The longer I study the Bible, the more I appreciate how challenging it can be to translate the text effectively, especially into English. Where we might have one word for a particular object or emotion, Greek might have four. They all mean the same thing, but they have nuances—a range of meanings that, together, give us a more comprehensive picture than our one English word can.
Love is a great example of this. Throughout the Bible, there are several words that are translated as love. And the particularly studious among us might be inclined to dig into the nuances of those words. This can sometimes be helpful and lead to valuable insights when the text warrants it. But these types of word studies can also wind up confusing what is clear in a passage.
Making (Too) Much of Different Words
John 21:15–17, Peter’s restoration to ministry, is a passage where this happens often because of John uses two different words for love: agape and phileo.
Some teachers will make much of the differences between these two words, usually for the sake of illustration. Agape is a stronger form of love, they might say, one of absolute devotion. But phileo is potentially a weaker form, primarily denoting friendship. So, there is a kind of weakness on Peter’s part, that he cannot bring himself to answer with the kind of intensity Jesus asks for. When Jesus Himself switches to the weaker form in His final question, it is condescension on His part. (And in full disclosure, I’ve done this, so I’m not throwing stones.)
Sounds very convincing, right? But it doesn’t seem to be what John said.
Different Words that Mean the Same Thing
Yes, the words can have different emphases depending on the context in which they’re used, but John didn’t seem to be making any different emphasis between the two. Instead, he seemed to be using them as synonyms, as two words that mean the same thing, even if their range of meaning might vary.
Now, like many of you reading this, I don’t have formal training in the biblical languages. But I do have a lot of tools at my disposal to assist me with gaining insight. (Spoiler: even people who do have formal training use these kinds of tools.)
One of the tools I turn to most often is my copy of the NET Full Notes Edition Bible. The notes helped most in summarizing the linguistic reasons for there being no significant difference between these words within the context of the passage. The note on verse 15 about the words used for “love” offer three reasons:
John does this throughout his Gospel
“The author has a habit of introducing slight stylistic variations in repeated material without any significant difference in meaning (compare, for example, 3:3 with 3:5, and 7:34 with 13:33)…The Fourth Gospel seems to indicate a general interchangeability between the two. Both terms are used of God’s love for man (3:16; 16:27); of the Father’s love for the Son (3:35; 5:20); of Jesus’ love for men (11:3, 5); of the love of men for men (13:34; 15:19); and of the love of men for Jesus (8:42; 16:27).”
The conversation (probably) didn’t happen in Greek
“If (as seems probable) the original conversation took place in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew), there would not have been any difference expressed because both Aramaic and Hebrew have only one basic word for love…It is significant that in the Syriac version of the NT only one verb is used to translate vv. 15-17 (Syriac is very similar linguistically to Palestinian Aramaic).”
Peter’s answers are “yes”
“Peter’s answers to the questions asked with [agape] are ‘yes’ even though he answers using the verb [phileo]. If he is being asked to love Jesus on a higher or more spiritual level his answers give no indication of this, and one would be forced to say (in order to maintain a consistent distinction between the two verbs) that Jesus finally concedes defeat and accepts only the lower form of love which is all that Peter is capable of offering.”
“Love” means “love” (and that’s okay)
Word studies offer valuable insights into the Bible’s original languages. They can help us see important details we might otherwise miss. But let’s be careful not to let our exploration of the nuances overshadow a word’s meaning in its context.
So, when it comes to John 21:15-17, it seems like the best way to understand this text is that when Jesus said “love,” He meant “love.” When Peter says “love,” he means “love.” Together, they suggest the kind of wholehearted love we are all called to have for Jesus, the friend of sinners. And it doesn’t seem to be any more complicated than that.
Aaron Armstrong
Aaron Armstrong is a Marketing Director with Thomas Nelson Bibles and the author of multiple books, including I’m a Christian—Now What?: A Guide to Your New Life with Christ. As an adult convert, Aaron writes to engage those curious about Christianity, encourage new believers, and equip those coming alongside them. A Canadian living in America, Aaron serves as a preacher and small group leader at his local church. He and his wife, Emily, have three teenage children. To learn more, visit aaronarmstrong.co.
Note: This article is adapted from one that first appeared on Aaron’s personal website. It has been edited for style and content by the author.
