'Love' and 'Love': What's the Difference?

If you have ever heard a sermon on the gospel according to John chapter 21, you have probably heard what I am about to talk about. If this is so, please be sure to read on!

Most pastors, and many commentators as well, in their treatment of 21:15-19, highlight the different words used by the evangelist, the beloved disciple, John, the son of Zebedee. In this passage, John uses words that were synonymous in Koine Greek. As F.F. Bruce observes, “stylistically, this interchange between the Lord and his disciple is interesting because of the use of synonyms. Two words for ‘love’ are used (agapao and phileo), words for tending the flock (bosko and poimaino), two for the flock itself (arnia and probatia) and two for ‘know’ (oida and ginosko). This interplay of synonyms is a feature of the writer’s Greek; it can hardly represent a comparable variation of vocabulary in the language which Jesus and Peter probably spoke.”[1]

While most of the synonyms are overlooked, the words translated ‘love’ are often highlighted extensively (making some very colorful sermons that are very tantalizing to the audience). It is often the case that agapao (which is used by Christ the first two times He questions Peter (vv. 15-16)) is said to denote a higher form of love—a kind of unconditional, capstone of the Christian faith type of love. Phileo, (used by Christ the last time He questions Peter (v.17) and all three times by Peter in his response), is seen as more of a natural, personal friendship kind of love.

There was a great distinction drawn in Classical Greek as to the different meanings of words. However, much of this distinction dropped out, or was able to be dropped, in Koine Greek, and words became more synonymous.

Bruce gives us three reasons for why agapao and phileo were used interchangeably here, for stylistic reasons, rather than as a real distinction by the speakers. The first is that these two words were often used interchangeably in the Septuagint. The second is that “agapao in itself does not necessarily imply a loftier love” (cf. 2 Timothy 4:10, where agapao is used of Demas’s love for ‘the present age’). And third, John uses the two verbs interchangeably elsewhere in the Gospel, (“e.g. in the statement that ‘the Father loves the Son’ (agapao in 3:35; phileo in 5:20”).[2]

Another reason that such a distinction is intended is that Jesus and Peter were probably conversing in Aramaic, as that was their natural language. While in some places a distinction in words is more than merely stylistic, i.e. though the same word would have been used in Aramaic, the evangelist is catching the intended meaning of Jesus/the speaker (such as in Matthew 16:18, where the evangelist (Matthew) uses the word play upon petros and petra to show Jesus’ meaning, although the same Aramaic word would have been used by Jesus in both instances), John is substituting synonymous words for what would have been only one word in Aramaic for his own stylistic purposes. If there is a distinction intended in agapao and phileo, we cannot make absolute assertions as to what the evangelist had in mind.

Unfortunately, I have heard people take their perceived meaning of the word agapao too far. The most clear instance of this in my mind is when someone forces their understood lexical meaning into John 3:16 (which uses agapao to describe God’s love for the world). Upon this basis, these people will say that God’s love for the world is the same love that He has for Jesus Christ, the Son, merely because John also uses agapao to speak of the Father’s love for the Son. Such imposition upon the text is unwarranted and close to blasphemous (though I’m sure no blasphemy is intended—it is an accidental error).

We must recognize that God’s love for His creation falls quite short of His love for the eternal Son. God loves God, i.e. the Father loves the Son, with a special love that He does not have for even His elect, the Church, let alone for the rebellious world as well (for example, God does not claim openly of anyone else to be “My beloved Son,” He does not give the same honor to anyone else (cf. John 17:1-2, 5, Philippians 2:9-11), and God must love God more than any other, lest He commit idolatry). God loves the world so much that He would give His Son, but yet His love for the Son is not paralleled in extent in His love for the world. God can show us no greater love than to have the Son die on our behalf (John 15:13). The Son does love us with the same type of love that the Father has loved Him (John 15:9). He loves them because of their obedience (compare John 15:10 and 8:29, 10:17). If they remain obedient, they will remain in His love. Yet their obedience, unlike Christ’s, is not perfect, and so it is inferred that because Christ’s obedience is greater, the love from the Father is to a greater degree (yet do not infer that God’s love for His Church is merely conditioned upon their obedience, for He shows His love in sending Christ to die while we were yet disobedient (Romans 5:8)). So we cannot infer based upon the use of the word ‘agapao’ that the Father’s love for the world is equivalent to His love for the Son.

Now, I am not bashing those pastors and commentators who claim a distinction in these words (for even the commentary I confer most, the Expositor’s, seems to like the differentiation in meaning more than leaving the words synonymous)[3], for many of them are far more educated and more mature in the Christian faith than I am, but I believe they are wrong (and I have F.F. Bruce, D.A. Carson[4], and many other Greek scholars on my side). I believe that all pastors and commentators are going to make mistakes; we are all only human. Yet, I do believe that it is important that we do handle the Word of God accurately and consistently. While a knowledge in Greek is often extremely helpful, we must make sure not to make those who have not had the theological education that we have had feel inferior, or cause them to wonder every time they see the word ‘love,’ what “type” of love is being meant; they must learn that context is the key to determining this, not merely a word study.

[1] F.F. Bruce, The Gospel & Apostles of John, 404.

[2] Ibid., 405.

[3] The words translated "love" have also raised considerable debate. Two different terms are used: agapao is used in Jesus' first two questions and phileo is used in Jesus' third question and in Peter's three replies. Agapao is the same word "love" that appears in John 3:16. It is used of divine love and usually carries the connotation of will or purpose as well as that of affection. Phileo implies affinity, friendship, and fondness. Both words represent a high aspect of love. Since they are used of both God (3:16; 5:20) and men (14:21; 16:27) in this Gospel, they seem to be interchangeable with no great difference in meaning. Morris has a thorough discussion of the synonyms in this passage (NIC, pp. 870-75). He maintains that there is no essential difference in meaning between them. On the other hand, a good case can be made for a difference in Jesus' emphasis. There was less doubt concerning Peter's attachment to Jesus than there was concerning his will to love at all costs; and the change of term in Jesus' third question makes his probing of Peter even deeper. If the latter alternative is adopted, it explains better Peter's distress when questioned a third time, since Jesus would not only be challenging his love but would be implying that it was superficial. NIV brings out the nuance between agapao and phileo by translating agapao "truly love" and phileo "love."-Expositor’s
In my opinion, Peter’s distress is best explained by the fact that Jesus questioned him the third time. Peter knew that Jesus was making reference to Peter’s boastful affirmation that he would not deny Christ even if all others did (John 13:36-38), yet he denied Christ three times (which is why Jesus asked him the question three times). Thus Peter was distressed not because of the words used (which would have probably been the same in Aramaic), but because Jesus was performing painful surgery upon a most delicate wound.

[4] Carson remarks in his work, Exegetical Fallacies, “One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word…. How often do preachers refer to the verb agapao (agapao, to love), contrast it with phileo (phileo, to love), and deduce that the text is saying something about a special kind of loving, for no other reason than that agapao (agapao) is used? All of this is linguistic nonsense…. [It] is doubtless true that the entire range of agapao (agapao, to love) and the entire range of phileo (phileo, to love) are not exactly the same, nevertheless they enjoy substantial overlap; and where they overlap, appeal to a “root meaning” in order to discern a difference is fallacious. In 2 Samuel 13 (LXX), both agapao (agapao, to love) and the cognate agape (agape, love) can refer to Amnon’s incestuous rape of his half sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13:15, LXX)….[Carson gives some more examples.] The false assumptions surrounding this pair of words are ubiquitous….” (28, 31-32). He resumes his discussion by saying “[In the discussion on root fallacy] we saw that agapao (agapao) does not always refer to a “good” love or a sacrificial love or a divine love, and certainly there is nothing in the root to convey such a meaning. [If you need further examples, buy Carson’s book.] But the question arises whether the well-known exchange between Jesus and Peter reported in John 21:15-17, using the two different verbs, is intended to convey a distinction in meaning, or to provide an example of semantic overlap, of synonymy…. For various reasons, I doubt very much that there is an intended distinction. If I were setting out to prove the point, I would have to discuss the significance of “the third time,” exegete the passage in some detail, review the evidence that John regularly introduces expressions that are either precisely synonymous or roughly so, and so forth. But most of those who insist that there is a distinction to be made in John’s use of the two verbs do so on one of two grounds. First, they argue that translators of the Septuagint and New Testament writers have invested agapao (agapao, to love) and agape (agape, love) with special meaning to provide an adequate expression by which to talk about the love of God; and only this accounts for the words rapid rise to prominence in our literature. But this argument has been overturned by the diachronic study of Robert Joly, who presents convincing evidence that agapao (agapao) was coming into prominence throughout Greek literature from the fourth century B.C. on, and was not restricted to Biblical literature… the evidence is substantial and effectively disqualifies this first ground. The second ground on which many build their argument that agapao (agapao) is to be distinguished from phileo (phileo) in John 21:15-17—and the one that concerns us most directly at the moment—is well illustrated by William Hendriksen’s commentary…. [To learn more, buy Carson’s book, I’m not going to show his whole discussion here, but rather his conclusion.] [It] is rather strange to insist on a semantic distinction between the two words for “to love” in this context, and not on small distinctions between other pairs of words in the same context” (51-53).