It is quite often argued that the Gospels could not have been written by the original disciples of Jesus since the earliest copies are written in Greek, not Aramaic. As is noted, “The first issue is related to the nature of the Greek language of the New Testament, and the second one is concerned with the languages used or spoken in ancient Palestine, and consequently, by Jesus (14).” So why is the New Testament written in Greek and not Aramaic? If we look at Hypothesis Q, it is very plausible that oral tradition or the originals documents were written in Aramaic then Greek.
Either way, it is not an argument against the authorship of the Gospels by any means. “This means that the historical and social situation during the time the Gospel writers penned their accounts of the Jesus story is different from that of Jesus and his disciples when the actual events took place, even though the hiatus between the event stage and the Gospel composition stage may have been only a few decades (14).” Therefore, we must not conclude that just because the language spoken by Jesus or the disciples must be the same as the written accounts.
What was Jesus’ language?
Many do conclude that Jesus’ native tongue was Hebrew, however this most likely is not linguistically the case. “Hebrew perhaps was not a vernacular variety anymore during the first century CE, having been replaced by Aramaic (16).” Vernacular meaning, “an uncodified and unstandardized language, which can refer either the native tongue or the first language acquired at home, an unofficial language of a country or state, or a language used for relatively circumscribed and informal functions (15).” It is probably the case that Jesus spoke Aramaic as the tongue he grew up with in his household and learned Greek for official or state purposes. His first language would have been Greek, but his tongue would be Aramaic meaning that he learned from Joseph and Mary.
Standard Language on First Century Palestine:
“Any of the four languages—Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or Latin can be considered as a standard language, since all of them have been standardized and codified (16).” Latin most likely would not have been in Palestine since that was mostly a west speaking language, while Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew are Eastern languages. Aramaic would have been the vernacular language, while Greek most likely the standardized language of the State.
“It is most likely that during Jesus’ time, Greek would have been more prestigious variety of the community, as it is the language used in the government administration, higher education (e.g., grammar, classics, and rhetoric and philosophy), and the trade and industry of the time (16-17).” Greek most certainly would have been present in first century Palestine since officials of Rome and of Israel would need this lingua franca (contact language) for official purposes.
Herod the Great most likely would know Greek and his predecessors would, or at least have translators. Higher scribes and officials like the Pharisees would have known Greek, like Saul of Tarsus. Hence, those of religious status would probably know Greek, including tax collectors like Matthew. Greek was the most common Gentile language of the day, so we would expect Luke and Acts to be written in Greek. The Hellenistic program of Alexander the great set the road for Greco Roman world Koine Greek to be spoken during Jesus’s time and the entire empire. “The expansion of Greek in the ancient world would also entail the waning or weakening of other living languages that simultaneously existed with it (23).” The language that Jesus’ followers would have translated these documents into would be the lingua franca of the period, since all languages spoken only in specific groups would die out with its people.
Greek of the New Testament:
Scholars debate whether the New Testament was written in a Holy Ghost, Classical (attic), Semitic, or Hellenistic Greek. As discussed before, the main concern for scholars is why the New Testament was written in Greek vs. Aramaic. As was pointed out earlier, the lingua franca was Greek, so to make the New Testament a standard document and to get the message out to more people (gentiles), it would be best suitable for the New Testament to be written in Greek. Plenty of means to accomplish this task.
It is believed by some Scholars like Henry Gehman, “that Semitic languages spoken in Galilee influenced the kind of Greek that Jesus and his disciples used (24)”. Another possible view is that Jesus spoke on type of Jewish Greek spoken in synagogues. “Walser argues the Greek of the LXX evinces the polyglossic(more voices or languages) nature of the Greek in the Hellenistic period (26).” However, it is most likely the case that the New Testament was written in non-literary Greek of the Hellenistic Greek period due to Alexander the Great’s Hellenization program of the Mediterranean. This was the contact language in both the speech and writing language of first century Palestine due to Hellenization. The discovery of Egyptian papyri and Greek inscriptions in the 19th & 20th centuries prove that this Greek was a vernacular language spoken by people.
Usage of Hebrew, Aramaic:
The most common language spoken in first century Palestine would be Aramaic and would be a native tongue. “The prevailing view of the nineteenth century was that Aramaic had totally replaced Hebrew shortly after the Babylonian captivity (ca. 586-536 BCE) (37).” Hebrew would have only been spoken by high authorities like priests during the exile. Hebrew survived but would have been used for liturgical and educational contexts by Pharisees and other high sects of Judaism.
When Papias says that Matthew wrote to the Hebrews, he is most likely referring to Hebraic people instead of those who literally speak Hebrew. Hence, why it is not necessary for the Gospel of Matthew to be written in Hebrew because most were speaking Aramaic or Greek. There are also uses of Hebrew on ossuaries, which are bone boxes. It could be the case that the Hebrew inscripted boxes could have been bone boxes for priests, like the Caiaphas ossuary.
The Dead Sea scrolls also preserved multiple Hebrew documents; however, this is not proof that it was spoken during the time they were preserved. Josephus uses both Hebrew and Aramaic words in his historical accounts, but this shows that those highly educated would have known Hebrew for writing purposes. Ultimately, it must be concluded that Aramaic had replaced Hebrew as the native tongues for the Jews and Greek was the lingua franca.
There are two main arguments defined the Aramaic Hypothesis: “(1) the weight of inscriptional and documentary evidence, and (2) the practice of translating Scripture into Aramaic (the targums) for the benefit of synagogue congregations (50).” There are hundreds of inscribed ossuaries in Aramaic that support the first point. We also find many translations of targum in the dead sea scrolls like the book of Job, which are translated from Hebrew to Aramaic. Suggesting that they were being translated to a universally used language for possible usage of those who did not know Hebrew. Aramaic copies would have been needed for synagogues, which if this is the case, then Hebrew was clearly not the vernacular language.
We must conclude therefore, that first century Palestine was a multilingual speaking place. Aramaic as the vernacular language, Greek as the lingua franca, and Hebrew used by high priests and those in higher education.
BibliographyOng, H. T. (2015). The Multilingual Jesus: An Analysis of the Sociolinguistic Situation of Ancient Palestine With Special Reference To The Gospel of Matthew. Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster Divinity College.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus begins his public ministry by cleansing the temple of the moneychangers. But in the synoptic gospels, the temple cleansing takes place near the end of his ministry. Did the author of John make a chronological mistake?
Looking at the temple cleansing in the four gospels, we can see there are significant differences between them. One possible explanation for this is that Jesus cleansed the temple twice, one at the beginning of his ministry, and one near the end.
In the synoptics, the temple cleansing is preceded by Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem on a donkey. It is after this he storms into the temple, whilst in John, there is no mention of the triumphant entry until chapter 12.
The synoptics also do not record the same words of Jesus. He calls the temple a house of prayer and rebukes the moneychangers for making it a den of robbers. But in John, Jesus makes a whip out of cords and forcefully drives them out. He does not speak about a den of robbers or a house of prayer, but simply tells the moneychangers not to make the temple a house of trade. John’s version of the temple cleansing is also the only one to include Jesus’ declaration that he will raise up his body in 3 days after it has been destroyed.
Andreas J. Kostenberger suggests the account of the temple cleansing in John, “…may represent a “doublet,” a certain type of event occurring more than once during Jesus’ ministry… If so, Jesus cleared the temple twice, with John recording only the first instance, and the Synoptists only [recording] the second.” (John: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 2004, pg. 111; See also: D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 1991, pg. 178)
While this explanation is a good possibility, I think there is a deeper and more profound explanation as to why John moved the cleansing to the beginning of the ministry.
Johannes Beutler argues that John’s account of the temple cleansing would make more sense if it was originally in John chapter 11. “…Jesus continues to visit the temple, and, in the following eight chapters, he makes it the preferred place for his teaching and preaching. A conflict in this place with the Jewish authorities is easier to understand at the end of Jesus’ public life than at it’s beginning…
The danger to which Jesus exposes himself when he sets out to go and find his friend in Bethany, and the readiness of the disciples to go and die with him (John 11:16), are more easily understood in connection with Jesus’ action in the temple than in connection with the miracle of raising Lazarus.” (The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2017, pg. 84)
So in the sources John was drawing on to compose his gospel, his version of the cleansing would have been initially located in chapter 11. It appears that John has moved the cleansing to chapter 2 in order to make a theological point.
The temple cleansing in John is split into two chunks that display similar structure. The first chunk, verses 13-15, frame the narrative and describes the cleansing. Verse 16 gives the words of Jesus. Verse 17 then describes the disciples remembering a Word from scripture (from Psalm 69:9).
In the second chunk, verse 18 gives the question of authority from the Jews, 19-21 is Jesus’ dispute with them, and verse 22 describes the disciples remembering a Word from scripture.
The concluding verses (23-25) bind the whole chapter together with the Passover Feast, and the wedding in Cana, which was mentioned before the cleansing. The themes that appear to be communicated here are the signs Jesus performs (11, 17, 23) and belief and remembrance in the scriptures (17, 22).
John wished to send a theological message by placing the temple cleansing earlier on:
Jesus’ citation of the Old Testament being placed early in John’s gospel is clearly intentional on the authors’ part. As Rudolf Bultmann states, “…the meaning can scarcely be that Jesus’ action was an expression of his consuming zeal. Rather, the Evangelist (or the Editor) is looking forward to what is to come – or alternatively the whole of Jesus’ ministry – and he means that Jesus’ zeal will result in his death.” (The Gospel of John, 1971, pg. 124)
Given that Jesus routinely said to his followers to keep quiet about him in the early stages of his ministry, a public cleansing of the temple, likely causing outrage amongst the locals and the Jewish authorities would seem to contradict this.
So, we have at least two good reasons as to why John rearranged the order of events in his gospel. I personally think both are good enough, but the theological argument appears to be stronger and more reasonable than two temple cleansings. So therefore, John’s placement of the cleansing at the beginning of the gospel is not a contradiction in the Gospel accounts.
Kerruso Apologetics: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrQomNYP7r7J-u1IZJkF-Tg
Kierkegaard writes on these three forms of despair that results from one’s relation to themselves, who they are and what they are. The first form is not recognizing that you are a self, most people are in this camp since they are indwelled in worldly idols that taint their consciousness. The second form is not willing to be yourself, which you may find something more desirable than duties that come with who you are. The final form is willing to be yourself, which I will argue is the hardest and the most despair we will be put through, but leads to the most meaning, purposeful life one can live.
“Every actual moment of despair is traceable to possibility; every moment he is in despair he is bringing it upon himself… in every actual moment of despair the person in despair bears all the past as a present (17).” When willing to be yourself, it is so difficult to relinquish your past from your consciousness, blatantly impossible. The past is what brought you to your recognition of yourself, so you are weary to avoid that. The consciousness arises your memories of that despair when you experience similar moments that bring the possibility of your past. It brings into imagination that you could bring greater despair to yourself and experience for worse pain.
“The person in despair cannot die; “no more than the dagger can slaughter thoughts (18).” The more consciousness you have when willing to be yourself, the more responsibilities you have to commit no matter the pain. Most certainly in the Christian worldview, we are called to be followers of Christ because that is who we are. It brings worse despair yet the greatest happiness. “To be sure, it is happiness, but happiness is not a qualification of spirit, and deep, deep within the most secret hiding place of happiness there dwells also anxiety, which is despair; it very much wishes to be allowed to remain there, because for despair the most cherished and desirable place to live is in the heart of happiness (25).” Willing to be yourself brings the most out of your being and flourishing with true meaning that gives rational happiness, but with that comes the cost of greater anxiety of possibly losing it all.
Delusion is a great happiness for those who fail to recognize themselves or will not to be themselves, for consciousness of that is lessened, so the pain is lessened. However, with these two, fantasia comes about, which is extreme, delusional imagination. Your self becomes this fantasia, you will do anything you can to achieve this fantasia and that is your flow of consciousness. “The fantastic is generally that which leads a person out into the infinite in such a way that only leads him away from himself and thereby prevents him from coming back to himself (31).” He appears to become more of himself, his godlike state, while in all reality, he is becoming farther and farther from his true self.
Those who will to be themselves paradoxically bring into existence a new category, happiness, and despair both consciously recognized. These individuals will have the strongest concept of God. Christians will have the strongest defeat of their own despair yet will still have it in this lifetime. “In the latter case, the individual in despair is like the consumptive: when the illness is most critical, he feels well, considers himself to be in excellent health, and perhaps seems to others to radiate health (45).” Christians could possibly fall into imagination of a situation that may seem to be from God, this is when they will bring maximum despair because this imagination makes claims of who they are supposed to be. This is praying against God’s status quo, where we take something to be God’s will when it is not.
The other despair that can come about for the Christian or those who are willing to be themselves, will be despair for others while we are ourselves happy. The worst form of mental pain is freely caring about others while they do not want your happiness or willing to be themselves. “The opposite to being in despair is to have faith (49).” This is true in one sense and not in another sense. To be in faith is to get rid of your despair, but it is not to get rid of the despair you feel from others. An exceedingly difficult question asked by nonbelievers is this, how can we be happy in Heaven knowing others are in Hell? We can be happy knowing that we no longer in despair of ourselves, but what about this despair for others we loved?
There is no sound answer to this question, but this is part of rational faith that requires us to believe apparent absurdities. Would God therefore have the greatest despair since he truly cares more about those people in Hell than any one human being could? Willing to be yourself brings you out of despair unless you come across past despair, which is another trial you must endure to continue to be yourself. Willing to be yourself makes you more empathetic and not wanting others to remain in despair. Is this not the Gospel existentially speaking?
This brings despair, since he cares more for the recognized self then the actual self not recognizing themselves, deluding themselves into real despair for themselves. Those willing to be themselves will always be conscious of their despair which makes it steady, while those not willing to be themselves in the first two forms of despair, will eventually feel all their despair in one actual moment that will bring fatalism, nihilism, and pessimism all at once. Willing to be yourself makes you more conscious and gives you the greatest concept of God and to know his will, wills you to be yourself, which brings the greatest happiness based in reality, not self-created delusions by willing not to be yourself.
Despair As Sin:
“Christianity understood, every poet-existence (esthetics notwithstanding) is sin, the sin of poetizing instead of being, of relating to the good and the true through the imagination instead of being that -that is, existentially striving to be that (77).” Socrates described sin as ignorance, while Aristotle would place it in self-indulgence. Aristotle had a category of those who maintained their reason, but still followed a basic appetite. The second from of despair of not willing to be yourself can be seen as the incontinent as Aristotle calls his second form of person.
“Therefore, from a higher point of view, it may be correct to regard paganism as immersed in sin, but the sin of paganism was essentially despairing ignorance of God, of existing before God; paganism is “to be without God in the world (81).” The pagan continues in sin by not recognizing themselves and continuing to live in that ignorance. Everyone eventually has the option to become incontinent in sin or to become continent in virtue. The Pharisees are the incontinent who are more aware of who they are(who they should be), they still follow the basic appetite of pride, which is very much self-indulgence.
The incontinent are pharisaical because they can cover their sin and appetites up with the use of reason. They do not possess wisdom, but rather possess cleverness. Wisdom with virtue is cleverness as Aristotle would say. They know how to be covert, but really suffer the worse despair of oneself because they will not to be themselves, even though they are playing apparently who they are suppose to be, only to get those appetites fulfilled. This is one level of the second form of despair, the other becomes not willing to be yourself by willing yourself to be something else.
Both however carry out the continuation of sin. “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin, every unrepented sin is a new sin and every moment that it remains unrepented is also new sin (105).” Both these categories of despair do not proceed from faith, but rather from self-desires not focused on who we are and God. Those who have continuance of faith recognize how powerful sin really is because they will to be themselves which gives the strongest view of reality, since you can look past imagination, fantasia, appetites, and pride.
“The sinner, however, is so much in the power of sin that he has no idea of its wholly encompassing nature, that he is lost and on the way to destruction (105).” Those willing to be themselves have repented of sin because they have had destruction come once and wise fully stopped willing that upon themselves. Those willing to be themselves have awareness of what that sin they committed to themselves did to them and others, ignorance is no longer bliss. While those, still sinning is out of ignorance have not yet felt that pain. They will have the option to repent or to make sin a habit, which they will become. The incontinent or those willing not to be themselves have felt that pain but have chosen to justify their sin with excuses or ad hoc rationalization.
“Sin has become so natural to him, or sin has become so much his second nature, that he finds the daily everyday to be entirely in order, and he himself pauses only for a moment each time he perceives new impetus, so to speak (105).” Aristotle talks about making virtue a habit so that it will become natural to you. This is what he calls the continent person, that they live their life according to truth and virtue by making it a habit. “Excellence is not one act, but rather a habit.” Those continuing in sin make that their habit and take that to be their excellence if they are pharisaical.
“They play along in life, so to speak, but they never experience putting everything together on one thing, never achieve the idea of infinite self-consistency (107).” The greatest delusion facing people in the west is self-pride. Humility is the only way to bring infinite self-consistency since that leads us to God. Those willing not to be themselves are not aware of them not willing to be themselves when they are in sin unless they love sin itself and will a new self into existence. Much of the time, this can be the case which is called demonic despair. They fear inconsistency but can only consciously avoid it by sinning and taking pride in that. These are the hypocrites who can hardly recognize themselves as hypocrites because of their habit of sin which starts with pride.
“The situation of the demonic person is similar state of the alcoholic, who keeps himself in a perpetual state of intoxication out of fear of stopping and of the resulting debility and its possible consequences if he were to be completely sober for one day (108).” The unrepented sinner becomes the acholic but on an eternal level, eternal consciousness of willing to continue in that sin. This is what Lewis describes multiple times as Hell in the great divorce. Not willing to be yourself, but willing to be controlled by a desire of appetite not resulting from faith. This is what blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is according to Kierkegaard. Not willing to be yourself, which is prescribed by God, but willing to live by pride in these fleshly desires, making them your God and making yourself become a “god”. It is not that God hates these types of people, it is just impossible to love them.
Will to be yourself according to God by seeking and living by wisdom, integrity, and reason, which all give the most satisfying faith.
Sickness unto Death: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BNY0RZ0/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
In John chapter 1, the Pharisees confront John the Baptist and ask him if he is the prophet Elijah, who was prophesied to return before the coming of the Messiah. However, John denies being Elijah, while Jesus declares in Matthew 17 that John is Elijah. How do we reconcile this apparent contradiction?
Well, it’s important to remember that there are two prophecies in the Old Testament being used in relation to John and Elijah: Malachi 4:5 and Isaiah 40:3.
Malachi’s prophecy says, “Lo, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes”. Isaiah’s prophecy says, “A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”
There is no reference to Malachi’s prophecy in the Gospel of John, while all three of the synoptics use it. What is also interesting is that John is the only Gospel that has John the Baptist saying the words of Isaiah, while in the synoptics, it is the authors who say it.
The Gospel of John may then just be telling us what John the Baptist said, but not what Jesus or the apostles believed. It is important to differentiate between the prescriptive – what is being prescribed as biblical truth and doctrine - verses the descriptive – what is being described in a historical narrative. It is possible that, although John knew he was fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah, he did not know he was fulfilling the prophecy of Malachi.
When he is thrown in prison, he sends his followers to ask Jesus if he is the Messiah (Luke 7:19). Clearly, John was in error about Jesus’ lordship whilst he was in prison. Given that he could make such a mistake, it is easily possible he was simply mistaken when he said he wasn’t Elijah and the Gospel writers are merely recording what he said, not prescribing the doctrine that John was not Elijah.
As D. A Carson says, “The Synoptic Gospels report that Jesus identified John the Baptist with the promised Elijah, but they never suggest that John the Baptist himself made that connection. Here he refuses to make it – a refusal which, when placed beside the synoptic evidence, suggests that he did not detect as much significance in his own ministry as Jesus did.” (The Gospel According to John, 1991, pg. 143)
Another explanation could be that John’s denial of being Elijah is simply a humble refusal of being as great a prophet, so that the people could focus on Jesus and not him as the messianic forerunner.
He even says in John 3:30, that Jesus must increase, while he must decrease. John’s willingness to step down after the arrival of Jesus shows his humility, which suggests that John, although acknowledging his role as the new Elijah, believed himself to be unworthy of the title of Elijah and so rejected it when the emissaries questioned him.
As Alexander J. Burke Jr says, “It is because of his deep humility that John refuses the role of Elijah… John’s Gospel seeks to confine the Baptist’s role to that of witness and to establish his great humility. It would not have been in John’s nature to identify himself with such a great figure of Jewish tradition as Elijah.” (John the Baptist: Prophet and Disciple, 2006, pg. 132)
John appears to be distancing himself from the prophets of old, so that people would focus on Jesus and not this new prophetic figure. John’s denial of being Elijah is likely a denial of what the Jews believed Elijah would be like. The Jews expected that it would literally be Elijah himself back from heaven, but this is not implied by the text. John met the spiritual characteristics of Elijah and satisfied the prophesy that Elijah would come before the messiah "to restore all things". John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah, to the point that it could be said that Elijah had come.
Jesus himself says about John’s role, “If you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah.” (Matthew 11:14). In other words, identifying John as Elijah is not predicated upon him being the actual man Elijah, but upon the people’s response to his role as a messianic forerunner. To those who were willing to believe in Jesus, John the Baptist functioned as Elijah, because they believed that Jesus was the Christ. To the religious leaders who rejected Jesus, John the Baptist did not perform this function.
This is why a future day yet remains for the return of Elijah. Upon Jesus’ second coming, the nation of Israel shall repent at Elijah’s calling and accept Jesus as their Messiah. This will also fulfil Paul’s promise in Romans 11:26 – “And in this way all Israel will be saved.”
So to conclude: John denies being Elijah for several possible reasons:
Kerusso Apologetics: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrQomNYP7r7J-u1IZJkF-Tg
The purpose of this article is for ministry sake for young Christian men and women who are trapped into the side shows of modern dating, which is a corruption of what God called good in Genesis 1. I have fallen into these traps and want to help give a true understanding of relationships from a biblical and philosophical standpoint of how relationships Should be. Key word here is Should. Yes, there can be exceptions to the rule along as the relationship is built around truth, virtue, and God.
I have to start off by saying that I’ve only dated twice in my life, but for a whole year I invested much time into it. I have come to learn that this is another area of human life that has been tainted by sin. There are many misconceptions of “love” in modern dating that hurts both parties in a so called “relationship”. Granted, this is from experience of those in their teens and early twenties. It is the case that social media, trends, memes, and narcissistic culture rules the minds of young people, but it all stems to one source for each person.
“But, as I said before, the most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of our own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all cost (Mere Christianity, 108).” Modern dating is mostly based on physically attraction for some or just wanting the feeling of affection. In hook up culture, the end goal is to fulfill one of our strongest pleasures, sex. Any one of these are hidden motives that will set you up for failure. When one has any of these motives, they will seek anyone independent of value, beliefs, and even personality.
This is where the games of modern dating take place to see if this one person you are talking to will fulfill your hidden desire and motive(s). Granted one could have multiple viceful motives (good things taken out of context), which all three mentioned are Godly gifts given to us for a proper context. Many of these games will take form in manipulation, wanting someone to be able to read your mind, and just making high expectations that are unreasonable, which stems from a sense of entitlement.
Culture is so corrupt that the “nice” guys are called “simps”. This is a word that has its origin in memes and nothing academic in the context of relationships. Since it originates in memes, it is undefined and very vague. Hence, putting many guys into the same box. There’s never a real definition given when it’s used to describe someone, usually it’s someone being too nice. However, some might have in mind seekers of pleasure who are nice just to get what they want. This is one type of “simp” someone could imagine. Another common usage would be the guy who is willing to do anything for a girl and has no boundaries. This is someone who is completely controlled by a woman or a feeling. Those two types of individuals are just corrupt as the other corrupt dating types.
The true nice guy is truly seeking a relationship and is more than just nice. He will treat a woman with respect and dignity but has boundaries because he knows his self-worth and has value. He is not controlled by pleasure nor feelings. He knows what he wants, doesn’t play games, and has strong character. The problem is, most girls in modern dating because of memes and social media throw them in with the crowd of “simps”. Those who truly care and would treat a woman the way she should be treated will be heartbroken because of this. They were doing the right thing and yet they ended up this way. “The human mind is generally far more eager to praise and dispraise than to describe and define (Four Loves, 15).” People do not get to know the other person, but rather judge their entire character base off the first couple weeks of talking to them and how they interact.
Another problem with modern dating is the fallacy of equivocation. Literally dating is assumed to be the same as a relationship(eros) and really means the same thing. Those who assume this, go straight into it with feelings without a foundation, which is building an important decision for your life on sand. We will go deeper into this foundation later when we cover eros love, this will be defined later. I will speak from the perspective of a male and what we need to watch out for with one verse. Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised (Proverbs 31:30).
Beauty and charm are beautiful things in a relationship, but in dating, they truly are deceptive. Many guys are “simps” because the charm of a women will be used on guys because of her beauty. Men are controlled by that and will be easily controllable. Then, when that woman is done using you for her own feelings and pleasures, she will “friend zone” you, which means, “I will use you again when I need you”. Many girls do this and it brings trauma to the nice guys because of the love bombing (signs of affection and compliments that appear genuine) early in the “relationship”. This is not to say that “friend zoning” is bad, my point is that they should have been friends (philia) first. These would be two genuine people looking for a relationship, but lack a foundation and have taken place in a corrupt process. If you are one who is not over a type of girl (or guy) like this, seek help from counselors and life coaches. They are here from God for a reason. What we truly need is a strong foundation and true understanding of what love is.
When discussing love, we clearly have many different definitions but only by feeling. This is another problem with modern dating, love is a warm, fuzzy feeling. This is half true, but the feeling is equated with eros love when it is really affectionate love. However, love is a feeling based on true action and initiative in building a relationship. Since modern dating is just reduced to this feeling, let’s go ahead and reduce this to what it truly is. Oxytocin is a neurotransmitter that is activated during these affectionate moments in the early stages of dating, that people treat as “love”.
This powerful hormone is a validator for right moments of love, and the four loves give it that context. Don’t let a hormone control what you Should view as true love and a fulfilling relationship. This literally is an addiction that modern couples love to have and it takes good things and corrupts them. It will be what controls you just like what drug addicts deal with. This is not a poetic analogy, it’s a scientific fact. This is why people are addicted to porn, because they want there “fix” of oxytocin and they are willing to do what it takes (Deception, abuse, games, manipulation, distorting reality, anything that counts as an irrational vice).
When a chemical controls the mind of my generation, this is just upsetting to me, because the postmodern society we live in encourages it. To break this addiction, if you have it and can admit it, I’d suggest an article from Josh McDowell which will be linked and seeking help from trained professionals. Oxytocin in its proper context is more fulfilling because you have control of it and it doesn’t control you. It’s more fulfilling because you worked to it with virtue and not hurting others or yourself. It’s more fulfilling because of the context of proper love and God’s love which will be discussed later. Let’s now discuss love in its proper and different contexts. Oxytocin is a vindicator for true love, not love itself.
Lewis also makes clear that love falls under two categories, gift love and appreciative love. Sports teams or celebrities are people that we appreciatively love since they have admirable characteristics about them. A gift love would be loving those who help us and invest time into our lives, parents, relatives, spouses, so on or giving itself. In English, we just have the word love, but in Greek we have four different words. The natural loves are Storge, Philia, Eros, while Agape love supersedes the natural and becomes the lens for the natural. “When the natural loves become lawless they do not merely do harm to other loves; they themselves cease to be the loves they were-to be loves at all (36).”
Storge love is “affection, especially of parents to offspring’; but also of offspring to parents (41).” This is an appreciative love that couples nowadays start with in dating. I took a girl to the movies once and put my arm around her, she most certainty had this affectionate feeling. Let me tell you, this is treated as a need when starting "relationships". Affection is mostly need love, that’s why we love our parents who cared for us because we needed that attention when we were younger. Either guy or girl, if you start a relationship with this type of feeling as a need then you are not in the right stage of your life for a “relationship”. This means that you have this need for some reason and will rush something good into something like a relationship between a brother and sister. This is why friendship is so important before one jumps into these emotions, because that feeling is appreciative love, not eros love. Storge as a gift love is truly wonderful, meaning you have control of it and give it to a person you truly know and care about(no games).
In some countries, greetings and signs of affection are kissing. In America, kissing is the sign of “true” love. This is just a gesture showing that you appreciate the other person. “Affection can love the unattractive: God and His saints love the unlovable. Affection ‘does not expect too much’, turns a blind eye to faults, revives easily after quarrels; just so charity suffers long and is kind and forgives. Affection opens our eyes to goodness we could not have seen, or should not have appreciated without it. So does humble sanctity (49).” Some will treat this as a Need love when it comes to dating which is why it most likely will not work, because there truly is no appreciation in it. Some people want kisses in dating because it is this warm, fuzzy feeling that storge gives off. We have appreciative relationships with our pets and even cuddle them, unfortunately for some, this is all they want in dating. This devalues both persons when this is the mindset, completely guided by feelings and emotions. This is how people end up in toxic relationships because they never got to truly know the person. Some even know this and take advantage of women to take control of them and remove the masks of who they really are once they have a strong bond with this toxic person. They use storge as a gift love to corrupt people who treat storge as a need love.
“There is no disguising the fact that this means goodness, patience, self-denial, humility, and the continual intervention of a higher sort of love than Affection, in itself, can ever be. That is the whole point. If we try to live by Affection alone, Affection will ‘go bad on us’ (71).” A couple must grow in truth, patience, humility, goodness to truly fall in a Godly eros love. The beginning step of this is being friends first, which is the complete opposite of modern dating. Want to know why? Because one must supply this affection in order to fulfill the hidden motive they have, which is sin by definition because it is an idol that they have allowed themselves to be controlled by. “If affection is made the absolute sovereign of a human life the seeds will germinate. Love, having become a god, becomes a demon (72).’
The “friend zone” is seen as a bad thing, which it can easily be depending on the person who “friend zones” you. If one comes from the storge level and “friend zones” you, then they have the wrong motives for that “friend zone”. Most successful relationships are started in the context of philia love that grows into a friendship with more affection. This is what I would call true dating, when you truly get to know each other and grow in appreciation for each other with those signs of affection. “Friendship so sharply from both the other loves. Friendship is – in a sense not at all derogatory to it – the least of natural of loves; the least instinctive, organic, biological, gregarious, and necessary (74).”
Want to know why friendship is so unnatural, it’s commitment that requires you to give up your time to hang out or even help out a friend when they need your support. This is the start of a true connection with someone. People are only willing to give their time to those who have use to them (storge). “But in friendship – in that luminous, tranquil, rational, world or relationships freely chosen – you got away from all that (75).” This is truly a love to freely give up time to grow with people on a level beyond affection and the emotions of tainted eros love. If one grows in the same truths and values, then that is a true connection that is freely given. You grow closer to that person and appreciate them even more, especially if you have the same truths and values.
“The co-existence of friendship and eros may also help some moderns to realize that friendship is in reality a love, and even as great a love as eros (86).” Building those connections with people truly makes you grow as a person and them as well. Most people see themselves as their own friend and see friendship as just stamp collecting for those who will validate them, this is just what we call egoism at its finest. If someone ‘friend zones’ you in this context, give them the Gospel and turn the other way from that. If one “friend zones” to build a connection and you run, then you are at fault.
“From what has been said it will be clear that in most societies at most periods of Friendships will be between men and men or women and women. The sexes will have met one another in Affection and in eros but not in this love… To be sure, what is offered as Friendship on one side may be mistaken for eros on the other, with painful and embarrassing results (92-93).” This will happen if a guy has never really had girls who are friends and will take the slightest compliment as something on an affectionate or eros level, while they were probably just complimenting you.
A true virtuous woman who you grow close to in the same truths will let you know if she likes you more than just somebody who has the same values. This is why it is so important to connect and get to know someone, then jumping right into affection. You will either become too emotionally attached which can lead to staying in a toxic relationship or you will realize sooner or later that there are too many disagreements which makes an unequal yoke. When you let feelings control you, it’s easy to fall in “love” with someone who is attractive or charming, or anyone to satisfy the feeling.
Friendship love between a man and woman truly can and should be the beginning towards affection then eros. Here’s why, there is a start with a rational foundation. You actually got to know them and can make a rational choice if you develop true feelings and not out of desperation or for one single impulse. You have accepted them as a friend and have already given time to them on that level, there’s already commitment started. Obviously, physical attraction is important for eros love and that may be the reason why the friendship becomes more affectionate. There is also a strong bond between the two already which gives a rationale structure to this development of affection.
What this also shows is this, that these two who became friends first, had control over their emotions and physical attractions for one another. Control is a virtue that is needed for any good relationship and that strong bond of growing in the same truths truly gives you that. You’ve already committed yourself to that person in spite of those emotions and attractions, which is a greater love that grows then anything you get out of modern dating. For Christians, this should be priority. You should become friends in Christ first to grow that strong connection in agape love then to see a correct lens for affectionate and eros love. As a Christian, your first love is God and all adoration and worship goes to him. A couple who pray, study the bible, and worship God together truly can grow true eros love since the foundation of their yoke is love himself.
“It must not become what the people call a ‘mutual admiration society’; yet if it is not full of mutual admiration, or Appreciative love, it is not friendship at all (112).” Modern friendship is based on convenience, mere similarities, pragmatic gain, and validation of oneself. This is why the “friend zone” most likely is going to be for these reasons or out of self-entitled ego that exerts a false empathy. Truly, become friends first and grow in the same interests, beliefs, and give each other your time. This is the only realistic and rational way for a relationship to start without eros love becoming your god and what controls your relationship.
“By eros I mean of course that state which we call ‘being in love’; or, if you prefer, that kind of love which loves are ‘in’ (117).” What Lewis is describing here is a feeling, but he of course understands that feelings are validators for certain truths and do not determine truth. If someone wrongs someone and regrets it, they will feel guilty. It is logical to feel guilty. People treat this feeling of love nowadays as a mysterious force without a proper context. I use to think that in dating, you shouldn’t try to rationally explain this feeling, this is just false on so many levels.
Firstly, it would just be special pleading to say that this is the one feeling that does not need to validate a truth but makes the truth. Secondly, this is just a warm, fuzzy feeling when affection is shown between couples who first date and then this is equated as love. It stems from the presupposition that dating is equivalent to relationship. Let’s be real, people in dating want the feeling and not the commitment. Some even know that, while others find this out after having their hearts broken. This is just what hook up culture is, this is a system that has been corrupted by sin just like every other aspect of human life and nature. Christians go into this lukewarm and act like it’s normal. This is why some almost even blame God for their “relationships” that failed, because there were already answers provided that they ignored. Finally, it’s literally an appeal to emotion fallacy, simple as that.
“Now Eros makes a man really want, not a woman, but one particular woman. In some mysterious but quite indisputable fashion the lover desires the Beloved herself, not the pleasure she can give (121).” Truly, how many people actually have this when they first meet someone or have just went on a couple of dates with. Couples who draw hearts with their initials on the second or third date truly are following an unjustified, irrational feeling that is not true eros. There are also those who think they know someone since they gave them their trust at first, but people are not to be trusted with this feeling unless you have truly become friends in the same truths, most certainly for Christians who live their natural loves in the context of agape love. The strongest trust bonds are around friends who have proven their friendship to you out of no pragmatic gain or convenience, but through the freely given philia love. This is where true eros love logically falls under, not just a warm, fuzzy feeling out of context.
“It is a continual demonstration of the truth that we are composite creatures, rational creatures, akin on one side to the angels, on the other to tom cats (129).” I know some people who are professing Christians and are very intellectual, then completely act in the opposite way of their beliefs and stated convictions. It’s just inconsistency at its finest and why is that? For starters, there could be an ego at play something like “I got everything else figured out so this should be no different”, then go on about with following an impulse or feeling out of context. Thinking, “I know this to be the case”, without doing much thinking about it. Basically, an unjustified assumption, which is based on a lack of oxytocin or subjective conjecture based on subjective, past experiences.
“There’s no living with it till we recognize that one of its functions in our lives is to play the part of buffoon (130).” Playing the part of the buffoon is letting this feeling take control of your mind and rationale rather than letting your mind guide this feeling. “Pleasure, pushed to its extreme, shatters us like pain (131).” This is an impulse that we really let control us and make up truths in our heads to act like it doesn’t. Christians are guilty of this and it’s even worse on them because many will recognize they put a pleasure, desire, or even a thought over the truth God has given to them and reject people who only met well for them.
Most do not actually apply metaphysics to their lives because they do not do much thinking into what metaphysics is. Metaphysics is simply the rules of reality like out of nothing, nothing comes. People operate with a metaphysical claim in their pursuit of eros which is just mistaken for affection, under the view that there is a soulmate for them specifically. “Plato will have it that “falling in love” is the mutual recognition on earth of souls which have been singled out for one another in a previous and celestial existence (139).” This is just a dangerous view that even Plato would be disgusted with how people use this idea. Plato at least asserted along with this, that both the souls have to grow with each other in habit of virtue. People have this view and literally assume nothing should go wrong and create a subjective, unrealistic standard to which this soulmate should be like.
If there’s one way to get rid of trust, communication, honesty, virtue, truth, God, and a relationship, it’s to assume this metaphysical claim. At this point, mind reading and games are the expectations for relationships to see if this soulmate truly is tied to them to complete them. Again, this would be a value issue that people need to fix by searching for God in their lives first. As soon as these unrealistic expectations are not met, the feeling changes for them with each person they test. “They expected the mere feeling would do for them, and permanently, all that was necessary. When this expectation is disappointed they throw the blame on eros or, more usually, on their partners (147).” So many people keep ending up in bad relationships and heartbreaks because they keep following this impulse which has failed them so many times.
“The real danger seems to me not that the lovers will idolize each other but that they will idolize Eros himself (142).” Let me say this, when this impulse that is an idol, is set up for oneself is met, they will attack anything that can dismantle this idol. Christians could fall in “love” with a non-Christian of some sort and cut off critical Christians and even family members, because they were really worshiping two different Gods at the same time. “Of all loves he is, at his height, most god-like; therefore, most prone to demand our worship. Of himself he always tends to turn ‘being in love’ into a sort of religion (142).” Subjective standards are created just like subjective morality, which leads to many disastrous “relationships”. This is a religion that is just a feeling, literally toxic relationships result from this and any other perversions of true eros love that God called good.
“But Eros, honored without reservation and obeyed unconditionally, becomes a demon… Divinely indifferent to our selfishness, he is also demoniacally rebellious to every claim of God or Man that would oppose him. Hence as the poet say: ‘people in love cannot be moved by kindness, and opposition makes them feel like martyrs’ (141).” When eros is your God, then wisdom, integrity, virtue, and reason are thrown in the trash. Even for Christians, the idea that God has the perfect one for you is just foolish because it leads to the same expectations as a soulmate does. When you think someone is from God for no reason and just a feeling, you feel like a martyr and blame God for the situation you threw yourself into.
“We must do the works of Eros when Eros is not present. This all good lovers know, through those who are not reflective or articulate will be able to express it only in a few conventional phrases about ‘talking the rough along with the smooth’, and the like. And all good Christian lovers know that this programme, modest as it sounds, will not be carried out except by humility, charity, and divine grace; that it is indeed the whole Christian life seen from one particular angle (147).”
Treat eros love as something special and good, not as a need but as a want that is truly most desirable when people have control. If you have to find your value in the feeling of eros itself or a “soulmate”, then you are treating it as a need and devaluing the goodness of eros and the people you drag into your life that are used to satisfy this impulse. “Date” yourself to truly find your value and truly find your value in God who created you. "To fall in love with God is the greatest romance; to seek him the greatest adventure; to find him, the greatest human achievement (St Augustine)." “Eros is driven to promise what Eros of himself cannot perform (146).” Agape love is the love everyone needs and can receive.
In every wife, mother, child, and friend they saw a possible rival to God. So of course does our God (Luke 14:26) (153).” It’s a struggle for a parent to put God first above their children or put God above a wife, mother, brother. It’s difficult since these are true commitments of natural loves that control you easily because they are need loves. Imagine, giving your heart to someone who you’ve only known for a bit and went on a few dates with. Oh wait, this happens literally every day, because people are controlled by eros.
Again, people have value and identity issues because they have a lack of purpose or initiative in their lives. This leads to people having to find their value in something other than themselves or God, which is what we call good, old fashion idolatry. What does it mean to give your heart to something? John Calvin gives us four signs of worship: Adoration, Truth, Invocation, and Thanksgiving. It is scary how people are willing to give these four things to people who fulfill this eros feeling not founded on a rational structure. If any human being should get these from you, it is parents who follow truth and virtue in raising their children. Not from dating someone for a couple of weeks and drawing a heart with your initials into a tree representing your “love”.
Augustine said it pretty well “giving one’s heart to anything but God”. People willing to give their hearts to people in dating truly do not understand love on a fundamental level. Some people do not give their parents and siblings the trust and adoration they have merited as they do to those who have sacrificed a few days of the week for a couple of weeks or even months. Want to know why people do this? Because they go off of an impulse that is their idol and any person to fulfill that feeling is almost eros incarnate for them. Because of an impulse people are willing to give their lives to people so quickly.
It’s a value and identity problem that none of the natural loves can fulfill. The best you can get is a friend who shares the same truths and values as you and grow a connection with them. That is the best hope for any who do not put God first in a relationship. “Do not let your happiness depend on something you may lose (154).” This is such a powerful statement because it speaks true to the state of one’s mind while pursuing a “relationship” nowadays. One is in a state of confusion, bitterness, depression when seeking a “soulmate” to complete them which leads them to just find someone, and not a person. Someone is just an object to satisfy a feeling and to be used for that. People are willing to do what it takes to keep that someone who satisfies that feeling whether it’s manipulation, love-bombing, or just worshiping them.
A person is someone you seek to build a connection with you when you have determined who you actually are and not using someone to get that identity. When you jump into a “relationship” on a foundation of sand (pure emotion/feeling), you set yourself up for even worse confusion, bitterness, and depression. “Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must not give your heart to no one, not even an animal (155).” By giving your heart, this means worship. Of course you can love people in these natural loves, but if you literally derive your value, purpose, morality, authority, identity, and even reality from any of these loves, you will self-destruct eventually.
We shall draw nearer to God, not by trying to avoid the sufferings inherent in all loves, but by accepting them and offering them to Him; throwing away all defensive armor (156).” If you are heart broken and go to the same feeling that has failed you multiple times, then you are controlled by it and you let that happen. Go to God who is the greatest conceivable being who cannot fail and is the ontological, metaphysical grounding of love itself. “The real question is, which (when the alternative comes) do you serve, or choose, or put first? To which claim does your will, in the last resort, yield (157).”
If you let affectionate (modern dating) or eros control your will, then you will reject those who were good to you. Those who give you your trust, would have been good to you, and those who have been good to you for most of your life. Emotions cause humans to do irrational acts and horrible things all the time. “To hate is to reject, to set one’s face against, to make no concession to, the Beloved when the Beloved utters, however sweetly and however pitiably, the suggestions of the Devil (158).” Even the slightest sign of attacking those who threaten your eros idol is a sign of hatred to that person who loves the truth and only wants you to live by the truth.
“The best love of either sort is not blind (160).” Going back to feelings and emotions, these are vindicators for truths. True connection with affection will be the rational and true grounding for the development of eros. However, one must find their identity to make those connections and develop true friendship. “The doctrine that God was under no necessity to create is not a piece of dry scholastic speculation. It is essential (162).” God did not have to create those he knew would betray his love and yet redeem in the doctrine of the incarnation. That God became man to save those who did not want to be saved. This is truly charity love that we need to base all of our relationships off. We do this by giving God our will and full worship over anything created.
The Need-loves, so far as I have been able to see, have no resemblance to the Love which God is (163).” “But Divine Gift-love in the man enables him to love what is not naturally lovable, lepers, criminals, enemies, morons, the sulky, the superior, and the sneering. Finally, by a high paradox, God enables men to have a Gift-love towards Himself (164).” “There is something in each of us that cannot be naturally loved (170).”
We literally cannot find the meaning of our existence in the things in which need explanation or are contingent on something else. Only God, a necessary being can give us this meaning and purpose, which is what people do in modern dating. Trying to find their meaning and purpose in this “soulmate” that fate will give them. That “soulmate” is no different than you, they are most likely just ahead of the broken game they are playing. In the Christian worldview, love literally is a metaphysical principle of the universe and is why it exists. We can only get our meaning and purpose that is truly fulfilling from that, since that just is how reality is.
“The natural loves are summoned to become modes of charity while remaining the natural loves they were… Charity does not dwindle into merely natural love but natural love is taken up into, made the tuned and obedient instrument of, Love himself (171).” When we literally apply the metaphysics of reality to our relationships which is based on charity love, then logically it just follows those relationships will be better since they are grounded in truth. That feeling is a vindicator of that truth you have discovered, not created. To truly understand agape love, read the four Gospels and understand the message behind it. “By loving Him more than them we shall love them more than we now do (178).”
Do not be controlled by eros or affection out of their proper context. Truly understand the Gospel and God’s love for you before pursuing a relationship. Grow with friends in that truth of reality to have philia love that will grow with affection and into a true, beautiful eros love not based on an impulse. Have patience, which is enduring with the proper attitude. Build virtue by habit to build your character to be temperate and courageous instead of self-indulgent or over confident. Remember, Love is an action and not just a feeling. The true feeling of eros rises out of the charity put into a relationship. Let God, the greatest romance be your metaphysics and authority in your relationships since it’s just beyond an ought, it just is for true meaningful relationships.
Let wisdom, integrity, and reason guide your thinking,
Live Stream Presentation:
Josh McDowell Article: https://saltandlight.sg/faith/how-to-deal-with-addiction-to-pornography-josh-mcdowell/