What is the difference between agapao and phileo

The glorious hope of everlasting life that we share is a gift from our Heavenly Father, whose love was the prime motivation in sacrificing His Son for us John A recognition of this fact naturally leads us to demonstrate love to one another. The Apostle John says as much in his First Epistle:.

Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. Do not even the tax collectors do the same? Jesus explains that this requires an attitude that goes beyond mere reciprocation, and uses the hated tax collectors as an example of how not to demonstrate this.

In considering the theme of love in the New Testament, the Apostle John tends to become a focus, and for good reason. We have already seen that the commonly-assumed distinction between the two words cannot always be upheld across the gospels as a whole. The following table surveys the various ways in which he uses both words:. These examples show that John uses both words more-or-less synonymously, a point agreed on by virtually all modern commentators[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16].

To insist upon a rigid definition for either term is an over-simplification, and often cannot be supported by the text. This is not to say that both words are completely synonymous in every instance, but rather that their meanings substantially overlap.

The point is that simply appealing to the underlying Greek word in order to determine meaning is fallacious. Meaning is determined by context, which should be uppermost in our minds when studying any word. This leads us finally to a consideration of the well-known exchange between the Apostle Peter and Jesus in John The relevant verses are as follows:.

Those who note the shift and assume it to be theologically significant usually interpret the passage in a way similar to the following:. Jesus asks Peter if he loves him unreservedly with a divine, self-sacrificing love. Peter replies that he does love his Master, but only with a natural, human affection.

Perhaps an historical over-emphasis on word meanings in this instance has blinded us to a simple explanation. In conclusion, none of this is to say that there is nothing special about the love of God. On the contrary, scripture teaches us that there is great deal that is special about it.

But to appeal to a single word as exclusively expressing all the qualities of divine love is illegitimate, and should be avoided in our study of scripture. Skip to content Use and abuse in the gospels. Human or Divine? Those who note the shift and assume it to be theologically significant usually interpret the passage in a way similar to the following: Jesus asks Peter if he loves him unreservedly with a divine, self-sacrificing love. It does not propose any reason for Jesus questioning Peter three times.

The conversation most likely took place in Aramaic, not Greek. Here is an opportunity for him to confess a love for his Lord not once, but three times. The idea of unselfish unconditional love does not hold here. Can this be an unconditional love? This is clearly not unselfish.

This cannot be the traditionally godly love. A few examples will suffice:. The two words are also used interchangeably together also. Here a few examples:.

Therefore both words have been used with reference to these seats of power. God loves Jesus with both kinds of love. Moreover, no reliable distinction can be drawn from the LXX usage of the two words either. In 2 Samuel 13 when Amnon raped Tamar, both verbs were used in the same context. In Proverbs both verbs were used again, for the same Hebrew word. Apostle John frequently uses stylistic variations of his own in different occasions with reference to different pairs of words.

This is a rather common practice of the fourth evangelist. Jesus is repeating the question three times to show Peter the importance of ministry. If we say we love Jesus we should show that love practically in loving them as Jesus loved them. The repetition usually was used in the Bible in order to convey the importance two times and highest degree three times of something. If such distinction exists it should be decided in individual passages, locally and not generalized over the entire Bible.

It was also rarely used with religions connotations. It describes a fondness, a responsive type love. One might picture phileo by the declarations "I love you because you love me" or "I love you because you are a joy", both of these showing the reciprocal nature of phileo love. Phileo describes the fondness of religious hypocrites for the "spotlight" so to speak Mt , Matthew , Luke Phileo describes Judas' kiss of betrayal of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels see diagram!

Matthew , Mark , Luke Phileo is used in one of the more pithy statements of Jesus when He declared "He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal. Henry Morris says that "The importance of this principle is indicated by the fact that Christ cites it more than any other of His teachings Matthew ; ; Mark ; Luke ; In slightly different form, it is also enunciated frequently by Paul Romans ,2; 2 Corinthians ,15; ,10; Galatians ; Philippians ; 2 Timothy , The man whose priorities are right, who makes the things of God primary, will keep his life eternally cf.

Following the Master v. Luke , disciples hating mother and father; Rom. S Lewis Johnson - Phileo refers to the love of affection, the love that arises between individuals who have mutual interests. The world loves those who are its kindred spirits cf.

John The Lord has such love for His own cf. John ; ; 1 Cor The Father loves the Son with this type of love John , and the sons also John And Paul uses the word to refer to the love of disciples for him in the faith Titus Bibliotheca Sacra. Since that was the case, the Lord entrusted Peter with the shepherding of His flock. In sum, phileo is the love that has tender affections for another, but it always expects a response.

In a marriage, eros love makes us lovers, and phileo love makes us dear friends. In phileo love we share thoughts and feelings and attitudes and plans and dreams. This type of "love" for another emanates chiefly from one's heart emotions, will whereas agapao selfless love originates from the "head" as a choice one makes independent of the loveliness or unloveliness of the recipient.

One might argue that this distinction is somewhat arbitrary because apagao type love actually originates from the Holy Spirit in us activating our will and enabling our mind to display selfless love. There is no natural way to display genuine selfless love other than by reliance on the supernatural empowerment of the Spirit. In short agapao is not humanly possible except by divine enablement!

Phileo describes the love of the disciples for Jesus "for the Father Himself loves [phileo] you, because you have loved [phileo] Me, and have believed that I came forth from the Father. Believers are never told to love their enemies with a phileo love because that would imply one has to have the same interests as the enemy.

When Scripture speaks of the divine love which God is, and which He produces in the heart of the yielded believer, phileo is never used. Agapao is a love springing from a sense of the preciousness of the object loved. Phileo arises from a sense of pleasure found in the object loved.

John's use of agapao helps emphasize the difference in agapao and phileo. In his second epistle John opens by writing The elder to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not only I, but also all who know the truth 2 John Phileo speaks of finding pleasure in something but not that "something" is not always another person, as indicated by the following uses Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.

He tells her that he loves her and her children with a Christian love, a love produced in his heart by the Holy Spirit, a pure, self-sacrificial, heavenly, non-human love devoid of any sex relation. That is, the love with which he loved this well-known woman of position in the Church was circumscribed by the truth as it is in Christ Jesus. It was in connection with the Word of God that he loved her.

His love for her had to do with Christian relationships in the Church life and work. The example of John in all this could well be emulated in these days. As a rule, these distinctions are rigidly adhered to in the use of these words in the New Testament. Wuest, K. Paul writes "If anyone does not love phileo the Lord, let him be accursed. Renner - phileo , which describes affection— such as the affection felt between a boyfriend and girlfriend or the affability shared between two friends.

It carries the idea of two or more people who feel compatible, well-matched, well-suited, and complementary to each other. Although this word describes the attributes of friendship, it is not representative of the highest form of love, which is agape. Other words derived from the word phileo are numerous. When these two words are compounded together, it means brotherly love. When compounded together, it means one who is a lover of pleasure.

When compounded together in this form, it carries the idea of one who loves to be hospitable. However, the word philoxenia places more emphasis on love for the person in need of hospitality. Compounded together, it means one who loves or who is kind to mankind. Compounded together, it means one who is covetous or one who loves money. When these two words are compounded together into one, it becomes the word philosophy, which is a love of wisdom. Bishop Trench in his Synonyms of the New Testament compares agapao 25 and phileo