Linda, I could copy over your post
(that little "G: or "j" thing - again and this time, it appparently originated
with my machine)
The question you said I did not answer was asked in greater detail
for the first in that "j" post.
Here is my answer. We must not separate the emotion of love
from the action of love. To say that "love is kind" is not to say
that "love is not an emotion." The I
Cor 13 text speaks of love and says that it "rejoices in
truth."
Rejoicing is an _expression_
of an emotion. This whole idea that "
agapeo" is not of an emotional root is ridiculous. In
the common Greek language of so many years ago, "
agapeo" was a work-horse word, used to describe a whole range of
expressions including, on rare occasion, sex (Liddel &
Scott). It was the Modern Church back in the 1970's that played up
the love affair with this word. And so, it was Agape This and Agape
That. The (in)famous exchange between Peter and Jesus ("Do you
agapeo me" "Yes I phileo you')
has Peter deliberately offering to His master a compromised love.
The fact of the matter
IMO is this
-- Peter saw "agape" as not specific enough, so he offers to Christ the
love of friendship. I have friends for whom I would
literally die. If there is a purpose in this exchange having to do with
the two words, perhaps we are seeing two men (Jesus and Peter) in (minor)
conflict over the accepted use of these two words and when Christ finally uses
Peter's wording, we find that the issue was not over words but over
commitment................Do you love me -- YES LORD I
DO. iF WE ARE NOT CAREFUL, WE HAVE ChRIST ASKING FOR (IN THIS
FINAL AND
THRID QUESTION) A
COMPROMISED LOVE. He died for our compromised
life - but He never asks for compromise!!! Believing this
means, to me, that "phileo" is
not a compromise.
God expects us to care for Him emotionally, as one friend to
another. This exchange between Jesus and Peter leaves me with the
appreciation that Christ INCLUDED the love of a friend in the word
"agape."
Jd
