quote: Okay (this is Jean, not John, right?) - I'm not tring to bait you, just debate you
No, it was me. And you're right, we ARE saying the same thing. At some point discussions like this become a stalemate. I can't prove that the God I believe in exists but nobody else can prove it DOESN'T exist. I said that to George Aar and he came back with "I can't prove that Spiderman doesn't exist, either".
Well bud, I like George, but I ain't him. First of all, I'm not an atheist, and I don't attempt to prove, or even suggest that you're wrong. I will sometimes ask questions that question another's beliefs, not in some impossible attempt to "disprove" those beliefs, but only to point out that they're beliefs, not undeniable truths or facts, just like everyone else's.
Anyway, have an enjoyable weeknd, I'm off to perform a wedding.
I can't think of any verse that says agape isn't available to all people either, but as I posted earlier,a born again believer has more spiritual ability than those who are dead in trespasses and sins, otherwise Christ died in vain. 1 John says he who has the son has life; he who has not the son has not life. Pretty clear.
You having more, self proclaimed, spiritual ability DOES NOT equate to others having NO spiritual ability
Do you agree that agape is superior to phileo? Do you make any distinction at all?
Phileo is desirable Christ wanted us to extend phileo love to ALL UNCONDITIONALLy thus agape'
THe practice of Agape toward one's fellow man is to be strived for-- but nowhere in scripture to I find that Heavenly Father declares any form of love as inferior or of little worth. He wants us to expand the love we already posess to agape' not discard it.
Many Christians are ignorant as to the utter relevance of phileo love, and its strength and equality with the other more frequent rendering of love (agape) in the New Testament. In fact, it is the ignorance and lack of phileo love that is the missing piece of a fragmented Christian church, unable to attain the kind of character they think can come by agape.
This article and the one following it has interesting points to make. I think it states pretty close to what I've come to in terms of a biblical understanding of the love/love topic.
My wife and I were talking about this last night and it was a lot of fun. Along the lines of what you said T-Lady would be that phileo and agape in the bible describe aspects of the same thing. The above two articles state it better than I could. The actual definition of the two words are almost identical. Meaning comes from usage. As they're used in the bible it's impossible to conclude that the two words point to two completely different kinds of love, one based on a physical albeit "good" kind (potentially) and another a "spiritual" kind.
Both words are used in both contexts and don't discriminate between physical/spiritual. Rather they describe an intent, an action taken and the why and how of it and could be used of God, Jesus, mankind, feelings and actions and either good or bad. When one record seems to make that differentiaton ("Peter do you agape me?"...."Yes, I phileo you") the intent of both have to be considered to get the correct understanding I think. Certainly keeping in mind that while Jesus taught some things more than once and from different angles, His followers understanding was in process.
IMO the so-called "difference" between these two words is highly over stated. They've been used by a lot of Christain teachers as a short-hand method to define man and God, good and bad, good and best, emotional and logical, physical and spiritual, etc. etc.
The two words aside, the ideas behind the two words that are found as they're used in the bible is where the good stuff is. It's no wonder the concept of "love" can be a struggle as it permeates everything we do, who we are and how we view ourselves and the world. The bible records people, events, history. 2 words does not a bible make.
Yes, Socks, your words are holy. Heehee! So, given what you just posted, do you think there could be a misguided form of love, which could bring harm to the love-r? I think THIS is what has happened to many people who thought - or still think - that they are carrying out Paul's directives regarding Agape. It's like ... love ... no matter what. If they rip you off, love them anyhow. If they damage other people, love them anyhow. And all the while, we are supposed to be confronting them with the Word, because that's the loving thing to do. Anyhow, thanks for what your wrote.
I was just thinking through the idea that phileo and agapao weren't really any different when your post appeared as if by magic
Checking out the number of uses of both words (not as easy as it sounds since different forms of both are used) there are well over 300 uses of forms of agapao and less than 20 of phileo, including compound words like philadelphia.
It didn't have some special inner circle meaning, either in the culture, or to the biblical writers, and still doesn't. It's just the normal, ordinary word for "love", used of about 95% of the time when the word is translated "love" in the KJV. I think back to TWI teachings, where the teacher would pretend to have great research skills, pointing out the word "love" in a verse and intone solemnly that it's "agape", as if the word was a biblical rarity!
The deeper meaning of agapao comes from the context and the usage. Is it love from God?, love toward God?, love of the brethren, or is it says in one place, love of the world (I John 2:15) or darkness? (John 3:19)
I was just thinking through the idea that phileo and agapao weren't really any different when your post appeared as if by magic
Checking out the number of uses of both words (not as easy as it sounds since different forms of both are used) there are well over 300 uses of forms of agapao and less than 20 of phileo, including compound words like philadelphia.
It didn't have some special inner circle meaning, either in the culture, or to the biblical writers, and still doesn't. It's just the normal, ordinary word for "love", used of about 95% of the time when the word is translated "love" in the KJV. I think back to TWI teachings, where the teacher would pretend to have great research skills, pointing out the word "love" in a verse and intone solemnly that it's "agape", as if the word was a biblical rarity!
The deeper meaning of agapao comes from the context and the usage. Is it love from God?, love toward God?, love of the brethren, or is it says in one place, love of the world (I John 2:15) or darkness? (John 3:19)
I even pulled out my Strong's concordance for that one.
just a quick word to say hello to Shifra...sure is good to see you again so renewed
and i must say that i have been following this thread and have started to draft a response like 10 times...but cant seem to bring myself to commit to anything in writing on the topic...such is the curse of me lately
but ... and ... so ... i want to point out this thread ... on the off chance you might be able to join us
meanwhile ... and otherwise ... would love to chat with you live again sometime ... i have too much to say about agape that has not been said ... tho sadly my writing fingers seem to fail me
Socks, another great post – and thanks for that link discussing agape and phileo – a great link – I never looked into the shades of meanings before this thread – thanks for a great thread Shifra and thanks to all contributors on this thread! After re-reading this thread and Socks' link - I thought I'd post some stuff on agapao and phileo. Not offering any great insight here – just thought others may want to look at this stuff as something to think about. I agree with Socks the difference between the two words is highly overstated – but I think any subtle distinctions are noteworthy in the big picture of things. FromMounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, General Editor William Mounce, under Love, page 427 to 428:
"…agapao is one of four Greek verbs meaning "to love." In secular Greek especially before the time of Christ, it was a colorless word without any great depth of meaning, used frequently as a synonym of eros [sexual love] and phileo [the general term for love]. If it had any nuance, it was the idea of love for the sake of its object. Perhaps because of its neutrality of meaning and perhaps because of this slight nuance of meaning, the biblical writers picked agapao to describe many forms of human love [e.g., husband and wife, Ephesians 5:25,28,33] and, most importantly, God's underserved love for the unlovely. In other words, its meaning comes not from the Greek but from the biblical understanding of God's love…
…A biblical definition of love starts with God, never with us . God is love itself; it is his character that defines love. Because he is love agape[/b]], he acts with love towards an undeserving world [John 3:16; I John 3:1, 16], to save them from their sins and reconcile them to himself [Romans 5:8]…
…If a person loves god, he or she will also love other people [Galatians 5:6; I Thessalonians 3:6; I John 4:20]. Loving the other person is an outflow of God's love for you ["a new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so must you love one another," John 13:34; cf. 15:12; I John 4:11]…
…But disciples are not only to love God and fellow believers; they are to love all people as especially their enemies. "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" [Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:35].
The very foundation of salvation is grounded in the realization that God's unmerited love toward us is greater than any other power – including death [Romans 8:37-39; I Corinthians 15:55-57]…
…phileo is the common word in classical Greek for showing love, affection, hospitality, etc…To make firm distinctions between phileo love and agapao love is incorrect, for the meanings of the two words overlap. The word can also mean "kiss"…
…In John 21:15-17, some people make a distinction between the two words for love, agapao and phileo. But these words do not have distinctly separate meanings, John is famous for using virtual synonyms without any difference in meaning; he often switches between words merely for the sake of variety. Also, it makes no sense for Jesus to switch meanings from agapao to phileo in the third question since Peter has been answering with phileo. Jesus' threefold question is meant to balance Peter's threefold denial at the time of Jesus' trial. The fluctuation of synonyms is also seen in the words for "feed"/"tend" and "lambs"/"sheep…"
End of excerpts
After reading the above definitions, I looked at the John 21 reference – in my opinion there does seem to be some sort of distinction – though slight – that Jesus is making here:
John 21:15-17 NASB
15 So when they had (T)finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you (U)love [agapao] Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that Ilove [phileo] You " He said to him, "Tend (V)My lambs."
16 He said to him again 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, "(W)Shepherd My sheep."
17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do youlove [phileo] Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him (X)the third time, "Do you love [phileo] Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, (Y)You know all things; You know that I love [phileo] You " Jesus said to him, "(Z)Tend My sheep."
I think The MacArthur Study Bible comments on this passage have a valid point:
"21:15-17. The meaning of this section hinges upon the usage of two synonyms for love. In terms of interpretation, when the two synonyms are placed in close proximity in context, a difference in meaning, however slight, is emphasized. When Jesus asked Peter if he loved Him, He used a word for love that signified total commitment. Peter responded with a word for love that signified his love for Jesus but not necessarily his total commitment. This was not because he was reluctant to express that greater love, but because he had been disobedient and denied the Lord in the past. He was, perhaps, now reluctant to make a claim of supreme devotion when, in the past, his life did not support such a claim. Jesus pressed home to Peter the need for unswerving devotion repeatedly asking Peter if he loved Him supremely. The essential message here is that Jesus demands total commitment from His followers. Their love for Him must place Him above their love for all else. Jesus confronted Peter with love because He wanted Peter to lead the apostles [Matthew 16:18], but in order for Peter to be an effective shepherd, his overwhelming drive must exemplify supreme love for his Lord."
End of excerpts
R.C.H. Lenski's comments on this passage in John 21 are worth noting as he mentions definite distinctions between agapao and phileo, from The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel, page 1419:
"…The verb agapao is the love of intelligence, reason, and comprehension, coupled with corresponding purpose; in this its content it vastly outranks the other type of love. And phileo expresses the love of mere personal affection, or liking, including even the passions where the context requires, and no intelligence or high purpose is involved. This content places the verb on a low level. It could never be said of God that he phileo the sinful world; as far as phileo is concerned, he could only abominate the foul world. Jesus never asked us to love our enemies in the sense of phileo; he never himself loved his enemies in this way. But agapao – yes, with this love God did love the world, and we can love our enemies, comprehending all that is wrong with them and reaching out with the mighty purpose of removing that wrong, sanctifying the world, converting our enemies…"
End of excerpts
And finally I found it interesting to note some select passages where agapeo and phileo occur. From The Word Study Concordance by George Wigram and Ralph Winter:
Agapao [strong's # 25] occurs 142 times, used in the following verses:
Matthew 5:43 Thou shalt love thy neighbor
Matthew 5:44 I say unto you, Love your enemies
Matthew 6:24 will hate the one, and love the other
Luke 7:5 he loveth our nation
John 3:16 For God so loved the world
Colossians 3:19 Husbands, love your wives
II Peter 2:15 who loved the wages on unrighteousness
I John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things in the world
~~
Phileo [strong's # 5368] occurs 25 times, used in the following verses:
Matthew 6:5 for they love to pray standing in the synagogues
Matthew 26:48 Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he
Luke 22:47 and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him
John 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son
John 11:3 Behold how he loved him
John 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it
John 15:19 the world would love his own
I Corinthians 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ
Revelation 22:15 and whomsoever loveth and maketh a lie
Shifra, I may need some darning! I dunno. I discuss the topic with at least referencing and reverencing the biblical information and trying to wrap around that. At the same time, I have to look at life and try to understand that with the respect it deserves. When the two don't seem to match I'm not prone to immediately throw the one out over the other. Some things are simple to do that with on face value. Others aren't.
The discourse T-Bone notes between Jesus and Peter seems to reference that question Shifra. That's good stuff T-Bone, thanks. In most commentaries it's noted that Peter had denied Jesus, the "Denials", not long before this.
When Jesus asks him "do you love me", and he answers yes, I do love you - that language is pretty straightforward in English. So Jesus says "then feed My sheep". So it reads like an equal/same thing. If you do, since you do, then feed my sheep.
But we know that Peter had skipped on Jesus when push came to shove despite the fact he'd told Him earlier that he'd be willing to die for Him. At the time I think it's safe to assume that Peter had every reason to remember everything he'd seen and heard Jesus do, teach. But when it came down to it he was afraid he would get hauled off too and so he lied to save his own skin. Seems kinda low, but in the same situation would anyone of us do anything different? We might like to think we would, but would we? And if so, why? I think that record can be looked at as a perfect example of how life really goes for people - we know what we know, we think, but when we are put in the situation where we have to give something for it, what are we ready to give?
If Peter had not denied he knew Jesus, it wouldn't have changed anything as to what was going to happen to Jesus. It tells us - what? That Peter wasn't willing to risk his life so he lied and split.
Peter couldn't have very well said "Oh yes, Jesus. I love you, you know that, I'd do anything for you". If he even said "I have the deepest feelings for you, you're my friend, we have a bond that's deep", what would that have really meant? Not much based on his earlier actions. If Peter was honest at that point, he knew his "love" for Jesus was well, short of what he'd aspire to.
Still Jesus says "then feed my sheep". Do the work, get busy, you're needed.
It's amazing Jesus didn't snort and throw a fish at him and say "Since WHEN???!!!" Who'd want someone like Peter representing them, at that point. Who'd know what he'd do next?
But they weren't talking on a level of setting a day to go golfing. There was more going on here and Peter was face to face with reality, with a capital "R". I see the record as Jesus knowing what Peter really was, that would come forth in time (as it did) and allowing him the forgiveness without throwing it back at him. In fact the record may be more about forgiveness and actual love and friendship between Jesus and Peter than anything else. Love wasn't going to get to first base without forgiveness.
I see this relating to your question Shifra, in that the call to "love" by Jesus wasn't imposed on Peter, He didn't take their friendship and nail him and demand an unswerving committment before He'd even talk to him. He simply said fine, you love me, then join me and do the work. We're moving on here, today. Let's go. He accepted what Peter had to offer.
gotta end, this is way too long as it is, but I'm sure there's a lot more.
... I discuss the topic with at least referencing and reverencing the biblical information and trying to wrap around that. At the same time, I have to look at life and try to understand that with the respect it deserves. When the two don't seem to match I'm not prone to immediately throw the one out over the other. Some things are simple to do that with on face value. Others aren't...
Wow, Socks – that's a great point right there! It struck a nerve with me anyway…I guess because while I was in TWI there was a part of my brain disconnected from reality…Nowadays I'm more apt to ask myself how well does my belief system jive with reality. My tendency now is to suspend any idea in a state of flux when I'm not sure if and/or how it fits with real life. And to be honest, I usually give what's apparent, simple, and resonating in the world around me precedence over concepts I wrestle with inside. The more years and differences I put between me and TWI – the easier it gets to settle a lot of doctrinal issues by one question: what's the practical consequence of this idea? If it's negligible then the issue isn't worth much processor time.
As I was saying in post # 7, "there appears to be an assumption on Jesus' part about the comprehension level of His audience. He'd throw out certain terms and phrases with an expectation that folks already knew what they meant – like love, forgive, pray, etc." Maybe His message was not so much about teaching something new – but teaching/persuading folks to explore/apply what they already know…where the rubber meets the road…Jesus was a master at unfolding the great stuff bound up in seemingly simple things like love.
It's like ... love ... no matter what. If they rip you off, love them anyhow. If they damage other people, love them anyhow. And all the while, we are supposed to be confronting them with the Word, because that's the loving thing to do. Anyhow, thanks for what your wrote.
"Love your neighbor as yourself" would be a high standard, a "golden rule". It's a legitmate question - if I love myself, I won't want someone else to take advantage of me. If I love my neighbor the same way, what does that mean?
I've read it just really means to treat others the way I'd like to be treated. Be fair, because I've like to be fair. Be caring, I'd like to be cared for. Etc.
So does it mean to love someone else if they steal from me? Love them anyway, let them back in my house for dinner andif they steal from me, love them anyway. Be the Love Dude. Come on back in, I love ya.
I don't think it means that, nope. Loving someone else that way wouldn't be fair, honest, caring, to them or myself. In fact, I don't think it refers specifically to every kind of situation . It's a commandment yes, as to how to treat others. A moral standard, a guide, a reference point. It asks the question "how would I feel about this? How would I like to be treated? How would I react? What would I get from this deal I'm offering?"
To "love" someone else would mean to respond appropriately. How would letting someone else continue in harmful behavior be a loving act for anyone involved?
God's act of love toward mankind by the sacrifice of His son Jesus Christ seems to be the Gold Standard of Love in this kind of religious discussion amongst us Christians. As if to say, our love, if we're going to love as Jesus taught and God wants, will always ignore or forgive and forget and allow for any kind of action, anything that happens and that's what God "sending' Jesus Christ means. That's the way it sounds a lot of the time.
Hmmm...first things first - God hasn't ignored our "sin". Not at all. It's been dealt with in a very complex and long term plan of action. There's no ignorance or allowance. Because it WASN'T allowed, something had to be done.
To love as God has would mean that harmful behavior would be taken seriously and handled. It's what Jesus Christ died for. Forgiven by God, through Christ - what's that mean? That the harmful behavior is okay now, all cleaned up, go ahead and do whatever, allow whatever, God will take care of it all in good time?
No, I think it would mean to handle it, deal with it, stop it, prevent it, etc. How we handle our affairs between us can apply "agape" as 1 Cor. 13 states, with all of it's qualities and recommendations, and be perfectly right and just in not bringing harm to ourselves, others, or allowing it when we can prevent it.
Love is strong, consistent, forbearing, considerate of others and what they need, as well as ourselves. When we live that way, we'll be a big help to those who need help, including ourselves I would think.
Hmmm...first things first - God hasn't ignored our "sin". Not at all. It's been dealt with in a very complex and long term plan of action. There's no ignorance or allowance. Because it WASN'T allowed, something had to be done.
To love as God has would mean that harmful behavior would be taken seriously and handled. It's what Jesus Christ died for. Forgiven by God, through Christ - what's that mean? That the harmful behavior is okay now, all cleaned up, go ahead and do whatever, allow whatever, God will take care of it all in good time?
Romans 6 has a great deal to say on this topic. In verse 1-4 it says 'What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buries with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.' Romans 6:14&15-- 'For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law but under grace. What then? shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid.' If you read the rest of the chapter, it makes it more clear, but these seem to be the most relevant verses.
I was thinking how that verse goes - "see through a glass darkly". That might be a two-way good there. We might actually benefit from a little 45-filter sunscreen for these skins we have now. Still, it's always nice to see the sun out in a clear sky.
You talked about getting to a level where "It's not important how others treat you" ... as tho' this is the apex of Agape. Did I understand you correctly?
THIS concept of Agape is the one that gets dangerous. In fact, this concept of Christianity itself is the classic twist in the road, that has led so many well-meaning people AWAY from the sort of life that God wants for us.
Why?
Because we prioritize Service above Self. And then we get sick or impoverished or cynical, because we have de-valued our own worth in order to take care of everyone else. This is sick. This is not the divine plan.
As someone said earlier, we are not required to have nails pounded into our hands, because Jesus did that for us. Now THIS was God's plan, God's Agape. Not only do we not have to do this, we are not able to do this.
To presume that we can even approach loving at the level that God loves us ... is ridiculous (maybe even blasphemy!). And to religiously make ourselves "low man on the totem pole" is ... sin.
TWI and most churches are in defiance of God when they ignore - or more precisely when they condemn - the Godly principal of loving one's self. If we could get this straight, if we could be taught this as children, then we could vastly reduce so much mental illness, divorce, suicide, cult participation, poverty, lots of stuff.
And once we understand and actually practice self-love to a healthy and genuine degree, then we can love our neighbors AS OURSELVES at the level and fullness that God intended. The results? Ohmygosh ... imagine it !!!
Shifra
Hi shifra,
You make some good and important points. I've read some helpful books lately dealing which dug deep
into some of loving the "agape" way and staying emotionally and spiritually balanced.
The whole thing about loving ourselves and God as ourselves might lead us to think that if we don't love ourselves
very much then it will be hard to love others or God very much. If our gas tank is empty, it is hard to do much
for anyone. There's a lot of truth to this, though I've seen a lot of vain selfish Christians who can't get past taking
care of their own selves.
On the other hand, you have folks who's self worth seems to be totally tied to how
much they do for others, and who end up burned out and uninspired - this is the other side of supposed "agape"
love gone too far. Agape love seems to live best somewhere in the middle between vanity and being a slave for
others.
I think that the "free indeed" that Christ came to give us is a place that can be found. Not just a land of milk and honey
that we'll see in a distant biblical administration. But also a real place possible in the here and now of emotional
and spiritual health and true connection to God where we are blessed in a deep way and want the same for others.
If we can get there, then we can at least some of the time do the right things for the right reasons.
You make some good and important points. I've read some helpful books lately dealing which dug deep
into some of loving the "agape" way and staying emotionally and spiritually balanced.
The whole thing about loving ourselves and God as ourselves might lead us to think that if we don't love ourselves
very much then it will be hard to love others or God very much. If our gas tank is empty, it is hard to do much
for anyone. There's a lot of truth to this, though I've seen a lot of vain selfish Christians who can't get past taking
care of their own selves.
On the other hand, you have folks who's self worth seems to be totally tied to how
much they do for others, and who end up burned out and uninspired - this is the other side of supposed "agape"
love gone too far. Agape love seems to live best somewhere in the middle between vanity and being a slave for
others.
I think that the "free indeed" that Christ came to give us is a place that can be found. Not just a land of milk and honey
that we'll see in a distant biblical administration. But also a real place possible in the here and now of emotional
and spiritual health and true connection to God where we are blessed in a deep way and want the same for others.
If we can get there, then we can at least some of the time do the right things for the right reasons.
-CS
CS,
You also make some good and important points. However, I think that this is where the definition of agape as 'the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation' comes into play. I'm not sure that anyone who is truly living agape can end up 'burned out and uninspired' since agape by definition seems to indicate that we have an endless supply at our disposal (the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation). I am leaving out the phrase 'in the household' since that seems to narrow agape down, and I'm not sure it is accurate.
You also make some good and important points. However, I think that this is where the definition of agape as 'the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation' comes into play. I'm not sure that anyone who is truly living agape can end up 'burned out and uninspired' since agape by definition seems to indicate that we have an endless supply at our disposal (the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation). I am leaving out the phrase 'in the household' since that seems to narrow agape down, and I'm not sure it is accurate.
jeaniam,
Yep I do believe that if you really hook into "true agape" you will have an almost endless supply
of energized love. Not endless because of the limits of our bodies. I think I've hooked in at times...
only to later fall off, tangled and brought down by my own weakness, sin, etc. But I always get back up.
And I also agree that staying in "agape love" is a good way to keep from being burned
out and uninspired. The other kinds of love are energizing too, but prone to failure.
Lots of talking with God - prayer - and "doing" have helped me get a better handle on
agape. I think I have at least some grasp of what it is and how it works, though I may not always
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
19
23
28
37
Popular Days
May 31
33
May 30
27
May 18
16
Jun 1
16
Top Posters In This Topic
johniam 19 posts
Bramble 23 posts
pond 28 posts
Jeaniam 37 posts
Popular Days
May 31 2007
33 posts
May 30 2007
27 posts
May 18 2007
16 posts
Jun 1 2007
16 posts
Oakspear
Anyway, have an enjoyable weeknd, I'm off to perform a wedding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
You having more, self proclaimed, spiritual ability DOES NOT equate to others having NO spiritual ability
Phileo is desirable Christ wanted us to extend phileo love to ALL UNCONDITIONALLy thus agape'
THe practice of Agape toward one's fellow man is to be strived for-- but nowhere in scripture to I find that Heavenly Father declares any form of love as inferior or of little worth. He wants us to expand the love we already posess to agape' not discard it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
More love stuff, from the following link:
Many Christians are ignorant as to the utter relevance of phileo love, and its strength and equality with the other more frequent rendering of love (agape) in the New Testament. In fact, it is the ignorance and lack of phileo love that is the missing piece of a fragmented Christian church, unable to attain the kind of character they think can come by agape.
This article and the one following it has interesting points to make. I think it states pretty close to what I've come to in terms of a biblical understanding of the love/love topic.
My wife and I were talking about this last night and it was a lot of fun. Along the lines of what you said T-Lady would be that phileo and agape in the bible describe aspects of the same thing. The above two articles state it better than I could. The actual definition of the two words are almost identical. Meaning comes from usage. As they're used in the bible it's impossible to conclude that the two words point to two completely different kinds of love, one based on a physical albeit "good" kind (potentially) and another a "spiritual" kind.
Both words are used in both contexts and don't discriminate between physical/spiritual. Rather they describe an intent, an action taken and the why and how of it and could be used of God, Jesus, mankind, feelings and actions and either good or bad. When one record seems to make that differentiaton ("Peter do you agape me?"...."Yes, I phileo you") the intent of both have to be considered to get the correct understanding I think. Certainly keeping in mind that while Jesus taught some things more than once and from different angles, His followers understanding was in process.
IMO the so-called "difference" between these two words is highly over stated. They've been used by a lot of Christain teachers as a short-hand method to define man and God, good and bad, good and best, emotional and logical, physical and spiritual, etc. etc.
The two words aside, the ideas behind the two words that are found as they're used in the bible is where the good stuff is. It's no wonder the concept of "love" can be a struggle as it permeates everything we do, who we are and how we view ourselves and the world. The bible records people, events, history. 2 words does not a bible make.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
Holy Socks!
Yes, Socks, your words are holy. Heehee! So, given what you just posted, do you think there could be a misguided form of love, which could bring harm to the love-r? I think THIS is what has happened to many people who thought - or still think - that they are carrying out Paul's directives regarding Agape. It's like ... love ... no matter what. If they rip you off, love them anyhow. If they damage other people, love them anyhow. And all the while, we are supposed to be confronting them with the Word, because that's the loving thing to do. Anyhow, thanks for what your wrote.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Socks:
I was just thinking through the idea that phileo and agapao weren't really any different when your post appeared as if by magic
Checking out the number of uses of both words (not as easy as it sounds since different forms of both are used) there are well over 300 uses of forms of agapao and less than 20 of phileo, including compound words like philadelphia.
It didn't have some special inner circle meaning, either in the culture, or to the biblical writers, and still doesn't. It's just the normal, ordinary word for "love", used of about 95% of the time when the word is translated "love" in the KJV. I think back to TWI teachings, where the teacher would pretend to have great research skills, pointing out the word "love" in a verse and intone solemnly that it's "agape", as if the word was a biblical rarity!
The deeper meaning of agapao comes from the context and the usage. Is it love from God?, love toward God?, love of the brethren, or is it says in one place, love of the world (I John 2:15) or darkness? (John 3:19)
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I even pulled out my Strong's concordance for that one.
Very interesting. . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
...technical difficulties, will try again later
Edited by JeaniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
just a quick word to say hello to Shifra...sure is good to see you again so renewed
and i must say that i have been following this thread and have started to draft a response like 10 times...but cant seem to bring myself to commit to anything in writing on the topic...such is the curse of me lately
but ... and ... so ... i want to point out this thread ... on the off chance you might be able to join us
meanwhile ... and otherwise ... would love to chat with you live again sometime ... i have too much to say about agape that has not been said ... tho sadly my writing fingers seem to fail me
peace,
+ODD
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: He wants us to expand the love we already posess to agape' not discard it.
I agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
OK
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Socks, another great post – and thanks for that link discussing agape and phileo – a great link – I never looked into the shades of meanings before this thread – thanks for a great thread Shifra and thanks to all contributors on this thread! After re-reading this thread and Socks' link - I thought I'd post some stuff on agapao and phileo. Not offering any great insight here – just thought others may want to look at this stuff as something to think about. I agree with Socks the difference between the two words is highly overstated – but I think any subtle distinctions are noteworthy in the big picture of things. From Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, General Editor William Mounce, under Love, page 427 to 428:
"…agapao is one of four Greek verbs meaning "to love." In secular Greek especially before the time of Christ, it was a colorless word without any great depth of meaning, used frequently as a synonym of eros [sexual love] and phileo [the general term for love]. If it had any nuance, it was the idea of love for the sake of its object. Perhaps because of its neutrality of meaning and perhaps because of this slight nuance of meaning, the biblical writers picked agapao to describe many forms of human love [e.g., husband and wife, Ephesians 5:25,28,33] and, most importantly, God's underserved love for the unlovely. In other words, its meaning comes not from the Greek but from the biblical understanding of God's love…
…A biblical definition of love starts with God, never with us . God is love itself; it is his character that defines love. Because he is love agape[/b]], he acts with love towards an undeserving world [John 3:16; I John 3:1, 16], to save them from their sins and reconcile them to himself [Romans 5:8]…
…If a person loves god, he or she will also love other people [Galatians 5:6; I Thessalonians 3:6; I John 4:20]. Loving the other person is an outflow of God's love for you ["a new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so must you love one another," John 13:34; cf. 15:12; I John 4:11]…
…But disciples are not only to love God and fellow believers; they are to love all people as especially their enemies. "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" [Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:35].
The very foundation of salvation is grounded in the realization that God's unmerited love toward us is greater than any other power – including death [Romans 8:37-39; I Corinthians 15:55-57]…
…phileo is the common word in classical Greek for showing love, affection, hospitality, etc…To make firm distinctions between phileo love and agapao love is incorrect, for the meanings of the two words overlap. The word can also mean "kiss"…
…In John 21:15-17, some people make a distinction between the two words for love, agapao and phileo. But these words do not have distinctly separate meanings, John is famous for using virtual synonyms without any difference in meaning; he often switches between words merely for the sake of variety. Also, it makes no sense for Jesus to switch meanings from agapao to phileo in the third question since Peter has been answering with phileo. Jesus' threefold question is meant to balance Peter's threefold denial at the time of Jesus' trial. The fluctuation of synonyms is also seen in the words for "feed"/"tend" and "lambs"/"sheep…"
End of excerpts
After reading the above definitions, I looked at the John 21 reference – in my opinion there does seem to be some sort of distinction – though slight – that Jesus is making here:
John 21:15-17 NASB
15 So when they had (T)finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you (U)love [agapao] Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love [phileo] You " He said to him, "Tend (V)My lambs."
16 He said to him again 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, "(W)Shepherd 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 (X)the third time, "Do you love [phileo] Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, (Y)You know all things; You know that I love [phileo] You " Jesus said to him, "(Z)Tend My sheep."
I think The MacArthur Study Bible comments on this passage have a valid point:
"21:15-17. The meaning of this section hinges upon the usage of two synonyms for love. In terms of interpretation, when the two synonyms are placed in close proximity in context, a difference in meaning, however slight, is emphasized. When Jesus asked Peter if he loved Him, He used a word for love that signified total commitment. Peter responded with a word for love that signified his love for Jesus but not necessarily his total commitment. This was not because he was reluctant to express that greater love, but because he had been disobedient and denied the Lord in the past. He was, perhaps, now reluctant to make a claim of supreme devotion when, in the past, his life did not support such a claim. Jesus pressed home to Peter the need for unswerving devotion repeatedly asking Peter if he loved Him supremely. The essential message here is that Jesus demands total commitment from His followers. Their love for Him must place Him above their love for all else. Jesus confronted Peter with love because He wanted Peter to lead the apostles [Matthew 16:18], but in order for Peter to be an effective shepherd, his overwhelming drive must exemplify supreme love for his Lord."
End of excerpts
R.C.H. Lenski's comments on this passage in John 21 are worth noting as he mentions definite distinctions between agapao and phileo, from The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel, page 1419:
"…The verb agapao is the love of intelligence, reason, and comprehension, coupled with corresponding purpose; in this its content it vastly outranks the other type of love. And phileo expresses the love of mere personal affection, or liking, including even the passions where the context requires, and no intelligence or high purpose is involved. This content places the verb on a low level. It could never be said of God that he phileo the sinful world; as far as phileo is concerned, he could only abominate the foul world. Jesus never asked us to love our enemies in the sense of phileo; he never himself loved his enemies in this way. But agapao – yes, with this love God did love the world, and we can love our enemies, comprehending all that is wrong with them and reaching out with the mighty purpose of removing that wrong, sanctifying the world, converting our enemies…"
End of excerpts
And finally I found it interesting to note some select passages where agapeo and phileo occur. From The Word Study Concordance by George Wigram and Ralph Winter:
Agapao [strong's # 25] occurs 142 times, used in the following verses:
Matthew 5:43 Thou shalt love thy neighbor
Matthew 5:44 I say unto you, Love your enemies
Matthew 6:24 will hate the one, and love the other
Luke 7:5 he loveth our nation
John 3:16 For God so loved the world
Colossians 3:19 Husbands, love your wives
II Peter 2:15 who loved the wages on unrighteousness
I John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things in the world
~~
Phileo [strong's # 5368] occurs 25 times, used in the following verses:
Matthew 6:5 for they love to pray standing in the synagogues
Matthew 26:48 Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he
Luke 22:47 and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him
John 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son
John 11:3 Behold how he loved him
John 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it
John 15:19 the world would love his own
I Corinthians 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ
Revelation 22:15 and whomsoever loveth and maketh a lie
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Shifra, I may need some darning!
I dunno. I discuss the topic with at least referencing and reverencing the biblical information and trying to wrap around that. At the same time, I have to look at life and try to understand that with the respect it deserves. When the two don't seem to match I'm not prone to immediately throw the one out over the other. Some things are simple to do that with on face value. Others aren't.
The discourse T-Bone notes between Jesus and Peter seems to reference that question Shifra. That's good stuff T-Bone, thanks. In most commentaries it's noted that Peter had denied Jesus, the "Denials", not long before this.
When Jesus asks him "do you love me", and he answers yes, I do love you - that language is pretty straightforward in English. So Jesus says "then feed My sheep". So it reads like an equal/same thing. If you do, since you do, then feed my sheep.
But we know that Peter had skipped on Jesus when push came to shove despite the fact he'd told Him earlier that he'd be willing to die for Him. At the time I think it's safe to assume that Peter had every reason to remember everything he'd seen and heard Jesus do, teach. But when it came down to it he was afraid he would get hauled off too and so he lied to save his own skin. Seems kinda low, but in the same situation would anyone of us do anything different? We might like to think we would, but would we? And if so, why? I think that record can be looked at as a perfect example of how life really goes for people - we know what we know, we think, but when we are put in the situation where we have to give something for it, what are we ready to give?
If Peter had not denied he knew Jesus, it wouldn't have changed anything as to what was going to happen to Jesus. It tells us - what? That Peter wasn't willing to risk his life so he lied and split.
Peter couldn't have very well said "Oh yes, Jesus. I love you, you know that, I'd do anything for you". If he even said "I have the deepest feelings for you, you're my friend, we have a bond that's deep", what would that have really meant? Not much based on his earlier actions. If Peter was honest at that point, he knew his "love" for Jesus was well, short of what he'd aspire to.
Still Jesus says "then feed my sheep". Do the work, get busy, you're needed.
It's amazing Jesus didn't snort and throw a fish at him and say "Since WHEN???!!!"
Who'd want someone like Peter representing them, at that point. Who'd know what he'd do next?
But they weren't talking on a level of setting a day to go golfing. There was more going on here and Peter was face to face with reality, with a capital "R". I see the record as Jesus knowing what Peter really was, that would come forth in time (as it did) and allowing him the forgiveness without throwing it back at him. In fact the record may be more about forgiveness and actual love and friendship between Jesus and Peter than anything else. Love wasn't going to get to first base without forgiveness.
I see this relating to your question Shifra, in that the call to "love" by Jesus wasn't imposed on Peter, He didn't take their friendship and nail him and demand an unswerving committment before He'd even talk to him. He simply said fine, you love me, then join me and do the work. We're moving on here, today. Let's go. He accepted what Peter had to offer.
gotta end, this is way too long as it is, but I'm sure there's a lot more.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
would that be love, any kind of love ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Wow, Socks – that's a great point right there! It struck a nerve with me anyway…I guess because while I was in TWI there was a part of my brain disconnected from reality…Nowadays I'm more apt to ask myself how well does my belief system jive with reality. My tendency now is to suspend any idea in a state of flux when I'm not sure if and/or how it fits with real life. And to be honest, I usually give what's apparent, simple, and resonating in the world around me precedence over concepts I wrestle with inside. The more years and differences I put between me and TWI – the easier it gets to settle a lot of doctrinal issues by one question: what's the practical consequence of this idea? If it's negligible then the issue isn't worth much processor time.
As I was saying in post # 7, "there appears to be an assumption on Jesus' part about the comprehension level of His audience. He'd throw out certain terms and phrases with an expectation that folks already knew what they meant – like love, forgive, pray, etc." Maybe His message was not so much about teaching something new – but teaching/persuading folks to explore/apply what they already know…where the rubber meets the road…Jesus was a master at unfolding the great stuff bound up in seemingly simple things like love.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
"Love your neighbor as yourself" would be a high standard, a "golden rule". It's a legitmate question - if I love myself, I won't want someone else to take advantage of me. If I love my neighbor the same way, what does that mean?
I've read it just really means to treat others the way I'd like to be treated. Be fair, because I've like to be fair. Be caring, I'd like to be cared for. Etc.
So does it mean to love someone else if they steal from me? Love them anyway, let them back in my house for dinner andif they steal from me, love them anyway. Be the Love Dude. Come on back in, I love ya.
I don't think it means that, nope. Loving someone else that way wouldn't be fair, honest, caring, to them or myself. In fact, I don't think it refers specifically to every kind of situation . It's a commandment yes, as to how to treat others. A moral standard, a guide, a reference point. It asks the question "how would I feel about this? How would I like to be treated? How would I react? What would I get from this deal I'm offering?"
To "love" someone else would mean to respond appropriately. How would letting someone else continue in harmful behavior be a loving act for anyone involved?
God's act of love toward mankind by the sacrifice of His son Jesus Christ seems to be the Gold Standard of Love in this kind of religious discussion amongst us Christians. As if to say, our love, if we're going to love as Jesus taught and God wants, will always ignore or forgive and forget and allow for any kind of action, anything that happens and that's what God "sending' Jesus Christ means. That's the way it sounds a lot of the time.
Hmmm...first things first - God hasn't ignored our "sin". Not at all. It's been dealt with in a very complex and long term plan of action. There's no ignorance or allowance. Because it WASN'T allowed, something had to be done.
To love as God has would mean that harmful behavior would be taken seriously and handled. It's what Jesus Christ died for. Forgiven by God, through Christ - what's that mean? That the harmful behavior is okay now, all cleaned up, go ahead and do whatever, allow whatever, God will take care of it all in good time?
No, I think it would mean to handle it, deal with it, stop it, prevent it, etc. How we handle our affairs between us can apply "agape" as 1 Cor. 13 states, with all of it's qualities and recommendations, and be perfectly right and just in not bringing harm to ourselves, others, or allowing it when we can prevent it.
Love is strong, consistent, forbearing, considerate of others and what they need, as well as ourselves. When we live that way, we'll be a big help to those who need help, including ourselves I would think.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
Romans 6 has a great deal to say on this topic. In verse 1-4 it says 'What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buries with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.' Romans 6:14&15-- 'For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law but under grace. What then? shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid.' If you read the rest of the chapter, it makes it more clear, but these seem to be the most relevant verses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Aaaah.
I was thinking how that verse goes - "see through a glass darkly". That might be a two-way good there. We might actually benefit from a little 45-filter sunscreen for these skins we have now. Still, it's always nice to see the sun out in a clear sky.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
caribousam
Hi shifra,
You make some good and important points. I've read some helpful books lately dealing which dug deep
into some of loving the "agape" way and staying emotionally and spiritually balanced.
The whole thing about loving ourselves and God as ourselves might lead us to think that if we don't love ourselves
very much then it will be hard to love others or God very much. If our gas tank is empty, it is hard to do much
for anyone. There's a lot of truth to this, though I've seen a lot of vain selfish Christians who can't get past taking
care of their own selves.
On the other hand, you have folks who's self worth seems to be totally tied to how
much they do for others, and who end up burned out and uninspired - this is the other side of supposed "agape"
love gone too far. Agape love seems to live best somewhere in the middle between vanity and being a slave for
others.
I think that the "free indeed" that Christ came to give us is a place that can be found. Not just a land of milk and honey
that we'll see in a distant biblical administration. But also a real place possible in the here and now of emotional
and spiritual health and true connection to God where we are blessed in a deep way and want the same for others.
If we can get there, then we can at least some of the time do the right things for the right reasons.
-CS
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
CS,
You also make some good and important points. However, I think that this is where the definition of agape as 'the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation' comes into play. I'm not sure that anyone who is truly living agape can end up 'burned out and uninspired' since agape by definition seems to indicate that we have an endless supply at our disposal (the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation). I am leaving out the phrase 'in the household' since that seems to narrow agape down, and I'm not sure it is accurate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
caribousam
jeaniam,
Yep I do believe that if you really hook into "true agape" you will have an almost endless supply
of energized love. Not endless because of the limits of our bodies. I think I've hooked in at times...
only to later fall off, tangled and brought down by my own weakness, sin, etc. But I always get back up.
And I also agree that staying in "agape love" is a good way to keep from being burned
out and uninspired. The other kinds of love are energizing too, but prone to failure.
Lots of talking with God - prayer - and "doing" have helped me get a better handle on
agape. I think I have at least some grasp of what it is and how it works, though I may not always
be able to explain it well.
peace and agape,
CS
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.