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:
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).
No comments:
Post a Comment