15

In John 21:15-17 (ESV), we read:

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.

Jesus asks, "Do you love me?" three times. In order, the translation of the word love in the greek is as follows:

agapaō agapaō phileō

Is there a reason or any significance as to why Jesus uses "phileō" the third time around? English translations don't seem to distinguish this fact and maybe they shouldn't.

Note: Blue Letter Bible is where I got the Greek references.

5
  • 1
    Welcome to Biblical Hermeneutics! That's a fine question and I know that some interpreters see this change as of utmost significance and others think it meaningless. See also: Has the meaning of “Love” changed enough to warrant substitutions in Bible translations? Oct 12, 2012 at 16:58
  • 1
    Are you looking for statistical significance, or a word study?:)
    – swasheck
    Apr 18, 2013 at 5:09
  • 3
    D.A. Carson's short book on Exegetical Fallacies provides a specific answer to this question. He illustrates a fallacy which is committed when too much emphasis is placed on the difference in verbs used in this passage. I refer to that book for this answer, but I think @swaschek has also provided a very good answer below. Apr 18, 2013 at 23:00
  • 1
    @Qoheleth-Tech I have Carson's book on my shelf and never thought to reference it. Dough! Thanks for the pointer!
    – Dan
    Apr 19, 2013 at 5:11
  • 1
    @Qoheleth-Tech i had to read that book every semester of Greek in seminary (3 years)
    – swasheck
    Apr 19, 2013 at 14:26

7 Answers 7

13
+50

As has already been pointed out, the progression is

Jesus ἀγαπᾷς ἀγαπάω Verb Second Present Active Indicative Singular

Peter φιλῶ φιλέω Verb First Present Active Indicative Singular

Jesus ἀγαπᾷς ἀγαπάω Verb Second Present Active Indicative Singular

Peter φιλῶ φιλέω Verb First Present Active Indicative Singular

Jesus φιλεῖς φιλέω Verb Second Present Active Indicative Singular

Narr. Φιλεῖς φιλέω Verb Second Present Active Indicative Singular

Peter φιλῶ φιλέω Verb First Present Active Indicative Singular

The crux of this passage is the use of different root words in this exchange. Much stock is placed on the differentiation between the two lemmata with the primary distinction being something along the lines of ἀγαπάω as a standard of God's love and/or the way that the people of God should love each other. When this distinction is made, ἀγαπάω is usually held over against φιλέω which, apparently, is a baser skill or imperative.

Grammatically, there's nothing significant to note about the tenses, voices, or moods in this passage. Present, Active, Indicative may carry some imperatival force in this context and Aktionsart would only be useful to the degree that it tells us that the author is describing an event as it occurred in real time.

Verbal aspect theory would look at this and note that this conversation is the focus of the narrative, but that in the foreground is Peter's first response that Jesus knows (οἶδα) that Peter loves (φιλέω) him. What's significant is that the specific morph of οἶδα that is used is οἶδας (οἶδας οἶδα Verb Second Perfect Active Indicative Singular). Verbal aspect would note that the perfect would emphasize Peter's acknowledgement that he absolutely knew that Jesus knew the answer to the question. Aktionsart would say that Peter knew that Jesus has always known and currently knows that Peter loves him.

Otherwise, the verbs themselves are not heavily marked, especially in light of the perfect that occurs within the passage.

As for the words themselves, looking at the occurrences in the SBLGNT, here's what we have:

+--------+-----+
| ἀγαπάω | 143 |
| φιλέω  |  25 |
+--------+-----+

and here are the occurrences by book:

ἀγαπάω

+--------+-----------------+----+
| ἀγαπάω | 1 Corinthians   |  2 |
| ἀγαπάω | 1 John          | 28 |
| ἀγαπάω | 1 Peter         |  4 |
| ἀγαπάω | 1 Thessalonians |  2 |
| ἀγαπάω | 2 Corinthians   |  4 |
| ἀγαπάω | 2 John          |  2 |
| ἀγαπάω | 2 Peter         |  1 |
| ἀγαπάω | 2 Thessalonians |  2 |
| ἀγαπάω | 2 Timothy       |  2 |
| ἀγαπάω | 3 John          |  1 |
| ἀγαπάω | Colossians      |  2 |
| ἀγαπάω | Ephesians       | 10 |
| ἀγαπάω | Galatians       |  2 |
| ἀγαπάω | Hebrews         |  2 |
| ἀγαπάω | James           |  3 |
| ἀγαπάω | John            | 37 |
| ἀγαπάω | Jude            |  1 |
| ἀγαπάω | Luke            | 13 |
| ἀγαπάω | Mark            |  5 |
| ἀγαπάω | Matthew         |  8 |
| ἀγαπάω | Revelation      |  4 |
| ἀγαπάω | Romans          |  8 |
+--------+-----------------+----+

φιλέω

+-------+---------------+----+
| φιλέω | 1 Corinthians |  1 |
| φιλέω | John          | 13 |
| φιλέω | Luke          |  2 |
| φιλέω | Mark          |  1 |
| φιλέω | Matthew       |  5 |
| φιλέω | Revelation    |  2 |
| φιλέω | Titus         |  1 |
+-------+---------------+----+

A brief glance at these numbers shows that John is more invested in using words in the semantic domain: Attitudes and Emotions, sub-domain: Love, Affection, Compassion (Louw-Nida).

A quick search on the Perseus Hopper reveals that, outside of Flavius Josephus, ancient authors had little interest in ἀγαπάω, but φιλέω was much more prevalently used in comparable literature.

Does this mean that this was a divinely-appropriated word that was withheld from human use until the time of Jesus? Probably not. In fact, this rarity increases the probability that ἀγαπάω was a relatively unused word in contemporary literature and was appropriated by Christians to convey their emerging sense of affection.

To force such a distinction between ἀγαπάω and φιλέω is disingenuous. There are places where this distinction is inappropriate (2 Sam. 13:4 Amnon ἀγαπῶ Tamar, John 5:20 The Father φιλει The Son, 2 Tim. 4:10 Demas αγαπησας the present world, 1 John 2:15 Do not αγαπατε the world, John 3:19 the men ἠγάπησαν the darkness).

An alternative solution is that in this instance, the author was attempting to use variety within the text1, assigning words to operators in order to maintain a clear narrative that comes to a satisfying conclusion.

In conclusion, while the general tendency of NT authors is to use ἀγαπάω to convey a higher sense of meaningful love, we need to make sure that we're reading the text responsibly instead of forcing an assumed meaning of a word into the context of the story.

1Craig Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels 2nd ed., (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2009), 418.

1
  • Excellent answer. I remember in Greek 2 we had a long discussion on this passage and whether there was significance to the differing verbs. Ultimately, our professor concluded (and most agreed) that there was not as the terms were used interchangeably by Jesus in other places and the significance was in the three repetitions, as Peter denied Christ three times, not in the word usage.
    – P. TJ
    Mar 9, 2017 at 13:46
3

The first two occasion Jesus says 'do you love me' using αγαπας which is the word chosen in the LLX and NT to refer to the command of God to love from the Old Testament. In reply Peter only uses φιλω which seems to be a more earthly or humble or 'less noble and commanding' confession of his love.

The possible meaning seems clear when recognizing that this thrice confession follows his previous boasting about being faithful above everyone else and then a thrice denial. (Math 26:33) Before, Peter would have had no humility about his confession. Nevertheless as Peter still confesses his warm affections for Christ (for the word chosen also means 'to kiss') on the third question, Jesus indicates to Peter that his humble confession, though acceptable still needs to be verified. Jesus does this by asking it exactly how Peter has been answering it. He uses the same word Peter was using. In other words, alright Peter, even under your more humble terms of what you are ready to confess, is it true, please confirm.

It would seem then that this, as user sticman pointed out, more thoroughly humbles Peter in testing his confession. However, as at his third time, there is no fourth, we can assume Christ accepts his threefold confession in contrast to his earlier threefold denial.

Note: The analysis of the words in Greek is actually quite complicated and potentially confusing taking up potentially too much space. Brooke Foss Westcott perhaps most known for his co-authoring of The New Testament in the Original Greek, understand the distinction of the two loves being used. The distinction does not seem to be something that can be understood through simple analysis of the way the words are used in the New Testament alone, but requires a broader understanding of Greek during New Testament times:

St Peter in his answer affirms his personal attachment to the Lord, appealing to the Lord’s own knowledge; but his profession differs in two important points from the question proposed. He does not assume any superiority over others (more than these): and he lays claim only to the feeling of natural love (φιλῶ) σε, Vulg. amo te), of which he could be sure. He does not venture to say that he has attained to that higher love (ἀγαπᾷν) which was to be the spring of the Christian life (ch. 13:34, 14:15, 14:21, 14:28, &c.). Moreover now he says nothing of the future, nothing of the manifestation of his love (13:37). Comp. Bernard, ‘Serm. de div.’ 29. fin. (BY B. F. WESTCOTT, D.D., D.C.L.)

3
  • 2
    Jesus' use of phileō for the third questioning causes Peter grief - that is, "because Jesus said the third time, 'Do you φιλεῖς me?'". It doesn't seem to be an acceptance, but rather a deeper questioning - "Do you even φιλεῖς me, Peter?"
    – Sticmann
    Nov 6, 2012 at 1:15
  • @Sticmann that's really pressing the meaning a whole lot.
    – swasheck
    Apr 18, 2013 at 21:50
  • Sticmann, that's a common pastoral interpretation that works great in a sermon, but it's not supported by the text. Jesus does not use phileo as a "lesser" love but often uses it interchangeably with agapeo. Besides, there's no need to try to force that interpretation when there is a much clearer and textually supported reason Peter would be grieved, the three-fold repetition that echoes Peter's three denials in the Gospel of John.
    – P. TJ
    Mar 9, 2017 at 13:50
1

Jesus is asking Peter if he "Agapao" him. Agapao is a godly type of love like that of the "Good Samaritan" toward the wounded Jewish man on the road. The Good Samaritan cares even for his enemy, his love is unconditional and includes active compassion.

Peter is still at the Phileo stage, where you love your brothers with brotherly love...you love those you know and like and who like you in return. But according to Matthew 5:46 "If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?"

In the end, Jesus accepts Peter where he is and accepts his Phileo love.

2
  • 1
    Hi Leigh Anne, and welcome to BH.SE! We're a little different from other sites in that we require you to show your work. I know you're not the first to make this argument; could you cite sources? In this case you may have an especially high burden of proof because the argument you're making has been considered fallacious by some, as noted above. However, we still welcome your point of view, especially if you're willing to elaborate on your sources and their methods.
    – Susan
    Oct 19, 2014 at 3:40
  • Definitely take a look at the answers above. I know the interpretation you gave is common in sermons (I've heard it myself), but the actual support for it is weak at best.
    – P. TJ
    Mar 9, 2017 at 13:51
1

Seems to me, we should use the text as written! If Christ and Peter used different words, why not let the text speak for itself?! Ray Q

1
  • 1
    Welcome to BH.SE! We're a little different from other sites. Please take the site tour to see how. This answer is more of a comment than an answer itself. With more rep, you'll be able to leave comments yourself.
    – Frank Luke
    May 31, 2017 at 18:37
0

I believe that in the Scriputes every single word has been meaningfully chosen for our instruction.

As for agapao and phileo, they are very important words and we can learn a lot from their use also about the relationship between the two concepts they refer to.

I don't think that philia and agàpe are two different levels of love (in the Gospel of John the love of the Father for the Son is expressed both with agapao - 3:35 - and with philéo - 5:20), but rather two different aspects of the action of being one which is referred by both verbs.

I think that between agàpe (love) and philìa (friendship) there is a difference in "aspect", or point of view. Philia friendship derives from a feeling of affinity, from a certain degree of identity that is perceived with the friend, and it is therefore always reciprocal. Agàpe love, on the other hand, is the act of bridging a distance, producing an identity that was not there yet, or that could not be immediately seen. That is, the difference lies in a different function compared to the identity that is the essence of love: philìa presupposes that identity, whereas agàpe creates it. In fact you can't befriend somebody that you don't know, but somebody that you love with agape love, even though you don't know him, can easily become your friend.

The parable of the good samaritan in Luke 10:30-36 very well clarifies this relationship between agàpe love and friendship (even though the word plēsion is used instead of philos, plēsion normally translates the Hebrew word rea', which inbturn conveys the full meaning of friendship). The parable was given as answer to the question "who is my neighbour?", an answer that became a question in turn: “So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?” (36). Implying that agapaō love is not different from phileō love but in being its active form.

These considerations can hopefully shed some light on the passage we are considering. In fact, from what we saw we better understand why both Jesus and Peter consider friendship a stronger condition for Peter's ministry, that is, more difficult and more necessary a requirement for a collaborative relationship. As if Jesus were saying: "To feed my sheep, your good intention to serve me is not enough. Only if you are my friend and you are therefore also their friend and you feel what I feel and therefore you also feel what they feel, you'll be really able to do the most difficult job of feeding my sheep, otherwise you won't. And Peter was saddened that Jesus was not sure of this feelings, precisely because friendship, unlike agàpe love, is basically a reciprocal feeling.

0

It seems to be as insignificant here as His usage of the πρόβατα and αρνία (sheep) interchangeably. But significant is that He pronounces even the three phrases with identical semantics in three different ways, showing that He is the same God who does not make even two leaves of the same tree or two flakes of the same snow exactly identical but giving to each unique distinctness.

1
  • Another question to look at.
    – Perry Webb
    May 1 at 17:15
0

What are the difficulties in understanding John’s use of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in John 21:15-17?

Ὅτε οὖν ἠρίστησαν λέγει τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρῳ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Σίμων ⸀Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων; λέγει αὐτῷ· ναὶ κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε. λέγει αὐτῷ· βόσκε τὰ ⸁ἀρνία μου. 16 ⸂λέγει αὐτῷ πάλιν⸃ ⸀δεύτερον· Σίμων ⸁Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με; λέγει αὐτῷ· ναὶ κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε. λέγει αὐτῷ· ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατά μου. 17 λέγει αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον· Σίμων Ἰωάννου, φιλεῖς με; ἐλυπήθη ὁ Πέτρος ὅτι εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον· φιλεῖς με; καὶ ⸁λέγει αὐτῷ· κύριε, πάντα σὺ οἶδας, σὺ γινώσκεις ὅτι φιλῶ σε. λέγει αὐτῷ ⸂[ὁ Ἰησοῦς]⸃· βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά μου. (NA28)

  1. ἀγαπάω and φιλέω are often used as synonyms, especially in the Septuagint (LXX), the major Greek translation of the Old Testament. In the translations that try to show a difference there is no consensus on how they are meaningfully different for the usage here.

  2. The way John uses ἀγαπάω and φιλέω makes sense if their meanings were slightly different. When Jesus switched to φιλεῖς με from ἀγαπᾷς με, “the third time” τὸ τρίτον has the article while “again a second time” πάλιν δεύτερον does not and has again πάλιν.

If we consider that this conversation most likely took place in Aramaic/Hebrew, does this give us some insight into the difference between what Jesus said and Peter said? Looking at the Septuagint (LXX), the most common Greek translation of the Old Testament, ἀγαπάω predominately translates the Hebrew אהב.

Figure 1. Hebrew words ἀγαπάω translates in the LXX. (Charts generated with Logos Bible Software.) enter image description here

The Greek word φιλέω translates נָשַׁק (kiss) more often than any other word. However, this does not fit the context. The next most common word is the Hebrew אהב. But, of interest is the Hebrew word רֵעַ. It is the most common word for friend in the Hebrew Old Testament (Olyan, S. M. (2017). Friendship in the Hebrew Bible. (J. J. Collins, Ed.) (p. 4). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.). The Greek word for the friend is φίλος, the noun with the same root as φιλέω. Also note the strange translation of רָעָה the noun meaning evil in Jer. 22:22.

Figure 2. Hebrew words φιλέω translates in the LXX. enter image description here

Here is what is happening. The Hebrew רָעָה has three homonyms: [I] vb. pasture, tend, graze; [II] vb. prob. associate with; and [III] *desire, opinion, through, disposition. Also there is the noun רָעָה meaning evil from the root רעע. Thus, while most translators today take רָעָתֵֽךְ in Jer. 22:22 to to come from the noun (“your evil”), the LXX translated it from homonym [II] (“your love/assication”). None the less it show the connection with the second homonym. The Hebrew word רֵעַ has the second homonym as its root.

Hebrew usually uses th particle to express the equivalent of English present tense, thus רֹעֶה for for the second homonym, or meaning, “that I love/(am associated with) you.” But, the same phrase if interpreted as with the first homonym means, “that I am shepherd with you,” or “that I graze you.”

The homonyms of רָעָה gains significance when looking at the words βόσκω and ποιμαίνω related to tending sheep. The most frequent word that they translate is the first homonym of רָעָה. It appears that Jesus made a word play on Peter’s words.

Figure 3. Hebrew words βόσκω translates in the LXX. enter image description here

Figure 4. Hebrew words ποιμαίνω translates in the LXX. enter image description here

Figure 5. Translating John 21:15-17 into Hebrew to show the word play.

![enter image description here

What significance did אהב and רָעָה have? אהב is how to say like in Hebrew as well as love. Thus, what Jesus said could be translated, “Do you like me more than these?” “These” is just as ambiguous in Hebrew as in Greek and English, and the ambiguity was probably intentional. It could refer to Peter going back to his old life of fishing (these things) and well as referring to the other disciples with him (these people).

While רֵעַ is the most common Hebrew word for friend in the Old Testament, it is more commonly used in the sense of neighbor and is used almost as often for countryman as it is for friend. Thus, the verb has the connotation common loyalty or association. In a sense Peter was saying “My loyalty still belongs to you in spite of denying you.”

רָעָה … vb. prob. associate with -- Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (1977). In Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (p. 945). Clarendon Press.

Figure 6. Senses of רֵעַ in the New Testament. enter image description here

Peter probably felt like a failure and unworthy after denying Christ, influencing him to return to his old life of fishing. There were other connections in the setting, ἀνθρακιά charcoal fire, used only in John 18:18 and 21:9 in the New Testament. This connection emphasizes Christ repeating the call to reinstate Peter.

Looking at the possible and most likely Hebrew/Aramaic of Jesus conversation doesn’t add much to what the context already tells us, but it is significant in another way. The underlying word play and fit to the context supports the historical authenticity of Jesus’ conversation. The historical significance of this is that it is a conversation of the resurrected Christ, thus a witness to the historicity of Christ’s resurrection.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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