John Nelson Darby's Synopsis of the New Testament
Wednesday, March 19, 2025
Understanding Love In The Language Of The New Testament
[John] 21:15 knowest (a-28) Oida, see Note at 1 Corinthians 8:1. lovest (b-15) to (b-33) This passage (vers. 15-17) illustrates the force of two Greek words for 'to love,' phileo and agapao. The former signifies the love of friendship, and is more intimate and intense. It is here translated 'I am attached to,' and in ch. 16.27 'have affection for.' Agapao, more often used in the New Testament, is more general, and signifies love as the settled disposition of a person rather than as an emotion. It is used for God's love to man (except in Titus 3:4, where a compound word is used which embodies the word phileo) and for the love of men to God. Both words are used for the love of the Father for the Son, phileo once only, John 5:20, and agapao in John 3:35, &c.. and for the love of Christ for his own, phileo in John 11:3 and agapao in John 11:5 and elsewhere. Phileo is used in John 16:27, of the love of the Father for the disciples, and of the love of the disciples for Christ.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I thought you should know about this: https://signmovesreality.blogspot.com/2025/03/jesse-balks-sad.html
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteThank you for bringing his article to my attention. Notice that, right from the start, "Feodor" goes on to make a personal attack (i.e. so-and-so is "fragile"). He then proceeds to try psychoanalyzing people like myself as being driven by "fear, rage, and existential anger," despite never having met me personally. This illustrates why I do not want to engage him, as this behavior is annoying. He makes other comments, such as:
"My contention is that this text absolutely ignores the protestant clamor about sola fide."
This person ignores contextual and theological nuances so that he can continue to spew forth his ideology and declare himself a "winner" after no one responds to him.
"It offers no support, or rather, presents judgment as considering only the position of anti-sola fide when the last judgment comes."
This person frames issues in a way that conveniently aligns with his predetermined conclusions about Matthew 25:31-46 and Sola Fide, which is a circular appeal.
"Also absolutely absent are Jews. Really odd since the near entirety of Jesus’ message is to the Jews in the Roman province of Judea."
The Jews would not need to be mentioned specifically, since the text already addresses all different people groups. There is no locality which would be exempted from this judgment.
"The term, “nations,” in the original Greek of the NT is ta ethnē. This term is used exclusively for all the rest of the known world, the Gentile world..."
One would be correct if he suspects that a word-concept fallacy is in play here.
"For Jesus to speak only of ta ethnē, the Gentile nations as being possible figures of salvation is blasphemy to all Jews of his time."
The distinction being made is not Jew versus Gentile, but believer versus unbeliever. There are only two categories of people mentioned, which correspond to the two eternal destinies that they enter.
"Therefore what we have here is Jesus, ascended as the King of heaven, and passing judgment on all the non-Jewish peoples of the world."
Jesus will pass judgment on all the unfaithful and unbelieving regardless of their racial makeup.
"No where does it intimate that these are christians and non-christians."
Anyone with even half a brain knows that is exactly what the text is talking about.
"Where is their faith? No where mentioned, no where intimated, no where inferred. Simply, clearly, singly their loving care for all in need."
This is a false dilemma. The existence of works pleasing to Christ presupposes that such people already had living faith in Him.
"Both acknowledge the Lord because they are being actively confronted by the King of heaven in the judgment room. Duh."
One category acknowledges the Lord because it has reverence for Him, whereas the latter only states the facts of the case due to being powerfully confronted with that reality, which is what even demons do.
"As if faith itself is not an act by the human person; but that’s another post."
ReplyDeleteFaith is indeed a "response" of sorts, but suggesting that it has any merit is misguided.
"He has to import christian faith into the sheep so that their salvation is justified."
They would have never been recipients of everlasting life if they did not have the kind of faith that surrenders to God.
"He has to move aside their acts of love for the suffering in order to centralize the sheep’s faith."
Wrong. The acts of love are the fruit of faith, which entails salvation.
"In centralizing the faith of the sheep, he has to position the good deeds as secondary and natural consequence to right faith. Thereby erasing he the plight of the suffering from the occasion of judgment altogether."
The order of works to faith is not in itself a causation of anything, but an observation about the nature of trust in God. In fact, it is because of a heart changed by divine grace that a person acts in a way pleasing to Him, which suggests a consequential order of works to faith upholds the reality of earthly suffering rather than denies it.
"In order to put faith as central to what’s happening, he has to consider all the Gentile world as having been able to hear the gospel message of Jesus Christ AND giving a thumbs up or down on believing in Jesus Christ AND, if time was available having been baptized."
This person creates a false dilemma in claiming that certain conditions need to be in play for the position that he rejects as false to be true. The simple reality is that unbelievers are destined for eternal condemnation without repentance, and we have a message to preach to the lost world.
"He shares that anxiety with Mormons who were motivated to write an additional testament in which the risen Jesus visits the Americas."
Anxiety and stupidity are a tricky combo. It is a good thing I only have one of those!
"What Jesse has done is, as a matter of theological history, taken the position of 20th century Catholic theology."
This claim is laughable on the surface of it. Feodor says that an idea is a theological novelty, despite his own progressive ideology being known for disregarding fixed standards and historical precedent.
"Specifically that of Karl Rahner, who, conscious that he is moving outside the referenced Jesus in Matthew 25, conscious that he is building on 2,000 years of biblical and systematic theology, and 400 years of Enlightenment philosophy..."
I do not subscribe to the theory that a connection to God exists through people's love-driven lives, even if they are unaware of it. What I actually said is that true Christians serve God without any thoughts of meriting for themselves a righteous standing before God. In other words, service is to be done without any reservations of personal gain or glory.
"Earlier in the chapter, Jesus honors those who are prepared and not actually surprised. Their preparation is to honor..."
This person is so preoccupied with bloviating that he misses the point of everything that has been said to him.
The truth is, "Feodor" is too much of a moron to be taken seriously.