"The Father loves (AGAPA -- from AGAPE) the Son and has placed everything in his hands."
Then we'll examine a very similar sentence a couple of chapters later:
"For the Father loves (PHILEI -- from PHILEO) the Son and shows him all he does" (Joh 5:20).
Both verbs are linguistically in the same "slot" in the sentence, with the same Greek syntactic structure (for those interested-- ind. pres. act. 3PS), and fulfilling the same semantic role. If AGAPE and PHILEO were automatically different kinds of love -- by virtue of the words alone -- you would not expect to find this kind of synonymous usage in the NT writings. But there it is for all to see. In some passages of Scripture PHILEO and AGAPE simply stand for the same thing; the contexts provide the clues as to actual meaning. Not some contrived definitions which do not match the biblical evidence.
A couple of more examples will suffice. In 1Pet 4:8 we read:
"... 'love will cover a multitude of sins' ."
This is easily confirmed as a loose quote or allusion to Pro 10:12:
"... but love covers all sins."
However, the LXX (Greek OT, translated nearly 300 years before Christ) rendition of the Proverbs passage uses the word PHILIA (from PHILEO) while Peter's version employs the precise noun AGAPE. More evidence that AGAPE and PHILEO are synonymous in some contexts.
However, lest someone think that Peter simply "upgraded" the love from the "lower OT PHILEO" to the "higher NT AGAPE" (I've actually heard someone argue this way before) let me provide an example of the opposite, where a form of AGAPE was used in the LXX OT, then a NT allusion to that very OT verse has PHILEO:
"As many as I love (PHILO -- from PHILEO), I rebuke and chasten" (Jesus Christ as recorded in Rev 3:19).
"My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, nor detest His correction; for whom the LORD loves (AGAPA -- from AGAPE) He corrects ..." (Pro 3:11, 12 LXX).
In both OT to NT and NT to OT, the same observation as I made above holds true. There are times when various forms of the two best known "love words," AGAPE and PHILEO, are used to mean the very same thing. Therefore, attempts to assign these words a hierarchy, wherein PHILEO is necessarily lower than AGAPE, are effectively nullified. The contexts, not the etymologies (root meanings) are what provide us with the clues on how to evaluate which love(s) are best. And in which scenarios.
Now please understand what I have been trying to say through these three quasi-technical studies on "love words".
1) The NT writers were influenced by the way words were used in the OT. They did not invent a whole new "post-cross" vocabulary, or assign old words completely new meanings. We have only one Bible and there is a continuity (although not uniformity) of revealed truth from Genesis to Revelation.
2) Biblical words (and concepts -- barring those words used only once in Scripture) must be understood, not simply via definitions assigned to them by some non-biblical someone we've heard or read, but by the way those words are used in their individual contexts. This especially applies to the word/concept "love". Clues are usually provided by the biblical writers (and ultimately by the Holy Spirit) to allow us to know the meaning in context and whether or not this is a love we as disciples of Jesus should emulate. You may not know it, but AGAPE can mean "sexual desire" (even "lust," see LXX of Gen 34:3; Jdg 16:4; 2Sam 13:1, 15), as can PHILEO (see LXX of Pro 5:19; 7:18). Sex is not the sole domain of EROS. Therefore we need to allow the biblical evidence to inform our concepts and practice of love in this world, in our homes, and in our local expressions of the EKKLESIA.
-Michael Millier
No comments:
Post a Comment