Another Article on Phileō and Agapaō in John 21:15-17 (Talbert in JGRChJ)

 Last year (2020) I had the privilege of publishing an article in the Bulletin for Biblical Research on phileō and agapaō in John 21:15-17 as a possible allusion to LXX Prov 8:17. To my surprise, I recently found out that around the same time another article had been published with a similar focus, specifically:

Andrew R. Talbert, "The Synonymous Rendering of Aristotelian φιλέω with ἀγαπάω in the Gospel of John," Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 16 (2020): 9-29.

His article is accessible for free here. I believe Talbert's article and my article actually complement each other. Like me, Talbert sees the two verbs as basically interchangeable in John and, to my surprise, Talbert (like me) also sees LXX Proverbs as very relevant to the discussion (it's gratifying that I'm not the only person on earth that believes that!).

I think both of us would have benefitted by having knowledge of the other's work before publication, but both of us were probably going through a blind peer-review process at the same time. Talbert's sophisticated discussion of the "Aristotelian" phileō, and how John revises it, is completely lacking in my paper.  Conversely, Talbert does not interact with the recent articles by Shepherd and Böhler on the topic of agapaō/phileō in John as I do.

So, dear reader, if you really want to study up on phileō-agapaō in  John, there are now four articles written  in the last 12 years that you should read! Talbert in JGRChJ (2020), myself in BBR (2020), Dieter Böhler in Biblica (2015), and Shepherd in JBL (2010). 

The 2016 Bible Faculty Summit

This week my father and I had the privilege of attending the annual "Bible Faculty Summit" (this year hosted by Maranatha Baptist University, Watertown WI). Here's a brief description of the papers:

1. Troy Manning of Bibles International (an excellent ministry that focuses on Bible translation) presented their "philosophy of ministry"--less an academic paper, compared to the others, and more an attempt to get critical feedback from fellow academics. Troy Manning is a brilliant guy with Ph.D. who has truly immersed himself in Bible translation ministry, especially to people groups that do not have the Word of God.

2. Johnathan Cheek, a Ph.D. candidate at Bob Jones University, explored "Jesus' Interaction  with the World." This is part of his dissertation on a NT "theology of the world." The main focus of this paper was how we should view Jesus' interaction (e.g., dinners) with tax collectors, sinners, etc.

3. Dr. Bruce Compton, from Detroit Theological Seminary, wrote on "The Design and Extent of Christ's Atonement," defending an atonement that is unlimited in "provision" but limited in "application." Dr. Compton, however, does so from a Calvinist perspective (and, in Q&A, stated that he would strongly differ from an Arminian perspective that prevenient grace is the foundation for an unlimited atonement).

4. What I would consider the highest quality paper at this seminar, as far as structure, flow of thought,  and unique contribution, would be Mark L. Ward's paper on "The Story of Arsenokoites according to BDAG." Rather than simply re-treading new ground about the meaning of the word (which refers to a male partner in a homosexual act), Ward's purpose is two-fold, that we might: 1. "learn the major outlines of the debate over arsenokoites so you can speak knowledgeably and persuasively about the Bible's teaching on homosexuality," and 2. "use the 'as-one-of-your-own-poets-hath-said' strategy by appealing to the authority of an honest and respectable mainline liberal Protestant, namely Frederick W. Danker, the D in BDAG." I feel Ward did an excellent job in fulfilling his stated purpose.
Dr. Ward has graciously given me a direct link to the paper for the readers of this blog. Click here.

5.  Ryan J. Martin gave us a chapter from his PhD dissertation at Central Seminary, a detailed look at "Human Affections in Pre-Modern Theology," to help us better "understand older ways of thinking about human affectivity" (in contrast to the modern idea of "emotions"). Martin examines how Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, William Ames, Peter van Mastricht, etc., influenced the theology of Johnathan Edwards.

6. My own presentation drew from research I did for my book Foreknowledge and Social Identity in 1 Peter (published by Wipf&Stock in 2014; click here) regarding the need to consider semantic range  (i.e., how a word was actually used in Koine Greek) when determining a word's meaning (specifically, for prognwsis and proginwskw). I definitely got more "push-back" on this paper than I've ever gotten before, including my 2 previous presentations at the Bible Faculty Summit and my 5 previous ETS presentations (1 national, 4 regional)! Most of the push-back revolved around my interpretation of Rom 8:29. I am grateful for the feedback, which has given me plenty of "food-for-thought" for revising and refining my argument.

7. What I felt was the most persuasive paper overall (as in, "did a good job of proving an argument I had never considered before) was by Dr. Brian Hand (seminary professor at Bob Jones University), on "The Prayer of Faith Will Save the Sick: Revisiting a Complex Passage in Light of Intertextuality and New Testament Context--James 5:13-18." Although the paper was actually a bit short on the intertexuality part, his overall argument, that astheneia here actually refers to spiritual weakness, as in discouragement or a "crisis of faith," was very convincing.

8. Brian Collins, who works  at BJU Press, gave us an excellent critique of "Progressive Covenantalism" vis-a-vis how it handles the land promises in Scripture. My main takeaway from this paper was the key point that, although the land promises are, in a sense, expanded to include the rest of the earth, this is inexorably linked with the Son of David ruling from Jerusalem as the Jewish Messiah.

9. Randy Leedy presented a very technical paper on "Does the Bible Allow Remarriage after Divorce Based on Adultery?" Leedy's contribution to the discussion was to note how the discussion of divorce in Matthew 5 is a sub-unit under the discussion of adultery. In other words, the entire pericope is not primarily meant to tell us when divorce is "allowable," but rather how divorce leads to adultery. Thus Jesus is refuting anybody who would say, "See, unlike those Gentiles, I'm actually divorcing my wife before taking another (prettier!) woman, so I must be okay!" Leedy also discusses the difficulty of reconciling Matthew 5:32 with 19:9.

10. Dr. Alan Patterson, veteran missionary to Japan (now retired from Japan but still heavily involved in missions and teaching missions) gave us "A Theology of Persecution: Biblical Counsel for Those Suffering for the Name of Christ," a paper that I hope will morph into a more comprehensive biblical and practical theology of persecution (which, I think, would fill a niche in missiological texts).

11. My fellow Southeastern alumnus, Greg Steikes, did a fascinating paper on "Natural Theology and Truth: Does Thomism Augment Belief in the Resurrection," a very balanced approach to the issue of evidential apologetics in regards to Jesus' resurrection.

12. Finally, John Wivell writes on "Jesus' Answer to the Sadducees about the Resurrection" re.: the marriage question. While not positing any radically new answer (sadly, it still doesn't look like marriage exists after the resurrection :) ) Wivell provides an in-depth look at why, exactly, the Sadducees were attempting to trap Jesus with this question, including an examination of Levirate marriage and the "moral dillemma" that occurs when 7 brothers, implied by the story to be the ultimate in Torah-observers, suddenly wake up in the Resurrection to realize they are guilty of the sin of polyandry (i.e., the Sadducees were attempting to pit Jesus' teaching against  the logical outworking of the Torah).

All of the papers were well-written, and I'm grateful for the fellowship and interaction we had there. Next year's "Bible Faculty Summit" will be held at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, and I'm already planning my paper! (Maybe something a bit less controversial! :)

Hermeneutics: The Two Great Dangers, The Law of Hermeneutical Authority, and Resources for the Student and Teacher

Of all the classes I've had the privilege of teaching, I am by far the most passionate about Hermeneutics (which, I'm happy to report, is required for all college students here at BCM, both guys and gals, as is Greek). I strongly hold to the presupposition that we can understand God's Word as it was meant to be understood, but that on the other hand it will usually take some work. Thus a little child can understand John 3:16 in any modern translation and trust Christ, while a myriad of scholars will write a cornucopia of academic articles on what in the world "Saved Through Childbearing" means (1 Tim 2:15; and even the Apostle Peter admitted that the Apostle Paul could be difficult to understand--2 Peter 3:16).

The ultimate goal of Hermeneutics is to understand the Word of God. Yet in the process, two great dangers (even sins, if we're not careful) loom in front of us. On the one hand, we must avoid at all costs the devil's trap of asking "Has God really said  . .?" if, indeed, God has clearly spoken (Genesis 3:1). Yet the other side of the coin is that we must absolutely avoid saying "Thus saith the Lord" if God has not spoken! In other words, the danger of Ezekiel 22:28 is just as serious as Genesis 3:1. To claim to speak God's Word on a topic while distorting the actual meaning can be just as serious as outright ignoring what God has said.

If God's Word truly is sacred yet occasionally difficult, we can expect various levels of disagreements on the adiaphora, the non-essentials. Nevertheless, no excuse exists for misinterpreting God's Word through lack of study or exalting one's own opinions over the plain sense of Scripture. The ultimate example of hermeneutical incompetence, and one that I show to my students, is the popular YouTube clip arguing from the alleged Aramaic behind Luke 10:18 that President Obama is the Antichrist (no, I am not making that up).

Bad hermeneutics, though, can have more serious consequences than just another round of "let's name the Antichrist or date the rapture." Second Timothy 2:15-18 seems to imply that a failure to "rightly divide" God's Word leads to the errors of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who began to teach seriously wrong theology. Consequently, I am stressing to my students something I call the "Law of Hermeneutical Authority"—namely "The authority of your claim that 'Thus says the Lord' is diminished in direct proportion to your mishandling of the meaning or application of a passage of Scripture." In other words, dear students of Scripture (and I speak to myself here as well), you cannot make dogmatic claims on meaning or application if you are manhandling the Word of God to suit your needs or opinions. God's Word is authoritative when it is properly understood. Quoting Scripture is cheap; anybody can do that (as does the devil himself, as well as his human minions). The question is: are we understanding this particular passage in Scripture as it was meant to be understood? If not, there goes any claim to authority on that passage. (At this point I will briefly stress the difference between "meaning" and "significance"--the former will always stay the same, while the latter may change to a certain degree from person to person, and sometimes as the Spirit leads, but it will always be grounded on the former).

This does not mean that anybody is perfect! All of us, at some (or many) points in our lives, will definitely mess up in our interpretation. Jesus Christ remains the only infallible interpreter of the Word (after all, he is the Word). Nevertheless, we must cultivate an attitude of respect towards the Bible, coupled with a determination to study matters out.

With that in mind, I'd like to share with my readers some of the resources that have been a great help to me in teaching this class.

First of all, our main textbook is Grasping God's Word, by Duvall and Hays (3^rd ed.; Zondervan, 2012). This book is easily-readable, meant for college students--not technical, yet solid and very practical. Unlike the majority of textbooks out there, it actually has an entire chapter on the Holy Spirit! (Definitely a point in its favor). Furthermore, this book truly resonated with a lot of what I personally wanted to stress in class. I do disagree with much of chapter 1 (being a Byzantine-text guy, among other things), but this could not even come close to deterring me from requiring this excellent book for my students.

I am also requiring my students to read all of the fantastic Scripture Twisting by James Sire. This book does a very competent job of exposing the hermeneutical fallacies of cults and extreme fringe groups; the discussion on "Worldview Confusion" is especially helpful.

For my own personal study, I made it a point to purchase both Cracking Old Testament Codes (eds. Sandy and Giese) and A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible (eds. Ryken and Longman) since we will be covering a lot of material on genre in the class (as well as backgrounds, language, theology, etc.)

One book that has surprisingly challenged me in an "outside-of-the-box" kind of way is Peter J. Leithart's Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture. If you, dear reader, feel that you have a basic grasp of hermeneutics, and you already own Grasping God's Word or something similar, then go ahead and buy Leithart's Deep Exegesis—it will make you think!

Some other useful sources: Grant Osborne's The Hermeneutical Spiral is considered a classic for seminary-level work.  For those of a more dispensational persuasion, Roy B. Zuck's Basic Bible Interpretation is very helpful (and was the textbook of choice with the previous teacher of BCM's hermeneutics class), while Graeme Goldsworthy's Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics is a bit more of a reformed persuasion, though both Zuck and Goldsworthy would be worthy additions to your library and have their own strengths. Also, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, by Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, is a useful book; for advanced studies, I must needs put a plug in for Invitation to Biblical Interpretation by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Richard D. Patterson.

Though most of the students will probably have taken Greek by the time they get to class (but very few will have had Hebrew, which I also teach at BCM), I will be showing them how to do very simple word studies via Strong's numbers (while stressing that meaning is derived from both context and semantic range, not either in isolation). For backgrounds, I am pointing them to the various excellent sources out there, including Second Temple literature and other primary sources (for secondary sources, I am especially fond of The New Testament in Antiquity by Cohick, Green, and Burge, and Backgrounds of Early Christianity by Everett Ferguson).

Naturally, NT use of the OT, a sub-division of hermeneutics, has a whole host of books that you should be aware of; nevertheless, that is another post for another time.

Ideally, a knowledge of Hermeneutics should go hand-in-hand with competency in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Nonetheless, hermeneutics is the foundational class; it will not matter how well you know the original languages if you fail to treat Scripture and its original authors (both divine and human) with the respect and reverence they deserves. Hermeneutics does not give you all the answers, but it does teach you which questions to ask!