Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 64:254 (Apr 1907)
Article: ᾿Αγαπαω and Φιλεω: (A Suggestion For John 21:15-17.)
Author: Herbert William Magoun

BSac 64:254 (April 1907) p. 265

᾿Αγαπαω and Φιλεω:
(A Suggestion For John 21:15-17.)

Herbert William Magoun

It is a well-known fact that two different verbs meaning ‘to love/ are found in the last recorded conversation of Peter and Jesus. Of the reason for their use much has been written and more has been said. That the two verbs differed somewhat in their signification is the general consensus of opinion; but no practical agreement has ever been reached as to what the difference really was. The explanations that have been offered, as found in the commentators, are widely divergent, in appearance at least; and some have accordingly concluded that the words, as they appear in the text, involved no real difference of meaning. One scholar, being convinced that some have indulged in “wild guessing” in this connection, has undertaken to prove that the words were really synonomous. (See Vol. 46. pp. 524-542.)

But even if it were generally agreed that the words did not differ in their content and that their combined use in this passage was merely an accident, would it not still be possible that such a solution, convenient as it undoubtedly is, might itself not be entirely free from the guessing element? To begin with, it would plainly ignore the fact that the words of Jesus, as they stand, appear to form a distinct anticlimax; and it would also ignore the additional fact that the use of the two

BSac 64:254 (April 1907) p. 266

verbs is evidently intentional, since the form employed is that of a direct quotation.

Two of Peter’s replies are alike. The third, due to his agitation, differs quite decidedly, in certain important particulars, from the other two. His grief at the third question is thus described :—

ἐλυπήθη ὁ Πέτρος ὅτι εἷπεν αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον φιλεῖς με; after which it says: “And (kai) he said (eipen1 ) unto him,” etc. (see below), thus plainly connecting his third answer with his distress. Was the mere repetition of the question a sufficient cause for his pain, or for the evident vehemence of his last protestation?

The three questions read as follows :—

1 (λέγει) Σίμων ᾿Λωάνου, ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων;

2. (λέγει) Σίμων ᾿Λωάνου, ἀγαπᾷς με;

3. (λέγει