philein is a love of liking - to have affection toward someone because one sees likeness/commonality of oneself with the one loved.
agapain is a love of treasuring - to have affection toward someone because one recognises intrinsic value in the person loved.
Jesus asked Peter twice, "Do you treasure me?" And the third time, "Do you like Me?"
Peter answered three times, "I like you." And Peter was troubled because Jesus response to Peter's down-grading agapain in his response to philein ("You are asking if I treasure you? I can't claim that, knowing that I sold you out to save my own skin. But I like you a lot)," was to asked "Peter, do you really like me?"
That is not what the KJV translators communicate in English.
Part II: What Do the Greek Lexicons Actually Say About Agapaō and Phileō?
Furthermore, your proposed distinction between
agapaō and
phileō does not stand up well when we examine the Greek lexicons themselves.
Consider what two well-known Greek lexicons actually say about these words.
(1). Liddell-Scott-Jones (LSJ), A Greek-English Lexicon
Under ἀγαπάω (agapaō), LSJ gives the general meaning of "love."
Under φιλέω (phileō), LSJ gives the meaning "love, regard with affection."
Interestingly, under phileō, LSJ also cites Homer's Iliad (9.343), where the word is used concerning a man's love for his wife, with the lexicon explaining the meaning as "cherishes her."
Did you catch that? Even LSJ recognizes that phileō can express cherishing someone, rather than merely liking someone!
But here is something even more significant.
Under agapaō, LSJ explicitly acknowledges that a distinction can sometimes be made between the two Greek verbs, but then states:
"but the two are interchanged"
LSJ cites Xenophon's Memorabilia (2.7.9, 12) and Aristotle's Rhetoric (1371a21).
In fact, Aristotle uses agapaō to explain phileō in his discussion of being loved for one's own sake.
Therefore, these Greek words cannot be rigidly separated into your proposed categories of
treasuring someone versus merely
liking someone.
(2). Johannes Scapula, Lexicon Graeco-Latinum (1628)
Now consider an older Greek lexicon representing the Greek scholarship much closer to the time of the KJV translators.
Under ἀγαπάω (agapaō), Scapula gives the Latin definitions:
"Amo, diligo."
Meaning: "To love, to hold dear."
He also states:
"De honesto & inhonesto amore usurpatur."
Meaning that the word is used of both honorable and dishonorable love.
Now consider what Scapula says under φιλέω (phileō):
"Amicus sum, amo, diligo."
Meaning: "I am a friend, I love, I hold dear."
Notice something particularly important here!
Scapula employs the exact same two Latin words, amo and diligo, when defining both Greek verbs!
He does not restrict
phileō to merely liking someone, nor does he restrict
agapaō to treasuring someone because of some perceived intrinsic value.
Granted, both Greek verbs can have additional shades of meaning depending upon their contexts. However, that is entirely different from insisting that one necessarily expresses a greater kind of love than the other.
I. My Conclusion:
The biblical evidence in my first response already demonstrated that the apostle John used these two Greek verbs interchangeably when describing the same loving relationships.
I provided you with two pieces of lexical evidence.
LSJ expressly acknowledges their interchangeable usage, while Scapula gives both Greek verbs the same principal Latin definitions,
amo and
diligo.
I am not denying that these Greek words can sometimes convey different nuances. I am denying that your proposed distinction between
treasuring and merely
liking someone is a fixed distinction that must be imposed upon John 21:15–17.
The KJV translators were entirely justified in translating both Greek verbs as "love."
II. Side Note: Is Phileō Supposed to Be Some Inferior Kind of Love?
You are treating
phileō as though it were some cheap, unhealthy Filet-O-Fish from McDonald's, as if Peter were offering Jesus some inferior, second-rate kind of love!
But that is not what the Greek text establishes. Peter answered "Yea, Lord" to Jesus' first two questions, and he affirmed his love for Christ all three times. Jesus was driving home the same essential point, not introducing two entirely different kinds of love.
If Jesus was supposedly asking Peter about two distinctly different kinds of love, then why didn't Peter acknowledge that distinction in his answers? Why did he consistently use
phileō all three times while twice answering Jesus in the affirmative, saying, "Yea, Lord"?
III. Final Remarks Regarding Your Interpretation:
So you are not only going against the scholarly judgment of the KJV translators, who were exceptionally well-trained in the original biblical languages, but you are also going against the historical lexical evidence provided by recognized Greek scholars. Were all these scholars somehow mistaken until you came along and discovered the correct meanings? Yeah, okay.
It seems that you are promoting a private interpretation of these Greek words without sufficient historical or lexical justification. Worse yet, your proposed distinction does not even fit the immediate context of John 21:15–17! That is how problematic your interpretation really is.
Please return to the classical Greek authorities and examine how these words were actually used, rather than imposing a rigid distinction that the evidence does not establish. Otherwise, you can simply assign whatever meanings you prefer to the biblical text and make the Bible say whatever you want it to say.
IV. A Personal Note Regarding Future Greek Discussions:
This is why I am going to strive to avoid having any further discussions with you concerning the Greek text.
You seem to be employing whatever harebrained idea enters your head concerning what you think the Greek says, based upon your own private interpretations, without providing sufficient historical or lexical justification. You are not supplying reputable Greek lexical sources, direct quotations, links, historical references, or commentaries to substantiate your unusual claims.
Instead, you appear to be imposing your own preferred meanings upon the Greek text without adequately demonstrating that those meanings are supported by historical Greek usage or the immediate biblical context.
Therefore, if you continue promoting these kinds of oddball Greek interpretations in the future, I will simply refer readers back to my two-part refutation of your interpretation of John 21:15–17. I see little reason to keep repeating the same arguments when the biblical and historical lexical evidence has already been presented for everyone to examine.
....
