![\"Marko](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Marko-Marina-Author-Bart-Ehrman.png\" "\\"Marko")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Written by Marko Marina, Ph.D.<\/a><\/p>\n Author | \u00a0Historian<\/p>\n Author |\u00a0 Historian | \u00a0BE Contributor<\/p>\n Verified! \u00a0See our guidelines<\/a><\/p>\n Verified! \u00a0See our editorial guidelines<\/a><\/p>\n\nDate written: April 18th, 2026\n\nDate written: April 18th, 2026\n Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. – Dr. Bart D. Ehrman<\/p>\n What does the Bible say about love? My first instinct is to recall those well-known and often-quoted words of the apostle Paul<\/a>, the kind you have likely heard at a wedding ceremony: love is patient, love is kind\u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n The passage is memorable, moving, and for many readers it seems to capture the Bible\u2019s entire message about love in a single, elegant formulation. It\u2019s no surprise, then, that when people think about \u201cbiblical love,\u201d this is often where their minds immediately go.<\/p>\n But it would be a mistake to answer that question by looking only at Paul. The Bible isn\u2019t a single book with a single voice. Rather, it\u2019s a collection of diverse writings<\/strong> composed over many centuries, in different languages, and by authors shaped by distinct historical and cultural contexts.<\/p>\n As a result, what we often treat as a unified teaching on love is, in fact, a tapestry of perspectives: sometimes overlapping, sometimes complementary, and occasionally in tension with one another.<\/p>\n The familiar Scriptures about love, when read more closely, turn out to be far more complex than they first appear.<\/p>\n This raises a broader and more historically grounded question: when ancient authors spoke about love, what did they actually mean? Were they describing an emotion, an ethical obligation, a social bond, or something else entirely?<\/p>\n To approach these questions responsibly, we need to move beyond modern assumptions <\/strong>and attend to the linguistic and conceptual world in which these texts were written. Only then can we begin to see how different forms of love were understood, expressed, and reimagined within the biblical tradition.<\/p>\n If the love language of the Bible has sparked your curiosity and you want to go deeper into the foundations of these ancient texts, consider Dr. Bart D. Ehrman\u2019s eight-lecture online course<\/strong> In the Beginning: History, Legend, or Myth in Genesis?<\/a>. It\u2019s a clear, engaging, and scholarly exploration of how Genesis was written, interpreted, and understood in its historical context. Check it out, you won\u2019t be disappointed!<\/p>\n Before we can answer what the Bible says about love, it\u2019s important to step back into the broader historical and cultural context<\/strong> in which the books that became the Bible were originally written.<\/p>\n In the collection of essays titled Love and Friendship in the Western Tradition<\/a>, James McGuirk notes:<\/p>\n (Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!<\/em>)<\/p>\n It has often been remarked that modern languages thoroughly fail to capture the complex depth of the notion of love in the way that their ancient predecessors did. Indeed, modern languages have tended to restrict the scope of love by isolating romantic love from a host of connected ideas that, for the ancients and medievals, were thought to be under the auspices of the notion of love. The Greek <\/strong>language, for example, uses four different words to denote love<\/strong> (philia, eros, stergeia, and agap\u0113), while Latin has amor, amicitia, dilectio, and caritas, all of which might be translated as love. Thus, to think about the notion of love along with the ancients means, firstly, to recognize the complexity <\/strong>of this notion as well as to isolate which love we refer to in a given context and its relation to and difference from other forms of love.\u201d<\/p>\n This observation underscores a crucial methodological point: when modern readers encounter the word \u201clove\u201d in translation, they are often collapsing a range of ancient meanings into a single, simplified category.<\/p>\n This complexity is already evident in the intellectual and social world of ancient Greece, where love wasn\u2019t treated as a single, unified concept but as a spectrum of relationships, desires, and ethical commitments.<\/p>\n As Christopher Miles<\/a> notes in his study of love in antiquity, discussions of love frequently took place within highly structured social settings, most notably the symposium: elite, male gatherings that combined philosophical reflection with social bonding and, at times, erotic expression.<\/p>\n In such contexts, love was a practice embedded in relationships of status<\/strong>, education, and mutual obligation. The setting itself shaped how love was understood: it could be pedagogical, political, or erotic, often all at once.<\/p>\n Ancient philosophical reflections further reveal that distinctions between different kinds of love were already being articulated, though not in the rigid categories often assumed today.<\/p>\n In Plato\u2019s Symposium, for example, speakers distinguish between forms of love associated with physical desire and those oriented toward intellectual or moral development.<\/p>\n One influential account contrasts a more \u201ccommon\u201d love<\/strong>, directed toward bodily pleasure, with a \u201cheavenly\u201d love<\/strong> that seeks enduring bonds and the cultivation of virtue. Such distinctions show that ancient thinkers were deeply concerned with the qualitative differences between types of attachment, even if they didn\u2019t formalize these into a fixed taxonomy of terms such as philia, eros, and agap\u0113.<\/p>\n At the same time, these categories were fluid and overlapping rather than strictly defined. Terms such as eros <\/strong>could denote not only sexual desire but also a powerful longing that might be redirected toward beauty, truth, or intellectual fulfillment.<\/p>\n Similarly, what later Christian writers would emphasize as agap\u0113 <\/strong>didn\u2019t originally function as a uniquely \u201cdivine\u201d form of love. Rather, it was one term among several, capable of a range of meanings depending on context.<\/p>\n The ancient evidence thus resists any attempt to impose a neat, systematic classification. Instead, it points to a more dynamic conceptual field<\/strong> in which love could signify desire, friendship, loyalty, or moral aspiration, depending on the circumstances.<\/p>\n Recognizing this conceptual richness is essential as we turn to the biblical texts themselves. The authors of these writings were heirs to this broader Mediterranean world, even as they adapted and reshaped its vocabulary and ideas in distinctive ways.<\/p>\n To understand Bible verses on love, therefore, we must read them against this complex backdrop: one in which \u201clove\u201d was never a single, self-evident notion, but a term carrying a wide range of meanings that would be reinterpreted within new theological and literary frameworks.<\/p>\n In his book Testaments of Love<\/a>, Leon Morris notes:<\/p>\n Understanding the meaning of love is essential to understanding the Old Testament<\/strong>. It is essential because of the number and variety of words used to express it. And it is essential because the great, surprising truth that God loves puny and sinful man underlies almost everything that is written throughout the entire Old Testament.<\/p>\n This observation provides an important point of departure<\/strong>. If we are to ask, in a historically responsible way, \u201cWhat does the Bible say about love?\u201d, we must begin with the recognition that the Old Testament doesn\u2019t treat love as a single, easily defined concept, but as a rich and multifaceted reality embedded in language, narrative, and theology.<\/p>\n At the center of this linguistic landscape stands the Hebrew root \u2019ahav,<\/strong> the primary term used to express love in the Hebrew Bible.<\/p>\n Unlike modern usage, where \u201clove\u201d is often restricted to romantic or emotional attachment, \u2019ahav operates across a wide semantic range. It can describe affection between individuals, loyalty within families, political alliances, and (most significantly) the relationship between God and Israel.<\/p>\n This breadth already signals that love in the Old Testament is a relational category that takes on meaning within specific social and theological contexts.<\/p>\n When we examine how this term functions across the biblical texts, a consistent pattern emerges: love is frequently tied to covenantal commitment<\/strong>. God\u2019s love for Israel is portrayed as a sustained, often costly commitment that persists despite human failure.<\/p>\n Prophetic writings, in particular, make this point with striking force, depicting the relationship between God and Israel through the metaphor of a troubled marriage, marked by betrayal, judgment, and yet an enduring possibility of restoration.<\/p>\n In this framework, love isn\u2019t opposed to justice. Rather, it coexists with it, giving shape to a relationship that is both demanding and resilient.<\/p>\n At the same time, love in the Old Testament is also expressed in human interactions<\/strong>, ranging from familial bonds to romantic desire.<\/p>\n The Song of Songs, for example, celebrates mutual attraction and longing in language that is vivid, poetic, and unapologetically sensual. Elsewhere, love is closely associated with loyalty and obligation: to \u201clove\u201d God often entails obedience to divine commandments, while to love one\u2019s neighbor involves concrete acts of care and responsibility.<\/p>\n In this sense, love is enacted rather than merely experienced; it\u2019s something one does as much as something one feels.<\/p>\n When viewed through the lens of later Greek terminology, these various expressions of love can be seen to overlap (though never perfectly!) with categories such as philia<\/strong>, agap\u0113<\/strong>, and eros<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The Hebrew Bible<\/a> doesn\u2019t, of course, employ these Greek terms, but it does preserve phenomena that resemble them.<\/p>\n Bonds of friendship and loyalty reflect what would later be called philia; covenantal commitment and steadfast care parallel aspects of agap\u0113; and the passionate, desirous language of texts like the Song of Songs clearly evokes dimensions of eros.<\/p>\n Yet these correspondences shouldn\u2019t be overstated<\/strong>. The Hebrew conceptual world operates with its own categories, and any mapping onto Greek terminology remains approximate and heuristic.<\/p>\n Recognizing these nuances is essential for avoiding anachronism. The Old Testament presents a dynamic and context-dependent understanding in which affection, loyalty, desire, and obligation are deeply intertwined. Its language of love is expansive, grounded in lived relationships, and often shaped by the realities of covenant, community, and divine initiative.<\/p>\n With this foundation in place, we can now turn to the New Testament, where these inherited traditions are taken up within a Greek-speaking environment and rearticulated by the earliest followers of Jesus in ways that both continue and transform earlier understandings of love.<\/p>\n DID PAUL AND JESUS HAVE THE SAME RELIGION?<\/p>\n Jesus taught a message of repentance to prepare for the Kingdom of God while Paul taught faith in Jesus. \u00a0Did they agree?\u00a0 Should they be considered the \u201cco-founders\u201d of Christianity?<\/p>\n __CONFIG_colors_palette__{“active_palette”:0,”config”:{“colors”:{“62516”:{“name”:”Main Accent”,”parent”:-1}},”gradients”:[]},”palettes”:[{“name”:”Default Palette”,”value”:{“colors”:{“62516”:{“val”:”rgb(255, 133, 34)”,”hsl”:{“h”:26,”s”:0.99,”l”:0.5667}}},”gradients”:[]}}]}__CONFIG_colors_palette__ LEARN MORE<\/strong> <\/a> It\u2019s difficult to distill everything that the New Testament says about love within the constraints of a single article. Instead, it\u2019s more historically responsible to focus on two central figures <\/strong>whose teachings have been especially influential: Jesus and Paul.<\/p>\n Even here, however, an important methodological clarification <\/strong>is necessary. We do not have direct access to the words of the historical Jesus<\/a> in a raw, unfiltered form. Rather, we encounter them through texts that were written, transmitted, and shaped within early Christian communities.<\/p>\n This point is underscored by Victor Paul Furnish in his book The Love Command in the New Testament<\/a>:<\/p>\n The Christian gospel of love cannot be distilled into some universal proposition or commandment, but can only be grasped in its concreteness as it impinges upon specific relationships and situations in history. The Gospels do not constitute a literary museum<\/strong> for the mere display of Jesus\u2019 commandments as if those in and of themselves had some time and space transcending validity. The Gospels do not just exhibit Jesus’ teachings, but rather receive, transmit, and apply it in specific ways relevant to the needs of the Church in the writer’s own time.<\/p>\n This observation is crucial because it cautions us against reading Jesus\u2019 statements about love as abstract, timeless slogans and instead encourages us to see them as part of dynamic traditions that address real communities and real ethical challenges.<\/p>\n Within the Synoptic Gospels<\/a>, one of the most important formulations of Jesus\u2019 teaching is the so-called double commandment<\/strong>: to love God and to love one\u2019s neighbor.<\/p>\n Drawing on earlier Jewish traditions, these two commands are brought together as the heart of the law. Yet the Gospel writers do not present this teaching in identical ways.<\/p>\n In the Gospel of Mark<\/strong>, the emphasis falls on wholehearted devotion to the one God and the inseparability of love for God and neighbor as the core of true obedience. The Gospel of Matthew <\/strong>frames the same command as the interpretive key to \u201cthe law and the prophets,\u201d suggesting that all scriptural obligations are to be understood through the lens of love.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, Gospel of Luke <\/strong>situates the command within a narrative context, most notably the parable of the Good Samaritan<\/a>, thereby shifting the focus from defining who qualifies as a neighbor to demonstrating what it means to act as one.<\/p>\n Taken together, these portrayals suggest that, at least as presented in the New Testament sources, Jesus\u2019 teaching on love <\/strong>is deeply rooted in relational and ethical contexts. It\u2019s not offered as a detached principle but as a lived imperative that reshapes how individuals relate to God and to others within their communities.<\/p>\n With this foundation in place, we can now turn to the writings of Paul<\/strong>, where the language of love is developed further within the theological and communal life of the earliest Christian movements.<\/p>\n In our exploration of what the Bible says about love, we now come to perhaps the most influential figure in shaping later Christian understandings of the concept: the apostle Paul.<\/p>\n His letters<\/a>, written to early communities across the eastern Mediterranean, are among the earliest Christian texts we possess, and they reflect a distinctive and highly developed vision of love.<\/p>\n Unlike the Gospel traditions, which present the teachings of Jesus in narrative form, Paul\u2019s writings are occasional letters addressing concrete issues<\/strong> within specific communities. As a result, his reflections on love emerge within pastoral, ethical, and theological arguments directed to real situations.<\/p>\n One of the most striking features of Paul\u2019s language is his consistent use of the Greek term agap\u0113 to describe love.<\/p>\n It appears throughout his undisputed letters and functions as a central category in his thought. Yet for Paul, agap\u0113 isn\u2019t simply one type of love among others, nor is it primarily defined in contrast to terms like philia or eros.<\/p>\n Instead, its meaning is shaped decisively by<\/strong> what he understands to be the central event of human history: the death and resurrection of Jesus<\/a>.<\/p>\n In this sense, Paul\u2019s conception of love is grounded in theological interpretation. As he famously writes, God demonstrates his love precisely in the act of Christ\u2019s self-giving death. For Paul, it\u2019s an event that reveals love as self-sacrificial, initiating, and directed toward those who are undeserving.<\/p>\n This theological grounding has far-reaching implications. For Paul, love is inseparable from faith <\/strong>and from the transformative experience of belonging to Christ. To believe is to participate in a new mode of existence: what he calls a \u201cnew creation.\u201d<\/p>\n Within this framework, love becomes the visible expression of that transformed life. It\u2019s not an optional virtue that can be added to faith, but its necessary manifestation in concrete practice. This is why Paul can summarize the Christian life so succinctly as \u201cfaith working through love\u201d: love is the way in which faith becomes active, embodied, and socially meaningful.<\/p>\n At the same time, Paul\u2019s concern isn\u2019t limited to individual moral behavior. His primary focus lies in the life of the community or the collective body of believers.<\/p>\n Love, in his letters, functions as the principle that sustains and orders<\/strong> communal existence. It governs relationships, resolves conflicts, and ensures that the community reflects the reality of God\u2019s transformative work.<\/p>\n This is particularly evident in passages that are often included among the most famous love Scriptures, where Paul describes love through a series of concrete dispositions and actions: patience, kindness, humility, and the refusal to seek one\u2019s own advantage. Such descriptions reinforce the point that, for Paul, love is something enacted within relationships rather than merely contemplated.<\/p>\n Finally, Paul brings his discussion of love into close connection with the ethical traditions of Israel<\/strong>. He explicitly cites the command to \u201clove your neighbor as yourself,\u201d but reinterprets it within his broader theological framework.<\/p>\n Love isn\u2019t simply the summary of the law in a formal sense. Instead, it’s the law’s actual fulfillment in practice. In other words, to love one\u2019s neighbor is to do what the law requires, not by adhering to a set of external regulations, but by embodying the transformative power of God\u2019s love at work in the believer.<\/p>\n In this way, Paul\u2019s vision both continues and reshapes earlier traditions, presenting love as the defining mark of a life reoriented by the decisive \u201cevent\u201d of Jesus\u2019 resurrection.<\/p>\n It\u2019s sometimes claimed in popular discussions that the New Testament presents three distinct \u201ctypes\u201d of love: agap\u0113, philia, and eros<\/strong>. According to this interpretation, each has a clearly defined and separate meaning.<\/p>\n From a scholarly perspective, however, this claim requires careful qualification<\/strong>. While it\u2019s true that the New Testament is written in Greek and does employ different words related to love, it doesn\u2019t present a systematic or philosophical taxonomy of love in the way later interpreters sometimes suggest.<\/p>\n The term agap\u0113 (and its verbal form agapa\u014d) is by far the most prominent <\/strong>and becomes the dominant expression for love in early Christian texts, especially in Paul\u2019s writings and the Gospel of John.<\/p>\n The philia word group does appear, but less frequently, and often overlaps in meaning with agap\u0113. In some passages (most famously in John 21) both terms are used in close proximity, though many scholars caution against reading too sharp a distinction into their alternation.<\/p>\n As for eros, the term itself doesn\u2019t appear in the New Testament at all, even though themes of desire, attraction, and intimate love are certainly present in broader biblical literature.<\/p>\n What this suggests is that the neat triadic division of love into agap\u0113, philia, and eros isn\u2019t native to the New Testament itself but reflects later interpretive frameworks<\/strong>, often influenced by Greek philosophical traditions and subsequent Christian theology.<\/p>\n The New Testament writers were less concerned with categorizing different \u201ctypes\u201d of love and more focused on articulating how love functions within the life of believers and their relationship to God and others.<\/p>\n Consequently, rather than presenting a rigid classification, the New Testament offers a more fluid and context-dependent <\/strong>understanding of love, with agap\u0113 <\/strong>emerging as the central term precisely because it was capable of expressing the theological and communal dimensions that early Christians sought to emphasize.<\/p>\n Before we conclude our exploration of what the Bible says about love, it may be helpful to pause and look directly at some of the most powerful and representative passages<\/strong> themselves. Here are a few key Bible verses on love.<\/p>\n![\"What](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/What-does-the-Bible-say-about-love.png\" "\\"What")
<\/p>\nLove in the Ancient World: A Conceptual Framework<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/quote-down.png\" "\\"quote")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/quote-up.png\" "\\"quote")
<\/p>\nVerses on Love: The Perspective of the Old Testament<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Jesus-and-Paul-PBS-4x3-1.jpg\" "\\"Jesus")
<\/a><\/p>\nWhat Does the Bible Say About Love in the New Testament?<\/h2>\n
Verses on Love: Jesus\u2019 Teachings in the New Testament<\/h4>\n
<\/p>\nApostle Paul and Love Scriptures:<\/h3>\n
Appendix: Do the \u201cThree Types of Love\u201d Appear in the New Testament?<\/h2>\n
![\"Scriptures](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/scriptures-about-love.png\" "\\"scriptures")
<\/p>\n![\"In](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/In-the-Beginning-Online-Course-by-Dr-Bart-Ehrman-768x576-1.png\" "\\"In")
<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"