SIMON . . . DO YOU LOVE ME?

 So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Feed My lambs." He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep.  (John 21:15-17)

The above discourse between Jesus and Simon Peter has stirred a great deal of discussion among Bible commentators for more than a century.  The issue involves two Greek words both translated “love” in nearly all English translations:  agapao and phileo.  The interpretive question is whether Peter, in responding to Jesus’ evocative queries concerning Peter’s love, intentionally used a different word (phileo) than the one Jesus used the first two times (agapao).  Or are the two words used synonymously in this context.[1] Bible expositors have expressed their different interpretations of this text in serious, respectful comments, giving their rationale while respecting opposing views.  In recent decades, however, the discourse has taken a less congenial turn.  A new linguistic approach to Scripture, championed by Dr. James Barr,[2] a liberal scholar who wrote against J. I. Packer’s stance on biblical inerrancy, has changed the paradigm.  The new approach depreciates the importance of individual words in Scripture, minimizing etymology (the study of the origins and development of words) and biblical word studies. This movement led to a new approach to Bible translation that seeks to give readers “the meaning” of Scripture – as the translator sees it – without any obligation to translate the actual words of Scripture.  

This movement has serious implications for the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the Bible. That doctrine teaches that the very words of Scripture in their original languages are inspired by God.

In Chapter one of his book Exegetical Fallacies, D. A. Carson states, “How often do preachers refer to the verb agapao (to love), contrast it with phileo (to love), and deduce that the text is saying something about a special kind of loving, for no other reason than that agapao is used.”  Then in the next paragraph he calls this reasoning, along with other alleged fallacies, “linguistic nonsense.”[3]

Carson tries to demonstrate that agape and the verb agapao can even mean sexual lust by citing the Septuagint translation (LXX) of 2 Samuel 13:15, where Amnon’s lust for his half-sister Tamara is called agaph.  Here we need to point out that the LXX is not inspired Scripture but a Greek translation of the Old Testament.[4]  

 J. Gresham Machen made a very pertinent point about the vocabulary of the New Testament:

Moreover, the originality of the New Testament writers should not be ignored.  They had come under the influence of new convictions of a transforming kind, and those new convictions had their effect in the sphere of language.  Common words had to be given new and loftier meanings, and common men were lifted to a higher realm by a new and glorious experience.  It is not surprising, then, that despite linguistic similarities in detail the New Testament books, even in form, are vastly different from letters that have been discovered in Egypt. The New Testament writers have used the common, living language of the day.  But they have used it in the expression of uncommon thoughts, and the language itself, in the process, has been to some extent transformed.[5] 

The question, then, regarding any New Testament word is how it is used in the New Testament.  Of the 144 uses of the verb form in the New Testament, only nine clearly refer to loving something sinful or ungodly.[6]  Carson cites Paul’s use of agapao in 2 Timothy 4:10 which states that Demas had departed “having loved this present world.”  (Carson adds “evil” to the citation to make apagao even less noble.)  The predominant use of agapao in the NT is positive, and the verb is never used in the NT with any sexual connotation.  Nevertheless, those nine references to loving ungodly or worldly things do support Carson’s main point, the one that seems to irk him the most, that agape love is not some sort of higher, nobler, or more godly type of love than the word with which it is often contrasted -- phileo.  Granted.  The words express different kinds of love, not higher or lower kinds of love.  Are those different kinds of love in play in John 21?  Shouldn’t we respectfully consider the possibility?

Carson takes to task William Hendriksen for the latter’s observation that there are semantic differences between agapao and phileo, and that such differences apply in John 21:15-17.  Carson boldly states that “Henriksen’s argument will not stand up, precisely because he mishandles the difficult questions surrounding synonymy.  The heart of his argument is that the total semantic range of each word is slightly different from the other, and therefore that there is a semantic difference in this context.”  Carson is putting words in Hendriksen’s word processor!  Hendriksen made his judgment that there is a difference between the two words in this context on the basis of the historical relationship between Peter and Jesus, and between Peter and the other disciples.  Hendriksen also gave careful attention to a vital aspect of linguistics that Carson totally ignores in this part of Exegetical Fallacies:  The sociolinguistic context of the conversation.  Peter’s emotional state entered into his responses, and Hendriksen took that into account, as well as the fact that the conversation was conducted in Aramaic.  Most importantly, Hendriksen noted the Holy Spirit’s work of inspiration in moving John to record the conversation in Greek:

We simply do not have the Aramaic written text, if there ever was one.  And we do not know enough to be able to affirm categorically that in no possible way could such fine distinctions have been conveyed by means of the Aramaic of that day.  We are compelled to proceed on the basis of the Greek text as it lies before us, in the conviction that it is fully inspired; hence, accurate in every way.”[7]

Hendriksen also gave an extensive list of commentators and translators on each side of the issue, showing his vast research into the matter.  Carson brushes off Hendriksen’s exposition as though the latter were an amateur.  But then Carson also does not hesitate to take on A. T. Robertson, the whole Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (on page 44 speaking of its “bankruptcy”), Richard C. Trench, and other notables.

My concern is that Carson’s scientific linguistic analysis of biblical texts and his iconoclastic bent are leading him and his readers away from the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures.  God did inspire (“breathe”) the very words of Scripture, and Jesus placed great importance on the smallest elements of the original text.  (See Matthew 5:18)  Certainly there is room for variety of expression, the use of words that are more or less synonymous, but in light of verbal, plenary inspiration, we owe it to the Word of God to consider whether there is reason in the total context – linguistic, historical, social, political, theological, and interpersonal – to see shades of meaning in the inspired words.

 

---

[1] There is also the question of the meaning of the two words, whether one is a deeper, more noble love than the other, but that is not the issue in this article.  Suffice it to say that they express different kinds of love, though their semantic ranges overlap. 

[2] Barr’s book, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 1961, laid the groundwork for dynamic equivalency translations, such as the CEV, NIV, NLB, etc. 

[3] Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies, Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996. 28

[4] Where the New Testament quotes the Septuagint, we must concede that the Holy Spirit has invested those words with His infallible inspiration, but that does not then carry over to the entire text of the LXX.

[5] Machen, J. Gresham. New Testament Greek for Beginners.  Toronto, Ontario: The Macmillan Company.  6

[6] Mat. 6:24; Lk. 11:43; 16:13; John 3:19; 12:43; 2 Tim. 4:10; 2 Pet. 2:15; 1 John 2:15 (2X).

[7] Hendriksen, Willam.  New Testament Commentary: John. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.  495.

WHAT ABOUT THE SEVENTH DAY?

Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17)

Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions . . . . One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. (Romans 14:1, 5)

You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain. (Galatians 4:10-11)

In view of the above passages of Scripture, it is puzzling that the observance of a Sabbath day is still a matter of controversy – sometimes heated! Are Christians obligated to observe one day in seven in a specific manner as holy to the Lord? If so, what day should that be: Saturday or Sunday? Or does it matter?

Perpetual Principle?

Since the Fourth Commandment is rooted in God’s finished Creation and His “resting” on the seventh day, there is a widespread belief that a seventh-day rest is a universal principle. Commentator A. R. Fausset maintains that the principle of a seventh-day rest was established in Paradise:

The weekly sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation (than the other ceremonial sabbaths in Israel’s calendar), having been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days.

But the commandment to observe that seventh day was given to Israel as a sign of God’s covenant with that unique nation (Ex. 31:17). The Genesis account of creation simply records that God “rested on the seventh day”; it does not record a command for Adam and Eve or their descendants to observe that day every week. If a seventh-day rest was observed from Adam to Moses, we have no record of it. We might speculate that an oral account of the creation was passed on and that one day a week was set apart by godly people to rest and honor God. It might also be that the Law of Moses invested that tradition with special meaning – along with specific regulations – for the nation of Israel. Whatever the case, the command to observe the Sabbath as a holy day began with the Law of Moses.

While expressing a basically sabbatarian view, Fausset does acknowledge that Hebrews 4 speaks of a “perpetual sabbath,”  and not a day of the week. He sees that rest as a “heavenly Sabbath” when there will be no need for a weekly day of rest.

“If we could keep a perpetual sabbath,” wrote Fausset, “as we shall hereafter, the positive precept of the sabbath, one in each week, would not be needed (Heb. 4:9).”

As mentioned in my previous post, the “rest” of Hebrews 3 and 4 seems to be the rest of salvation by grace apart from human works. It is indeed a “perpetual rest” from all fear of condemnation (Romans 8:1-2).

A Christian Sabbath?

The elders of a church I belonged to many years ago were considering the adoption of the London Baptist Confession of 1689 as the church’s doctrinal statement. Disagreement arose among the elders over two paragraphs of Chapter 22: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day.

 7. As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished. ( Exodus 20:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10 )

8.The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.( Isaiah 58:13; Nehemiah 13:15-22; Matthew 12:1-13 )

Some elders who were more aligned with Covenant Theology viewed Sunday as the “Christian Sabbath,” while others believed corporate and private worship to be a matter of individual conscience and not legal obligation. Since the elders of that church only made recommendations to the congregation when there was unanimous support, the London Confession was not presented. Instead they proposed a statement that proved acceptable to the elders and the congregation:

We believe that the first day of the week is the Christian celebration of our Lord’s resurrection. Following the example of the New Testament, the day is best used for the assembly of believers to worship and be instructed. We do not believe that Sunday is the New Covenant equivalent of the Old Covenant Sabbath with its attendant restrictions on activity. The preferring of one day above another is a matter of Christian liberty (Romans 14:5-6).

The New Testament Record

In the Gospels, Jesus had much to say about the Jews’ erroneous views of the Sabbath, but it ought to strike us that the New Testament from Acts on gives no instruction concerning the observance of one day a week as a religious observance. There are a couple of New Testament examples of worship on a particular day, and that day was the first day of the week.

On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. (Acts 20:7)

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come. (1 Corinthians 16:1-2)

This latter passage certainly implies that the “churches of Galatia” as well as the church in Corinth regularly met on the first day of the week.

While there is a conspicuous absence of rules or even guidelines as to what believers should do on that day of worship, Paul found it necessary to correct disorderly conduct in the church at Corinth and he gave Timothy advice on the conduct of church services. (See 1 Cor. 11-14; 1 Tim. 2 & 3)

Law vs. Grace

At the heart of any discussion of the Ten Commandments is the matter of the New Covenant vs. the Old Covenant. It is beyond the scope of this article to deal with such a vast subject, but some contrasts were made by the Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 3. Paul contrasts the law on “tablets of stone” (clearly the Ten Commandments) with God’s law “written on human hears (v. 3). Paul says “the letter” of the law “kills,” while “the Spirit gives life” (v. 6). The law written in stone, Paul says, is a “ministry of death” (v. 7), because it can only condemn those who cannot perfectly fulfill it – and none of us can!

The Old Covenant was rigid, and the penalty for deliberately disregarding it was severe. That included the law of the Sabbath day. (See Numbers 15:30-35)

As I developed in my last post, God’s Word shows a progressive revelation of the Sabbath principle investing it with ever more spiritual meaning. We might contrast the essence of the Sabbath concept in the Old Covenant and New Covenant in this way:

Old Covenant: Obey the Sabbath Day on the penalty of death.

New Covenant: Enjoy the Sabbath Rest in gratitude for the death and resurrection of Christ.

For those who would like to understand better the New Covenant in contrast to the Old Covenant, I recommend these books: Law and Grace by Alva J. McClain and The Law of Christ  by Charles Leiter.

THE PROGRESSIVE REVELATION OF THE SABBATH

Throughout the history of God’s covenant people, the importance of the Sabbath is central to and emblematic of their relationship with God. The Sabbath is a rest, not just a physical rest, but a spiritual rest. And that spiritual nature of the Sabbath is unfolded in the progressive revelation of Scripture.

Sabbath as Sign for Israel

            In the first giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai, the Sabbath commandment was based on the Creation days:

"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain. "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

(Ex. 20:7-11)

            The Sabbath observance was also a “sign” of the covenant between God and Israel.

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you.

(Exo 31:12-13)

"It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed."

(Exo 31:17)

            It is vitally important to recognize that the physical observance of the Sabbath day – and observance of other special Sabbaths associated with Hebrew holy days – was part of and central to the Sinaitic Covenant with Israel, what the New Testament calls the Old Covenant (2 Cor. 3:14; Heb. 8:13). God would progressively reveal the spiritual nature of “rest” to His people throughout Scripture, and the outward physical observance would be eclipsed by the deeper, fuller meaning of the Sabbath.

Sabbath as Deliverance from Bondage

            When God gave the Law to the new generation on the banks of the Jordan River, the focus of Sabbath observance changed from the days of Creation to Israel’s deliverance from bondage in Egypt. This is significant. The Ten Commandments were not simply repeated verbatim from the Commandments at Sinai. They were invested with new, fuller meaning.

'Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. 'Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 'You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.

(Deut. 5:12-15)

            So at the Jordan we get greater insight into the spiritual meaning of “sabbath”: it is a deliverance from bondage. In Egypt the people were well-fed physically (Num. 11:5), but they were not free. Cruel taskmasters controlled their lives. The LORD delivered them from that bondage, but in that deliverance, He called upon them to have faith in His provision. The observance of the various “sabbaths” in Israel – the weekly, the seventh-year, and the special holy day sabbaths – required that the Israelites trust God to provide when they ceased their work. Deliverance out of bondage was a deliverance into a trusting relationship with the LORD. “He brought us out from there in order to bring us in, to give us the land which He had sworn to our fathers.” (Deut. 6:23)

Sabbath as a Life of Worship and Blessing

            Psalm 95 interprets the entrance into Canaan as the beginning of a continual Sabbath, a life of worship and blessing in the Promised Land. This concept is also seen in Exodus 33:14, Deuteronomy 12:9-10; 25:19 and Joshua 1:13-15; 21:44. Though the Hebrew word for 'rest' in these passages is nuach (repose), rather than shabbathon (sabbath-rest), Deuteronomy 5:14 links the word to the Sabbath observance.

. . . but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and your female servant may rest (nuach) as well as you. (Deut. 5:14)

  

            This revelation of the spiritual nature of sabbath foreshadows the fulfillment of the Sabbath in Christ and His salvation. Note the connection in the following passages.

Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, As in the day of Massah in the wilderness, When your fathers tested Me, They tried Me, though they had seen My work. For forty years I loathed that generation, and said they are a people who err in their heart, and they do not know My ways. Therefore I swore in My anger, Truly they shall not enter into My rest. (Psalm 95:8-11)

            The Hebrew word for “rest” here is m^enuchah and is related to nuach. It means “place of repose.” The New Testament book of Hebrews makes the connection of that repose in the Promised Land with the “sabbath rest” (sabbatismos) of salvation.

Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, "AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST," although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS"; and again in this passage, "THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST." Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS." For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. (Hebrews 4:1-10)

            Here the author of Hebrews establishes the “sabbath rest” (sabbatismos) as salvation by faith apart from works. The believer has trusted the Person and work of Christ, and “ceased from his own works.”

           

            So the progressive revelation of the sabbath principle of “rest” has taken us from the Creation to Canaan to Christ. The sabbath rest of salvation far excels any ritual observances, which were but shadows, “but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col. 2:17).