Take the 2-minute tour ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The culturally accepted uses of the word "Love" seem to be a trite shadow of its biblical meaning. Common use of "Love" is now interchangeable with "Like," "Enjoy," or "Emotionally attachment" of something. That is very different from what the virtue the Bible describes it to be:

1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NIV)
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

1 Corinthians 13 ends by stating that Love is greater than Faith or Hope.

Surely faith and hope are greater than a momentary enjoyment such as a tasty dinner item that we often describe as something we "love."

Therefore I ask, what is to be done about this discrepancy?

Should the word "love" be replaced with another word or words?

The closest thing I could think of was "brotherly affection."

share|improve this question
1  
Brotherly Affection would imply philo whereas the passage is agapo Godly affection. –  Affable Geek Feb 2 '12 at 17:20
2  
I recently found an interesting article on the topic. It points out: "In every language, the meaning of synonyms overlap so that for one thing, typically more than one word can be used. At the same time, words have flavours, hardly ever are they exact synonyms." The one exception is when words are used in very technical contexts such as philosophy and science. –  Jon Ericson Feb 16 '12 at 7:53
add comment

5 Answers

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Sacred ἀγάπη

The idea that the Greek word "agape" (ἀγάπη) means "Godly love" is a very common misconception. Before I elaborate, one of my favorite sayings in hermeneutics is:

Words don't have meaning, people have meaning.

In fact ἀγάπη had a semantic range that included "Godly love," but the semantic range was much broader than this. The actual "meaning" of the word depended on what the author/speaker meant by their use of the word.

Proof:

[Jesus said:] If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. -Luke 6:32

Now look at the verse in Greek:

καὶ εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, ποία ὑμῖν χάρις ἐστίν; καὶ γὰρ οἱ ἁμαρτωλοὶ τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας αὐτοὺς ἀγαπῶσιν. -Westcott / Hort (1881)

Here Jesus uses "agape" four times referring to the kind of love that a sinner has for others. Of course, Jesus is not claiming that a sinner has "perfect, sacrificial, pure, Godly love"... just that they are amiable toward those who are amiable toward them.

English love

The semantic range of the English word "love" also includes Godly love, among other things.

Conclusion

Our use of the English word "love" in 1 Cor. 13 is really no different than Paul's use of the Greek word "agape" in that passage. Both have a semantic range. Both can be used to refer to "Godly love." Both can be used to refer to other things. Regardless of whether you read "agape" or "love" or "perfect, sacrificial, pure, Godly love in the spirit of Christ our Lord" the reader will need to be careful to remain faithful to authorial intent and understand it in the way it was being used, by the context in which it appears.

share|improve this answer
    
Doesn't the saying go with the plural? It may even be better this way but it's different, isn't it? (I may be wrong) –  hannes Jun 26 '13 at 5:04
    
@hannes The purpose of the saying is to draw attention to the true locus of meaning: the author -- not the text (and certainly not the reader.) –  Jas 3.1 Jun 26 '13 at 6:05
add comment

Love, well understood, is high esteem and a regard that views the beloved in a vicinity and relation to God. Not the world is to be beloved because it is yet to disappear in its present form. Not even the mountains and islands and shapes and buildings of this world will remain as they are.

We shall love that shall stay. Even if it is to sleep or suffer destruction until it comes back. So with human, who is the image of the unvisible God: We consider it worth all attention and effort as the love to God cannot be separated from the love to the human. It is one and there is neither distinction nor jealousy. Love can leave all separation behind.

It may help to clarify by explaining what love is not (as Paul did and helping to clarify under altered conditions, e.g. the Roman Law). And to bring love into context with the highest standard of ethics will help any hearer (and ourselves) to be not taken away by thoughts and emotions of partiality, that are in event not love at all.

share|improve this answer
1  
-1 This sounds very devotional and pastoral... I don't want to discourage you in any of your ideas, but I think you might be more at home on Christianity.SE with answers like this. Anyway, feel free to flag this comment as obsolete once you've read it. –  Jas 3.1 Jun 26 '13 at 3:57
add comment

The term ἀγαπάω was relatively unused in literature contemporary to New Testament authors. To avoid confusion, they probably appropriated the word for in-group communication of in-group ideals/commands. Contemporary authors would have used φιλέω in not just the "brotherly love" sense in which Christians currently understand it, but also somewhat interchangeably with the emerging Christian use of ἀγαπάω. So, not only do we need to be careful of how we understand "love" in the NT, but we also need to be aware of the context and the author's intent. (NIDNTT)

share|improve this answer
    
@Caleb ... thanks for the edit –  swasheck Apr 27 '13 at 23:04
add comment

The King James Version uses "charity" throughout the "Love Passage":

1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (KJV)
4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Of course, that's no better in modern English. The trouble is, as C. S. Lewis points out, there are four Greek words that can reasonably be translated "love". In the Bible the two most common are phileo <5368> and agape <26>. In this passage, agape is used throughout. At least when Paul uses agape, I think we should consider it a technical term that is defined in 1st Corinthians 13. Perhaps the most accurate translation is to just transliterate agape.


A Greek word that captures the idea of "I love waffles" is thelo <2309>, which the KJV occationally translates as love:

Mark 12:38-40 (KJV)
38 And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,
39 And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts:
40 Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.

The Strong's definition is:

1) to will, have in mind, intend
1a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose
1b) to desire, to wish
1c) to love
1c1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
1d) to take delight in, have pleasure

The point is, we have a single word in English that covers a wide variety of positive attitudes toward something and that word is "love". Short of convinceing the entire English speaking world that we are diluting the meaning of the word when we talk about loving passing pleasures and so on, we'll need to come up with some way to translate the Greek words more emphatically. Here is my suggestion:

  • thelo—"like" or "desire"
  • phileo—"brotherly love"
  • agape—"ulitmate love" or "sacraficial love"

The last comes from Jesus' even shorter definition of agape:

John 15:13 (ESV)
13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.

share|improve this answer
    
I'm on the hook to speak to the high school group at my church next week and I picked Love as my topic (what with Valentine's Day and all.) When I get to agape, I may explain that it is eXtreme Love. –  Jon Ericson Feb 11 '12 at 0:50
1  
I like the part on thelo. I also agree with your conclusion; that changing the perceptions of our culture is hopeless. Maybe I should send a link to this question to Zondervan and some other Bible translating/publishing companies. PS. I meant to give you the bounty but it automatically gave it to the other answer. (not that you need it or anything.) –  JoeHobbit Feb 17 '12 at 23:58
    
@JoeHobbit: Yeah. I'm going to be trying to give away some of my > 4,000 reputation in the form of bounties so that we can get more high-reputation users on the site. Thanks for the kind words. –  Jon Ericson Feb 18 '12 at 0:14
add comment

Love in the New Testament:

φιλέω, Strong's 5368, phileó: this family of words means to show warm affection in intimate friendship, or brotherly love

φιλόστοργος, Strong's 5387, philostorgos: (technically in the phileó family) that special affection shared betwee members of God's family (only used in Romans 12:10)

ἀγάπη, Strong's 26, agape: the agape family is not used much in greek literature, but is used a whole lot in the New Testament, love which centers in moral preference (the verb form agapaó means "to prefer"), or “a sober kind of love — love in the sense of placing a high value upon some person or thing, or of receiving them with favour”1

It's true that having just one word in English has overloaded it, but 1 Corinthians 13 is really the definition of this word, so I think it's quite appropriate to use the word since it teaches the reader how to contextually understand the word. It brings the reader to rethinking his presuppositions.

Charity obviously isn't the precise definition, even for the time in which the KJV was translated, but as Charles Simeon points out2:

it is not possible for any one, who reads the chapter with attention, to imagine, that it relates exclusively to alms-giving: the most ignorant reader must see, that the principle, which is here called “charity,” is far more extensive, and can by no means have so limited a sense...all the properties which in this chapter are ascribed to love, shew it to have man, and man alone, for its object. And those who interpret the word as including love to God also, make the import of the whole chapter obscure and unintelligible. We therefore approve of the term “charity,” as giving to the passage its true, and definite, and more appropriate meaning.

1Warnach, SacVb 518
2Simeon, C. (1832-63). Horae Homileticae Vol. 16: 1 and 2 Corinthians (323). London.

share|improve this answer
    
Rethinking presuppositions does little to reverse the flow of culture. Only in a few select passages is love contextually defined. What about when love is not contextually defined? –  JoeHobbit Feb 6 '12 at 22:19
1  
The Bible is always to be taken as a whole, so you always have the larger context. One of the components of exegesis is to analyze the nearer context to see if the word is being used differently. Sometimes that takes some study. –  Lance Roberts Feb 6 '12 at 23:39
    
Actually, rethinking things is what does change culture on the physical scale, with the Grace of God and Power of the Holy Spirit changing it on the spiritual scale. In other words, the grace of God enables men to think differently, and it that rethinking is what God uses to change men's hearts. Culture is religion externalized. –  Lance Roberts Feb 6 '12 at 23:41
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.