[b-greek] Re: John 21 - the significance of the OTHER synonyms (per AGAPAO/PHILEO)

From: Steven R. Lo Vullo (doulos@chorus.net)
Date: Sat Jan 06 2001 - 15:30:51 EST


On 1/5/01 9:26 PM, Steve Godfrey wrote:

> Jesus puts his first question to Peter in the simplest possible terms.
> Feeding lambs is not difficult. One need only be able to hold a bottle of
> milk while cradling the little beast. And yet, to this simple
> requirement, Peter hedges in reply, by using a synonym for 'love' that by
> implication falls short of the full love Jesus has in mind. The reason
> Peter hedges is that he is ashamed of the way that he denied Christ
> previously. He considers himself damaged goods, never again to be as
> useful to his master as he was before his great fall.

First of all, do not take my comments below personally. I mean no
disrespect, but I think these things need to be said.

Here you say, "Peter hedges in reply, by using a synonym for 'love' that by
implication falls short of the full love Jesus has in mind." Yet later you
admit "the distinction [between AGAPAO and FILEW] is not grounded in the
innate meanings of the words, which are indeed very close synonyms." How can
FILEW be a "synonym for 'love' that ... falls short of the full love Jesus
has in mind" and at the same time be a "very close" synonym of that very
word? You're first assertion is a non starter in light of your second
assertion. No one reading the text with the understanding that these words
were "close synonyms" would jump to the conclusion that FILEW was a "hedge"
on Peter's part or that he was using a word that "falls short of the full
love Jesus has in mind." Admitting that these words are "very close
synonyms" is tantamount to admitting defeat, which is why when we had this
discussion previously the advocates of your position went to incredible
lengths to prove their contention that the words did not have significant
semantic overlap. What was so frustrating to many of us was that even when
we had clear examples of AGAPAW that could not in any way mean "selfless,
self-giving love" or something of the kind, the advocates of the opposing
view would psychologize AGAPAW, make transitive uses of AGAPAW reflexive,
etc. I have come to believe that for advocates of the sharp distinction
between AGAPAW and PHILEW (whether innately or in this context) there is NO
evidence that can be adduced to prove the opposing case. Their case is
simply unfalsifiable. How about this: You folks tell us what it would take
to falsify your position on this matter. This way we will know, and you will
not be in the position of coming up with ad hoc arguments in response.
 
> Jesus understands, and therefore graciously raises the stakes of what he
> has in mind in the second round. He repeats the question unchanged,
> insisting on his own term: Peter, do you AGAPAO me? Again Peter hedges
> with PHILEO, stubbornly refusing to take Jesus on the Jesus' own terms.
>
> So the third time, to show Peter just how much he is loved, and just how
> valuable he remains to the kingdom of God, Jesus switches to Peter's term
> of preference. "Okay, Peter, do you PHILEO me?" Peter was hurt both
> because his second response wasn't considered sufficient, and because
> Jesus had now lowered the standard, and was seeming to question Peter's
> integrity even at this reduced level of love. So Peter answers, "Lord you
> know all things, you know innately (GINOSKO) that I love you." Peter here
> appends a synonym to OIDA for passionate emotional emphasis. Jesus then
> grants affirmation and grace in how he phrases his third charge. He
> switches back from "shepherd" to "feed", while keeping "sheep" instead of
> "lambs". It is to say, "Peter, what I am asking you to do you can do,
> because you do love me, and because sheperding my sheep involves little
> more than feeding them. In the most poetic language possible, the author
> (John) has Jesus saying to Peter, "My dear son, I believe in you." And
> in so doing, Jesus has affirmed Peter the same number of times that Peter
> had denied Christ. The grace of Christ is sufficient to cover even our
> most egregious sins.

First of all, prove that GINWSKW means "to know innately" as opposed to
OIDA. What evidence (besides the above sermon) do you proffer to
substantiate the claim that GINWSKW lends "passionate emotional emphasis." I
think it is you who in this case are adding "passionate emotional emphasis"
with the creative reconstruction of above.

> Those who doubt must be able to justify their view by reading the passage
> out loud in Greek. The biblical text is not a lab rat to be cut up and
> analyzed word by word. It is literature, and literature can only be
> understood when viewed in totality. One does not understand Van Gogh by
> comparing one brush stroke to another, but rather by taking in the
> glorious combinations of subtle stroking and shading in composition. In
> John 21, we are given a portrait of the restoring grace of Christ.

I'm glad someone has finally admitted that this view of AGAPAW/FILEW is
totally subjective, like interpreting a painting. Also, I have read the
passage out loud in Greek. Will you now consider my view justified?

> Conclusion
> A distinction between PHILEO and AGAPAO is intended. However, the
> distinction is not grounded in the innate meanings of the words, which are
> indeed very close synonyms. The distinction is in how Peter was
> responding to Jesus, with a term other than the one Jesus used in his
> question. Whatever term Peter might have used in the actual Aramaic is
> not germane: the point is that John, the author, has something important
> to say in Greek. John wants to say that while we may shirk from the
> perfect love of Jesus, the Lamb of God is nevertheless gracious enough to
> come to us and to restore us beginning at the level of love of which we
> are currently capable.

While that last line would be a great close to a sermon (for people who hold
to your particular theological perspective), it has nothing to do with
exegesis. What you are asking us to do is to forget that these words are
"very close synonyms" and to base our exegesis on your subjective
understanding of the passage. You're last point in particular is sheer
sermonizing, reflecting your own theological bias. What about people who
don't believe that Jesus allows us to relate to him on OUR terms? (My last
comment was a rhetorical question.)

Steve Lo Vullo,
Madison, WI


---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:46 EDT