Love: Agape vs Phileo
A Closer Look into John 21:15–17
Introduction
In the dialog between Peter and Jesus (John 21:15–17), two different words for “love” are used in the original Greek text — “ἀγαπάω” (agape) and “φιλέω” (phileo). Do these two Greek words hold any significance to the meaning of the text? A brief study into synonyms, semantics, definitions, and Scripture context reveals that the two words do not hold any significant distinctions in meaning.
Synonyms
“Synonym” is defined by Merriam Webster as “one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses.” Synonyms serve many functions — they can be used to convey the same exact idea in a slightly different way; they can be used to convey similar ideas that fall within the range of each other’s semantic scopes; they can be used to add variation to the language being used; they can be used for no other reason than because it feels linguistically natural to do so; and they can be used to convey two different ideas that have some similarities. It is usually possible to determine the function of any given set of synonyms by studying the context in which they are in.
The multi-functional nature of synonyms poses little trouble to a high school language student writing an essay for their English class. However, it does become quite the issue for Biblical scholars, theologians, and pastors when they start studying untranslated Scriptures in their original languages.
In his book Exegetical Fallacies, D.A. Carson explores this problem in more depth. Carson observes that synonyms are quite difficult to handle because each word’s range of meanings is never perfectly the same as the other’s, and yet there is overlap. Two different words (even if they are “synonymous”) never quite mean the exact same thing because different words convey different information and carry different emotional weights to different people. Thus, certain synonymous words may carry the exact same meaning in one context, and yet a completely different one in another.
The Semantic Problem
This semantic problem becomes quite evident when studying the “lovest thou me?” exchange between Jesus and Peter in John chapter 21. The original Greek language that this passage was written in does not actually use the one word “love”; it uses two Greek synonyms for love — “ἀγαπάω” (agape) and “φιλέω” (phileo). The question that arises is whether the use of these two synonyms in the exchange between Jesus and Peter is meant to provide some sort of distinctions in meaning.
D.A Carson doubts that there is any real merit in drawing a distinction between these two words in this specific context. He argues that by this point in Greek-language-history, the word agape had become a standard verb meaning “to love” that often took the place of phileo because phileo had grown to also include within its semantic range the meaning “to kiss”. He also argues, however, that just because these two words do have semantic differences in meaning in certain contexts, that does not mean they have semantic differences in all contexts.
The Range of Agape & Phileo
Rev. Professor Ballantine comments that the words φιλέω (phileo) and ἀγαπάω (agape) essentially mean the same thing, with the exception that phileo also includes the act of kissing, whilst agape does not. He argues that certain verbs, over a period of time, go out of fashion while others come into fashion. This is likely what was happening during the time of this exchange.
Ballantine says, “While the substitution of one word for another is in progress there must be an interval of time when both are in use together, one waning and the other waxing, not as the expression of a better idea, but as a better expression of the common idea… If ἀγαπῶ has superseded φιλῶ in Greek, as undeniably it has, then there was also undeniably a time when to Greek speakers the two verbs meant the same, but people preferred to say ἀγαπῶ.”
Nonetheless, other authors focus on the areas of semantic meaning where these two words differ ever so slightly. Herbert William Magoun, for instance, argues there is, perhaps, a significance in the use of words “agape” and “phileo” in John 21:15–17. He defines the bounds of phileo as being that of love for a friend (such as that of David and Jonathan), a fellow countryman, or a member of one’s own fraternity or school. He defines the bounds of agape as being that of devotion, adoration, and benevolence; it is deep and pure and unselfish.
These distinctions in definition are close to those drawn by C.S. Lewis when he explores the “four loves”. The two loves that are of relevance here are that of friendship (corresponding with Magoun’s definition of phileo) and charity (corresponding with Magoun’s agape). Are these distinctions justified?
In Context
Within the context of the three verses, does the distinction that Magoun draws make any sense? Let’s replace the word “love” in the English translation with Magoun’s definitions of agape and phileo. If more meaning and clarity is brought to the text after doing so, then Carson’s arguments ought to be reviewed. If less meaning and clarity is found after the adjustment, then Magoun’s position ought to be reconsidered.
The Blue Letter Bible indicates that the following was the sequence in which the words agape and phileo were used:
Jesus’ first question: ἀγαπάω (agape)
Peter’s first response: φιλέω (phileo)
Jesus’ second question: ἀγαπάω (agape)
Peter’s second response: φιλέω (phileo)
Jesus’ final question: φιλέω (phileo)
Peter’s final response: φιλέω (phileo)
The following is John 21:15–17. The word “love” was altered in brackets to fit the original Greek words according to Magoun’s definitions:
Then when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you [ἀγαπάω — unselfishly and with complete deep devotion] love me more than these do?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I [φιλέω] love you [as a friend].” Jesus told him, “Feed my lambs.” Jesus said a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you [ἀγαπάω — unselfishly and with complete deep devotion] love me?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I [φιλέω] love you [as a friend].” Jesus told him, “Shepherd my sheep.” Jesus said a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you [φιλέω] love me [as a friend]?” Peter was distressed that Jesus asked him a third time, “Do you [φιλέω] love me [as a friend]?” and said, “Lord, you know everything. You know that I [φιλέω] love you [as a friend].” Jesus replied, “Feed my sheep.
During the first half of that passage, it may indeed be tempting to read these specified definitions into the text. It reads as though Jesus is asking Peter for deep devotion, but Peter, who betrayed Jesus three times just a few days earlier, is only willing to commit to Jesus a lesser love. Jesus challenges Peter again for deep devotion, but Peter again only offers a shallow love.
However, this commentary breaks down during the second half of the text. If Jesus was asking Peter for deeper devotion, why would Jesus settle for less and change to friendship-love? Jesus would not compromise — He would insist in Peter a deep devotion, especially considering that Jesus was doing so in preparation of Peter for the death he was to die. Arguing otherwise would mean that Jesus conceded defeat and accepted only the lower form of love which is all that Peter was capable of offering.
It would make no sense for Jesus to compromise to a lesser love, then tell Peter he will have to endure martyrdom for His sake. Furthermore, verse 17 specifically states that Peter was grieved because Jesus had asked him for a third time “φιλέω thou me?” If we examine what Jesus actually said according to the text, Jesus did not say “φιλέω thou me?” three times — He said “ἀγαπάω though me?” twice and “φιλέω” once.
If the original author intended for phileo and agape to have distinct meanings in this passage, rather than be used interchangeably as synonyms, then the author would have contradicted himself within a few sentences. It is, therefore, more reasonable that no distinction was actually intended by the author.
The language that this conversation was spoken in indicate the same conclusions, whether it be Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew. If the conversation occurred in Aramaic or Hebrew, there would be no difference expressed because both Aramaic and Hebrew have only one basic word for love. The text, however, is written in Greek. Nonetheless, the conclusion is the same. Ballantine writes, “Whoever first expressed those questions and answers in Greek, whether Jesus and Peter, or John, so far as we can infer from the entire range of biblical usage, had little consciousness of purpose in varying the words for love.”
Conclusion
Thus, considering all things, it is likely that the two Greek words translated love (agape; phileo), were indeed used interchangeably as synonyms which symbolized the same exact concept of love that was within the semantic range of both “ἀγαπάω” (agape) and “φιλέω” (phileo). In any sort of contextual study of John 21, little to no weight should be placed on the fact that different words are used for “love” in the exchange between Peter and Jesus.
