More Greek--To Agapao or to Phileo? That is the Question

Anyone who has listened to sermons for very long has probably heard that the Greek language has different words to describe love. For example, C.S. Lewis, in his book The Four Loves, discusses four Greek words for love.Only two of these words, agapao and phileo, are used in the Greek New Testament. Before we go any further, let’s make sure we understand our terms:

agapao (pronounced  ah ga PAH oh) - I love (verb)
phileo (pronounced phil EH oh)- I love (verb)
agape (pronounced ah GAH pay)- love (noun)

What we are usually told is that agape refers to a sacrificial, selfless, undeserved, giving love that doesn’t expect anything in return. It’s the kind of love God has for his people (John 3:16), and the kind of love a husband should have for his wife (Eph. 5:25). On the other hand, we are usually told that phileo refers to a more chummy, friendly, buddy-buddy type of love. This distinction between agape and phileo is often said to be important in understanding the conversation between Peter and the Lord Jesus in John 21:15-17, in which Jesus asks Peter “Do you love (agapao) me, Peter?” and Peter responds “Yes, Lord, I love (phileo) you.”

Now let me be clear in saying that no one denies that Greek has different words to describe love. But is the oft-repeated distinction in meaning between agapao and phileo actually true? Is it really better to agapao than to phileo?

The surprising answer is, that while many popular preachers still repeat this distinction, most conservative commentators and Greek scholars no longer believe it is significant. Here’s why.

1.      It is simply not true that agape always refers to a sacrificial, giving love. For example, in 2 Samuel 13, the LXX (i.e. the Greek translation of the Old Testament) describes Amnon’s “love” for his half-sister Tamar as both agapao and phileo. In fact, it was this agapao-phileo love that led him to rape her! You don’t get much farther from a selfless, sacrificial, giving love than rape, and yet the author still used the word agape to describe it. In the same way, when Paul says that “Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present age” (2 Tim. 4:10), he uses the word agapao, though Demas’ love was hardly selfless or sacrificial. This doesn’t mean that agape never means a special, sacrificial, selfless kind of love, it just means that it doesn’t necessarily mean that. 

2.      The words agape and phileo share a large amount of what is called “semantic overlap.” Semantic overlap is just a fancy way of saying that in many cases the two words are used interchangeably—as synonyms for each other. Let me illustrate it like this:

Notice that one circle is labeled agapao and the other phileo. Notice also the two circles overlap with each other. The shaded area of overlap represent the cases in which the words are used as synonyms--i.e. the semantic overlap.

  

When we look at the Greek New Testament, we can see cases where the words agapao or phileo are used interchangeably. For example, we find these two statements in John's Gospel:

“The Father loves (agapao) the Son...” (John 3:35)
“The Father loves (phileo) the Son...” (John 5:20)

In these contexts, there is no discernible difference between the two words. In these two contexts, the two words overlap in meaning—they are synonyms.

Again, five times in John's Gospel we read of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7. 21:10). In four out of those five cases the author uses the word agapao, while in one of them he  uses phileo (20:2). This means that in 19:26 John is referred to as "the disciple whom Jesus agapaoed," while only a few verses later in 20:2 he is referred to as "the disciple whom Jesus phileoed." Again, there is nothing in the context to suggest that there is any difference in these two phrases. They are simply being used as synonyms. The only reason we would think otherwise is if we wrongly assume that 'different word equals different meaning.'

Another example. In John 11:3 we read that Jesus loved Lazarus. "Lord, the one whom you love is sick." Two verses later, in verse 5, John says "Jesus loved Martha and her sister Mary and her brother Lazarus." You guessed it: in verse 3 the word is phileo, and in verse 5 it's agapao. Again, the context indicates that these two words are being used as synonyms. Both are being used in close proximity to one another to describe the same reality: Jesus's love for Lazarus (and his sisters). To assume that they must have different meanings simply because they are different words ignores the existence of synonyms. 

At the risk of being tedious, let me give one more example. In Matthew 23:6, Jesus says that the Pharisees "love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues." In Luke 11:43 he says that the Pharisees "love the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces." Right again. Matthew uses phileo, and Luke uses agapao. Again, there is no discernible difference in meaning. 

So let me beat a dead horse and reiterate the point so far: agapao and phileo are often synonyms.

However, this doesn’t mean that agapao and phileo are always synonyms. For example, the word phileo can also mean “to kiss,” while agape is never used that way. When the gospel writers say that Judas kissed Jesus, the verb for kiss is phileo (see Matt. 26:48; Mark 14:44; Luke 22:47). In the diagram above, the non-shaded, non-overlapping area of the word phileo would represent the meaning "kiss." In other words, the meanings of agapao and phileo do not completely overlap. Phileo can mean things that agapao can't. They are synonyms sometimes, but not always. How do you know when? You guessed it: context. Context always. And again I say, context! 

Let me give an example from our own language that might help. Take the words yard and lawn . Do they mean the same thing? Well, sometimes they do. For example, take these two sentences:

“Donny told Stuart to mow the yard.”

“Donny told Stuart to mow the lawn .”

In those two sentences, the words lawn and yard are used interchangeably. No native English speaker would see any difference in meaning between the two sentences. At the same time, these two words are not always interchangeable. For example:

“Jane bought a yard of fabric."

“Jane bought a lawn of fabric."

We automatically realize that there's something wrong with that second sentence. We never use lawn as a synonym for yard in the context of fabric measurements, because unlike yard, lawn is never used to describe a unit of three feet. Yard can mean things that lawn can't. So rather than saying yard and lawn are synonyms, it would be more accurate to say they are synonyms in certain contexts (like the context of mowing). Again, we could draw two overlapping circles representing the words yard and lawn and the overlapping shaded portion would represent the contexts in which lawn and yard are synonyms (e.g. mowing), while the non-shaded, non-overlapping portions would represent the contexts in which they are not synonyms (e.g. measurements). 

Rather than saying that a given word has a meaning, it is more accurate to say that a word has a range of potential meanings. This is what a dictionary gives you: a list of potential meanings for each word. Greek is no different from English in this regard. Greek contains words whose meanings overlap with one another as synonyms. Forgetting this simple fact, people often make the mistake of thinking that 'different word equals different meaning.' They assume that if John used agapao instead of phileo, he must have had two different meanings in mind. But this is not necessarily the case. For example, a German speaker who was just learning English might think that "Donny told Stuart to mow the yard" must mean something slightly different from "Donny told Stuart to mow the lawn," simply because the second sentence uses a different word. But we native English speakers know that this is not the case. Different word does not equal different meaning, because different words can overlap in their meaning.

***********************************************************************

So let me summarize. First, contrary to popular belief, the word agape is not a special kind of love that is better than phileo. Agape can be used to refer to selfless love and selfish love, to God's love of his people and an apostate's love of the world. And second, much of the time, agapao and phileo function as synonyms, although phileo can also mean "I kiss." Any difference between the two must be determined by the context, not by the word itself.

So, am I saying that God doesn't love us with a sacrificial, giving, special love? No, I am not saying that at all. I am simply saying that you can't get all of that from the mere word agape. To see how God loves us, we don't just zero in on the single word agapao, we zero out to entire sentences like: 

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son;" (John 3:16)

"In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:9-10)

"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her..." (Ephesians 5:25)

"For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:7-8)

"Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

"See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are." (1 John 3:1)

(All of the verses above use agape/agapao.)

So which is better? To agapao or to phileo? I'll take either one. Just don't kiss me. 

-Justin Dillehay

(The Venn Diagram was borrowed from the very helpful article called "Language," by Robert I. Bradshaw, http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_language.html. In many ways, this post is simply a condensing of works like Bradshaw's, as well as D. A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies and Moises Silva's God, Language, and Scripture. Nothing original, just as advertised.) 

Politics Doesn't Encourage Rational Thinking

More from James Q. Wilson's American Government textbook. Interesting note: Rob Spinney had Wilson as a prof at Harvard. I remember mentioning this textbook to him several years ago. He responded, "Jimmy Q! He was a great professor. Very professional. Always dapper."

"If we wanted agencies to pursue their main goal with more vigor and less encumbering red tape, we would have to ask Congress, the courts, or the White House to repeal some of these constraints. In other words, we would have to be willing to give up something we want in order to get something else we want even more. But politics does not encourage people to make these trade-offs; instead it encourages us to expect to get everything- efficiency, fairness, help for minorities- all at once."

–James Q. Wilson and John Dilulio, American Government 

Hebrews 6, Warnings, Calvinists, and Arminians

Yesterday I posted an excerpt from Tom Schreiner on the perseverance of the saints. Wednesday night, Pastor Donny read Hebrews 6 aloud to our congregation, exposing us to one of God's most somber warnings to us. Today, in a brief article, Schreiner responds to Arminian NT scholar Scot McKnight on the meaning of the warning passages in Hebrews. What is refreshing--and to many, perhaps, surprising--is the amount of exegetical agreement that can exist between an Arminian and a Calvinist. Make no mistake, however, there are key differences as well. Give it a read. :)

 http://www.credomag.com/2011/12/29/calvinism-and-the-warning-passages-a-brief-reply-to-scot-mcknight/

How Do You Know You Won't Forsake God?

"If this passage (Romans 8:35-39) merely says that God loves believers no matter what happens but that we may still depart from his love, then it is cold comfort indeed, for our prime concern is not that God will cease loving us. We know he will be faithful to the end. What worries us is that we will deny him, that we will turn our backs on the faith and renounce our first confession. This text assures us that we will not do so. We will remain true to God, not because we  are so noble, but because Christ is so loving, because Christ's love is so relentless. Nothing, not even ourselves--especially ourselves--can ever cause us to renounce the love of God that has invaded our lives." 

--Thomas Schreiner and Ardel Caneday, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverence and Assurance

Should We Abolish the Electoral College?

This excerpt came from the American Government textbook I used in Dr. Gunter's class at Tech. I've never had so much fun reading a textbook.

"Should we abolish the electoral college? Most Americans think we should, and soon. But, then again, most Americans, even after the 2000 presidential election controversy, do not really know how the system presently works. First, the system is a bulwark of Amercian federalism and heightens the influence of states in national politics. Because of its winner-take-all feature (in effect in all but two states), candidates have a strong incentive to campaign hard in big states they have a chance of winning. Second, if we relied just on the popular vote, there would have to be a runoff election among the two leading candidates if neither got a majority because third-party candidates won a lot of votes. This would encourage the formation of third parties, and American presidential politics might come to resemble the multiparty systems we find in France and Italy. If that is what we want, then we should abolish the electoral college. But if not, then we should preserve the system or reform it in more minor ways."

--James Q. Wilson and John DiIulio, American Government

"Local Church? Heck No! I Love All Christians Everywhere Equally!"

"One of the chief tragedies of evangelicalism today is that it has lost sight of the wonderful, life-giving force of authority. We've been carried away by culture. More than we realize, we view ourselves as independent agents charged best with how to grow, serve, and love in the faith. Yes, we may listen to others, defer to others, and accept guidance from others, but in the final analysis we view ourselves as our own coaches, portfolio managers, guides, judges, and captains of our own ships in a manner that is more cultural than biblical. In short, an underdeveloped theology conspires with our anti-authority and individualistic instincts to deceive us into claiming that we love all Christians everywhere equally while excusing ourselves from loving any of those Christians specifically, especially submissively. Unsurprisingly, churches are shallow, Christians are weak, and God's people look like the world."

--Jonathan Leeman, The Church and the Surprising Offense of God's Love 

We Have Erected an Idol and Called it 'Love'

I'm rereading Jonathan Leeman's book for a J-term class on the Doctrine of the Church. I have never read another non-inspired book quite like it. Anyone who is struggling with their church, or is thinking of walking away from the 'institutional church' needs to carefully read it before they do anything rash.

I will likely be posting excerpts from it frequently in the coming days. In this chapter, he is discussing the factors in our culture that make Christians reluctant to join a church and churches reluctant to practice discipline.

"We have erected an idol and called it 'love.' And this idol called love has two great commands: 'Know that God loves you by not permanently binding you to anything (especially if you really don't want to be), and flowing from it, 'Know that your neighbor loves you best by letting yuo express entirely and without judgment.'

--Jonathan Leeman, The Church and the Surprising Offense of God's Love

 http://www.amazon.com/Church-Surprising-Offense-Gods-Love/dp/1433509059/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324506097&sr=8-2