Has the meaning of “Love” changed enough to warrant substitutions in Bible translations?

Question

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."

Answer 1

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 1^st 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.

Answer 2

Love, well understood, is high esteem and a regard that views the beloved in a vicinity 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 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 is the only word that can leave all separation behind. So we ought to bring it out to the fullest in our trust that if we do not hold back anything from it, love cannot help but transform even the misled and misunderstood meanings and connotations that may taint it as long as we have not fully overcome our fear and let ourselves be transformed into the image of the one, regarding the freeness of our hearts.

As long as there is mistrust in the speaker towards himself or of the hearing ones towards, we may help to clarify by explainig what love is not (as Paul did and the Torah did and Jesus along the same line 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.

Answer 3

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)

Answer 4

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.

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