The above view of the matter is apparently also the view that Spicq held, and which Robert Joly refutes towards the end of his celebrated study, Le vocabulaire chrétien de l'amour est-il original? : Φιλεῖν et Ἀγαπᾶν dans le grec antique.NIDNTTE wrote: Special attention is usually given to the well-known dialogue between Peter and the risen Jesus in John 21:15–17; here the alternation between ἀγαπάω (which Jesus uses the first two times he asks, “Do you love me?”) and φιλέω (which Jesus uses the third time and Peter uses in his answer all three times) naturally raises the expectation that some semantic distinction is intended. B. F. Westcott (The Gospel according to St. John [1882], 303) argued that by using the second vb. Peter “lays claim only to the feeling of natural love...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.” This view has been widely accepted and seems to be reflected in the earlier NIV rendering of ἀγαπάω as “truly love” (1984 ed.; the word “truly” is omitted in the 2011 ed.).
I myself disagree with Joly's last sentence, but I believe his refutation of the common view that ἀγαπᾶν is a superior kind of love to φιλεῖν is valid. Bernard in his ICC commentary also points out that Peter's prefacing his first two replies with ναί ("Yes, indeed") does not suit this view.R Joly, p. 55 [my translation from the French] wrote: The first two times, Jesus uses ἀγαπάω and Peter φιλἐω; the third time, both of them use φιλἐω. Spicq believes that in Peter's mouth φιλέω, denoting human affection, is more modest, and then Jesus, moved by the fervour with which Peter makes his second reply, uses the same verb as he does.
Such subtleties! Before accepting them, it would be necessary to deal with two difficulties that they themselves raise. First of all, how can Jesus reply "Feed my sheep" to a disciple who only professes human affection? Then again, if one repeats the same thing three times, it is for the sake of progression to a climax, but in Spicq's exegesis we come to the opposite result: we fall from the heights of agape love to mere human affection, whereas in the immediately following context it is a matter of Peter's religious function. The only way to avoid these major difficulties is to maintain, here as elsewhere, the strict synonymy of the two verbs.
Bernard wrote: This is fatal to the idea that Peter will not claim that he loves Jesus with the higher form of love called ἀγάπη, but that he ventures only to say that he has φιλία for his Master. For why should he say "Yes," if he means "No"?
To continue with NIDNTTE:
This view of the matter seems also to have its difficulties. It may be questioned whether in the light of John 15.13 μείζονα ταύτης ἀγάπην οὐδεὶς ἔχει, ἵνα τις τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ θῇ ὑπὲρ τῶν φίλων αὐτοῦ, Peter would find ἀγαπᾶν "far too cold" a word. Also, if Peter's warm affection did "triumph" in persuading Jesus to change to φιλεῖν, it appears at least that the narrator did not see it that way, as he says Peter was saddened (ἐλυπήθη).NIDNTTE wrote:Trench (42–43) also sees a distinction, but his understanding is almost exactly the opp. of Westcott’s! According to Trench, ἀγαπάω involves “respect and reverence,” and thus to Peter this word “sounds far too cold” and fails to express “the warmth of his affection.” “He therefore in his answer substitutes for the ἀγαπᾷς of Christ the word of a more personal love, φιλῶ σε... And this he does not on the first occasion only, but again upon a second. And now at length he has triumphed; for when his Lord puts the question to him a third time, it is not ἀγαπᾷς any more, but φιλεῖς.”
The conclusions of Westcott and Trench are contradictory in one sense, but they agree in another sense, as they both proceed from the assumption that Peter found Jesus' use of ἀγαπᾶν problematic.NIDNTTE wrote:That two erudite Gk. scholars should reach such contradictory conclusions raises doubts about the validity of the enterprise.
But instead of supposing that John uses the two verbs with identical meaning, I suggest that Peter's reply is intended to assent to the whole proposition ἀγαπᾷς με πλεῖον τούτων; in other words φιλῶ σε = ἀγαπῶ σε πλεῖον τούτων. Peter is claiming to be Jesus' close friend in the sense of John 15.14-15, the people with whom the big man shares his plans and thoughts. If φιλεῖν were interchangeable with ἀγαπᾶν, Peter's reply would not have answered the question, whereas his ναί suggests he has.