Love in the OT

  • Thread starter Thread starter Liz_EMW
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Liz_EMW

Guest
Can anyone tell me whether there are different words for love in Hebrew equivalent to the difference between agape and eros?

I am particularly interested in the word used in the text 1 Samuel 18:3 about the relationship between Jonathan and David, as I am responding to proponents of same sex marriage who say it is supported in the Bible (this being one of their examples). I disagree with them that this covenant is an example of a same sex marriage, but it did lead me to realise that I did not have enough understanding of Hebrew language about the various ways we as humans love one another.

Thank you
 
Liz_EMW said:
Can anyone tell me whether there are different words for love in Hebrew equivalent to the difference between agape and eros?
Click to expand...
I don’t know anything about the different words for Love, but I do know of a concept which may help shed some understanding on the Love of the Holy Trinity. Please consider the following:

Since the Greatest Commandments are God’s expectations of us, He must be perfect at them, and this must be True Love.
Therefore, True Love/God’s Nature is…
Freely choosing to always be and spread the means to freely be perfectly patient, kind, and motivated with all the body, spirit, thoughts, and will equally towards others and the self for the experience of happiness without any loss of peace ever.

In regards to the Holy Trinity:
One can conceptualize that:
-the Father is True Love, without beginning and without end.
-the Son, since He is assumed human nature by the Holy Spirit, He must seemingly act outside of Love, then seemingly become atone with True Love.
-the Holy Spirit: Please consider the following concept:
Since the Son is incarnate by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit can be equated to the Will of God. Since God’s Will is free, then the Holy Spirit can be recognized as freely willing True Love. In order for a human to genuinely freely will True Love as God is expecting us to achieve, genuine free will cannot initially know True Love or God. Therefore, one must begin with somewhat of a blank slate. In the process of learning and developing the practice of Love to becoming atone with True Love, one will commit several actions which are outside of True Love. However, given the natural ignorance, desire to become atone with True Love, and intention to act in True Love’s name, the “mistakes” are understandable because they are part of the natural development.
So… one can recognize that since the Holy Spirit is freely-willing True Love, the Holy Spirit had to learn to be True Love through a process of trial and error.

Therefore, when reading the Bible, especially the OT and Revelations, and considering worldly and personal History, try to find the alignment of us trying to grow in oneness with True Love, given our ignorant nature, desire to become more Loving children of God, and intention to act in True Love’s name.
 
Thank you jochoa for your reply.

Eros means erotic love with a sense of desire or emotional affection
Agape means Christian love of the unconditional, selfless, sacrificial kind
(somewhere I read there are actually 4 types of love in the Bible)

I asked the question from the angle of correct translation/interpretation of Scriptural texts. The two words agape and eros can both be translated as love but give different meanings to a text.

Does anyone know if the ancient Hebrew language has more than one word for love, and what they may be?
 
PS thanks friendster324 for the video link - unfortunately I am temporarily without sound so I am unable to appreciate it but hopefully I will be able to soon
 
Liz_EMW said:
Can anyone tell me whether there are different words for love in Hebrew equivalent to the difference between agape and eros?

I am particularly interested in the word used in the text 1 Samuel 18:3 about the relationship between Jonathan and David, as I am responding to proponents of same sex marriage who say it is supported in the Bible (this being one of their examples). I disagree with them that this covenant is an example of a same sex marriage, but it did lead me to realise that I did not have enough understanding of Hebrew language about the various ways we as humans love one another.

Thank you
Click to expand...
The whole agape/eros distinction (popularized by C.S. Lewis and thousands after him who didn’t understand Greek very well) is erroneous in some respects; for example you can find plenty of examples from Greek literature where agape is used to describe erotic love.

Love is one of the primary literary themes in the story of David in the Bible—everyone loves David, but David doesn’t return this love, leading to the tragic scene in 1Kings 1.

In Hebrew the word that is traditional translated “love” actually means something closer to “loyalty” “attachment” or “covenant solidarity.”
 
Thank you Dave Noonan, that was helpful.

Have you a good source re the misunderstanding re agape/eros? I would like to find out more about that.

I did do a search on Hebrew words for love. This one seemed useful theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?108306-Hebrew-words-for-love

From my search, the word ahab (the one used in 1 Samuel 18:3) seams to mean impulsive or romantic love, in general. Hesed would appear to mean solidarity/loyalty. Which of these were you talking about?

I am trying to discern whether the covenant mentioned in 1 Samuel 18:3 was made out of loyalty/solidarity/friendship, or whether it was indeed out of romantic love (as proponents of same sex marriage are suggesting).
 
That’s downplaying it a bit. The word “hesed” or “chesed” means compassion. 'Ahab is any kind of love or affection.

Well, first of all, they made a covenant. They cut up some critters, they walked between them, they promised to be cut up just like the critters if they broke the covenant.

This was an act of alliance between cities, or between clans. It creates family bonds of two different kinds: father/son, and brother/brother.

A covenant between unequals (like a powerful clan or king or city with a weak one needing protection) would refer to the powerful covenant partner as the father and the weak partner as the son of the new family created. A covenant between equals would mean each was called a brother. If one side attacked the other, or failed to meet covenant obligations of fighting for each other, paying tribute/trading goods, or other such violations defined in the contract, covenant curses were called down on the party that broke the covenant terms.

Jews don’t have “marriage covenants”. They have marriage contracts, which have their own special name and requirements. But there was never any cutting up critters and walking between them involved in getting married. Nor is critter-halving a romantic gesture in Jewish tradition.
 
Now, let’s go back to 1 Samuel 18:1-3.

Jonathan and David have their souls/breath tied together, presumably by God. Jonathan and David are then both described to have the kind of love or affection ('ahab) for each other that each one has for his own soul/breath (nephesh).

Now, setting aside later traditions of poetry, how do you personally feel toward your own breath, or your own soul?

Well, obviously you need it. Probably you rather like being able to breathe. But you don’t have romantic feelings toward your own nose, throat, and lungs.

So yes, as many friends do, they found that talking and being together was the breath of life in their nostrils. But feeling more alive when you’re with someone is not generally a romantic sign. Most people also feel more alive when they’re with their dog or their horse whom they love, or a piece of chocolate, or a good hike in the woods. They don’t love them that way, though. Same thing with kids, who are the breath of life and youth to their parents and make the sun shine brighter, but who don’t make them go all romantic.

Previously, Saul had seen David and “loved” him, and picked him as his armorbearer. In other words, he liked the kid a lot, thought he seemed smart and enthusiastic and like a good kid (and kingly and anointed, though Saul didn’t know that). It didn’t mean smoochy smoochy.

Given that Jonathan was apparently one of the few young and non-crazy people in Saul’s court, I’m sure it was nice to meet a super-intelligent guy his own age. But he didn’t “love” him until after he beat Goliath. Jonathan too saw the kingly and anointed quality in him, without knowing it, and probably saw something of what his father was like, before his father went crazy from disobeying God. He saw the sign, and in his heart he gave the new anointed king his allegiance.

But the other thing to remember is that Jonathan was also a bold and crazy hero. In 1 Samuel 14, we read about Jonathan sneaking out with his armorbearer to attack a whole city by night. His armorbearer and friend gets killed in the process, albeit heroically.

Jonathan needed a new friend, a friend who was “after his own heart” in boldness, but skilled and strong enough not to get killed doing stuff with him.

They were both heirs to the throne (Saul’s heir and God’s heir), and so they really were brothers, for all intents and purposes. God was trying to help them stay brothers.

Making a covenant pact not to hurt each other was probably important stuff, since Saul soon thought of David as politically dangerous and Jonathan’s friendship protected David from some people. In the end, it would be David who more or less got Jonathan killed, though.
 
Forgot to say:

Jonathan was also cursed.

Saul comes up to support Jonathan’s secret attack and Jonathan is saved. But in the process, Saul swears to kill anyone who doesn’t completely fast that day. Jonathan eats some honey, and afterwards finds out that everybody is fasting because of his dad. Jonathan says this is stupid, which encourages some of the people to eat some captured cattle. Saul freaks out and swears to kill whoever started it, even if it’s his own son, which it turns out it is. The people freak out and refuse to have Jonathan killled. Obviously things must have been tense between Saul and Jonathan. And then Samuel tells Saul to go attack the Amalekites, and Saul thinks he knows better out and sins. And then he starts losing his mind.

So Jonathan needed a friend who understood that Saul was nuts.
 
Liz_EMW said:
Thank you Dave Noonan, that was helpful.

Have you a good source re the misunderstanding re agape/eros? I would like to find out more about that.
Click to expand...
The dictionary is always a good place to start. You can find the extremely wide range of meanings for agapao (the related verb) here:

perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da%29gapa%2Fw

versus the very narrow range of meaning that is often assigned to the word (e.g., unconditional or divine love).
Liz_EMW said:
I did do a search on Hebrew words for love. This one seemed useful theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?108306-Hebrew-words-for-love

From my search, the word ahab (the one used in 1 Samuel 18:3) seams to mean impulsive or romantic love, in general. Hesed would appear to mean solidarity/loyalty. Which of these were you talking about?

I am trying to discern whether the covenant mentioned in 1 Samuel 18:3 was made out of loyalty/solidarity/friendship, or whether it was indeed out of romantic love (as proponents of same sex marriage are suggesting).
Click to expand...
Yes, certainly ahav (the verb)/ahavah (the noun) can indeed can refer to sexual love, or even simply a sexual relationship: Song of Songs 3:1-3; Hosea 3:1; Gen 29:18, 30, but more generally ahav is used to refer to loyalty and bonded-ness (E.g., Deut 6:5).

Personally, I think the general premise of your argument (basing it on distinctions between “types of love”) is not going to work. Just as in English where people can love pizza, going to the mall, God, their country and their spouse, so to does the word in Biblical Hebrew have (at times) a somewhat similar range of meanings.

But off the top of my head, I can’t think of any other covenants in the Bible that are in any way related to romantic love, so if someone were to argue that this is the case in with Jonathan and David, it would be a strange covenant indeed.
 
Jonathan was a man of very deep faith. In faith, Jonathan and his armor-bearer defeated the Philistines. When Jonathan saw/heard that in faith, David had defeated Goliath, Jonathan knew that like himself, David was a man after God’s own heart. I believe that it was that faith in and love for God that bound Jonathan to David and filled his heart with love for him.
 
Thank you Dave Noonan. I didn’t have an argument, but I was trying to get one - I felt strongly that those using 1 Samuel 18:3 as evidence of gay marriage were way off the mark - but did not have enough knowledge to back up any counter argument. The information you gave is very useful thank you. Actually I think I knew that marriage was a contract rather than a covenant, but forgot that! BTW I did look at an online Greek lexionary but your link seems more useful so I have bookmarked it.

Mintaka that was an excellent overview of the context of the relationship. Really useful. As was Kakieanne’s succinct explanation. I feel much more confident now in countering the argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top