RE: Philadelphia vs agape vs lust

From: Williams, Wes (Wes.Williams@echostar.com)
Date: Fri Aug 15 1997 - 11:36:05 EDT


Ellen Adams wrote:
>>If the two words meant exactly the same thing, I would imagine there
would
> >>only be one word. Surely there is an overlapping of meaning, but
> there is
> >>also a disctinction. I've always understood the "shadow" of
> difference is
> >>that one meant a an affection-love, the other a committed-love. The
> word
> >>AGAPE, though it may apply to either a "holy" or "unholy" love. It
> is used
> >>far more frequently in the New Testament, I believe, for two
> reasons. 1.
> >>because it is a broader term than PHILADELPHIA. 2. because scripture
> in
> >>general deals with our will and motivations.
> >>
> >>
> > A comparison of this sort in the NT does point to
> distinction, as
> >Ellen says. To understand what distinction writers of the NT
> perceived, it
> >may be instructive to look at how these writers' use of AGAPH-AGAPAW
> was unique.
>
> David Moore wrote:
> > Although AGAPAW comes up now and then from Homer onward,
> AGAPH is
> >rare outside of Jewish and Christian religious literature through the
> NT
> >period. Because of this, it is largely the Christian usage of AGAPH
> and its
> >cognate which defines the meaning of these words within the time of
> the
> >writing of the NT. One might safely say that Christians appropriated
> this
> >word group and even invested it with meaning it did not have before.
>
> I quite agree with the scope of what Ellen laid out. I also find that
> I agree with what David wrote as complementary. The point I wish to
> raise is that while NT authors gave new extensions of meaning to
> AGAPH, this new meaning would not necessarily invalidate Ellen's
> thought that "it (AGAPH) is a broader term than PHILADELPHIA," would
> it? I am not saying that David implied this, it was simply unstated. I
> raise this because when we discussed this last year, someone showed
> the lust (the "unholy" AGAPH) of AMNON in the LXX. Although not in the
> NT in this sense, it is in the first century Koine and later LXX
> translations as AGAPH here, and they certainly would be well aware of
> the Christian use, would they not? Consequently, would it not be
> reasonable to include this scope in our definition of AGAPH?
>
> Brenton 2 Samuel 13:15 Then Amnon hated her with very great hatred;
> for the hatred with which he hated her was greater the love with which
> he had loved her, for the last wickedness was greater than the first:
>
> LXX 2 Samuel 13:15 KAI EMISHSEN AUTHN AMNWN MISOS MEGA SFODRA hOTI
> MEGA TO MISOS hO EMISHSEN AUTHN hUPER THN AGAPHN hHN HGAPHSEN AUTHN
>
> Sincerely,
> Wes Williams



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:25 EDT