Society corrupts "AGAPE"

by Amazing1914 16 Replies latest jw friends

  • Amazing1914
    Amazing1914

    Perhaps one of the most ludicrous and insidious sins of the Watchtower corporation is how they twisted and corrupted the Greek word Agape' to mean something that it does not mean. If you ask JWs what Agape means, they will respond with some rubbish about 'principled' love, then go on to discuss showing love by being at meetings, out in field service, or by shunning some ex-JW.

    An example of their Agape styled love can be found in only one use of it in 1999:

    July 1, 1999 Watchtower: Parents - What Does Your Example Teach?

    13 Expressing unselfish love: One of the most important lessons to be fortified by example is the meaning of love. "We love, because [God] first loved us." (1 John 4:19) He is the Source and supreme example of love. This principled love, a·ga'pe, is mentioned in the Bible more than 100 times. It is a quality that identifies true Christians. (John 13:35) Such love is to be shown toward God and Jesus Christ and also by humans toward one another, even toward humans for whom we may not feel a fondness. (Matthew 5:44, 45; 1 John 5:3)

    The Society utterly fails to take note that Jesus discussed far more than "fondness" or lack thereof, in Matthew 4:43-44. Instead, this was the famous Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus commenced his ministry. The scripture citation the Society makes at the end, Matthew 5:44 discusses loving your enemies! But, no, the Society waters it down to those for whom we are not especially fond.

    Back in 1999, in the subsequent Watchtower magazine, the Society discusses Hatred and its three special meanings. After a brief discussion on the first two types of Hatred, the Society goes into great detail to describe Hate No. 3:

    July 15, 1999 Watchtower: Christ Hated Lawlessness - Do You? " Three Kinds of Hatred"
    5 Then there is the meaning of the word "hate" with which we are especially concerned here. It has the thought of having such an intense feeling of dislike for or strong aversion to someone or something that we avoid having anything to do with such a person or thing. In Psalm 139 this is spoken of as a complete hatred. There David said: "Do I not hate those who are intensely hating you, O Jehovah, and do I not feel a loathing for those revolting against you? With a complete hatred I do hate them. They have become to me real enemies." Psalm 139:21, 22.

    How does the Society now apply Hate No. 3 in a Christian manner? The same article goes on to say:

    Hating False Religion and Apostasy

    19 The obligation to hate lawlessness also applies to all activity by apostates. Our attitude toward apostates should be that of David, who declared: "Do I not hate those who are intensely hating you, O Jehovah, and do I not feel a loathing for those revolting against you? With a complete hatred I do hate them. They have become to me real enemies." (Psalm 139:21, 22) Modern-day apostates have made common cause with "the man of lawlessness," the clergy of Christendom.

    Oddly enough, the Jesus Christ teaches us to love our enemies, whereas the Watchtower Society teaches that this only applies to those for whom we are not especially fond - but - if they are Watchtower enemies that they have labeled "apostates," then one must apply and exercise Hate No. 3. Fanscinating!

    So, how does the Watchtower Society deal with Agape in their Bible dictionary called Insight on the Scriptures?

    Insight, Vol. II, P. 273 says:

    James Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, in its Greek dictionary (1890, pp. 75, 76), remarks under phi·le'o: "To be a friend to (fond of [an individual or an object]), i.e. have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; while [a·ga·pa'o] is wider, embracing espec. the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety . . . )." See AFFECTION.

    The Watchtower Society focuses in on "principle" in their partial quote of Strong's Concordance. However, reading the entire context of the Insight article reveals that the Watchtower Society does make a generally fair discussion of Agape, including being affectionate, and not using it in a "cold justice" application.

    The Insight book continued,

    A·ga'pe, therefore, carries the meaning of love guided, or governed, by principle. It may or may not include affection and fondness. That a·ga'pe may include affection and warmth is evident in many passages.

    Contrasting this, what did Jesus teach about love, which was later translated into Greek using the word Agape?:

    Matthew 5:43 and 44: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.' But I say unto you, Love (Agape) your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

    (Luke 6:27 makes the same essential point)

    What then, does Agape really mean? The Watchtower Society knows, for you can find it in their materials like the Insight volumes. But their primary focus, through the Watchtower magazine, and in their oral tradition, avoids the proper expression of love in favor of their organizational agenda to hate former JWs who no longer agree with their teachings.

    Galatians 5:22-23 says: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love (Agape), joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, m eekness, temperance: against such there is no law."

    Therefore, essential Bible teaching about the fruitage of the Spirit includes Agape (to love your enemies) as something which is not governed by Law. In other words, no human can set any boundaries upon how, or to what extent, which we express and show Agape to our friends and enemies alike!

    Further, here is the real rub: If we are to love our enemies, to do good to them, pray for them, hope for them, care for them that persecute us, then what kind of love is that? It is Unconditional Love. The Watchtower Society, in its contorted and twisted maneuverings managed to cause JWs to miss out on the most important thing they could ever enjoy - unconditional love - for that is the love with which we are to also have for God. Receiving and giving unconditional love is what truly make us feel complete, fulfilled, and happy.

    Notice how Jesus stresses unconditional love for God and neighbor, as it was later translated using the Greek word, Agape:

    Matthew 22:37-40: Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love (Apage) the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love (Agape) thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

    The entire theme of the Bible hangs upon our showing unconditional Agape love to God, our Father and our neighbors, be they friends or enemies.

    This is among the many ways which expose the Watchtower Society as a false religion - or better stated - the religious book-selling corporation equivalent of Wal-Mart. Anything like unconditional love that might get in the way of organizational policies and sales goals must be "adjusted" to make sure that the JWs continue to be unconditionally loyal to the Organization and sell more books and magazines, and bring in more book-selling recruits.

    And the Organization said, "You shall call your new corporate sales people - Publishers!"

    Agape love is principled, but it also is affectionate and is unconditional precisely because it includes loving and doing good to one's enemies.

  • love2Bworldly
    love2Bworldly

    It's just another example that shows the JW's are not true Christians nor do they follow Christ's example.

  • Preston
    Preston

    So Matt. 5:44 uses agape? interesting....

    - Preston

  • rebel8
    rebel8

    I always wondered about that.

    If anyone has the actual Greek characters for "agape", here is a site that could translate it back to English.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    I remember of one OT exegesis professor who used to say: "Theology is in the Bible, not in the dictionary."

    Agapaô is not specifically "Christian"; it is a very common Greek verb in the Hellenistic period, occuring over 260 times in the LXX, with almost all the shades of meanings of "love," including "erotic" (e.g. Genesis 24:67; Song of Solomon 1:3ff etc.). The fact that the Greek language has other verbs for "love" with a somewhat narrower semantic range (and certainly not as narrow as the WT and its 19th-century sources have it) doesn't mean that agapaô is similarly "specialised". In fact it is very generic. Just as in English, only the context makes the exact meaning of "love".

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    I think the emphasis on hating "apostates" and other aspects of the "world" is (consciously or unconsciously) an attempt to dehumanize the "enemy" that God will destroy at Armageddon. Since such "enemies" are found in families, among loved ones, friends, etc., there may be a tendency to feel sympathy towards them or even give them an ear to what they have to say. But if they are viewed as God-hating Korah-like apostates who deserve to be hated, then the "sheep" can exit the burning cities into a pretty paradise with big grins on their faces.

    And since the Bible presents different points of views, it is all too easy for the WTS to override Jesus' statement in Matthew by going back to the OT and quoting a "psalm of David" (Psalm 139). In fact, even in the NT, there is Romans 12:9 which says to "hate what is evil, cling to what is good", which could easily be interpreted as permitting one to "hate their enemies", and "apostates" in particular.

  • M.J.
    M.J.

    Thanks for that excellent breakdown. It's something how the meaning of words can be even manipulated to suit the "greater purpose".

  • eyeslice
    eyeslice

    Interesting post. This subject is one of the reasons that hastened my rather abrupt departure.

    We had one elder who constantly misapplied John 3:16, basically saying that God doesn't love the world but rather loves those who come out of the world.

    I then read William Barclay's commentary on John. Commenting on John 3:16 he says;

    It tells us of the width of the love of God. It was the world that God so loved. It was not a nation; it was not the good people; it was not the people who loved him; it was the world. The unloved and the unlovable, the lonely who have no one else to love them, those who love God and those who never think of him., those who rest in the love of God and those who spurn it - all are included in this vast inclusive love of God. As St Augustine had it; 'God loves each one of us as there was only one of us to love'





    Eyeslice

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    Agapaô is not specifically "Christian"; it is a very common Greek verb in the Hellenistic period, occuring over 260 times in the LXX, with almost all the shades of meanings of "love," including "erotic" (e.g. Genesis 24:67; Song of Solomon 1:3ff etc.). The fact that the Greek language has other verbs for "love" with a somewhat narrower semantic range (and certainly not as narrow as the WT and its 19th-century sources have it) doesn't mean that agapaô is similarly "specialised". In fact it is very generic. Just as in English, only the context makes the exact meaning of "love".

    From what I've read, the distinction between EROS/PHILO and AGAPE that is claimed to occur in the NT is not found in earlier Greek sources...the LXX being one clear example of this. One text that seems to problematize the presumed NT distinction is the pastoral passage in John 21, which describes Jesus as asking Peter "three times" (triton) if he had PHILO for him (v. 17), even tho two of those three times the word for "love" that was used was AGAPE. This would suggest that AGAPE is broader than PHILO and could subsume the senses of PHILO...

    I have encountered a suggestion that the Greek agapé, which lacks any known Indo-European etymology, is attested only from the Hellenistic period onward and its etymology has been claimed to be Hebrew 'ahab ('hb) "love" (or more likely loaned via Phoenician). It is somewhat plausible, tho the correspondence between h -> g may be problematic.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos
    One text that seems to problematize the presumed NT distinction is the pastoral passage in John 21, which describes Jesus as asking Peter "three times" (triton) if he had PHILO for him (v. 17), even tho two of those three times the word for "love" that was used was AGAPE. This would suggest that AGAPE is broader than PHILO and could subsume the senses of PHILO...

    If I remember correctly, R.E. Brown's commentary convincingly debunks the classical interpretation which distinguishes agapaô from phileô: those verbs are used interchangeably for a stylistic effect, not for semantic nuance. Cf. also the use of both phileô and agapaô for the "beloved disciple".

    I have encountered a suggestion that the Greek agapé, which lacks any known Indo-European etymology, is attested only from the Hellenistic period onward and its etymology has been claimed to be Hebrew 'ahab ('hb) "love" (or more likely loaned via Phoenician). It is somewhat plausible, tho the correspondence between h -> g may be problematic.

    While the noun agapè is rare outside the Biblical realm (and its attestations are scarce, even in the Hellenistic period, so the argument from silence for the anterior period is rather weak), the verb agapaô is classical (Odyssea, Euripides, Plato, Plutarch, etc.). Even the TDNT (which is known for its tendency to overtheologise the lexicon, cf. James Barr's criticism) admits (I, 37): "Yet the meaning of [agapan] is still imprecise, and its individuation still tentative, as may be seen when it is conjoined or interchanged with [eran] or [philein]. For in these cases [agapan] is often a mere synonym which is set alongside the other two for the sake of emphasis or stylistic variation." (Ref. from the footnote, Xenophon Mem. II, 7:12; Corp. Herm. I, 19; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 13:32.)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit