“Titus 2 Darby translation
1But do *thou* speak the things that become sound teaching;
2that the elder men be sober, grave, discreet, sound in faith, in love, in patience;
3that the elder women in like manner be in deportment as becoming those who have to say to sacred things, not slanderers, not enslaved to much wine, teachers of what is right;
4that they may admonish the young women to be attached to [their] husbands, to be attached to [their] children,
5discreet, chaste, diligent in home work, good, subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be evil spoken of.
6The younger men in like manner exhort to be discreet:…
Note first that there is a theme which runs through these admonishments to elder men, elder women, younger men and slaves. You will see the theme more clearly when you read the entire chapter. What do you think the theme is and how does that affect your reading of the above segments?
You might check out http://www.scripture4all.org.
You can see the original greek and note some things of interest.
The word in vs. 4 translated as “love” in many Bibles is not the word for love but an offshoot of phileo which is to be fond of. This is why Darby translated it ‘to be attached’.
In vs. 5, oikourgos is nothing about being AT home, but about managing the home, home workers. It also does not limit women as in suggesting that is ONLY what a wife should do. But in that era, the home was the sphere of the wife and not the husband.
Pay attention to the ‘likewises’. Remember that likewise means that everything that was said before is to be carried forward into the next section. Notice how in each segment they are being admonished to be sober.
Anyone have any thoughts on the theme of this section?
Leaders and those young in the Lord.
The word in vs. 4 translated as “love” in many Bibles is not the word for love but an offshoot of phileo which is to be fond of. This is why Darby translated it ‘to be attached’.
In Darby’s day, Greek scholars thought there was a difference between phileô/philia and agapaô/agapê. Better knowledge of the Greek language, discoveries from the papyri, etc., have most scholars now agreeing that the terms were used somewhat interchangeably/synonymously in NT times. BDAG defines philandros (the word in Titus 2:4) as having affection/love for a husband.
Also:
φίλανδρος, 2 philandros loving one’s husband*
Titus 2:4, in reference to young women, who should be φίλανδροι (“loving their husbands”) and φιλότεκνοι (“loving their children”). Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G. (1990-c1993). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament. (3:424). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
25.37 φίλανδρος: pertaining to having affection for a husband—‘having love for one’s husband, having affection for one’s husband.’ ἵνα σωφρονίζωσιν τὰς νέας φιλάνδρους εἶναι ‘in order to train the young women to have affection for their husbands’ Tt 2.4. Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996, c1989). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (1:292). New York: United Bible societies.
Interesting Eric.
I not sure I can get wholeheartedly behind that. Though in that particular setting they seem similar enough for us to get it, I do think there are nuances that make philandros the better choice. One nuance would be its link to friendship and fondness which agapeo goes way beyond.
I’m one for paying attention to the nuances.
Thanks for the input Eric.
D. A. Carson has an interesting section in his book EXEGETICAL FALLACIES where he explains how phileô came to be replaced by agapaô and/or how the two words became largely synonymous. It has to do with two other words, one meaning “to kiss” and the other meaning “to impregnate,” being identical in the aorist tense, which resulted in some rather salacious joking. So phileô came to be used for “to kiss,” and agapaô, a word that was gaining in prominence, began taking phileô’s place for “to love.”
That’s cool.
Do you remember what the time frame was? …. about when was the shifting taking place.
Carson writes that “agapaô was coming into prominence throughout Greek literature from the 4th century B.C. on, and was not restricted to biblical literature.” (pp. 51-52, EXEGETICAL FALLACIES Second Edition).
If you do a search on AGAPAO and PHILEO, you will find them often used more or less interchangeably.
For example, John [presumably] is said to be both the disciple whom Jesus loved [AGAPAO] and loved [PHILEO].
The Father is said to love Jesus using both words.
And far from AGAPAO being used only for a special kind of love, it is used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament for the love Amnon had for Tamar, the kind of “love” that led him to rape her.
In the NT, it is used of the Pharisees who loved the praise of men rather than the praise of God. It is also used of Demas who loved this present world.
The meaning of the word AGAPAO does not come from its status as a technical term for a special kind of love, but from the context in which it is used.
At times it is used of a special kind of love, but so are PHILADELPHIA and PHILEO and other words, often with PHIL as part of the compound word.
All of this and more is in Don Carson’s excellent little book The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God.
“And far from AGAPAO being used only for a special kind of love, it is used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament for the love Amnon had for Tamar, the kind of “love” that led him to rape her.”
Now that is interesting. Good info. And I agree that context makes the difference, because there are times when they are pitted against each other showing a definite difference.
Hi TL. Or should I say “G’day?”
Can you tell us more about times when the two words are pitted against one another showing a definite difference, please?
Aloha, David.
Check out John 21:15-19 in the Greek.
Bonsoir, TL
The idea that John [the writer] or Jesus [the speaker] is intending to talk about different kinds of love in John 21:15-17 only became popular in the Nineteenth Century.
I think it is obvious that the words are used interchangeably in the passage, just as the words for feeding and sheep are.
Also, if Jesus was speaking in Aramaic, he would not have been making the contrasts that may appear to be there in the Greek.
And, if there is a distinction between AGAPAO and PHILEO in the passage, it is not at all obvious that AGAPAO is used of the higher love. It may well be, as some have argued, that it is PHILEO that is the word that is being highlighted and not AGAPAO.
But John uses synonyms in this very passage for feeding and for sheep and elsewhere in this gospel. It is highly liekly that the words are used interchangeably in the passage, as they are throughout the rest of John’s Gospel.
Well worth following this up in The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God.
David:
Good point/reminder/observation. “John” loves synonyms and swapping words for no apparent reason other than stylistic. Maybe it’s part of his Hebrew/Jewish inheritance, as Hebrew “poetry” is at times characterized by repeating something one just said/wrote, only with slightly different wording (see the Psalms). As you noted re: John 21: sheep, fish, boat, love, feed, tend. And then there’s John 6 where some people/churches emphasize how Jesus switches from “eat” to “chew” as if this really proves that he really meant that we are really to eat his real body. But John exclusively uses trôgô for the present tense, and esthiô/ephagon for the aorist, so when he wants to use a present participle, he writes ho trôgôn and not ho esthiôn.
G’day!
In John 21, I see Peter as not overstating himself, as he had done many times before, in other words, he had learned his lesson. The 3 denials and the 3 affirmations are also a match, esp. as saying something 3 times in Hebrew thinking shows it is deliberate.
“I think it is obvious that the words are used interchangeably in the passage, just as the words for feeding and sheep are”
That is one way to take it. Personally, I choose to treat it as if John were recording what was actually said. IOW Jesus actually used agapeo and John actually responded with phileo. And I believe that Jesus used the words he used deliberately, meaning there was meaning in each one used. As I read that section I note the differences in each statement. To me it all means something.
I think that Jesus was calling Peter to a deeply devoted love while Peter responded with a deep affection, i.e. friendship. This is why at the third time Jesus asked him, Peter became grieved. It was not just that Jesus repeated the question but that the question was to call Peter to a deeper level of love.
This is shown by what Jesus says after, that when Peter is old he is going to be bound and led to his death. Jesus said “Follow Me”. Jesus needed Peter’s devotion to be deep and total in order for him to do what God was calling and preparing him to do. Peter struggled with this concept, even to questioning ‘what about this man’. Jesus told him not to worry about him, “YOU follow me”. IOW you do as I tell you. Be completely and totally devoted to me and follow me where I lead you. All of this is missed if we don’t take into consideration that Peter loved Jesus with a deep affection but Jesus wanted his complete devotion.
The fact that others have missed this depth in the exchange does not erase it. If translators had noted the different words in translators others would have more easily seen it also.
TL:
It’s not “[t]he fact that others have missed this depth in the exchange.” It hasn’t been “missed.” In fact, pastors who use “preacher Greek” have given sermons that point out this kind of thing. I.e., they’ll sermonize about how phileô and agapaô mean different things, and that in this conversation/exchange Jesus was calling Peter to a “deeply devoted love” for Him, but Peter could only admit to and commit to “a deep affection.”
But scholars of Greek have been pointing out to those who study the language that this supposed agapaô/phileô distinction in John 21 is likely a false or faulty one.
One person’s paper on the subject:
http://www.addtoyourlearning.com/articles/The%20Use%20of%20Agapao%20and%20Phileo%20in%20John%2021,2.pdf
TL:
I don’t totally exclude the idea that in John 21 there might be an intended difference by the author/speakers between agapaô and phileô, but it appears from reading the lexicons and the commentaries that those who insist on such a distinction have a harder job to do to prove their case than those who say that such a distinction is not there or is not intended or, if it is there, is unclear.
“But scholars of Greek have been pointing out to those who study the language that this supposed agapaô/phileô distinction in John 21 is likely a false or faulty one.”
Would those be the same scholars of Greek who try to claim there is no difference between hupotasso and hupotassomai, or between hupotassomai and hupakou?
Not all Greek scholars agree. And not all who know Greek are Greek scholars. And frankly not all who claim to be Grk. scholars are ones that I would trust.
I do know a few Greek scholars though. Perhaps I should write them and see what they think!
Thanks for the dialogue. And I’ll check that link.
Aloha!
So ….. now let’s take our thoughts to this verse. Why do you think Darby translated it this way. And what are the ramifications of the differences.
4that they may admonish the young women to be attached to [their] husbands, to be attached to [their] children
TL asks why did Darby translate it that way.
As I suggested earlier, he was working with a pre-papyri understanding of Koinê Greek. The distinctions between words that were true of Classical Greek cannot be assumed to hold during the Koinê period.
As for the ramifications: I think the ramifications for those who preach and teach from Darby are they could be led to misunderstand what the NT says, and hence mislead others.
Well hey Eric. People who teach and preach from the KJV have been known to misunderstand huge amounts of texts and hence have indeed misled others. But you know some of the time both of them are right.
LOL
It sounds like Paul’s intention is to encourage people to act in a manner that will not cause negative things to be said about the gospel.
The theme appears to be “don’t do anything that would discredit the gospel”.
Yes, I think that is part of it, as is what Don said.
Anything else?
Hey Eric, another question.
So, do you think that believing either way about that section in John 21 leads one closer or further from God? After all isn’t that one of the primary points of all Scripture?
Does anyone see that the theme of Titus 2:1-6 has to do with the appointment of elders and their required behavior? Lin gave us that clue as did Don. It’s a short book and quite concise in its subject. One thing it brings together is that elders are to be those older as well as older in the Lord.
I hit the button too quick.
The link perhaps is in the fact the letter is to Titus telling him how to choose elders, and then how to speak to the insubordinate, idle talkers and deceivers. Within that he is to be giving more instructions to those older, from whom he will be choosing elders. Something like that.