Agapao, Phileo and John 21:15-17

I have taken some time now to study the difference between Strong's and Thayer's and in my opinion I think it beneficial to have a concordance that is "simplistic" for the average layman to quickly reference.

I have studied these two words, "agapao and phileo", in Thayer's Lexicon. Basically, Strong's simplistic definition holds true. Thayer states that there is a distinction between the two words, "As to the distinction between agapao and phileo: the former, by virtue of its connection with agape, properly denotes a love founded in admiration, veneration, esteem, like the Lat. diligere, to be kindly disposed to one, wish one well; but phileo denotes an inclination prompted by sense and emotion...

Thayer goes on to note, "Christ bids us agapao (not phileo) your enemies (Mt 5:44) , because love as an emotion cannot be commanded, but only love as a choice."

So according to the testimony and context in John 21:15-17 could we say, Jesus is asking Peter if he loves him in the sense of "do you admire and esteem Me that you would do what I ask" While Peter responds in the sense of "I have chosen, and hold a fond affection for you in my heart".

:jesus:

 

I compared these examples as suggested and find NO comparision to the issue of the OP.

John 3:3, Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:5, Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

There is no "slight stylistic variation" in these two words. These two words are two totally different words with totally different definitions. Except a man be born again, he cannot see nor enter the Kingdom of God.

John 7:34, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find [me]: and where I am, [thither] ye cannot come.

John 13:33, Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.

The only thing I could find different between these two verses is the English translation of the Greek word hopou, which has nothing to do with the issue here. Again, absolutely NO "slight stylistic variation" that I can see presented from these two verses.

This does not indicate "a general interchangeability between the two". What it does indicate is that both expressions of love are possible and are taught in scripture.

Point #1 the author makes just isn't found.

Point #2 is really pointless. What we have at our fingertips is what has been recorded for us, inspired by God, in Greek. "Probable" conversations in Aramaic or Hebrew is pointless, for the context and verb usage within languages that do not have multiple words to make distinctions would come into play. And it is not "significant" at all that the Syriac version only uses one word in it's translation, so does the English.

From what I have studied thus far, Phileo is not a "lower" form of love but a deeper form of love, a love from the heart. I reject any commentary that suggest Peter is saying to Jesus that he loves less than Jesus is suggesting. On the contrary, Peter is saying to Jesus "I don't just love you because you are the Son of God out of reverence, but I (Phileo) from my heart love you Jesus". Peter is actually raising the bar with his answer!

Thus, this summary is found very lacking. Agapao and Phileo, although having much the same attributes, each have a distinct difference concerning the heart and choice, and this is why the conversation went as it did.

:thumbsup:

 

Thanks for the info! :thumbsup:

It always seems odd to me that many of these commentaries begin by declaring the distinction between agapao and phileo and then do a 180 and declare that no distinction should be made in the scriptures.

Marcia posted a commentary which spoke of the so called "stylistic variety" and it gave two examples which had nothing to do with synonmyns and where easily refuted.

So the reader is left to believe that while John was writing out this exchange between Jesus and Peter that he just out of the blue decided to say agapao the first two times for Jesus and phileo the third time while saying phileo all three times for Peter?

This is the best argument one can come up with against making a distinction between the two verbs? My question is why? Why do some people feel a need to dismiss the distinctions when the Greek definitions make distinctions?

 

Not really a large amount of "evidence" but truly a large amount of commentaries. Actually the only evidence stands in the definitions each lexicon gives concerning the two words and they generally begin with declaring there is a distinction, but then in their commentary they decide that because synonymns are used in other passages then this passage must mean nothing as well. That is fair enough, they have an opinion just like we all.

So now you don't like Thayer's either? I went to Thayer's because you said Strong's didn't match up to Thayer's!

Thayer makes a very good point when he says...."Christ bids us agapao (not phileo) your enemies (Mt 5:44) , because love as an emotion cannot be commanded, but only love as a choice."

Here is a statement from Jesus where "agapao" cannot be subsituted as a synonym for "phileo". Therefore, it is highly possible that God through John intended to teach a distinction between two kinds of "love" in this passage.

I believe I can agapao my enemies, but I don't believe I can Phileo them.

:wavey:

 

So Leon has proven John likes synonyms? And this then proves John, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was given liberty to jot down whatever words he chose to convey God's Word to us? John thought to himself, I'll throw in a agapao twice for Jesus and one phileo and three phileos for Peter! So John did not actually hear the Holy Spirit say agapao or phileo? What did He hear then? Did he hear agapao but decide he would write phileo? Or didn't he hear anything from God but just had a feeling what God wanted him to say?

Verbs have nothing to do with style. Either God said agapao or He said phileo. If you want to go down this road of the writer got to choose his own words then who knows what God really said about anything!

Heres the problem with this "synonmyn" angle, even though these words have much of the same meaning they ALSO have a DSITINCTION NOTED IN THE GREEK. And this is not just "Strongs". Thayer makes the distinction and notes that a person CANNOT be commanded to phileo an enemy. Therefore, in such a case agapao CANNOT be replaced for phileo. So just declaring "synonym" is not a "given".

I'm sure for a scholar to qualify as "top shelf" for you he must agree on the "synonym" dismissal.

Edward G. Dobson, D.D. Senior Minister, Calvary Church, Grand Rapids, Michigan B.A., M.A., Bob Jones University; D.D., California Graduate School of Theology; Doctoral student at the University of Virginia....declares there is a distinction and the two words were purposefully used to convey a message to the readers. This is found in the King James Bible Commentary. Dobson is one of twenty-one scholars who have been called upon to contributed to this commentary.

Is Thayer beyond first semester Greek? Actually, anyone only having first semester Greek should know that there is a distinction between agapao and phileo wouldn't you say?

BTW, I actually agree that phileo is NOT a watered down form of agapao. Phileo simply conveys something agapao does not. Agapao has a wide range of meanings, but Phileo adds a personal attribute, a heart conection. Love out of the heart rather than love out of obligation or duty. So Peter actually was telling Jesus "yes" to agapao, and adding also I phileo you.

:jesus:

 

Commentaries are great tools and God gives us teachers to help us. Declaring "best and brightest" is just an attempt to bolster your own pov. It really adds nothing to a debate. I have shown "scholars" who agree with my pov. Should we now debate scholars? Fact is, some scholars dismiss any distinction and some embrace the distinction.

Here are two facts. (1) The Greek definitions make distinctions. (2) Agapao cannot always be synonymous with phileo in every situation, phileo cannot be commanded.

All the rest is opinions. Like "style" and "overlap".

I was looking for Leon Morris on line so I could read what he has said on this subject but couldn't find anything. I like to check all references given so if need be I can adjust my points of view. I want nothing more than to hold correct doctrines and teach others the same. Since none of us can be perfect, I know there must be views that I hold that are in error for lack of knowledge. So far, nothing anyone has presented would cause me to disregard the facts mentioned above and embrace hunches about style and overlap.

:jesus:

 

Actually when I took my first look at the language in context I quickly noted a distinction. It seems that it takes an exerted effort to actually dismiss the distinctions. And I really don't know why some Christians feel so strongly that nothing should be made of the two words. Is the body of Christ being harmed in some way?

I think this wa posted before by someone. It really doesn't add any facts to discern. Just more of "it seems to" stuff. She does give a fact here though, the same thing Thayer says which is that Phileo cannot be commanded. This is a very significant fact dismissed by some for reasons I don't understand as of yet. Why is it some Christians don't want any distinctions made?

:jesus:

 

But the distinctions in the Greek definitions are given proof that it is possible a distinction was on purpose and thus the debate. How do you prove "it's just John's style"? Seems like opinion only to me.

Not seeing a distinction makes no sense to me. Why would John use two words as synonyms that do have distinct meanings? I don't think God would want penned that kind of confusion.

BTW, I said this before, but most commentaries that do make a distinction in John 21 say that agapao is great and phileo is less. I disagree with this (Greek definitions do as well) as well as the style and overlap pov. I believe Thayer and Strong explain the difference plain and simple. Agapao is of the mind love and Phileo is of the heart love. With this simple explanation the passage makes perfect sense to me. Jesus asked Peter if he agapao Him and Peter answers 'Yes' and adds 'you know i Phileo You'!

My wife has asked me from time to time "Do you love me"? I will answer "yes, I am in love with you". Do you see that I defined my love for her?

I believe Peter was defining his love towards Jesus by saying "you know that I phileo you". I reject the commentary that suggest Peter was keeping his love answer on a lower level. Quite the contrary knowing Peter and his zeal known throughout the scriptures. Peter would go above and beyond with his answers and with his actions. I have no reason to believe he now has become backward and cowardly in John 21. Peter gets hurt when Jesus then questions Peter's phileo. Phileo is personal, from the heart. It hurts when someone you phileo questions it because you believe that they should know it by how you have treated them.

I believe agapao and phileo and this passage has a great purpose. It doesn't change the message but it sure makes you understand and feel Peter's pain for the question.

:jesus: