As we've been discussing 1 John 4 and the term love in that passage, it seems worthwhile to note that John is using the term agape in that passage. What it seems like others may be doing is saying something like, "1 John talks about agape and we should agape others, we clearly seem people every day who phileo each other so clearly those who phileo each other are living out the 1 John instruction to agape.".
I think this is a much bigger issue in society today. For many/most love means eros, but talking about eros when agape is the target seems problematic.
Stan frequently points out that the term love has a changing definition, and he's right. But I think part of what he is seeing is the intentional use of the vagueness of the English word love to mischaracterize what scripture is really telling us.
3 comments:
I cannot agree more. Indeed, "God is love" is an expression so often attached to pro-lgbt activism that I don't doubt there's intention to pervert the concept to that end.
The English language doesn't have more than one word for "love", but regardless of the distinctions other languages...like Greek...provide, all forms must be in the context of being on God's terms.
I agree that all of the forms we have words for in Greek are still under the terms of YHWH's inherent love.
My problem is that We see the various forms of the word love used interchangeably. Stan wrote about this a while ago, but was focused on the change in meaning of the English term.
But I think that in the case of Dan's abuse of 1 John, he is likely arguing that when someone engages in phileo, that they are "born of God" despite the fact that John uses the term agape, which has a different meaning. It's like engaging in eros out of YHWH's context, and being given credit for agape.
For that matter, is the claim really that one who engages in Mania, Ludus, or Philutia to be equated with someone who engages in agape?
It seems clear to me that Dan (in this case) is using the confusion between the different forms of love to pretend that they are all equivalent, even though John is clearly being specific.
You aren't really suggesting Dan's promoting something other than actual Scriptural teaching, are you? That sounds so out of character! Perish the thought!
Even if the intentions are "loving" (irony alert!), one must adhere to the text as fully and accurately as possible. But could we ever get a true explanation for Dan's positions which can indicate no more than a sincere error in interpretation? Could we ever trust such an explanation?
Post a Comment