Agapao, Phileo and John 21:15-17

[Pastor Larry]

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.

Of course "style" is a matter, somewhat, of opinion. But when you read the studies and compare them, you see that people have certain writing styles. Even here at the BB, we are frequently able to know who is writing, even though we don't look at the name because of the person's writing style.

Not seeing a distinction makes no sense to me. Why would John use two words as synonyms that do have distinct meanings?

These questions are answered by seeing that the words don't always have distinct meanings.

I don't think God would want penned that kind of confusion.

That assumes the conclusion. You can't argue that way.

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.

Most meaning who? How many did you survey and who comes out on what side? Let's see your evidence here.

I believe Thayer and Strong explain the difference plain and simple. Agapao is of the mind love and Phileo is of the heart love.

Inadequate use of sources.

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'!

So read the text and tell us why Peter was grieved. Hint: It's not because Jesus changed words on him; it's because Jesus asked him three times. The very phrase "third time" means that all three questions were the same. By your understanding, there was only two times of one question and one time of another. Peter thought apparently that all three were the same question.

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?

No, not at all.

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 think this is transposing modern psychological categories back on the biblical text. There is no textual basis for saying this. I don't know of any place in Scripture where this meaning of phileo is involved.

 

[steaver]

So read the text and tell us why Peter was grieved. Hint: It's not because Jesus changed words on him; it's because Jesus asked him three times. The very phrase "third time" means that all three questions were the same. By your understanding, there was only two times of one question and one time of another. Peter thought apparently that all three were the same question.

Peter's focus is on phileo. Peter told him twice already 'yes' to agapao and also twice that he phileo Him. The very phrase "third time" does not suggest all three questions were exact. Peter is grieved by hearing Jesus now question his phileo answers "the third time" by using phileo in the third question, after Peter already told Jesus twice.

He saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest (Phileo) thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

The scripture is really pretty clear if you read it without presupposing all three questions must be the exact same. Peter was grieved because Jesus said unto him the third time "phileo thou me?". It does not say Peter was greived because Jesus asked him the same question three times. That is drawing something from the text that simply is not there.

Actually, if we were to base our conclusion on which verb was used all three times, the focus would be on phileo because agapao was only used twice, both times by Jesus. So Peter would be grieved because he already told Jesus twice that he phileo Him and then Jesus asked Peter the "third time" do you phileo Me? Peter was focused on phileo in the conversation and this is why he was so grieved.

Steaver; 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.

Larry; I think this is transposing modern psychological categories back on the biblical text. There is no textual basis for saying this. I don't know of any place in Scripture where this meaning of phileo is involved.

Come now Larry, you are a pastor. Surely you know the scriptures that use phileo are in the context of a personal, deep heart felt love.

When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,
And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see.
Jesus wept.
Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved (Phileo) him! (John 11)

He that loveth (Phileo) father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth (Phileo) son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matt 10:37)

Phileo is not used that often in scripture. When it is the context is very personal. A dear friend or a parent or child, even a kiss of endearment. Agapao is used widely while phileo is reserved for personal context, fondness, from the heart.

:jesus:

 

[Marcia]

Peter's focus is on phileo. Peter told him twice already 'yes' to agapao and also twice that he phileo Him. The very phrase "third time" does not suggest all three questions were exact. Peter is grieved by hearing Jesus now question his phileo answers "the third time" by using phileo in the third question, after Peter already told Jesus twice.

He saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest (Phileo) thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

The scripture is really pretty clear if you read it without presupposing all three questions must be the exact same. Peter was grieved because Jesus said unto him the third time "phileo thou me?". It does not say Peter was greived because Jesus asked him the same question three times. That is drawing something from the text that simply is not there.

Your interpretation presupposes a distinction here between these words. It makes perfect sense to understand the statement that Peter was grieved because he was asked a third time, "Do you love me?" That's what it says in English and reading it that way, it makes complete to understand that Peter was grieved simply because he had already told Jesus he loved him twice, and yet Jesus asks again. There is no need to assume a different meaning in the words used for love to understand Peter's grief. It could also be that asking 3 times reminded Peter of his denial of Jesus 3 times, which also makes sense.

 

[steaver]

Your interpretation presupposes a distinction here between these words. It makes perfect sense to understand the statement that Peter was grieved because he was asked a third time, "Do you love me?" That's what it says in English and reading it that way, it makes complete to understand that Peter was grieved simply because he had already told Jesus he loved him twice, and yet Jesus asks again. There is no need to assume a different meaning in the words used for love to understand Peter's grief. It could also be that asking 3 times reminded Peter of his denial of Jesus 3 times, which also makes sense.

I am presupposing? Look up the two words in the lexicons, there are "distinctions", even Larry doesn't deny this.

I said Peter was grieved for being asked the third time if he phileo Jesus. Peter already told Jesus twice before.

There is no "assuming different meanings between the words". There are different meanings between the words! Look them up in the Lexicons.

I am basing my pov on "facts". You are "presupposing" no distinctions and are "assuming" no distinctions"

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

Of course "style" is a matter, somewhat, of opinion. But when you read the studies and compare them, you see that people have certain writing styles. Even here at the BB, we are frequently able to know who is writing, even though we don't look at the name because of the person's writing style.

Tell me what "style" has to do with The Word of God. Either John told us what Jesus said or John told us his opinion of what Jesus said. Did Jesus say agapao or not? Did Peter say phileo or not?

Is John writing to us from memory or is he writing what the Holy Spirit placed in his mind? Or maybe you are saying that the Holy Spirit might have said agapao and John just decided to write phileo because in John's mind phileo and agapao are exactly the same?

I need some answers from you.

My pov of the word of God is that it is perfectly written with the exact words God wanted his writers to used. If I must abandon this view for the sake of John 21 and some presumed writing "style" then my passion for study will be ended. John penned two different words for a reason is the way I approach the word of God. I can't ignore this and brush it off as John was just being flipped about his writings.

I don't believe writing "style" dismisses the words chosen by the Holy Spirit. As you said, all writers have "style". But I don't see Holy Spirit writers writing flippedly!

:jesus:

 

[Pastor Larry]

It does not say Peter was greived because Jesus asked him the same question three times.

Allow me to quote: Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" (John 21:17).

So the Bible does say that Peter was grieved because he asked him the same question three times. In fact, exegetically, this demands that the questions be the same.
If you distinguish the third question from the first two, then Jesus only asked Peter one “Do you love me?” At best he asked him twice. Only if the words are virtually synonymous can it be said that he asked him “Do you love me” three times.

So we see a major problem. First, you deny what the Bible actually says about why Peter was grieved. Second, you have a problem with the count. The “three times” supposes that the question was the same. The focus of “third time” was not the change of words. Furthermore, in Aramaic, it probably would have made no sense with different words anyway.

Come now Larry, you are a pastor. Surely you know the scriptures that use phileo are in the context of a personal, deep heart felt love.

Let me give you the definitions:

to have a warm regard for and interest in another, cherish, have affection for, love
to have high esteem for or satisfaction with someth., take pleasure in
to have a special interest in someone or someth., freq. with focus on close association, have affection for, like, consider someone a friend

As you can tell, the semantic domains overlap.

Agapao might be more widely used than phileo for a lot of reasons that have little to do with meaning. The reality is that the meaning of the words does not demand your interpretation, and the exegesis of the passage precludes it.

 

[steaver]

Allow me to quote: Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" (John 21:17).

So the Bible does say that Peter was grieved because he asked him the same question three times. In fact, exegetically, this demands that the questions be the same.
If you distinguish the third question from the first two, then Jesus only asked Peter one “Do you love me?” At best he asked him twice. Only if the words are virtually synonymous can it be said that he asked him “Do you love me” three times.

So we see a major problem. First, you deny what the Bible actually says about why Peter was grieved. Second, you have a problem with the count. The “three times” supposes that the question was the same. The focus of “third time” was not the change of words. Furthermore, in Aramaic, it probably would have made no sense with different words anyway.

Allow me to quote as well... "Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" (John 21:17). Hint, not "three times", but "the third time".

This is not the same as "So the Bible does say that Peter was grieved because he asked him the same question three times." You simply reworded the text to fit your pov. Exegetically it demands no such thing. It simply means exactly what it says, Jesus asked Peter the third time do you phileo me? Not "three times" do you phileo me?. Peter was greived because the third time Jesus asked do you phileo me?

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

Let me give you the definitions:

to have a warm regard for and interest in another, cherish, have affection for, love
to have high esteem for or satisfaction with someth., take pleasure in
to have a special interest in someone or someth., freq. with focus on close association, have affection for, like, consider someone a friend

As you can tell, the semantic domains overlap.

Agapao might be more widely used than phileo for a lot of reasons that have little to do with meaning. The reality is that the meaning of the words does not demand your interpretation, and the exegesis of the passage precludes it.

We already agree on the definitions and that there are distinctions. The reality may not "demand" my interpretation but it certainly allows for it, and exgesis would certainly strongly support it as well.

"Little to do with meaning"? Can you phileo an enemy?

:jesus:

 

[Marcia]

I am presupposing? Look up the two words in the lexicons, there are "distinctions", even Larry doesn't deny this.

I said Peter was grieved for being asked the third time if he phileo Jesus. Peter already told Jesus twice before.

There is no "assuming different meanings between the words". There are different meanings between the words! Look them up in the Lexicons.

I am basing my pov on "facts". You are "presupposing" no distinctions and are "assuming" no distinctions"

:jesus:

But it is also known that such differences meant little in koine Greek.

Are you saying you know more than the Greek scholars who say there is no reason to read these words as meaning something different from each other?

 

[steaver]

But it is also known that such differences meant little in koine Greek.

Are you saying you know more than the Greek scholars who say there is no reason to read these words as meaning something different from each other?

Marcia, I am using Greek scholars to form my opinion. There are scholars who agree with you and there are scholars who agree with me. Why are you ignoring those who make the distinction in this passage? Why is your side absolutely right and my side absolutely wrong?

Even the NIV Greek scholars made the distinction.

:godisgood:

 

[Marcia]

Marcia, I am using Greek scholars to form my opinion. There are scholars who agree with you and there are scholars who agree with me. Why are you ignoring those who make the distinction in this passage? Why is your side absolutely right and my side absolutely wrong?

Even the NIV Greek scholars made the distinction.

:godisgood:

Note that most modern scholars decline to see a difference, as well as the fact that in earlier times, no difference was seen.

If there is a difference, why do not the English translations reflect that in the translation?

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]

Note that most modern scholars decline to see a difference, as well as the fact that in earlier times, no difference was seen.

I have noted these opinons and after hearing both sides I have rested in there being a distinction. You have made your choice and I have made mine. Based on scholars, commentaries and prayer I am sure. There are scholars on both sides and there are highly educated in biblical studies commentarians who are on both sides as well.

:jesus:

 

[Marcia]

I have noted these opinons and after hearing both sides I have rested in there being a distinction. You have made your choice and I have made mine. Based on scholars, commentaries and prayer I am sure. There are scholars on both sides and there are highly educated in biblical studies commentarians who are on both sides as well.

:jesus:

Why isn't it translated differently in English? This makes the English translations faulty.

 

[steaver]

When I study scripture, I pray, I read the passage, I check references given to other scriptures, I check Greek and Hebrew definitions and then I make a tenative conclusion.

After my tenative conclusion I then begin searching commentaries to see if I am a loner or if any reputable scholars have made the same conclusion. If I am absolutely alone I will abandon my original conclusion. I will not just go along with the crowd.

:godisgood:

 

[Pastor Larry]

Allow me to quote as well... "Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" (John 21:17). Hint, not "three times", but "the third time".

This is not the same as "So the Bible does say that Peter was grieved because he asked him the same question three times." You simply reworded the text to fit your pov. Exegetically it demands no such thing. It simply means exactly what it says, Jesus asked Peter the third time do you phileo me? Not "three times" do you phileo me?. Peter was greived because the third time Jesus asked do you phileo me?

I think you know this is nonsense. You say, "Jesus asked Peter the third time do you phileo me?" But he didn't. That was the first time he had asked that. It is the third time only if all the questions are essentially the same.

We already agree on the definitions and that there are distinctions. The reality may not "demand" my interpretation but it certainly allows for it, and exgesis would certainly strongly support it as well.

But the exegesis does not support it. It makes very little if any sense. It is truly a tortured explanation that makes a distinction here.

"Little to do with meaning"? Can you phileo an enemy?

Yes you can. Judas did (Matt 26:48; Mark 14:44; Luke 22:47). Even your Strong's would have told you that.

 

[steaver]

I think you know this is nonsense. You say, "Jesus asked Peter the third time do you phileo me?" But he didn't. That was the first time he had asked that. It is the third time only if all the questions are essentially the same.

The first time Jesus asked Peter if he agapao Him.

The second time Jesus asked Peter if he agapao Him.

The third time Jesus asked Peter if he phileo Him.

The scripture does not say "three times" Jesus asked Peter if he phileo Him. I am reading it exactly as written without changing any sentence structure or changing any verbs.

But the exegesis does not support it. It makes very little if any sense. It is truly a tortured explanation that makes a distinction here.

Theologians and Greek scholars support my pov as well as yours. You can assert it is nonsense if you wish. It really does not bother me that you don't see it as I do. I find a good message from the passage, much more than just an overly repeated question for Peter's sake.

Yes you can. Judas did (Matt 26:48; Mark 14:44; Luke 22:47). Even your Strong's would have told you that.

You are correct. I meant to say one cannot command another to phileo an enemy or anyone for that matter. While one can command another agapao an ememy.

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

Why isn't it translated differently in English? This makes the English translations faulty.

The Greek scholars of the NIV made their best effort to show the distinctions they observed in the originals by adding "truly" to the translation.

"When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

Outside of KJV onlyist, all scholars declare all English translations faulty.

It matters not that the English only says "love", that in itself does not equate to a fault. All preachers and teachers know and agree that the Greek and Hebrew should be consulted for the fullest understanding of scripture.


:godisgood:

 

[Marcia]

The Greek scholars of the NIV made their best effort to show the distinctions they observed in the originals by adding "truly" to the translation.

"When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

Outside of KJV onlyist, all scholars declare all English translations faulty.

It matters not that the English only says "love", that in itself does not equate to a fault. All preachers and teachers know and agree that the Greek and Hebrew should be consulted for the fullest understanding of scripture.


:godisgood:

I should clarify my statement about English translations being faulty in this passage. I meant that they are somehow lacking if we read it in English and see no difference in the meaning of "love" if indeed there is a distinction.

If there is truly a distinction, it would make more sense to have a different rendering of "love," and expressing it differently. Apparently, the NIV does this. Of course, I consider the NASB more accurate for many reasons (and I'm not the only one), so the NIV rendering is not convincing to me.

I guess we will just agree to disagree, Steaver. :wavey:

 

[steaver]

I should clarify my statement about English translations being faulty in this passage. I meant that they are somehow lacking if we read it in English and see no difference in the meaning of "love" if indeed there is a distinction.

If there is truly a distinction, it would make more sense to have a different rendering of "love," and expressing it differently. Apparently, the NIV does this. Of course, I consider the NASB more accurate for many reasons (and I'm not the only one), so the NIV rendering is not convincing to me.

I guess we will just agree to disagree, Steaver. :wavey:

Ageed! :wavey:

 

[Michael Huang]

Dear everyone,
I recently searched this forum and happened to find this thread which is helpful. But I still have some questions concerning John 21:15-17. I donot know whether it is good to continue to ask questions here or just start a new thread because this one ended in 2009. Any suggestion?
Thanks!
Michael