At the LCMS Bible study, the topic was I Corinthians 13. Here are some items:
A. The pastor started by talking about the Hebrew word for love,
“ahav.” He said that it covers various kinds of love, but it always
indicates an emotional or intimate bond. He seemed to suggest that the
Hebrew Bible never uses “ahav” for love of objects (as opposed to
people). For example, Genesis 3:6(7) employs another verb for Eve’s
desire towards the forbidden fruit, ch-m-d. But there actually are
occasions in which “ahavah” is directed towards objects: Gen 27:9, 12
refers to Isaac’s love for meat. I will revisit the pastor’s point in
(D.).
B. The pastor then went through various Greek words for love. Phileo
refers to the feeling of love. Storge is used for love of family,
neighbor, or the body politic. Eros is sexual passion or desire.
According to the pastor, there were two lines of interpretation of eros
within Greek thought. The Platonic line treated eros as an appreciation
for the ideal of beauty, for Plato believed that there was a form of
beauty in the spirit realm of which beautiful people and objects were
imperfect representations. The other line interpreted eros as sexual
passion, and Greek thought feared eros in that sense because it was
irrational and entailed a loss of control over one’s body, emotions, and
life. Ludus is playful love and can encompass children at play,
flirtation, or laughter among friends, and it can lead to a deeper
relationship. Pragma is a mature love, the sort that sustains marriages.
Ludus and pragma are not in the Bible.
C. The pastor defined agape as an esteem for people, which is
irrelevant to whether they reciprocate that love. It is seeing another
as precious. It occurs in classical Greek but is rare, and the pastor
speculated that this could have been why it was chosen to translate
ahav: agape was not overused. However, on page 52 of Exegetical Fallacies,
D.A. Carson states that agape was prominent in Greek literature from
the fourth century B.C.E. on, and that it was replacing phileo because
phileo “had acquired the meaning of to kiss as part of its semantic range.”
D. I did a quick search of agapao in the Septuagint. It does seem
that what the pastor said about ahav and objects is largely accurate
when it comes to agape in the Septuagint. Isaac’s love for meat, for
instance, is translated with phileo. But there are occasions in which
agapao can refer to a deep devotion or overwhelming preference for
something inanimate, such as pleasure, sleep, money, or violence. Agapao
appears to go beyond merely liking something, however: it is the
devotion of one’s life to something, such that it shapes and defines
one’s life. There are times when agapao seems to encompass affection
while including more than that: Jacob loved Joseph more than his other
sons. Jacob obviously had more affection for Joseph, but he had more
than affection: he cared about Joseph more. The people of Israel loved
David. I would not characterize this as some grand sort of unconditional
love, but it may go beyond merely “liking” David. There are times when
agapao relates more to action than to emotions. Love for others in the
Torah appears to entail refraining from harming them, while exercising
compassion towards them in terms of helping to meet their needs. One can
do this without a whole lot of emotional affection.
E. The pastor noted that Paul in I Corinthians 13 speaks in the first
person. “If I understood all mysteries and have not love….” The pastor
speculated that this may be a rhetorical device on Paul’s part as he
responds to people who were trying to take his place. There were people
in the Corinthian church who believed that they were more gifted than
Paul. Paul was away in Ephesus, so they tried to be in charge of the
Corinthian church in his absence. Paul was essentially saying, “You want
to be like me, well, let me tell you what applies to me, and this
applies to you, too.”
F. Several of the Corinthian Christians were using their gifts as a
reason to boast. Paul was not only telling them that their gifts exist
to serve others, but he was also telling them that their spiritual gifts
were only partial. They will be complete when Christ appears at the
end. According to the pastor, Paul was essentially saying: “You think
you have it all but you don’t so you should be humble rather than
puffing yourself up over what little you do have.”
G. Faith, hope, and love, by contrast, are already complete. I cannot
say that I fully understood the pastor’s point here, since he
acknowledged that, due to our flesh, we often are not loving. But there
were things that he did say that may clarify his point. Faith, hope, and
love will not be replaced with something more complete when Christ
appears at the end. The whole reason for faith, hope, and love is given
in Christ. We have all of God’s love now. Christ is the reason for our
hope now.
H. Related to (G.), I long thought that faith and hope were
temporary, whereas love was permanent, and that was why Paul said the
greatest of these was love. When we see Christ, we will no longer need
to hope, for the object of our hope will be right there. Love, however,
will always be relevant because we will be loving God and neighbor in
the eschatological paradise. I wonder if there is a sense in which faith
and hope will be relevant after Christ appears.
I. The pastor offered a different reason for Paul’s statement that
love is greater than faith and hope. Love is the basis for faith and
hope, for it is on account of God’s love for us that we have faith and
hope. To quote the pastor’s handout: “faith and hope rely on love
(agape) to fill them and love is the basis for and the goal of our works
and lives.” Love defines what the church does: whether it preaches the
Gospel, feeds the hungry, or lets groups in the community (AA, NA) use
the church building. The church communicates that it cares for others.
I will leave the comments on. Please do not ask me to document my points in (D.). This is an informal post.