John 21 ἀγαπάω / φιλέω

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Tony Pope
Posts: 134
Joined: July 14th, 2011, 6:20 pm

Re: John 21 ἀγαπάω / φιλέω

Post by Tony Pope »

I'm not convinced either by the views that the NIDNTTE piece combats or the view that it promotes.
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.).
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.”
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:That two erudite Gk. scholars should reach such contradictory conclusions raises doubts about the validity of the enterprise.
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.
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.
David Lee
Posts: 17
Joined: April 19th, 2013, 7:19 am

Re: John 21 ἀγαπάω / φιλέω

Post by David Lee »

Tony Pope wrote: 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.
So you're suggesting that Peter's use of φιλῶ is a stronger claim than ἀγαπῶ?
Tony Pope wrote: If φιλεῖν were interchangeable with ἀγαπᾶν, Peter's reply would not have answered the question, whereas his ναί suggests he has.
I don't think the premise here is as clear cut. If you look at the second question and answer, Jesus simply asks, "ἀγαπᾷς με;", and Peter responds with a Ναί here as well. Here then, Peter's reply of φιλῶ σε answers the question of ἀγαπᾷς με, even without the qualifier πλεῖον τούτων.

Perhaps something worth a second look would be what's in focus when the author writes, "λέγει αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον". If it means "he said a third time", then it lends itself to the view that all three of Jesus' questions were the same, whereas if it means "he said the third time", then it might be highlighting the fact that the third question was different than the previous two.
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: John 21 ἀγαπάω / φιλέω

Post by cwconrad »

David Lee wrote:
Tony Pope wrote: 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.
So you're suggesting that Peter's use of φιλῶ is a stronger claim than ἀγαπῶ?
Tony Pope wrote: If φιλεῖν were interchangeable with ἀγαπᾶν, Peter's reply would not have answered the question, whereas his ναί suggests he has.
I don't think the premise here is as clear cut. If you look at the second question and answer, Jesus simply asks, "ἀγαπᾷς με;", and Peter responds with a Ναί here as well. Here then, Peter's reply of φιλῶ σε answers the question of ἀγαπᾷς με, even without the qualifier πλεῖον τούτων.

Perhaps something worth a second look would be what's in focus when the author writes, "λέγει αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον". If it means "he said a third time", then it lends itself to the view that all three of Jesus' questions were the same, whereas if it means "he said the third time", then it might be highlighting the fact that the third question was different than the previous two.
And the triple affirmation matches the triple denial of Peter in the high priest's courtyard.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: John 21 ἀγαπάω / φιλέω

Post by Stephen Hughes »

David Lee wrote:Perhaps something worth a second look would be what's in focus when the author writes, "λέγει αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον". If it means "he said a third time", then it lends itself to the view that all three of Jesus' questions were the same, whereas if it means "he said the third time", then it might be highlighting the fact that the third question was different than the previous two.
If someone were to go shopping τὸ τρίτον (either a or the) it wouldn't mean they bought the same things all over again.

Of course there is some repetition, but the structure of the phrase makes it clear that he is not saying the same thing, because it actually tells us / quotes what is being said, and they are not the same.

Perhaps it is a subtle difference, but I take τὸ τρίτον here in John 21 as a narrative device, not as a repetition of the same event exactly.

In Mark 14, ἔρχεται καὶ εὑρίσκει (vs.37) and asked why they were sleeping, ὑποστρέψας εὗρεν αὐτοὺς πάλιν (vs.40 Byz 2005 text) / (πάλιν ἐλθὼν εὗρεν αὐτοὺς NAUBS text) and just looked at them (they couldn't even respond to his coming), and ἔρχεται τὸ τρίτον , καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς (vs.41) and told them to have their rest. The coming was presumably the same, but what happened each time was different. In Luke 23, there is a narrative in three steps constructed around adverbs none (vs.14), πάλιν (vs.20), τρίτον (vs.22).

We find another example of this in Xenophon, Hellenica 3.3.4,
Τὰ Ἑλληνικὰ τοῦ Ξενοφώντος 3.3.4 wrote:Οὔπω δ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν ὄντος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ Ἀγησιλάου, θύοντος αὐτοῦ τῶν τεταγμένων τινὰ θυσιῶν ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως εἶπεν ὁ μάντις ὅτι ἐπιβουλήν τινα τῶν δεινοτάτων φαίνοιεν οἱ θεοί. ἐπεὶ δὲ πάλιν ἔθυεν, ἔτι δεινότερα ἔφη τὰ ἱερὰ φαίνεσθαι. τὸ τρίτον δὲ θύοντος, εἶπεν· Ὦ Ἀγησίλαε, ὥσπερ εἰ ἐν αὐτοῖς εἴημεν τοῖς πολεμίοις, οὕτω μοι σημαίνεται. ἐκ δὲ τούτου θύοντες καὶ τοῖς ἀποτροπαίοις καὶ τοῖς σωτῆρσι, καὶ μόλις καλλιερήσαντες, ἐπαύσαντο.
Where sacrificing forms the basis of the narrative.

In contrast to that, I think that in 2 Corinthians 12:14 (and 13:1) the τρίτον is used in the sequence πρῶτον, δεύτερον, τρίτον - the first time he came, the second time he came and the (then forthcoming) third time he came, and he intends to say the same thing.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Tony Pope
Posts: 134
Joined: July 14th, 2011, 6:20 pm

Re: John 21 ἀγαπάω / φιλέω

Post by Tony Pope »

David Lee wrote:So you're suggesting that Peter's use of φιλῶ is a stronger claim than ἀγαπῶ?
In a sense, yes. But I don't go for the emotional distinction that Trench seems to make. From Peter's behaviour as noted earlier in this gospel it's clear that he in particular is portrayed as claiming to be close to Jesus. He is the spokesman insisting that the twelve will remain loyal to him (6.68), he will not have Jesus washing his feet (13.6), he insists he will lay down his life for Jesus (13.37), he defends him with his weapon (18.10). If you admit evidence from other gospels, Matt 26.33 can be added (εἰ πάντες σκανδαλισθήσονται ἐν σοί, ἐγὼ οὐδέποτε σκανδαλισθήσομαι.)
David Lee wrote:
Tony Pope wrote: If φιλεῖν were interchangeable with ἀγαπᾶν, Peter's reply would not have answered the question, whereas his ναί suggests he has.
I don't think the premise here is as clear cut. If you look at the second question and answer, Jesus simply asks, "ἀγαπᾷς με;", and Peter responds with a Ναί here as well. Here then, Peter's reply of φιλῶ σε answers the question of ἀγαπᾷς με, even without the qualifier πλεῖον τούτων.
Fair point. Perhaps another option would be to say that φιλῶ includes ἀγαπῶ but goes further.
David Lee wrote:Perhaps something worth a second look would be what's in focus when the author writes, "λέγει αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον". If it means "he said a third time", then it lends itself to the view that all three of Jesus' questions were the same, whereas if it means "he said the third time", then it might be highlighting the fact that the third question was different than the previous two.
Stephen has answered on this point better than I could have done.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: John 21 ἀγαπάω / φιλέω

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Tony Pope wrote:
David Lee wrote:Perhaps something worth a second look would be what's in focus when the author writes, "λέγει αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον". If it means "he said a third time", then it lends itself to the view that all three of Jesus' questions were the same, whereas if it means "he said the third time", then it might be highlighting the fact that the third question was different than the previous two.
Stephen has answered on this point better than I could have done.
The weakness in what I wrote is the lack of a clear example of "firstly", "secondly" and "thirdly" used together in a text. Here are a few different examples.

I came across this construction in the Gospel of Nicodemus today. It is a very simple speech construction all said together. As an embedded quote, the basic structure is the familiar λέγειν ὅτι, but in this case is broken up with the ordinal adverbs.
Gospel of Nicodemus Part I, Chapter 2, section 2 wrote:Εἶπον οἱ Ἰοθδαῖοι πρὸς αὐτὸν Τί ἔχομεν λέγειν περὶ σοῦ; πρῶτον, ὅτι ἔξ ἁμαρτίας εἶ γεγεννημένος˙ δεύτερον, ὅτι διὰ σὲ, ὅτε ἐγεννήθης, ἐφόνεθσαν τὰ βρέφη˙ τρίτον, ὅτι ὁ πατήρ σου καὶ ἡ μήτηρ σοθ ἔφθγον εἰς τὴν Αἴγυπτον, διὸ οὐδεν εἶχον θάρσος εἰς τὸν λαόν.
Similar to that, there is a list of points made in:
Diogène Laërce, section 33 wrote:τριῶν τούτων ἕνεκα χάριν ἔχειν τῇ Τύχῃ· πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι ἄνθρωπος ἐγενόμην καὶ οὐ θηρίον, εἶτα ὅτι ἀνὴρ καὶ οὐ γυνή, τρίτον ὅτι Ἕλλην καὶ οὐ βάρβαρος.
There are other variants of this phrase, it seems.

There is also an actual list in 1 Corinthians 12:28, (rather than a series of points that are being made):
1 Corinthians 12:28 wrote:Καὶ οὓς μὲν ἔθετο ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, δεύτερον προφήτας, τρίτον διδασκάλους , ἔπειτα δυνάμεις , εἶτα χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων, ἀντιλήψεις, κυβερνήσεις, γένη γλωσσῶν.
In any case, the structure marks the passage as more eloquent and better constructed, perhaps just (rhetorically) separating the things said, rather than necessarily ranking them.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: John 21 ἀγαπάω / φιλέω

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Benjamin Warfield, in his Terminology of Love in the New Testament, part 2, PTR 1918, 155, after reviewing a few cases in the LXX in which φιλέω and ἀγαπάω occur together, concludes:

'In all the combinations of ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν, the higher role is assigned to ἀγαπᾶν.'

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3myvz ... sp=sharing

First part:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3myvz ... sp=sharing

With regard to John 21, Warfield concludes:
Ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν emerge, therefore, as respectively the love of complete devotion and the love (as Meyer phrases it) "of personal heart emotion"; the love of surrendering obedience and the love (as Westcott phrases it) "of personal attachment," "the feeling of natural love." [Warfield, part 2, 196]
Andrew
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”