As usual, we agree on...most things. You make a good point about the "in doing this..." and I'll have to think about that some more. I'm still not convinced about the affection aspect. Just because affection is part of a robust definition of love (and I agree that it is), that doesn't mean that it is included in every use. I especially think that the fact that the rest of what Paul says right here, focusing on one's RESPONSE to evil, seems to put the emphasis less on affections and more on the actions. To love is to do right by that person (whether one has affections or not). That is, if someone is mean to you, don't be mean in return (something I have to tell my kids all the time!). If we don't make this distinction, I think we'd put ourselves in situations where we tell a Christian woman that, e.g., she needs to have affection for the man raping her. That doesn't seem right. In fact, I think the conditional clause in Proverbs points to a better understanding, namely, the NEED the enemy has. If the enemy is HUNGRY, then feed him. In other words, do good where good is needed, even if the person in need is your enemy. That seems to fit the immediate context of vv 17-21. It's also illustrated well in the story of Elisha and the Syrian army in 2 Kings 6:20-22:
"As soon as they entered Samaria, Elisha said, 'O Lord, open the eyes of these men so that they may see.' The Lord opened their eyes, and they saw that they were inside Samaria. When the king of Israel saw them he said to Elisha, 'Father, shall I strike them? Shall I strike them?' He answered, 'No! Would you strike those whom you have taken captive with your sword and with your bow? Set food and water before them so that they may eat and drink, and let them go to their master.'”
Affection isn't needed here, but attending their needs of these vulnerable people is. The right thing to do is to take care of those in need. In that case, perhaps it would be better to speak of love here in terms of pity than affection.
Well, I think we agree here more than disagree as well. I agree that in the specific context of Romans, the priority of Paul's instruction is on love as acting for the good of the other.
More broadly, I would also say that it's important to act in love even when we don't feel love. The affection part of my definition is not meant to speak against that idea, but to give a more complete sense of love. But there are indeed many times where we choose to act in love knowing that it's right and having several motives, none of which are affection for the recipient.
The will/affection/action triplet in my definition is also not meant to suggest that all these must be present always everywhere. Love may sometimes be willed, where it cannot be enacted.
Next, I would reply that we must carefully investigate what this affection looks like. I am resistant to the idea that it is warm fuzzy feelings or any kind of shallow or surface 'emotion'. But how is it possible to truly love one's enemies without developing a divine love for them, that is learning to see them as valuable image-bearers beloved of God despite their detestable evil? This affection comes from God and is known as we know how we are loved by him first, so that we learn to love others as God loves them. That is no mean feat in the face of the horrors of the world, but nor should we jettison it.
What do you think about identifying that affection as "pity"? σπλαγχνον seems to have a wide enough semantic domain to cover affection in general, and pity as a kind of affection. I could get on board with that.
I don't think that will do the work in my broader definition of Love, because the affection I am speaking of there is to value and delight in the other and the goodness of the other; but that is working at the general level.
I think that thinking about 'pity' gets more legs by thinking about it as a species in itself - what is pity, and what are its proper objects? How does it differ from mercy, compassion, and empathy? Whom ought we pity and why?
Right; more work would have to be done to define pity, especially in the NT. I would want to start there (with a solid OT survey of the concept as well) before speculating on what it is. My intuition is still that pity is a subspecies of affection necessarily related to a concrete need. It might draw some of its force from the general sense of the "value and delight" you speak of, but I wouldn't reduce it to that. In some places in the LXX, σπλαγχνον is used to translate compassion (רַחֲמִים) which is related to the word for womb, so if we take that concrete image of a mother with her child, there is an affection there, that might include a sense of the neediness of the child, but I would think it is more than just that. I'm saying that we can have pity on our enemy in need without needing the total mother-child affection.
As usual, we agree on...most things. You make a good point about the "in doing this..." and I'll have to think about that some more. I'm still not convinced about the affection aspect. Just because affection is part of a robust definition of love (and I agree that it is), that doesn't mean that it is included in every use. I especially think that the fact that the rest of what Paul says right here, focusing on one's RESPONSE to evil, seems to put the emphasis less on affections and more on the actions. To love is to do right by that person (whether one has affections or not). That is, if someone is mean to you, don't be mean in return (something I have to tell my kids all the time!). If we don't make this distinction, I think we'd put ourselves in situations where we tell a Christian woman that, e.g., she needs to have affection for the man raping her. That doesn't seem right. In fact, I think the conditional clause in Proverbs points to a better understanding, namely, the NEED the enemy has. If the enemy is HUNGRY, then feed him. In other words, do good where good is needed, even if the person in need is your enemy. That seems to fit the immediate context of vv 17-21. It's also illustrated well in the story of Elisha and the Syrian army in 2 Kings 6:20-22:
"As soon as they entered Samaria, Elisha said, 'O Lord, open the eyes of these men so that they may see.' The Lord opened their eyes, and they saw that they were inside Samaria. When the king of Israel saw them he said to Elisha, 'Father, shall I strike them? Shall I strike them?' He answered, 'No! Would you strike those whom you have taken captive with your sword and with your bow? Set food and water before them so that they may eat and drink, and let them go to their master.'”
Affection isn't needed here, but attending their needs of these vulnerable people is. The right thing to do is to take care of those in need. In that case, perhaps it would be better to speak of love here in terms of pity than affection.
Well, I think we agree here more than disagree as well. I agree that in the specific context of Romans, the priority of Paul's instruction is on love as acting for the good of the other.
More broadly, I would also say that it's important to act in love even when we don't feel love. The affection part of my definition is not meant to speak against that idea, but to give a more complete sense of love. But there are indeed many times where we choose to act in love knowing that it's right and having several motives, none of which are affection for the recipient.
The will/affection/action triplet in my definition is also not meant to suggest that all these must be present always everywhere. Love may sometimes be willed, where it cannot be enacted.
Next, I would reply that we must carefully investigate what this affection looks like. I am resistant to the idea that it is warm fuzzy feelings or any kind of shallow or surface 'emotion'. But how is it possible to truly love one's enemies without developing a divine love for them, that is learning to see them as valuable image-bearers beloved of God despite their detestable evil? This affection comes from God and is known as we know how we are loved by him first, so that we learn to love others as God loves them. That is no mean feat in the face of the horrors of the world, but nor should we jettison it.
What do you think about identifying that affection as "pity"? σπλαγχνον seems to have a wide enough semantic domain to cover affection in general, and pity as a kind of affection. I could get on board with that.
I don't think that will do the work in my broader definition of Love, because the affection I am speaking of there is to value and delight in the other and the goodness of the other; but that is working at the general level.
I think that thinking about 'pity' gets more legs by thinking about it as a species in itself - what is pity, and what are its proper objects? How does it differ from mercy, compassion, and empathy? Whom ought we pity and why?
Right; more work would have to be done to define pity, especially in the NT. I would want to start there (with a solid OT survey of the concept as well) before speculating on what it is. My intuition is still that pity is a subspecies of affection necessarily related to a concrete need. It might draw some of its force from the general sense of the "value and delight" you speak of, but I wouldn't reduce it to that. In some places in the LXX, σπλαγχνον is used to translate compassion (רַחֲמִים) which is related to the word for womb, so if we take that concrete image of a mother with her child, there is an affection there, that might include a sense of the neediness of the child, but I would think it is more than just that. I'm saying that we can have pity on our enemy in need without needing the total mother-child affection.