Quoting big names out of context

I found this review of a book that seems like pure science fiction instead of reality. The book is called “Exo-Vaticana: Petrus Romanus, Project L.U.C.I.F.E.R., and the Vatican’s Astonishing Plan for the Arrival of an Alien Savior.” Apparently a MUST-READ! I love sci-fi and always have. And this book seems to fit right in there with the best of them: Star Trek, Star Wars, Star Gate, etc. You can find out more about the book here.

The only difference between this book and the rest, is that it claims to be meticulously researched truth! It sounds more like a hashed-up conspiracy theory, and we all know how these conspiracy theories are laced together to build an alternate truth!

Of course, they can “conspiracize” as much as they like to. The problem I have with them is that they quote Francis Schaeffer as backup for their cause. Maybe Schaeffer did write something that showed that he believed like they do? The problem is that they quote Schaeffer out of context as if he does agree with them. The point is that Schaeffer didn’t!

They quote the following from Schaeffer in his book, “Genesis in Space and Time,”

“More and more we are finding that mythology in general, though greatly contorted, very often has some historical base.  And the interesting thing is that one myth that one finds over and over again in many parts of the world is that somewhere a long time ago supernatural beings had sexual intercourse with natural women and produced a special breed of people.” (p125-126)

I have “The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer” in 5 volumes. So, I decided to check it out. So, what did Schaeffer actually say?

The context in which Schaeffer made the quoted statement is within an explanation of two possible interpretations of Gen 6:1-2:

“(1)  Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,  (2)  that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.”

Schaeffer, in the context of the quote pointed out two different options for interpreting these verses of which the quote was part of option 1. In this option he explained the belief by some that angels came to earth, mated with these beautiful women and produced the Nephilim, hybrid creatures made of angelic and human DNA.

After this part, Schaeffer continued:

“The other reading—that verse 2 denotes that there were those in the godly line [of these genealogies] who intermarried with others in the ungodly line to the destruction of the godly line—fits into the whole of Scripture, for there is a constant prohibition throughout the Old and New Testaments against the people of God marrying those who re not of the people of God. The Old Testament says repeatedly: if you marry those who are not God’s people, and if you give your sons and daughters to them, the godly line will be destroyed. The New Testament contains the same command: ‘Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?’ (2 Cor. 6:14). This passage has to do with those links which are central to men’s lives, and no link is more central than marriage. This point is made explicit in the great marriage passage in 1 Corinthians 7:”39. Paul instructs the church that ‘the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.’ The principle is clear: God’s people are to marry God’s people. It is therefore possible to interpret Genesis 6:2 as indicating the intermarriage between the godly line and the ungodly line.” (The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, Volume Two, Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 1982, p89)

Right after this passage in Schaeffer’s book he continues to speak of the godly line, and how the genealogies lead up to Noah as the last in the godly line.

So, Schaeffer is in no way underscoring the beliefs of the writers of “Exo-Vaticana!”

Biblical Words and Their Meaning (by Moises Silva)

One of the most difficult books that I have read in recent years is that of Moises Silva, “Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics.” I read the Kindle edition, so instead of page references, you will find location references.

When reading this book, it is important to keep your wits about you. Even though Silva wrote this as an introduction to lexical semantics, if this is not your field of study, you will have to concentrate hard.

However, I really enjoyed reading this book. There were some things that I already knew, but even then, Silva explained those things very well with some different ideas and examples. Then there were some other things that I didn’t know, and he opened my eyes to new things.

For instance, something that I already knew:

“Theologians have been particularly concerned with pointing out the differences between Greek and Hebrew thought. [I was taught this.] The former, we are told, is static, contemplative, abstract, intellectualized, divisive; the latter is dynamic, active, concrete, imaginative, stressing the totality of man and his religion. Whatever we may think of this contrast, Barr claims that the linguistic arguments used to support it are ‘unsystematic and haphazard.’ Evidence of the kind adduced by these theologians is valid only when the Biblical languages are rigorously examined and hen the method is integrated with general linguistic science. Modern theology fails on both scores.” (location 221/p18?)

Something that I did not consider before:

“In some cases, a derivative [a word derived from another] that has not undergone phonetic changes may nevertheless undergo semantic changes and become unrelated to the original word. English regard was a derivative from guard, but the meanings of these words have drifted so far from each other that the speaker is not aware of their connection (as is reflected by the difference in spelling).” (location 664)

Having read the above piece in the book, I wondered how I could have missed this, it is so logical!

All in all, I really enjoyed this book. While it was challenging, I found it very rewarding. Even if you do not understand Greek or Hebrew, the principles that are taught in this book could help you from falling into the trap of misusing Biblical words like so many Christians do.

There are some publication problems that I have with my edition (Kindle: ePub edition, March 2010, ISBN: 978-0-310-87151-4), and perhaps even with the paper edition. Unfortunately, I do not have the paper edition.

I am a stickler for spelling, and to find a spelling mistake right on the copyright page in the subtitle of the book is simply ridiculous. Ever heard of SEMNTICS? According to the Amazon “Look Inside” page for this book, that mistake is in the paper edition too!

Then there are a couple of misprints.

At location 2917 (somewhere on pp204-205), it is written:

"When προσκυνεω is used in this sense of entreaty, it is properly synonymous with another verb found in the New Testament, προσκυνεω, which also means  to entreat..."

Here, the 2nd προσκυνεω should be another word.I tried to use the Amazon “Look Inside” feature here, but that page is unavailable. The 2nd προσκυνεω is a misprint!

At location 2981:

"ευσεβεω is another New Testament verb for worship from the same root..."

You see, ευσεβεω had just been dealt with, so how could ευσεβεω be another word for worship? Using, once again, the “Look Inside” feature of Amazon, here I found that my Kindle edition had the wrong words! Instead of ευσεβεω, the paper edition has σεβομαι (this can be seen on pp208-209). Yet another misprint!

Surely, the process of editing the Kindle book is the same as the paper edition? The same original files should have been used for both. I have made my own Kindle book, so it cannot be that difficult for the publishers and editors to have ensured that these misprints were not in the Kindle edition! Unless, of course, a pre-publication transcript, which still contained errors was used for the Kindle edition! That will be unconscionable!

Funny thing is, I contacted Zondervan about this and I was told that the Kindle ebook does not yet support  a Greek font. However, I have my Kindle edition in front of me as I write this, and it is using a Greek font! Apart from this, Zondervan did confirm that σεβομαι must replace ευσεβεω and that my reasoning was correct concerning the wording at location 2917. The 2nd προσκυνεω must be replaced with γονυπετεω!

I find things like this very annoying, making me wonder if editors even care about their jobs anymore. And it is not just this book. It is almost every book that I read that has spelling mistakes in, or duplicate words.

But, besides all this, I will still recommend this book!

God’s Lavish Grace (by Terry Virgo)

I just finished Terry Virgo’s book “God’s Lavish Grace.”

What I like about the book is that it sites many passages from the Bible. Grace is something many Christians battle with, thinking that in order to remain accepted by God, we need to follow certain laws or do certain things to be accepted. Virgo writes:

“You reign in life by receiving abundant grace, not by putting yourself under laws. It is because of your standing that you reign in life. It is because you have obtained grace, not because you have achieved or accomplished merit. It is by your position, not by your performance! The imposition of law upon your life will never cause you to reign in life. It will never cause you to enjoy fellowship with Jesus and the grace-filled life that is so necessary for you to bear fruit for God.” (p15-16)

Virgo’s main point, at least as I see it, is that the law cannot make us better. In fact, adding “the law to [the utterly sinful man] does not improve him but strangely makes him even worse.” (p24) It is the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that brings freedom and we have died to the law and are now married to a new husband. It is He who will sanctify us by His Word.

I definitely will recommend this book to others and I think it accomplishes what it sets out to do, point us to the grace of Christ!

I have but one thing to complain about, and I find this with many charismatics (as Virgo is), even if they are reformed. Of course, I do not say that this is the case with all charismatics, and even less that this is how it is with all reformed charismatics.

In his sixth chapter, “A conscience cleansed from dead works,” Virgo does make Scripture say what it doesn’t say. It is the subject of “dead works” as mentioned in Hebrews 9:14, “how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” Concerning these "dead works, Virgo writes that they are:

1. Something with no life in it, done without faith, like church programs. Things done by routine.
2. Things done presumptuously. Things we think are good.
3. Things that God did not personally tell you to do.

When we look at the passage that Hebrews 9:14 comes from, it is clear that the writer of Hebrews did not have any of the three points in mind that Virgo proclaimed to be dead works. The context is clear as to what dead works are, regulations concerning food and drink, and of various washings, sacrifices of bulls and goats. It is attempting to be accepted by God through the law and rituals. The book of Galatians is very clear on this subject! It is not the law and rituals (dead works) that will cleanse our consciences, but “ the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, [will] cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

It is always important to read the Scriptures in context, and not to tag our own ideas onto what we read!

Todd Bentley and his healing revivals

Todd Bentley is at it again with his healing revivals and it is being shown on God.tv. A friend of my wife’s alerted my wife to this revival and so my wife asked me about him. “Todd Bentley is a huckster!,” I said.

I have written about him before in 2008 in a post called Lakeland Revival: Not so much!

As a start, you can read the following:

Visions of Winnie the Pooh and a Field of Dreams?

Todd Bentley, Fresh Fire Ministries and Lakeland Revival

Todd Bentley, Fresh Fire Ministries and Lakeland Revival 2

A Lesson From the Lakeland Revival

The Lakeland, Florida Revival:  You, However, Continue

Back from hospital, and no cancer! | Cerebrating about Life

Some good news that I decided to share with readers of this blog too!
Back from hospital, and no cancer! | Cerebrating about Life

[Video] Sorting out the will of God

Here is a YouTube playlist of 8 teachings on Decision making and the will of God. This series was done by Geoff Volker and Paul Honeycutt at In-Depth Studies (IDS). The 8th video was done by Geoff Volker..

What John 3:16 does not say

"For God loved  the world in this way: He gave His One and Only  Son,  so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16 HCSB)

"For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16 New English Translation)

It does not say:
1. that everyone will be saved.
2. that all have the same opportunity to be saved.
3. that all could potentially be saved.
4. how anyone comes to believe.

All it says is that those who do believe will have eternal life.

Local radio station presenter claims giving blood will infuse receiver with blood of Jesus

I wasn't sure how to write the subject of this post, but there it is!

Sitting here in hospital, I was busy reading and decided to listen to music, and one of the channels provided by the hospital is Impact Radio, a local Christian radio station in Pretoria. I usually don't listen to them (or any other radio station).

So,  there I was listening at about 13:15. The presenters are at a blood drive and the female presenter said that as Christians we should give blood, since when the recipient receives the blood, he will be infused with the blood of Jesus! Then, instead of rebuking her for blatant heretical nonsense, the male presenter said that she just spoke about a very deep spiritual truth.

I don't know how they select their presenters, but what these two said was blatant nonsense! It is definitely not a Biblical idea and  seems to me that these two have a sense of the blood of Christ as literally flowing in their veins and that they see the blood of Christ as some magical talisman that just needs to be infused into a person to change his life.

This is not the gospel, part of the gospel or even remotely related to the gospel!

The same station also promotes and hosts programs by some of these heretics!

Beautiful Creatures? Not so much!

Beautiful Creatures, the movie, is not so much about beautiful creatures, than the claim to immortality and the fight between “good” and “evil.”

Beautiful Creatures starts slow (at least according to my wife), but soon reveals itself as the clash between casters (immortals) from the dark side and from the side of the light. There is enough excitement in the movie to be a popcorn movie, since it also involves the blooming love between a caster (Lena – Alice Englert) who will turn 16 on December 21, and a normal human, Ethan (Alden Ehrenreich).

However, when a caster turns 16, The Claiming happens. If the caster is a male, then he can choose at The Claiming, and later, whether he wants to be a “dark” or “light” caster. On the other hand, if the caster is female, then she does not have any choice at The Claiming whether she wants to be “dark” or “light.” This is decided for her, since at her Claiming, her true self will be revealed and she will turn to the “dark” or the “light” side based on that inner true self.

It is here where the evil, dark side shows its true colours, since Lena’s mother, Sarafine (Emma Thompson), has become the most powerful caster on the dark side. She is joined by Lena’s childhood friend, and cousin, Ridley (Emmy Rossum), who at her Claiming became a siren, and has amazing powers over men and can make them do anything for her, even kill for her. These two women are trying their utmost to influence Lena’s Claiming so that Lena would be claimed for the dark side.

Coming to grips with the will of God

In the heart of every Christian is the yearning to please God, especially to do His will. It strikes fear in the heart of many Christians to think that they may be "outside" the will of God for their lives.

Geoff Volker from In-Depth Studies has done a series of videos dealing with decision making and the will of God, and it is well worth watching these teachings. So, here they are!

Decision making & the will of God is around 2hrs 7min.

There once was a preacher called Spurgy…

I just love this limerick:

There once was a preacher called Spurgy, Who really detested liturgy. But his sermons are fine; and I use them as mine! And so do most of the clergy!

I first heard this limerick years ago when I first heard Alistair Begg in a sermon called Preservation of the Saints (well worth listening to!).

AGAPE and PHILEO: That much different?

Introduction

"So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love (ἀγαπάω) Me more than these?' He said to Him, 'Yes, Lord; You know that I love (φιλέω) You.' He said to him, 'Tend My lambs.' He said to him again a second time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love (ἀγαπάω) Me?' He said to Him, 'Yes, Lord; You know that I love (φιλέω) You.' He said to him, 'Shepherd My sheep.' He said to him the third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love (φιλέω) Me?' Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, 'Do you love (φιλέω) Me?' And he said to Him, 'Lord, You know all things; You know that I love (φιλέω) You.' Jesus said to him, 'Tend My sheep.'" (John 21:15-17)

Notes:

Verb	Noun
ἀγαπάω – agapaō	ἀγάπη – agape
φιλέω – phileō	φιλία – philia

How many of us have not heard a sermon on this passage? Probably everyone reading this who has been a regular church attendee would have heard a sermon on this passage at least once in the last ten years.

I will do my best to remain objective at all times, even though objectivity is one of the most difficult frames of mind to keep and practise. We all have our rose-coloured glasses on, and that is how we look at the world.

The differences between these two words intrigued me ever since Bible college in the years between 1985 and 1989. I will be drawing from various resources, e.g. lexicons, e-mail discussion groups, and finally, the highest authority I could find on this subject, the Scriptures.

Before we carry on to execute our study, let me clarify my assumptions concerning the God kind of love, whether it be ἀγάπη or not. Firstly, it must be unchangeable. Why? God is unchangeable. Any attribute of God has to be unchangeable if God is unchangeable. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Secondly, it has to be pure. Due to the holiness of God any attribute of His has to be holy and pure. No stench, or darkness can be associated with any attribute of God.

Word Meanings

The meanings I present here I have gleaned from several lexicons (dictionaries), and one theological dictionary. They are:

Bauer's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (commonly known as BAGD), Second edition Revised and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker from Walter Bauer's Fifth edition, 1958, published 1979, the University of Chicago press.
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains Volume 1 Introduction & Domains, Second impression, 1988, United Bible Societies;
A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament by Joseph Henry Thayer, Twenty-first Zondervan printing 1981, Zondervan;
Theological dictionary of the New Testament by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, reprinted, May 1986, William B. Eerdmans;
Strong's exhaustive concordance of the Bible found in the Online Bible, version 7.03;
The Expository dictionary of New Testament words by W.E. Vine, Seventeenth impression, 1966, Oliphants;

Agape

Agape means the following: to be fond of, to love dearly; to love, to be full of good-will, to have a preference for, regard the welfare of: . . . to take pleasure in the thing, prize it above other things, be unwilling to abandon it or do without it; a spontaneous feeling which impels to self-giving, the weak sense to be satisfied, to receive, to greet, to honor, or more inwardly, to seek after; to have love for someone or something, based on sincere appreciation and high regard.

Louw and Nida says this concerning ἀγάπη and φιλέω:

“. . . Though some persons have tried to assign certain significant differences of meaning between ἀγαπάω, ἀγάπη and φιλέω, φιλία (25.33), it does not seem possible to insist upon a contrast of meaning in any and all contexts. For example, the usage in Jn, 21:15-17 seems to reflect simply a rhetorical alternation designed to avoid undue repetition. There is, however, one significant clue to possible meaningful differences in at least some contexts, namely, the fact that people are never commanded to love one another with φιλέω or φιλία, but only with ἀγαπάω and ἀγάπη. Though the meanings of these terms overlap considerably in many contexts, there are probably some significant differences in certain contexts; that is to say, φιλέω and φιλία are likely to focus upon love or affection based on interpersonal association, while ἀγαπάω and ἀγάπη focus upon love or affection based on deep appreciation and high regard.” p294

and

“. . . It would, however, be quite wrong to assume that φιλέω and φιλία refer only to human love, while ἀγαπάω and ἀγάπη refer to divine love. Both sets of terms are used for the total range of loving relations between people, between people and God, and between God and Jesus Christ.” p294

BAGD adds that ἀγάπη and φιλέω

"seem to be used interchangeably here; cf. the freq. interchange of synonyms elsewh. in the same chapter [βόσκειν - ποιμαίνειν, ἀρνία - προβάτια, ἑλκύειν - σύρειν]." p4

Phileo

φιλέω means the following: friendship, to be friendly to one; φιλέω more nearly represents tender affection; To love; to be friendly to one, to treat somebody as one of one's own people; to have love or affection for someone or something based on association; love, have affection for, like.

Kittel says,

"In the LXX phileo, which is less common than agapao, is mostly used for 'hb. In meaning it is very similar to agapao. . . . Like the LXX, the NT prefers agapao to phileo. . . . Alternation between agapao and phileo occurs in Jn. 21:15ff. Some exegetes think that Peter is grieved because Jesus uses phileo the third time (21:17), but the words are mostly synonymous in John, and Peter is more likely grieved because Jesus asks for a third time. . . ." p1263-1264

We have now seen what the lexicons have to say concerning ἀγάπη and φιλέω. Even so, the best way of finding out what is meant by a word is to see how that word is used in a certain context.

How are these words used in the Scriptures?

Lets look at agape

1. Loving the unlovable

In Mt. 5:43-46, and Lk. 6:27-35 we are exhorted by Jesus to love our enemies and not just those who love us, and are kind to us. Verse 46 puts a twist on this love. "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?" If ἀγάπη is the God kind of love, then how is it that a hated tax collector could also love with ἀγάπη? The very idea of ἀγάπη - as proclaimed by many - as a special God kind of love is made redundant if a hated tax collector can also love with this kind of love. Our very idea of sinners makes it impossible for us to believe that a sinner can possess this kind of love. Romans 3:10-11 has this to say concerning the condition of mankind without the salvation that Christ bought for us, "None is righteous, no, not one; [11] no one understands; no one seeks for God.". This makes it clear to me that the unsaved sinner does not have the capacity to love like God does.

John Calvin (one of the greatest theologians from the sixteenth century) expresses the condition of man so well,

"For our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific in all kinds of evil, that it can never be idle. Those who term it concupiscence [lust] use a word not very inappropriate, provided it were added, (this, however, many will by no means concede,) that everything which is in man, from the intellect to the will, from the soul even to the flesh, is defiled and pervaded with this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that the whole man is in himself nothing else than concupiscence." (Institutes, Vol. I, Bk. II, Chap. 1, Para. 8; A New Translation, by Henry Beveridge, Esq).

Now, if this is the condition of unsaved man, how on earth can he love like God (ἀγάπη)?

2. Levels of love

If we think of our first assumption concerning God's love, that it is unchangeable, then we have to conclude that it cannot have different levels. In Mt. 24:12 ἀγάπη is portrayed as growing cold, "And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold." We know that Godly love cannot change, and therefore, we have to conclude that ἀγάπη cannot be construed as a higher love such as Godly love. If God's love grew cold, surely, we all would have been in hell by now.

In Lk. 7:42 Jesus asked this question, "When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?" In this passage from verse 42 to 47 Jesus explains that if someone has been forgiven little he will ἀγάπη little, and if someone has been forgiven much he will ἀγάπη much. If ἀγάπη is the God kind of love then it follows that either you ἀγάπη or you do not. Does God have different levels of love? I dare to say, no! "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." God's love was complete from the beginning, and that can be seen in the depth of love He showed us in the death of His Son!

Paul writes to the Corinthians in 2 Co. 12:15 and tells them that he loves them more, "I will most gladly spend and be spent for your souls. If I love you more, am I to be loved less?" Paul's love for the Corinthians is growing more and more. Our premise at the beginning says that God does not change, and therefore His love cannot change. If we therefore have the love of God in our hearts, surely that love cannot change then either.

In his epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul writes in the first book, chapter 3 verse 12, "and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, as we do for you." We have handled this type of love in the above paragraph, how Godly love cannot grow to become more.

Jude 1:2, "May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you." Can God's love be multiplied? No! God's love is already infinite!

3. Loving things

Jesus is speaking out condemnation over the Pharisees who have been living out their religion just to be seen. In Lk. 11:42-43 Jesus says, "But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. [43] Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seat in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces." Would a God kind of love, love the chief seats like these Pharisees did? Our second assumption has it that the God kind of love has to be pure, just as God is pure. Following from the above passage we have to conclude that if agape is used in such a defiling way, that it cannot be the God kind of love. Jesus would not have acted this way.

Based on our second premise Jn. 3:19 proves to us that ἀγάπη cannot be claimed as the God kind of love. This God kind of love cannot love the darkness. If one reads the section on Loving the unlovable it will be seen that mere man without Jesus in his life cannot express the God kind of love. Yet, in this passage ἀγάπη is used as love for the darkness. We also find in John 12:43 that these unrepentant people loved the approval, or praise of men rather than that of God. Would a God kind of love, love the approval of men, rather than that of God? Would the God kind of love, love this present world as against what God desires? (2 Tim. 4:10) Would the God kind of love, love the wages or money of unrighteousness? (2 Pet. 2:15) Would the God kind of love, love the world and the things of this world? (1 Jn. 2:15) The love of God cannot be in us if the love of the world is in us. ἀγάπη is used 3 times in this verse. Once referring to loving the world. Can this be the God kind of love?

What about phileo?

1. Loving things

It is amazing how similar passages are between the ἀγάπη and φιλέω counterparts. When looking at Mt. 6:5, it seems so similar to what Jesus told the people in Lk. 11:43 where ἀγάπη is used. The cross-reference for the Lk. 11:43 passage can be found in Mt. 23:6. Guess what word it uses? φιλέω! Here we have two passages by two different writers about the same words that Jesus said. Yet, two different words are used by these writers for our one word, "love"! In one passage ἀγάπη is used, and in the other φιλέω. It seems to me that in the Scriptures we can almost see these two words as synonyms. We have the same kind of idea in Lk. 20:46.

2. Levels of love

In Mt. 10:37 we see that even with φιλέω there are different levels, or intensities of love, "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." We have seen that there are different levels, or intensities of ἀγάπη, and now we find the same of φιλέω. It seems to me that there are no real differences between the two words.

John 21:15-17

Probably the one passage that has caused the most controversy in the ἀγάπη vs. φιλέω debate, has been Jn. 21:15-17. Just about every preacher has preached on it some time or another in his career. Many have their ideas on this passage, and many staunchly so. I have always been taught that the two different words in this passage are two almost diametrically opposing words, with almost completely different meanings.

According to Kenneth S. Wuest in Wuest's Word Studies From the Greek New Testament For the English Reader, Volume Three, Bypaths In the Greek New Testament (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted, January 1979, p. 109) there are four words for love in the Greek language. Stergein, which "is a love that has its basis in one's own nature. It speaks of the constitutional efflux of natural affection." Eran, which "is a love that has its basis in passion, and its expression takes the form of a blind impulse produced by passion." Filein, which "is a love that has its basis in pleasurableness, and is the glow of the heart kindled the perception of that in the object loved which affords one pleasure." Agapan, which "is a love that has its basis in preciousness, a love called out of one's heart by an awakened sense of value in the object loved causes one to prize it."

In Wuest's Word Studies From the Greek New Testament For the English Reader, Volume Three, Golden Nuggets From the Greek New Testament (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted, January 1979, p. 63) Wuest has this to say, "In John 21 : our Lord uses 'agapao' in verses 15 and 16, 'phileo' in 17. Peter uses 'phileo' three times. Our Lord uses the noblest word in the Greek language the first two times and changes to Peter's word the third time, but assures Peter that his coming martyrdom speaks of the fact that his future love for his Lord will be based not only upon his delight in his Lord but upon his apprehension of His preciousness."

In contrast to Wuest, BAGD, on p. 4 has this to say concerning the uses of ἀγάπη and φιλέω,

"ἀ. and φιλέω seem to be used interchangeably here; cf. the freq. interchange of synonyms elsewh. in the same chapter [βόσκειν - ποιμαίνειν, ἀρνία - προβάτια, ἑλκύειν - σύρειν]."

These are the meanings of the above synonyms:

1. βόσκειν - actively of shepherds to feed or tend the sheep. Passively of livestock to graze or feed.
1. ποιμαίνειν - herd, tend, (lead to) pasture.

2. ἀρνία - sheep, lamb.
2. προβάτια - sheep.

3. ἑλκύειν - drag, draw.
3. σύρειν - drag, pull, draw. From John's multiple uses of synonyms in this passage, it is reasonable to assume that agape, and phileo are also synonyms.

Some other passages to point to ἀγάπη and φιλέω as synonyms, are Mt. 23:6 (φιλέω) and Lk 11:43 (ἀγάπη) - where Jesus is speaking of the Pharisees as loving the chief seats in important places, and Jn 13:23 (ἀγάπη) and Jn 20:2 (φιλέω) - where it mentions the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Don Wilkins, one of the translators of the New American Standard Bible (Updated Edition) - regarded as one of the most accurate translations of the Bible today - has this to say about this passage (while discussing it with other Greek scholars on the B-GREEK e-mail discussion list),

"On the more specific question of FILEW/AGAPAW, I would like to suggest that PHILEW is a higher form of love than AGAPAW. AGAPAW seems to be a 'charitable' love in that one provides for another's needs, without developing a relationship as a friend to the other person (i.e. no personal ties). PHILEW, on the other hand, implies the close connection between friends and the related obligations that were so important in the ancient world. By this interpretation, then, Jesus twice asks Peter if he is committed to him at the lower level of love, and Peter responds by raising the commitment to the higher level of a true friend. The third time, Jesus questions whether Peter is really committed to him at this higher level, or perhaps whether Peter really understands what such commitment really entails, and this would explain Peter's hurt feelings. So it is not that Jesus asks him the question three times, it is rather (as I think the Greek implies) the fact that Jesus uses PHILEW the third time. Some people object to the notion that AGAPAW would not include the bonds of friendship, but in every passage where the objection would be raised, I think there is a reasonable answer--sometimes that friendship is not being denied, but that it is just not the focus of AGAPAO." (B-Greek Archives, Synonyms in John 21 etc, 21 Jun 1996) 

He also has this to say,

"As to my view that FILH is a higher form of love than AGAPE, I suppose that you can interpret 'higher' in various ways. I stand by my original comments, at least until proved otherwise. Carl's explanation of FILH seems consistent with my own; I think it implies a relationship between people while AGAPE does not, and in either case there is a willingness to do good to the other person. We can see AGAPE expressed in charitable activity, without the personal relationship. However I would not argue for a natural/unnatural (and certainly not 'divine') distinction." (B-Greek Archives, Synonyms in John 21 etc, 23 Jun 1996)

Trench says this (as quoted on the B-GREEK list, 21 Jun 1996),

"agapasthai ... expresses a more reasoning attachment, of choice and selection ..., from a seeing in the object upon whom it is bestowed that which is worthy of regard; or else from a sense that such is due toward the person so regarded, as being a benefactor, or the like; while [phileisthai],without being necessarily an unreasoning attachment, does yet give less account of itself to itself; is more instinctive, is more of the feelings or natural affections, implies more passion" (Trench, Syn., sect. xii)

Yet another participant on this list had this to add,

"To be sure, etymologically and apparently originally the root FIL- seen in the adjective FILOS,-H,-ON, the noun PHILIA, and the verb PHILEO referred to the affection of kindred persons (or things?) Odysseus, according to Homer, repeatedly spoke PROS hON FILON HTOR (which we translated gleefully as under graduates, 'to his own dear liver' but now more appropriately we render 'to himself'), i.e. to HIS OWN (hON is the reflexive pronominal adjective) KINDRED (belonging to himself) HEART (the liver being the seat of affections?). So PHILIA is the affection of those who recognize a kindred affinity with each other and express kindred affection for each other (PHILEO may mean 'kiss'): call it 'familial love,' if you like. Is it more 'personal?' Perhaps it needs to be studied again, but I'm not convinced that the usage is clearly distinct in the NT to suggest it is a 'superior' kind of love." (B-Greek Archives, Synonyms in John 21 etc, 22 Jun 1996)

Another one also adds,

"I repeat that I fail to find any evidence in the NT that any distinction is preserved between the words AGAPAW and PHILEW." (B-Greek Archives, Synonyms in John 21 etc, 22 Jun 1996)

Conclusion

I guess that for many this is a difficult question to answer. Yet, we have to consider that both ἀγάπη and φιλέω are used to describe the Father's love for Jesus and mankind; man's love for God and his fellow Christians. We also have to take into account the parallel passages where ἀγάπη and φιλέω are used interchangeably. Lastly, we also have to consider the synonyms used in the passage of John 21:15ff. The vast usage of ἀγάπη as opposed to the relatively little use of φιλέω is striking. With ἀγάπη used approximately 320 times, and φιλέω approximately 45 times, makes me think that ἀγάπη is more a general word for love whereas the other Greek words for love are the detailed words for love.

In today's English we have lost the meaning of love, and it has become a general word for love. We say things like, "I love this ice-cream", etc. It is almost like saying "I love you" the one day and the next day you say "I am crazy about you." The second phrase ("I am crazy about you") in today's usage of the language has a greater force behind it. It almost puts detail to the first phrase ("I love you"). I believe that ἀγάπη is used in this sense in the New Testament. According to Wuest in Wuest's Word Studies From the Greek New Testament For the English Reader, Volume Three, Bypaths In the Greek New Testament (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted, January 1979, p. 113),

". . . when Attic Greek was spread over the world by the conquering armies of Alexander the Great, and remained in its simplified and modified form as the international language of the period between Alexander and Constantine, agapan suddenly sprang into the ascendancy. Because it was the common word for 'love' during these centuries, the New Testament writers naturally found it not only desirable but necessary to use it. It became the general word for love in the New Testament."

Still, everyone has to be convinced in his own mind as to the validity of this post and what it has to say. There are groups from both sides who would die rather than change their minds. After all the evidence, I have decided that I was wrong all those years to believe in ἀγάπη as a God kind of love. I just pray that this study was helpful, maybe just to make you think along different lines.

I originally posted this blog post at Just Thinking...

Misunderstood Bible verses–Rom 8:14 and the like (led/walk by the Spirit)

I have written about this topic before, and it handles the issue of being “led by the Spirit” or to “walk by the Spirit” and can be found in the following:

Walk by the Spirit

“so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” (Rom 8:4)

“But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.” (Gal 5:16)

“If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.” (Gal 5:25)

Led by the Spirit

“For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” (Rom 8:14)

“But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.” (Gal 5:18)

Since I wrote on these verses before, I will not go through it all again. To read about it, simply visit my article Being led by the Spirit doesn’t mean what you think it does!

Misunderstood Bible verses–Mt 18:19

In my previous post (the first one) in this series, I dealt with Rom 10:17.

I am sure you have heard Mt 18:19 and/or verse 20 quoted in conversation with the idea behind it that if only we could stand together as two or three and agree on an issue then God would answer our prayer or Jesus will certainly be in our midst. Or, something similar to that…

Just more than a week ago I wrote two posts on hermeneutics, and it is always good to keep the basics of interpreting the Bible in mind. So, if you’d like, you could read through those posts to just to get to know the basics on interpreting the Bible. Many books, many of them very thick, have been written on the topic of interpreting the Bible. So, when you read those two posts, please do not think for a moment that I covered every aspect of hermeneutics in detail. In fact, it is more of a summary.

Anyway, today we will have a look at Mt 18:19-20:

“(19)  ‘Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.
(20)  ‘For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.’ (Mat 18:19-20)”

With what I wrote above on how many Christians misuse these two verses, I thought that we’d have a quick look at them. Like I always say:

A text without a context is merely a pretext!

Misunderstood Bible verses–Rom 10:17

You’ve probably been in church services, or listened to sermons where the preacher would quote a verse and build his whole sermon around that verse; just to realize that what the preacher is preaching is not what the verse actually says. That really happens a lot!

I was sitting in a meeting not so long ago where we were all listening to a teaching (on MP3) in which the preacher mentioned several verses and preached the usual about them. He used verses like Rom 10:17 and Mt 18:19, and gave them the usual spin. It is just that, his spin wasn’t what these verses meant!

He used Rom 10:17 to teach us that we could use the Word of God to grow our faith, while others believe that we must hear God’s voice to grow our faith, since the Greek word for “word” is ρημα (RHEMA)!

After just a little reading in the context within which this verse finds itself, we soon realize that it has nothing to do with the ideas raised above! The fact is, that a verse without a context is merely a pretext for our own human imaginations.