Copyright 2023 by Randy Leedy, all rights reserved

At the end of Part Two of this series, I indicated that Part Three would treat the difference in meaning between ἀγαπάω and φιλέω—at least as they are used in John 21. I have decided, though, instead of exploring that question carefully just now, to present an overview of the issues yet to be considered in the course of this study, with enough discussion to provide a general impression of what the findings will be.

The English verbs learn and discover can serve as an illustration. The question “What’s the difference between learn and discover?” sounds perfectly plausible on the surface. Someone asked that question might be quite satisfied to reply that learn usually indicates a process of acquiring some relatively complex knowledge or skill, while discover indicates a more instantaneous event of becoming aware of some entity or fact for the first time. And that reply might equally satisfy the questioner, bringing the exchange rapidly to an end. If a devil’s advocate overhears that conversation, though, he might quip something like this: “So I guess my wife used the wrong word when she told me a little bit ago that she just learned from a text message from our bank that our checking account is overdrawn. I can’t wait to correct her and tell her that she should have said discovered! She will be so happy to know!” Clearly, the wife’s report could have used either learned or discovered with no difference at all in meaning. An adequate statement of the difference in meaning between these two words, then, must include the fact that sometimes there is none.

To draw, though, from the fact that sometimes there is no difference an inference that there is never a difference would be fallacious. (Note: fallacious and fallacy do not denote falsehood but rather a defective reasoning process that is capable of generating falsehood rather than truth.) If a school child came home excitedly declaring, “Mom! I discovered gravity today!”, the mother could justifiably correct the child: “Actually, Susan, you learned about gravity. It was discovered by Sir Isaac Newton quite a few centuries ago.” A precocious child might argue back that her experience fits the dictionary definition of obtaining knowledge of something for the first time. But the mother could reply in turn that gravity is one of those major scientific realities regarding which we use discover to denote the first time that any human became aware of them. What a word means in a particular context can depend on what kind of other thing or idea in the context the word in question relates to. So noticing and pointing out differences in meaning between synonyms that in other contexts might be identical in meaning can be entirely appropriate.

The initial statement of the difference between learn and discover is also inadequate in that it gives only one sense for each word. Let’s consider learn, since it is the broader of the two. It can mean to master a skill, or to gain permanent knowledge of fact(s), or to become aware of some reality (regardless of the duration of that awareness), or to memorize something like a piece of literature or of music, or to establish a pattern of behavior, often in response to external circumstances (e.g., “He has learned to ignore the barking of the neighbor’s dog”). So a full statement of the difference of meaning between these two English verbs could become quite complicated. A side-by-side display of the respective dictionary entries would delineate the differences concisely, but clarifying discussion would also be required for a full answer to the question.

This is the sort of case we will find with ἀγαπάω and φιλέω. My case for John 21 does not require proof that the two words must always be distinct in meaning. What is required is to demonstrate, through some pattern of usage, that the words’ respective ranges of meaning are not co-extensive and then to show that a valid difference better accounts for all the relevant facts related to the exegesis of John 21 than any competing view.

As part of this discussion, we will need to consider diachronic development of word meaning and any drivers of semantic change that we can discern. Much has already been written on this topic, but a point that I believe is very important has not received attention that I am aware of. If it has, I’ve not yet discovered it—which, to chase a rabbit trail, seems to me in this context to be the better word than learned. This context implies searching, which collocates better with discover than with learn. Learning would be done more by studying known material than by searching for something new.

Another interesting point to consider is the variety of arrangements that would be possible if in fact John is using these verbs in semantic equivalence, mixing them merely for stylistic purposes to avoid monotony. How many different arrangements are mathematically possible? How many of those arrangements could be made out to have exegetical significance? If the existing arrangement is the only one of a large number of possibilities that has discernible exegetical significance, then the odds that some other motivation would produce this same arrangement are low, and the likelihood that John’s arrangement is motivated by the posited semantic difference is correspondingly high.

We will also need to consider the often-advanced argument that Jesus’ and Peter’s conversation likely took place in Aramaic, which has only one verb for love. How compelling is this consideration?

An interesting aspect of the text to consider is the presence or absence of the definite article with the ordinal numbers δεύτερον (second) and τρίτον (third). The former occurs once, in the anarthrous state, while the latter occurs twice, in the articular state. Does that article point out Jesus’ third question as in some way distinct in content from the first two? What can we learn by examining the use of the article with ordinal numbers in other passages?

We will also need to look closely at the other pairs of synonyms in the passage: γινώσκω / οἶδα, βόσκω / ποιμαίνω, and ἀρνίον / πρόβατον. What is each word’s range of meaning? If there are distinctions, are those distinctions exegetically relevant in this passage? Why or why not? “I don’t see...” is not a convincing reason; something more substantial is needed. If we end up seeing some pairs as exegetically significant and other pairs as not, how convincing a reason can we offer for not viewing all the pairs as functioning alike in this respect?

When we have done these things, we will be in a position to consider the matter from the perspective of Peter’s behavior and psychology, especially over the period stretching from just before Jesus’ passion up to and perhaps even beyond the John 21 scene. I have signaled some of this material in Part One of this series, but there is more to be done. I may find it necessary to cover this topic, or at least some portion of it, in connection with the difference in meaning between the two verbs, since the biographical context in the life of Peter is an important aspect of the overall context that informs our understanding of what John means to communicate in these verses.

The concluding discussion will compare the overall understanding of the passage that emerges from the competing viewpoints on whether or not ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in this passage differ in meaning. If the posited difference in meaning (I should mention that the difference in meaning that I will suggest is not precisely the same as what some others have claimed) produces a significantly superior understanding of both the text and the event to which the text witnesses, then one or more exceedingly strong contrary considerations would be required in order to invalidate it. As far as I know, though, the findings of the study will greatly weaken the claims that for the past generation or two have typically been advanced against the traditional view that John does intend a significant difference of meaning between these two words in this passage.

This preview represents my present plans. It’s entirely possible that the process of development may produce significant revision along the way.