Just to stave off any concerns about the remark, "Do you even have a wife?" - I am not suggesting that one needs a wife in order to qualify for the office of pastor. I am just saying that the church who calls a pastor who lacks a wife, has less to work with in determining if the candidate is qualified. No man can serve his family selflessly, unless he is walking in love (ie.e walking in a way that is utterly commited to others at the expesnse of one's self.) It is easier then to qualify or disqualify a married man because there is more evidence to qualify or disqualify him...

 

You are too hard on yourself. Even from here I can see that God is with you. HE has given you discernment & understanding. YOU will never be perfect. It is obvious to me that HE leads you & guides you. If you lived near me, It would be an honor, to hear you speak about what God has shown you.

Just my opinion..... pastor.

Chris Roath
Monroe WA 98272

 

Thanks for the encouragement Chris.

Well, if I have to be too hard on someone, it is best it be myself than others.

Thanks again,

Dan
<><

 

Daniel, Do you have any thoughts on why Jesus changed from use of the word agapeo to phileo on the third question to Peter? I'm reading a bit on this now and there seems to be differing views, one of which suggesting that there really is not much difference in context here between the two words (even though there is in the Greek, but their original conversation probably was in Aramaic, which I'm also looking into in my Aramaic-to-English Bibles). Just wondering if you might have light to shed on the subject.

I lament how the Church has, I think, adopted the contemporary understanding of the word "love" and inserted that understanding into the reading of the word in Holy Writ.

 

Anon,

Peter had just denied Christ three times after boasting that he would never do that. HIs boast was, for all purposes, the boast of agape, but when the time came to apapeo, Peter was for himself.

I don't think for a moment that it is coincidental that our Lord plies the question three times, and changes it up at the end. Remember, this conversation is taking place after the resurrection, but prior to the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

The Lord asks Peter twice, do you really commit yourself utterly to me, and Peter answers, I am honestly your friend. Peter was unwilling this time to boast more than he was able, having learned something of his true nature. The shift in the third question was, I think, an expression of Christ's own acceptance of Peter's friendship, Are you my friend? I am your friend.

Now, if agapeo describes an utter commitment to another, a self sacrificing heart that leaves no room for itself in its ministries, it follows that this word would be used in hyperbole to describe a great affection (I.E. Are you willing to give up everything for me? An affirmative answer suggests a great affection). In this way I think the words are related, of course, so that the distinctions would not apply where the word is being used in hyberbole.

Let me know if that helped, or if I should put a finer point on it.

 

Daniel,

First of all, thank you for taking the time to explain your thinking to me.

I don't understand the main point you are trying to make in your last paragraph with respect to hyperbole and how it would relate to distinguishing between Christ's use of agapeo and phileo.

Similarly, I'm not sure if those words really are distinguished in the Aramaic (in which Peter and Christ probably spoke to one another), which the Eastern church recognizes as the original language for the New Testament. However, given that most of the West accepts the original language as koine Greek, I want to understand why the words are so distinguished in this exchange between Jesus and Peter. (The NET Bible doesn't see the difference of word usage as being of any significance, suggesting that in other places the two words are used somewhat interchangeably. I would guess that would be an area of dispute among scholars.)

Still, if I accept that the koine Greek uses those terms for a reason – by the Holy Spirit's inspiration – then why would Jesus move from the greater to the lesser? The only initial reason I could think of is that Jesus is accepting Peter's lesser faith. Lesser love. The place where Peter was in his walk (aha – light bulb just went off – Peter without the continual indwelling of the Holy Spirit – is that what you were saying?).

So Jesus is asking Peter – in essence, prompting Peter – do you love me as you are to love God (with all your heart, soul, mind and strength) and interestingly, Peter does not reply with the boldness (or brazenness) of his earlier boast (I would never dessert you). Peter instead perhaps in some humility responds with what he knows he is. Is this what you are saying? Peter is saying and acknowledging in some sense his own lack.

And Jesus, in His mercy and grace, asks Peter the final question which is where Peter is able to respond in kind to Jesus' query. I mean, Jesus knows who Peter is and what he (Peter) is capable of (without the Holy Spirit), but perhaps Peter doesn't and the downgrading of the question (from agapeo to phileo) is for Peter's (and of course, the eventual readers') sake(s).

Am I close to what you were saying?

 

Anon - you're better than close, I would say.

re: hyperbole. If you asked me how the game went yesterday, and I replied that we got slaughtered, you wouldn't imagine that I meant we were literally slaugtered, but rather I was using the word in a figurative sense to describe a rather disappointing defeat.

If I wanted to describe a great affection, therefore, and the word agape was in our common vocabularly, Instead of saying I have a very great affection for you, I might say that I have agapeo for you - which I wouldn't literally have, but we would both understand to mean that I had a great affection for you, since I used a word that described an utterly selfless commitment to someone else.

The point was that using the two words (apparently) interchangeably, does not necessarily mean that they were understood to be synonymous. It may mean that the word (like many in every language) had both a proper, and an improper usage. To the modern reader, such a nuance would be difficult to determine and even more so to prove. If I form a theological conviction that depends, in whole or in part, upon a unilateral assumption of the synonymity of agapeo and phileo, it is unlikely I am going to be inclined to entertain a more nuanced understanding. Why switch to a new wine if I am already happy with the old?

Thanks again for taking the time to discuss this, and feel free to ask for more clarification if I have left anything foggy.

 

You're not saying here, however, that Christ was using hyperbole. That's where I got confused when it was first mentioned.

It's really just that Jesus was saying (for Peter's and all of His followers' sakes) - driving home the point through repetition - that we are to get to the love that God requires (all heart, soul, mind, strength), but we in our flesh can't.

Hyperbole doesn't enter into the discussion because God command is that we have such love for Him, and in Jesus' questioning of Peter, He is letting Peter know that he doesn't have that love. We can, as Peter did, acknowledge same and that we require Christ for such love (agapeo).

 

Anon,

I apologize if I have been expressing myself in a confounding way. I was not suggesting that our Lord was using hyperbole in this passage...

What I was suggesting was that the word agapeo had a formal meaning, which Christ was using here, but that in other places where agapeo and phileo seem to be synonymous, it is because agapeo was being employed informally as an hyperbole suggesting a greater phileo.

I hope that clears it up. I was simply giving an apology for the academic opinion expressed in the NET bible commentary. Indeed, Apageo and Phileo are often used interchangeably, but I do not conclude by this that the two are perfect synonyms. The main nuance of phileo is the affection of friendship, and the main nuance of agapeo is a selfless, commitment to another. We (apart from Christ) are capable of the one (affection) but not the other (selfless commitment to another).

I hesitate to say that we who are in Christ are not able to selflessly commit ourselves to another, because that suggests that this is a kind of ability rather than a person. The reality is that Jesus is committed to selflessly serving others, and when we surrender to Him, it is His selfless commitment to others that is being expressed in and through us, not our own (as it were).

In the one sense only then, are we able to serve another selflessly - when we are surrendered to Christ and walking in faith, we are able, yet not us, but Christ in us.

Let me know if that helped.

 

I said:


I hesitate to say that we who are in Christ are not able to selflessly commit ourselves to another

I meant to say:


I hesitate to say that we who are in Christ are now able to selflessly commit ourselves to another

 

Daniel, I'm sorry it's taken me awhile to get back to reading this. I've been busy.

Yes, your last clarification helps indeed.

Thank you again, and may you and your family be truly richly blessed by our Lord as we celebrate His resurrection in the morrow.

Χριστός ἀνέστη!!!