Agapao, Phileo and John 21:15-17

[Allan]

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.

It isn't 'just' a compilation of different words but also gives their most common meaning and basic meanings.

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.

No argument here

 

[steaver]

I have never seen anyone knowledge in Greek and Hebrew cite Strong's for anything other than a bad example of where to get word meanings. Strong's is way too simplistic. If you compare it with BAGD or Thayer's, you will quickly see that.

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:

 

[Marcia]

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:

You're deciding just based on Strong's and Thayer's? What about commentaries? If we read this in English, there is no difference. So if we decide there is a difference based on the Greek words, it just makes sense to get commentators who really know koine Greek and how it was used.

 

[Marcia]

This is from commentary in the NET Bible, which you can find online:

Is there a significant difference in meaning between the two words for love used in the passage, ἀγαπάω and φιλέω (agapaw and filew)? Aside from Origen, who saw a distinction in the meaning of the two words, most of the Greek Fathers like Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, saw no real difference of meaning. Neither did Augustine nor the translators of the Itala (Old Latin). This was also the view of the Reformation Greek scholars Erasmus and Grotius. The suggestion that a distinction in meaning should be seen comes primarily from a number of British scholars of the 19th century, especially Trench, Westcott, and Plummer. It has been picked up by others such as Spicq, Lenski, and Hendriksen. But most modern scholars decline to see a real difference in the meaning of the two words in this context, among them Bernard, Moffatt, Bonsirven, Bultmann, Barrett, Brown, Morris, Haenchen, and Beasley-Murray. There are three significant reasons for seeing no real difference in the meaning of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in these verses: (1) the author has a habit of introducing slight stylistic variations in repeated material without any significant difference in meaning (compare, for example, 3:3 with 3:5, and 7:34 with 13:33). An examination of the uses of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in the Fourth Gospel seems to indicate a general interchangeability between the two. Both terms are used of God’s love for man (3:16, 16:27); of the Father’s love for the Son (3:35, 5:20); of Jesus’ love for men (11:5, 11:3); of the love of men for men (13:34, 15:19); and of the love of men for Jesus (8:42, 16:27). (2) If (as seems probable) the original conversation took place in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew), there would not have been any difference expressed because both Aramaic and Hebrew have only one basic word for love. In the LXX both ἀγαπάω and φιλέω are used to translate the same Hebrew word for love, although ἀγαπάω is more frequent. It is significant that in the Syriac version of the NT only one verb is used to translate vv. 15-17 (Syriac is very similar linguistically to Palestinian Aramaic). (3) Peter’s answers to the questions asked with ἀγαπάω are ‘yes’ even though he answers using the verb φιλέω. If he is being asked to love Jesus on a higher or more spiritual level his answers give no indication of this, and one would be forced to say (in order to maintain a consistent distinction between the two verbs) that Jesus finally concedes defeat and accepts only the lower form of love which is all that Peter is capable of offering. Thus it seems best to regard the interchange between ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in these verses as a minor stylistic variation of the author, consistent with his use of minor variations in repeated material elsewhere, and not indicative of any real difference in meaning. Thus no attempt has been made to distinguish between the two Greek words in the translation.

 

[steaver]

There are three significant reasons for seeing no real difference in the meaning of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in these verses: (1) the author has a habit of introducing slight stylistic variations in repeated material without any significant difference in meaning (compare, for example, 3:3 with 3:5, and 7:34 with 13:33).

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.

An examination of the uses of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in the Fourth Gospel seems to indicate a general interchangeability between the two. Both terms are used of God’s love for man (3:16, 16:27); of the Father’s love for the Son (3:35, 5:20); of Jesus’ love for men (11:5, 11:3); of the love of men for men (13:34, 15:19); and of the love of men for Jesus (8:42, 16:27).

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.

(2) If (as seems probable) the original conversation took place in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew), there would not have been any difference expressed because both Aramaic and Hebrew have only one basic word for love. In the LXX both ἀγαπάω and φιλέω are used to translate the same Hebrew word for love, although ἀγαπάω is more frequent. It is significant that in the Syriac version of the NT only one verb is used to translate vv. 15-17 (Syriac is very similar linguistically to Palestinian Aramaic).

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.

(3) Peter’s answers to the questions asked with ἀγαπάω are ‘yes’ even though he answers using the verb φιλέω. If he is being asked to love Jesus on a higher or more spiritual level his answers give no indication of this, and one would be forced to say (in order to maintain a consistent distinction between the two verbs) that Jesus finally concedes defeat and accepts only the lower form of love which is all that Peter is capable of offering.

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 it seems best to regard the interchange between ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in these verses as a minor stylistic variation of the author, consistent with his use of minor variations in repeated material elsewhere, and not indicative of any real difference in meaning. Thus no attempt has been made to distinguish between the two Greek words in the translation.

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:

 

[gb93433]

In Greek text and in that culture there is a lot of overlap in the usage of those two words. Phileo was a much deeper relationship than typically Americans think of as a friend. It is much like that of a best friend that one would do anything for. It is the idea of lifelong friends.

The following is from Signs, Sense, Translation, Eugene A. Nida, Published by the Bible Society of South Africa, 1991, pages 63-64.

One must, however, always be cautious about the analysis of so-called overlapping meanings,and this is particularly true of the verbs agapao and phileo, namely, that agapao means divine love and phileo only human love. This is quite wrong, since agapao and phileo are both used of people's affection for one another, of people's love of God, and of God's love for people, as well as of God's love for his son. In the New Testament there is one significant difference of meaning between agapao and phileo in that phileo is never used in commands “to love one another." Apparently agapao refers to sincere appreciation of the value and worth of someone, and phileo refers to the kind of love that grows out of association, something which cannot be commanded, but something which can be experienced in an intense degree. In John 21, however, the shift from one word to another seems to be more a stylistic device of the Johannine corpus, since there are a number of instances in which so-called close synonyms occur in the same contexts, apparently for the sake of stylistic variety rather than for the purpose of marking important distinctions in meaning. Making the traditional distinction in meaning between agapao and phileo may result in interesting sermons, eventhough they are not exegetically defensible.

 

[steaver]

In Greek text and in that culture there is a lot of overlap in the usage of those two words. Phileo was a much deeper relationship than typically Americans think of as a friend. It is much like that of a best friend that one would do anything for. It is the idea of lifelong friends.

The following is from Signs, Sense, Translation, Eugene A. Nida, Published by the Bible Society of South Africa, 1991, pages 63-64.

One must, however, always be cautious about the analysis of so-called overlapping meanings,and this is particularly true of the verbs agapao and phileo, namely, that agapao means divine love and phileo only human love. This is quite wrong, since agapao and phileo are both used of people's affection for one another, of people's love of God, and of God's love for people, as well as of God's love for his son. In the New Testament there is one significant difference of meaning between agapao and phileo in that phileo is never used in commands “to love one another." Apparently agapao refers to sincere appreciation of the value and worth of someone, and phileo refers to the kind of love that grows out of association, something which cannot be commanded, but something which can be experienced in an intense degree. In John 21, however, the shift from one word to another seems to be more a stylistic device of the Johannine corpus, since there are a number of instances in which so-called close synonyms occur in the same contexts, apparently for the sake of stylistic variety rather than for the purpose of marking important distinctions in meaning. Making the traditional distinction in meaning between agapao and phileo may result in interesting sermons, eventhough they are not exegetically defensible.

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?

 

[gb93433]

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?

What I find more and more is the need for a knowledge and understanding of the historical context. The problem is that it is hard work and requires a lot of preparation in terms of time and knowledge of so many other things that are not so easily gotten without regular discipline. As a society we have become fast everything without ever knowing what quality looks like. We want the result without the hard work and sacrifice of getting there. We are quick to start the race but not finish because we give up too easily on the way.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Steaver,

There has been a large amount of evidence produced against your position, and it comes from people who know more about Greek than you can learn from using Strong's or Thayer's. These are people whose lives are intimately tied up in the Greek language of the NT. It seems pretty bold to disagree with them on the basis of Strong's. I am not sure that is a good tack.

Strong's is very limited, and it is very outdated. While it is all that most laymen have, it is not a good resource. You would be better off consulting several good English translations.

I was going to paste the entry from agapao from BAGD, the standard lexicon for NT Greek. But I can't. It is too long. The forum will not accept an entry that long. Which goes to show that there is no way that Strong's can give an adequate definition of the word for its many uses. Strong's just isn't sufficient to make these kinds of distinctions that you are trying to make.

 

[steaver]

Steaver,

There has been a large amount of evidence produced against your position, and it comes from people who know more about Greek than you can learn from using Strong's or Thayer's. These are people whose lives are intimately tied up in the Greek language of the NT. It seems pretty bold to disagree with them on the basis of Strong's. I am not sure that is a good tack.

Strong's is very limited, and it is very outdated. While it is all that most laymen have, it is not a good resource. You would be better off consulting several good English translations.

I was going to paste the entry from agapao from BAGD, the standard lexicon for NT Greek. But I can't. It is too long. The forum will not accept an entry that long. Which goes to show that there is no way that Strong's can give an adequate definition of the word for its many uses. Strong's just isn't sufficient to make these kinds of distinctions that you are trying to make.

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:

 

[Pastor Larry]

NT Scholar Bill Mounce has weighed in on this: "The fact of the matter is that Leon Morris has proven that John likes to use synonyms, and variations do not necessarily have any meaning other than stylistic concerns. And the variations here make no sense if φιλεω is a watered down form of love (e.g., “like”). B.B. Warfield’s, The Terminology of Love in the NT (PTR 16, 1918, 1–45, 153–203) is the classic work on the meaning of these words."

Of course, no amount of evidence from top shelf scholars will convince those who have already made their minds to the contrary. However, we should, at some point, be willing to listen to those who have moved past Strong's because they moved past first semester Greek.

 

[steaver]

NT Scholar Bill Mounce has weighed in on this: "The fact of the matter is that Leon Morris has proven that John likes to use synonyms, and variations do not necessarily have any meaning other than stylistic concerns. And the variations here make no sense if φιλεω is a watered down form of love (e.g., “like”). B.B. Warfield’s, The Terminology of Love in the NT (PTR 16, 1918, 1–45, 153–203) is the classic work on the meaning of these words."

Of course, no amount of evidence from top shelf scholars will convince those who have already made their minds to the contrary. However, we should, at some point, be willing to listen to those who have moved past Strong's because they moved past first semester Greek.

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:

 

[Pastor Larry]

The point Steaver is that the best and brightest NT scholars disagree with you, in the main. I think you will find very few who do, and the distinction just won't stand up. It makes no sense. Eventually, you have to learn to listen to people who know more than you do.

 

[gb93433]

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

I have met very few who do.

Phileo simply conveys something agapao does not. Agapao has a wide range of meanings, but Phileo adds a personal attribute, a heart connection. 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.

What you have stated is why students should study more than just word meanings and take a look at the language in context. When one takes a look at both words in context it would be quickly noted of the overlap in these words.

From Signs, Sense, Translation, Eugene A. Nida, Published by the Bible Society of South Africa, 1991, pages 63-64. One must, however, always be cautious about the analysis of so-called overlapping meanings, and this is particularly true of the verb agapao [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]and[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]phileo[FONT=&quot], [/FONT]namely[FONT=&quot], [/FONT]that [FONT=&quot][/FONT] means divine love and phileo[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]only human love. This is quite wrong, since agapao [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]and[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]phileo are both used of people's affection for one another, of people's love of God, and of God's love for people, as well as of God's love for his son. In the New Testament there is one significant difference of meaning between agapao[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]and phileo in that phileo is never used in commands “to love one another." Apparent1y agapao refers to sincere appreciation of the value and worth of someone, and phileo refers to the kind of love that grows out of association, something which cannot be commanded, but something which can be experienced in an intense degree. In John 21, however, the shift from one word to another seems to be more a stylistic device of the Johannine corpus, since there are a number of instances in which so-called close synonyms occur in the same contexts, apparently for the sake of stylistic variety rather than for the purpose of marking important distinctions in meaning. Making the traditional distinction in meaning between agapao and phileo may result in interesting sermons, even though they are not exegetically defensible.

 

[steaver]

The point Steaver is that the best and brightest NT scholars disagree with you, in the main. I think you will find very few who do, and the distinction just won't stand up. It makes no sense. Eventually, you have to learn to listen to people who know more than you do.

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:

 

[steaver]

What you have stated is why students should study more than just word meanings and take a look at the language in context. When one takes a look at both words in context it would be quickly noted of the overlap in these words.

.

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?

From Signs, Sense, Translation, Eugene A. Nida, Published by the Bible Society of South Africa, 1991, pages 63-64. One must, however, always be cautious about the analysis of so-called overlapping meanings, and this is particularly true of the verb agapao andphileo[FONT=&quot], [/FONT]namely[FONT=&quot], [/FONT]that means divine love and phileoonly human love. This is quite wrong, since agapao andphileo are both used of people's affection for one another, of people's love of God, and of God's love for people, as well as of God's love for his son. In the New Testament there is one significant difference of meaning between agapaoand phileo in that phileo is never used in commands “to love one another." Apparent1y agapao refers to sincere appreciation of the value and worth of someone, and phileo refers to the kind of love that grows out of association, something which cannot be commanded, but something which can be experienced in an intense degree. In John 21, however, the shift from one word to another seems to be more a stylistic device of the Johannine corpus, since there are a number of instances in which so-called close synonyms occur in the same contexts, apparently for the sake of stylistic variety rather than for the purpose of marking important distinctions in meaning. Making the traditional distinction in meaning between agapao and phileo may result in interesting sermons, even though they are not exegetically defensible

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:

 

[Pastor Larry]

Declaring "best and brightest" is just an attempt to bolster your own pov.

Not at all. When men are recognized Greek scholars, we should recognize them. They are published scholars for a reason: They know what they are talking about.

I have shown "scholars" who agree with my pov.

I haven't seen any here and I just looked back through briefly to see. The only person you have cited on this passage seems to be Ed Dobson who no one to my knolwedge confuses with a Greek scholar. There may be some who do see a distinction in this passage (note that we are talking about this passage, not generic usage).

I was merely pointing out that the words, in this context, are virtually synonymous. Seeing a distinction really makes no sense in the passage.

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.

No one has claimed anything to the contrary.

I was looking for Leon Morris on line so I could read what he has said on this subject but couldn't find anything.

Leon Morris' commentary on John is a must have for any basic library.

So far, nothing anyone has presented would cause me to disregard the facts mentioned above and embrace hunches about style and overlap.

I think you are drawing some false distinctions here. If the assertions about style and overlap are correct, then they are the facts you are disregarding. And those are pretty important things.

No one is arguing that the words never have distinctions. But they do not always have distinctions. It is a very difficult case to show any real meaningful distinctions in John 21, and that is why most have abandoned it.

 

[steaver]

I think you are drawing some false distinctions here. If the assertions about style and overlap are correct, then they are the facts you are disregarding. And those are pretty important things.

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.

Seeing a distinction really makes no sense in the passage.

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:

 

[gb93433]

I think this was 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?

Nida is a translator and has written several books on the subject. Many times words will be used interchangeably depending on their usage and context. We do that all the time. We can say someone died and someone passed away. There is no real distinction.

Sometimes we make distinctions when we really do not know all the facts. That is a problem in translation. A good example of that is in the word presbuteros and episkopos. One came later than the other.

 

[gb93433]

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?

Your response is in a given context. The response by a non-Christian might be very different because of a different understanding of love.