Agape Love?

There has been a lot of talk this past week about love. In light of the Supreme Court decision, many in the broader culture are celebrating what they see as a triumph for love in the establishment of marriage rights for homosexual couples. They are also using various arguments based upon what they understand as principals derived from love to urge those who are not celebrating the decision to change their minds. Meanwhile, many Christians are trying to ensure they are not seen as unloving, while doing their best to express support for a biblical understanding on the issues. In various conversations, I have heard believers try to distinguish their understanding of love with what the culture is talking about by using the term “agape love”.

Agape love, we are told, is the highest form of love. It is said to be a self-sacrificial love and devotion. It is understood to transcend physical desires and is the highest expression of pure love. It is the kind of love God demonstrates though the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. As such, “agape love” is understood as a technical term for a kind of love that is uniquely identified with perfect and divine love.

This understanding of agape love as a type of “super love” is not new. It has been around in Christian circles for a very long time. The special status of agape in part comes from the fact that the Greek language has many words that can be translated by the single English word love. Depending upon the context, each of these may carry a slightly more specific connotation than the general term love and agape can have the meaning of selfless and pure love.

Greek contains a word that is often related to sexual desire (ερος / eros) and another often associated with what we would call friendly affection (στοργἠ / storge). The Greek terms for love we find frequently in the Bible are phileo (φιλἐω) and agape (ἀγἀπη). It is often argued that phileo is a warm affection similar to what brothers might experience. It is said to involve a tender care and fondness. This is not an affection we would have for an enemy. We are told, however, that agape love is much higher and noble. It is supposedly the sacrificial kind of love that we are called to exhibit even to those who persecute us, etc.

Many preachers have milked these distinctions to emphasize the differences between mere feelings of affection and the transcendent love that God has for us, and we are to have toward others. The problem with this, as DA Carson points out in his book Exegetical Fallacies, is that the word agape is not actually a technical term for a higher form of love. We recognize that most words have a range of meaning (called a semantic range) and agape is no different. It is sometimes used for the kind of love many Christians associate with it, but not always. Even in the Bible, the word is used in various ways.

For example, in 2 Timothy 4:10, Paul uses the word agape to describe the love that Demas had for the world which led to him abandoning Paul. The word has sufficient semantic range that when the Septuagint translators were working to produce a Greek copy of the Hebrew Bible, they used the word agape to describe the incestuous lust Amnon had for his sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13:4). In the same way, the word phileo is used at times to describe the type of love that many often associate with agape. For example, it is the word used to describe the love the Father has for the Son in John 5:20.

I think we are right to emphasize the pure, holy, selfless love of God as the standard to which all love should be measured. I am also sympathetic with believers looking to define concepts of love and affection in a biblical way. We should just be careful about making technical distinctions based upon biblical language that the writers themselves did not intend. As always, we need to pay attention to context in order to understand how a particular author is using his or her terms. All of the Bible, however, points us to the love of God in Christ. In Him we see all the fullness of love personified, agape and otherwise.

The Structure of Jude

One of the more difficult things for beginners to grasp when using the inductive method is the ability to identify structure in the text. It is important not to get discouraged by this. It gets easier with practice. It is also important not to worry about making every detail “fit” into a structure. If you do that, you will likely begin to see things that may not be there. Although the structure can have a significant impact on our interpretation, if a given structure is really there, other indicators will support the resulting interpretation. For example, we do not need to know that Psalm 119 is an acrostic poem to recognize it has a unified theme and was intended to be memorized or meditated upon.

One of the more common structures students are likely to encounter is Chiasm. Chiasmus is a literary structure where ideas are mirrored or paralleled in such a way that they are either reversed or reflect back on themselves. The word comes from the Greek letter Chi which looks like our English X which itself exhibits a similar mirroring effect.

One of the most famous chiasms in English is Kennedy’s famous statement, “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” You will notice that the ideas within the statement reverse and the second half reflects back on the first half. When these kinds of structures are extended over larger sections of a text they are often called inverted parallelism. When it is a longer section of text involved, often the parallels will build to and from an emphasized central point.[1]

I am working through an introduction to inductive study with a group using the book of Jude. Recently, the question came up as to if Jude has this kind of structure. Since there were several in the group who missed the discussion, I thought it might be helpful to post something on the subject.

I think Jude has what I might call a “loose” chiastic structure. I would not push the significance of it too far or insist that we can discern exactly Jude’s intention in using it but I think elements of it are clearly there. Notice the following repetition of elements in the book [followed by the verse number]:

 A.  Address to the Beloved [3]

       B.  Ungodly people have come in (long ago designated…) [4]

             C. “I want to remind you…” [5]

                 D. The Lord & judgment [5]

                      E. He has “kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness” [6]

                          F. These people blaspheme [8]

                              G. Michael did not blaspheme against the devil but appealed to                                                God’s Word [9]

                           F. These people blaspheme [10]

                       E. “The gloom of utter darkness has been reserved” for them [13]

                 D. The Lord & judgment [14]

             C. “You must remember” [17]

        B. It was predicted ungodly people would come in [17-18]

A.  Address to the beloved [20]

Why would the illustration of Michael and the devil be central to the parallel? The men who have crept in are not submitting to the Word or the Church, they are criticizing the church, and they are twisting the grace of God to serve their own ends. They are rejecting God’s authority. They ultimately put themselves in a place of judgement over God and His people.

Their rejection of authority and their blasphemies are contrasted to Michael’s submission to God’s authority. Despite his high position, Michael does not even speak against the devil as boldly as these men speak. Even the archangel does not presume to exercise his own judgment or authority as do these men. The centrality of Christ and  His authority are therefore emphasized by Michael's example of pronouncing God's Word rather than speaking from His own authority. This is precisely what these men fail to do and why they will be judged.

[1] Chiasmus and inverted parallelism can be helpful to the interpreter but they can also be tricky. There are some people who see it everywhere and then try to cram every text into a chiastic structure. As I mentioned, we don’t want to impose structures upon the text that are not there. Scholars often argue for enormous, complex, and subtle, structures in various texts that even if present, probably would not have been apparent to those to whom they were writing.

How Much did Nicodemus Bring?

I use the NASB as the base text for most of the Bible studies I teach. A few days ago, however, one of the students who read from the ESV asked about a translation issue in a passage about the handling of the body of Jesus.

The NASB translates John 19:39 in the following way:

“Nicodemus, who had first come to Him by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight.” (NASB)

The ESV, however, translates John 19:39 as follows:

“Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight.” (ESV)

The NASB, KJV, NKJV, NRVS, YLT, and BBE all translate the verse 100 pounds. The ESV, NIV, NET, NLT, HCSB, and others translate the verse 75 pounds.

Why are the translations different? Did Nicodemus bring around 75 pounds or around 100 pounds?

There are various reasons why translators sometimes use different words for the same verses. Sometimes the translators are using a different manuscript tradition. Sometimes there are variant readings in the ancient manuscripts themselves. Other times, the words may be difficult to translate into English so different choices are made to help the reader understand the meaning of the original. In this case, however, the manuscripts agree and variant readings are not an issue. Likewise, the words themselves are not difficult to translate.

The reason for the difference has to do with the way the translation philosophy is applied to the verse. Some translations attempt to replicate the words and form of the original languages as closely as possible while still allowing it to be readable in English. Scholars often call this approach “formal equivalence” because wherever possible the translator is trying to reproduce the form of the original. Others, however, are more concerned about expressing the meaning of the original than the exact words or form. Scholars often call this this the “dynamic equivalence” method because the concern is more about translating meaning than words.

The fact is that no major translation is purely one or the other. Every translation involves a combination of both. Rather than either/or, it is often a matter of a spectrum where some translations are more likely to apply one or the other in any given situation. In this case, for example, both ESV and NASB are formally equivalent translations, yet they make different decisions regarding this particular verse.

The words in question are the Greek words λίτρας έκατον (litras hekaton). As I said earlier, both of these words are straightforward. The word λίτρας (litras) is the word from which we get our modern word “liter” we associate with liquid measures in the metric system. It is the Greek word for pound. It is the same word, for example, used in John 12:3 to describe the amount of perfume Mary used to anoint the feet of Jesus. The other word, ἑκατόν (hekaton) is the Greek word for 100. It is where we get our modern prefix hecta/hecto, as in hectare etc., which we still use in the metric system to denote a factor of 100. Therefore, the Greek text includes the word for 100 and the word for pounds to describe the quantity Nicodemus brought.

Why then do so many translations say 75 pounds? The reason is that at the time John wrote his Gospel the λίτρα (litra) or pound referred not to our English pounds but to Roman pounds. English pounds are 16 ounces, but the Roman pound is just a little over 11.5 ounces. This means that the actual amount of weight that Nicodemus brought was around 73 pounds. Since the text makes it clear that it is not giving an exact amount, the ESV and many others translate this “about 75 pounds”.

Those who apply a more formal approach, such as the NASB, recognize that the text includes a Greek word for 100 and a Greek word for pounds that have English equivalents and so they translate it formally. ESV, however, apparently thought that most modern readers would probably not realize that the text is referring to Roman pounds. As a result, they thought formal translation of the verse was not the most accurate way of conveying the meaning of the original in English, and used a dynamic approach for this verse.

Neither of these translations are a mistake. They are simply two different approaches to handling the process of translation. I usually tend to prefer formal translations particularly for inductive studies because the reader is less dependent upon the interpretive choices of the translator. As this verse demonstrates, however, formal does not always mean more accurate in the sense of communicating the meaning of the original in English. In this case, translating the exact words of the original does not give the English reader a more accurate understanding of the original. This is why, even when using a reliable translation (and both of these are), it is often helpful to consult multiple translations when we study.

Book Review- Steven Lawson, Foundations of Grace: A Long Line of Godly Men

Foundations of Grace: A Long Line of Godly Men

By Steven J. Lawson / Reformation Trust Publishing

While discussing God’s sovereignty in salvation, students have often been asked me if I could provide to them the Bible verses on both sides of the issue. I usually receive a skeptical look when I reply that there are no Bible verses on both sides of the issue, that God does not contradict Himself, and that all of the Scripture supports the teaching of the Doctrines of Grace (I am happy, however, to work through the passages that appear contradictory). There are difficult to understand passages, but sovereign grace is so pervasive in the Bible that those looking for it will begin to see it everywhere.

In his book, Foundations of Grace, Dr. Steven J. Lawson traces elements of the Doctrines of Grace through every book of the Bible. The book begins with a foreword by Dr. John MacArthur, which is an excellent theological essay that would itself be worth the price of the book. Lawson then argues that how one understands God’s sovereign grace in salvation is foundational to their understanding of the biblical message and theology. He argues for God’s sovereign plan to save fallen humanity through a gracious act of election as a unifying theme of the Bible. Lawson then works through each section of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation examining God’s sovereign Grace and related truths. The book then concludes with a call to believers to stand firm in these truths in afterword by Dr. R.C. Sproul.

The book provides an accessible defense of the Reformed view of the unity and consistency of the Bible on these points. The treatment is not overly technical or complex and as expected, presupposes a Reformed understanding of various biblical and systematic theological positions. Since he explores similar themes in each chapter, reading the book from cover to cover becomes tedious at times. The upside of this style, however, is that the book will likely serve as a good reference resource to those who may want to examine these themes in relation to a particular book of Scripture.

Advanced readers looking for a comprehensive biblical theology, extensive exegetical detail, or a critical evaluation of theological issues attending the interpretations will not find that here. What readers can find here is a good introduction to why Reformed Christians are so passionate about God’s sovereignty and the Doctrines of Grace.  

* I received a free copy of this book from Reformation Trust Publishing as part of their book review program. Reviews are not required to be positive and the opinions I have expressed are my own.

When was Jesus Born?

Christians did not celebrate Christmas as a regular festival at the end of December until the middle of the 4^th century. The date of December 25^th was likely chosen because it was already the date of a major celebration in the Roman Empire. Even most Christians recognize it is almost certain that Jesus was not born on December 25^th 2,014 years ago. If not on December 25th year zero, when was He born?

The Gospel writers provide very little in terms of specific dates and the precise timing of Christ’s birth remains a matter of debate among scholars. There is, however, some information that we can piece together that gives us some clues.

Unfortunately, the most specific reference in the Gospels turns out to be of little help. Luke specifically records that Jesus was born during a Roman census ordered by Caesar Augustus when Quirinius was a governor in Syria (Lk. 2:1-2). Unfortunately, historians have found no records of any such census, order by Augustus, or evidence of Quirinius in Syria at that time. Despite Luke’s detailed reference for establishing the timing, it does not help us today.

There are, however, other clues. We know from the Bible that Jesus was born near the end of the reign of Herod the Great (Mt. 2:19). Josephus records an eclipse just prior to Herod’s death and that eclipse occurred March 12^th in the year 4 B.C. We also know that Herod died prior to Passover and the Passover in 4 B.C. began on April 11^th.  Therefore, Jesus could not have been born any later than March or April of 4 B.C.

Matthew’s gospel indicates that Jesus may have been as much as 2 years old when Herod ordered the massacre of the male children (Mt. 2:16). If Jesus was 2 years old, he may have been born as early as 7 B.C. This means Jesus must have been born between 7 and 4 B.C.  

Another way to try to determine the timing is to work backward. It seems likely based upon the dating of John’s ministry (Lk. 3:1) that Jesus was probably baptized and began His ministry in the summer of 29 A.D. It is likely that Herod expanded the age range of the children to be killed to be sure that Jesus did not escape. If so, Jesus would have been slightly younger than 2 years old during the massacre and was probably around 32 years old in A.D. 29. This matches up with Luke’s comment that he was “around” 30 years old at the time (Lk. 3:23).

There is potentially another clue in John 2:20 that supports this date although it is not easy to see in many English translations. Most translations of John 2:20 make it sound like the conversation between Jesus and the Jewish leaders takes place 46 years after the construction of the Temple began. A number of scholars, however, argue that the meaning of the Greek text is not that “it took 46 years to build”, but rather that “it was built 46 years ago”.

According to ancient records, Herod began the construction in 19 B.C., the 18^th year of his reign. Although the entire complex was not completed until AD 64, Josephus records that the priests completed the inner sanctuary in less than 2 years. The Passover that would have occurred 46 years after the completion of the sanctuary would have been in spring of AD 30. This aligns with Jesus beginning His ministry in summer or fall of AD 29.

John’s Gospel records three Passover celebrations during the course of the ministry of Jesus. It is likely there is an additional year of ministry between the first (Jn. 2:13) and second (Jn. 6:4) where Jesus ministered in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria. This would suggest a crucifixion in A.D. 33. We know Jesus was crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday (Mk. 15:42; 16:1,6). We also know that it was the time of the Passover and that the night before He was crucified, Jesus shared a Passover meal with His followers (1 Cor. 11:23). Since the Passover meal was eaten on the 14^th of Nissan the year of Christ’s death had to be a year when Nissan 14 fell on a Thursday. The two possibilities are AD 30 and AD 33. As we have already shown, a date in A.D. 33 works well.

Therefore, working backward also supports a range of 6 to 4 B.C., but was it December 25th?

The earliest tradition of the Church places the birth of Christ in winter and nothing in the New Testament contradicts this (yes shepherds may have been in the field at this time). Various arguments have been offered for a winter birth and although they are not conclusive, they do show the traditional winter birth is plausible. It is therefore possible that Jesus was born in December. It is, however, unlikely that He was born on the 25^th. Around A.D. 194, Clement of Alexandria provided the first precise date given by a Christian teacher. He argued that Christ was born on November 18^th. A date in mid-November fits nicely with the chronology discussed above. In fact, a date much later than this requires a birth in 4 B.C. near the latest possible time and compresses the early events of Christ’s life.

It cannot be proven with certainty, but it is likely Jesus was born between mid-November and the first week of December in 5 B.C.

This article closely follows Kostenberger, Kellum, and Quarrels, treatment in The Cradle, The Cross, and the Crown, and Paul L. Maier The Date of the Nativity and The Chronology of Jesus’ Life which is available online here: http://inchristus.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/maier-date-of-the-nativity.pdf

Why Did Esther Not Have Mercy on Haman?

One of the most heroic figures in the Old Testament is the Hebrew maiden Hadassah who becomes the Persian queen Esther. Esther demonstrates great courage and intercedes to save her people from a high-ranking official named Haman who was determined to kill all of the Jews. Near the end of the story, the tables are turned and Haman is sentenced to death by hanging (likely impaled) on a pole he had prepared for Esther’s cousin Mordecai. While we celebrate her courage in stopping a potential genocide, many commentators are bothered that Esther did not intercede to save Haman. They argue she would have been a more admirable figure had she demonstrated mercy to her enemy. Why does Esther not try to save Haman’s life?

Like all of the Old Testament characters, Esther is imperfect, just like Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Peter, Paul and every other character other than Jesus Christ. In the case of Haman, however, it is possible that that author actually intends her lack of mercy to highlight her covenant faithfulness. There is a dynamic in the narrative that many people do not pay much attention to that might explain her actions and the way the author intends us to think about her.

Early in the story we learn that Haman is an Agagite (Esther 3:1). This is a fact that the author mentions 5 times at key points throughout the book. This means that Haman is a descendant of the Amalekite king Agag. The Amalekites were a historical enemy of the Jews having opposed them as they came out of Egypt. From that time forward, the two nations were in constant opposition to one another. This is probably why Esther’s cousin Mordecai refuses to bow down to him. It may also be why Mordecai’s refusal leads Haman to plan to kill all the Jews rather than just Mordecai. The history between the two people was one of constant strife and Haman’s desire to have people essentially worship him would have been particularly repulsive to Mordecai and all other faithful Jews.

Haman, however, is not just an Amalekite; he is an Agagite, a descendant of the Amalekite king Agag. This is a very significant detail and helps explain how we should understand Esther not interceding to save him. Back in 1 Samuel chapter 15, the Jews were preparing to battle the Amalekites and God commanded that they not spare any of the Amalekites or their animals (1 Sam. 15:3). The armies of Israel were victorious but Saul failed to obey God and spared the life of king Agag and some of the animals. When the prophet Samuel confronted Saul, he tried to justify his actions rather than repenting of his sinful disobedience. Samuel killed Agag himself and informed Saul that because of his unfaithfulness, God would strip the kingdom from him and give it to another.

The name Agag is therefore associated with failure to keep the covenant and disobedience. Saul was a monarch from the tribe of Benjamin who ignored the command of God by showing mercy to Agag. As a result, he failed to keep the covenant, failed to protect his people the way God intended, and lost the monarchy from the tribe of Benjamin. What is interesting in the book of Esther is that we have a second encounter between a monarch from the tribe of Benjamin and an Amalekite from the family of Agag (Esther 2:5, 2:7).

The Bible does not include random details and it seems almost certain that the pairing of royalty from Benjamin with the name Agag is intended to recall the story from 1 Samuel. Saul relied on his own strength rather than obeying God. By contrast, Esther throws herself upon the providence of God regardless of the outcome for her (Esther 4:16).

Although Esther only becomes queen because she married a pagan king she ends up fulfilling the monarchial covenant requirement that King Saul failed to keep. Esther displays sacrificial leadership, protects her people, and destroys their enemies. Although in exile, Esther is doing what we would expect from any faithful Jewish monarch. Some may assume that Esther should have tried to save Haman but it is likely that the author intends us to recognize the parallels to Saul in a way that is favorable to Esther. Ultimately, God is the hero of the story and Esther is an instrument of God’s providence. 

Painted Fire: The Bible and Spiritual Experience

“For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So, also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.” (1 Corinthians 2:11-13 ESV)

It is becoming increasingly common for people wanting a deeper experience of God in their lives to seek it in mystical or emotional experiences rather than through the Bible. The irony is that the Bible helps believers experience God in a way far deeper than mystical or emotional experiences can provide. Christ redeems the whole person, not just the intellect or emotions. In Biblical faith our minds are transformed and so are our deepest desires. In Christianity, our “spiritual” experience is crucial but it is never separated from the Wisdom and Truth of God. We achieve the most powerful spiritual experience in our union with Christ through the Word.

The apostle Paul explains us why in the verses quoted at the beginning of this article. Notice first that Paul establishes the transcendence of God. It is not possible for anyone to comprehend the thoughts except the Spirit of God. This fatally undermines the philosophical method of knowing God. Philosophers attempt to know God through a rational analysis of what they observe about the world and the mind. Paul, however, tells us that only the Spirit of God comprehends the thoughts of God. The philosophical method is therefore ultimately doomed to fail. Knowing God is not achievable based upon a purely rational or intellectual method. Does this mean the mystics are correct? No, it does not.

Paul says what is understood is “freely given by God”. The Apostles have received the Spirit of God so that they are able to understand what God wishes to reveal to them. This is a crucial point because it establishes revelation as the source of Divine knowledge. The apostles did not receive their doctrine from men. It was not the result of philosophical speculation or insight. Neither was it the result of religious discipline. It came from the Spirit of God who freely gave it. Since the Apostles experienced direct revelation, it might appear that we might come to know God through a similar mystical experience but what Paul says next is as devastating to mysticism as his earlier comments were to rationalism.

 Paul says “And we impart this in words”. The “this” he refers to are the things freely given, namely the thoughts of God. This is significant because if the Apostles communicate God’s thoughts in words then they are contained in statements that are either true of false (propositions). The revelation of God is therefore rational and must be understood using reason. It also means that we have access to the very thoughts of God through the words of the Apostles, which is the Bible. Through the Word, we have access to a pure knowledge of God because it contains His very thoughts.  

Paul says that the words are not the result of human wisdom but are “taught by the Spirit.” Not only does the Spirit give these truths but also interprets them for those who are “spiritual”. We see therefore that the work of the Holy Spirit is required both in the giving of Scripture and in the spiritual rebirth of the believer who receives the Word. The Spirit prepares the minds of the believer to receive His Word. We therefore have a subjective (new birth) and objective (Bible) component of our experience of God. Biblical Christianity therefore rejects both pure mysticism and pure philosophy as legitimate ways to know or experience God. Both experience and reason are required, neither is autonomous, both are subjected to the rule of Christ.

This is an amazing thing to consider. When we read or hear a statement from the Bible what happens? Our physical sensations of the scribbles on the paper or the sound waves are transformed into a thought in our minds. Remarkably, Paul tells us that this thought, to the extent that it actually conforms to the Word of God, is also a thought in the eternal mind of the transcendent God. This is why Paul can make the bold claim a few verses later “we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16).

By meditating on the Word, we experience within same action the combination of intimate communion with God and rational, conscious activity. It is a remarkable thing to claim that Sprit, working through the Word, transfers the very thoughts of God to our minds. The New Testament frequently discusses the mystical union of the believer with Christ as an objective reality. It is, however, something we can experience in a special way through our meditation upon His Word. Philosophy and mysticism can never elevate beyond our creaturely mind and feelings. The Bible, however, provides access to the mind of the Creator.

I cannot imagine a deeper or more satisfying experience of God than what Paul describes. The Word of God is what deepens and sustains our experience of God as we live out the Christian life. The Puritan Thomas Manton put it this way, “he that labors must have his meals, otherwise he will faint.” Adding, “Painted fire needs no fuel.” There are many who appear to be on fire for Christ but if their zeal is not fueled by the Word of God, then I fear it will either soon burn out, or it is merely painted fire that provides no true light or heat.