Word Study, G5368, philo

[John of Japan]

My study has nothing to back it up was posted. Then I post #17, with three separate published citations supporting my view.

Please cite your sources for your post #17. Otherwise they are meaningless. You could have made them up. (I thought they were previous posts by you, since you did not source them.)

 

[Van]

Hi JOJ, please stop shucking and jiving, this thread is about the meaning of phileo, and I posted why I think it means what I posted it means.

You said it refers to relationships with friends, and I did not disagree, I think it also covers relationships with dear family members, and with spiritual family members.

Philia (φιλία philía[7]) is "mental" love. It means affectionate regard or friendship in both ancient and modern Greek. This type of love has give and take. It is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle[8]. In his best-known work on ethics, Nicomachean Ethics, philia is expressed variously as loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality, and familiarity. Furthermore, in the same text philos denotes a general type of love, used for love between family, between friends, a desire or enjoyment of an activity, as well as between lovers.

Storge (στοργή storgē[9]) means "affection" in ancient and modern Greek. It is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring[10]. Rarely used in ancient works, and then almost exclusively as a descriptor of relationships within the family. It is also known to express mere acceptance or putting up with situations, as in "loving" the tyrant.

 

[Van]

I have supported my view with several citations from published sources. How many sources say Phileo is never used of the relationship between Father and Son, or Father and His children? None, Zip, Nada.

 

[John of Japan]

I have supported my view with several citations from published sources. How many sources say Phileo is never used of the relationship between Father and Son, or Father and His children? None, Zip, Nada.

I just checked every single use of phileo in the NT, and I'm here to say that the word is never used of the relationship between Father and Son, or Father and His children. None, Zip, Nada. (My source for this is the Greek NT.)

The sole possible exception is Rev. 3:19, but I maintain that the Laodicean church is not a true church, not believers.

 

[Van]

I had thought John 5:20 and 16:27 used the word in those ways.

 

[John of Japan]

I had thought John 5:20 and 16:27 used the word in those ways.

Good catch. I missed that. Apparently I was in too much of a hurry. :thumbsup:

 

[Van]

Not a problem, as I really appreciate actual discussion of the topic!

 

[John of Japan]

Not a problem, as I really appreciate actual discussion of the topic!

That's what I've been trying to do all along. :type:

 

[Van]

To love the unlovely is to mirror the unfailing love of Christ for the lost, but to love those striving to mirror Christ is to rejoice in the love of God.

 

[Van]

John uses agapao to express a different idea than when he uses phileo. Both are verbs that mean to love another. Phileo comes from an adjective (G5384) and has the meaning of loving someone as a family member, i.e. brotherly love. Families share everything, so the nuanced meaning is to be kindly toward another and share with them what you have. So rather than exercising the sloppy eisegesis of claiming there was no intended difference in meaning, let’s let the word usage speak for itself.

Lets look at a few verses from John where he uses phileo rather than agapao.

John 5:20, For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel.

If we use the more specific meaning, the verse could be translated as “For the Father loves the Son as family, and shows Him everything He does; and the Father will show Him even greater works than these, so that you will marvel.

John 11:3, So the sisters sent word to Him, saying, “Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick.

Here in the view of the sisters, Jesus loved his close associates as members of his family, thus ... he whom You love as family is sick. Now we will learn at the end of this gospel that Jesus also displayed agapao love by laying down His life for His present and future "family" that includes Lazarus.

John 11:36, So the Jews were saying, “See how He loved him!

In the view of those seeing Jesus weep, they understood that Jesus loved Lazarus as family. And they were right! Too bad the translation to not present the full message of God, i.e. "See how Jesus loved him as family."

John 12:25, He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal.

Contextually, he who has a loving relationship with his or her life in the world will destroy it, but he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal. The idea is not that we should not love ourselves, i.e. love your neighbor as yourself, but a loving relationship with the world makes us enemies of God. Here, I think the best that can be done, is to footnote “loves his life” with “or has an affectionate relationship with his worldly life.”

John 15:19, If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.

Same usage of “phileo” referring to a relationship (friendship) between the elect and the world. A better translation choice would be “…the world would love as family its own….”

John 16:27, for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father.

Here, the Father loves you as family because (1) we have loved Jesus as family, and (2) we believed that Jesus is the Christ sent from God.

John 20:2, So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.”

Here we have Mary’s perspective, Jesus loved as family the other disciple, which is not to say Jesus did not also love John to the greatest extent, i.e. He died for John and all mankind. The claim of interchangeability rest on the idea both words mean the same thing, rather than Jesus loves others in two different ways, as family and as someone He would die for.

John 21:15, So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love (agapao) Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love (phileo) You.” He said to him, “Tend My lambs.”

Here, some mistakenly claim John is using the words interchangeably, but nothing could be further from the truth. Peter loves Jesus as a brother, but is not prepared to die for Jesus. And that distinction is essential to the message of God.

John 21:16, He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love (agapao) Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love (phileo) You.” He said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.”

Peter is still not prepared to die for Jesus. And Peter is distraught; because He does not think his all too human love is enough for his Lord and Master.

And now we come to one of the most powerful and compassionate verses in all scripture, and one which some seek to obscure.

John 21:17, He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love (phileo) Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love (phileo) Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love (phileo) You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep.

Rather than asking Peter if he loves Jesus with the agapeo, willing to die for love, Jesus asks if Peter loves Jesus as a brother! But note that this human love, imperfect and falling short of our goal, was acceptable to God. Jesus will accept us where we are, warts and all.

Finally, let’s consider why Peter said that Jesus had said to him a third time, “Do you love (phileo) me, when this is actually the first time Jesus had used that word. Since agapao is a general term for love, and therefore has shades of meaning that overlap with phileo, it appears Peter did not immediately grasp any significant difference in Christ’s question. Jesus realizes this oversight by Peter, and thus explains it to him in verse 18. Peter will grow in his devotion to Jesus, and one day will die for Jesus.

So while it seems a fad to claim interchangeability, the evidence stacks up highest on the other side. John uses agapeo as a commitment, a willing to die for kind of love, but uses phileo as an affectionate love as if toward a friend or family member.

 

[Rippon]

John 5:20, For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel.

If we use the more specific meaning, the verse could be translated as “For the Father loves the Son as family, and shows Him everything He does; and the Father will show Him even greater works than these, so that you will marvel.

No translation has it the way you render it. They all have some form of "shows Him all He does."

John 11:3, So the sisters sent word to Him, saying, “Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick.

Here in the view of the sisters, Jesus loved his close associates as members of his family, thus ... he whom You love as family is sick. Now we will learn at the end of this gospel that Jesus also displayed agapao love by laying down His life for His present and future "family" that includes Lazarus.

No version has it rendered the way you have. They all have some form of "The one you love."

John 11:36, So the Jews were saying, “See how He loved him!"

In the view of those seeing Jesus weep, they understood that Jesus loved Lazarus as family. And they were right! Too bad the translation to [sic]not present the full message of God, i.e. "See how Jesus loved him as family."

Every translation has renders it in some form of "See how he loved him!"

John 12:25, He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal.

Contextually, he who has a loving relationship with his or her life in the world will destroy it, but he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal. The idea is not that we should not love ourselves, i.e. love your neighbor as yourself, but a loving relationship with the world makes us enemies of God. Here, I think the best that can be done, is to footnote “loves his life” with “or has an affectionate relationship with his worldly life.”

That's a clumsy construction. "Anyone who loves their life" does just fine as just about every version reads in some form. the rest of the verse explains the meaning:"while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life."

John 15:19, If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.

Same usage of “phileo” referring to a relationship (friendship) between the elect and the world. A better translation choice would be “…the world would love as family its own….”

That's poor English. I like the NIV rendering in the first sentence of the verse:"If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own."

Van, it seems that you prefer an expanded translation like the Amplified Bible.

 

[Van]

More of the same arguments from absurdity.

The issue is God intended to convey to different kinds of love when he inspired the use of phileo and agapeo. Modern translations translate both words using the same English word (love) obliterating the distinction contained in the inspired Greek.

 

[Rippon]

No translation has it the way you render it. They all have some form of "shows Him all He does."

You want John 5:20 to read :"For the Father loves the Son as family."

No version has it rendered the way you have. They all have some form of "The one you love."

Here in John 11:3 you want it to read :"he whom You love as family is sick."

Every translation has renders it in some form of "See how he loved him!"

Here in John 11:36 you want it rendered as :"See how Jesus loved him as family."

That's a clumsy construction. "Anyone who loves their life" does just fine as just about every version reads in some form. the rest of the verse explains the meaning:"while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life."

Here, in John 12:25, you would render a footnote as saying:"Or, has an affectionate relationship with his worldly life."

That's poor English. I like the NIV rendering in the first sentence of the verse:"If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own."

Here in reference to John 15:19 you think a better translation is :"the world would love as family its own."

Van, it seems that you prefer an expanded translation like the Amplified Bible.

And Van calls this post of mine "More of the same arguments from absurdity."

Sane, logical reasoning is anathema to Van.

 

[Van]

The issue is God intended to convey to different kinds of love when he inspired the use of phileo and agapeo. Modern translations translate both words using the same English word (love) obliterating the distinction contained in the inspired Greek.

 

[Van]

When we compare phileo and agapeo, often we are tempted to say one type of love is "higher" or "stronger" or "more divine" than the other. But I think those classifications miss the mark. If one kind of love is more affectionate, i.e. phileo, does that make it "higher?" If one kind of love is based more on commitment, does that make it more "divine?"

Much has been made out of translating phileo as "love as family" because no modern version makes a distinction between phileo and agapeo. But some of these modern versions say they seek to present a translation according to a "word for word" philosophy, and no one claims to be trying to translate according to a "one word for a bunch of words" philosophy.

So on one side we have:
1) The words may be used interchangeably, they mean the same thing.
2) To differentiate by using "affectionate love" or "love as family" in the case of phileo, and "unconditional love" or "sacrificial love" for agapeo violates the KJV tradition.

But on the other side we have:

1) The full message of God
2) Fidelity
3) Accuracy
4) Preservation of exegetical opportunity.
5) Transparency to the original text.

 

[Van]

John 5:20, For the Father affectionately loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel.

John 11:3, So the sisters sent word to Him, saying, “Lord, behold, he whom You affectionately love is sick.

John 11:36, So the Jews were saying, “See how He affectionately loved him

John 12:25, He who affectionately loves his worldly life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal.

John 15:19, If you were of the world, the world would affectionately love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.

John 16:27, for the Father Himself affectionately loves you, because you have affectionately loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father.

John 20:2, So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus affectionately loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.”

 

[Van]

If we consider how translating with greater fidelity might increase our exegetical insights, the benefit jumps off the page.

Lets look at John 3:16, For God sacrificially loved the world in this way, ....

 

[gb93433]

Words are given the correct meaning as they are used in a sentence which lies in a context we may or may not fully understand. So often the context lies in a historical culture we know almost nothing about and so we try to study and understand but really do not always comprehend because we read into the culture and time when those words were used. For example in our own culture we use words such as died, passed away and murdered which show the same result of death but convey a very different meaning. Doing word studies is like a foreigner using a dictionary to understand English. We know that often misses the mark. For example in Spanish ¿Cómo estás? and ¿Cómo está? would both be translated "How are you?" Those greetings would give a very different response if used incorrectly. So to determine what they mean one must read and listen to how they are used to determine what they really mean.

 

[Van]

Hi Gb93433, yes word studies determine how the word is used by looking at how the word is used in the book, by the author, and throughout scripture. But first, words have a meaning or range of meanings which are inherent with the word.

Thus, context is used to discern which of the inherent meanings most probably was intended in any particular usage.

One more thing, word studies do not reflect only our individual judgement, for we rely upon various translations, various lexicons, various commentaries and books that provide insight into how words and phrases are used figuratively within the biblical times culture.

 

[gb93433]

Hi Gb93433, yes word studies determine how the word is used by looking at how the word is used in the book, by the author, and throughout scripture. But first, words have a meaning or range of meanings which are inherent with the word.

Someof those words translated into English have no such meaning in the original language. For example "baptize" has been baptized by the ecclesiastical body who did not want the word for baptize to make their theology look void.

Thus, context is used to discern which of the inherent meanings most probably was intended in any particular usage.

The context of scripture is not just limited to scripture alone. For example parts of scripture such as the epistles were written and read in a culture in which the people knew what was being read to them as they heard the words. When we translate we do not give the same meaning in a reading society as they would have heard in a society in which very few read.

One more thing, word studies do not reflect only our individual judgement, for we rely upon various translations, various lexicons, various commentaries and books that provide insight into how words and phrases are used figuratively within the biblical times culture.

If you rely on those helps how do you evaluate them? Those helps have biases and interpretations built into them. The problem is when those helps are wrong or poor and you rely on them. If you confine your study to Greek in the NT then you have narrowed your study to scripture which does not include usage in society during that time. That is much like narrowing the study of English to how people speak in a church today. Most of what is said in churches in America is also present in our society.