SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Workers Of Iniquity

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
PosterThread
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
philostorgos



Wow! Now there is a word! :-) This is an alloy of love.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/11/18 14:53Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Thanks for the research. Would it be accurate to say that God expresses AgapE love for sinners, but not phileo and storgos? Or is it even accurate to say that the relationship we have with God fits the term storgos?


[b] (Joh 5:20 KJV) For the Father [u]loveth[/u] the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.[/b]
(Joh 11:3 KJV) [b] Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou [u]lovest[/u] is sick.[/b]
(Joh 11:36 KJV) [b]Then said the Jews, Behold how he [u]loved[/u] him![/b]
(Joh 16:27 KJV) [b] For the Father himself [u]loveth[/u] you, because ye have [u]loved[/u] me, and have believed that I came out from God.[/b]
(Joh 20:2 KJV) [b]Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus [u]loved[/u], and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.[/b]
(1Co 16:22 KJV) [b] If any man [u]love[/u] not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.[/b]
(Tit 3:15 KJV) [b]All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that [u]love[/u] us in the faith. Grace be with you all. Amen.[/b]
(Rev 3:19 KJV) [b]As many as I [u]love[/u], I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.[/b]

in all these instances the word for love is [i]phileO[/i]. On the basis of this I don’t think that we could say that God does not [i]phileO[/i] sinners. [i]storgE[/i] is really instinctive affection/care such as a mother feels for her baby or a hen for her chicks. It is not a choice but an inherent function of family.
The distinction between [i]agapE[/i] and [i]phileO[/i] is interesting. Some commentators saying one and others the other is the greater word.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/11/18 18:49Profile
InTheLight
Member



Joined: 2003/7/31
Posts: 2737
Phoenix, Arizona USA

 Re:

Quote:
So do you see our method changing towards the way in which we preach to people who openly reject the Gospel? Or do we even preach unto them at all who refuse to repent? Do we wipe the dust from our feet and go to the heathen?
Is it Biblical to keep on feeding people the Gospel week after week as they reject the word in hopes that "someday they'll repent"? If we do keep preaching, Does it stand to reason that the messages will keep intensifying until they either repent or walk out or stone us?



I see our methods needing to change not just with those who openly reject the gospel but with those who have accepted a 'easy' gospel.

The past century of conservative evangelicalism in this country has bolstered our notions of our own supposed goodness. Many preachers today are telling their congregations that they need to do this kind thing and that kind thing, but they never tell them they need to proclaim the gospel. Why? Because many don't believe that "God's wrath is revealed from heaven against wickedness" therefore they have no gospel to proclaim.

Is there really 40-50 million truly born-again Christians in America? If so, what is going on here?

In Christ,

Ron


_________________
Ron Halverson

 2004/11/18 22:55Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: agapos v philos

Some time ago I chatted to an web-friend, on a forum on another site, about the distinction between phileO and agapeO (the verbs) and philos and agapos (the nouns). Others were involved in the discussion so this answer is not directly to my questions. My correspondent teaches Biblical Greek and reads the LXX and the New Testament in Biblical Greek easily. This is an extract and the most helpful comment I have ever seen on this topic

He writes:
I think part of the problem is that, while agapao and phileo are NOT true synonyms, in some contexts, agapao actually INCLUDES the full meaning phileo, but goes beyond it as well. In other words, phileo can be seen as a sub-category under agapao.

So while agapao can INCLUDE everything in phileo, phileo never includes the full strength of agapao.

The topic of most of sermons is the idea that "Phileo" supposedly means a more "friendly" or "brotherly" type of "love", whereas "Agape" is more a "Godly" type of "love." That IS how most sermons present the meanings of these words. It is NOT, however, an accurate portrayal of what they mean.

In reality, agapao has two aspects: the FEELING of love, and the EXPRESSION of that love. Some contexts emphasize BOTH aspects, while some only emphasize the expression. The superior concept in this definition is the EXPRESSION of love. The emotion may or may not be present, but that love is NOT agapao unless it is expressed (usually by action...I can think of no verses in which words are considered an adequate expression of agapao).

Agapao is NOT, strictly speaking, "Godly love." It is simply love expressed as an action. The reason it got the "reputation" as "Godly love" is that John stresses in his first epistle that agape, love expressed in active form regardless of how we FEEL, is impossible without God. But the "God" part of it comes from Christian TEACHING, it is NOT inherent in the meaning of the word.

Keep in mind that agapao CAN include FEELINGS of love, but that is more of a "secondary" concern, and not absolutely necessary for something to be considered agape. The expression of that love, primarily in something that we DO, is absolutely necessary.

If we do not FEEL loving, we can still have agape.
If we do not DO loving actions, we do not have agape.

Phileo is not "brotherly love" (that is philadelphia), it is simply the "emotion" of love. The best definition of phileo is probably "loving affection," and it can reference ANYONE we happen to love. No actions of any kind are required in order to have philia. It is simply what we feel. In other words, it references the HEART itself.

If we do not FEEL affection for someone, we do NOT have philia, regardless of what we DO.

If we feel affection for someone, but do nothing, we STILL have philia. Philia does NOT require any kind of action or expression.

This is NOT to say that in real life philia does not cause us to behave in a certain fashion, but that when philia is used, it is the HEART, the AFFECTION itself that is being referenced. When I use the word "affection" for phileo, keep in mind that I mean a STRONG, DEEPLY FELT, VERY EMOTIONAL LOVE, not the way we normally think of "affection" as a mild, "I kind of like you" type of emotion.

In summary, phileo means "loving affection." Agapao means "loving action," but CAN also include "loving affection."

Many of the scriptures below appear to be using the words as synonyms because the only difference in the two are emphasis (one emphasizing affection, the other action).

So, as we examine your scripture examples below, all you have to remember is that if the word used is phileo or philia, the AFFECTION is being emphasized. If the word is agapao or agape, the ACTION is being emphasized (although the affection may ALSO be present).

John 3:35 "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand." (agapao)

The speaker here is John the Baptist, and he is emphasizing that the authority given to the one who comes after him, the Son, is an ACT of love from the Father. He is emphasizing the ACTION.

John 5:20 "For the Father loves the Son, and shows to Him all things which He does. And He will show Him greater works than these in order that you may marvel." (phileo)

The speaker here is Jesus, and He is emphasizing that the reason the Father shows the Son all these things is because of the great AFFECTION the Father has for the Son. He is emphasizing the FEELING.

Two different speakers, two different aspects being emphasized.

John 13:23 "...disciple Jesus loved..." (agapao)
John 19:26 "...disciple whom He loved..." (agapao)
John 20:2 "...disciple Jesus loved..." (phileo)
John 21:7 "...disciple Jesus loved..." (agapao)
John 21:20 "...disciple Jesus loved..." (agapao)

This is a case in which context shows that each use of agapao INCLUDES phileo as well.

The difference is that in the 20:2 reference, Jesus is not PRESENT, so emphasis is placed on how Jesus FEELS about John.

In 13:23, 19:26, 21:7 and 21:20, Jesus is present, so the fact that Jesus also EXPRESSES His affection for John is included.

John 20:2 is the only time phileo is used in this phrase, and it is the only time Jesus is not present when this is mentioned.

Remember, I mentioned that John is delightfully, and to the untrained eye, sometimes nearly imperceptibly subtle. This is one of hundreds of examples of his precision and subtlety.

In the examples you give below, the differences between when agapao and phileo are used is frequently a matter of emphasis only. In other words, when speaking about "loving the world," agapao would emphasize the ACTION of a corrupt heart, where phileo would focus on the simple fact that the heart IS corrupt. The difference is occasionally subtle, but there is a difference.

The first set of examples, of verses where phileo is used, are simply places where "affection" is being emphasized. In these, the emphasis is primarily on the heart, and how because it naturally loves evil, or material things, or the self, it needs to be changed, or trained, or cleansed, etc.

When Greek wishes to be more specific as to WHO is to receive that affection, it attaches the appropriate word to phileo (such as philandros, a combination of philia and aner - the stem of aner is andro...it would take too long to explain why - meaning, "affection for a man" and philoteknos, a combination of philia and teknon meaning, "affection for a child").

The examples you gave of agapeo are simply verses in which the emphasis is on the fact that the person did not just FEEL the love, but actually DID something to express that love. In negative contexts, it emphasizes the ACTION or BEHAVIOR of a person with a corrupt heart.

John 3:19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light...."

Men EXPRESSED their love for the darkness in their behavior, it was NOT affection only.

John 12:43 for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.

Emphasis on the fact that they DID something to get the approval of men.

2 Pet 2:15 forsaking the right way, they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;

If you know the story of Balaam, you know how he did his absolute best to EARN his unrighteous pay, and God kept thwarting him.

2 Tim 4:10 for Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me...

Emphasis on what Demas DID, and how it was not just fear, immaturity, or some other excusable cause (we find out in another place that Mark also deserted, but NOT because of a morally corrupt heart), but his desertion was an outgrowth of his character, an expression of a corrupt heart that loved the world more than God.

Luke 11:43 "Woe to you Pharisees! For you love (agapeo) the chief seats in the synagogues and the respectful greetings in the market places."

Emphasis here on what they DO. Jesus lists a series of evil things they do, and emphasizes here the fact that what they are DOING is an expression of their true love: human recognition. Yes, their hearts are corrupt, but it is their BEHAVIOR that is the topic of discussion right now.

Luke 20:46 46 "Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love (phileo) respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets...."

This is a slightly more complex construction. Phileo is a present active participle here, and the sentence is better translated

"beware of the scribes, the ones desiring to walk around in long robes loving respectful greetings in the market places . . . "

The main verb is "to walk," while "desiring" and "loving" are abstract nouns standing as emotional modifiers. In other words, the construction indicates that their desire to get, and affection for respectful greetings is a characteristic of these particular scribes. That is, it is a character trait . . . i.e. a heart problem.

In other words, the emphasis in NOT on them "walking around," but on the REASON they walk around: they have corrupt hearts.

As I think I've shown here, the differences are often very subtle (usually a matter of emphasis only), but they ARE different. It would be a huge mistake to assume these words are complete synonyms. All you will be doing if you do that is guaranteeing that you miss some of the subtext of the teaching or interaction.

And finally, because Greek writers DID understand the difference between these two words, if these documents were translations of Aramaic, the translators DID add a subtext NOT found in the Aramaic. The words CANNOT be used interchangably without changing the meaning or emphasis of the verse.

But if you understand what the words REALLY mean, you see that not only are they NOT synonyms, their usage gives a major clue as to whether behavior stemming from the heart, or the heart itself, is the primary reference.
…end of extract.

This fits perfectly with my own rule of thumb definitions that philos emphasises, primarily, affection (deep affection) whereas agapos is the love that is measured by its cost. Both are genuine and we should not denigrate one to enrich the other, but agapos is ‘love wherewith He loved us’ ie demonstrated by its selfless givenness.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/11/19 5:00Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: more on agapE

Agapos continued.

agapeO and agapE are used in the Septuagint but there is no record of them being used by heathen writers (so says Trench). The first use of the word is, I think, very significant.
[b] Genesis 22:2 (ASV) And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou [u]lovest[/u], even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.[/b] In other words the readers of the Greek Bible would have been introduced to the word in the context of the love relationship between a Father and an only-begotten Son.

[b] Genesis 29:20 (ASV) And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the [u]love[/u] he had to her.[/b] In the LXX this is agapos.
Exodus 20:6 and showing lovingkindness unto {1} thousands of them that [u]love[/u] me and keep my commandments. {1) Or [a thousand generations]}

[b] Leviticus 19:18 (ASV) Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people; but thou shalt [u]love[/u] thy neighbor as thyself: I am Jehovah.[/b]

[b] Deuteronomy 4:37 (ASV) And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out with his presence, with his great power, out of Egypt;[/b]

In fact agapeO and agapE are to be found in 139 verses in the Greek LXX. However I think this is one of the words that my old Greek teacher used to liken to Aristotle Onassis’ ships! He used to say that sometimes the New Testament claimed a word, emptied of its cargo, and filled it with a new one. (ekklesai is another) It is in the New Testament that we shall find the real significance of agapE although the LXX uses can trigger some precious meditations.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/11/19 5:22Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Some bits on erOs.

Neither erOs nor its cognates are ever used in the NT, although they appear occasionally in the LXX

erastEs
Ezekiel 16:33 She has even given rewards to all that went a-whoring after her, and thou hast given rewards to all thy [u]lovers[/u], yea, thou didst load them with rewards, that they should come to thee from every side for thy fornication.

Hosea 2:5 And their mother went a-whoring: she that bore them disgraced [them]: for she said, I will go after my [u]lovers[/u], that give me my bread and my water, and my garments, and my linen clothes, my oil and my necessaries.

Proverbs 4:6 And forsake it not, and it shall cleave to thee: [u]love[/u]


Proverbs 7:18 Come, and let us enjoy love (phileas) until the morning; come, and let us embrace in love (erOti).


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/11/19 5:43Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Thanks Bro. Ron,

That's some awesome stuff. It brings some real clairity to the issue.

A final question on eros. Does it seem that eros is always used in a sinful way or does it merely define physical relations irrespective of whether they are sinful or not.

Thanks!

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/11/19 8:53Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
A final question on eros. Does it seem that eros is always used in a sinful way or does it merely define physical relations irrespective of whether they are sinful or not.


I think it is merely sensual without. The LXX translators were not always consistent with their translations of words. The Prov 7:18 reference is a linked to several very similar words; one of which is the noun used in Abraham, My Friend (quick plug). It derives from the sound of 'heavy breathing'! It is passion and passion is part of the way God made us. However passion is only to be released within stated parameters.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/11/19 9:17Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Does Philostorgos seem to indicate a familial love or could the words have been joined together to give us a glimpse into how wwere ought to relate to each other as brothers and sisters in Christ? I always associated storgos as 'familial' love in the sense of relatives loving each other. Maybe that is a false notion.

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/11/19 9:38Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

I think storgE is instinctive, natural, love. It could be used of an animals instinct. Although we may speak of a dog loving its pups, does it really? There is certainly a bond and great distress if it is broken, but there is no passion in a dog’s sexual encounters, no relationship and no commitment. It is we say ‘instinct’. I think this is the area we are in. If a mother or father is without this ‘love’ they are not unromantic (without erOs), or unfriendly (without philos) they are un-natural. It is symbiotic in that it creates a stable setting for each member of the storgE. So it operates between mother and son, brother and brother, across the family, across the tribe. I think it is familial but my feeling is is that it is familial ‘instinct’ rather than familial ‘love’. It seems to increase with the increase in quality of the host. The little red hen or our Sunday School days was too stupid to get off the nest when the fire came, she was bound there by storgE! (don’t tell the kids!) A human being is more conscious of other things and consequently self-interest may quench storgE.

The great feature of agapE is that there is a far greater element of choice. It consciously, not instinctively, lays down its life for others. It is not the result of an outside attraction in the way that erOs and phileO might be. AgapE does not love ‘because’. This is a divine enabling and I think this is what Peter may have been groping for in his persistent use of phileO when the Lord used agapeO on the first two occasions. When Christ accommodated His question to the level of Peter’s consciousness, Peter was offended because on that occasion Christ asked do you phileO me?

Peter was a great character but he did not have the agapE that would lay down its life, and the John 21 episode is his confession of this. There was no question of his philos; his words were not an arrogant boast but a declaration of intent. [b] Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake.[/b] (Joh 13:37 KJV) but when it came to the crunch he just did not have the [i]‘agapE’ of God poured out within his heart by the Holy Spirit[/i].

In all our endeavours for the Lord and His people God will bring us to the consciousness that all our aspirations must fail; erOs, storgE, philia must fail only agapE will get the job done. [b] But now faith, hope, love (agapE, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love (agape). [/b](1Co 13:13 NASB)


[color=0000FF]Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that the root noun is agapE and storgE and philia and erOs. The first three are feminine and the last one masculine.[/color]


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/11/19 11:15Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy