cms@dragon.uucp (06/05/90)
In article <May.24.01.05.15.1990.21618@athos.rutgers.edu>, cattanac@casca.cs.uiuc.edu (Scott Cattanach) writes: > emory!dragon!cms@gatech.edu writes: >>Nevertheless, I still like to the New American Bible translation best: > May I put in a plug for my trusty NKJV? > Actually, I have always considered psalm 136 to be the test of a > Bible translation, but I won't post it here to save bandwidth. > -catt (cattanac@cs.uiuc.edu) Actually, I have always considered I Corinthians 13:1-13 to be the test of a Bible translation. NRSV has a good one: If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love. I'd like to discuss the meaning of this passage in terms of justification by faith. Paul says that if we have all faith, faith great enough to move mountains (as Jesus said, the faith of a mustard seed), but have not love, it does us no good whatsoever, we are nothing. It's interesting that this discussion of Paul's is centered on gifts; Paul considered faith to be a gift just the same as tongues, healing, prophecy, teaching, etc. are gifts. Thus, faith is a gift from God; we must accept the gift of faith to be justified. We must always pray for our faith to be increased. Yet, faith is inferior to hope and love. Love is the greatest of all the gifts of God. Paul is not saying that our love for one another or even our love for God is greater than faith; rather, Paul is saying that God's love for us, poured out in Christ, is greater than our faith in God. In other words, if God does not give us his gift of love (in the blood of Jesus Christ), then all our faith, the mightiest faith in the world, powerful enough to move mountains (or a mustard tree), cannot justify us. Our justification cannot be gained by faith alone but only by the action of God in Jesus Christ. Our good works in conjunction with our faith fail to justify us without the love of God in Christ; faith alone fails to justify us without the love of God in Christ. Yet Christ does not act unless people have faith (a gift of God, remember). Thus, faith, works, and the blood of Christ work together for our justification before God. Martin Luther said, paraphrased, "If you read this chapter every day for a month, it will change your life." Comments? -- Sincerely, _///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\ \\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ // emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia
gevans@oiscola.columbia.ncr.com (GKEvans) (06/07/90)
In article <Jun.5.00.07.29.1990.16841@athos.rutgers.edu> cms@dragon.uucp writes: > Actually, I have always considered I Corinthians 13:1-13 to be the test of a >Bible translation. NRSV has a good one: > [I Corinthians 13:1-3 here] > Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or >rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it >does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all >things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. and on.... A great chapter. But only the KJV (which is not my favorite) really captures the force of the Greek AGAPE (AGAPO - I love) by using the word 'charity' in place of the overwrought English 'love'. As you point out later, >..... Love is the greatest of all the gifts of God. But AGAPE is not just God's love toward us, it is also our love for him and for our fellow men which is qualitatively identical with his love for us. >Comments? I have only addressed a tangent to your question about justification by faith, but my comment is: agape love seems impossible at times for me, so thank God he has no trouble loving us that way. Here is an interesting tidbit for the group: In John 21 Jesus asks Peter 3 times: "do you love me?" and Peter responds each time "you know I love you." The part that gets lost in English is that the first 2 times Jesus uses the verb AGAPO, and the 3rd time he uses the verb PHILEO (a more brotherly, familial love). All 3 times, however, Peter answers with PHILEO - even when Jesus uses AGAPO. Just food for thought. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary K. Evans, Software type |"Come now, and let us reason together..." gevans@oiscola.columbia.ncr.com | (Isa. 1:18) These are my opinions, | and not my employer's. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) (06/07/90)
[In response to Cindy Smith's post on 1 Corinthians 13] Thanks, Cindy for putting it in perspective--that salvation is something God does. I have been reminded recently by 1 Cor. 13 that even as God's love is freely given to me, so I must freely give to others. And just as I know I cannot and need not earn His love, so I need not work to earn the love of others. I need only establish a relationship based on faith.
math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (06/09/90)
In article <Jun.5.00.07.29.1990.16841@athos.rutgers.edu>, cms@dragon.uucp writes: > In article <May.24.01.05.15.1990.21618@athos.rutgers.edu>, cattanac@casca.cs.uiuc.edu (Scott Cattanach) writes: >> emory!dragon!cms@gatech.edu writes: > (quote of 1 Cor 13: 1-13) > It's interesting that this > discussion of Paul's is centered on gifts; Paul considered faith to be a gift > just the same as tongues, healing, prophecy, teaching, etc. are gifts. Exactly right; it is not a discussion of justification! But the faith Paul discusses as a special gift of the Spirit is not the same as the saving faith which all christians (by way of definitian of 'christian') have. Saving faith is also a gift of God (see Ephesians 2:8,9) - so that no one can boast that he saved himself by obtaining faith or by deciding to believe. But the special that is a gift of the Spirit, in this context, is a special, strong faith that can 'move mountains'. Such faith is not given to all christians (as must be evident). Paul is urging the corinthians to seek the important gifts, primarily love, more than the outwardly miraculous gifts such as speaking in foreign, unlearned languages, 'moving mountains', prophecy, etc. > Thus, > faith is a gift from God; we must accept the gift of faith to be justified. I believe in 'objective justification': Jesus died and rose again for the justification of all men. But we must believe to receive the benefit of this justification, to make it our own. But perhaps this is nit- picking. > > Martin Luther said, paraphrased, "If you read this chapter every day for a > month, it will change your life." > > Comments? Evidently Luther read this chapter very seriously, but drew different conclusions regarding justification. David H. Wagner Thro' Jesus' blood and merit A confessional Lutheran I am at peace with God; What, then, can daunt my spirit, However dark my road? My courage shall not fail me, For God is on my side; Tho' hell itself assail me, Its rage I may deride. (Ich bin bei Gott in Gnaden, Siman Dach, 1651) My opinions and beliefs are not likely to coincide with any held by The Universtiy of Houston.
cms@dragon.uucp (06/09/90)
In article <Jun.6.23.35.08.1990.22564@athos.rutgers.edu>, gevans@oiscola.columbia.ncr.com (GKEvans) writes: > In article <Jun.5.00.07.29.1990.16841@athos.rutgers.edu> cms@dragon.uucp writes: > I have only addressed a tangent to your question about justification > by faith, but my comment is: agape love seems impossible at times for me, > so thank God he has no trouble loving us that way. > > Here is an interesting tidbit for the group: > > In John 21 Jesus asks Peter 3 times: "do you love me?" and Peter > responds each time "you know I love you." The part that gets lost > in English is that the first 2 times Jesus uses the verb AGAPO, and > the 3rd time he uses the verb PHILEO (a more brotherly, familial > love). All 3 times, however, Peter answers with PHILEO - even when > Jesus uses AGAPO. You got my curiosity up on this one. I checked this out in both Vine's and my Greek-English lexicon. First the lexicon: "Though some persons have tried to assign certain significant differences of meaning between [agapo and phileo] it does not seem possible to insist upon a contrast of meaning in any and all contexts. For example, the usage in Jn 21.15-17 seems to reflect simply a rhetorical alternation designed to avoid undue repetition. There is, however, one significant clue to possible meaningful differences in at least some contexts, namely, the fact that people are never commanded to love one another with [phileo] but only with [agapo]. Though the meanings of these terms overlap considerably in many contexts, there are probably some significant differences in certain contexts; that is to say, [phileo is] likely to focus upon love or affection based upon interpersonal association, while [agapo focuses] upon love and affection based on deep appreciation and high regard. On the basis of this type of distinction, one can understand some of the reasons for the use of [agapo] in commands to Christians to love one another. It would, however, be quite wrong to assume that [phileo refers] only to human love, while [agapo refers] to divine love. Both sets of terms are used for the total range of loving relations between people, between people and God, and between God and Jesus Christ." Vine's tends to make a greater distinction; it concentrates more on agapo's usage as divine love. It's basically in agreement that phileo is never used in a command to love God. On John 21, they part ways: For the same passage, Vine's comments: The distinction between the two verbs finds a conspicuous instance in the narrative of John 21:15-17. The context itself indicates that agapao in the first two questions suggests the "love" that values and esteems (cf. Rev. 12:11). It is unselfish "love," ready to serve. The use of phileo in Peter's answers and the Lord's third question, conveys the thought of cherishing the Object above all else, of manifesting an affection characterized by constancy, from the motive of the highest veneration....Again, to 'love' (phileo) life, from an undue desire to preserve, forgetful of the real object of living, meets with the Lord's reproof, John 12:25. On the contrary, to 'love' life (agapao), as used in 1 Pet. 3:10, is to consult the true interests of living. Here the word phileo would be quite inappropriate." I found this very interesting. I'm no scholar but I think I may take a closer look at the two words invariably translated "love" in more Biblical passages. I'm genuinely curious as to which love is meant in various contexts, but that might be quite an undertaking, and, as the lexicon suggests, may be no more than our difference between "house" and "home." The difference between house and home could fill a page of a lexicon, but pages of a sociologist's dictionary. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Gary K. Evans, Software type |"Come now, and let us reason together..." > gevans@oiscola.columbia.ncr.com | (Isa. 1:18) -- Sincerely, _///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\ \\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ // emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia [The Anchor Bible commentary on John has an appendix that reviews the uses of both words in some detail. It comes to the conclusion that no systematic difference in meaning can be found. --clh]