This article was originally posted at my site. Only some of my articles are posted on SBC Voices. If you would like access to all of my articles, you can follow my feed here. You can also connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.
Part 1 of of my discussion of this series by D. A. Carson can be found here.
I recently read an article by D. A. Carson titled “God is Love.” I strongly commend the article to you, especially to those who believe God is absolutely impassible (without emotion and/or does not react emotionally). You can find Carson’s full article here (pdf). I’ve provided a summary below, followed by my response. You can also find Carson’s book The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God here for free (pdf).
Carson, D. A. “God is Love.” Bibliotheca Sacra 156 (April-June 1999): 131-142.
Twice John writes in His first letter, “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16). The biblical writers present God’s love as praiseworthy, but what does “God is love” mean? To start, we should not assign the love of God to a particular word-group.
God’s love cannot be tied in any univocal way to the agapao word-group. First, there are excellent diachronic reasons in Greek philosophy to explain the rise of the agapao word-group, so one should not rush too quickly toward theological explanations. Second, even in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament used in Jesus’ day) it is far from clear that the agapao word-group always refers to the more noble, less emotional forms of love. For example 2 Samuel 13 speaks of Amnon incestuously raping his half-sister Tamar saying that he loved her—a vicious act, transparently sexual, emotional, and violent—and both agapao and phileo are used. Third, in John’s Gospel we learn that the Father “loves” the Son (John 3:35; 5:20). In the first occurrence, agapao is used, but in the second occurrence, phileo is used. It is impossible to distinguish between the two. Paul also writes that Demas has loved (agapao) this evil world, which is a strange word choice if it refers to willed self-denial for the sake of others. Fourth, since agapao and phileo have different semantic ranges, a subtle distinction can always be made, but this reality has no bearing on any concrete passage. Fifth, just as the English word “love” can be used in a variety of ways and the surrounding context defines and delimits the meaning, the context defines and delimits the verbs meaning “to love” in holy Scripture. Sixth, Christian love (agape) in 1 Corinthians 13 cannot be reduced to willed care for others. After all, even believers may give their bodies to be burned or give all they have to feed the poor—both willed acts of self-denial for others—without love. Therefore, Christian love is not equivalent to willed altruism. Seventh, I suspect that the understanding of agapao as willed emotionless love with commitment to the other’s good has been influenced by schoolmen and theologians in the past who affirmed the impassibility of God. The point here is that to begin to understand the nature of the love of God requires something more penetrating than methodologically flawed words studies.
In light of these conclusions, we must proceed in exegesis with great concern for context and the unfolding of redemption history. As an example, I’ll spend some time examining the intra-Trinitarian love of God in John 5:16-30. In John 5:8 we learn that Jesus healed a paralytic at the pool on the Sabbath, and then told him to take up his mat and walk. Jewish scholars, trying to clarify the Mosaic prohibition of work on the Sabbath, developed various rules of conduct, including the prohibition against carrying any burden outside one’s domicile, and carrying any burden higher than one’s shoulder, even at home. The Jews disapproved because these things were done on the Sabbath (John 5:16). Jesus could have replied disputing about the rules of conduct, the lack of detail of the Mosaic law, the lack of earned wages by Jesus or the man, etc. These things would have been debated, but Jesus would not have been charged with blasphemy. Jesus, instead, replied, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working” (John 5:17).
Two background features must be understood in order to grasp the implications of Christ’s claim: 1) “Sonship” is very often a functional category in the Bible, which means that sons often did what their fathers did. Thus, by Jesus claiming that His Father is working to this day, He is implicitly claiming to be God’s Son with the right to follow His Father’s pattern. 2) First-century Jewish authorities debated whether God kept the Sabbath. The dominant group believed God transcended the Sabbath since He is bigger than the universe and never raises anything above His own shoulders. God, of course, works in a providential manner on the Sabbath, but does no work that violates the Sabbath. Yet, Jesus claims the right to work on the Sabbath. God can work on the Sabbath because of His transcendence, but by Jesus claiming the right to work on the Sabbath, He was claiming a right only God possessed. Jesus “was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18).
Almost certainly, the Jews thought Christ was setting Himself up parallel with God. Jesus replies with the raw stuff of Christian monotheism. First, Jesus denies that He is setting Himself over against God as an alternative. He is entirely dependent on the Father and subordinate to Him (John 5:19). Indeed, Jesus grounds His functional subordination in His claim to coextensive action with His Father. This makes His Sonship unique. Second, the Son does everything the Father does because the Father loves the Son and shows Him all He does (John 5:20). Third, since Jesus is always obedient to His Father, all of Jesus’s actions work to reveal God perfectly. Because the Father loves the Son, the Father is self-disclosed in the Son. Fourth, the Son loves the Father, always doing what pleases Him (John 8:29, 14:31). Fifth, Jesus says that His Father loves Him, a love manifest in the Father’s showing the Son all He does (John 5:20a). The Father will show the Son even greater things than those things Jesus has already done. Just as the Father raises the dead, even so the Son gives life to whom He is pleased to give it (John 5:20b-21). Jesus was different than the human agents God used in the past to resuscitate someone, for the Father has “shown” Christ this, and Jesus raises the dead as He pleases, just as the Father does.
In conclusion, first, some have argued that the label “the Son” is rightly attached to only the incarnate Word, not to the preincarnate Word. John 5:16-30 is used to support this notion, but there are several points that need to be noted: 1) The Son does whatever the Father does, which must include creation. Thus, in addition to the Father “showing” the Son things in eternity past, the Father also “showed” Him things step by step in His incarnate state, which served as the precise trigger for what Jesus in the days of His flesh actually did, and when. 2) The obvious reading of John 3:17 is that God sent His Son into the world to save it. Just as the Word is preexistent (John 1:1, 14), “the Son” should be viewed as an alternative appellation for the Word (John 3:17). 3) According to John 5:26, the Son’s Sonship is an eternal grant from the Father. 4) In some passages Jesus addresses God as Father, and thus implicitly thinks of Himself as Son. This is especially seen in John 17:5: “Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” Second, the distinction between the love of the Father for the Son and the love of the Son for the Father should be carefully noted. The Father sends, tells, commissions, shows, etc. the Son and the Son obeys. Not once is there a sense where the Father submits to the Son. The Son is equal with God in substance or essence, but there is a functional subordination of the Son to the Father. Third, the intra-Trinitarian love moves from the Father’s and Son’s love to the Son’s love for His people in redemption (John 15:9). Then, Jesus tells His disciples to remain in His love by obeying His commands just as He has obeyed His Father’s commands and remains in His love (John 15:9b-10). Our relationship with Jesus is to mirror His relationship to His heavenly Father (John 17). Furthermore, we are no longer slaves, but Jesus’ friends because He has made known to us all He learned from His Father. We are the friends of God by virtue of the intra-Trinitarian love of God that so worked out in the fullness of time that the plan of redemption, conceived in the mind of God in eternity past, has exploded into space-time history at exactly the right moment.
I really appreciated Carson’s explanation of the wrong assumption that the agapao word group explains God’s love as emotionless willed concern for others. God’s love goes beyond this reality, if we are to be faithful to how Scripture describes the love of God. A cursory glance at the use of the agapao word group in Scripture reveals that there are numerous examples where emotion is clearly present. Carson is disagreeing with the classical Christian doctrine that God is impassible (does not react in an emotional way). Carson’s point is that the agapao word group does not prove God is impassible. On the contrary, the agapao word group is often associated with emotional love, sometimes even to describe wicked emotion rather than godly love. To simply argue that agapao refers to emotionless willed altruism appears to be biblically unfounded.
I also appreciated Carson’s exegesis of John 5:16-30. I was unaware of the background behind the Jewish debate concerning whether God kept the Sabbath. I had never even considered the question. The answer was even more startling that many first century Jews believed God kept the Sabbath based on His transcendence in addition to His consistent providence (which does not count as work; loophole). No wonder Jesus’s statement was considered blasphemy. He was claiming to transcend the Sabbath in the same manner as His Father does. Just as the Father was providentially caring for creation, the Son was as well. The Father is God. Jesus is God.
This article was originally posted at my site. Only some of my articles are posted on SBC Voices. If you would like access to all of my articles, you can follow my feed here. You can also connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.
This is an intensely large picture of Dr. Carson.
I tried 3 times to reduce its size but was unable. Like Paul’s thorn, it remains.
so then may that giant photo of D.A. Carson humble us.
How is that?
Don’t tell anybody that I knew how to do that, they might get the wrong idea about my computer skills.
Smart aleck
Much better.
Then possibly, like the offending eye, it should simply be “plucked out.” I’m sure Carson wouldn’t mind.
I guess my problem is with the result of his study. What has he concluded? What is different? Why did the Greeks use eros more often than agapao? Why the strawman of “emotionaless love?”
For a word to “primarily” mean something does not necessitate that it “always” mean the same thing when the context clearly indicates otherwise.
Consider the English word love. I love my wife. I love my kids. I love the lost of the world. I love chocalate chip cookies. The context of just those four sentences make it clear I mean something a bit different in the last case.
I have always been taught that agapao referred to God’s “sacrificial love,” not “emotionless (impassionate)” love.
I am not clear if Carson believes there’s “no” distinction between agapao and the other four or so words that were common in Greek during the N.T. period.
I can appreciate that our understanding of God’s love requires more than a linquistic support.
For me, the article smacks of “if you were a brilliant scholar and expert in Greek you could know the truth also.” I don’t like those kinds of implications.
You don’t have to be a Greek scholar to recognize that God’s love as demonstrated throughout the Bible is “always” a sacrificial love, a condescending love, and a love that is the basis for all other kinds of love.
PS — I am generally a great fan of Carson. I believe he demonstrates he is a very conscientious, godly and scholarly gentleman.
I am responding as someone who is “not” a scholar in the original languages and giving a “gut” reaction to his article.
Frank, Carson is coming against the Classical Christian doctrine that God is absolutely impassible (without emotion and/or not reacting in an emotional way). The classical doctrine argues that agapao refers to emotionless love. Carson is arguing that agapao refers to emotional love, and one cannot change the meaning of the agapao word group when referring to God and do sound exegesis. He’s arguing that the doctrine of impassibility is eisegesis instead of exegesis (it’s imposing philosophical conclusions on the text). Furthermore, the classical Christian tradition was aware of the numerous emotional statements about God in Scripture: anger, wrath, joy, etc., but they viewed these as anthropomorphic. Carson says the opposite, that these emotions are ascribed to God because He is emotional in a distinctly God-way. This further forms the basis of Christ’s love for us (His friends) since He has learned all things from His Father, and taught them to us. We benefit from the intra-Trinitarian love based on Christ’s emotional love for us. Our relationship with Christ is to mirror His relationship with His Father.
Jared,
I can appreciate the broader context of Carson’s view and agree wholeheartedly.
It is the common application of his words without the necessary commentary (as you provide) that I think “can have” pitfalls. One could, though Carson does not state this in the article, surmise that “agapao” has no special significance over the more commonly used words “eros and phileo” (the two synonymns used in the N.T.).
That would not be helpful, nor would it be accurate as I understand the Greek N.T., particularly in the the Lord’s use (Jn. 21).
Perhaps I’m reading far more into it then Carson intended, but I deal on a daily basis with non-professional, fledgling theologians sometimes referred to as a congregation.
Frank, I think you’re somewhat correct about what Carson is arguing concerning agapao not having any special significance in and of itself. Carson is arguing that at times both phileo and agapao are used to describe God’s love, and the two are indistinguishable contextually in these moments. Also, the Septuagint uses agapao and phileo to refer to ungodly love as well, such as Ammon’s incestuous love for Tamar.
Where I think you may be incorrect about Carson is that I think he’d argue that God’s love, whether described by the agapao or phileo word group, transcends human love. Regardless what word group is used to describe God’s love, because it’s GOD’S love, more significance is given to the word group used in those moments than when these word groups are used to describe human love. Thus, God adds the special significance to the word group not contained in the word group itself.
So, I think you’re right that Carson is saying the agapao word group has no special significance, but you’re wrong in a sense for when any word group is used to describe God’s love, it contains special significance.
PROBLEM:
can we say ‘God loves’ instead of ‘God is love’?
God is NOT a created being;
and cannot be spoken about in the way that we would describe a created being.
“”So, I think you’re right that Carson is saying the agapao word group has no special significance, but you’re wrong in a sense for when any word group is used to describe God’s love, it contains special significance.””
You only partially correct in pointing out I am incorrect.
I don’t believe Carson ever suggests in any way God’s love is not ontologically different and superior. I also think Carson is wrong–if in fact you state his case correctly–in pointing out that the agapao word group does not have particular significance when applied to God, such as in John 3:16.
The Septuagint is not inerrant so that is only a partial guide for N.T. exegesis. Also, the few times agapao is used in a general sense for love are not determinant in how the word was generally used in common culture and then used quite differently in the N.T. including Acts.
If you are stating Carson’s case correctly that “agapao” word group has no particular significance to N.T. exegesis, then I disagree with Carson as do many other Greek scholars (a group I do not include myself in).
I would say, if that is Carson’s point of view, he has made the exception the rule or is riding the cart and pulling the horse.
I do not plan on using Carson’s view of God’s love in my
Third Sunday of Advent sermon on “A Wonderful Love.”
Again, the triple use of the word play in John 21 would be redundant and even nonsensical if Carson is correct.
Even such noted Greek scholars as A.T. Robertson calls agapao the “highest form of love.” He does this even recognizing that on occasion the word is used even of men loving mankind.
While I agree with Carson’s general issue in the article, I think many times scholars do more harm than good by straining gnats and swallowing camels. Again, I’m not accusing Carson of this in a strong sense. If he is doing this, it is perhaps an occupational hazard, and I associate no ill motive.
Most people in the pew would simply be discouraged by this discussion, not enlivened and emboldened to love as God loves.
Frank,
I appreciate the interaction.
First, I realize the Septuagint is not inerrant, but it helps us to understand how Greek words were used during the time the New Testament was written. We can’t simply dismiss how the words were used by others near the time the New Testament was written. It’s similar to how we cannot dismiss the surrounding history at the time the New Testament was written because it helps shed light on the text.
Second, what do you do with John 3:35; 5:20? John 3:35 – “35 The Father loves (agapao) the Son and has given all things into his hand.” John 5:20 – “20 For the Father loves (phileo) the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.”
Would you say that in John 3:35 the Father loves (agapao) the Son in “highest way,” but in John 5:20, He loves (phileo) the Son in a lesser way?
There’s also other examples: 1 Cor. 16:22 – “22 If anyone has no love (phileo) for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come!” Is this the “lesser form of love” we must have for the Lord? Shouldn’t this be “the highest form of love” (agapao) instead; which is commanded elsewhere (Matt. 22:37)?
Also, what about when Paul uses agapao and phileo interchangeably in 1 Thessalonians 4:9 – “9 Now concerning brotherly love (phileo) you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love (agapao) one another.” Paul commends the Thessalonians for loving one another (phileo) even though God’s command was for them to love one another (agapao). This only makes sense if phileo and agapao are used interchangeably here. If agapao is “the highest form of love,” and phileo is lesser, then why did Paul use these interchangeably here?
Third, I think this discussion will actually encourage believers because when the Bible says God loves (phileo; which you think is lesser) His people (Titus 3:4 for example), it’s still the highest form of love because God is the one loving. What if some in your church do a word study on phileo (which you say is a lesser form of love) and they realize the Bible says the Father loves the Son in this way (John 5:20), God loves Christians in this way (Titus 3:4), and Jesus loves Christians in this way (Rev. 3:19)? Don’t you think this will discourage them?
Carson is arguing that agapao isn’t the highest form of love, and phileo isn’t a lesser form. Instead, he’s arguing that context should determine the meaning. I agree with Carson based on the reasons listed above.
Jared. No big disagreement. I do wonder why you quote the exceptions and ambiguous texts but ignore the one cear unequivocal text.
As long as John 21 remains then Carson is in direct opposition to not only eminent Greek scholars but also The Lord Himself.
I would avoid Carson’s rigid conclusion that agapao has no special significance in the NT. and higher or lesser are perhaps not the best descriptors. That was Robertson’s term not mine.
I’d say agapao (in most contexts) adds a special self-giving element. TDNT makes this point among others.
Frank, I don’t think it’s fair to the text or the human authors to call the texts I list “obscure.” There’s no textual or contextual basis to call these texts “obscure.” Also, the only way these texts are “exceptions” is if they’re not considered when discussing the Scriptures that contain phileo and agapao word groups. Instead, these texts should be included in the overall discussion as equal texts. The other texts are not superior to these texts. In other words, I think you should answer why these texts use phileo interchangeably with agapao, instead of dismissing them.
Also, if Christ and Paul didn’t use agapao exclusively the way you’re arguing, then I don’t think Carson is in any danger against the Lord. Maybe he’s in danger with other scholars, but not with the Lord since Carson is trying to follow the “always reforming” principle and sola scruptura. We cannot ignore these other uses of phileo and agapao as if they’re exceptions instead of equal evidence. I don’t think you can argue that agapao is “the highest form of love” without arguing that the Father has a lesser love for the Son (John 5:20), God has a lesser love for us (Tit. 3:4), and Christ has a lesser love for us (Rev. 3:19).
As much as I hate to say, I think A.T. Robertson was wrong on this one.
Jared. My goal is not to prove you wrong or nitpick words. I said obscure in the sense they do not clearly demonstrate why the synonyms were used. This is different with John 21.
I was simply offering my point of view. I was not seeking a confrontation nor do I have time to do a dissertation.
I believe Carson’s view has merit. I do not believe him to be infallible. He departs from a long tradition of noted scholars. I require more than a large photo to warrant tossing out 35 years of study.
As I said I am not trying to convince you to change your mind.
I’m sorry you think I am unfair to the Biblical writers. The ambiguity is a technical issue not a personal one. If you disagree I can appreciate that. If you think I am a wacko, know-nothing. I can accept that. You are probably correct.
I Do however take issue with your describing my point of view as being unfair.
I guess we’ve said all we can say.
Good bless
The fact that the Lord Himself inspires the use of “agapao” in one place and “phileo” in another place to make the same statement/mean the same thing has to call in question the idea that the words mean different things in John 21.
That’s a possibility but the context of John 21 does not seem to support the idea Jesus was picking words at random.
Also. If all the synonyms for love are equal why is Eros never used?
Again. Carson stands against many other scholars. Why would he get a higher standing?
Frank, I don’t think Carson has to get a higher standing. Nor am I referring to “all the synonyms” (e.g. eros). I’m merely observing that there is use in the Bible of agapao and phileo as synonyms. They are not the same word, but they do overlap in meaning. If God uses them to mean the same elsewhere, I don’t think we can take the mere use of two different words in John 21 to say that Jesus was talking about two different kinds of love to Peter. Finally, I don’t think God/Jesus was picking words at random in either John 21 or any of the other places He inspired the use of these two words.
“” the mere use””
Those words are problematic for me. Plus the only thing that gives a word meaning is the use in a sentence in a particular context.
I also mentioned above that phileo and agapao overlap in meaning but not in an equivalent way.
As I said all words have a range of meaning. My interpretation is not just based upon the semantics of the NT but the use and development up to and after the NT.
Agapao is not a “coined” word limited only to NT use.
I’ve outlined my approach to understanding this word.
Frank, you say “mere use” is problematic for you. By “mere use” of agapao and phileo I mean considering nothing more than the fact that two different words are used. In other words, just discovering that agapao and phileo are both used in John 21 does not prove they are used with differing meanings (i.e., do you love with a godly love or brotherly love). Some people seem to conclude that based only on the words. They might mean the same or might not, as if I used “automobile” and “truck” in the same sentence. Ultimately we seem to agree that what gives a word meaning is the use in a particular context.
On a different note, above you mention “the more commonly used words ‘eros’ and ‘phileo’ (the two synonymns used in the N.T.).” I may misunderstand your meaning, but I did not find that eros is ever used in the New Testament. Sturge (negated) is used a couple of times as unloving or without affection.
Years ago, while at SEBTS, I was invited to preach in a church. Arriving early, I went to an Adult Sunday School Class. The lesson that day was on the love of God.
The teacher was defining the word “love” as used in the Scripture. He defined “agape” by saying that it is such a powerful love that when it comes upon us, it makes us just stand there with out mouth “wide open.”
That is a true story. It was also one of the most revealing Sunday School classes I ever attended.
Could it be that word studies themselves can be misconstrued, misapplied, and detrimental to an appropriate understanding of this and other issues? Do we “scholars” sometimes “strain out the gnats” and miss the plain meaning of the text? Can we place an inordinate emphasis on words or apply a meaning the author never intended in our attempts to dissect the specific words? What does the person with no background in biblical languages or experience in the use of language tools do with the words he or she reads in his or her respective language?
I have no specific examples in mind. The discussion just raised these questions for me. Maybe these questions would be more appropriate for another discussion.
Dale. That is my point
love is sometimes defined as
‘deeply willing the good of the other as other’
this kind of love is expressed in the Holy Trinity, and in my faith it is believed that Creation was born out of this kind of love . . . unselfish and giving, needing nothing in return,
and ultimately, through Christ Our Lord, a sacrificial love where Christ is able to say ‘behold, I make all things new’
this kind of love is not something that is given so that something may be received in return . . . it is a free gift (some call it ‘grace’) which has in it the power to transform death into life and to restore justice in God’s creation
it is believed that we are invited to share God’s abundant love through Our Lord Christ and, if we decide to choose life, we will begin to experience a transformation where we, too, will deeply wish for others to be well, and where at some point in our transformation, we will not hesitate to give up our own self-interests for the good of the ‘other’, because that, in Christ, is who we have become.
God is love . . .
that describes the Holy Trinity
Frank,
You said, “The Septuagint is not inerrant.”
Do you believe the ESV, NASB, KJV, etc. are inerrant? If not, what is inerrant?
The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy applies it “down to the very words of the original.” Are you saying that our English translations are inerrant?
Dale,
No, just curious what Frank finds inerrant. He dismissed the Septuagint and yet I suspect he would point to English translations to make his point.
“” He dismissed the Septuagint””
At least get your facts right if you are going to insult somebody.
lol Thanks, Frank. I suspected a convo would not take place. Take care.
Joshua,
Okay. Just wondering. Seemed that you were trying to make a point about translations and inerrancy.
Frank is very capable of defending himself, so I won’t jump in on that.
Only the King James is inerrant – that is what the Apostles brought us.
Can we also go back to using John the Baptist’s version of the BF&M? That might solve some of our infighting.
Thou speaketh truth.
KJV-Onlyism and Landmarkism will solve all our woes.
In way, that is actually true.
In the same way, I can lose weight by sawing my leg off with my pocketknife.
not true ESV is the closest to the original text do some research and studying
John, I sometimes forget that people cruise by here and do not necessarily know me, so they might not realize I am joking.
I’m not sure I agree with you that ESV is the most accurate trans, though that is the one I use. I think NASB is likely the most accurate, at least in the NT.
Congratulations are in order.
The caveman guy for the Geico Insurance commercials has graduated from college.
Three Cheers and a Jolly Good Show, Sir!!
CB,
If only I was as good looking as those cavemen…then I might be somebody. And if I could learn to say “who-so-evvvva” in a cool way in sermons.
Have you mastered “Gahw-d” yet? That comes before “who-so-evvva.” Seriously, what ARE they teaching young people these days?
Have you mastered “Gahw-d” yet? That comes before “who-so-evvva.” Seriously, what ARE they teaching young people these days?
That must have been important. It posted twice all by itself.
I describe agape as an emotion that runs so deep that it compels action when confronted with the needs of others. There can be no doubt that this type of love is fundamentally different than romantic love, or brotherly love or familial love.
John and others, then please answer the texts that use agapao and phileo interchangeably.
No one in this comment thread has dealt with these other texts yet.
I did. You just thought I was unfair.
You have not dealt with John 21.
You have also not dealt with the self-giving aspects of love in the OT or the volumes of material that scholars have offered for hundreds of yeas. The classic work TDNT is one such work.
Agapao includes all other aspects of love in the NT. the others do not include the aspect of agapao.
For example bird encompasses all parrots but parrots to not exhaust the meaning of birds.
I am not arguing for a complete distinction between synonyms. I
Frank, let’s just deal with the arguments instead of focusing on needless offense. You said that Carson was in danger against the Lord knowing that I affirm Carson’s position, yet I’m not offended. Let’s just deal with the arguments being made.
I agree with John 21. I don’t understand how John 21:15-17 proves your point. After all, the text says in John 21:15-17, “15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love (agapao) me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love (phileo) you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love (agapao) me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love (phileo) you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love (phileo) me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love (phileo) me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love (phileo) you.”
Jesus asked Peter if he loved (agapao) Him the first two times and the third time He asks Peter if he loved (phileo) Him, and Peter said he loved (phileo) Him all three times. Yet, Jesus did not rebuke him as if he was loving Christ in a disobedient or “lesser” way. Furthermore, Jesus used agapao and phileo interchangeably here. Moreover, Peter was sorrowful because Jesus asked him if he loved him a third time, not because Peter didn’t love (agapao or phileo) Him. The “degrees of love” assumption from this text is not warranted from the context. John 21 just proves the previous point that agapao and phileo are used interchangeably in Scripture, and the context of the text should determine the force of the love mentioned. In John 21 both agapao and phileo have the same force because Peter was sorrowful that the Lord had asked him if He loved him three times. Neither John, Peter, nor Christ distinguish between agapao and phileo in John 21.
Now, how do you deal with John 21 and other texts I’ve mentioned that use agapao and phileo interchangeably?
“” You said that Carson was in danger against the Lord””
I don’t know what that means. I think you may be quoting it incorrectly.
I don’t know what it means so I don’t know why it is offensive to you and it is not what I said so I can’t really elaborate.
Frank, not that it matters; here’s the quote: “As long as John 21 remains then Carson is in direct opposition to not only eminent Greek scholars but also The Lord Himself.” Let’s move on to dealing with what’s being argued.
What do you think about the context of John 21 and the other texts I’ve mentioned? How do you answer the biblical authors’s use of agapao and phileo interchangeably?
Where’s the danger? Where’s the offense? Carson would not be the first scholar I’ve read that seem to contradict the Words of Jesus.
I’m not sure what “danger” that puts him. I did not assign any consequence. I simply believe he is incorrect in his interpretation of the Lord’s words.
I’m assuming you don’t think he is infallible simply because you agree with him, and I’m pretty sure you don’t agree with him because you think he is infallible.
My point has been that there is a distinct development of how the word, agapao, is used in certain (not all) texts in the NT that detour significantly from the way Classicists used the word.
You and Carson say there is no such distinction and all the previous scholars of Greek got it completely wrong.
OK. We disagree. I have explained my position. Take it for what it is worth. Believe me, I feel awkward even suggesting that a scholar of Carson’s stature could be wrong. And, I’ve said three or four times, I do not think he is completely wrong.
I can see his point. I just would not drive it home as deeply and with such finality as you do.
Again, I’m not trying to change your mind. I see your point and understand why you believe the way you do. In the big scope, this looks rather trivial.
That seems to be similar to what Carson’s broader context of his article is getting at. Word studies are a part of the exegetical process, but only a part.
This also not something new with Carson. I’m sure you have read his book, “Exegetical Fallacies.” He makes this same argument in book form. It is a book a keep very close to my desk to remind me I am “NOT” a biblical language expert and even if I were, it is not as settled a matter as amateur Greek students think.
“”How do you answer the biblical authors’s use of agapao and phileo interchangeably?””
See posts above. I’ve answered that above, but for the sake of clarity I’ll see if I can summarize my views.
1) Word study is only a part of the exegetical process.
2) In several passages in the NT, the use of agapao seems ironic
and out of place. I believe that is intentional.
3) Synonyms are used interchangeably so that is not in and of
itself and argument against nuanced meanings.
4) Agapao always implies a “self-giving” aspect. Phileo may
contain this element, but not necessarily. Context will
make it clear how phileo is being used.
5) The lack of the use of erao in the NT seems very much to
indicate that the writers (Holy Spirit) left it out on purpose.
It seems to indicate an intentional play on the word, love,
in the NT and seems to support point #2.
Now, that’s how I see it based upon 35 years of amateur language study and many volumes on NT language.
With inflation, coupled with ObamaCare, this two cents actually may be worthless.
There are other issues in regard to the synonyms for love in the NT.
One consideration is how they were used in Classical Greek. Agapao was actually quite “colorless” lacking the warmth of phileo and the passion of erao (stergo not being used in the NT).
Had a Classical Greek writer written John 3:16 it is likely he would have used either phileo or erao. It would be ironic for a Classicist to see agapao used in that sense, unless perhaps by a stoic.
So, the NT in John 3:16 seems to embrace that irony and agapao gets a promotion, so to speak.
I perfectly agree that this nuance may not extend to every passage on love and the context must be considered.
My mild objection to Carson’s view as represented by Jared (I’m assuming he knows Carson believes what he states he believes), is that agapao “never” has a nuanced significance.
Also, phileo is a very powerful word as is erao. Phileo in Classical Greek does not exclude a self-giving element. It just does not always imply it.
I also agree with Carson that we cannot reduce God’s love to a “word study” of agapao. The word does not give essence to God’s love, but God gives essence to the word, agapao.
Word study is only one aspect of exegesis. And words do not have “a” meaning. Words have a range of meaning. This is true of agapao, and phileo, and every other word in the NT.
Any discussion of the John 21 agapao/phileo distinction should take into account that Jesus and Peter were most likely speaking Aramaic, their mother tongue, to one another, not Greek. We must also be aware that there is some overlap of the Greek words that cannot be ignored.
Would the same distinctions be made in Aramaic as we see in the Greek NT? I’m no Aramaic scholar, so I honestly don’t know. Actually, the thought just occurred to me, and I’ve been studying and preaching that text for years. Duh.
Did John, a witness to and the transcriber of the interchange, choose his words deliberately? He was functioning under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, so doesn’t that count for something?
Did John himself pen his gospel account or did he dictate it as someone else wrote it down? If so, did he dictate it in Aramaic and have the transcriber write it down in Greek? Did he and his secretary have a discussion of the various Greek words that could be used for “love”? (I realize that sounds kind of silly.)
Quite possibly what is missed by the casual reader in all of the jots and tittles is the powerful forgiveness, encouragement, challenge, and call that is being extended to Peter, who denied Jesus. That is a love which I cannot fully comprehend as a human being. It is also a love I can fully appreciate when applied to my life.