What is love?
Anders Nygren in his classic work, Agape and Eros, has given a
thorough historical analysis of the two "fundamental motifs"
or themes that have dominated the understanding of love in Western
philosophy and theology.
(We have summarized his historical analysis below.)
His analysis raises the problem of "Agape and Eros",
and he finds its solution in the Reformation.
The problem of "Agape and Eros" is:
What is the true Christian idea of love?
Is it Eros or Agape, or a synthesis of these?
There are three words in the Greek language that are translated into the
English language as "love";
they are eros, philos, and agape.
The Greek word eros does not occur in the Greek New Testament.
The Greek noun philos occurs 29 times in Greek New Testament
and is always translated in the King James Vereson as "friend"
(Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:6, 34; 11:5, 6, 8; 12:4; 14:10, 12; 15:6, 9, 29; 16:9;
21:16; 23:12; John 3:29; 11:11; 15:13, 14, 15; 19:12; Acts 10:24; 19:31; 27:3;
James 2:23; 4:4; 3 John 14).
The related verb phileo occurs 25 times
in the Greek New Testament and is tranlated in KJV as "love" 22 times
(Matt. 6:5; 10:37 [twice]; 23:6; Luke 20:46; John 5:20; 11:3, 36; 12:25;
15:19; 16:27; 20:2; 21:15, 17; I Cor. 16:22; Titus 3:15; Rev. 3:19; 22:15)
and as "kiss" 3 times (Matt. 26:48; Mark 14:44; Luke 22:47).
The Greek noun agape occurs 115 times in the Greek New Testament
and is translated in KJV as "love" 86 times
(Matt. 24:12; Luke 11:42; John 5:42; 13:35; 15:9, 10, 10, 13; 17:26;
Rom. 5:5, 8; 8:35, 39; 12:9; 13:10, 10; 15:30; I Cor. 4:21; 16:24;
II Cor. 2:4, 8; 5:14; 6:6; 8:7, 8, 24; 13:11, 14; Gal. 5:6, 13, 22;
Eph. 1:4, 15; 2:4; 3:17, 19; 4:2, 15, 16; 5:2; 6:23; Phil. 1:9, 17; 2:1, 2;
Col. 1:4, 8; 2:2; I Thess. 1:3; 3:12; 5:8, 13; II Thess. 2:10; 3:5;
I Tim. 1:14; 6:11; II Tim. 1:7, 13; Philemon 3, 5, 9; Heb. 6:10; 10:24;
I John 2:5, 15; 3:1, 16, 17; 4:7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 16, 16,
17, 18, 18, 18; 5:3; II John 3, 6; Jude 2, 21; Rev. 2:4),
"charity" 26 times (I Cor. 8:1; 13:1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 8, 13, 13, 14:1; 16:14;
Col. 3:14; I Thess. 3:6; II Thess. 1:3; I Tim. 1:5; 2:15; 4:12; II Tim. 2:22;
3:10; Titus 2:2; I Pet. 4:8, 8; 5:14; II Pet. 1:7; III John 6; Rev. 2:19),
"charitably" [kata agapen] once (Rom. 14:15),
"feast of charity" once (Jude 12), and as "dear" once (Col. 1:13).
The related verb agapao occurs 142 times in the Greek New Testament
and is translated as "love" 135 times and as "beloved" 7 times.
The following is the history of the proposed solutions:
The Three Ladders of Augustine
"Agape as a higher and more spiritualised form of Eros, and supposing that the sublimation of Eros is the way to reach Agape... The heavenly Eros is the highest possible thing of its kind; it has been spiritualised to an extent beyond which it is impossible to go. Agape stands alongside, not above, the heavenly Eros; the difference between them is not of degree but of kind. There is no way, not even that of sublimation, which leads from Eros to Agape." [52] [1]
Nygren attempts to describe the content of the Christian idea of love, Agape. The following is his summary of its main features.
Nygren summarises and concludes his account of these two fundamental motifs and their contrary tendencies in the following table. [210]
| Eros is acquisitive and longing. | Agape is sacrifical giving. |
| Eros is an upward movement. | Agape comes down. |
| Eros is man's way to God. | Agape is God's way to man. |
| Eros is man's effort:
it assumes that man's salvation is his work. |
Agape is God's grace;
salvation is the work of Divine love. |
| Eros is egocentric love,
a form of self-assertion of the highest, noblest, sublimest kind. |
Agape is unselfish love,
it "seeketh not its own", it gives itself away. |
| Eros seeks to gain its life,
a life divine, immortalised. |
Agape lives the life of God,
therefore dares to "lose it." |
| Eros is the will to get and
possess which depends on want and need. |
Agape is freedom in giving,
which depends on wealth and plenty. |
| Eros is primarily man's love;
God is the object of Eros. Even when it is attributed to God, Eros is patterned on human love. |
Agape is primarily God's love;
"God is Agape". Even when it is attributed to man, Agape is patterned on Divine love. |
| Eros is determined by the quality,
the beauty and worth, of its object; it is not spontaneous, but "evoked", "motivated". |
Agape is sovereign in relation to its object,
and is directed to both "the evil and the good"; it is spontaneous, "overflowing", "unmotivated". |
| Eros recognises value in its object -
and loves it. |
Agape loves -
and creates value in its object. |
Love expresses a relationship between a subject who loves and an object that is loved. If the study of this relation focuses on the personal objects of this love, there are four different forms of love. There is (1) God's love for man, (2) man's love for God, (3) man's love for his fellow-men, and (4) man's love for himself. In this last form the subject and the object of the relation coincide; this does not mean that this form of love is not a relation, for there are other relations that have this characteristic: the equality relation in mathematics has this characteristic, called the reflextive property: A = A. When Nygren interprets these four forms in terms of Eros and Agape, he makes the following comparison between them. [211-217]
When Nygren [219] arranges these various forms of love in the order of their importance for Agape and to Eros respectively, giving a rating of 3 to the form which in each case it dominates the conception of love as a whole, and a rating of zero to any form in which is completely absent from it, he gets the the following table.
| Agape | Eros | |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | God's love | 0 |
| 2 | Neighborly love | 1 |
| 1 | Love for God | 2 |
| 0 | Self-love | 3 |
Evaluation of Nygren's View of Agape.
As commendable as this work of Nygren is, there are some difficulities
with his understanding of Agape. His historical treatment and
analysis of Eros is thorough and accurate. But his analysis of
Agape is greatly influence by this treatement of Eros. He tends
to define Agape purely as the negation of Eros. This may be seen
in his definition of Agape as spontaneous and "unmotivated".
By spontaneous he means uncaused and by unmotivated he means not
motivated by anything of value in its object. His second characteristic
confirm this negative definition of Agape: Agape is "indifferent to
value". As Nygren says,
"This does not add anything new to what has already been said; but in order to prevent a possible misunderstanding, it is necessary to give special emphasis to one aspect of the point we have just made. ... It is only when all thought of the worthiness of the object is abandoned that we can understand what Agape is." [77]This negative treatment is partly counteracted by his discussion of the other two characteristics of Agape: "Agape is creative" and "Agape is the initiator of fellowship with God". But these play little part in his treatment of the history of Agape and they do not define Nygren's concept of Agape. The nearest that Nygren comes to a positive definition of Agape is his contrast between Eros and Agape: Eros is egocentric love and Agape is theocentric love. [209]
But not only does Nygren not positively define Agape, but his treatment of it as unselfish love, as the negation of Eros, makes it difficult for him to interpret certain passages of Scripture, especially the commandment to love one's neighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34). Nygren rejects the interpretation of this command that there is commandment of self-love in this commandment to love one's neighbor. He also rejects the interpretation that love of self is being approved of. Nygren says,
"Self-love is man's natural condition, and also the reason for the perversity of his will. Everyone knows how by nature he loves himself. So, says the commandment of love, thou shalt love thy neighbour. When love receives this new direction, when it is turned away from one's self and directed to one's neighbour, then the natural perversion of the will is overcome. So far is neighbourly love from including self-love that it actually excludes and overcomes it." [101]Nygren here misunderstands the command to love one's neighbor as one's self. This is not what the commandment says; it does not reject, exclude and overcome self-love. It does not oppose love of neighbor to love of self. This interpretation is the reading of Nygren's own theology into this commandment; according to his theology the essence of sin is self-love and thus it must be rejected, excluded and overcome. This commandment of neighborly love neither approves or disapproves of self-love, but only refers to self-love as a fact of human existence that can provide a criterion by which the love of neighbor may be measured; as you love yourself, love your neighbor. As one in love of self would not kill one's self, then do not kill your neighbor, etc.
Nygren's Agape motif is a distortion of the Biblical Agape. By
defining Agape as "spontaneous and unmotivated" in contrast
to Eros which is caused and motivated by it object, Nygren has
misunderstood Biblical Agape. Biblical Agape is not a thing but
a personal relationship between persons, between a subject (the
person who loves, the lover) and an object (the person loved).
Neither is Agape a desire like Eros, but a relation that is established
by the decision of the person loving. Thus Agape is not caused
by a desire for the object loved. But Agape is not "uncaused",
"spontaneous", but there is a reason for the decision,
for the choice to love. Agape is not uncaused, but is "caused",
but not by its object. Why love? Nygren says that there is no
motivation for Agape. But Nygren is wrong. Agape is not unmotivated;
it is motivated but it is not motivated by its object; Agape is
motivated by someone other than its object; by being loved the
one loving is motivated to love. Nygren's analysis of Agape as
spontaneous and unmotivated, depersonalized it and reducess it
to a thing. Agape is
(1) a personal relationship, a relation between persons;
(2) Agape is a choice of the person loving; and
(3) the object of Agape is not a thing, an "it",
but a person, a "thou", "you".
The following table summarizes the above comparison of Nygren's
and the Biblical view of Agape.
| Nygren's view of Agape | Biblical view of Agape | |
|---|---|---|
| a desire for the object | Nature of love | a relationship between persons |
| spontaneous - uncaused | Cause of love | choice of the person loving |
| unmotivated | Motivation of love | the good of person loved |
| a thing | Object of love | a person |
Nygren's distortion of the Biblical Agape is seen most clearly in his treatment of Agape in the writings of the Apostle John [146-159]. He considers the Johannine treatment of Agape as weakening the idea of Agape in the writings of Paul. According to Nygren, John weakens the idea of Agape by his "Agape-metaphysic," his "particularism", and his uncertain position between unmotivated and motivated love, the modification of love in the direction of acquisitive love. [151] All these contributed, according to Nygren, in their various ways to this weakening of the Agape motif. According to Nygren, "the Johannine conception of love represents in a measure the transition to a stage when the Christian idea of love is no longer determined soley by the Agape motif, but by 'Eros and Agape'." [158]
Nygren finds in the writings of John a "duality" in the Johannine idea of Agape [151]; Nygren finds this duality in three areas:
"But God shows his love for us in thatJohn does not "take us a stage further by his identification of God and Agape" [149], but is expressing those aspects of God's love that Paul did not have occasion to express. In fact, Paul stresses those aspects of God's love that are related to his personal experience of conversion from a pharisee and persecutor of the church. There is no developement in idea of Agape from Paul's theology to John's theology. Neither Paul nor John understands Agape as spontaneous and unmotivated and the Johannine idea of Agape does not occupy "a somewhat uncertain position between unmotivated and motivated love". [152]
while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." (Rom. 5:8)
"In this the love of God was made manifest among us,
that God sent his only Son into the world,
so that we might live through him." (I John 4:9)
"That which from one point of view represents an enhancement of the idea of Agape appears from another point of view to constitute a danger to it. Just because love in John is limited to narrower circle of 'the brethern', it is able to develop a far greater warmth and intimacy than it otherwise could; but this limitation involves for Christian love the risk of losing its original unmotivated character, and of being restricted to the brethren to the exclusion of outsiders and enemies." [154]Nygren's assessment of the Johannine treatment of the love of the brethern is wrong. God's love produces a fellowship of love; the love for the brethern for one another is its mark and reflects the pattern of the mutual love of the Father and the Son. Just as the Father loves the Son, and the Son loves his own, his disciples, so they "the brethern" are to love each other. Jesus prays, "That they may be one, even as we are one." (John 17:11, 22-23). Nygren sees in this love of the brethren for one another a threat to the original unmotivated character of Agape, as love for one's enemies; they now love the brethern "because" they are brethern, and hence love for the outsider is excluded. Here Nygren misunderstanding of Agape as unmotivated leads him to find a difference where is no difference. If the brethern love each other as they were loved when they not brethern, where is the problem? Jesus and John were not proposing a different kind of love for the brethern and love for one's enemies. Jesus said to his disciples, "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you" (John 15:12). And this is same love he had for them as sinners.
"When we are warned against love of the world, it is obviously cannot be generous, self-giving Agape-love that is meant, but only 'the love of desire', or acquisitive love. Only to the latter sense can 'love of the world' be set in opposition to love of God; though when it is, there is always the risk that even love for God will be understood as acquisitive love." [157]Here Nygren's misunderstanding of Agape is obvious. Neither is the love of the world or the love for the Father "self-giving Agape-love" nor are they acquisitive love. In both cases, love is the love for them as the Good; a wrong love of the world as the Good, and a right love of God as the Good. "And Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.'" (Mark 10:18). Agape is not entirely independent of the value of its object. How Agape acts for the good of its object is determined by the value assigned to it by the one loving. How God in His love acts for the good of object of His love is determined by the value He assigns to it. Its value is not determined by its object inherent value, but by the value God assigns to it. The idea that Agape is value indifferent is only partially true. Agape is not caused by the inherent value of the object but it is caused by the value that lover chooses to give to it. It is obvious that the love of God as well as the love of the world is determined by the value that the lover assigns to them. But the love of God and the love of the world are mutually exclusive; man cannot love both God and the world, because God and world are not both the Good. Only God is the Good, and to love the world is to treat it as the Good, as God; and this would be the sin of idolatry. "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not him" (I John 2:15).
When Jesus commanded:
"You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
(Matt. 5:48), as the context makes clear (Matt. 5:43-47),
Jesus was talking about love.
"43 You have heard that it was said,This statement of Jesus raises the problem of love.
'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 But I say to you,
love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
45 in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven;
for He causes His sun rise on the evil and the good,
and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.
46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?
Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same?
47 And if you greet your brethern only,
what do you do more than others?
Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48 Therefore you are to be perfect,
as your heavenly Father is perfect."
(Matt. 5:43-48, NAS)
The love that Jesus is talking about is not human love,
but is the divine love that loves the sinner.
This is perfect love,
and Jesus commands us to love with this perfect love.
And this love fulfills the law.
As the Apostle Paul says,
"8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another;Paul's summary statement that "love does no evil to one's neighbor" may be stated positively, "love does good to one's neighbor". Love is a relationship between persons, the person that loves and the person that is loved, and in this relationship the person who loves does good to the person loved. This love is not a feeling but a choice, the choice to do good to the person loved. The commandment to love is addressed to the will and one must choose to obey the commandment. It may be accompanied by feelings of compassion and caring, but Agape-love is the choice of the will to do good to the person that may be unloveable and evil. Thus God loves the sinner, not because the sinner is inherently loveable, but God chooses to do good to him and save him. Because love is a choice, it can be commanded and it can be obeyed. There are other kinds of love, but the kind of love that God commands is Agape-love. This love is not acquisitive love, that wants to acquire its object; neither is it caused by its object because of the value or the goodness of its object. Agape-love creates value where there is no value; it does good to the person loved. Agape-love gives what the person loved needs, what is good for him or her. This love is perfect love.
for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
9 The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery,
You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet',
and any other commandment, it is summed up in this word,
'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'.
10 Love does no evil to one's neighbor;
therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
(Rom. 13:8-10 ERS).
"7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God;
and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
9 In this the love of God was manifest among us,
that God sent His only Son into the world,
so that we might live through Him.
10 In this is love, not that we loved God but that He loved us
and sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins.
11 Beloved, if God so loved us,
we also ought to love one another.
12 No man has ever seen God; if we love one another,
God abides in us and His love is perfected in us."
(I John 4:7-12 ERS).
"16 And we have come know and have believed the love
which God has for us.
God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God,
and God abides in him.
17 By this, love is perfected in us,
that we may have confidence in the day of judgment;
because as He is, so also are we in this world.
18 There is no fear in love;
but perfect love casts out fear,
because fear involves punishment,
and the one who fears is not perfected in love.
19 We love, because He first loved us.
20 If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother,
he is a liar, for the one who does not love his brother
whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.
21 And this commandment we have from Him,
that the one who loves God should love his brother also."
(I John 4:16-21 NAS).
Thus Agape-love must be defined as the choice of a person to do for
another person that which is good for him,
This definition of love raises the problem of the good:
"What is the good?"
The Biblical solution to this problem was given in Jesus' answer
when He was asked,
"Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
(Mark. 10:17). He answered,
"Why do you call me good? No one is good but God."
(Mark. 10:18).
That is, God is The Good, the Absolute Good, and all others are relative
good; that is, they possess their good in relation to the Absolute Good,
God Himself.
When God created the earth and its inhabitants, He saw that they are good.
"And God saw that it was good." (Gen. 1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25).
"And God saw all that he had made, and behold, it was very good."
(Gen. 1:31).
All that God has created is good, not evil, but it is
relative good, not absolute good.
And God has specified man's relationship to the Absolute Good in His
commandment,
"And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heartThis excludes the sin of idolatry, which is the absolutizing of the relative. The relative good must not be made the absolute good, as god. The true God said,
and with all your soul and with all your might." (Deut. 6:5 NAS)
"You shall have no other gods besides Me." (Exodus 20:3 NAS margin)Because this command prohibits the basic sin of idolatry, it is the first and great commandment of the law.
"36 'Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?'The second commandment specifies the relative good; man shall do good to his neighbor, even as he does good to himself. The Apostle Paul also made this clear in his comments on love in Rom. 13:8-10. Love does no evil to one's neighbor when it does good to him or her.
37 And he said to him,
'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,
and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
39 This is the great and first commandment.
40 And a second is like it,
You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
On these commands depend all the law and the prophets.'"
(Matt. 22:36-40; cf. Mark 12:30-33).
The Manifestation of the Righteousness of God
The Revelation of the Righteousness of God
Justification From Sin To Righteousness
Justification From Wrath To Peace
[1] All page references to Nygren's book Agape and Eros
is shown within a pair of brackets [] in this document.
Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros,
Part I: A Study of the Christian Idea of Love,
Part II: The History of the Christian Ideas of Love.
Translated by Philip S. Watson.
(New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1969)
This book was first published in England by the S.P.C.K. House:
Part I in 1932; part II, Vol. I in 1938;
Part II, Vol. II in 1939;
revised, in part retranslated, and published in one volume in 1953.
The first paperback edition was published in 1969 by arrangement
with the Westminster Press, publishers of the United States edition.