What isphileolove?

For both agapao and phileo the A.V. translators have only one word — "love"; and, though it might be hard to find another rendering, a very real distinction of Scripture is sometimes thus lost. agapao is the word of ordinary use, phileo being found but seldom. It is not the strength or intensity of the love that makes the difference, but rather the character and scope of it.

phileo (from philos, "friend, dear"), on the other hand, is of narrower bearing; it describes the intimacy of love, and is more instinctive and emotional, the love of feeling and endearment, of personal affection; hence this last is never the subject of command, as agapao often is. The two verbs are found together in Proverbs 8:17 [LXX]. Wisdom says "I love (ag) them that love (phi) me." And, once the distinction is grasped, it may be traced through the use of them, even where apparently they are interchangeable. It is used for the expression of love, and may sometimes mean (as kataphileo) "to kiss."

As has often been pointed out, our Lord and Peter use two different words for "love." The Lord's is the stronger, more spiritual, word, nearly always used of the love of God. Peter's answer is the word more used in human intercourse and friendship. It does not suggest a weaker love, we may say, but a different plane. Peter would not qualify the intensity of his love, but would shrink from giving it the dignity implied in the other word. Our Lord at last, in the closing question, comes down to Peter's own word, as though to probe to the very bottom that once self-confident but now self-distrusting heart. Throughout, Peter casts himself upon the knowledge of the Lord rather than his own protestation. "Thou knowest that I love Thee." Precious is the grace which does not even name the sin, save in this holy implication, and yet which so effectually probes to the very bottom that it leaves its holy savor where once had been the roots of pride; at the same time, with no bitterness of humiliation connected with the searching of divine grace.

This is ever the way of our Lord; and instead of setting one aside from service, the poor wandering sheep now brought back is entrusted with the care of the Lord's lambs and sheep. Two different words are also used here. It is, "Feed My lambs" and "Shepherd My sheep." Lambs need not so much correction and control as the nourishment which will insure their growth. This, too, is needed by the sheep as well, and therefore the last word is "feed" as well as "shepherd" My sheep.

While the Lord appeared personally to Peter the very day of His resurrection, by which the personal restoration of Peter was surely fully accomplished without a word of this known to the other disciples, yet the Lord has allowed further time to pass before now dealing with Peter in relation to the other disciples. It is precious to see that the Lord Jesus would allow no passage of time after His resurrection before seeking out His conscience-stricken sheep to restore him to personal communion with Himself. But public restoration always takes a little longer, that the Lord may reach deeper still into the soul in order that His servant may be more properly fitted for public service in true humility of faith. More than this, He has the object also of reaching the hearts and consciences of the other disciples, who must learn to judge themselves rather than have any remaining feeling of criticism of their fellow-servant, and thus to wholeheartedly rejoice in his restoration.

Gently the Lord asks, “Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me more than these?” For Simon had before compared himself with others, saying that, though all forsook the Lord, yet he would not, thereby implying that he loved the Lord more than they did. The Greek word for love here is “agape,“ a word of strong import, used as to God's love for His Son and toward the world, a pure concern for the greatest good of its object. But in response Peter declines to use this word, but uses the word, “phileo” instead, a word that denotes tender affection: “You know that I have affection for You.” In other words, he can no longer trust the strength of his love, but he is honestly attached to the Lord. Nor can he think of saying, “More than these,” after his experience of failure when tested.

Accordingly, the first question Jesus addresses to him is this: "Lovest thou me more than these?" The word used for "Lovest thou" in the original (agapas) in the two first questions of the Lord to Peter, implies love of the highest character, as we find it used of the love of God, (John 3:16) where the Greek word is the same, and so in 1 John 3:4 and throughout the New Testament. That is, the Lord asks Peter, whether he loved Him with the highest, i.e. with perfect love; and, secondly, whether he loved Him more than his fellow-disciples did. To this Peter replies, "Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee, with the love of a friend." The Greek word is here philo, as much as to say: "O Lord, how dare I, after my disgraceful conduct, presume to say, that I love Thee with the highest love! I love Thee with the love of a friend. That is all I may venture to say, after what I have learnt of my treacherous, wretched heart. And as to saying: I love Thee more than these, or, if all should be offended with Thee, I not, how dare I entertain even the thought of it? For if I am to be judged by my conduct, I love Thee less than all my fellow-disciples!" So Peter only replies: "Yea, Lord, I love Thee with the love of a friend."

Here you observe the Lord changes His query by changing the word which expresses love. In the first two questions He had said, agapas me. Peter, on each occasion, replies, philo se. The Lord's word for "love" is that used for divine love, which never fails; Peter's, that which expresses brotherly affection — which often fails, as in his own case towards the Lord. On the third occasion the Lord comes down to Peter's word, and says, pheileis me, i.e., Are you attached to Me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, Are you attached to me?" And now, as it were, he flings open the doors of his heart. He says, As I look back at what my path has been, others might well doubt, but "Thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee." He, so to speak, opens the doors of his heart, that Christ may look down into the deep recesses of that heart. He acknowledges that it required divine penetration to discover that he, who had boasted of more love than any for Christ, had any love at all.

In John 3:35 we learn that "the Father loves (ag) the Son, and has given all things into his hand." The English is alike in John 5:20; but here, in presence of the surging enmity of those of Jerusalem, the Lord Jesus retreats into His known place in the most intimate love of the Father; "the Father loves (phi) the Son," and we have the Father's resulting resolve that all men shall honour Him, and the measures taken to secure it. In John 11:5 we have the formal statement of the place the little circle at Bethany had for the heart of the Lord Jesus: "Jesus loved (ag) Martha, etc. But the sister's appeal (ver. 3) goes upon the ground of what they had the best right to know, namely, the personal affection of the Lord for their brother, "he whom thou lovest (phi) is sick," and it is this that comes home to the Jews when they see Him weep. "Behold how he loved (phi) him" (ver. 36.) In John 14, as all through these wonderful chapters of intercourse with His own, the general word for love, agapao, is used, except at John 16:27, which makes the change the more marked; indicating the very special character, personal and intimate, of the Father's love for those who have found a common object of love in His beloved Son, "the Father himself loves (phi) you because ye have loved (phi) me," etc.

But perhaps our greatest loss has been in missing, through the one translation "love," the delicate and subtle forces of grace that appear in the ways of the Lord with Peter in John 21 by the use of the two words. Peter, though in a way restored after his failure, had need to be restored to communion with the Lord. Not a word had passed as to it during the meal; but now, probably in allusion to Peter's boastful confidence in himself, that had been the root of his fall, "Jesus saith, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest (ag) thou me more than do these?" using the ordinary word. Peter can only cast himself upon the Lord and answer, "Thou knowest that I am attached (phi) to thee," using the word of endearing affection. Again the Lord puts the question, using still the general word "lovest (ag) thou me?" Peter replying by phileo. He saith unto him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonas" — but now in grace adopts Peter's word as appropriate — "art thou attached (phi) to me?" "And he saith unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I am attached (phi) to thee."

The force thus given to the word phileo may be further seen in its being used of father and mother in Matthew 10:37 and one's own life in John 12:25. Paul uses it only twice: 1 Cor. 16:22 in full keeping with what we have found to be the rule in other passages, and in Titus 3:15.

There is one other rendering of phileo in the three Synoptic Gospels in the awful case of Judas' "kiss," the outward sign of endearment, made possible by the terms of familiar intimacy to which he had been admitted with the Lord: "Mine own familiar friend … has lifted up his heel against me."

John 21:15-17. G__y enquires what is the difference between ἀγαπάω and φιλέω? You will observe that Jesus says to Peter the first and second times ἀγαπᾳσ me, and that Peter replies φιλῶ σε. The third time, Jesus says φιλεῖσ me. It has remarked that one means "love," and the other simply "friendly feeling." But on referring to the Englishman's Greek Concordance, I find φιλῶ used in John 5:20, ("for the Father loveth the Son,") and also in John 15:27, ("for the Father himself loveth you," etc.)

It is not surprising that our correspondent is little satisfied with the usual explanation. The true difference seems to be simple. Ἀγαπάω is the generic term for loving, and is applicable in all directions — to superiors, inferiors and equals. It is said of God's feeling toward man, and of man's toward God. It is predicated of God's love in giving His only-begotten Son, and of Christ's love in giving Himself for the Church. On the other hand, φιλῶ seems to be a narrower word, and properly implies special affection and endearment. Hence it is often used to describe the outward sign of fondness and also vaguely that feeling which produces a habit of certain actions, though this last is true of ἀγαπάω also. Both are said of God's love to His Son. The notion that ἀγαπάω denotes reverential love, and φιλέω mere human affection is untenable. We are not called to love our enemies reverentially. (Matt. 5:43-44; Matt. 6:24.) Nor was it thus that Christ loved the rich young man; nor will it be pretended that God reverentially loved the world. Yet this is not a tithe, perhaps, of the absurdity that attends such a thought. As little can φιλέω be reduced to the purely human regard of the heart. It is not so that the Father loves the Son or even us; nor can anything be more opposed to the true scope of 1 Corinthians 16:22; Titus 3:15; Revelation 3:19, etc., where φιλέω occurs.

John 21:15-17. Vol. III. 101, 268. — I do not think that the student will get much satisfaction by reading the remarks of the Rev. H. Alford on this affecting scene. There is more perhaps in what the Rev. R. C. Trench has observed in his New Testament Synonyms. But the true difference seems to me much more simple than either of these gentlemen apprehend. Αγαπαω is the broad, generic term for loving. It is susceptible of all applications, of superiors, inferiors, and equals. It is predicated of God towards man, and of man towards God. It describes God's feeling towards the world in giving His only begotten Son: it describes Christ's tender and full affection towards the Church. On the other hand, φιλεω is a narrower word: it is distinctively the love of feeling, of endearment; and hence frequently it is used of the outward sign of fondness, and also in a vague way of that fondness which produces the habit of this or that action, though this is true of αγαπαω too. Both are said of God's love to His Son. Mr. A., if I remember rightly, considers that the Lord drops the word of reverential love (αγαπαω) which He had twice used, comes down to the word of human affection, Peter's own word (φιλεω), and this third time questions, not merely his loyal love for his Master, but the very human regard of his heart. On the contrary, it appears to me, that while the Lord thoroughly judges Peter's confidence in his own love to Him, in its so exceeding that of others, that He could stand where they fled, He not only hears Peter's repeated declaration of his true and near affection for Him, but Himself takes it up the third time, and that this, flashing on Peter's three-fold denial, went to his inmost heart. The Greek concordance utterly dissolves the idea that reverential love is the dominant thought in αγαπαω. We are not called so to love our enemies, nor even our neighbours (Matt. 5:43-44; Matt. 6:24). Nor was it so that Christ loved the rich young man; and certainly none can pretend that God reverentially loved the world (John 3:16), and this is not a tithe, perhaps, of the absurdity that follows Mr. A.'s distinction, if I understand him. As little can φιλεω be reduced to the mere human regard of the heart. It is not thus that the Father loves the Son (John 5:20), or even us (John 16:27); nor can anything be more opposed, as it appears to me, to the true scope of 1 Cor. 16:22; Titus 3:15; Rev. 3:19, where φιλεω occurs. Let the reader judge.

291 In our Lord's speaking with Peter (John 21), two words are used: phileo (I am attached) is more intimate, agapao (I love) is more general. Peter says, I love you with the intimacy of a friend. It is curious, that, though the verb phileo is used, the noun from it is never used in the Greek. The Lord uses the general word first, and probes his heart; and then again, "Lovest thou me?" and the third time He says, "Affectionest thou me?" "I not only love you," says Peter, "but have affection for you." I think there is great instruction there. The Lord never reproaches Peter, but goes to detect the root that had produced the fault: and Peter is not really restored until he had judged the root. I do not mean that he may not have confessed it honestly, but he is in danger of the same again. The moment he had been put to the test, he did not know the Lord at all, and nothing but divine knowledge could have said that he loved Him. Divine knowledge could say all things; and then, when the Lord has completely humbled him, He puts entire confidence in him: "Feed my sheep." The very thing Christ loves most on this earth He trusts to this man. It was a complete destruction of Peter's self-confidence, and then he knew what the resource for a poor sheep was: since he had judged himself thoroughly, he knew where to take the sheep. The Lord never can trust anybody that trusts himself. It is not that a person is not sincere. Peter was perfectly sincere, but he did not know himself.