Agape love

[Jac3510]

So we've all heard for years and years that there are at least two types of love in the Bible: agape-love and phileo-love. The former is supposed to be the selfish type of love that comes from God. It's God's kind of love, we are told. On the other hand, phileo-love is supposed to be more of a brotherly type love. Some people even talk of eros-love, from which we get the idea of erotic or sexual love, maybe even lust.

Here's the problem with that. 2 Sam 13:1 says:

• Now it was after this that Absalom the son of David had a beautiful sister whose name was Tamar, and Amnon the son of David loved her.

Anyone want to guess was word the LXX uses to translate "loved"? Agape. Here's a link if you want to see it yourselves.

So, just food for thought . . . it is likely that in classical Greek, those distinctions we like to talk about existed and were used. But, it is also likely that those distinctions were gone by the time Koine Greek took over.

Thoughts?

[FFC]

So we've all heard for years and years that there are at least two types of love in the Bible: agape-love and phileo-love. The former is supposed to be the selfish type of love that comes from God. It's God's kind of love, we are told. On the other hand, phileo-love is supposed to be more of a brotherly type love. Some people even talk of eros-love, from which we get the idea of erotic or sexual love, maybe even lust.

Here's the problem with that. 2 Sam 13:1 says:

• Now it was after this that Absalom the son of David had a beautiful sister whose name was Tamar, and Amnon the son of David loved her.

Anyone want to guess was word the LXX uses to translate "loved"? Agape. Here's a link if you want to see it yourselves.

So, just food for thought . . . it is likely that in classical Greek, those distinctions we like to talk about existed and were used. But, it is also likely that those distinctions were gone by the time Koine Greek took over.

Thoughts?

I did try to read your link but it is all Greek to me

[ttoews]

FFC's bit of wit drew my attention to this.

Here's the problem with that. 2 Sam 13:1 says:

• Now it was after this that Absalom the son of David had a beautiful sister whose name was Tamar, and Amnon the son of David loved her.

Anyone want to guess was word the LXX uses to translate "loved"? Agape.

it seems that agape was used throughout the septuagint for all sorts of love...perhaps the non-Christian Jews missed the significance of the distinction?

So, just food for thought . . . it is likely that in classical Greek, those distinctions we like to talk about existed and were used.

look at this bit from Wikipedia....There we read that "Agape appears in the Odyssey twice, wherein the word describes something which creates contentment within the speaker. It is this usage that is most common in later texts, where agape is used to describe one's feeling about a certain meal, one's feelings towards their children". So it seems that in the classic of classics the distinction is not found at all...nor is it found in the later ancient texts

But, it is also likely that those distinctions were gone by the time Koine Greek took over.

but it is with the NT and the early church fathers that the distinction is most pronounced (which flies in the face of your speculative conclusion)...at first glance it would seem that you have got it exactly backwards

[Jac3510]

Actually, I had made the assumption that the fine distinctions between agape and philos were classical because the general trend in Koine is to reduce nuance. If you are going to assert that these words took on technical meanings that they had not had in the LXX, Josephus, or Philo, you are going to have to prove that.

If the entire idea that agape is "God's kind of love" came from the Fathers, we should be even less inclined to believe it. They were well known for their allegory. We are certainly indebted to them for holding to a strong Christology, and prior to Augustine they were pretty much Premill. (though not dispensational). But their soteriology, eccelsiology, etc. got off almost from the get go. In other words, Clament may have seen a distinction, but that hardly means that John did. In the meantime, you have general Greek usage without distinction, including the LXX. That's not helpful to someone who thinks agape and philos are different types of love.

[FFC]

Actually, I had made the assumption that the fine distinctions between agape and philos were classical because the general trend in Koine is to reduce nuance. If you are going to assert that these words took on technical meanings that they had not had in the LXX, Josephus, or Philo, you are going to have to prove that.

If the entire idea that agape is "God's kind of love" came from the Fathers, we should be even less inclined to believe it. They were well known for their allegory. We are certainly indebted to them for holding to a strong Christology, and prior to Augustine they were pretty much Premill. (though not dispensational). But their soteriology, eccelsiology, etc. got off almost from the get go. In other words, Clament may have seen a distinction, but that hardly means that John did. In the meantime, you have general Greek usage without distinction, including the LXX. That's not helpful to someone who thinks agape and philos are different types of love.

What is the bottom line, Jac? Are you saying that there are no differences between the different kinds of love in the greek? I'm only asking because I'm confused.

[Jac3510]

I'm saying that the different "types" of love in Greek are not different types at all. The words were chosen, most likely, for two reasons: 1) word variation and style. Another good example of this, again in John, is 1 John 1:1 -

• 1What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life (NASB)

The bolded words are different in Greek. The first is ewrakamen, which means "we have seen." The second is etheasametha, which means "we saw." Some people want to see a complentative thought in the second word, and it may be there, but that's probably not what John was specifically getting at. It just seems that he was writing for style here . . .

2) Greek idiom. Certain words naturally go with certain other words, even if they mean the same thing. In English, the words "trust" and "rely on" mean the same things. But when was the last time you heard someone say "Hey, rely on me!" Sure, people do, but "trust me" is much more common.

Philos seemed to go with ideas moreso than agape . . . thus, philosophy is "love of wisdom." Now, I wouldn't push this point too hard. I've not looked into it heavy enough. I'm just saying that, from what I've seen, philos seems to be a word used with reference to concepts, though very often with people, whereas agape was used with reference to people more consistently. But, again, I could be wrong here. It's just an impression I've gotten.

The bottom line is that I don't think it is wise to build an idea, much less a theological position, on some apparent distinction between agape and philos. We don't need to be talking about "God's kind of love." The implications are subtle, but they are there . . .

[FFC]

Jhn 21:15 So 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, "Tend My lambs."
Jhn 21:16 He *said to him again 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, "Shepherd My sheep."
Jhn 21:17 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 all things; You know that I love You." Jesus *said to him, "Tend My sheep.

Here is the classic example of the different words for love going back and forth between Jesus and Peter that some Christians make a deal about but which I find confusing.

Twice Jesus asked Peter if he loved (agape) him the third time Jesus asked if Peter loved (phileo) him. All three times Peter responded that he loved (phileo) him.

Can somebody explain what I'm not getting here?

[Jac3510]

I think this is a good example that proves my point. Is it likely that Peter and Jesus were speaking Greek or Aramaic? Most likely the latter, right? So, they probably wouldn't have used two separate words. John probably just used the different words for stylistic reasons.

I know we look at that and go, "Well, there just has to be a reason John would use the words like that!" But, if you remember that the words meant the same thing to John, and that he had no idea such a debate would come up, there's no reason to think that he WOULD have used the words in a specific sense. Just consider an English example:

Bob: Can I rely on you to get this job done, by tomorrow, John?
John: Absolutely, boss! You can trust me on this!
Bob: John . . . really, I need to know that I can rely on you here.
John: Bob, seriously - you can trust me.
Bob: . . . Alright, I'm trusting you . . . don't let me down!
John: Like I said, trust away. Consider it in the bag.

Would you read any special meaning in the different usages of "trust" and "rely on" here? On the flip side, read it with nothing but "trust":

Bob: Can I trust you to get this job done, by tomorrow, John?
John: Absolutely, boss! You can trust me on this!
Bob: John . . . really, I need to know that I can trust you here.
John: Bob, seriously - you can trust me.
Bob: . . . Alright, I'm trusting you . . . don't let me down!
John: Like I said, trust away. Consider it in the bag.

Kind of off, isn't it? Now, Greek did use the same word over and over to emphasize a point, but that may be another reason, now that I think about it, for John not to have used agape repeatedly. Maybe he didn't want us to get the idea that "love" is the all important concept. He was calling Peter to action, not to an emotion. So, rather than emphasize a word, which is what would have happened given Greek usage, he could have used a synonym to keep the emphasis in the right place.

Thoughts?

edit: Ah, another thought just popped into my head :p

If Reformed theologians are going to be so hard on the love/obey issue, AND they are going to maintain the distinction between agape-love and philo-love, they have a problem.

• If you love me, you will obey what I command. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. (John 14:15, 24)

In both cases, the word here is "love." So, let's assume there is a distinction. If you agape-love Jesus, you will follow his commandments. If you don't agape-love Jesus, you will not obey His commandments. And we all know that those who don't obey Christ's commandments don't abide in Him, and that's evidence that they aren't saved!

But Peter didn't agape-love Jesus in John 21! In fact, when preachers and theologians make a sermon on this, they talk about Peter not yet being at that level of love for Christ, so Jesus met him where he was. Jesus sort of came down to Peter's level . . . lowered the bar, so to speak. What I am saying is that this is basically an affirmation that Peter did NOT agape-love Jesus--at least, not YET. But, Jesus said if you don't agape-love Him then you won't keep His commandments! So, why should we think that Peter would ever keep the command to feed the sheep if he only philo-loved Jesus. And, of course, it begs the question, was Peter really saved if he didn't agape-love Jesus.

See, the problems are huge. On the other hand, just don't read into the words meanings that aren't there, and none of this is an issue