Agape And Phileo

Dear Bro. Don,

I was quite surprised by the premise of the “Agape or Phileo” article by Bro. Tom Barling in the June, 1998 issue.

The article never addressed two scriptures which I think would be damaging to his case. They are even more pertinent when we see that the quotes are both the words of Peter and therefore would reflect back on the words of Christ in John 21:15-17.

The two passages are:

I Peter 1:22: “Seeing ye have pu­rified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren (philadelphia), see that ye love (agape) one another with a pure heart fervently.”

II Peter 1:5-7: “And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness (philadelphia); and to brotherly kindness (philadelphia) charity (agape).”

It is hard for me to see an interchanging of the words here. Surely Peter is indicating that agape grows out of phileo. Peter had phileo yet he needed to add to it the agape love which is the pinnacle of a true Christian. They are in essence both very important and that’s why we see many examples of both being used. There should be no confusion in thinking that they are synonymous.

Tim Young, San Luis Obispo, CA

Dear Bro. Don,

In the February issue of the “Tidings,” you issued an invitation for in­put from readers regarding the two words, agape and phileo. I would like to offer a few thoughts on this ques­tion.

If there are not different kinds of “love,” I, for one, fail to see why two different words are used together in certain scripture. For instance, in II Peter 1:5-7, I have been taught that phileo is a warm affection and agape a self-sacrificing type of love. Peter tells us (using Rotherham ‘s transla­tion): “Supply in your faith excel­lence, and in your excellence knowl­edge, and in your knowledge self-con­trol, and in your self-control endur­ance, and in your endurance godliness [as God is long-suffering to us], and in your godliness brotherly affection, and [possessing affection one to an­other we can then] in your brotherly affection [add] love.” Here we can see a gradual progression from one thing to another that is higher and so we build up the character of God within. But if these two words mean the same, then I fail to see why Peter asks us to add to phileo, agape.

My second problem with using these two words interchangeably oc­curs in John 21:15-17. If Christ is asking a man who has just denied knowing him three times to save his own skin, if he has agape (a sacrifi­cial type of love), we can well under­stand Peter’s great reluctance to claim to have this, but he does assert that he possesses phileo (a warm affec­tion) for his Lord. We can also better understand Peter’s dismay when Jesus inquires if he has phileo, but all this is lost if the two are the same.

I, for one, will hold fast to the two different meanings for two different Greek words.

I must also confess that Bro. John Bilello leaves me confused in his article about the good Samaritan. It is the Samaritan we are supposed to be imitating as he is the one who showed love to his neighbor. But sometimes it seems Bro. John is telling us we are to be showing love to the Samaritans. And while this may be true, being covered at the very least in the com­mand to love our enemies, and to be good to all men, it doesn’t seem to me to be the point of this particular parable. The point seems to be that the one the lawyer despised was showing the love for his neighbor which the lawyer was trying to avoid. Maybe in all his discourse this is the point Bro. John was trying to make. If so, it eluded me.

When Jesus said to the woman at the well in John 4, “Salvation is of the Jews,” it seems doubtful to say that he considered a woman whose ancestors had been transplanted from Assyria to Israel and taught the law by renegade priests to be on an equal plane with the Jews, except in the need for salvation. One who wor­shiped in Mt. Gerizim and not at Jerusalem certainly did not have a correct understanding of the promises of God to His people.

Lois Johnson, Palmetto, FL

Regarding agape and phileo there are two questions being consid­ered:

1. Are the words interchange­able?
2. Is agape (o) superior to philia (ed)? (The first listed word ending is the noun form and the second is the basic verb form.)

With regard to question 1.: Con­sider the following statistics: Accord­ing to Young’s Concordance, in the New Testament, agape (o) is used 257 times and is the root of agapatos “be­loved” which occurs 61 times – a total of 318 occurrences. On the other hand, philia (eo) is only used 26 times, is the root of philos – “friend” 29 times and is used in combination with other words (e.g. love of money, of breth­ren, of hospitality, etc.) 35 times – a total of 90 times. According to the unabridged Liddell-Scott Greek Lexi­con, the use of agape (and related forms) is of rather limited use in Greek classical writings. On the other hand, in Greek classical writings, the use of philia (including when used in combination with other words) is very extensive occupying over nine pages in the lexicon.

It is surely a fact that the New Testament writers put much greater emphasis on agape than had been done by the secular Greek writers. This would suggest the words are not identical in meaning. When we fur­ther note that in the Greek Old Testa­ment (the Septuagint) agape is used much more than philia (and related words), we are led to conclude agape is particularly suitable express an as­pect of God’s character.

Accordingly, we feel the words are not identical in meaning and not fully interchangeable.

With respect to question 2.: Earlier references to John 5:20; 16:27, etc., prove phileo is a characteristic of God, so it is not accurate to depict phileo as a human emotion and agapao as divine love. Both express aspects of God’s character.

And II Peter 1:5-7 can not possi­bly express a hierarchy of right at­tributes because faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, etc. are all fruits of the spirit (Gal. 5:22-23); and they are all to be developed at the same time by the believer: “put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” leads to a fully rounded exhortation to all the virtues listed by Peter (Eph. 4:24-5:6 as do many other scriptures.) Further it would be totally debilitat­ing to spiritual growth if we had first to develop patience before develop­ing love. Those of us struggling with impatience would, in such a case, never get to the other virtues.

A suggestion: the more the point is discussed, the more we tend to the idea proposed in the Abbott-Smith Lexicon which suggests agapao is more an act of the will while phileo is more the response of the emotions. We do not, however, propose this should end the discussion.

With respect to the parable of the “Good Samaritan,” see below.

Miriam’s Jealousy

A reader felt Bro. Tom Barling did not adequately support his state­ment that Miriam was jealous of Moses when she challenged his lead­ership position in Israel. We passed the comments on to Bro. Tom and his reply follows:

In a recent article (March, 1998, pp. 85-87), I wrote that Miriam was moved with “pique and jealousy” to challenge the authority of Moses (Num. 12:1). We must, it is true, be careful in ascribing an unworthy mo­tive to our fellows: so often we can be wrong. Motive is sometimes indi­cated for us in scripture, as when we read the Jewish leaders acted out of envy against the Lord Jesus (Matt. 27:18). The Greek term in Matthew (phthonos) can be rendered “envy,” “jealousy” or “spite” (see, for example, “A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament,” B.M. Newman, Jr.). In many cases in scripture even where motive is not expressly ascribed, it is possible to identify it. Thus, when David sent for Bathsheba, the reason is obvious.

There can be no question that in the challenge to Moses, the initiative was taken by Miriam: the LORD God was angry with both Aaron and Miriam (Num. 12:9), but it was Miriam who suffered the humiliation of being struck with leprosy and be­ing banished from the camp. God’s intervention makes it crystal clear that He disapproved of their action and motive. It may indeed have been le­gitimate for criticism to be directed against Moses for his marriage with a Cushite woman. However, it is ob­vious that this was only a pretext: the criticism did not arise from concern for God’s holiness, but from their con­cern for personal prestige: “Hath he not also spoken by us?” In other words, they resented the authority and prominence enjoyed by Moses. What is this if it is not jealousy, or envy?

Baptisms at an Early Age

Dear Uncle Don,

I am writing in response to the letter written by the “concerned sister” in May, 1998 (p. 183) about bap­tism. I’ve been thinking a lot about baptism lately and that letter made me think even more.

A lot of young people in my area have been getting baptized and! question myself sometimes, as to whether they were ready or not. I hope I am not being judgmental, but on a few occasions it seems to me question­able. Yes, I am happy for them be­cause they are my friends, but I am also concerned that people are getting baptized for the wrong reasons. Maybe these thoughts will help ex­plain what I am trying to say.

Last summer a thought inside my head nagged me to really get into physical shape. So finally listening to my conscience, I started jogging and doing aerobics. As I jogged up the street each day, I would stare at the end and think of it as my goal-the thing I wanted most to attain. One day as I watched the end grow steadily closer, I asked myself, “What do I want most in life? Of course I want to be in the kingdom.”

Until now, though, I hadn’t real­ized I really didn’t want it. That was just what I knew I should want. So I thought about it and decided I did not think I was ready for baptism, even thought I want to be in the kingdom. I didn’t think I was ready to commit my life to God. I still don’t.

Another day I was not feeling very good and everything seemed to be going wrong, so I picked up my Bible and opened it to a place that just fit my problem. As I read it over, I calmed down and realized what I had to do. I had to do the right thing. As I sat thinking, I realized THAT was what I really wanted – to do the right thing, deny myself, take up the cross, and follow Jesus.

Now I know my goal in life. I know it will be hard, but I will try my best. It will be like jogging, hard when you’re doing it, but glad you did it in the end. So as you’re jogging down the road of life and are longing for the end to come, your goal, ask yourself, what do you really want? And how hard will you try to get it.

A thoughtful young person

Thank you for your comments. There is no down-side to being baptized. The blessings to which we be­come related in Christ are nothing but awesome. Furthermore, we can’t overcome sin merely by our own will­power: one person after another has found the flesh cannot overcome the flesh. We must have God’s help to follow the way of our Lord and that help flows abundantly when we be­come one of His children through baptism into Christ. While not know­ing all of your circumstances, it cer­tainly sounds to me like you should obey the command and accept the offer of God NOW.

Parable of the “Good Samaritan”

Sis. Lois Johnson queried as­pects of this article (see letter above) and concern was expressed by a reader that the closing comments of the “Parable of the Good Samaritan” suggested our next-door neighbor should be regarded as comparable to our brother in Christ. Following are our comments on these issues.

1. Does “Brother in Christ” equal our next-door neighbor?

Of course not, such an idea was never in the author’s mind nor is it what the article said. Some confusion may be coming from the appli­cation to ourselves of the exhor­tational points in the parable. It was noted that our obligation to show spe­cial concern for those of the house­hold of faith (Gal. 6:10) is similar to the Law’s requirement that the Jew had a special obligation to the house­hold of Israel (termed “thy brother,” “the children of thy people,” “thy neighbor” Lev. 19:18-19) or those non-Jews having taken up residence in the land (termed “the stranger that dwelleth with you” Lev. 19:34). The parallel between our situation and that of the Israelite was strengthened by noting the Hebrew word for “neigh­bor” has a sense of kinship associated with it. Both Jews and ourselves have a special obligation to a specific class of people.

Now it is fully recognized that “neighbor” in Israel was based on natural lineage or geographic location of residence. This contrasts with membership in the “household of faith” which is determined by the spiritual principles of belief in and obedience to the gospel of Christ. It is this household of faith which to­day requires our special concern.

2. Applying the exhortations of the parable.

Bro. John applied the exhorta­tions of the parable to our attitude to those in the household of faith. Is our heart filled with “compassion” (as was the Samaritan’s) or with concern for self-justification (as was the lawyer’s). Are we looking for oppor­tunities to help others (as did the Sa­maritan) or are we seeking excuses to avoid involvement in their needs (as apparently was the lawyer)? Are we trying to narrow the definition of “brethren in Christ” as far as possible to limit our obligations?

As noted, there is a twist in Christ’s final question (see exhorta­tion on “The Good Samaritan,” 3/98, p.82). The neighbor was the one who acted as neighbor — the Samaritan. The application in Christ’s day is evi­dent: Jesus was acting as neighbor, therefore he should be loved as a neighbor even though some of his actions frustrated the legalism of the Jews. For all time, the message is: We should be more concerned about opportunity to be helpful than obligation to help.

3. The Samaritan element of the parable.

As permanent residents of the land, the Samaritans clearly fell un­der the terms of Leviticus 19 and the command “to love thy neighbor as thyself.” Thus Christ is indirectly commenting on a legal question among the Jews.

Furthermore, Christ’s introduc­ing a “Samaritan” into the parable touches a major aspect of his ministry. Consistently the religious Jews were more exclusive than Jesus as to those deemed fit for their ministra­tions. Samaritans, Gentiles, publicans and sinners were ignored by the Jews simply because of the ethnic or social class to which they belonged.

Jesus reached out to any who knew his need and came to Jesus for help. Do we? Or do we find excuses to avoid preaching to certain classes of people? Christ’s attitude and work tended to be more inclusive than exclusive. Is the same true of ourselves?

4. Salvation is of the Jews.

Again the Lord comments on an issue of the day: The Samaritans had evolved their own religion apart from that revealed in scripture (cf. II Kings 17:24-41). They were wrong in do­ing so and salvation could only come through the Jewish scriptures and Israelitish covenants of promise.

On an individual basis, however, John 3 and chapters 5-12 contain a steady criticism of the beliefs and attitudes of individual Jews — John 3: Nicodemus was told he must be spiri­tually reborn; John 5:42, “I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you;” John 6:36, “Ye also have seen me, and believe not,” etc. As individuals, the Jews were in as much need of religious instruction as the Samaritans, and the Lord would satisfy the needs of individuals from ei­ther community who came to him, seeking to drink of the living waters. In fact, on an individual basis, some Samaritans responded better to the grace of God than did Jews (Luke 17:12-16 referred to by Bro. John).