Agapao, Phileo and John 21:15-17

Yes, Jesus was speaking in a different language. However, the doctrine of inspiration means that these are the words that God inspired, and therefore, what God wanted us to have.

As for John not writing the book, no serious scholar entertains that notion. That was a seriously flawed critical notion that arose from unbelief, not from the study of the Scriptures.

As for the Aramaic, we cannot reconstruct Aramaic from Greek. Our own language uses love in many different ways (I love a good steak, a sunny day, a good dog, a good movie, a wife, children, etc.). Like any word, context determines what it means. While it may be fascinating to speculate, it certainly isn't helpful, at least to understanding what God said.

As for "she," that's a major problem in and of itself. Women who pastor men are showing that they do not take the Word seriously, but instead use it only as a prop for their personal agenda. It would be wise to be skeptical of anything that she says, not because she isn't smart, but because she is not serious about Scripture.

 

From how I read his post I 'think' you are taking him beyond his intended meaning brother. You agree no doubt that words have meaning and words, though synonymous, are not 100% exactly the same but have variations of depth in what they are describing. I 'think' from stevers post he was merely acknowledging no good student of the word should ignore this, even if they do mean much the same thing. Even if it means 'much the same' or is 'almost identical' because the words are synonymous we should note the distinction which gives us clearer understanding of what was being intended through the usage of another word. The meaning doesn't change by using a synonymous word only the depth of understanding that is being conveyed on that subject.

 

I agree here. :thumbsup:

 

In a lexicon, yes. But not necessarily in speech or writing. Oftentimes different words are used because they mean the same thing. This is the point of synonymous parallelism in literature. The parallelism works because two words communicate the same idea.

I don't think that is true in all cases. It may be (and it may be in this one though I am skeptical). When I say, "I am going to take my truck to the store" or "I am going to take my pick-up to the store," I have used two different words and there is no change in meaning whatsoever.

Here are some additional thoughts.

In D. A. Carson's second article on “The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God” in Bibliotheca Sacra (Vol 156, May-June 99, pp. 132-134, which later became The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God), Carson lays out seven reasons for not tying God’s love exclusively to the agapao word group. I have summarized them here to five main ideas.




1.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]“Careful diachronic work” has shown that “homonymic clashes” (basically, words that sound the same) led to the rise of alternative words, such as “phileo” in place of “kuneo” (to kiss) because “kuneo” sounded a lot like “kuno” (and in some forms such as the aorist were identical). While “kissing” and “impregnating” gave opportunity for many “salacious puns,” kuneo became almost obsolete in favor of phileo. And so Judas betrayed Jesus with a “phileo.” Or to put it simply, there is a linguistic explanation for the rise of certain words, rather than a theological one.

2.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The Septuagint does not consistently use the agapao word group for the higher love. In 2 Samuel 13, both phileo and agapao are used to describe Amnon’s attitude towards his half-sister, Tamar, whom he raped.

3.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The Father’s love for the Son is described as both agapao (John 3:35) and phileo5:20), with no apparent distinction in meaning. (John “Surely,” Carson says, “it is not that God is more emotional in the second instance than in the first.” In addition, Demas in 2 Timothy 4:10, loved the present world (agapao), something seemingly incongruent is agapao always means a “willed self-denial for the sake of the other.”

4.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The fact that phileo can mean “to kiss,” does not require that it always means “to kiss.” Semantic overhang, or what is called illegitimate totality transfer (importing the entire semantic domain onto an individual usage) is, well, illegitimate. Words must be defined in context, and they only have one meaning in a given context. They do not mean two or three things, and they do not mean everything in the definition. So while a lexicon might give two or more meanings for a given word, in a particular context, we must select one meaning to apply. The use of the English word “love” provides a good example of the wide ranges involved in the Greek words. “Love” can mean “sexual intercourse, platonic love, emotional love, the love of God, and more.” The context must speak to the specific connotation.

5.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]1 Corinthians 13 “cannot be reduced to will altruism.” The fact that a person might “give their body to be burned” or “give all that they have to feed the poor” does not necessarily show love. A person may do such an act of “willed self-denial for the sake of others” without love.




All of that to say this: Be careful when you harp on the meaning of original language words in Scripture (particularly if you use Strong’s or Vine’s to build your case). You might be riding a horse that turns up too weak to finish the ride.

 

God knew we would get this in the Greek, so the Greek is how we should read it.

 

I can't recall now where I read or heard this. It may have been a prof at seminary.

I do think Christians have a tendency to read too much into the text - to me, this is the most common mistake in reading the Bible. There is no reason from the text itself to believe different meanings for "love" are being used. The points to me are that Jesus asks this of Peter three times and the question itself, not trying to get some kind of message about philio and agape.

 

Pastor Larry, thanks for the info in your post above! :thumbs:

 

I agree.

This is my point. There is no change in the meaning but there is a change in the depth of understanding about the object to which the synonym is used. A 'truck' which is used in a general sense here can be any type (blazer, pick-up, extended cab, dump-truck) however the term 'pick-up' gives us more detail about the truck being used. It doesn't change the meaning only the depth about what is conveyed.

With repect to Carson's premise I disagree - that being "not tying God’s love exclusively to the agapao word group". I haven't found where any other group is used in scripture to describe God's love toward man except that of the agape group. It also the meaning depends to which group it is used as well. God toward man, phileo in never used. God toward God/Son it is. Man toward man - yes, man toward God - no. (with the exception of the Peter Jesus issue).

However, other noted scholars such as Richard C. Trench shows a difference of opinion here.

True you could or might be, but only if you are using them alone to build a case.
But it is noteworthy that language scholars are on both sides of this fence on this issue of 'agape and phileo', and yet even those on Carsons side agree that these words are not always without distinction one from another.

 

Your preaching to the chior here sister

Yet there are many scholars who disagree. I also do not think Jesus was trying to differentiate between the two since they are both primarioy the same thing, but Jesus was using the one to illistrate what He had said over and over again. If you love me you will keep/do...

Love is more than just affection it is an affection which results in action.

 

Now I have no idea why this statement got into play. Where were we discussing women in the pastorate? Not in my original posting.

 

You are correct.

Actually I meant to delete that entire portion (and thought I did) when I went back and editted some of it previously (twice actaully) but I was in a hurry with my family out the door for a church function and apparently my last correction/deletion did not save but must have just closed out. Sorry about that.

This was meant to be deleted:

 

A good inexpensive tool for the non-greek speaker would be Bill Mounces "Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words" .

You can order it through CDB at a discount.

 

So you're saying that Strong's is okay because it brought you to this conclusion? That doesn't make sense.

 

The distinction was not always in koine Greek. Strong's is not an authority on koine Greek - it's a compilation of where different words are in the Bible.

I never said I didn't like Strong's. I just said it is not necessarily the final authority or best authority on koine Greek, which is true. It's a popular reference and is good for many things but not for in depth language study of biblical language meanings. Anyone researching this type of issue needs to use many sources, including those recognized as the best for this kind of thing.