By Any Other Name?
What is "Agape" and How Did It Work?

-James Patrick Holding


What exactly is agape, or "love" as it is translated?

The NT tells us:

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

We read such passages and tend to assume at once that "love" means what it does to us in modern times -- in this case, a mushy sentimentality that never says a harsh word and never steps on the toes of others. The same word is used in 1 Cor. 13 (though translated differently):

"Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things."

The question at issue: how is all of this actually worked out in practice?

Does agape mean not confronting others with error or sin? Do we need a deep relationship (a "25 ton bridge" as one friend calls it) to relate to a person and to correct them?

On the surface this is an obvious no-brainer, since of course the writers of the NT were constantly confronting others on various errors, even people they obviously could not have known well (even if we assume, wrongly, that they related on modern, individualist terms!). It takes a "politically correct" stretch to argue otherwise.

But there is a more moderate view: We can confront, but can only do so politely.

Well, that too is a no-brainer on the surface, given the many abrasive comments given by Jesus and by Paul to their opponents (i.e., Pharisees, the Galatian "Judaizers") and even to fellow believers (like Peter and the "Satan" quote) who went awry. Indeed, rhetorical analysis of Paul's letters indicates that he used some very sharp rhetorical tactics which would have seriously shamed his opponents and even his readers.

The answer is found in one of two places:

1) The NT teaches but does not act out agape;

or

2) We are not really understanding what agape means.

(And as it happens, the social science data tells us that #2 is the way to go.)

In the following we will draw in some points that some readers may recognize from previous essays here on tektonics.org; but there is also some new material added.

A key difference in understanding the meaning of agape is to recognize that our culture is centered on the individual, whereas ancient Biblical society (and 70% of societies today) are group-centered. What is good for the group is what is paramount.

Hence when the NT speaks of agape it refers to the "value of group attachment and group bonding" [Malina and Neyrey, Portraits of Paul, 196].

Agape is not an exchange on a personal level and "will have little to do with feelings of affection, sentiments of fondness, and warm, glowing affinity." It is a gift that puts the group first.

With that in mind, what of the passage which tells us to "Love your enemies"? How is this reconciled with places where Jesus calls the Pharisees names, or Peter "Satan"? How is it reconciled with where Paul wishes emasculation on his Galatian opponents (Gal. 5) and shames the Galatians with his rhetoric? How is it reconciled with even confronting others with sin and error, for that matter?

Given the definition of "group attachment" above, it may be best to understand agape as a parallel to another known concept of today -- not love, but tough love. For the sake of popular culture awareness I will allude to perhaps the most famous example of such "tough love" known today -- the New Jersey high school principal Joe Clark (whose story was told in the movie Lean on Me) who cleaned out his high school and made it a safe place for those who wanted to learn.

Clark was no soft sentimentalist! He kicked those out of school who disrupted the learning of others. He used physical compulsion to do it as needed. He used a bullhorn to get people's attention. Is this agape? Yes, it is! It is the Biblical form of agape in which Clark valued what was best for his students as a whole versus what the individual wanted.

Now consider this understanding in light of, for example, Jesus' confrontation with the Pharisees and others. It will take a complexity of emotion we find foreign, but conceptually, it is certainly possible to love one's enemies, and yet also attack them; and the same for one's disciples or allies.

Like Clark's disruptive students, the Pharisees were a threat to the well-being of others; so likewise Peter when he made his error. They spread deception and falsehood and kept others from entering the Kingdom of God with their deceptions; or else led people down the wrong path and away from spiritual maturity. In such a scenario, not only is it right and proper, for the sake of agape, to confront and confront boldly; it may be the only responsible thing to do to keep the "disease" or error from spreading and afflicting more souls! (In the ancient world, and even today, insults and polemics were a way to shame and discredit an opponent; see here.)

So agape does include verbally attacking and discrediting one's opponents, or confronting other believers, when they are in the wrong. Jesus speaks to these men not as his enemies, but as enemies of the truth. There is no indication that he speaks to them as personal enemies, for all of his comments reflect their deception of others; the personal relationship between the parties does not even come into the picture. They were enemies for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

By comparison, one would hardly suppose that Matthew 5:44 would restrict one from joining an army and fighting in a war against a Hitler or a Stalin. This becomes a case of having agape for the greater number, and generally innocent, at the expense of the lesser who are guilty. Jesus' situation with the Pharisees and others attacked was very much in this category, since their actions imperiled the eternal fate or the spiritual maturity of others.

One may reply, "But what then of the example of the Good Samaritan? He was kind to an enemy." He was kind to a personal enemy; the man was not spreading lies and deceiving others! Here is food for thought: If Jesus had been attacking a Pharisee, and the man had suddenly clutched at his heart and dropped to the ground, would agape have us give the Pharisee CPR? Yes, it would. We are thereby making the man our "neighbor" and extending the hand of welcome into our fellowship. From there what happens? The Pharisee may keep on his attacks against the truth after he recovers; if so, he is still an enemy for the sake of the Gospel and one to be publicly addressed in disparaging terms. But if he drops to the ground again we will still work to save him.

Our modern society has lost this ability to distinguish between sin and sinner; it is often assumed that to attack the position is to attack the man! Such is the bane of "tolerance" and political correctness.

-taken from http://www.tektonics.org

This article brought understanding to me. Thanks for posting it.

I have a problem with being assertive sometimes. If asserting oneself involves agape love, then it is right.

And in this I give advice: It is to your advantage not only to be doing what you began and were desiring to do a year ago;
2 Corinthians 8:10

( Agape )

A name is more a simple badge or means of identification, something by which we address people specifically and individually. In biblical usage there is much in a name!.

But in Bible times names were chosen with great care and were frequently given by prophetic utterance or under divine inspiration so that the names actually revealed the nature, character, attributes, and destiny of the person, and thus carried a message to all who spoke or used that name.

It has been said there are 200 different names of God in the Bible.

"I will set him on high because he has known my name" (Ps. 91:14).

To know His name is to become, in union with Him, the name-nature of God in every way.

To know His name is to enter in to the pure inner life of God, and exude His nature, His life, His character and all else that He is. To know means more than mere intellectual understanding or carnal knowledge.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge." (Hosea 4:6). Without a knowledge of Him, there is no life, for "This is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." (John 17:3).


To KNOW-- literally, TO KNOW BY EXPERIENCE. It is not a mere form of head-knowledge, mental assent to a few doctrines about Him, but it is to EXPERIENCE HIM.

Same word is found in John 8:32,

"Ye shall know (by experience) the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Thank God, for the promise, "For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea."

(Habakkuk 2:14). "For all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest." (Hebrews 8: 11 ).

Originally Posted by Benoni

A name is more a simple badge or means of identification, something by which we address people specifically and individually. In biblical usage there is much in a name!.

But in Bible times names were chosen with great care and were frequently given by prophetic utterance or under divine inspiration so that the names actually revealed the nature, character, attributes, and destiny of the person, and thus carried a message to all who spoke or used that name.

It has been said there are 200 different names of God in the Bible.

Wow Benoni. This is good!! I have not seen any note this about names. You are right of course.

Abraham for example. God wanted to bless the man with descendants. Many descendants. Yet despite Gods Word telling him this Abram (means "exalted father") had a bear of a time agreeing with God. Finally in order to get Abram agreeing with Him, God had to change Abrams name to Abraham. Which means 'Father of many nations' After that every time Abraham spoke his name he was saying "I am the father of many nations" putting him in agreement with God. Within a very short time Isaac was born and the line was in play.
LOL Can you just imagine all the young folks laughing and jeering behind his back? Here is a ninety nine year old man saying he is the father of many nations. Impossible. But we have a God of the impossible!!

What a fantastic OP! I really feel welcomed on this forum, not because anyone has said so, but because of some of the wonderful posts I've read so far!

There is so much to comment on!

Does agape mean not confronting others with error or sin? Do we need a deep relationship (a "25 ton bridge" as one friend calls it) to relate to a person and to correct them?

I think, no, but it depends on the context. If we want to correct people on deeply personal, SPECIFIC issues, then a deep, personal relationship will help to make that correction more acceptable.

On a forum that option is rarely available. All we have are the words printed on the screen. But if we are addressing general issues, that should not be a problem. It is annoying when people try to make a personal issue out of general spiritual correction, but that is how humanity usually is. It takes a lot of wisdom (on the part of the corrector) and sincerity (on the part of the correctee) to see the truth in a correction no matter how much it hurts.

1) The NT teaches but does not act out agape;

or

2) We are not really understanding what agape means.

Once again, excellent question; extremely relevant.

In nearly all cases I lean toward the 2nd option.

Agape is not an exchange on a personal level and "will have little to do with feelings of affection, sentiments of fondness, and warm, glowing affinity." It is a gift that puts the group first.

I feel this is particularly relevant, because so often correction IS rejected over these issues. Feelings are extremely human and extremely important, and yet, reason must always win out over feelings. Even when it hurts, we must consider the truth in criticism.

With that in mind, what of the passage which tells us to "Love your enemies"? How is this reconciled with places where Jesus calls the Pharisees names, or Peter "Satan"? How is it reconciled with where Paul wishes emasculation on his Galatians opponents (gal 5) and shames the Galatians with his rhetoric? How is it reconciled with even confronting others with sin and error, for that matter?

Colossians 4:6 Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

Toward the end of Luke 14 Jesus referred to this salt as being something that would make the truth useless if thrown out or watered down.

Given the definition of "group attachment" above, it may be best to understand agape as a parallel to another known concept of today -- not love, but tough love.

Very good. Example...

heb 12:6 for whom the lord loves, the chanstens

Jesus speaks to these men not as his enemies, but as enemies of the truth. There is no indication that he speaks to them as personal enemies, for all of his comments reflect their deception of others; the personal relationship between the parties does not even come into the picture. They were enemies for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

Yes, very good! Extremely relevant!

By comparison, one would hardly suppose that Matthew 5 would restrict one from joining an army and fighting in a war against a Hitler or a Stalin. This becomes a case of having agape for the greater number, and generally innocent, at the expense of the lesser who are guilty.

Interesting concept, but I disagree. Using this concept of "he's not my enemy, it's for the greater good" is a slippery slope that should not be used to justify armies and/or wars.

Jesus' situation with the Pharisees and others attacked was very much in this category, since their actions imperiled the eternal fate or the spiritual maturity of others.

Jesus' weapons were the truth, from both barrels. When he was attacked physically, God either provided him a way out (without him needing to resort to assembling an army to do so) or layed down his life for the sake of a witness to the rest of the world.

The point is, even if a Hitler does does over the world, so what? All he can do is kill us. Sure, there IS a lot of suffering involved in the world around us, even now, concerning leaders like hitler, but the point of eternal life is that these bodies are temporary, and no matter how evil or painful or horrible the dictator is, he can't kill eternal life.

The world needs to see that kind of witness from us. Sure, we shouldn't just stand there if an axe murder is chopping people up, but the answer isn't to start wielding axes ourselves. I don't think there is an formula answer, but Jesus' teachings strongly suggest that losing one's life is the ultimate witness.

One may reply, "But what then of the example of the Good Samaritan? He was kind to an enemy." He was kind to a personal enemy;

The good Samaritan didn't have any enemy. He came onto the scene when the attackers had already fled. His test was to simply help someone who needed help.

Our modern society has lost this ability to distinguish between sin and sinner; it is often assumed that to attack the position is to attack the man!

It is sometimes referred to as "shooting the messenger".

Agape is God's perfect love; all the the things that we are not capable of 24/7.

St. Paul describes that love replaces all of the 10 commandments.

Later in 1 COR 13, Paul describes love:

⁴ Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵ It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶ Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷ It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
⁸ Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. ⁹ For we know in part and we prophesy in part, ¹⁰ but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. ¹¹ When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. ¹² Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

I think that Paul describes God's perfect love here (Agape). We certainly can't do all of these perfectly 24/7, nor does God expect us too, just try!

But starting with verse 8 Paul begings to describe a Christian's physical death. He says that after this death out imperfection leaves and our perfection comes. We only see and understand in part and we can only love in part as compared to God. When this perfection comes we will see God face to face, something that was unheared of by the Jew.

Not only that but, as our perfection comes, we will know God as fully as he knows us and we will all be capable of and all share in Agape love.....no wonder it is called "Heaven".

What is genuine love that is expressed in the Bible ? Insight on the Scriptures, volume 2, page 274, says that it is "a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a friend, for a parent or child, and so forth; warm fondness or liking for another; also, the benevolent affection of God for his creatures or the reverent affection due from them to God; also, the kindly affection properly expressed by God’s creatures toward one another; that strong or passionate affection for a person of the opposite sex that constitutes the emotional incentive to conjugal union. One of the synonyms for love is “devotion"."

The verb ’a·hev´ or ’a·hav´ (“love”) and the noun ’a·havah´ (“love”) are the words primarily used in Hebrew to denote love in the foregoing senses, the context determining the sense and degree meant. In the Christian Greek Scriptures (commonly called the New Testament), there are spoken four forms of love, a·ga´pe, phi·li´a, and two words drawn from stor·ge´ (e´ros, love between the sexes, not being used). A·ga´pe appears more frequently than the other terms.

Of the noun a·ga´pe and the verb a·ga·pa´o, The Expanded Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says: “Love can be known only from the actions it prompts. God’s love is seen in the gift of His Son, I John 4:9, 10. But obviously this is not the love of complacency, or affection, that is, it was not drawn out by any excellency in its objects, Rom. 5:8. It was an exercise of the Divine will in deliberate choice, made without assignable cause save that which lies in the nature of God Himself, cp. Deut. 7:7, 8.”—1984, pg 693

Regarding the verb phi·le´o, Vine comments: “[It] is to be distinguished from agapao in this, that phileo more nearly represents tender affection. . . . Again, to love (phileo) life, from an undue desire to preserve it, forgetful of the real object of living, meets with the Lord’s reproof, John 12:25. On the contrary, to love life (agapao) as used in I Pet. 3:10, is to consult the true interests of living. Here the word phileo would be quite inappropriate.”—pages 693-4.

A·ga´pe, therefore, carries the meaning of love guided, or governed, by principle. It may or may not include affection and fondness. That a·ga´pe may include affection and warmth is evident in many passages. At John 3:35, Jesus said: “The Father loves [a·ga·pai´] the Son.”

At John 5:20, he said: “The Father has affection for [phi·lei´] the Son.” Certainly God’s love for Jesus Christ is coupled with much affection. Also Jesus explained: “He that loves [a·ga·pon´] me will be loved [a·ga·pe·the´se·tai] by my Father, and I will love [a·ga·pe´so] him.” (John 14:21) This love of the Father and of the Son is accompanied by tender affection for such loving persons. Jehovah’s worshipers must love him and his Son, as well as one another, in the same way.

For example, Jesus told Peter: "Simon son of John, do you love (agapas) me more than these (fish)?” Peter responded: "Yes, Lord, you know I have affection (philo) for you.” Then Jesus says a second time after telling Peter to "Feed my lambs": "Simon son of John, do you love (agapas) me?” Peter now says: “Yes, Lord, you know I have affection (philo) for you.” Now on this third time, Jesus says to Peter: "Simon son of John, do you have affection (phileis) for me?”, with Peter replying: "Lord, you know all things; you are aware that I have affection (philo) for you.” (John 21:15-17)

Was Peter willing to show love guided or governed by godly principles or was he willing to just show some affection ? Jesus gave Peter counsel on how to "feed my lambs" , "shepherd my little sheep", "feed my little lambs", that he show a self-sacrificing love like Jesus did, not just sentimental affection.

For instance, Jesus said: "You heard that it was said, ‘You must love (agapeseis) your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ However, I say to you: Continue to love (agapate) your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you, that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous."(Matt 5:43, 44)

The idea that enemies were to be hated was one of the things added to God’s law by the Jewish teachers of tradition. Since the Law directed that the Israelites love their neighbors (Lev 19:18), these teachers inferred that this implied hating their enemies.

The Christian, by contrast, is under obligation to love his enemies, that is, those who make themselves personal enemies. Such love (Greek, a·ga´pe) is not sentimentality, based on mere personal attachment, as is usually thought of, but is a moral or social love based on deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty, and propriety, sincerely seeking the other’s good according to what is right.

A·ga´pe (love) transcends personal enmities, never allowing these to cause one to abandon right principles and to retaliate in kind. It is the love that imitates our Creator, Jehovah God, for 1 John 4:8 says that "God is love (Greek agape)". Thus, those who fight in the wars of the nations have not followed Jesus example in showing agape love, sincerely seeking the other's good as Jesus did.