A Short Guide to Biblical Interpretation

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5948/introherm.htm ^ | Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc (Hons)

[lockeliberty]

Thanks for the kind words and the reference to Mr. Sproul's book.

[lockeliberty]

Funny how perception works. You call him moderately liberal. I'm not sure under what context your using that label. I would call him conservative since he asks us to apply interpretation, at least to begin with, strictly based on context,culture,time, and pattern. His approach seems scientific and thorough.

[poet]

That exchange has always fascinated me. Feleo, Agopi and Eros are the three Greek words for love. Yeshua was really asking Peter " do you Agopi me"? which is the all consuming love of Yahweh and as you know, Peter replied as a friend (feleo) (I'm not sure if I spelled that correctly.)

What is striking about that exchange is the fact Peter was asked three times. If a man or woman were to ask that of their respective mate three times in a row, it would be aggravating. The fact that Peter walked away grieved ( at the end of the exchange) said to me that Yeshua made Peter aware of the fact that he (Peter) did not recognize Him as the Son of Yahweh at that point in time.

It's very difficult to literally translate from certain languages, for example YHWH which is the Hebrew name for the Creator has no vowels, therefore, the closest we can come up with is Yahweh.

[lockeliberty]

Thanks for your response. Your obvious skills at articulation and analysis is well demonstrated. I suppose those of us who would actually care to engage in serious Bible study instead of serious doctrinal bashing could find another forum. Yet, leaving this problem unresolved seems wrong too.

As to your solutions. You use the word collective three times, a concept despised and which does not seem possible on this forum. My suggestion would be to follow the authors advise. Instead of posting articles by men we post selected Bible passages and then employ the authors template; background information,context, culture,form of literature, etc, and proceed with discussion based on those parameters. Of course, it may not be as exciting as the puerile threads now, but as xcins showed, there will always be debate.

[lockeliberty]

I deleted a part of the article that had to do with differing translations because I did not want this thread to devolve into a war about the best translation. However, the author makes some interesting observations on different translations. click on the link and you can find it.

gotta get to bed. That exchange between Peter and Jesus is fascinating and worthy of much contemplation. Good speaking with you again.

[poet]

Thank You. Pleasant dreams

[xzins]

You're looking at his methodology which appears to be a basic inductive technique....nothing wrong there. I'm looking at his presuppositions about prophecy, parables, and revelation (apocalyptic). They are moderate to liberal.

1. Prophecy - he restricts the vast majority to the "sitz im leben" of the author.

2. Parables - he allows only one meaning be derived.

3. Apocalypse - Again, restricted to the early church "sitz im leben."

Those are not conservative assumptions about scripture.

[lockeliberty]

After rereading the text again I noticed I got the ordering of the greek words wrong. Here is the commentary for my NASB study Bible:

"The Greek word for 'love' in Jesus' first two questions is different from the word for 'love' in His third question, which is the same word Peter uses in all three answers. It is uncertain whether a distinction in meaning is intended since John often made slight word variations, apparently for stylistic reasons. Also, no distinction is made between these two words elsewhere in this Gospel. In this passage, however, they occur together, and the variations seem too deliberate to be explained on stylistic grounds.The 'love' in Jesus' first two questions (agapao) refers to a love in which the entire personality, including the will is involved. The 'love' in Jesus' third question and in Peters answers (phileo) refers to spontaneous natural affection or fondness in which the emotion plays a more prominent role than will. Whatever interpetation is adopted, the important thing is that in so serious a matter as the reinstatement of Peter, the great question was whether he loved Jesus."

It appears to me that Peter believed the word phileo was a stronger word for love than the word agapeo. He was grieved when Jesus asked him the third time whether he phileo Jesus because he had already answered him twice before that he phileo Jesus. Perhaps what Jesus was trying to teach Peter was the first great commandment: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, strength and soul.

[poet]

That is precisely my take on the exchange. The third time, Yeshua made Peter realize he only thought Him as a friend and that's why Peter walked away grieved in the last verse.