this kind of AGAPH indulge in sexual intercourse with no emotion at all, stoically performing the act with no lust (an emotion) for pleasure? Is there never an emotional component to this kind of AGAPH? Isn't it more logical to conclude that people regularly do what they think is best for themselves, even though it may not be, because of how they feel, rather than regardless of how they feel?
For those who wish to add (c) to the definition, the problem is compounded. For who at all times does what is best (or what he thinks is best) for himself with no view whatsoever toward expecting anything in return? Who eats or drinks without wanting to taste or be filled? Who bathes himself without wanting to be clean? Who clothes himself without wanting to be covered or warm? Who builds a house for himself without wanting to be sheltered? To use a "negative" example, Who commits adultery without ever wanting gratification. This is surely absurd.
Also, when you ask "couldn't AGAPH be abused in a selfish way?" the answer must be "No" if you hold to (3) as part of the definition, for in that case AGAPH by its very nature must be selfless.
In concluding this point, I must say that the lengths to which some are willing to go to defend a catch-all definition for AGAPAW and its cognates is in itself revealing. It seems that regardless of subject or context some philosophical or psychological construct (e.g., the claim to know someone's attitude or intentions even though that is not revealed in the text itself) must be devised to "save" the predetermined definition. In other words, the definition has been predetermined on the basis of a select collection of texts, and all other texts that seem to contradict the presupposed meaning must be made to fit, even when nothing in the context explicitly, or even implicitly, lends itself to the required definition.
2. Your treatment of the texts at issue ignores the grammar of the texts themselves in favor of a psycho-analytical treatment of the persons presented in the text. Let's take these one at a time.
Luke 11:43. Your gloss is "The Pharisees did what was best for themselves... going after the chief seats and the respectful greetings." There are several problems here. The first one is that you seem to assume the text is saying that the Pharisees loved "themselves." But the direct objects of the verb (AGAPATE) are THN PRWTOKAQEDRIAN ("the seat of honor") and TOUS ASPASMOUS ("the greetings"), not hEAUTOUS ("yourselves"). This completely demolishes your gloss, for clearly "did what was best for" is your gloss of AGAPATE. The problem is that there is no "themselves" anywhere in the verse, much less as the object of the verb. The objects of AGAPATE, as I stated already, are ""the seat of honor" and "the greetings." Using your gloss we would have "The Pharisees did what was best for the seat of honor and greetings in the marketplaces." Were the "seat" and the "greetings" the beneficiaries of "acts of goodwill?" By metonymy the "seat" and the "greetings" stand for honor and recognition. So it is the honor and recognition they loved, not themselves. It is much simpler and in keeping with the grammar to conclude that they "took delight" in the honor and recognition represented by "the seat of honor" and "the greetings in the marketplaces." To think there was no emotional element to this love is to propose that the honor and recognition lavished on the Pharisees in no way whatsoever pleased them. But then what is the point of seeking such things? To remain dispassionate? To humbly slough it off? "Ah," you say. "I have already concluded that AGAPAW can have no emotional element." In that case you are on the horns of a dilemma, since you have also committed yourself to the proposition that "AGAPAW is not centered on a warm emotional attachment (while the others ARE emotionally motivated in one degree or another)." I would assume that FILEW fits this description. The problem is that it is precisely FILEW, this word connoting "emotional motivation" at least to some degree, that is used in the parallel passage in Matthew 23:6. Now, you can't have your cake and eat it too. No matter which way you look at it, one of these authors had to have viewed these words at least as roughly parallel, and, by your very definition "emotional." If Luke borrowed from Matthew, he must have viewed AGAPAW as having at least some emotional element, otherwise he would not have used AGAPAW for FILEW. By the same token, if Matthew borrowed from Luke, he too must have understood AGAPAW to have, at least in certain contexts, an emotional element, or he would not have used FILEW in place of AGAPAW. If you argue that the accounts are independent, then the Holy Spirit himself views these words as roughly synonymous (assuming, of course, you believe in divine inspiration). The bottom line is that my interpretation takes into account the grammar (which your view ignores) and the lexical evidence, including the parallel passage (which your view also ignores).
John 3:19. Same grammatical error. Your gloss has "they do for themselves." This again assumes the text is talking about love of self. But the direct object of AGAPAW is not "themselves" (again, nowhere in the text), but TO SKOTOS ("the darkness"). Now, applying your own definition, and taking the grammar seriously, we would be forced to translate thus: "Men did what was best for the darkness, regardless of their feelings, (and expecting nothing in return)." We would be forced, on the basis of grammar, also to translate John 12:43, where THN DOXAN is the object of AGAPAW, in a similar vein. There we would have, "They did what was best, regardless of their feelings, for the good of the approval of men (not "themselves") rather than the approval of God." If grammar has any bearing at all on exegesis, this is what your view forces us to.
2 Timothy 4:10. Again, the grammar. Your gloss has "Demas did what was best for himself," apparently translating AGAPAW as "did what was best" with "himself" as the object. But again, the "himself" is imaginary. The object of Demas' love was not himself, but TON NUN AIWNA ("this present age" or "world"). I will just share with you here the comments I made in a post earlier today to Jim West. "2 Timothy 4:10 states that 'Demas, having loved (AGAPHSAS) this present age, has deserted me.' Since the object of this participle is TON NUN AIWNA ('this present age'), we must, using your one-and-only definition of AGAPAW, conclude that this was on Demas' part a sacrificial act of love towards the world which requires nothing in return. Remember, the text says nothing about 'false' love. And your rigid definition doesn't include the word 'false.' So by the advanced art of lexical alchemy, unknown to benighted
Luddites of only fifty years ago, we have turned a completely selfish and traitorous act into a saintly display of selfless concern! Maybe I should conclude that this insight sheds new, previously unperceived light on this verse. Maybe what was formerly considered by less-well-instructed Christians to be an evil act can now be seen in its true light. Yes, I see it now! Paul was not complaining about Demas, he was praising him! The verse should really be translated, "Demas, because of his self-sacrificial and totally unselfish concern for the world, departed from me." Again, taking the grammar at face value, and applying your definition of AGAPH to the text, this is the convoluted result we must be satisfied with.
3. You say, "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?" Of course, this proves nothing. There is a logical error in proposing that because James used FILIA, Paul couldn't have meant something similar by AGAPAW. How does that necessarily follow? It simply assumes, not proves, that the two cannot sometimes be synonymous.
Since it is getting late, I must close. But I would like to leave you with one thought. It is dangerous in exegesis to say "always," as in "AGAPAW always means such and such." One thing about always: It has a glass jaw. When you get it in the ring, it only takes one punch to knock it out.
Steve LoVullo
Madison, WI
----- Original Message -----
From: Barry D. Murrell
To: Steven Lo Vullo ; Biblical Greek
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 6:00 AM
Subject: Re: A question from a novice!
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/e19d98c8/attachment.html
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list