In recent correspondence in “Tidings,” the question has been raised as to whether there is a significant difference in the two Greek verbs for “love” in John 21:15-17 (2/ 98, p.61; 3/98, p.105). In questioning Peter, the Lord Jesus uses on the first two occasions the verb agapao (= I love), while in reply Peter uses phileo (= I love). However, when questioning Peter for the third time, our Lord uses phileo, as does Peter in his reply. Is there, as some assert, a significant difference in the two words, or are they equivalent? An attempt will be made in this study to answer these questions.
Agapao has varied uses
We begin by analyzing the use of agapao in the New Testament. The word occurs a vast number of times. Frequently the verb has the most exalted associations, as, for example, in the famous passage John 3:16. All too easily, therefore, we can conclude that it uniformly represents an exalted form of affection. The conclusion seems likely, especially when we remember that the corresponding noun, agape (“love”) occurs in I John 4:8 – “He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love (agape) – and in verse 16 in the same chapter – “God is love (agape) and he that dwelleth in love (agape) dwelleth in God and God in him.”
However, despite its very frequent use to denote a divine form of affection, it does not, unfortunately, always bear an exalted meaning. A striking example of this is to be found in John 3, the very chapter in which we read of God’s redemptive love for the world. Verse 16 is followed shortly afterwards by verse 19: “and men loved (agapao) darkness rather than fight” Here, clearly, the verb has no exalted association, but the contrary. The same is true of its use in Luke 14:43, where the Pharisees are denounced for loving the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and in John 12:43, where the Jewish rulers are said to love the praise of men more than the praise of God. As it is especially with the use of apapao and phileo in John’s gospel that we are concerned, John 3:19 and 12:43 must be borne in mind.
The consideration of these passages leads the present writer to the conclusion that the precise meaning of agapao depends for its character and quality upon the one who does the loving.
Phileo also varies in use
An examination of the occurrences of phileo in the New Testament produces the same result as in our examination of the other word: it can have exalted associations and others which are the opposite. It is John in particular who uses phileo; thus in John 5:20 we read, “For the Father loveth (phileo) the Son.” The verb occurs twice in 16:27, “for the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me…” What we must note here in passing is that the Lord Jesus himself uses the very word Peter will later use in John 21:15-17, and he uses it in connection with the apostles’ love for himself, and the Father’s love for them. Surely, we are beginning to realize that it must be straining matters to try to establish any real difference between agapao and phileo.
Words used interchangeably
That John uses them interchangeably can be seen in the references in the Gospel to the “beloved disciple” (John himself). In the first of these passages, we read: “When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved (agapao)…” Later, in 20:2, in describing the affection our Lord bore to the beloved disciple, we find that phileo occurs. In two further passages, the Gospel uses agapao of the love the Lord had for John (21:7, 20). To endeavor, in the case of these passages, to establish a difference between the two words is surely beyond the wit of any man.
What was true of agapao, namely that it can have unworthy associations, applies with equal force to the other word. We have seen above (Luke 11:43) that agapao was used of the Pharisees’ love of the chief seats in the synagogues. If now we turn to Matthew 23, we find that the Lord Jesus engages in a stinging denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees; he declares that they “love (phileo)the chief places at feasts” (v.6 RV). Here, in two gospel writers, we find that Luke uses the one verb and Mathew the other for precisely the same kind of human weakness.
Considering John 21:15-17
We have thus seen in drawing upon the evidence provided by three gospel writers that the two Greek words for love can be used interchangeably. With this conclusion in mind, we tum to John 21:15-17. The scene is a delightful one. After fishing to no purpose during the night, Peter and John and their five associates find that the risen Lord is on the shore of the lake. Omitting now a number of truly lovely features which characterize John’s record, we turn to the part which is of present interest to us. Jesus has prepared the breakfast for the tired and hungry fishermen. Jesus proceeds to question Peter three times. If the others do not realize why this is being done, Peter will sooner or later understand the purpose of the questioning. He is the one who had boasted that, though all men might abandon their Lord, he would never do so. Then three times he denied him. Now, through a threefold affirmation of his love, the apostle has the opportunity to cancel those denials.
The first question is particularly significant:
“Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these” (v.15). In his reply Peter does not now claim, as he previously had done, any greater love than the others, but merely appeals to the Lord’s knowledge of him: “Lord, you know that I love you.” There was surely no doubt about his love. Yes, he had engaged in an empty boast, but this was not typical of him. He had lost his nerve in difficult circumstances and his Lord understood why. That the Lord is satisfied with Peter’s reply is shown by the confidence he expresses in him: “Feed my lambs.”
In his second question, the Lord drops the “more than these” and merely requires of his apostle a declaration of his love: “Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.” Upon the basis of this profession, Peter is told: “Feed my sheep” (RV).
The apostle starts to be upset when he is asked a third time: “Lovest thou me?” As suggested above, he may not at first see the link between his denials and the three questions, but the connection is there and will at some stage be understood by Peter. It is on the third that the Lord uses the same word for love as Peter: phileo.
We must now consider what is really the fundamental question: is Peter upset by the fact that the Lord, in the presence of the six others, asks him a third time whether he loves him, or is he upset because on this third occasion he uses the same Greek word as himself? Surely, if what the Lord required was the use of agapao, Peter could have satisfied his Lord by using it.
If, in modern English, the Lord had asked Peter, “Do you love me?” and he had responded by saying, “But Lord, you know that I have real affection for you,” would that not be sufficient?
Paul’s strong use of phileo
Let us briefly consider the case of Paul: if anyone loved his Lord it was the apostle. For him, to live was Christ (Phil. 1:21). In a passage which needs to be far better known among us and much more widely put into practice, Paul declares: “If any man loveth not the Lord, (the Lord Jesus Christ AV) let him be anathema” (I Cor. 16:22 RV). In this strongly worded passage, the apostle uses phileo. If this great servant of our God and of the Lord Jesus could be content with the kind of love for the Lord Jesus which is enshrined in the term phileo, we can be sure that our Lord himself was fully satisfied with Peter’s use of the word in that quiet but dramatic scene by the lake in Galilee.
It is for the reader to judge whether the view held by many, that there is a real difference between agapao and phileo in the exchanges between our Lord and his apostle in John 21:15-17, can be sustained in view of their use elsewhere in the New Testament, but more especially in the Gospel of John itself.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One