Apr 06 2007
Easter Life
Paul describes Easter different than most people:
“He gave up his divine privileges…” Phil. 2:7
It describes the crucifixion of the Christ, and how ironic it is: they killed the author of life. He had eternal life, but exchanged it freely for death. He is the King of Kings with indisputable rights, but He gave up all those rights. As Americans, we’re educated to be rights-aware and we guard our rights desperately. Paul wrote this in a different time and culture, but there it is for Americans, too: “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus” (vs. 5). It’s radical and it torpedoes the American Dream, but still God wants us to “regard one another as more important than yourselves.” (v.3)
But the resurrection of Christ proclaims the victory of sacrificial love: “every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (v.11) This Victorious Love is a new life of freedom from desperately guarding our rights, but even more, it’s a victorious life which everyone will confess one day is right and good and brilliant, “to the glory of God the Father.”
Why did Jesus do it? That’s the real question. I’ve heard answers like, “because it’s a more fulfilling life,” or “to have eternal relationships with us,” or, “He was ordered to do it,” or “To show us what sacrifice means.” All these answers ignore the fact that Jesus was already God. He was already very fulfilled, already loved, needed no more company from us, was already fulfilled in every manner, and he did it entirely by free choice.
Why did Jesus do it?
Because he loved us! That’s what real love is all about, he didn’t need anything from us or want something, he cared more for us than for himself.
Jesus did what he did as an act of loving obedience to the will of his Father. All that Jesus did was to the glory of the Father; the Father gives all things(including us) to His Son who is pleasing to Him.
So “Why did Jesus do this?” Christ chose to do this out of love not only for us, but more importantly out of loving obedience to His Father.
Their relationship is just sooooo incredible and awesome. The love relationship that God has between himselves is the most incompassing of all arenas of love. The first arena being the love God has between himselves, second his provisional love for his creation, third being redemptive love, fourth being elective love and fifth being disciplinary love of the elect.
Yeah, I gotta say Lisa, I think you’re right, but I think Joe is perhaps imprecise. Looking at Phil. 2, it’s all “to the Glory of the Father” for Christ, Paul says. Quite frankly, I think this answer opens a deeper-still mystery which I don’t understand much beyond what Paul says in this passage. Although Jesus does love us, and it’s true he died for us, Lisa, you more properly stated it: “more importantly out of loving…his Father.” It’s not like he needed to do this for us. In fact, he didn’t need to create us at all. However, he is inextricably tied to the Father in everything he does, from before eternity past.
Joe…there is much you say which is meritorious. Thanks for your answer, brother.
Well, the credit for my more precise answer must go to Carson. Recently I read D.A. Carson’s book the Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. It’s intense!
I am more enlightened about and more in awe of the love relationship that God has among Himselves. I also am understanding His love for me as a believer more fully.
Carson also addresses using mere word studies (“Agape and Phileo, eros”)when examining God’s Word. He cautions against this and expounds on why this is shaky theology.
I recommend this book to anyone who is investigating this mysterious profound love relationship. This book is sound, even heady theology but he explains it in a manner that is clear and knowable.
My response is proof of that!
That’s an interesting book Lisa, glad you shared that sister. I know about Carson’s rap about agape/phileo (he discussed it at length in “Exegetical Fallacies”), and I’m afraid his case doesn’t deal with the clear agape/phileo contrasts in John 21:15-27 and 1 Peter 1::22, for example. He also doesn’t address the fact that agape is clearly preferred and quite remarkably over-used in the Bible compared to secular literatures (which use it rarely). I don’t believe he provided a good answer on that. He is correct, however, demonstrating that it’s not an ironclad distinction always consistently made (as if NT authors agreed beforehand on a “glossary”). Nonetheless, the distinction exists, it is unique and it does make a clear point. Frankly, I think Carson (and Osborn to a lesser degree) is a bit too ivory tower about this issue.
Indeed, Carson does not address those passages. I must investigate.
I agree that there is a distinction between the word groups; however, I thought it is wise counsel to consider the theme of the passage while interpreting a passage as well as using word studies. His point seemed to be that word studies are good if done within understanding and context of the themes of love presented throughout the Bible. But if a word study is used alone, the theology may be off.
For instance, I was surprised to find that passage in 2 Samuel13 where Amnon rapes Tamar because he agape and phileo’s her. I suppose it could be explained that this was a Greek translation and that the Greek words did not have a set meaning at the time of the work. Also in the NT 1Tim 4:10, Demas leave Paul because he agape’s the world. This seems off in light of the perceived meaning of agape.
Carson does address that “agape is clearly preferred and quite remarkably over-used in the Bible compared to secular literatures”. He concurs that it was preferred by theologians in their writings, but that there may be “diachronic reasons in Greek philosophy to explain the rise of the agape work group” and not merely theological explanations. The support he gives for his answer is weak, but he does give an answer.
I must confess that I too get caught up in “ivory tower” topics and this can be a problem, but I hope that this characteristic will help me to scrutinize what I hear against what is found the Word.
Yes, you’re absolutely correct: context is always the final determination in word studies. And yes, there isn’t always a strict, technical usage of the word. (But 2 Samuel is a bad example since it was written in Hebrew…you should’ve picked up Hebrew while you were studying for your Classics degree!)
On the other hand, “that there may be ‘diachronic’ reasons in Greek philosophy…” precisely illustrates my original criticism (above) that they’ve climbed too high in the Ivory Tower and they’re dizzy in that thin atmosphere! They can search far and wide for the hidden “diachronic reasons,” while the rest of us can enjoy the simple, obvious and edifying applications that comes from understanding the agape/phileo distinctions I cited in the passages above. (BTW, “eros” is conspicuously missing from the NT’s “love” vocabulary.)
I whole heartedly agree with that assessment!
I recently found a cool web site Scripturetext.com where I had searched for eros. I did not find it in the NT. The OT search is Hebrew. I found this site most helpful and plan on using it more often in my studies.
Thanks for the enjoyable dialogue!