More About Love
I appreciate the thoughts from everyone who entered the discussion on the commandment of love and the scriptural meaning of love. I’m offering this article as an extension of our discussion and I hope it will help us to learn to love more perfectly. I decided to trace the origin of the word Agape because Agape seems to be the “conclusion” of all love. Again I’ve been surprised by what I’ve found.
Agape, the noun, is formed from the verb Agapao. This surprised me as I expected the reverse. As I continued the trace I found what seemed a pattern of growth toward Agape. Upon consideration I would say it is more of a circle beginning and ending with God.
The Lexicon provides this order and these definitions:
Agape; Noun Feminine
Definition:
brotherly love, affection, good will, love, benevolence
love feasts
Agapao; Verb
Definition:
of persons
to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly
of things
to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing
Phileo; Verb
Definition:
to love
to approve of
to like
sanction
to treat affectionately or kindly, to welcome, befriend
to show signs of love
to kiss
to be fond of doing
be wont, use to do
Philos; Adjective (Primative word)
Definition:
friend, to be friendly to one, wish him well
a friend
an associate
he who associates familiarly with one, a companion
one of the bridegroom's friends who on his behalf asked the hand of the bride and rendered him various services in closing the marriage and celebrating the nuptials
Labels: Theology
offered by Kc | 11/27/2005 06:05:00 AM
41 Comments:
God is also love (I John 4:8, 16). God does not need to attain nor attempt to maintain love; it is the very substance and nature of God. The Love for eternity
Nice post
Thanks Forgiven. I have many suspicions that seem to point to the probability that there is no love outside of God. I'm not saying there is no love outside of faith but I am at least suspicious ot that too. ;-)
KC
I believe that too
Thanks a lot for linking to my blog. That is very kind.
Thank you. (I'm a bit of a lexophile.)
LOL CS that's a good word for me right now. One thing I'm sure of is that without the dear brethern and His Spirit to intervene then my mind + lexicon = insanity. ;-)
Please do not think that I am ignoring your request to address this issue. I just am not that acquainted with this topic and need to do further research.
You say that you believe there is no love outside of God, and perhaps outside of faith? or at least you have 'suspicions' of this.
Consider this: God only loves Himself.
That sounds like a provocation unto debate, Adam. Or is that what you mean by 'sofystry'?
:)
Matthew it is an honor for me to be able to link to you. ;-)
Forgiven, great minds think alike eh? (hehe) ;-)
Adam, finally my scriptural attorney weighs in but not with answers, no, with a challenge! ;-)
I would say it would be easy to logically prove from scripture that God only loves God (all the fullness of God in Christ, etc...)but would that make it true? (grin)
Zeke, I'm really glad to see your comments around bloggerville and I hope you're all doing well. God bless you.
KC, if you can prove it with Scripture, then it of necessity is true...
Zeke, debate is good. Sofystry is was not.
I said "logically" prove. (grin)
I am not sure if I understand Adam's point. The Scripture says for God so loved the world. If God only loved Himself, He would be perfectly satisfied without humanity. Yet, He created us to live with Him. I agree that there is no true love outside of God.
The commands of Jesus were simple: 1) Love God, and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. God is telling us quite simply to 1) Love Him first, 2) Love ourselves second, and 3) Love our neighbors exactly as we love ourselves. How do I love myself? Do I take care of myself? Yes. Do I allow myself to intentionally get into harm's way? No. Likewise, we should love our neighbors the same way we love ourselves. This is why I say that true love does not consider emotion. Jesus did not put conditions on that love. He did not say "love your neighbor as yourself, only if your neighbor is nice to you," or "only if you like your neighbor." We expect God to love us unconditionally; should we not love our neighbors the same way?
Ron, great thoughts. I know Adam is up to the task of illustrating his point. ;-)
From your comment I take it that you include care with love. I always have as well but I'm reconsidering it in light of my study. I'm not ready to say that "care" or benevolence toward our "neighbor" is not called for but I'm ready to question it. I will say that benevolence and good will should be toward our brethren. I've settled that much for myself. I also see hospitality required toward our neighbor.
BTW Ron I'm really being blessed in the devotions!
Ann no problem and I respect your choice. Now I'm wondering if my new look here is too girly. (grin)
Our language would be more easily understood if we didn't clump a big group of words together and just call them love.
Kc, interesting discussion!
I think your suspicions are correct that there is no love outside of God, for God is love.
By the way, I'm gone for only a week, and when I come back I barely recognize you (or your site, rather)! Nice changes though!
Darlene thanks for visiting. I agree. I find It gets even more clouded outside of the scriptural context. It seems this makes uncovering the scriptural intent of the love even more difficult.
Kristi welcome home! We missed you. I guess that'll teach you not to turn your back on us (hehe). Thanks.
;-)
For any other lexophiles here's a great resource. E-sword is a free program with numerous capabilities.
Hello kc,
I clicked on the links to lexicon and crosswalk. Then I clicked on the verse counts for each greek word for love and found something that doesn't make sense.
I can't figure out how they can say the greek verbs Agapao and Phileo are both used in the same place in the verses. I am not a greek language student but crosswalk seems to be misleading someone here. The english word love in the verses in John 21 either have to be Agapao or Phileo or a combination of the two. I don't see how they can say both words can be interchanged here because they mean different actions of love.
Does anyone know what greek words for love are actually used in John 21?
I don't want to be anal about things but this discourse between Jesus and Peter is Jesus basically restoring Peter after his denials. So I would think the meaning of love here in these verses in pretty important. I have been inclined to believe from some teachers that Jesus used Agapao the first two times and used Phileo the third time He asked Peter. So I have either believed something that was true or the teachers just messed up and I believed something that was not really true.
i guess, God intends it really to be simple. God is love and however we want to call or classify it, God commands us to love Him and to love our neighbors as we love Him. and our job is to obey.
Kris E-sword gives these strongs numbers:
Joh 21:15 So3767 when3753 they had dined,709 Jesus2424 saith3004 to Simon4613 Peter,4074 Simon,4613 son of Jona,2495 lovest25 thou me3165 more4119 than these? He5130 saith3004 unto him,846 Yea,3483 Lord;2962 thou4771 knowest1492 that3754 I love5368 thee.4571 He saith3004 unto him,846 Feed1006 my3450 lambs.721
Joh 21:16 He saith3004 to him846 again3825 the second time,1208 Simon,4613 son of Jona,2495 lovest25 thou me? He3165 saith3004 unto him,846 Yea,3483 Lord;2962 thou4771 knowest1492 that3754 I love5368 thee.4571 He saith3004 unto him,846 Feed4165 my3450 sheep.4263
Joh 21:17 He saith3004 unto him846 the3588 third time,5154 Simon,4613 son of Jona,2495 lovest5368 thou me?3165 Peter4074 was grieved3076 because3754 he said2036 unto him846 the3588 third time,5154 Lovest5368 thou me?3165 And2532 he said2036 unto him,846 Lord,2962 thou4771 knowest1097 all things;3956 thou4771 knowest1492 that3754 I love5368 thee.4571 Jesus2424 saith3004 unto him,846 Feed1006 my3450 sheep.4263
and these definitions:
G25
ἀγαπάω
agapaō
ag-ap-ah'-o
Perhaps from ἄγαν agan (much; or compare [H5689]); to love (in a social or moral sense): - (be-) love (-ed). Compare G5368.
G5368
φιλέω
phileō
fil-eh'-o
From G5384; to be a friend to (fond of [an individual or an object]), that is, have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; while G25 is wider, embracing especially the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety: the two thus stand related very much as G2309 and G1014, or as G2372 and G3563 respectively; the former being chiefly of the heart and the latter of the head); specifically to kiss (as a mark of tenderness): - kiss, love.
This is the Scofield notes on vs 15 from E-sword:
Joh 21:15 -
dined
Literally, breakfasted.
lovest
(Greek, "agapaō", "deeply love"; used of "divine love") (Joh_14:21); and of that love which the law demands (Luk_10:27).
love
(Greek, "phileō", "am fond of"). It is a lesser degree of love than agapas.
Feed
See (1Pe_5:2).
Pia I agree. I think the problem is as Darlene stated. When we take a bunch of words and lump them into one English word the simplicity gets lost.
See why we need the discussion board...;)
[I am not sure if I understand Adam's point. The Scripture says for God so loved the world. If God only loved Himself, He would be perfectly satisfied without humanity. Yet, He created us to live with Him. I agree that there is no true love outside of God.]
Yes, God did love the world, this does not conflict with saying that God only loves Himself.
And do you not think that God IS perfectly satisfied without humanity? Are you telling me that God created Humanity because He (God, the all-sufficient one) was lacking? Did God create man because perhaps He was lonely? Was the blessed Trinity not fellowship enough?
And Him creating us to live with Him does not mean that He created us because He NEEDED us to live with Him.
And if there is not true love OUTSIDE of God, then how can those OUTSIDE of God experience true love? Thoroughly confusing this is.
Person A is outside of God, yet experiences love. But there is no love outside of God. So what does person A experience? It is like saying there is no oxygen outside of the earth's atmosphere but likewise saying that person A is breathing oxygen on the moon?
If there is no love outside of God, then it is not wrong to say that God only loves Himself.
I like that though. There is no true love outside of God. If I can first get people to acknowledge that, then it makes my task of proving that God only loves Himself much easier...KC IS GENIUS!!!!
Adam I am positive you could logically win this argument and still miss the truth.
You could likewise prove that only God is everlasting but would that be the truth?
I think flawless logic requires absolute knowledge and negates the need for itself. Used as a tool for learning it can be very helpful in understanding. Used as a weapon it can be deadly.
But if this logic requires absolute knowledge then how can it be used as a tool?
If I cannot use logic to come to truth, as I am not possessing absolute truth, then 'logic' cannot EVER help me to learn ANY truth. The only truth that I could learn was that which was specifically told me by one possessing absolute truth.
Would you REALLY be willing to take that rode? Would you really be willing to say that logic should never be used by we Christians at least?
Theology is great, but so is philosophical theology...they are both needed and good; loving God with your mind and all...
"Would you really be willing to say that logic should never be used by we Christians at least?"
Adam, first let me say that what I appreciate about you is that we can discuss these issues with maturity and sincerity, not trying to demean or belittle one another.
Having said that, I believe the answer to your question is no; however, the only reason I say that is because you used the word "never," which no one else has used. Your zeal to ask the question caused you to use such a qualifier, because if you take that word out, the answer must be yes. Logic is born from the man's mind, and that desire traces itself back to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eve saw that the fruit was desirable to make one wise, so she ate. Faith and logic cannot co-exist. As Jesus told Nicodemus, whatever is born of flesh is flesh, and whatever is born of Spirit is spirit.
As you mentioned, God does not need man; it was His desire to create man to fellowship with Him. Yet, even the potter who fashions a creation with his hands loves that which he created.
"And if there is not true love OUTSIDE of God, then how can those OUTSIDE of God experience true love? Thoroughly confusing this is."
Not confusing at all. Those outside of God cannot experience true love. They experience an emotional or philsophical affection toward another thing (because for many, their love is toward things other than human beings). They do not know Jesus, so they have not experienced the love of Jesus.
If you went to an amusement park, and only rode one ride, you may say that you had a wonderful time, yet you did not experience the entire park, so you can only talk about that part which you have experienced.
Logic can help you understand carnal truth, but it will never help you understand spiritual truth. It is interesting that this discussion is happening now, as I am writing a devotional on the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus. Adam, I know you are a student of the Word, so I encourage you to read that conversation again, to see what God reveals to you about why Nicodemus could not understand what Jesus was referring to. I would be more than happy to share those devotionals with you as well.
God Bless!!
Adam I'll go down any road with you. ;-)
You've already given me an example of what I'm saying, your recent xanga about being hungry. You used logic to prove a lie as a joke (and it was hilarious!).
In that example you knew your presuppositions were preposterous but sometimes we (and I mean everyone) really do believe lies are true and use logic to prove more lies within our own minds. Remember logic and reason are two different things and I believe both have their place in His plan for us. Don’t forget I love you. (grin)
It looks like I missed some great discussion on love and it's many splenored meanings. This is the first time I have ever visited your blog. It lookes really nice! I "love" it!
Oh, is that you in the upper left hand corner? You mean you're not really a mouse? ;~)
LOL! Rose, welcome. Thanks for the kind words. I guess the debate about me, whether mouse or man, will continue in me to the end. ;-)
KC, my post on my xanga concerning hunger was not logic, it was sophistry. There is a difference. If I had used proper logic, I would never have been able to come to the conclusion that I am God from the fact that I am hungry.
Good logic however can come to the truth that God exists from the truth that man can think of perfection. That is an example of logic coming to truth without being possessed by one who possesses perfect knowledge.
Not to strain the point but wouldn't that be only a suspicion of the truth? BTW what makes logic "proper" [serious question]?
Thank your Kc for your time to research John 21.
As anyone can see, the different kinds of love give more insight & understanding to what Jesus and Peter were saying to each other.
I think its rather appalling that crosswalk lexicon would mislead people in their greek conversions.
Ron,
I agree with you, a perfect example of what you are saying is Paul. He was probably one of the most knowledgable men of the law in his day. But it did him or others no good till Jesus broke his heart on the way to Damascus. After that you can see from his letters how his new spiritual eyes led by the Holy Spirit gave him the ability to see the scriptures differently.
Likewise Adam makes some good points to consider.
Kris, thank you. I really am very thankful for all of you.
KC, 'proper' logic is saying that all men are stupid, KC is a man, therefore KC is stupid. It is good logic...it is not flawed logic.
Improper logic is what I would call sophistry. It is devious. It is my hunger syllogism. My hunger syllogism is EXTREMELY flawed in the vast amount of equivocation that I did.
Understand?
Ron, I appreciate as well that you would take the opinion of an arrogant young man...many cast me aside as extreme and too radical. I am quite positive if you knew me in person you would not listen to me either. Most people think I'm...what is the word...INSANE! BWAHAHAHA HEY! Luther was a tad bit loopy as well, I'm not in bad company! BRING ON THE CHEESE!!!
I would disagree however when you say that logic is born from a man's mind. I think 'logic' like goodness, is born from the nature of God. Just as God is good so God is logical. God is not above logic, as this would lead us to consider that 2+2 could equal 4 and logic is not above God, as this would lead us to say that God is not all supreme; but God is logical, they are...almost...synonymous. But it is dangerous to say that they are synonymous, that is why I say simply that God is logical. We can discuss this more fully if you so desire.
Yes, the potter does love that which He created...SOMETIMES. Simply because it was my hands that fashioned the paint to make the portrait does not signify that I like the art that was produced. I am not a painter, I am horrible at it. Therefore, if I was to create something with paint, I would hate it for its very nature of being ugly, the fact that I created it would not have sway on my feelings toward it. However, I am a writer. I like to write. I write what I think is beautiful. I normally like what I write. However, I can purposely create sentences that I hate. I could say words that I would despise. I could call KC names that I meant to call him, but of which I hate that they would be attributed to them. Understand? Simply because it is my hands that fashion something, this does not mean that I am then bound to fashion something that I love. Vessels of wrath my friend...vessels of wrath.
Concerning your amusement park idea, I would say that perhaps you could say that those outside of God experience 'part love' (as those who only ride the amusement park only experience part of the park), but to do so would be to say that there really is true love outside of Christ. You cannot say both. They are antithetical. Either there is true love outside of Christ (part or whole), or there is not.
I would LOVE to read your devotional, and I would LOVE to speak more about Nicodemus. I have always liked that story, just because it is fun to say Nicodemus...everyone repeat, Nicodemus, Nicodemus, Nicodemus. It is almost as much fun as saying heebeejeebees...
Geeeeeee ask one question and now I'm "stupid"??!! ;-)
Only because you are a man...that is why you should be an elf like me!!! (sorry, I'm currently reading LOTR)
Is it possible that the use of the phrases, "in God" and "outside of God" are obstacles to a more correct understanding that there is no love that is not a result of God being God?
Is being "in God" requisite to experiencing God's love? I put it to you that just as the sun rises on the evil and the good, and as the rain falls on both the just and the unjust (Matt 5:44-48), so it is with the love of God. Just as an infidel can experience truth (ALL of which is from God) and remain outside the household of faith, so can he experience love as an unbeliever. It's the believer's task to demonstrate the connection of love to its Source.
Post a Comment