Agapao, Phileo and John 21:15-17

[Pastor Larry]

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.

 

[Allan]

This means that Jesus' words are something other than simple human communication, which has drastic consequences for the Word of God, the doctrine of bibliology. I don't buy it for a second. If you look through Scripture, you will see that synonyms are used quite often with no intended change in meaning. With your idea, you are undermining the inspiration of Scripture. I think that is a bad thing. Sometimes different words are used for emphasis, or for rhetorical effect, or some other reason. It's human communication and Jesus was human communicating to humans.

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.

 

[Allan]

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.

I agree here. :thumbsup:

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

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.

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 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.

 

[Marcia]

There are a couple of aspects of this question that have not been touched on yet:

1. Are these the actual words of Jesus and of Peter? Some Fourth Gospel scholars see the entire Gospel as more of a theological essay than as a factual reporting. If it is an essay from the mind of John (or whoever the author was), and since it is chock-full of symbolism, might this wording difference suggest that the author does intend for us to see both a difference and a distinction? The author, now, not necessarily Jesus Himself.

2. If, on the other hand, these are actually the words of Jesus and Peter, they would not have been speaking Greek, would they? They would have been speaking Aramaic. My pastor recently preached on this passage and did make the distinction between phileo and agapao; when another member and I were discussing the Aramaic question, she did a little research and discovered some 14 nuances of "love" in Aramaic! (Do not know her sources at this moment). Fascinating, then, to speculate what Aramaic words and meanings might lie behind these Greek words ... again, assuming that these are translations of actual speech.

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

 

[Marcia]

Yes in the Koine Greek there is a distinction in them with regard to action but not so much in essense. Where did you read there was none?

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.

 

[Marcia]

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

 

[steaver]

This means that Jesus' words are something other than simple human communication, which has drastic consequences for the Word of God, the doctrine of bibliology. I don't buy it for a second. If you look through Scripture, you will see that synonyms are used quite often with no intended change in meaning. With your idea, you are undermining the inspiration of Scripture. I think that is a bad thing. Sometimes different words are used for emphasis, or for rhetorical effect, or some other reason. It's human communication and Jesus was human communicating to humans.

What it means is that Jesus did not make any mistakes with His choice of words. We humans tend to make mistakes while trying to get a point accross and many times become misunderstood.

Synonyms certainly can have the exact same meaning. However, according to Greek definitions, Agapao and Phileo do have some intended differences even though they have much of the same definition. What is more strange is that Jesus would change His choice of verb from Agapao to Phileo after saying Agapao twice while in the context of asking the exact same question of Peter a third time. Why didn't Jesus change the verb after the first time, when Peter changed it on Him? Why would Peter change the verb in the first place?

You said, "sometimes different words are used for emphasis, or for rhetorical effect, or some other reason". Ok, that is what this discussion is about. Looking to learn and understand the reason for this in the passage in question. You say it means nothing. Can you prove it means nothing? Maybe it has some usefulness in teaching that shouldn't be overlooked or maybe you are right. Do you see harm to the body of Christ to teach this passage as Alan has suggested?

Jesus also said that He spoke the words the Father gave Him to speak. He was human, but He and the Father were still One.

:jesus:

 

[Allan]

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 agree.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Allan]

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.

Your preaching to the chior here sister

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.

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.

 

[Joseph M. Smith]

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.

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

 

[steaver]

Allan;

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).

Wouldn't 1 Cor 16:22 be considered 'man toward God'?

God Bless! :thumbsup:

 

[steaver]

According to this verse, anyone who does not phileo God will be accursed...

"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." (1Cor 16:22)

:jesus:

 

[Allan]

Wouldn't 1 Cor 16:22 be considered 'man toward God'?

God Bless! :thumbsup:

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:

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).

 

[Plain Old Bill]

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.

 

[steaver]

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:

Been there, done that. Which makes my point to Larry how we mere humans often at times mix up what we wanted to say, especially when we get in a hurry, but Jesus never. I hate having to retract something but it does help to keep me humble so in that way it is a good thing.

Thank's for all the input brother! :thumbsup:

 

[steaver]

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.

Thanks Bill, I'll check it out.

There has been some ragging on the Strong's Concordance, however it is through a simple study of the Strong's that I initially came to the conclusion that Agapao and Phileo had some differences. I have used the Strong's many times and it has not left me wanting 99% of the time.

:jesus:

 

[Marcia]

Thanks Bill, I'll check it out.

There has been some ragging on the Strong's Concordance, however it is through a simple study of the Strong's that I initially came to the conclusion that Agapao and Phileo had some differences. I have used the Strong's many times and it has not left me wanting 99% of the time.

:jesus:

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

 

[steaver]

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

That's not what i said Marcia. My point is Larry did some ragging on Strong's as did you and it appears that Strong's happens to be correct on this topic at hand when it cites a distinction between Agapao and Phileo.

Allan uses many references and has come to the same conclusion that there is a distinction. ANd as I study this topic further using "better" resources I still find that there is a distinction between Agapao and Phileo. So on this point Strong's is right.

I also said, "I have used the Strong's many times and it has not left me wanting 99% of the time". It is simple maybe, but I am a simple minded man, so we work well together. I believe what I have learned from scripture using the Strong's Concordance lines up with mainstream Christianity.

I have used the Strong's to research OSAS and with it have come to the conviction that all of those passages used against OSAS can be explained through the Greek along with context. OSAS is a hot topic among Christians and without the Greek I would have to say those against the doctrine have good reasons. But when the Greek is researched along with context OSAS stands everytime. But that is another thread.

You don't like Strong's and Larry does not like Strong's. Could you give me an example where I could come to a wrong conclusion in doctrine because I referenced a Strong's Concordance?

You cannot use this thread as an example because Allan agrees that there is a difference and he uses all kinds of resources other than Strong's. So there is two sides to this topic which has many good scholars and pastors teaching that there is a difference BECAUSE they thoroughly researched the two words in question.

:jesus:

 

[Marcia]

That's not what i said Marcia. My point is Larry did some ragging on Strong's as did you and it appears that Strong's happens to be correct on this topic at hand when it cites a distinction between Agapao and Phileo.

Allan uses many references and has come to the same conclusion that there is a distinction. ANd as I study this topic further using "better" resources I still find that there is a distinction between Agapao and Phileo. So on this point Strong's is right.

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.

You don't like Strong's and Larry does not like Strong's

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.