Agape and Phileo
Open the
Bible Question Form to send your own question.
Q: Can we
interpret John 21 better by knowing the Greek words agape
and Phileo? It seems that Peter replies to Jesus twice
that he "affectionately loves" Him, after He asks Peter
twice if he loves Him--(in the sense of duty and of the
will). Then, Jesus uses Peter's own word for love the third
time: "Do you Peter love me affectionately?". That's a
big part it seems why Peter was so grieved. Now, isn't it
fair to say that you could never know this with the English?
Is it possible that the scholars are lying to us about the
Greek? Or, is it possible that the Greek manuscripts are in
error? Or, not legitimate? I just don't know.
A: The Greek language has
three words for love: agape, phileo, and eros. Eros is not
confused with the other two because it refers to sexual love
or lust. However, scholars have been trying for years to get
much mileage from the supposed distinction of the other
two--especially in the passage in question--John 21:15-17.
The idea is that the distinction between the two words for
love in Greek is always consistent and clearly distinctive.
Therefore, the tendency of the King James translators to
ignore this distinction and to translate these two very
different words both as love is an absolute proof of the
failure of the King James Bible in translation.
By the way, I checked the passage out in the New
International Version and in the Revised Standard Version.
They also use "love" throughout the passage. Even over three
centuries later, they did not see a need to use different
words...but I am getting ahead of myself.
The standard teaching is that agape is the highest and
purest kind of love. It is divine love and is used to
express the essential nature of God (1John 4:8). Phileo is
distinguished as being the more personal of the two terms
and refers often to a brotherly love. This is seen in the
naming of the city of Philadelphia, which name means "the
city of brotherly love."
Anyway, using the Greek words (in their anglicized forms),
here is a summary of the passage.
VERSE 15:
Jesus asked Peter if he agape'd Him
Peter responded that he phileo'd Him
VERSE 16:
Jesus asked Peter if he agape'd Him
Peter responded that he phileo'd Him
VERSE 17:
Jesus asked Peter if he phileo'd Him
Peter responded that he phileo'd Him
The argument made by the scholars is that Jesus asked Peter
if he had the highest form of love for Him. However, Peter
could only say that he had the lower form of love for His
Saviour. Finally, the third time He asked the question using
the word for the lower form of love. This showed that Jesus
was satisfied if Peter could only love Him with phileo love.
This argument is found in H. A. Ironside's commentary on
John and in many others. However, your argument seems to
approach the interpretation differently. F. F. Bruce in his
commentary on John says concerning the interpretation of the
Greek words for love in this passage: "But those who see a
difference in force between the two verbs here are not
agreed on the nature of the difference." According to
Trench, Peter finds the first two instances as "far too
cold" and wants a more affectionate word for love. But
according to Westcott, the first word (agape) is too high
and Peter pushes for a more human word for love.
Bruce continues: "When two such distinguished Greek scholars
(both, moreover, tending to argue from the standards of
classical Greek) see the significance of the synonymns so
differently, we may wonder if indeed we are intended to see
such distinct significance. Let us consider these facts:
"(i) The verbs agapao and phileo are used interchangeably in
the Septuagint to render one and the same Hebrew word (e.g.
in Genesis 37:3 Jacob's preferential love for Joseph is
expressed by agapao but in the following verse by phileo).
"(ii) The verb agapao in itself does not necessarily imply a
loftier love; it does so when the context makes this clear
(on the other hand, in 2Timothy 4:10 Demas's regrettable
love for 'this present world' is expressed by agapao).
"(iii) More important still for our present purpose is the
fact that John himself uses the two verbs interchangeably
elsewhere in his Gospel, e.g. in the statement that 'the
Father loves the Son' (agapao in 3:35; phileo in 5:20) and
in references to 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (agapao in
13:23; 19:26; 21:7, 20; phileo in 20:2). It is precarious,
then, to press a distinction between the two synonyms here."
This quotation is important for several reasons. First, F.
F. Bruce is accepted as a major Bible scholar (that seems to
be more important to you than it is to me). Also, he is no
supporter of the King James Bible. He has been involved in
other modern English translations of the Bible. Third, he
points out that the scholars who make the distinction in the
Greek to be of major significance do so because of their
reliance on classical Greek. That is, they go to the Greek
of Plato, Aristotle, and others and assume the distinctions
there to be the same as in the Biblical Greek. This has been
shown to cause many errors. Biblical Greek was distinct from
Classical Greek in many ways. The biblical usage of a word
is the proof for what that word means in the Bible. Those
who forget this end up teaching error.
You (and many others) say that Peter was grieved because
Jesus used a different word for love in the third question.
However, this puts our intelligence above the plain
statement of scripture. If the Bible clearly tells us the
cause of something, what makes us think that we are smart
enough to find another answer? Read this verse again:
John 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of
Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said
unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto
him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love
thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
The verse clearly says that "Peter was grieved because he
said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?" The cause of
his grief was that Jesus had asked him the same question
three times. This, by itself, proves that Peter saw no
significance in the changed word for love. If he had seen it
as a different question, he would not have been grieved
because the same question had been asked THREE TIMES.
However, there is another very powerful reason that a third
asking of the question would grieve Peter. He had just
denied his Saviour THREE TIMES! See Luke 22:54-62. Jesus is
giving him his own medicine.
Also, it is important to note that the three denials of
Jesus came after Peter had bragged about how he was more
dependable that the other disciples in his faithfulness to
Jesus. Read the following passage:
Matthew 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be
offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will
smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be
scattered abroad.
32 But after I am risen again, I will go before you into
Galilee.
33 Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be
offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.
34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this
night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
Peter states that even though others might be offended, he
will "never be offended." In effect, he is saying, "Lord, I
don't know about these other guys. I have some questions
about them myself. But you can bet your last dollar that
I'll be there at the end of the fight. I'll be faithful to
the end. You can bank on that!"
That is what Jesus has reminded Peter of by asking the
question about love the third time. We also see it in the
way Jesus asked the question the first time: "Simon, son of
Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?" (John 21:15). Who
are the these? Peter had bragged about how he had loved
Jesus more than the other disciples and then he denied the
Lord three times. Now, Jesus asks Peter if he is still going
to brag about how much more he loves Jesus than the others
do. Peter dodges the true point of the question until Jesus
asks it the third time and removes all doubt as to His
point. Peter gets it and speaks of his love as a confession
and not as a bragging point. He had finally learned the
lesson.
Agape and Phileo will occasionally be used in distinct ways.
However, when they are, the King James Bible clearly makes
the distinction--sometimes by context and sometimes by a
different translation (as when agape is translated as
charity for emphasis). However, they are often of no great
significance in the Greek. In Matthew 23:6, Jesus spoke of
those who "love the uppermost rooms." The Greek word for
love here is phileo. In Luke 11:43, Jesus spoke of those who
"love the uppermost seats." The Greek word for love here is
agape. The fact is, there are numerous examples of this in
the New Testament. The significance claimed by the Greek
scholars is a shadow. Where it is important, it is clear in
context and in the English. But there are many places where
the words are used interchangeably.
So, why is so much made over this distinction? Pride. If
knowing Greek does not give a man greater Bible knowledge
and place him closer to God's true message to man, then it
does not seem as important. Most people study Biblical Greek
in order to know God's word more clearly. Then, they have to
have something to prove that it worked. The dirty secret is
that there a a lot of grandma's at home who know more of God
and His word than many who have studied Greek for years. But
we cannot let this secret out.
Further, I think the teaching concerning John 21:15-17 is
very popular because it gives everyone a chance to prove
that they are smart. They can show their friends how smart
they are. They can show their Sunday School class what Bible
scholars they are becoming. That is not to say that I think
the motives are purposefully evil. People honestly get
excited at this nugget they just found. It works like a
pyramid scheme. If I find out that it is not such a big
deal, I cannot tell anyone about it because it is one of the
reasons they think I am such a Bible scholar. So, the
fiction just keeps on going.
But another problem is that while people are making such a
fuss over a supposed nugget, they are often missing the more
important meanings in the same passage. I have seen people
go on forever about agape and phileo in John 21:15-17 and
totally miss the really significant points of the passage (I
mentioned some of them above). The "Greek nuggets" simply
detour us from the greater blessing.
Till He comes,
Pastor David Reagan
|