An interesting opportunity for a Word Study: Phileo and Agape

I have always been fascinated by the Christian concept of "love". Even before I believed, as an Atheist I was captured by the words of 1 Corinthians Chapter 13 that commends love above all other virtues and forms of worship. (Not that I had read it, but we sang a piece in our High School Choir that used the text, quite powerfully.)

Unfortunately, English is pretty dismal when we talk about "love", since what we mean when we use the term is heavily dependent on context and relationship. When I use the term in reference to my wife, my daughter, my friends, or my car, it has very different meanings and implications. Translators are somewhat stuck, because they really don't want to take a paragraph to unpack the word, based on the nuances of the Hebrew or Greek words being translated.

I came across a great passage for exploring the difference between two different Greek words often translated "love" in my devotional reading a while back, and started exploring it in BibleWorks to see whether unpacking the Greek would be helpful in understanding what is going on.  Here's the passage (New English Translation, since it has no copyright issues):

Then when they had finished breakfast, Yeshua said to Shimon Petras, “Shimon, son of Yochanan, do you love me more than these do?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Yeshua told him, “Feed my lambs. Jesus said a second time, “Shimon, son of Yochanan, do you love me?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Yeshua told him, “Shepherd my sheep.” Yeshua said a third time, “Shimon, son of Yochanan, do you love me?” Petras was distressed that Yeshua asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” Yeshua replied, “Feed my sheep.

John 21:15-18

As I read this, I thought, there's something going on here between Yeshua and Shimon that is more than just repetition. So, let me show you the passage again, except in addition to using the Hebrew/Greek forms of the names, I'll insert the words that appear in Greek (in transliteration).

Then when they had finished breakfast, Yeshua said to Shimon Petras, “Shimon, son of Yochanan, do you agape me more than these do?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I phileo you.” Yeshua told him, “Feed my lambs." Jesus said a second time, “Shimon, son of Yochanan, do you agape me?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I phileo you.” Yeshua told him, “Shepherd my sheep.” Yeshua said a third time, “Shimon, son of Yochanan, do you agape me?” Petras was distressed that Yeshua asked him a third time, “Do you agape me?” and said, “Lord, you know everything. You know that I phileo you.” Yeshua replied, “Feed my sheep."

John 21:15-18

Now, it is unlikely the Yeshua and Shimon were speaking in Greek, since Aramaic was used for everyday conversation among first Century Jews, but the fact that the writer chose those two different Greek words indicates that there was, at least in the writer's mind, an understanding that Yeshua and Peter were talking about two different concepts here.

So, since what we have is the Greek, we'll work with that. Here are the two words, and their semantic ranges. I'm working from Freiberg's Analytical Greek Lexicon:

• Agape: (ah-gah-pay) love, especially of love as based on evaluation and choice, a matter of will and action; 
• Phileo: (phil-lay-oh) love, as devotion based in the emotions, often distinguished from ἀγαπάω (love), which is devotion based in the will.

From this, I think we see the point the author is trying to make: Yeshua was asking Shimon about what he was willing to do, and Shimon was responding based on Shimon's level of devotion to Yeshua. 

Yeshua asks: "Will you do as I ask?" and Shimon's message back is: "Yes, because I am devoted to you." so Yeshua tells Shimon to care for people. By the third time, Shimon is getting a little freaked out (distressed), which would be understandable, considering.

So, what is the message for us, here? Pretty much the same as it was for Simon Peter: If you're devoted to Jesus, care for others.

Oh, and that "love" in 1 Corinthians 13? That's agape there, too. It doesn't matter what else you do or feel, if you aren't caring for others, it is meaningless.

A rare cross-post with my other blog...

 I don't post often, and haven't at all for quite some time, but I thought this was worthy of cranking up Blogspot not once, but twice.

Neil Degrasse Tyson just posted an incredible argument for Intelligent Design on TikTok. 

He didn’t think it was an argument for Intelligent Design, but it is.

Here’s how it goes, he starts talking about shuffling playing cards, and gets to the fact that there are 52! (52 factorial) different possible sequences of cards after a proper shuffle. For those who don’t remember that part of math, 52! is:

52 x 51 x 50 x 49 x 48 x 47 x 46 x 45 x 44 x … x10 x 9 x 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1

which works out to 8 x 10⁶⁷. 8 with 67 zeroes after it. A really big number.

To put that into context, he explains that if you took a trillion people, in each of a trillion civilizations, in a trillion different universes, handed each a deck of playing cards, and gave each person instructions to shuffle their deck a trillion times a second, and had that go on for a trillion years, you would only have a 40% chance of one of those shufflings giving the same order as a deck you just shuffled.

So how is that an argument for Intelligent Design?

How old does Science say the Universe is? The longest time that I have found in scientific research is 26.7 Billion years.

Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that the development of intelligent life only requires 52 steps³, in the correct order. Each step is represented in our thought experiment by a playing card. Only one sequence out of all the possible sequences results in life as we know it. Neil argues that hitting the correct sequence would take;

• a trillion universes,
• times a trillion civilizations,
• times a trillion people,
• times a trillion shuffles per second,
• times 31,536,000 seconds per year,
• for a trillion years,
• with only a 40% chance of success at hitting the correct sequence.
  

Here we are having this (presumably) intelligent conversation in (at most) 2.67% of the time, in just one universe!

And I think we can all accept that life as we know it took more than 52 steps. If it took even one additional step, the odds get even longer. Roughly 1 in 4 x 10⁶⁹

Of course, the fact that something is low probability doesn't mean that you can't possibly hit it on the first try. It just makes it very unlikely.

The counter argument is that this isn’t the only cycle the universe (or multiverse) has taken.

If all that is, is on infinite repeat, anything could happen.

Even a famous atheist accidentally posting an argument for Intelligent Design on TikTok.

What is "the mark of the Beast"?

 

To those concerned about "the Mark of the Beast" in these troubling times (whether that is focused on vaccination, a cashless society, or some other idea), please remember that Revelation is Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. (In this context "Apocalyptic" does not mean "End Times", "End of the World" or anything like that. An "Apocalype" is technically something that has been revealed, which is why the book is called "Revelation". But I digress...)

In Apocalyptic Literature, every reference is symbolic. In Jewish Apocalyptic Literature most of them are connected to symbolism from the Tanakh ("Old Covenant" Scriptures). So, in that context, what does the "mark" (or, more appropriately "sign") refer to? Let's look at Exodus 13, Deuteronomy 6, and Deuteronomy 11 for the answer.

 

In Exodus 13, Israel is told that the observance of Passover "shall serve as a sign to you on your hand, and as a reminder on your forehead, that the law of the Lord may be in your mouth; for with a powerful hand the Lord brought you out of Egypt." (NASB)

 

In Deuteronomy 6 is, of course, the Shema, the central prayer of Israel: "“Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates." (NASB)

 

Deuteronomy 11 promises blessing to Israel "...if you listen obediently to my commandments which I am commanding you today, to love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart and all your soul...You shall therefore impress these words of mine on your heart and on your soul; and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontals on your forehead."

 

Two things to draw from these passages:

1. These are promises made to Israel, the Biblical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If the promises being used as symbols apply to Israel, it is at least arguable that the "sign of the Beast" does also. This is not to say that what affects the 'apple of God's eye" doesn't affect the rest of Creation, but it does say that the events being talked about aren't likely to be centered in the USA, or even in this half of the globe.
2. The "sign" is not a physical thing, except where a physical thing is used as a reminder of a Spiritual thing. It is a matter of cleaving onto the Word of God, and loving Him, and the other human beings He created in His image, above all else
   

Based on this, what is the "Mark of the Beast"? I would argue that it is not a literal, physical, thing. I would argue that it is the "anti-Shema". The Shema calls Israel to a singular focus on one God, supreme over any and all distractions. The "sign" then is made up of the distractions.

In short: The "sign of the Beast" is making anything, or anyone, more central to your thought, words, and actions than God and His Word.

Picking this back up again...

 I just got back on here after a long hiatus (about 6 years!), where I put a lot of my thoughts in Facebook. I have come to understand that Social Media platforms are not the best place to explore ideas in a calm, thoughtful manner.

So, I'm relocating back to my old neighborhood, so to speak.  I'l start by moving some of my commentary on Facebook here, where I'll expand and elaborate on those ideas.

Stay tuned...

Thoughts on Romans 10:4

Note updated to correct some typos and flesh out the idea a bit more.

In the MSI Romans class, we talk a fair amount about two Greek words:

• telos - Usually translated "end", but more often means "goal" or "purpose"
• nomos - Usually translated either "law" or "Law", but can also mean "rule" or "instruction"

In Romans 10:4, Paul uses these two words together.  It is generally translated as something along the line:

"Christ is the end (telos) of the Law (nomos) so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes."

Various translators and commentators have struggled mightily with this phrase, trying to reconcile the meaning of "end of the Law" with the Paul who is depicted in Acts as a Torah-observant Jew.

Some bail entirely on the question of whether telos means "cessation" or "goal" here, and refer to the latter portion of the verse "so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes" to establish the idea that either way, the Law is irrelevant for the Believer.

I would like us to look at another word to try to identify how a Torah-observant Jew might have written and meant Romans 10:4 - Christos

In the 1st Century, there were a number of different expectations or images of the Messiah. For our purpose here, we'll focus on two of them:

• Moshiach ben David - the conquering King who brings the Kingdom of God to Earth
• Moshiach ben Joseph - the suffering servant who takes upon himself the penalty for sin.

Each of these visions of the Messiah are testified to by the Prophets, hence the two different images of the Messiah.  I would like us to consider these two Christoi in the light of Paul's statement.  This may be the key question in applying this passage: Which Messiah is the "end game" of God's promise to mankind (via Israel)?

If Easter and Pentecost are the end game of Scripture, then the question of the "cessation of the Law" is up for consideration for both Paul and us.  Christ clearly died as Moshiach ben Joseph and that is that.

But what about Moshiach ben David?  If you take the position that the Revelation is a stand-alone document, and needs no support from the Old Testament to be valid, then you don't need Moshiach ben David to support the return as a conquering king.   However, there is very little in Revelation that makes one lick of sense without the Old Testament.

If, however, Moshiach ben David is the end game of Scripture, then no matter how we want to play with telos and nomos, Torah still has meaning and purpose, because the Messiah that is the telos of the nomos is still to come.

So, either the death and resurrection of the Messiah brings righteousness for everyone who believes, or the return of the Davidic King to establish God's reign on the Earth brings righteousness for everyone who believes.

If it is the death and resurrection that brings righteousness, then what are we to make of Paul's own struggle with sin as detailed elsewhere in the letter?

I suspect that Paul was looking towards the Davidic reign, when "the full number of Gentiles" has come in, and "all Israel will be saved". 

I plan on developing these thoughts further, but for the moment, I invite comment.

Dating Paul's Letter to the Romans

Last night in Galatians class, I mentioned that there was a pretty good basis for dating Paul's letter to the Romans in the political situation in Rome itself, but there wasn't time to pursue it.  One person had already taken my Romans Class, but for the benefit of the others:

Installing BibleWorks 9 in Ubuntu Linux using Wine.

Why this is here...

I love Linux.  I also love BibleWorks.  Unfortunately, these two loves of mine don't play nice together.  BibleWorks only likes Windows and Mac. So, what's a Linux-loving BibleWorks junkie to do?  Well, there is a way to make everyone cooperate, and that is to create a sort of sandbox where BibleWorks thinks it's playing with Windows, when it's really Linux in Micro$oft clothing.  The "sandbox" is a lovely little project called "Wine".