essay on brotherly love

Best Bible Resources For Christians

Bible Facts
Christian Life
Read the Bible

Home > Christian Resources > How Does A Christian Show True Brotherly Love

Christian Resources

How Does A Christian Show True Brotherly Love

Modified: January 9, 2024

Written by: Mary Hughes

Ericka Andersen, an editor at Christian.net, expertly merges digital strategy with content creation, focusing on faith and societal issues. Her communication skills enhance the platform's engaging narratives, fostering meaningful dialogue on belief's impact on society.

Brotherly love depicts the essence of true Christianity. Find out how you can express real brotherly love with your fellow brothers in Christ

Brotherly Love
showing true love
True brotherly love

(Many of the links in this article redirect to a specific reviewed product. Your purchase of these products through affiliate links helps to generate commission for Christian.net, at no extra cost. Learn more )

The universal principle of brotherly love is revealed in several books of the New Testament. It conveys the kind of love expressed towards other people as a fellow-man. Brotherly affection can mean the cozy feeling of belongingness. It presents a calm atmosphere of serenity like kinship or friendship. Yet, in the Biblical context, it is a love seeking the best interest of fellow believers and counting them as more significant than oneself (Philippians 2:3). Love is given to flawed, sinful people with deeds of sacrifices and service. We know this because we know of a love that was given to us (1 John 4:19). And every believer can only love because they’ve received love. With this, love is not about that we have loved God but that He loved us. Our ability to show love is due to the love shown to us.

Christian churches exist because of the love of Jesus, and it grows with the love of every believer strengthening the family of God. Each follower of Christ is part of God’s universal family. As children of God, we will enjoy His fellowship through the life of every believer. It is a gift from God to enjoy our faith journey with Christians around us to help, encourage, strengthen, teach, and comfort us. It is also a blessing from Him to show our love for them. Take time to read these significant means and reasons to show your love for your brothers and sisters in Christ.

What Is Real Brotherly Love?

The phrase ‘Brotherly Love’ comes from the Greek word Phila which means ‘love’ or ‘love of brothers’ in Greek philosophy. This kind of brotherly affection sets apart the Early Christian churches from other groups during their period of existence. It is their most notable characters as Christians. Today, this should also be an eminent trait for all Christians because the God whom we are serving is the author of love. The New Testament abounds with expressions and teachings of brotherly love. This type of love mentioned in the Bible means loving our brothers in Christ with selfless desires and humility. True brotherly love is not self-centered, rather, it is sacrificial.

The Book of 1 John 3:16 writes a very popular phrase about love. It says “By this, we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers”. The laying of one’s life for another is the true essence of brotherly love. The Bible never points to seeking personal satisfaction in loving one another. It always pursues others before one’s self. Jesus modeled the perfect example of love which we ought to follow in carrying out brotherly love. Furthermore, the Bible never fails to define and describe the context of love in Christianity. Thus, it gives us the best lessons concerning brotherly love without the need to take a course on it.

Read more : What Does It Mean To Be A Christian: The True Meaning

A Biblical Command of Love

The Ten Commandments given to the Israelites during the time of Moses had a summarized edition when Jesus stepped down into the earth. Probably it was Jesus saying to His disciples, ‘let us make things a bit easier for you, ten must have overwhelmed you’. Jesus narrowed down the ten to two in the principle of love. First, He commanded to love God with all our hearts, minds, and souls, and strengths. This is the great and first commandment (Matthew 22:37-38). The second commandment is about loving our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 22:39). All the laws of the Bible depend upon these two greatest commandments. This sheds light on why Christians ought to always love because a core rule of Christian law is love. God is love, and Jesus was the best example of these commandments.

Jesus gave a new and one of the most significant commandments to His disciples in the Book of John before He fulfilled His mission on the cross. This is the commandment: that you love one another; just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another (13:34 ). Jesus showed the purest and most selfless form of love on the cross and gave this new commandment before his crucifixion. Nevertheless, the disciples knew the kind of love they ought to give. Love is the core of God’s being. To love one another is a God-ordained instruction for His disciples. If you are His disciple, you then also ought to show brotherly love.

Who Shall We Call as Brothers

In Paul’s letter to the Church of Rome, he gave instructions to love one another with brotherly love and to honor others above ourselves (Romans 12:10). His various letters to different churches in the New Testament also contains reminders of loving one another as part of the body of Christ. The term ‘brothers’ may refer to anyone like our ‘neighbors’ yet the context of the brotherly love given emphasis here is our love for our fellow believers.

Once we decide to follow Jesus, it will be impossible for us to continue the journey of our faith without being part of God’s family. The church of Christ is like a body with many parts (Romans 12:4). Hence, although we are many, we are one body in Christ (Romans 12:5). One cannot function on its own. Every part needs another to serve and follow God. Using the label brothers and sisters in Christ suggests an unbreakable tie between the children of God.

A family remains a family whatever happens because of the blood that connects them. This is the same with our family in Christ. Jesus, being our elder brother (Hebrews 2:12) holds us with such an indestructible bond that unites us with Him and with His people. Love seasons and strengthens this connection.

How Do Christians Show Brotherly Love?

Expressing love to another takes various forms. When we begin to understand the significance of a brotherly love both as a commandment and privilege through Jesus Christ, it will be less difficult to find the eagerness in showing brotherly love. Looking to our brothers and sisters in faith through the eyes that Jesus has is the first step in conveying our love for others. This is no ordinary shift of outlook and opinion, however. Because the eyes which Jesus had was filled with love, so much so that he died for all.

In Romans 14, Apostle Paul gave specific instructions on how to treat each believer and how to think of each other. His first advice was about embracing a brother and sister in Christ who has weaker faith without passing judgment. If we start to judge our fellow believers there will never be enough room for our love to abide. Judgment and love cannot exist on the same ground. The Apostle Paul wrote that neither of us is fitting to judge another for we are all servants of one Master. We are only called to love.

Paul’s last instruction was to not cause another to stumble. It is heart-rending to see God’s children without love for one another. Paul’s warning was clear, do not for the sake of food and other futile reasons destroy the work of God and your relationships with one another. Christian bonds are far more important than our sentiments and opinions. Showing real brotherly love takes courage and strength. Yet, with our own strength, it is impossible to accomplish such love, but with God, all things are possible (Matthew 19:26). Here are Biblical means of showing real brotherly love.

Steady Love

The kind of love which we know by this world is commonly based on emotions and feelings. We act and react depending on how we feel towards another person or circumstance. This is not the kind of love Christians ought to bear. Even though our emotions give us primary sentiments to react, it is not the sole foundation of love. If we do so, our love is no doubt laid open to crumble. Christian love demands self-control, discipline, and consistency. Feelings are deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9). It is not the basis of brotherly love, it is the Word of God. If we want to show brotherly love, it is the Scripture that we need to seek.

True brotherly love never chooses the perfect time to love nor the best person to love. The Bible’s definition of love is simply far above these things. Proverbs 17:17 says that a friend loves at all times. Love has no preference. If that would be the case, it is love no longer. Love is beyond judgment as conferred in Romans Chapter 14. Thus, any status, level of faith, or period of being part of God’s family can bound the love that we have for our brothers. We should encourage one another and build each other up through love (1 Thessalonians 5:11. In addition, Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 compares believers’ bond to a threefold cord that is not easily broken because it lifts each other in times of stumble.

Read more : Jesus Showed Us God’s Love | Christian Songs For Kids

Unselfish Compassion

The Book of 1 John discusses Biblical truths in loving one another. Verse 11 states the first truth about brotherly love, that we should love one another. The succeeding verses warn us not to be like Cain who lost compassion for his brother Abel, compelling him to murder his brother. Hate for a brother is a form of murder. Apostle John further warns, whoever does not love abides in death. How then can we combat hate? By dwelling in the greatest love we ever received.

1 John 3:16 talks about understanding love through the life that is laid down for us. When we know sinners like us experience love and favor we don’t deserve, it is hard not to give love. Jesus who is full of compassion showed the best way to love by laying his life down for us. The verse also states that we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. How then can we show unselfish love and compassion towards our brothers and sisters in faith?

1 John 3:17 says “But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in Him?” Charity is the heartbeat of compassion. It is through giving and doing something that we can demonstrate our brotherly love. While faith without work is dead (James 2:17), brotherly compassion without action is vain.

An Attitude of Sharing

The early Christian community spent days and nights devoting themselves to teaching, fellowship, prayers, and breaking of the bread (Acts 2:42 – 46). Day by day they came together as one family, sharing all that they have. These included their possessions which helped the needs of others, their knowledge of the Gospel, the Book of Laws, and more. An act of sharing is a great display of brotherly love. Every good act starts with simple strides.

The modern period doesn’t require us to give up our possessions, but sharing may help others in their times of need. For instance, if any brother or sister in Christ requests prayers about a necessity, you can help by praying or take a larger step to help them obtain what is needed if possible to show your love and we don’t always have the chance.

On some occasions, it requires us not only to share good things but also burdens. Every follower of Christ carries a burden for His kingdom and these loads become lighter when shared (Galatians 6:1-10 ). Hence, struggles also turn out to be milder. Sharing burdens with another may mean comforting the afflicted, encouraging the disheartened, visiting the sick, praying for those who are weak, or struggling in faith. As one body of Christ, we must not let any of our brothers stumble without a hand lifting them.

Keeping Unity

Brothers dwelling in unity glorifies God (Psalm 133:1). The church was advised by the Apostle Peter to have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. These instructions are still beneficial and effective to this day and will continue into the future. The unity of the body of Christ is a very important principle for Christians. It proves that they are children of God. What binds the people of God in perfect harmony is to bear with each other and to love (Colossians 3:13 – 14). There are no other shortcuts. The best element to fuel unity among believers is to pursue brotherly love.

To have brotherly love, we must forgive each other (Colossians 3:13). If someone sins or commits mistakes against you, Jesus’ teachings direct us a life of forgiveness (Luke 17:4). With Jesus forgiving each sin we commit, what then is our reason not to forgive? Unforgiving hearts are covered with pride. To conquer pride is through humility, which leads us to the third means to keep unity. Finally, put on a humble and patient heart (Colossians 3:12). A humble heart does not judge others; they welcome even the weakest brother in faith (Romans 14:1). Moreover, in humility, we are to count others more significant than ourselves with minds seeking the interests of others and not just ourselves.

What Brotherly Love Can Do

We already know that brotherly love is a command from God. Thus, it is not an option we can choose not to follow. There is no reason for us not to, anyway. Besides, it is impossible to live a Christian life without love when we experience it full-time. We love due to an overflow of God’s abundant love. Nothing of which can be counted of us but of God alone. Love is an active principle of the Bible. It causes us to move towards righteousness. Also, it gives us a passion for compassion. Every Christian receives God’s love with the purpose of giving it to others. It simply can’t be contained. Every believer is Christ’s vessel. And there is more to brotherly love that we tend to perceive.

Brotherly love does for us things more than what we do for the sake of it. When we give love, share, forgive, demonstrate humility, or encourage, we have the confidence to receive the same from others. It is not just because the Law and the Prophets teach us to do unto others what we wish to do unto us (Matthew 7:12) but because we are members of the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12). If one part of the body suffers, the entire body senses the pain and suffers as well (1 Corinthians 12:26). Therefore, no individual member endures pain alone. Above these things, brotherly love points to God who is the sole reason for our affection and being. Showing brotherly affection is therefore evidently significant.

Read more : How Does Catholicism And Christian Democracy Differ

Showing Brotherly Love Strengthens the Body of Christ

God’s children were called with one hope, one faith, one baptism, and one Lord (Ephesians 4:-6). This shows the strength of God’s children when we are united. The Lord gives us different talents to equip His children for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:11-12). Every part of the body functions to serve and be served so that it can grow in love (Ephesians 4:16). And all must be done in love: the love for Jesus and love for the church that is brotherly love.

Apostle Paul urges that there should be no divisions in the Body of Christ; rather the members should have the same care for one another (1 Corinthians 12:25). What somebody lacks, another may be abounding. Where another is weak, someone may be stronger. And each can be used to build each other up all for the sake of growing the family of God. 1 Corinthians 12 shows various ways of strengthening the body of Christ through the gifts God.

Showing Brotherly Love Shows That We Belong to God

Love probably is the loudest form of evangelism or if not, the most apparent way of preaching the cross of Jesus. Sometimes, it is easier to know things by seeing it and experiencing it than listening to it. This is perhaps the reason why Jesus told the twelve apostles that by loving one another people will know they are His disciples (John 13:35). Apostle John possibly remembers this teaching when He wrote in 1 John 4:7 to love one another for love is from God whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Therefore, Apostle John continues, by the awesome love of Jesus, we ought to love one another.

If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us (1 John 4:12). The love of God is seen in those who believe and love. By showing love with one another that other people will know we are the children of God. As stated in the Book of James, let us love not in word or talk but in truth and in deeds. The Lord is the source of affection and love. The essence of God’s being is love. It is His very heart. He is love. If there is a lack of love in our hearts as His followers, we can ask for a sufficient love to fill our hearts so that we can extend it to others.

Brotherly Love: A Portrait of God’s Character

The heart of God’s character is love. 1 John 4:8 tells us that love is God himself. The best expression of God’s love is the suffering of Jesus on the cross for the salvation of the world. Setting this as an example of our love leads us to a love that requires sacrifices for one another. The Bible reminds us that the world can know love if it is evident in the lives of His disciples (John 13:35). As light and salt of the world (Matthew 5:13), our lives can influence others to love and believe the love that was sent to the world.

Brotherly love displays a portrait of God’s character. The mark of true Christianity is love. And above all things, love is what the world needs. Love begins within our family may it be our spiritual and biological family. We cannot extend this love in the world without first extending it with our fellow believers. There is no best time to practice love with the family God has adopted you with but now. Show love with little acts of kindness, patience, and humility. Always seek the interests of those around you. Following Jesus is not about you. He died for you and gave life you never deserve. It is your turn to show that love with compassion, consistency, and harmony. Spread love as you have received it!

Was this page helpful?

How Dale Partridge Built Relearn.org to Strengthen Theological Literacy

The Spiritual Journey to Rome: A Christian Perspective on Visiting the Pantheon

Events and Celebrations of the Jubilee 2025: Schedule and Details

Navigating Sensitive Topics: Writing About Religion Respectfully

20 Wedding Prayers

What Does A Priest Say During Confession

Written By: Mary Hughes

Why Does Church Of Christ Take Communion Every Sunday

What Are The Requirements For A Southern Baptist Deacon

How Were The Apostles Killed

What Is Spiritual Baptist

Please accept our Privacy Policy.

CHRISTIAN.NET uses cookies to improve your experience and to show you personalized ads. Please review our privacy policy by clicking here .

Privacy Overview
Strictly Necessary Cookies

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

Reading Acts

Some thoughts on the book of acts and pauline theology, what is brotherly love (1 thessalonians 4:9–10).

The Greeks considered the relationship between brothers to be of primary importance, Plutarch used the term “brotherly love” to describe the proper relationship between brothers.

Plutarch, De fraterno amore 2 …where there is an unanimous accordance amongst brothers, the family thrives and flourishes, and friends and acquaintance, like a well furnished choir, in all their actions, words, and thoughts maintain a delightful harmony. “But jarring feuds advance the worst of men.” Plutarch, De fraterno amore 15 Brothers should not be like the scales of a balance, the one rising upon the other’s sinking; but rather like numbers in arithmetic, the lesser and greater mutually helping and improving each other. Plutarch, De fraterno amore 21 Again, it is highly commendable in him to have the highest esteem and honor for his brother’s wife, reputing and honoring her as the most sacred of all his brother’s sacred treasures, and thus to do honor to him

Based on the teaching of Jesus, the earliest believers referred to themselves as “brothers and sisters.” In Mark 3:3 Jesus indicates that his “brothers and sisters” are those who hear and obey his words. If those who followed Jesus faced rejection from their families, it is possible that Jesus intended his followers to be a new “family.” On the other hand, the family of Jesus may be an allusion to the larger theme of a New Israel among the followers of Jesus. In Acts 2:29 Peter addresses a Jewish crowd as “brothers,” meaning “fellow Jews.” So too Paul in Acts 22:1; 23:1.

Paul’s use of the term “brother” and “brotherly love” bears additional theological weight. By accepting Christ, we are adopted into the family of God, God is our father. This makes each person that has accepted Christ as their savior a brother or sister in Christ. This new family in Christ is the foundation for many of Paul’s commands (cf., Rom 12:10; other Christian ethical instruction begins the same way (Heb 13:1; 1 Pet 1:22; 2 Pet 1:7; 1 Clem 48:1). He urges his readers to please God by treating each other like brothers and sisters.

If the church lives in brotherly love, then the father is pleased and honored. For the Greek world, nothing dishonors the parent more that children who do not display proper affection for one another and feud. If Plutarch could say “jarring feuds advance the worst of men,” how might he describe the sort of angry disputes which plague most modern churches?

20 thoughts on “ What is Brotherly Love? (1 Thessalonians 4:9–10) ”

Reblogged this on James' Ramblings and commented: Reblogging for future reference.

Pingback: What is Brotherly Love? (1 Thessalonians 4:9–10) — Reading Acts | Talmidimblogging

By the term brotherly love I don’t see it as something that us Christians should do only if the other person loves Jesus. It is something we should live by no matter what the other person believes or if the other person loves Jesus. As Christians we are supposed to show people the love that Christ showed us. Jesus did not die for only those who believed in Him, He died for everyone and everyone’s sins past, present, and future. Yes, loving our family and fellow Christian’s is very important and we should show them all the love we have. But showing those who do not know God is even more important. As Paul states in 2 Corinthians 5:20, “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (ESV) we are to strengthen and bring people into the kingdom of God. Along with loving others we need not feud with our fellow Christians as this puts stress in the kingdom of God. How would it look to those out of Christ if all of us Christains are feuding and not loving one another? As you said in the blog, “For the Greek world, nothing dishonors the parent more that children who do not display proper affection for one another and feud” (Phil Long) it would not be pleasing to then believe in God if they saw the body of Christ feuding not loving one another as it is such an apparent thing in their culture.

Erika, although I do completely agree with your statement expressing that it is important to show the love of Christ to everyone, I am not sure if it is more important to show the love of Christ to non-Christians than fellow brothers. Rather, love simply needs to be shown differently when it comes to fellow brothers and non-Christians. It seems as if we are called to live at peace with our own brothers in Christ while still creating relationships with non-Christians in hopes to someday see them in eternity. Both tasks are equally important and one without the other would not help advance the kingdom of God. It would be a shame for a church to spend all their time evangelising that they forget their very own relationships between church members–causing their brotherly love to fall to the ground. In the same way, it would be just as useless to a church where individuals are living at peace with one another, yet not going into the world to share the good news.

In response to the initial post, Plutarch would most likely be sick to his stomach after seeing the modern day churches conflict. Internal disputes cannot be forgotten because typically, wounds from within cut deeper than any external conflict. Furthermore, right then is where Satan likes to work.

When looking and deciding or thinking about what brotherly love is I would say it is the love of one another believers and nonbelievers. According to Jesus he addresses everyone as brothers and sisters and according to that then brotherly love would be the love of one another that we are called to do and that is talked about by Paul in Thessalonians and by Jesus before that. Brotherly love is showing love to others and showing love to fellow believers in the body of Christ. While it is still important to show love to nonbelievers I feel that showing brotherly love that is talked about here is very important within the body of Christ. We are meant to show love to all and this brotherly love is included in that.

If Plutarch was to be a part of the modern church he would be disappointed in the modern church and what is going on there. He would be disappointed in the lack of brotherly love within the church as the body of Christ and the sad fact that there has been in recent years more internal conflict and focus upon tearing one another down instead of showing one another the brotherly love that we are meant to and is required of us as believers. We are meant to show brotherly love and that is severely lacking in the modern church as they are caught up with things that are not as important as the mission that Jesus set out for us.

There are two main movements to 1 Thessalonians, in which Paul celebrated the Thessalonians’ faithfulness to Jesus and challenged them to continue to grow as Christians. Paul celebrated the Thessalonians’ because of their faith even through controversy and opposition (1 Timothy 1:9-10) and he told of his time in Thessalonica from Acts 17. Paul talked about how Christian leadership is about relationships and loving service. I believe this might also be a part of “brotherly love” because it relates to serving others with love. Paul told of his mission in Thessalonica and how they were “ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also of our own selves, because you had become very dear to us” (1 Thessalonians 2:8). There is common persecution amongst the different parties. Jesus was persecuted and killed by his own people, Paul was persecuted by his fellow Jews, and the Thessalonians faced hostility from their neighbors (1 Thessalonians 2:13-16). Paul wrote that the suffering is a way of participating in Jesus’ story. There is not a lack of love, but a sort of comradery explained in this that the people of Thessalonica are not alone in their suffering. Paul challenges the believers in chapter four of 1 Thessalonians to make a commitment to love and serve others. The Christians in the city of Thessalonica should be known as reliable people who work hard to provide for themselves and for others in need (1 Thessalonians 4:9-12). Paul urged the assembly to have brotherly love for both their congregation and for those who do not yet believe (TTP, 69).

In terms of brotherly love, I think it is equally important to believers and non-believers. With other Christians, we should hold a higher moral standard that hopefully includes loving them..In the modern church, a lot of the time that is not the case. We want to sit in our own comfortable seat, drink our own coffee, sing the songs we want to sing, and then leave to go back to our comfortable homes. We are in community, but most Christians aren’t active in it. Most Christians are afraid to step out of their comfort zones and to talk to people because there is this sense that all Christians are perfect. I mean, it’s like the end of the world if we don’t answer with “I’m doing well” during the mingle time. But not all churches are that way. There are lots of “community centered” or mission minded churches” who take the time to be intentional with the people in the church. Showing brotherly love to unbelievers is just as important because if we’re spending time in the word, in prayer, and in community..then love should flow out of us naturally because of who God is and what he’s done for us. If not, then one should take a step back and ask themselves what is keeping them from showing love to the people around them who are broken and hurting?

It is no question that modern churches would disgust Plutarch. Unfortunately, even in my home church I have seen countless feuds, sometimes in which families would leave the church for unimportant reasons such as who got the solo in the Christmas choir concert. I believe he would describe the disputes the same way and even add that they advance the destruction of men as well as brining out the worst in them. In 1 Thessalonians 4:9-10, Paul urges the congregation to continue to love even more than they have before. We can certainly learn a few things from this statement. It shows that even though the Thessalonians thought they were doing a pretty good job, there is always room for improvement, especially when it comes to how we treat one another and some times we forget this.

Longennecker says, “ Life in Christ commences in faith, continues in love, and culminates in hope” (65). Faith, hope, and love are the three main pillars of Paul’s writings and as we know, love is the greatest of all (1 Corinthians 13:13), thus if we are not always trying to love even more than before, then we are really missing the point of the gospel. Unresolved and petty feuds bring about the opposite of love, and though we are a broken people and will therefore always struggle with this, we must do our best to follow Paul’s instructions on continually working out love or else we will certainly destroy ourselves and those around us.

Rachel Smith

“If Plutarch could say “jarring feuds advance the worst of men,” how might he describe the sort of angry disputes which plague most modern churches?” (P. Long, blog-What is Brotherly Love?) Plutarch may have many things to say about the angry disputes that most modern churches deal with. In the hypothetical world that would allow Plutarch to live today and comment on the angry disputes, he may say that the children of God have dishonoured their heavenly father to such an extent that they have lost their salvation. I think that Plutarch might think that the angry disputes of the modern churches are advancing evil inside the church; based off his quote “jarring feuds advance the worst of men,” (P. Long, blog). Plutarch would be disappointed in the modern churches for their lack of brotherly love. He would not be happy with the modern churches’ seemingly inability to have ‘unanimous accordance’ with each other. Many modern churches today would not receive a similar response from Plutarch as the church in Thessalonica received from Paul. “With respect to the assembly’s commitment to and practice of philadelphia (lit., “brotherly love”), the apostle is pleased” (TTP, 70).

Brotherly love is so important. I think it is really incredible that we get to look at the church as another family. I think that when the church has a strong form of, “brotherly love,” it reflects on and affects the community that they are in. “Life in Christ commences in faith, continues in love, and culminates in hope,” (TTP 65). When we live in Christ and have that brotherly love, we are going to have more hope. That is a wonderful feeling and that should be a motivator to go and spread the good news. “And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe,” (1 Thessalonians 2:13). Once we accept that the Bible is true and we absorb the words that are being said, we can apply it to our everyday life. If everyone applies having brotherly love, this world would be a brighter place.

I agree with Tasha that love is different when approaching different people, Christian or non Christians. Brotherly love is important in our churches because sometimes we get caught up in the idea that we need to keep building up the church, when we need to start building into our relations with each other. We tend to get caught up in the idea of growing in numbers instead of relationships. I believe that brotherly love can be stronger because you come together with Christ to love each other. We have to use a different love to love those who are lost. That does not mean our love for anyone should be any less. According to 1 Thessalonians 4:9, “Now about your love for one another we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other.”

I think Plutarch would be appalled by how some of our churches act as well. We tend to find ourselves arguing over useless matters instead of growing the brotherly love that we desperately need in our world today. I think we would be ashamed by what Plutarch would have to say.

The idea of brotherly love must come from a community of people that can identify themselves as a “family” otherwise the brotherly aspect of the love loses its meaning. As Christians we are called to love everyone regardless of their beliefs in life. We see this in Matthew 22 verses 34 – 40 where we are, “ to love our neighbor as ourselves.” However, I do think this brotherly love, when used in biblical context, is reserved for those that are already saved by Christ. The love we share to non-believers is a different type of love. The reservation of the brotherly love to those that are faithful can be explained further in Mark 3:3 – where Jesus indicates that his “brothers and sisters” are those who hear and obey his words. Those that are not saved by Christ do not fall under that criterion. A good real-life example of “brotherly or sisterly” love can be seen when dating before marriage. A man can love his girlfriend – enjoy spending time with her, getting to know her, meeting her family, etc. – but he doesn’t love her as if she was as important to his own family, at least not yet. The brotherly/sisterly love comes in when they become married. This forms the community between the two people and their families, and they become a community where they love each other as such. Similarly, when one accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as their savior, they become a part of the family and are a part of that “brother and sister” community.

When looking at what goes on in modern day churches, Plutarch would say that it is of upmost disappointment. The idea of Church as a community of brothers and sisters, as explained earlier in the blog post, has been lost over the past few years because of societies shift from the importance of community to the importance of the individual. Because of this shift, people of the church are too busy comparing themselves to others within the church, or disagreeing with others in the church, they lose the ultimate goal of the body of Christ and its end goal.

When I think of brotherly love, I also see it as the way Christians interact with other brothers and sisters in Christ. I think it is important to distinguish this from “loving thy neighbor”, because while both are important, they are not the same thing. I think it can be easy to figure that we should have the same love for all people, and treat everyone with compassion, and while that is true- there is still differences between the love between fellow family in Christ- and our “neighbors. For example, in Matthew 22:39, God commands us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. However, Romans 12:10 says for brothers and sisters to “Honor one another above yourselves”. It appears from these two examples that the love of a brother goes even beyond that of a neighbor, and is not exactly the same, The best example of brotherly love that I can think of is how Jesus interacts with his brothers and sisters in Christ during his life time, and the type of love he has for them.

Brotherly love is what we know to be to love one another as God loves us. God does not hate and accepts people for who they are. We, as Christians, need to love like God does. Paul preaches the Thessalonians about brotherly and sisterly love. As Long states in the article: “By accepting Christ, we are adopted into the family of God, God is our father. This makes each person that has accepted Christ as their savior a brother or sister in Christ.” (Long, 2017) This is also why we call each other brothers and sisters in the church as we are all under one father which is God. I think it is just equally important to love other people who are not believers of Christ yet. God would do the same thing, so we should as well. We cannot hate but open up with love and kindness. After all, God died for all sin. Not just for the people who believed in Him. Longenecker says: “By urging the fellowship to practice philadelphia “more and more,”.” (Longenecker, 70) Philadelphia is another term for brotherly love. No matter how much we provide for other people, there is always something more that we can do. We can love more and care more. Found in John 13:34 we are given a new commandment to love one another. God would not want us to feud in or outside of the church. The church is a house of worship, not hatred. So this would not be pleasing and unappealing to the Lord. I feel like when you step inside a church and begin to worship and praise God, you can feel the type of environment you are in. You can feel if the church loves each other and see the bond. If the church does not have this feeling then how can we still worship God there? We have to show love to everyone. You never know how you may impact or how.

I think that the love Jesus shows the people he interacts with and prays over is the love we all should look for. It is also important to prepare the church for a place of love. Especially since it is a place to worship God. It is pleasing to Him that we love each other. John 13:34 is a good verse that shows the commandment to be pure with love. It is so important to love people who are not believers as well. Bringing as many people to the Lord is exceptional work. It is also good to know that there is always something more that we can be doing to please God.

When it comes to the term “brotherly love”, I don’t think that the endearment is only meant for those who are followers of Jesus. I think we are called to love everyone and show everyone “brotherly love” regardless of their walk in life. In 1 Thessalonians 4:9-10, Paul says, “Now concerning brotherly love, you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another, for that indeed is what you are doing to all the brothers throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more…”. When Paul is addressing the Thessalonians he does not say that they are to only show love to those who are walking alongside them in their faith, but “all the brothers throughout Macedonia”. As Christians this can easily be applied to the way we live our lives today. We should always strive to love those around us with no expectation of love in return, because that is what Jesus did. He loved and died to save everyone, sinners and believers alike, even when we did not deserve the sacrifice. Mark 12:31, tells us to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” I think this correlates well with the 1 Thessalonians 4:9-10 verses because it shows to me that community is important, helping each other and being there for one another is vital, and family is imperative. The church is a family and when you choose to become a believer and put your faith in God you gain another important family member along with a wide variety of siblings. Loving those around you isn’t always easy and families tend to argue and fight. But if you act out of love those around you with the same dedication, intentionality, and eagerness as God loves you, helping build the Kingdom of God is second nature. And ultimately that is what we are called to do.

1 Thessalonian 4:9- states, “Now concerning “brotherly love” you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God.” Jesus had a pure love, he showed it through many different ways. For example, sending His Son to die on the cross for our sins, being truth and caring for the helpless, (Romans 5:8, John 14:6). Christians of course cannot die and take on sin but we can care for those around us. As a Christian we are meant to follow in the foot steps of God the best we can, this starts with loving others first. I believe that in the present Christians have forgotten what love really means. As a believer in Christ, we should care for those around us but without going against the Bible. Jesus loved people by telling them the truth and He never made someone else feel comfortable in their sin. Jesus loved without conditions which is remarkable because of how much we sin against Him. Paul was saying Jesus already perfectly made the path to show us how to love others, and that he did not need to tell them again. Also, there is the possibly he was referring to the body of Christ loving each other. The church is divided, especially in the present age. There are so many different church denominations, if we are all reading the same Bible why are Christians divided among themselves? We are supposed to love the body of church and the body has many different parts so that we can all work together and follow Jesus Christ. I believe we are supposed to love the body of Christ and love the unbelievers to show them the power of God.

There is a lot that we can take out of these verses. Here Paul is speaking to the church at Thessalonica about brotherly love. What is Paul saying when he says “brotherly love”? Well, as Long stated in this blog, “By accepting Christ, we are adopted into the family of God, God is our father. This makes each person that has accepted Christ as their savior a brother or sister in Christ.” Which explains this very well, but I don’t think it should stop there. Our God is a loving God and he calls us to love everyone, “And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39). This verse tells us that we should treat others equally and follow the golden rule, treat others the way you want to be treated. As believers, we should not bring others down for whatever reason it may be. We should show them love and respect no matter what or who they are. We are called to love like God loves, and bringing people down in any way is not God’s love. We know that we are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14) in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). He made each of us intentionally, making all of us His children. We are all brothers and sisters, no matter what beliefs or morals a person may have, they are still our brother or sister. Now, the love you give to some people may be different than the love you give to others. This is why Paul goes on to say “do this more and more” and by that he is telling us that there is always room to do better and be more like God and that is what we should strive to do.

Paul is a picture of leading by example. He writes to the Thessalonians about brotherly love in 1 Thessalonians 4:9-10 and sets the tone of his message by greeting the members of the church with the name “brothers.” This practice of calling one another family in Christ is carried into this day, I have heard the phrase “we are brothers and sisters in Christ” more times than I can count. Paul speaks of the family of believers that are one within Christ on many occasions, just an example being Romans 12:10, which reads, “Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.” Although this concept of showing brotherly and sisterly affection is still a prominent speech among Christians, how often do we see this brotherly affection within the church? In my current church experience, I see examples of this brotherly and sisterly affection in many ways. At my current church, the community is strong and thriving, the congregation is unified, the worship is inspiring, and the preaching is directional. I also have experience of being in a church where brotherly and sisterly affection was preached, but not carried out. Because of a lack of action, the congregation was full of tension, anxieties were high, bitterness increased due to lack of communication, and love was withheld in moments where it was needed. What a missed opportunity to carry the love of Christ and to dive into Paul’s teaching of brotherly love and unity. God’s picture of the church being a strong body of members, as 1 Corinthians 12 reveals. Without this heart posture and active action of brotherly love and affection, the community and purpose of the church is not meeting God’s desire.

In today’s world, where communication is more accessible than ever, it’s somewhat ironic that we witness some of the most divisive and bitter disputes within the walls of churches. Plutarch might describe these angry disputes in modern churches as breeding grounds for the worst aspects of human behavior. Plutarch would likely argue that angry disputes in churches hinder spiritual growth. When members of a congregation engage in bitter arguments and conflicts, they become preoccupied with their differences rather than their shared faith. This preoccupation can lead to a decline in spiritual development, as the focus shifts from nurturing one’s relationship with the divine to winning personal battles.

Bible Study Guide – Brotherly Love

August 20 – 26, 2017.

“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another” (John 13:34).

Study Help: Testimonies , vol. 5, 167–177; The Ministry of Healing , 25, 26.

Introduction

“All who are imbued with His Spirit will love as He loved. The very principle that actuated Christ will actuate them in all their dealing one with another.” The Desire of Ages, 678.

1 A NEW COMMANDMENT

How much love was demonstrated by Christ and what is its significance for His followers? John 13:1; 15:13.

Note: “[John 13:34, 35 quoted.] How broad, how full is this love. The new part of that commandment the disciples did not understand. They were to love one another as Christ had loved them. These were their credentials that Christ was formed within, the hope of glory. After the sufferings of Christ, after His crucifixion and resurrection and proclamation over the rent sepulcher of Joseph, ‘I am the resurrection and the life’ (John 11:25), after His words to the five hundred who assembled to see Him in Galilee, and after His ascension to heaven, the disciples had some idea of what the love of God comprehended, and of the love they were to exercise one toward another. When the Holy Spirit rested on them on the day of Pentecost, that love was revealed.” “Ellen G. White Comments,” The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, 1141.

What is the first fruit of the Holy Spirit and what is the evidence that this fruit is being perfected in us? Galatians 5:22, 23; 1John 4:11–13; 3:18.

2 A NEW COMMANDMENT (continued)

In what sense did Christ refer to brotherly love as a “new commandment”? John 13:34.

Note: “In this last meeting with His disciples, the great desire which Christ expressed for them was that they might love one another as He had loved them. Again and again He spoke of this. ‘These things I command you,’ He said repeatedly, ‘that ye love one another.’ His very first injunction when alone with them in the upper chamber was, ‘A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another’ (John 15:17; 13:34). To the disciples this commandment was new; for they had not loved one another as Christ had loved them. He saw that new ideas and impulses must control them; that new principles must be practiced by them; through His life and death they were to receive a new conception of love. The command to love one another had a new meaning in the light of His self-sacrifice. The whole work of grace is one continual service of love, of self-denying, self-sacrificing effort. During every hour of Christ’s sojourn upon the earth, the love of God was flowing from Him in irrepressible streams. All who are imbued with His Spirit will love as He loved. The very principle that actuated Christ will actuate them in all their dealing one with another.” The Desire of Ages , 677, 678.

How do we show that we are the sons of God and the friends of Christ? Romans 8:14; 1John 3:10.

Note: “Religion consists in doing the words of Christ; not doing to earn God’s favor, but because, all undeserving, we have received the gift of His love. Christ places the salvation of man, not upon profession merely, but upon faith that is made manifest in works of righteousness. Doing, not saying merely, is expected of the followers of Christ. It is through action that character is built. ‘As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God’ (Romans 8:14). Not those whose hearts are touched by the Spirit, not those who now and then yield to its power, but they that are led by the Spirit, are the sons of God.” Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing , 149, 150. [Emphasis author’s.]

3 CHOSEN FRIENDS

What title does Jesus bestow upon His faithful followers? John 15:15, 14.

Note: “How did Christ manifest His love for poor mortals? By the sacrifice of His own glory, His own riches, and even His most precious life. Christ consented to a life of humiliation and great suffering. He submitted to the cruel mockings of an infuriated, murderous multitude, and to the most agonizing death upon the cross. Said Christ: ‘This is My commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are My friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you’ (John 15:12–14). We give evidence of being the friends of Christ when we manifest implicit obedience to His will. It is no evidence to say, and do not; but in doing, in obeying, is the evidence. Who are obeying the commandment to love one another as Christ has loved them?” Testimonies , vol. 1, 690, 691.

For what purpose did Jesus choose us, and what is His command to us? John 15:16, 17.

Note: “[John 15:14 quoted.] This is the condition imposed; this is the test that proves men’s characters. Feelings are often deceiving, emotions are no sure safeguard; for they are variable and subject to external circumstances. Many are deluded by relying on sensational impressions. The test is: What are you doing for Christ? What sacrifices are you making? What victories are you gaining? A selfish spirit overcome, a temptation to neglect duty resisted, passion subdued, and willing, cheerful obedience rendered to the will of Christ are far greater evidences that you are a child of God than spasmodic piety and emotional religion.” Testimonies , vol. 4, 188. [Emphasis author’s.]

“[John 15:9–17 quoted.] These blessed assurances are for every one who will respect them, and who will, in character, reveal to the world their interpretation. ‘If ye love me,’ Christ said, ‘keep my commandments’ (John 14:15). If we are doers of the Word, we can come to God with full assurance of faith, saying, ‘Remember the word unto thy servant, upon which thou hast caused me to hope’ (Psalm 119:49). When we zealously obey God’s word from the heart, we may make that word our plea. The Lord always works in accordance with His word.” The Review and Herald , December 6, 1898.

4 PERSECUTED BY THE WORLD

Why does the world persecute the followers of Christ? John 15:18, 19.

Note: “[John 13:35 quoted.] This love, manifested in the church, will surely stir the wrath of Satan. Christ did not mark out for His disciples an easy path. ‘If the world hate you,’ He said, ‘ye know that it hated Me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept My saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for My name’s sake, because they know not Him that sent Me’ (John 15:18–21). The gospel is to be carried forward by aggressive warfare, in the midst of opposition, peril, loss, and suffering. But those who do this work are only following in their Master’s steps.” The Desire of Ages , 678.

How does the prince of evil respond to the work of Christ’s followers? John 3:19, 20; 15:20, 21.

Note: “He who came to redeem the lost world was opposed by the united forces of the adversaries of God and man. In an unpitying confederacy, evil men and evil angels arrayed themselves against the Prince of Peace. Though His every word and act breathed of divine compassion, His unlikeness to the world provoked the bitterest hostility. Because He would give no license for the exercise of the evil passions of our nature, He aroused the fiercest opposition and enmity. So it is with all who will live godly in Christ Jesus. Between righteousness and sin, love and hatred, truth and falsehood, there is an irrepressible conflict. When one presents the love of Christ and the beauty of holiness, he is drawing away the subjects of Satan’s kingdom, and the prince of evil is aroused to resist it. Persecution and reproach await all who are imbued with the Spirit of Christ. The character of the persecution changes with the times, but the principle—the spirit that underlies it—is the same that has slain the chosen of the Lord ever since the days of Abel.” Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing , 29.

5 I WILL NOT LEAVE YOU COMFORTLESS

What difficulties would the disciples encounter after the ascension of Christ? John 16:1–3.

Even though they would suffer persecution at the hands of the enemies of the truth, what promise did christ give to the faithful john 14:18., what difference in the relationship between christ and his followers would set in after his ascension john 16:7., what far–reaching work would the holy spirit perform in behalf of sinners john 16:8–11., what is our part in helping the church to receive the fullness of the holy spirit john 15:26, 27; 1john 1:1–3..

Note: “With a loving spirit we may perform life’s humblest duties ‘as to the Lord’ (Colossians 3:23). If the love of God is in the heart, it will be manifested in the life. The sweet savor of Christ will surround us, and our influence will elevate and bless.” Steps to Christ , 82, 83.

PERSONAL REVIEW QUESTIONS

1 What are the characteristics of the divine love which Christ wants to develop in me through the Holy Spirit?

2 What is hindering me from receiving Christ’s unselfish love in its fullness?

3 How is Christ’s commandment to be new to me?

4 Why shouldn’t I be surprised at persecution?

5 What obstacles may be hindering my reception of the Holy Spirit in great power?

Bible Quotes
Bible Study
Church Resources

Exploring Brotherly Love in the Bible

by Pastor George Hendricks
July 23, 2023

In this article, we will delve into the concept of brotherly love as portrayed in the Bible. Brotherly love, also known as love for fellow believers, is a central theme in biblical teachings. It encompasses the idea of treating others with kindness, compassion, and respect, creating strong bonds and fostering unity within the community of believers.

Understanding the Importance of Brotherly Love in the Bible

Brotherly love holds significant importance in the Bible, as it is repeatedly emphasized as a fundamental principle for believers. It is considered a virtue that reflects the love and grace of God. The Bible teaches that demonstrating brotherly love not only brings glory to God but also enhances the quality of relationships among believers. When individuals practice brotherly love, they create an environment of mutual understanding, support, and encouragement within the community.

Furthermore, brotherly love is not limited to familial relationships but extends to all believers. The Bible encourages believers to love one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of their background or differences. This inclusive love fosters unity and harmony within the body of believers, creating a strong and supportive community.

In addition, brotherly love is not just a feeling or emotion but is demonstrated through actions. The Bible teaches that believers should show practical acts of kindness, compassion, and selflessness towards one another. This can include helping those in need, offering a listening ear, or providing words of encouragement. By actively practicing brotherly love, believers can be a tangible representation of God’s love to the world.

The Definition of Brotherly Love According to Biblical Teachings

According to the Bible, brotherly love is characterized by selflessness, humility, and sincere affection towards others. It involves prioritizing the needs of others and treating them as siblings in Christ. The core of brotherly love lies in serving one another, bearing each other’s burdens, and forgiving one another. It implies a commitment to unity, respect, and genuine care for fellow believers, transcending personal differences or conflicts.

Brotherly love, as taught in the Bible, is not limited to just fellow believers. It extends to all people, regardless of their faith or background. The Bible encourages believers to show love and kindness to everyone, including their enemies. This concept of brotherly love is rooted in the belief that all human beings are created in the image of God and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

In addition to showing love through actions, the Bible also emphasizes the importance of expressing love through words. Encouraging and uplifting one another with kind and affirming words is a vital aspect of brotherly love. The Bible teaches that our words have the power to build up or tear down, and therefore, believers are encouraged to use their words to edify and encourage others.

Examples of Brotherly Love in the Bible

The Bible provides numerous examples of brotherly love, illustrating its practical implementation in various contexts. For instance, the relationship between David and Jonathan serves as a prominent example of brotherly love as they supported and protected each other, even in the face of adversity. Similarly, the apostle Paul, in his letters, repeatedly emphasizes the importance of brotherly love within the early Christian communities, encouraging believers to love one another as Christ loved them.

Another example of brotherly love in the Bible is the story of Joseph and his brothers. Despite being sold into slavery by his own siblings, Joseph forgave them and ultimately saved their lives during a time of famine. This act of forgiveness and reconciliation demonstrates the power of brotherly love to overcome betrayal and restore relationships.

The Role of Brotherly Love in Building Strong Relationships

Brotherly love plays a vital role in building strong and enduring relationships among believers. It fosters an atmosphere of trust, empathy, and understanding, where individuals feel safe and supported. Through brotherly love, believers can develop deeper connections with one another, share their joys and sorrows, and offer solace and guidance. Strong relationships built on brotherly love greatly contribute to personal growth, spiritual development, and the overall well-being of individuals within the faith community.

Furthermore, brotherly love promotes unity and harmony within the faith community. When believers demonstrate love and kindness towards one another, it creates a sense of belonging and acceptance. This unity strengthens the bonds between individuals and encourages collaboration, cooperation, and mutual support. It also helps to resolve conflicts and disagreements in a peaceful and respectful manner, fostering a culture of forgiveness and reconciliation.

How Brotherly Love Can Foster Unity and Harmony Among Believers

Brotherly love promotes unity and harmony within the community of believers. When individuals prioritize love and extend grace towards one another, it reduces conflicts, divisions, and misunderstandings. Brotherly love encourages believers to set aside personal interests and to work together for the greater good of the community. It fosters an environment where unity, cooperation, and mutual respect thrive, creating a strong and united body of Christ.

Furthermore, brotherly love cultivates a sense of belonging and acceptance among believers. When individuals feel loved and accepted by their fellow believers, they are more likely to actively participate in the community and contribute their unique gifts and talents. This sense of belonging fosters a deep sense of unity and creates a supportive and nurturing environment for spiritual growth and development.

In addition, brotherly love serves as a powerful witness to the world. When believers demonstrate genuine love and care for one another, it showcases the transformative power of the gospel. It becomes a tangible representation of God’s love and grace, drawing others to the faith and inspiring them to seek unity and harmony in their own lives and relationships.

Exploring the Challenges and Benefits of Practicing Brotherly Love

While practicing brotherly love may come naturally to some, there can be challenges along the way. Differences in personalities, preferences, and perspectives can sometimes create friction within the community. However, the benefits of practicing brotherly love outweigh any challenges. The act of loving one another unconditionally leads to personal growth, deepened relationships, and a positive impact on the broader community. It provides an opportunity to reflect the love of Christ and witness the transformative power of love to those around us.

One of the challenges of practicing brotherly love is the need for forgiveness. In any community, conflicts and misunderstandings are bound to arise. It takes humility and a willingness to forgive to overcome these challenges and maintain a spirit of love and unity. By practicing forgiveness, individuals can learn to let go of grudges and resentments, fostering a healthier and more harmonious community.

Another challenge is the temptation to prioritize self-interest over the well-being of others. In a world that often promotes individualism and competition, it can be difficult to consistently prioritize the needs and interests of others. However, by intentionally practicing brotherly love, individuals can cultivate a mindset of selflessness and empathy. This shift in perspective not only benefits the community as a whole but also brings personal fulfillment and a sense of purpose.

The Commandments to Love One Another as Brothers and Sisters in Christ

The Bible provides explicit commandments to love one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. In John 13:34-35, Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this, everyone will know that you are my disciples if you love one another.” These commandments highlight the centrality of brotherly love in the life of believers and its significance in authenticating their faith to the world.

Furthermore, the apostle Paul also emphasizes the importance of brotherly love in his letters to the early Christian communities. In Romans 12:10, he writes, “Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves.” Paul’s words remind believers to prioritize love and selflessness in their relationships with fellow believers, treating one another with honor and respect.

Biblical Verses that Emphasize the Significance of Brotherly Love

Throughout the Bible, several verses emphasize the significance of brotherly love. One such verse is found in 1 John 4:7, which states, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.” This verse highlights that brotherly love is rooted in God’s character and that it is an essential aspect of one’s relationship with Him. Other verses, such as Romans 12:10 and Hebrews 13:1, further reinforce the importance of brotherly love as a mark of true discipleship and genuine faith.

In addition to these verses, the Bible also teaches that brotherly love is not just a feeling, but it should be demonstrated through actions. James 2:15-16 says, “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?” This verse emphasizes the importance of showing love through practical acts of kindness and meeting the needs of others.

Furthermore, Jesus Himself set the ultimate example of brotherly love through His sacrificial death on the cross. In John 15:13, Jesus says, “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.” This verse highlights the selflessness and depth of love that should characterize our relationships with one another. It serves as a reminder that brotherly love goes beyond mere words or gestures, but requires a willingness to sacrifice and put others’ needs before our own.

Learning from Biblical Stories that Highlight Brotherly Love

Biblical stories provide valuable lessons on brotherly love. For instance, the story of the Good Samaritan teaches the importance of showing love and compassion to everyone, regardless of their background or beliefs. The parable of the prodigal son illustrates the forgiving and reconciling nature of brotherly love. These stories serve as practical examples and sources of inspiration for believers as they navigate their own journeys of practicing brotherly love.

Applying the Principles of Brotherly Love in Everyday Life

Practicing brotherly love should extend beyond theoretical knowledge and find its application in everyday life. Believers are called to demonstrate love, kindness, and forgiveness towards others, both within the faith community and beyond. This can be achieved through acts of service, encouragement, and active listening. By treating others with respect, seeking reconciliation, and practicing empathy, individuals can promote the principles of brotherly love in their interactions and relationships, reflecting the transformative power of God’s love in their lives.

How Brotherly Love Can Impact Communities and Society as a Whole

Brotherly love has far-reaching impacts that extend beyond the faith community. When believers embody and practice brotherly love, it serves as a powerful witness to the transformative love of God. By demonstrating unity, compassion, and care within the community, believers can influence and inspire others to pursue love and reconciliation. Brotherly love has the potential to promote harmony, support, and positive change within communities and society as a whole.

The Power of Forgiveness and Reconciliation in Demonstrating Brotherly Love

Forgiveness and reconciliation are integral aspects of brotherly love. The Bible teaches that believers should forgive one another, just as Christ forgave them. By extending forgiveness, individuals break down barriers, heal past wounds, and restore relationships. Reconciliation demonstrates the power of brotherly love to transform conflicts into opportunities for growth and understanding. Through forgiveness and reconciliation, believers can showcase the redemptive and transformative nature of God’s love.

Nurturing a Culture of Compassion and Support through Brotherly Love

Brotherly love creates a culture of compassion and support within the faith community. By actively engaging in acts of kindness, believers can foster an environment where individuals feel valued, heard, and supported. It involves celebrating each other’s victories, sharing in one another’s pain, and providing practical assistance whenever needed. Nurturing a culture of compassion through brotherly love enhances the overall well-being and spiritual growth of individuals within the community.

Exploring Different Ways to Express Brotherly Love in Modern Times

Expressing brotherly love in modern times can take various forms. In addition to traditional acts of service, believers can leverage technology and social media platforms to connect, encourage, and support one another. Through online communities, virtual gatherings, and digital resources, individuals can extend the principles of brotherly love to a wider audience. It is essential to adapt and explore new ways to express brotherly love while remaining faithful to the timeless teachings of the Bible.

In conclusion, brotherly love occupies a significant place in biblical teachings. It reflects the character of God and enhances relationships among believers. Through brotherly love, individuals can foster unity, create strong bonds, and impact communities and society as a whole. By understanding its definition, learning from biblical examples, and applying its principles in everyday life, believers can embody the transformative power of love and serve as a testament to the love of Christ in the world.

Brotherly Love: Because Jesus Loved Us First

Posted on May 20, 2014 Posted by Dave Jenkins

“Let brotherly love continue.” ( Hebrews 13:1 )

The New Testament resounds with the command to love the “brothers,” an idiom for fellow believers in the faith ( Matt. 22:39; John 13:34; Rom. 13:8; 1 Cor. 13; 1 Peter 1:22; 1 John 2:10; 3:10, 4:7 ). The word “love” used in Hebrews 13:1 is φιλαδελφία transliterated from the Greek as philadelphia which means “Love of brothers or sisters, brotherly love; in the NT the love which Christians cherish for each other as brethren.” We all have heard of Philadelphia before because it is known as the city of brotherly love.

Christians are to love one another because Jesus has loved them first.

1 Thessalonians 4:9 declares, “Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another.” Loving other believers should be as easy as falling off a log. Christians should not wait to get to church where they can drink in the fellowship of the godly. For the early church, the fellowship of their new brothers and sisters was delectably mysterious to them and they rejoiced in plumbing the depths of each other’s souls.

Brotherly love is to be a telltale sign of the salvation of the people of God.

As the Apostle John would later write in 1 John 3:14 , “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death.” The impulse of the early church to brotherly love provided a sweet, inner self-authentication. It also announced to the world that their faith was the real thing as noted in John 13:35 , “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

What a glorious phenomenon brotherly love is, a sense of the same paternity—a brotherly and sisterliness taught by God—a desire to climb into each other’s souls, a sweet inner authentication, and the sign of the real thing to the world.

Christians are to practice brotherly love.

Inwardly, this requires that we will consider the stupendous implications of our shared regeneration, that we truly are brothers and sisters. And those terms “brother” and “sister” are more than sentimental notions. Though we are millions, we share only one Father. And we will still be brothers and sisters when the sun is no more. God is pleased when brothers and sisters dwell together in unity (Psalm 133 and John 17). Our status as brothers and sisters in Christ is truly an eternal bond to be treasured. Outwardly, we must will to say and do only those things that will enhance our philadelphia . Furthermore, we must will to love one another because of the gospel.

Jesus commanded brotherly love.

When Jesus readied his disciples on the night of his arrest, he gave them one clear command to guide them in the days ahead:

“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you” ( John 15:12 ).

As we look at the message of Hebrews 13:1 , it must be noted the Book of Hebrews was sent to a body of Jewish believers who were tempted to revert from Christianity back to Judaism in order to escape persecution. The great refrain of Hebrews is both a warning against apostasy, against a falling away from the faith, and an exhortation to hold fast to Christ for salvation. Five times this warning is given in one form or another, including the one at the end of chapter 12 referring to the voice of God in the gospel: “See that you do not refuse him who is speaking” (v.25).

Not unlike Jesus on the night of his departure from the twelve disciples, the writer of Hebrews prepares to leave his readers, and in this last chapter he gives his final words of exhortation. It is no surprise, therefore, that he begins in the same manner Jesus did, exhorting them in verse 1 to “Let brotherly love continue.” Hebrews 13 begins with a command for Christians to take seriously, “Let brotherly love continue.” We are to live continually by this principle as Christianity is all about being in the family of God. And the church is to be a community characterized by family love.

Francis Schaeffer on Christian love

One person who wrote much about Christian love was Francis Schaeffer. Much of his life was caught up in church disputes that were quite divisive. Schaeffer was known as a powerful defender of Christian doctrines, yet at the same time he strove to maintain love within the body of believers. One of his books begins with these words:

“Through the centuries men have displayed many different symbols to show that they are Christians. They have worn marks in the lapels of their coats, hung chains about their necks, even had special haircuts. But there is a much better sign. It is a universal mark that is to last through all ages of the church until Jesus comes back.” 1

That mark is love among Christians, and Schaeffer proves it with Jesus’ teaching of John 13:35 , “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” This is a conditional statement predicated on the reality that if we love one another, the result will be that people will see this as the mark identifying the disciples of Jesus.

In another of his excellent books Schaeffer writes, “Evangelism is a calling but not the first calling. A Christians first call is to return to the first commandment to love God, to love the brotherhood, and then to love one’s neighbor as himself.” 2 This means we are to show love as an essential part of our witness, but more importantly because God is love and we are called to be like Him in the world. The Apostle John puts this in challenging terms:

“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love” ( 1 John 4:7-8 ).

Simply put, loving others is an outflow of our relationship with God. It is how we show gratitude for His love to us.

Christian love is a fruit of the new birth, a necessary by-product of becoming a Christian. To love one another is not a suggestion; it is a command grounded in the finished work of Jesus Christ. When Christians love one anothe, they bear each other’s burdens ( Gal. 6:1 ) and seek to faithfully live out the “one another” passages in the New Testament. All of this is because of the Gospel which provides the basis for loving God and loving others.

Brothers and sisters, let’s love one another because of the great work of God’s grace. The Christian who has been born again can’t help but love his brothers and sisters in Christ because they know it is the love of God in Christ that has wooed and won them over. The world doesn’t get this. They are greatly confused about love. So let us all the more love one another as Jesus has loved us and demonstrate His love within the confines of our local churches and to a watching world to the glory of God.

1 Francis A Schaeffer, The Mark of the Christian , in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1982), 4:183

2 Francis A. Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time , in Complete works 1:85

About Dave Jenkins

Dave is the Executive Director of Servants of Grace , and the Executive Editor of Theology for Life . Dave received his MAR and M.DIV through Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. You can follow him on twitter at Dave Twitter , Facebook: Dave Facebook , or read more of his writing at Servants of Grace .

Dave, I just wanted to say that I really appreciated this post. Thank you so much for putting time into sharing the Word of God and building up the saints. Keep “Provoking to love and good works” dear brother. Your brother and fellow servant in Christ, Mark Carnehl

Jesus is calling me to this Love, This unconditional Love right now in my Life. I assure everyone who reads this post that my spirit is willing but the flesh is far weaker than I could have ever thought, in fact in my case it will only be by Jesus’ power and might that I can do what is being asked because I know I can’t !!!

Earlier this week he asked me choose Him over my feelings toward my husband and some very ungodly behavior even if it meant our paths to him might take separate courses. I thought I knew what that looked like until yesterday when Jesus said now forgive him and love him even if you don’t currently like him or what’s he’s doing or the choices he is making.

Be a good wife and yield to the Word of God not your emotions, let the hurt go and betrayal go, and now choose forgiveness and love instead!

Not when your husband is delivered but today even now while he’s in sin. Not after the mocking spirit is gone, but now while it continues to mock God and you to your very core!

Not when I have shown him how deceived by flesh he has been but now while the deceiver wants to hug you!

Not when all Pride and Flesh has been stripped but now when it looks you in the eye with self righteousness and slings the Word of God at you without realizing the consequences or fruit of its actions.

I am here to testify upon waking a few minutes ago with a terribly strong feeling of the actual vileness of the whole situation and letting the Lord Jesus bring me here I realize the actual impossibility that I can do this alone. I stand here and truly know that I know I can not do this but thought Him who loved me first, through Him who chose me. When I said I chose him earlier this week on a higher level than I had before I never knew he would bring me to the end of my capacity in less than three days. To the end of self deeper than the depths of a women’s heart…. In order to continue letting him lead me closer into who he created me to be and to continue the forward motion of taking additional ground for the Kingdom of Heaven I must choose Love even as the spit rolls down my cheek. All I can say is WOW and let go and let him!!! I prayed a few minutes ago before I came here and admitted I couldn’t do it, in fact I was absolutely honest and spoke the truth that I didn’t even want to but that His Will Be Done Not My Own… Change my heart to your will and ways. I have now lived that moment over with him. I would call it the moment of impact and realization of ones spiritual death in him. I have my peace back, I am at rest, and I know my Christ will now handle the rest. I am still RAW to the Core, I feel like all my skin has been picked off and the wind is blowing upon uncovered nerves but I have a overwhelming sense of well being. A truly unexplainable one. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me, and I am. I am walking out my own salvation, this life and situations are only the testing grounds for our Love. the practice fields for eternity somehow what is happening in my life not matter how ugly and vile it felt before it suddenly seems like a far off horizon I can see but that can’t impact me. For the Love of Christ Surpasses All Understanding!!! God be With you all and Bless even those who offend his name, Amen.

I thank you dear sister for taking the time to articulate how the revelation of His Way in, through and around you is coming to pass.

Even though the particulars of our situations as Kingdom of God minded professors are as specifically different as perhaps east is from the west, I recognize through your words, the soul wrestling which is accompaning you, as you have purposed to continue IN THE WORD to BE

who you ARE in Christ.

His Word will not return void – and will accomplish that for which He has intended.

Of course it goes without saying that ‘you’ are not alone – but please also know that even as I write this, you may never know how your taking the time to write any of this down, to flesh out what Holy Spirit is showing you – that one, even such as myself will be led to read and be inspired to pursue who it is that they are coming to know themselves in Christ as being as well.

May we reason together knowing that He can use us to facilitate the process of formulating sound, biblically grounded mindsets – – even as it is His goodness which leads us to do so (repent).

Amen 🙂 Thomas see you by the River! “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. Lexicon / Concordance for John 14:2 Jhn 14:3″If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.

[…] Source: Blue Letter Bible […]

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Love — Brotherly Love in Beowulf

Brotherly Love in Beowulf

Categories: Love

About this sample

Words: 697 |

Published: Jun 13, 2024

Words: 697 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Introduction, body paragraph 1, body paragraph 2, body paragraph 3.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1878 words

3 pages / 1375 words

2 pages / 804 words

1 pages / 1084 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Love

Love is one of the most profound and complex emotions experienced by humans. It has been the subject of countless works of art, literature, and philosophy throughout history, yet it remains elusive and difficult to define. The [...]

Imagine a kingdom where justice is determined not by a judge or jury, but by the whims of a semi-barbaric king. In Frank R. Stockton's short story, "The Lady or the Tiger," we are transported to such a kingdom, where love, [...]

Imagine a world where painful memories can be erased effortlessly, freeing individuals from the burden of heartbreak, trauma, and regret. This is the captivating premise of the film "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". [...]

Supertoys Last All Summer Long, a science fiction short story by Brian Aldiss, explores the complex relationship between humans and artificial intelligence, as well as the emotional and ethical implications of creating sentient [...]

In The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood, Offred, the main character lives in Gilead, a dystopia where fertile women are solely used to reproduce children. Known as handmaids, these women are confined into prison-like [...]

People have always tried to escape from their reality, and some people find this escape through love. Love might be the escape from reality in 984 for different characters, who are thenselves represented in various ways. We [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

This essay focuses on personal love, or the love of particular persons as such. Part of the philosophical task in understanding personal love is to distinguish the various kinds of personal love. For example, the way in which I love my wife is seemingly very different from the way I love my mother, my child, and my friend. This task has typically proceeded hand-in-hand with philosophical analyses of these kinds of personal love, analyses that in part respond to various puzzles about love. Can love be justified? If so, how? What is the value of personal love? What impact does love have on the autonomy of both the lover and the beloved?

1. Preliminary Distinctions

2. love as union, 3. love as robust concern, 4.1 love as appraisal of value, 4.2 love as bestowal of value, 4.3 an intermediate position, 5.1 love as emotion proper, 5.2 love as emotion complex, 6. the value and justification of love, other internet resources, related entries.

In ordinary conversations, we often say things like the following:

I love chocolate (or skiing).
I love doing philosophy (or being a father).
I love my dog (or cat).
I love my wife (or mother or child or friend).

However, what is meant by ‘love’ differs from case to case. (1) may be understood as meaning merely that I like this thing or activity very much. In (2) the implication is typically that I find engaging in a certain activity or being a certain kind of person to be a part of my identity and so what makes my life worth living; I might just as well say that I value these. By contrast, (3) and (4) seem to indicate a mode of concern that cannot be neatly assimilated to anything else. Thus, we might understand the sort of love at issue in (4) to be, roughly, a matter of caring about another person as the person she is, for her own sake. (Accordingly, (3) may be understood as a kind of deficient mode of the sort of love we typically reserve for persons.) Philosophical accounts of love have focused primarily on the sort of personal love at issue in (4); such personal love will be the focus here (though see Frankfurt (1999) and Jaworska & Wonderly (2017) for attempts to provide a more general account that applies to non-persons as well).

Even within personal love, philosophers from the ancient Greeks on have traditionally distinguished three notions that can properly be called “love”: eros , agape , and philia . It will be useful to distinguish these three and say something about how contemporary discussions typically blur these distinctions (sometimes intentionally so) or use them for other purposes.

‘ Eros ’ originally meant love in the sense of a kind of passionate desire for an object, typically sexual passion (Liddell et al., 1940). Nygren (1953a,b) describes eros as the “‘love of desire,’ or acquisitive love” and therefore as egocentric (1953b, p. 89). Soble (1989b, 1990) similarly describes eros as “selfish” and as a response to the merits of the beloved—especially the beloved’s goodness or beauty. What is evident in Soble’s description of eros is a shift away from the sexual: to love something in the “erosic” sense (to use the term Soble coins) is to love it in a way that, by being responsive to its merits, is dependent on reasons. Such an understanding of eros is encouraged by Plato’s discussion in the Symposium , in which Socrates understands sexual desire to be a deficient response to physical beauty in particular, a response which ought to be developed into a response to the beauty of a person’s soul and, ultimately, into a response to the form, Beauty.

Soble’s intent in understanding eros to be a reason-dependent sort of love is to articulate a sharp contrast with agape , a sort of love that does not respond to the value of its object. ‘ Agape ’ has come, primarily through the Christian tradition, to mean the sort of love God has for us persons, as well as our love for God and, by extension, of our love for each other—a kind of brotherly love. In the paradigm case of God’s love for us, agape is “spontaneous and unmotivated,” revealing not that we merit that love but that God’s nature is love (Nygren 1953b, p. 85). Rather than responding to antecedent value in its object, agape instead is supposed to create value in its object and therefore to initiate our fellowship with God (pp. 87–88). Consequently, Badhwar (2003, p. 58) characterizes agape as “independent of the loved individual’s fundamental characteristics as the particular person she is”; and Soble (1990, p. 5) infers that agape , in contrast to eros , is therefore not reason dependent but is rationally “incomprehensible,” admitting at best of causal or historical explanations. [ 1 ]

Finally, ‘ philia ’ originally meant a kind of affectionate regard or friendly feeling towards not just one’s friends but also possibly towards family members, business partners, and one’s country at large (Liddell et al., 1940; Cooper, 1977). Like eros , philia is generally (but not universally) understood to be responsive to (good) qualities in one’s beloved. This similarity between eros and philia has led Thomas (1987) to wonder whether the only difference between romantic love and friendship is the sexual involvement of the former—and whether that is adequate to account for the real differences we experience. The distinction between eros and philia becomes harder to draw with Soble’s attempt to diminish the importance of the sexual in eros (1990).

Maintaining the distinctions among eros , agape , and philia becomes even more difficult when faced with contemporary theories of love (including romantic love) and friendship. For, as discussed below, some theories of romantic love understand it along the lines of the agape tradition as creating value in the beloved (cf. Section 4.2 ), and other accounts of romantic love treat sexual activity as merely the expression of what otherwise looks very much like friendship.

Given the focus here on personal love, Christian conceptions of God’s love for persons (and vice versa ) will be omitted, and the distinction between eros and philia will be blurred—as it typically is in contemporary accounts. Instead, the focus here will be on these contemporary understandings of love, including romantic love, understood as an attitude we take towards other persons. [ 2 ]

In providing an account of love, philosophical analyses must be careful to distinguish love from other positive attitudes we take towards persons, such as liking. Intuitively, love differs from such attitudes as liking in terms of its “depth,” and the problem is to elucidate the kind of “depth” we intuitively find love to have. Some analyses do this in part by providing thin conceptions of what liking amounts to. Thus, Singer (1991) and Brown (1987) understand liking to be a matter of desiring, an attitude that at best involves its object having only instrumental (and not intrinsic) value. Yet this seems inadequate: surely there are attitudes towards persons intermediate between having a desire with a person as its object and loving the person. I can care about a person for her own sake and not merely instrumentally, and yet such caring does not on its own amount to (non-deficiently) loving her, for it seems I can care about my dog in exactly the same way, a kind of caring which is insufficiently personal for love.

It is more common to distinguish loving from liking via the intuition that the “depth” of love is to be explained in terms of a notion of identification: to love someone is somehow to identify yourself with him, whereas no such notion of identification is involved in liking. As Nussbaum puts it, “The choice between one potential love and another can feel, and be, like a choice of a way of life, a decision to dedicate oneself to these values rather than these” (1990, p. 328); liking clearly does not have this sort of “depth” (see also Helm 2010; Bagley 2015). Whether love involves some kind of identification, and if so exactly how to understand such identification, is a central bone of contention among the various analyses of love. In particular, Whiting (2013) argues that the appeal to a notion of identification distorts our understanding of the sort of motivation love can provide, for taken literally it implies that love motivates through self -interest rather than through the beloved’s interests. Thus, Whiting argues, central to love is the possibility that love takes the lover “outside herself”, potentially forgetting herself in being moved directly by the interests of the beloved. (Of course, we need not take the notion of identification literally in this way: in identifying with one’s beloved, one might have a concern for one’s beloved that is analogous to one’s concern for oneself; see Helm 2010.)

Another common way to distinguish love from other personal attitudes is in terms of a distinctive kind of evaluation, which itself can account for love’s “depth.” Again, whether love essentially involves a distinctive kind of evaluation, and if so how to make sense of that evaluation, is hotly disputed. Closely related to questions of evaluation are questions of justification: can we justify loving or continuing to love a particular person, and if so, how? For those who think the justification of love is possible, it is common to understand such justification in terms of evaluation, and the answers here affect various accounts’ attempts to make sense of the kind of constancy or commitment love seems to involve, as well as the sense in which love is directed at particular individuals.

In what follows, theories of love are tentatively and hesitantly classified into four types: love as union, love as robust concern, love as valuing, and love as an emotion. It should be clear, however, that particular theories classified under one type sometimes also include, without contradiction, ideas central to other types. The types identified here overlap to some extent, and in some cases classifying particular theories may involve excessive pigeonholing. (Such cases are noted below.) Part of the classificatory problem is that many accounts of love are quasi-reductionistic, understanding love in terms of notions like affection, evaluation, attachment, etc., which themselves never get analyzed. Even when these accounts eschew explicitly reductionistic language, very often little attempt is made to show how one such “aspect” of love is conceptually connected to others. As a result, there is no clear and obvious way to classify particular theories, let alone identify what the relevant classes should be.

The union view claims that love consists in the formation of (or the desire to form) some significant kind of union, a “we.” A central task for union theorists, therefore, is to spell out just what such a “we” comes to—whether it is literally a new entity in the world somehow composed of the lover and the beloved, or whether it is merely metaphorical. Variants of this view perhaps go back to Aristotle (cf. Sherman 1993) and can also be found in Montaigne ([E]) and Hegel (1997); contemporary proponents include Solomon (1981, 1988), Scruton (1986), Nozick (1989), Fisher (1990), and Delaney (1996).

Scruton, writing in particular about romantic love, claims that love exists “just so soon as reciprocity becomes community: that is, just so soon as all distinction between my interests and your interests is overcome” (1986, p. 230). The idea is that the union is a union of concern, so that when I act out of that concern it is not for my sake alone or for your sake alone but for our sake. Fisher (1990) holds a similar, but somewhat more moderate view, claiming that love is a partial fusion of the lovers’ cares, concerns, emotional responses, and actions. What is striking about both Scruton and Fisher is the claim that love requires the actual union of the lovers’ concerns, for it thus becomes clear that they conceive of love not so much as an attitude we take towards another but as a relationship: the distinction between your interests and mine genuinely disappears only when we together come to have shared cares, concerns, etc., and my merely having a certain attitude towards you is not enough for love. This provides content to the notion of a “we” as the (metaphorical?) subject of these shared cares and concerns, and as that for whose sake we act.

Solomon (1988) offers a union view as well, though one that tries “to make new sense out of ‘love’ through a literal rather than metaphoric sense of the ‘fusion’ of two souls” (p. 24, cf. Solomon 1981; however, it is unclear exactly what he means by a “soul” here and so how love can be a “literal” fusion of two souls). What Solomon has in mind is the way in which, through love, the lovers redefine their identities as persons in terms of the relationship: “Love is the concentration and the intensive focus of mutual definition on a single individual, subjecting virtually every personal aspect of one’s self to this process” (1988, p. 197). The result is that lovers come to share the interests, roles, virtues, and so on that constitute what formerly was two individual identities but now has become a shared identity, and they do so in part by each allowing the other to play an important role in defining his own identity.

Nozick (1989) offers a union view that differs from those of Scruton, Fisher, and Solomon in that Nozick thinks that what is necessary for love is merely the desire to form a “we,” together with the desire that your beloved reciprocates. Nonetheless, he claims that this “we” is “a new entity in the world…created by a new web of relationships between [the lovers] which makes them no longer separate” (p. 70). In spelling out this web of relationships, Nozick appeals to the lovers “pooling” not only their well-beings, in the sense that the well-being of each is tied up with that of the other, but also their autonomy, in that “each transfers some previous rights to make certain decisions unilaterally into a joint pool” (p. 71). In addition, Nozick claims, the lovers each acquire a new identity as a part of the “we,” a new identity constituted by their (a) wanting to be perceived publicly as a couple, (b) their attending to their pooled well-being, and (c) their accepting a “certain kind of division of labor” (p. 72):

A person in a we might find himself coming across something interesting to read yet leaving it for the other person, not because he himself would not be interested in it but because the other would be more interested, and one of them reading it is sufficient for it to be registered by the wider identity now shared, the we . [ 3 ]

Opponents of the union view have seized on claims like this as excessive: union theorists, they claim, take too literally the ontological commitments of this notion of a “we.” This leads to two specific criticisms of the union view. The first is that union views do away with individual autonomy. Autonomy, it seems, involves a kind of independence on the part of the autonomous agent, such that she is in control over not only what she does but also who she is, as this is constituted by her interests, values, concerns, etc. However, union views, by doing away with a clear distinction between your interests and mine, thereby undermine this sort of independence and so undermine the autonomy of the lovers. If autonomy is a part of the individual’s good, then, on the union view, love is to this extent bad; so much the worse for the union view (Singer 1994; Soble 1997). Moreover, Singer (1994) argues that a necessary part of having your beloved be the object of your love is respect for your beloved as the particular person she is, and this requires respecting her autonomy.

Union theorists have responded to this objection in several ways. Nozick (1989) seems to think of a loss of autonomy in love as a desirable feature of the sort of union lovers can achieve. Fisher (1990), somewhat more reluctantly, claims that the loss of autonomy in love is an acceptable consequence of love. Yet without further argument these claims seem like mere bullet biting. Solomon (1988, pp. 64ff) describes this “tension” between union and autonomy as “the paradox of love.” However, this a view that Soble (1997) derides: merely to call it a paradox, as Solomon does, is not to face up to the problem.

The second criticism involves a substantive view concerning love. Part of what it is to love someone, these opponents say, is to have concern for him for his sake. However, union views make such concern unintelligible and eliminate the possibility of both selfishness and self-sacrifice, for by doing away with the distinction between my interests and your interests they have in effect turned your interests into mine and vice versa (Soble 1997; see also Blum 1980, 1993). Some advocates of union views see this as a point in their favor: we need to explain how it is I can have concern for people other than myself, and the union view apparently does this by understanding your interests to be part of my own. And Delaney, responding to an apparent tension between our desire to be loved unselfishly (for fear of otherwise being exploited) and our desire to be loved for reasons (which presumably are attractive to our lover and hence have a kind of selfish basis), says (1996, p. 346):

Given my view that the romantic ideal is primarily characterized by a desire to achieve a profound consolidation of needs and interests through the formation of a we , I do not think a little selfishness of the sort described should pose a worry to either party.

The objection, however, lies precisely in this attempt to explain my concern for my beloved egoistically. As Whiting (1991, p. 10) puts it, such an attempt “strikes me as unnecessary and potentially objectionable colonization”: in love, I ought to be concerned with my beloved for her sake, and not because I somehow get something out of it. (This can be true whether my concern with my beloved is merely instrumental to my good or whether it is partly constitutive of my good.)

Although Whiting’s and Soble’s criticisms here succeed against the more radical advocates of the union view, they in part fail to acknowledge the kernel of truth to be gleaned from the idea of union. Whiting’s way of formulating the second objection in terms of an unnecessary egoism in part points to a way out: we persons are in part social creatures, and love is one profound mode of that sociality. Indeed, part of the point of union accounts is to make sense of this social dimension: to make sense of a way in which we can sometimes identify ourselves with others not merely in becoming interdependent with them (as Singer 1994, p. 165, suggests, understanding ‘interdependence’ to be a kind of reciprocal benevolence and respect) but rather in making who we are as persons be constituted in part by those we love (cf., e.g., Rorty 1986/1993; Nussbaum 1990).

Along these lines, Friedman (1998), taking her inspiration in part from Delaney (1996), argues that we should understand the sort of union at issue in love to be a kind of federation of selves:

On the federation model, a third unified entity is constituted by the interaction of the lovers, one which involves the lovers acting in concert across a range of conditions and for a range of purposes. This concerted action, however, does not erase the existence of the two lovers as separable and separate agents with continuing possibilities for the exercise of their own respective agencies. [p. 165]

Given that on this view the lovers do not give up their individual identities, there is no principled reason why the union view cannot make sense of the lover’s concern for her beloved for his sake. [ 4 ] Moreover, Friedman argues, once we construe union as federation, we can see that autonomy is not a zero-sum game; rather, love can both directly enhance the autonomy of each and promote the growth of various skills, like realistic and critical self-evaluation, that foster autonomy.

Nonetheless, this federation model is not without its problems—problems that affect other versions of the union view as well. For if the federation (or the “we”, as on Nozick’s view) is understood as a third entity, we need a clearer account than has been given of its ontological status and how it comes to be. Relevant here is the literature on shared intention and plural subjects. Gilbert (1989, 1996, 2000) has argued that we should take quite seriously the existence of a plural subject as an entity over and above its constituent members. Others, such as Tuomela (1984, 1995), Searle (1990), and Bratman (1999) are more cautious, treating such talk of “us” having an intention as metaphorical.

As this criticism of the union view indicates, many find caring about your beloved for her sake to be a part of what it is to love her. The robust concern view of love takes this to be the central and defining feature of love (cf. Taylor 1976; Newton-Smith 1989; Soble 1990, 1997; LaFollette 1996; Frankfurt 1999; White 2001). As Taylor puts it:

To summarize: if x loves y then x wants to benefit and be with y etc., and he has these wants (or at least some of them) because he believes y has some determinate characteristics ψ in virtue of which he thinks it worth while to benefit and be with y . He regards satisfaction of these wants as an end and not as a means towards some other end. [p. 157]

In conceiving of my love for you as constituted by my concern for you for your sake, the robust concern view rejects the idea, central to the union view, that love is to be understood in terms of the (literal or metaphorical) creation of a “we”: I am the one who has this concern for you, though it is nonetheless disinterested and so not egoistic insofar as it is for your sake rather than for my own. [ 5 ]

At the heart of the robust concern view is the idea that love “is neither affective nor cognitive. It is volitional” (Frankfurt 1999, p. 129; see also Martin 2015). Frankfurt continues:

That a person cares about or that he loves something has less to do with how things make him feel, or with his opinions about them, than with the more or less stable motivational structures that shape his preferences and that guide and limit his conduct.

This account analyzes caring about someone for her sake as a matter of being motivated in certain ways, in part as a response to what happens to one’s beloved. Of course, to understand love in terms of desires is not to leave other emotional responses out in the cold, for these emotions should be understood as consequences of desires. Thus, just as I can be emotionally crushed when one of my strong desires is disappointed, so too I can be emotionally crushed when things similarly go badly for my beloved. In this way Frankfurt (1999) tacitly, and White (2001) more explicitly, acknowledge the way in which my caring for my beloved for her sake results in my identity being transformed through her influence insofar as I become vulnerable to things that happen to her.

Not all robust concern theorists seem to accept this line, however; in particular, Taylor (1976) and Soble (1990) seem to have a strongly individualistic conception of persons that prevents my identity being bound up with my beloved in this sort of way, a kind of view that may seem to undermine the intuitive “depth” that love seems to have. (For more on this point, see Rorty 1986/1993.) In the middle is Stump (2006), who follows Aquinas in understanding love to involve not only the desire for your beloved’s well-being but also a desire for a certain kind of relationship with your beloved—as a parent or spouse or sibling or priest or friend, for example—a relationship within which you share yourself with and connect yourself to your beloved. [ 6 ]

One source of worry about the robust concern view is that it involves too passive an understanding of one’s beloved (Ebels-Duggan 2008). The thought is that on the robust concern view the lover merely tries to discover what the beloved’s well-being consists in and then acts to promote that, potentially by thwarting the beloved’s own efforts when the lover thinks those efforts would harm her well-being. This, however, would be disrespectful and demeaning, not the sort of attitude that love is. What robust concern views seem to miss, Ebels-Duggan suggests, is the way love involves interacting agents, each with a capacity for autonomy the recognition and engagement with which is an essential part of love. In response, advocates of the robust concern view might point out that promoting someone’s well-being normally requires promoting her autonomy (though they may maintain that this need not always be true: that paternalism towards a beloved can sometimes be justified and appropriate as an expression of one’s love). Moreover, we might plausibly think, it is only through the exercise of one’s autonomy that one can define one’s own well-being as a person, so that a lover’s failure to respect the beloved’s autonomy would be a failure to promote her well-being and therefore not an expression of love, contrary to what Ebels-Duggan suggests. Consequently, it might seem, robust concern views can counter this objection by offering an enriched conception of what it is to be a person and so of the well-being of persons.

Another source of worry is that the robust concern view offers too thin a conception of love. By emphasizing robust concern, this view understands other features we think characteristic of love, such as one’s emotional responsiveness to one’s beloved, to be the effects of that concern rather than constituents of it. Thus Velleman (1999) argues that robust concern views, by understanding love merely as a matter of aiming at a particular end (viz., the welfare of one’s beloved), understand love to be merely conative. However, he claims, love can have nothing to do with desires, offering as a counterexample the possibility of loving a troublemaking relation whom you do not want to be with, whose well being you do not want to promote, etc. Similarly, Badhwar (2003) argues that such a “teleological” view of love makes it mysterious how “we can continue to love someone long after death has taken him beyond harm or benefit” (p. 46). Moreover Badhwar argues, if love is essentially a desire, then it implies that we lack something; yet love does not imply this and, indeed, can be felt most strongly at times when we feel our lives most complete and lacking in nothing. Consequently, Velleman and Badhwar conclude, love need not involve any desire or concern for the well-being of one’s beloved.

This conclusion, however, seems too hasty, for such examples can be accommodated within the robust concern view. Thus, the concern for your relative in Velleman’s example can be understood to be present but swamped by other, more powerful desires to avoid him. Indeed, keeping the idea that you want to some degree to benefit him, an idea Velleman rejects, seems to be essential to understanding the conceptual tension between loving someone and not wanting to help him, a tension Velleman does not fully acknowledge. Similarly, continued love for someone who has died can be understood on the robust concern view as parasitic on the former love you had for him when he was still alive: your desires to benefit him get transformed, through your subsequent understanding of the impossibility of doing so, into wishes. [ 7 ] Finally, the idea of concern for your beloved’s well-being need not imply the idea that you lack something, for such concern can be understood in terms of the disposition to be vigilant for occasions when you can come to his aid and consequently to have the relevant occurrent desires. All of this seems fully compatible with the robust concern view.

One might also question whether Velleman and Badhwar make proper use of their examples of loving your meddlesome relation or someone who has died. For although we can understand these as genuine cases of love, they are nonetheless deficient cases and ought therefore be understood as parasitic on the standard cases. Readily to accommodate such deficient cases of love into a philosophical analysis as being on a par with paradigm cases, and to do so without some special justification, is dubious.

Nonetheless, the robust concern view as it stands does not seem properly able to account for the intuitive “depth” of love and so does not seem properly to distinguish loving from liking. Although, as noted above, the robust concern view can begin to make some sense of the way in which the lover’s identity is altered by the beloved, it understands this only an effect of love, and not as a central part of what love consists in.

This vague thought is nicely developed by Wonderly (2017), who emphasizes that in addition to the sort of disinterested concern for another that is central to robust-concern accounts of love, an essential part of at least romantic love is the idea that in loving someone I must find them to be not merely important for their own sake but also important to me . Wonderly (2017) fleshes out what this “importance to me” involves in terms of the idea of attachment (developed in Wonderly 2016) that she argues can make sense of the intimacy and depth of love from within what remains fundamentally a robust-concern account. [ 8 ]

4. Love as Valuing

A third kind of view of love understands love to be a distinctive mode of valuing a person. As the distinction between eros and agape in Section 1 indicates, there are at least two ways to construe this in terms of whether the lover values the beloved because she is valuable, or whether the beloved comes to be valuable to the lover as a result of her loving him. The former view, which understands the lover as appraising the value of the beloved in loving him, is the topic of Section 4.1 , whereas the latter view, which understands her as bestowing value on him, will be discussed in Section 4.2 .

Velleman (1999, 2008) offers an appraisal view of love, understanding love to be fundamentally a matter of acknowledging and responding in a distinctive way to the value of the beloved. (For a very different appraisal view of love, see Kolodny 2003.) Understanding this more fully requires understanding both the kind of value of the beloved to which one responds and the distinctive kind of response to such value that love is. Nonetheless, it should be clear that what makes an account be an appraisal view of love is not the mere fact that love is understood to involve appraisal; many other accounts do so, and it is typical of robust concern accounts, for example (cf. the quote from Taylor above , Section 3 ). Rather, appraisal views are distinctive in understanding love to consist in that appraisal.

In articulating the kind of value love involves, Velleman, following Kant, distinguishes dignity from price. To have a price , as the economic metaphor suggests, is to have a value that can be compared to the value of other things with prices, such that it is intelligible to exchange without loss items of the same value. By contrast, to have dignity is to have a value such that comparisons of relative value become meaningless. Material goods are normally understood to have prices, but we persons have dignity: no substitution of one person for another can preserve exactly the same value, for something of incomparable worth would be lost (and gained) in such a substitution.

On this Kantian view, our dignity as persons consists in our rational nature: our capacity both to be actuated by reasons that we autonomously provide ourselves in setting our own ends and to respond appropriately to the intrinsic values we discover in the world. Consequently, one important way in which we exercise our rational natures is to respond with respect to the dignity of other persons (a dignity that consists in part in their capacity for respect): respect just is the required minimal response to the dignity of persons. What makes a response to a person be that of respect, Velleman claims, still following Kant, is that it “arrests our self-love” and thereby prevents us from treating him as a means to our ends (p. 360).

Given this, Velleman claims that love is similarly a response to the dignity of persons, and as such it is the dignity of the object of our love that justifies that love. However, love and respect are different kinds of responses to the same value. For love arrests not our self-love but rather

our tendencies toward emotional self-protection from another person, tendencies to draw ourselves in and close ourselves off from being affected by him. Love disarms our emotional defenses; it makes us vulnerable to the other. [1999, p. 361]

This means that the concern, attraction, sympathy, etc. that we normally associate with love are not constituents of love but are rather its normal effects, and love can remain without them (as in the case of the love for a meddlesome relative one cannot stand being around). Moreover, this provides Velleman with a clear account of the intuitive “depth” of love: it is essentially a response to persons as such, and to say that you love your dog is therefore to be confused.

Of course, we do not respond with love to the dignity of every person we meet, nor are we somehow required to: love, as the disarming of our emotional defenses in a way that makes us especially vulnerable to another, is the optional maximal response to others’ dignity. What, then, explains the selectivity of love—why I love some people and not others? The answer lies in the contingent fit between the way some people behaviorally express their dignity as persons and the way I happen to respond to those expressions by becoming emotionally vulnerable to them. The right sort of fit makes someone “lovable” by me (1999, p. 372), and my responding with love in these cases is a matter of my “really seeing” this person in a way that I fail to do with others who do not fit with me in this way. By ‘lovable’ here Velleman seems to mean able to be loved, not worthy of being loved, for nothing Velleman says here speaks to a question about the justification of my loving this person rather than that. Rather, what he offers is an explanation of the selectivity of my love, an explanation that as a matter of fact makes my response be that of love rather than mere respect.

This understanding of the selectivity of love as something that can be explained but not justified is potentially troubling. For we ordinarily think we can justify not only my loving you rather than someone else but also and more importantly the constancy of my love: my continuing to love you even as you change in certain fundamental ways (but not others). As Delaney (1996, p. 347) puts the worry about constancy:

while you seem to want it to be true that, were you to become a schmuck, your lover would continue to love you,…you also want it to be the case that your lover would never love a schmuck.

The issue here is not merely that we can offer explanations of the selectivity of my love, of why I do not love schmucks; rather, at issue is the discernment of love, of loving and continuing to love for good reasons as well as of ceasing to love for good reasons. To have these good reasons seems to involve attributing different values to you now rather than formerly or rather than to someone else, yet this is precisely what Velleman denies is the case in making the distinction between love and respect the way he does.

It is also questionable whether Velleman can even explain the selectivity of love in terms of the “fit” between your expressions and my sensitivities. For the relevant sensitivities on my part are emotional sensitivities: the lowering of my emotional defenses and so becoming emotionally vulnerable to you. Thus, I become vulnerable to the harms (or goods) that befall you and so sympathetically feel your pain (or joy). Such emotions are themselves assessable for warrant, and now we can ask why my disappointment that you lost the race is warranted, but my being disappointed that a mere stranger lost would not be warranted. The intuitive answer is that I love you but not him. However, this answer is unavailable to Velleman, because he thinks that what makes my response to your dignity that of love rather than respect is precisely that I feel such emotions, and to appeal to my love in explaining the emotions therefore seems viciously circular.

Although these problems are specific to Velleman’s account, the difficulty can be generalized to any appraisal account of love (such as that offered in Kolodny 2003). For if love is an appraisal, it needs to be distinguished from other forms of appraisal, including our evaluative judgments. On the one hand, to try to distinguish love as an appraisal from other appraisals in terms of love’s having certain effects on our emotional and motivational life (as on Velleman’s account) is unsatisfying because it ignores part of what needs to be explained: why the appraisal of love has these effects and yet judgments with the same evaluative content do not. Indeed, this question is crucial if we are to understand the intuitive “depth” of love, for without an answer to this question we do not understand why love should have the kind of centrality in our lives it manifestly does. [ 9 ] On the other hand, to bundle this emotional component into the appraisal itself would be to turn the view into either the robust concern view ( Section 3 ) or a variant of the emotion view ( Section 5.1 ).

In contrast to Velleman, Singer (1991, 1994, 2009) understands love to be fundamentally a matter of bestowing value on the beloved. To bestow value on another is to project a kind of intrinsic value onto him. Indeed, this fact about love is supposed to distinguish love from liking: “Love is an attitude with no clear objective,” whereas liking is inherently teleological (1991, p. 272). As such, there are no standards of correctness for bestowing such value, and this is how love differs from other personal attitudes like gratitude, generosity, and condescension: “love…confers importance no matter what the object is worth” (p. 273). Consequently, Singer thinks, love is not an attitude that can be justified in any way.

What is it, exactly, to bestow this kind of value on someone? It is, Singer says, a kind of attachment and commitment to the beloved, in which one comes to treat him as an end in himself and so to respond to his ends, interests, concerns, etc. as having value for their own sake. This means in part that the bestowal of value reveals itself “by caring about the needs and interests of the beloved, by wishing to benefit or protect her, by delighting in her achievements,” etc. (p. 270). This sounds very much like the robust concern view, yet the bestowal view differs in understanding such robust concern to be the effect of the bestowal of value that is love rather than itself what constitutes love: in bestowing value on my beloved, I make him be valuable in such a way that I ought to respond with robust concern.

For it to be intelligible that I have bestowed value on someone, I must therefore respond appropriately to him as valuable, and this requires having some sense of what his well-being is and of what affects that well-being positively or negatively. Yet having this sense requires in turn knowing what his strengths and deficiencies are, and this is a matter of appraising him in various ways. Bestowal thus presupposes a kind of appraisal, as a way of “really seeing” the beloved and attending to him. Nonetheless, Singer claims, it is the bestowal that is primary for understanding what love consists in: the appraisal is required only so that the commitment to one’s beloved and his value as thus bestowed has practical import and is not “a blind submission to some unknown being” (1991, p. 272; see also Singer 1994, pp. 139ff).

Singer is walking a tightrope in trying to make room for appraisal in his account of love. Insofar as the account is fundamentally a bestowal account, Singer claims that love cannot be justified, that we bestow the relevant kind of value “gratuitously.” This suggests that love is blind, that it does not matter what our beloved is like, which seems patently false. Singer tries to avoid this conclusion by appealing to the role of appraisal: it is only because we appraise another as having certain virtues and vices that we come to bestow value on him. Yet the “because” here, since it cannot justify the bestowal, is at best a kind of contingent causal explanation. [ 10 ] In this respect, Singer’s account of the selectivity of love is much the same as Velleman’s, and it is liable to the same criticism: it makes unintelligible the way in which our love can be discerning for better or worse reasons. Indeed, this failure to make sense of the idea that love can be justified is a problem for any bestowal view. For either (a) a bestowal itself cannot be justified (as on Singer’s account), in which case the justification of love is impossible, or (b) a bestowal can be justified, in which case it is hard to make sense of value as being bestowed rather than there antecedently in the object as the grounds of that “bestowal.”

More generally, a proponent of the bestowal view needs to be much clearer than Singer is in articulating precisely what a bestowal is. What is the value that I create in a bestowal, and how can my bestowal create it? On a crude Humean view, the answer might be that the value is something projected onto the world through my pro-attitudes, like desire. Yet such a view would be inadequate, since the projected value, being relative to a particular individual, would do no theoretical work, and the account would essentially be a variant of the robust concern view. Moreover, in providing a bestowal account of love, care is needed to distinguish love from other personal attitudes such as admiration and respect: do these other attitudes involve bestowal? If so, how does the bestowal in these cases differ from the bestowal of love? If not, why not, and what is so special about love that requires a fundamentally different evaluative attitude than admiration and respect?

Nonetheless, there is a kernel of truth in the bestowal view: there is surely something right about the idea that love is creative and not merely a response to antecedent value, and accounts of love that understand the kind of evaluation implicit in love merely in terms of appraisal seem to be missing something. Precisely what may be missed will be discussed below in Section 6 .

Perhaps there is room for an understanding of love and its relation to value that is intermediate between appraisal and bestowal accounts. After all, if we think of appraisal as something like perception, a matter of responding to what is out there in the world, and of bestowal as something like action, a matter of doing something and creating something, we should recognize that the responsiveness central to appraisal may itself depend on our active, creative choices. Thus, just as we must recognize that ordinary perception depends on our actively directing our attention and deploying concepts, interpretations, and even arguments in order to perceive things accurately, so too we might think our vision of our beloved’s valuable properties that is love also depends on our actively attending to and interpreting him. Something like this is Jollimore’s view (2011). According to Jollimore, in loving someone we actively attend to his valuable properties in a way that we take to provide us with reasons to treat him preferentially. Although we may acknowledge that others might have such properties even to a greater degree than our beloved does, we do not attend to and appreciate such properties in others in the same way we do those in our beloveds; indeed, we find our appreciation of our beloved’s valuable properties to “silence” our similar appreciation of those in others. (In this way, Jollimore thinks, we can solve the problem of fungibility, discussed below in Section 6 .) Likewise, in perceiving our beloved’s actions and character, we do so through the lens of such an appreciation, which will tend as to “silence” interpretations inconsistent with that appreciation. In this way, love involves finding one’s beloved to be valuable in a way that involves elements of both appraisal (insofar as one must thereby be responsive to valuable properties one’s beloved really has) and bestowal (insofar as through one’s attention and committed appreciation of these properties they come to have special significance for one).

One might object that this conception of love as silencing the special value of others or to negative interpretations of our beloveds is irrational in a way that love is not. For, it might seem, such “silencing” is merely a matter of our blinding ourselves to how things really are. Yet Jollimore claims that this sense in which love is blind is not objectionable, for (a) we can still intellectually recognize the things that love’s vision silences, and (b) there really is no impartial perspective we can take on the values things have, and love is one appropriate sort of partial perspective from which the value of persons can be manifest. Nonetheless, one might wonder about whether that perspective of love itself can be distorted and what the norms are in terms of which such distortions are intelligible. Furthermore, it may seem that Jollimore’s attempt to reconcile appraisal and bestowal fails to appreciate the underlying metaphysical difficulty: appraisal is a response to value that is antecedently there, whereas bestowal is the creation of value that was not antecedently there. Consequently, it might seem, appraisal and bestowal are mutually exclusive and cannot be reconciled in the way Jollimore hopes.

Whereas Jollimore tries to combine separate elements of appraisal and of bestowal in a single account, Helm (2010) and Bagley (2015) offer accounts that reject the metaphysical presupposition that values must be either prior to love (as with appraisal) or posterior to love (as with bestowal), instead understanding the love and the values to emerge simultaneously. Thus, Helm presents a detailed account of valuing in terms of the emotions, arguing that while we can understand individual emotions as appraisals , responding to values already their in their objects, these values are bestowed on those objects via broad, holistic patterns of emotions. How this amounts to an account of love will be discussed in Section 5.2 , below. Bagley (2015) instead appeals to a metaphor of improvisation, arguing that just as jazz musicians jointly make determinate the content of their musical ideas through on-going processes of their expression, so too lovers jointly engage in “deep improvisation”, thereby working out of their values and identities through the on-going process of living their lives together. These values are thus something the lovers jointly construct through the process of recognizing and responding to those very values. To love someone is thus to engage with them as partners in such “deep improvisation”. (This account is similar to Helm (2008, 2010)’s account of plural agency, which he uses to provide an account of friendship and other loving relationships; see the discussion of shared activity in the entry on friendship .)

5. Emotion Views

Given these problems with the accounts of love as valuing, perhaps we should turn to the emotions. For emotions just are responses to objects that combine evaluation, motivation, and a kind of phenomenology, all central features of the attitude of love.

Many accounts of love claim that it is an emotion; these include: Wollheim 1984, Rorty 1986/1993, Brown 1987, Hamlyn 1989, Baier 1991, and Badhwar 2003. [ 11 ] Thus, Hamlyn (1989, p. 219) says:

It would not be a plausible move to defend any theory of the emotions to which love and hate seemed exceptions by saying that love and hate are after all not emotions. I have heard this said, but it does seem to me a desperate move to make. If love and hate are not emotions what is?

The difficulty with this claim, as Rorty (1980) argues, is that the word, ‘emotion,’ does not seem to pick out a homogeneous collection of mental states, and so various theories claiming that love is an emotion mean very different things. Consequently, what are here labeled “emotion views” are divided into those that understand love to be a particular kind of evaluative-cum-motivational response to an object, whether that response is merely occurrent or dispositional (‘emotions proper,’ see Section 5.1 , below), and those that understand love to involve a collection of related and interconnected emotions proper (‘emotion complexes,’ see Section 5.2 , below).

An emotion proper is a kind of “evaluative-cum-motivational response to an object”; what does this mean? Emotions are generally understood to have several objects. The target of an emotion is that at which the emotion is directed: if I am afraid or angry at you, then you are the target. In responding to you with fear or anger, I am implicitly evaluating you in a particular way, and this evaluation—called the formal object —is the kind of evaluation of the target that is distinctive of a particular emotion type. Thus, in fearing you, I implicitly evaluate you as somehow dangerous, whereas in being angry at you I implicitly evaluate you as somehow offensive. Yet emotions are not merely evaluations of their targets; they in part motivate us to behave in certain ways, both rationally (by motivating action to avoid the danger) and arationally (via certain characteristic expressions, such as slamming a door out of anger). Moreover, emotions are generally understood to involve a phenomenological component, though just how to understand the characteristic “feel” of an emotion and its relation to the evaluation and motivation is hotly disputed. Finally, emotions are typically understood to be passions: responses that we feel imposed on us as if from the outside, rather than anything we actively do. (For more on the philosophy of emotions, see entry on emotion .)

What then are we saying when we say that love is an emotion proper? According to Brown (1987, p. 14), emotions as occurrent mental states are “abnormal bodily changes caused by the agent’s evaluation or appraisal of some object or situation that the agent believes to be of concern to him or her.” He spells this out by saying that in love, we “cherish” the person for having “a particular complex of instantiated qualities” that is “open-ended” so that we can continue to love the person even as she changes over time (pp. 106–7). These qualities, which include historical and relational qualities, are evaluated in love as worthwhile. [ 12 ] All of this seems aimed at spelling out what love’s formal object is, a task that is fundamental to understanding love as an emotion proper. Thus, Brown seems to say that love’s formal object is just being worthwhile (or, given his examples, perhaps: worthwhile as a person), and he resists being any more specific than this in order to preserve the open-endedness of love. Hamlyn (1989) offers a similar account, saying (p. 228):

With love the difficulty is to find anything of this kind [i.e., a formal object] which is uniquely appropriate to love. My thesis is that there is nothing of this kind that must be so, and that this differentiates it and hate from the other emotions.

Hamlyn goes on to suggest that love and hate might be primordial emotions, a kind of positive or negative “feeling towards,” presupposed by all other emotions. [ 13 ]

The trouble with these accounts of love as an emotion proper is that they provide too thin a conception of love. In Hamlyn’s case, love is conceived as a fairly generic pro-attitude, rather than as the specific kind of distinctively personal attitude discussed here. In Brown’s case, spelling out the formal object of love as simply being worthwhile (as a person) fails to distinguish love from other evaluative responses like admiration and respect. Part of the problem seems to be the rather simple account of what an emotion is that Brown and Hamlyn use as their starting point: if love is an emotion, then the understanding of what an emotion is must be enriched considerably to accommodate love. Yet it is not at all clear whether the idea of an “emotion proper” can be adequately enriched so as to do so. As Pismenny & Prinz (2017) point out, love seems to be too varied both in its ground and in the sort of experience it involves to be capturable by a single emotion.

The emotion complex view, which understands love to be a complex emotional attitude towards another person, may initially seem to hold out great promise to overcome the problems of alternative types of views. By articulating the emotional interconnections between persons, it could offer a satisfying account of the “depth” of love without the excesses of the union view and without the overly narrow teleological focus of the robust concern view; and because these emotional interconnections are themselves evaluations, it could offer an understanding of love as simultaneously evaluative, without needing to specify a single formal object of love. However, the devil is in the details.

Rorty (1986/1993) does not try to present a complete account of love; rather, she focuses on the idea that “relational psychological attitudes” which, like love, essentially involve emotional and desiderative responses, exhibit historicity : “they arise from, and are shaped by, dynamic interactions between a subject and an object” (p. 73). In part this means that what makes an attitude be one of love is not the presence of a state that we can point to at a particular time within the lover; rather, love is to be “identified by a characteristic narrative history” (p. 75). Moreover, Rorty argues, the historicity of love involves the lover’s being permanently transformed by loving who he does.

Baier (1991), seeming to pick up on this understanding of love as exhibiting historicity, says (p. 444):

Love is not just an emotion people feel toward other people, but also a complex tying together of the emotions that two or a few more people have; it is a special form of emotional interdependence.

To a certain extent, such emotional interdependence involves feeling sympathetic emotions, so that, for example, I feel disappointed and frustrated on behalf of my beloved when she fails, and joyful when she succeeds. However, Baier insists, love is “more than just the duplication of the emotion of each in a sympathetic echo in the other” (p. 442); the emotional interdependence of the lovers involves also appropriate follow-up responses to the emotional predicaments of your beloved. Two examples Baier gives (pp. 443–44) are a feeling of “mischievous delight” at your beloved’s temporary bafflement, and amusement at her embarrassment. The idea is that in a loving relationship your beloved gives you permission to feel such emotions when no one else is permitted to do so, and a condition of her granting you that permission is that you feel these emotions “tenderly.” Moreover, you ought to respond emotionally to your beloved’s emotional responses to you: by feeling hurt when she is indifferent to you, for example. All of these foster the sort of emotional interdependence Baier is after—a kind of intimacy you have with your beloved.

Badhwar (2003, p. 46) similarly understands love to be a matter of “one’s overall emotional orientation towards a person—the complex of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings”; as such, love is a matter of having a certain “character structure.” Central to this complex emotional orientation, Badhwar thinks, is what she calls the “look of love”: “an ongoing [emotional] affirmation of the loved object as worthy of existence…for her own sake” (p. 44), an affirmation that involves taking pleasure in your beloved’s well-being. Moreover, Badhwar claims, the look of love also provides to the beloved reliable testimony concerning the quality of the beloved’s character and actions (p. 57).

There is surely something very right about the idea that love, as an attitude central to deeply personal relationships, should not be understood as a state that can simply come and go. Rather, as the emotion complex view insists, the complexity of love is to be found in the historical patterns of one’s emotional responsiveness to one’s beloved—a pattern that also projects into the future. Indeed, as suggested above, the kind of emotional interdependence that results from this complex pattern can seem to account for the intuitive “depth” of love as fully interwoven into one’s emotional sense of oneself. And it seems to make some headway in understanding the complex phenomenology of love: love can at times be a matter of intense pleasure in the presence of one’s beloved, yet it can at other times involve frustration, exasperation, anger, and hurt as a manifestation of the complexities and depth of the relationships it fosters.

This understanding of love as constituted by a history of emotional interdependence enables emotion complex views to say something interesting about the impact love has on the lover’s identity. This is partly Rorty’s point (1986/1993) in her discussion of the historicity of love ( above ). Thus, she argues, one important feature of such historicity is that love is “ dynamically permeable ” in that the lover is continually “changed by loving” such that these changes “tend to ramify through a person’s character” (p. 77). Through such dynamic permeability, love transforms the identity of the lover in a way that can sometimes foster the continuity of the love, as each lover continually changes in response to the changes in the other. [ 14 ] Indeed, Rorty concludes, love should be understood in terms of “a characteristic narrative history” (p. 75) that results from such dynamic permeability. It should be clear, however, that the mere fact of dynamic permeability need not result in the love’s continuing: nothing about the dynamics of a relationship requires that the characteristic narrative history project into the future, and such permeability can therefore lead to the dissolution of the love. Love is therefore risky—indeed, all the more risky because of the way the identity of the lover is defined in part through the love. The loss of a love can therefore make one feel no longer oneself in ways poignantly described by Nussbaum (1990).

By focusing on such emotionally complex histories, emotion complex views differ from most alternative accounts of love. For alternative accounts tend to view love as a kind of attitude we take toward our beloveds, something we can analyze simply in terms of our mental state at the moment. [ 15 ] By ignoring this historical dimension of love in providing an account of what love is, alternative accounts have a hard time providing either satisfying accounts of the sense in which our identities as person are at stake in loving another or satisfactory solutions to problems concerning how love is to be justified (cf. Section 6 , especially the discussion of fungibility ).

Nonetheless, some questions remain. If love is to be understood as an emotion complex, we need a much more explicit account of the pattern at issue here: what ties all of these emotional responses together into a single thing, namely love? Baier and Badhwar seem content to provide interesting and insightful examples of this pattern, but that does not seem to be enough. For example, what connects my amusement at my beloved’s embarrassment to other emotions like my joy on his behalf when he succeeds? Why shouldn’t my amusement at his embarrassment be understood instead as a somewhat cruel case of schadenfreude and so as antithetical to, and disconnected from, love? Moreover, as Naar (2013) notes, we need a principled account of when such historical patterns are disrupted in such a way as to end the love and when they are not. Do I stop loving when, in the midst of clinical depression, I lose my normal pattern of emotional concern?

Presumably the answer requires returning to the historicity of love: it all depends on the historical details of the relationship my beloved and I have forged. Some loves develop so that the intimacy within the relationship is such as to allow for tender, teasing responses to each other, whereas other loves may not. The historical details, together with the lovers’ understanding of their relationship, presumably determine which emotional responses belong to the pattern constitutive of love and which do not. However, this answer so far is inadequate: not just any historical relationship involving emotional interdependence is a loving relationship, and we need a principled way of distinguishing loving relationships from other relational evaluative attitudes: precisely what is the characteristic narrative history that is characteristic of love?

Helm (2009, 2010) tries to answer some of these questions in presenting an account of love as intimate identification. To love another, Helm claims, is to care about him as the particular person he is and so, other things being equal, to value the things he values. Insofar as a person’s (structured) set of values—his sense of the kind of life worth his living—constitutes his identity as a person, such sharing of values amounts to sharing his identity, which sounds very much like union accounts of love. However, Helm is careful to understand such sharing of values as for the sake of the beloved (as robust concern accounts insist), and he spells this all out in terms of patterns of emotions. Thus, Helm claims, all emotions have not only a target and a formal object (as indicated above), but also a focus : a background object the subject cares about in terms of which the implicit evaluation of the target is made intelligible. (For example, if I am afraid of the approaching hailstorm, I thereby evaluate it as dangerous, and what explains this evaluation is the way that hailstorm bears on my vegetable garden, which I care about; my garden, therefore, is the focus of my fear.) Moreover, emotions normally come in patterns with a common focus: fearing the hailstorm is normally connected to other emotions as being relieved when it passes by harmlessly (or disappointed or sad when it does not), being angry at the rabbits for killing the spinach, delighted at the productivity of the tomato plants, etc. Helm argues that a projectible pattern of such emotions with a common focus constitute caring about that focus. Consequently, we might say along the lines of Section 4.3 , while particular emotions appraise events in the world as having certain evaluative properties, their having these properties is partly bestowed on them by the overall patterns of emotions.

Helm identifies some emotions as person-focused emotions : emotions like pride and shame that essentially take persons as their focuses, for these emotions implicitly evaluate in terms of the target’s bearing on the quality of life of the person that is their focus. To exhibit a pattern of such emotions focused on oneself and subfocused on being a mother, for example, is to care about the place being a mother has in the kind of life you find worth living—in your identity as a person; to care in this way is to value being a mother as a part of your concern for your own identity. Likewise, to exhibit a projectible pattern of such emotions focused on someone else and subfocused on his being a father is to value this as a part of your concern for his identity—to value it for his sake. Such sharing of another’s values for his sake, which, Helm argues, essentially involves trust, respect, and affection, amounts to intimate identification with him, and such intimate identification just is love. Thus, Helm tries to provide an account of love that is grounded in an explicit account of caring (and caring about something for the sake of someone else) that makes room for the intuitive “depth” of love through intimate identification.

Jaworska & Wonderly (2017) argue that Helm’s construal of intimacy as intimate identification is too demanding. Rather, they argue, the sort of intimacy that distinguishes love from mere caring is one that involves a kind of emotional vulnerability in which things going well or poorly for one’s beloved are directly connected not merely to one’s well-being, but to one’s ability to flourish. This connection, they argue, runs through the lover’s self-understanding and the place the beloved has in the lover’s sense of a meaningful life.

Why do we love? It has been suggested above that any account of love needs to be able to answer some such justificatory question. Although the issue of the justification of love is important on its own, it is also important for the implications it has for understanding more clearly the precise object of love: how can we make sense of the intuitions not only that we love the individuals themselves rather than their properties, but also that my beloved is not fungible—that no one could simply take her place without loss. Different theories approach these questions in different ways, but, as will become clear below, the question of justification is primary.

One way to understand the question of why we love is as asking for what the value of love is: what do we get out of it? One kind of answer, which has its roots in Aristotle, is that having loving relationships promotes self-knowledge insofar as your beloved acts as a kind of mirror, reflecting your character back to you (Badhwar, 2003, p. 58). Of course, this answer presupposes that we cannot accurately know ourselves in other ways: that left alone, our sense of ourselves will be too imperfect, too biased, to help us grow and mature as persons. The metaphor of a mirror also suggests that our beloveds will be in the relevant respects similar to us, so that merely by observing them, we can come to know ourselves better in a way that is, if not free from bias, at least more objective than otherwise.

Brink (1999, pp. 264–65) argues that there are serious limits to the value of such mirroring of one’s self in a beloved. For if the aim is not just to know yourself better but to improve yourself, you ought also to interact with others who are not just like yourself: interacting with such diverse others can help you recognize alternative possibilities for how to live and so better assess the relative merits of these possibilities. Whiting (2013) also emphasizes the importance of our beloveds’ having an independent voice capable of reflecting not who one now is but an ideal for who one is to be. Nonetheless, we need not take the metaphor of the mirror quite so literally; rather, our beloveds can reflect our selves not through their inherent similarity to us but rather through the interpretations they offer of us, both explicitly and implicitly in their responses to us. This is what Badhwar calls the “epistemic significance” of love. [ 16 ]

In addition to this epistemic significance of love, LaFollette (1996, Chapter 5) offers several other reasons why it is good to love, reasons derived in part from the psychological literature on love: love increases our sense of well-being, it elevates our sense of self-worth, and it serves to develop our character. It also, we might add, tends to lower stress and blood pressure and to increase health and longevity. Friedman (1993) argues that the kind of partiality towards our beloveds that love involves is itself morally valuable because it supports relationships—loving relationships—that contribute “to human well-being, integrity, and fulfillment in life” (p. 61). And Solomon (1988, p. 155) claims:

Ultimately, there is only one reason for love. That one grand reason…is “because we bring out the best in each other.” What counts as “the best,” of course, is subject to much individual variation.

This is because, Solomon suggests, in loving someone, I want myself to be better so as to be worthy of his love for me.

Each of these answers to the question of why we love understands it to be asking about love quite generally, abstracted away from details of particular relationships. It is also possible to understand the question as asking about particular loves. Here, there are several questions that are relevant:

What, if anything, justifies my loving rather than not loving this particular person?
What, if anything, justifies my coming to love this particular person rather than someone else?
What, if anything, justifies my continuing to love this particular person given the changes—both in him and me and in the overall circumstances—that have occurred since I began loving him?

These are importantly different questions. Velleman (1999), for example, thinks we can answer (1) by appealing to the fact that my beloved is a person and so has a rational nature, yet he thinks (2) and (3) have no answers: the best we can do is offer causal explanations for our loving particular people, a position echoed by Han (2021). Setiya (2014) similarly thinks (1) has an answer, but points not to the rational nature of persons but rather to the other’s humanity , where such humanity differs from personhood in that not all humans need have the requisite rational nature for personhood, and not all persons need be humans. And, as will become clear below , the distinction between (2) and (3) will become important in resolving puzzles concerning whether our beloveds are fungible, though it should be clear that (3) potentially raises questions concerning personal identity (which will not be addressed here).

It is important not to misconstrue these justificatory questions. Thomas (1991) , for example, rejects the idea that love can be justified: “there are no rational considerations whereby anyone can lay claim to another’s love or insist that an individual’s love for another is irrational” (p. 474). This is because, Thomas claims (p. 471):

no matter how wonderful and lovely an individual might be, on any and all accounts, it is simply false that a romantically unencumbered person must love that individual on pain of being irrational. Or, there is no irrationality involved in ceasing to love a person whom one once loved immensely, although the person has not changed.

However, as LaFollette (1996, p. 63) correctly points out,

reason is not some external power which dictates how we should behave, but an internal power, integral to who we are.… Reason does not command that we love anyone. Nonetheless, reason is vital in determining whom we love and why we love them.

That is, reasons for love are pro tanto : they are a part of the overall reasons we have for acting, and it is up to us in exercising our capacity for agency to decide what on balance we have reason to do or even whether we shall act contrary to our reasons. To construe the notion of a reason for love as compelling us to love, as Thomas does, is to misconstrue the place such reasons have within our agency. [ 17 ]

Most philosophical discussions of the justification of love focus on question (1) , thinking that answering this question will also, to the extent that we can, answer question (2) , which is typically not distinguished from (3) . The answers given to these questions vary in a way that turns on how the kind of evaluation implicit in love is construed. On the one hand, those who understand the evaluation implicit in love to be a matter of the bestowal of value (such as Telfer 1970–71; Friedman 1993; Singer 1994) typically claim that no justification can be given (cf. Section 4.2 ). As indicated above, this seems problematic, especially given the importance love can have both in our lives and, especially, in shaping our identities as persons. To reject the idea that we can love for reasons may reduce the impact our agency can have in defining who we are.

On the other hand, those who understand the evaluation implicit in love to be a matter of appraisal tend to answer the justificatory question by appeal to these valuable properties of the beloved. This acceptance of the idea that love can be justified leads to two further, related worries about the object of love.

The first worry is raised by Vlastos (1981) in a discussion Plato’s and Aristotle’s accounts of love. Vlastos notes that these accounts focus on the properties of our beloveds: we are to love people, they say, only because and insofar as they are objectifications of the excellences. Consequently, he argues, in doing so they fail to distinguish “ disinterested affection for the person we love” from “ appreciation of the excellences instantiated by that person ” (p. 33). That is, Vlastos thinks that Plato and Aristotle provide an account of love that is really a love of properties rather than a love of persons—love of a type of person, rather than love of a particular person—thereby losing what is distinctive about love as an essentially personal attitude. This worry about Plato and Aristotle might seem to apply just as well to other accounts that justify love in terms of the properties of the person: insofar as we love the person for the sake of her properties, it might seem that what we love is those properties and not the person. Here it is surely insufficient to say, as Solomon (1988, p. 154) does, “if love has its reasons, then it is not the whole person that one loves but certain aspects of that person—though the rest of the person comes along too, of course”: that final tagline fails to address the central difficulty about what the object of love is and so about love as a distinctly personal attitude. (Clausen 2019 might seem to address this worry by arguing that we love people not as having certain properties but rather as having “ organic unities ”: a holistic set of properties the value of each of which must be understood in essential part in terms of its place within that whole. Nonetheless, while this is an interesting and plausible way to think about the value of the properties of persons, that organic unity itself will be a (holistic) property held by the person, and it seems that the fundamental problem reemerges at the level of this holistic property: do we love the holistic unity rather than the person?)

The second worry concerns the fungibility of the object of love. To be fungible is to be replaceable by another relevantly similar object without any loss of value. Thus, money is fungible: I can give you two $5 bills in exchange for a $10 bill, and neither of us has lost anything. Is the object of love fungible? That is, can I simply switch from loving one person to loving another relevantly similar person without any loss? The worry about fungibility is commonly put this way: if we accept that love can be justified by appealing to properties of the beloved, then it may seem that in loving someone for certain reasons, I love him not simply as the individual he is, but as instantiating those properties. And this may imply that any other person instantiating those same properties would do just as well: my beloved would be fungible. Indeed, it may be that another person exhibits the properties that ground my love to a greater degree than my current beloved does, and so it may seem that in such a case I have reason to “trade up”—to switch my love to the new, better person. However, it seems clear that the objects of our loves are not fungible: love seems to involve a deeply personal commitment to a particular person, a commitment that is antithetical to the idea that our beloveds are fungible or to the idea that we ought to be willing to trade up when possible. [ 18 ]

In responding to these worries, Nozick (1989) appeals to the union view of love he endorses (see the section on Love as Union ):

The intention in love is to form a we and to identify with it as an extended self, to identify one’s fortunes in large part with its fortunes. A willingness to trade up, to destroy the very we you largely identify with, would then be a willingness to destroy your self in the form of your own extended self. [p. 78]

So it is because love involves forming a “we” that we must understand other persons and not properties to be the objects of love, and it is because my very identity as a person depends essentially on that “we” that it is not possible to substitute without loss one object of my love for another. However, Badhwar (2003) criticizes Nozick, saying that his response implies that once I love someone, I cannot abandon that love no matter who that person becomes; this, she says, “cannot be understood as love at all rather than addiction” (p. 61). [ 19 ]

Instead, Badhwar (1987) turns to her robust-concern account of love as a concern for the beloved for his sake rather than one’s own. Insofar as my love is disinterested — not a means to antecedent ends of my own—it would be senseless to think that my beloved could be replaced by someone who is able to satisfy my ends equally well or better. Consequently, my beloved is in this way irreplaceable. However, this is only a partial response to the worry about fungibility, as Badhwar herself seems to acknowledge. For the concern over fungibility arises not merely for those cases in which we think of love as justified instrumentally, but also for those cases in which the love is justified by the intrinsic value of the properties of my beloved. Confronted with cases like this, Badhwar (2003) concludes that the object of love is fungible after all (though she insists that it is very unlikely in practice). (Soble (1990, Chapter 13) draws similar conclusions.)

Nonetheless, Badhwar thinks that the object of love is “phenomenologically non-fungible” (2003, p. 63; see also 1987, p. 14). By this she means that we experience our beloveds to be irreplaceable: “loving and delighting in [one person] are not completely commensurate with loving and delighting in another” (1987, p. 14). Love can be such that we sometimes desire to be with this particular person whom we love, not another whom we also love, for our loves are qualitatively different. But why is this? It seems as though the typical reason I now want to spend time with Amy rather than Bob is, for example, that Amy is funny but Bob is not. I love Amy in part for her humor, and I love Bob for other reasons, and these qualitative differences between them is what makes them not fungible. However, this reply does not address the worry about the possibility of trading up: if Bob were to be at least as funny (charming, kind, etc.) as Amy, why shouldn’t I dump her and spend all my time with him?

A somewhat different approach is taken by Whiting (1991). In response to the first worry concerning the object of love, Whiting argues that Vlastos offers a false dichotomy: having affection for someone that is disinterested —for her sake rather than my own—essentially involves an appreciation of her excellences as such. Indeed, Whiting says, my appreciation of these as excellences, and so the underlying commitment I have to their value, just is a disinterested commitment to her because these excellences constitute her identity as the person she is. The person, therefore, really is the object of love. Delaney (1996) takes the complementary tack of distinguishing between the object of one’s love, which of course is the person, and the grounds of the love, which are her properties: to say, as Solomon does, that we love someone for reasons is not at all to say that we only love certain aspects of the person. In these terms, we might say that Whiting’s rejection of Vlastos’ dichotomy can be read as saying that what makes my attitude be one of disinterested affection—one of love—for the person is precisely that I am thereby responding to her excellences as the reasons for that affection. [ 20 ]

Of course, more needs to be said about what it is that makes a particular person be the object of love. Implicit in Whiting’s account is an understanding of the way in which the object of my love is determined in part by the history of interactions I have with her: it is she, and not merely her properties (which might be instantiated in many different people), that I want to be with; it is she, and not merely her properties, on whose behalf I am concerned when she suffers and whom I seek to comfort; etc. This addresses the first worry, but not the second worry about fungibility, for the question still remains whether she is the object of my love only as instantiating certain properties, and so whether or not I have reason to “trade up.”

To respond to the fungibility worry, Whiting and Delaney appeal explicitly to the historical relationship. [ 21 ] Thus, Whiting claims, although there may be a relatively large pool of people who have the kind of excellences of character that would justify my loving them, and so although there can be no answer to question (2) about why I come to love this rather than that person within this pool, once I have come to love this person and so have developed a historical relation with her, this history of concern justifies my continuing to love this person rather than someone else (1991, p. 7). Similarly, Delaney claims that love is grounded in “historical-relational properties” (1996, p. 346), so that I have reasons for continuing to love this person rather than switching allegiances and loving someone else. In each case, the appeal to both such historical relations and the excellences of character of my beloved is intended to provide an answer to question (3) , and this explains why the objects of love are not fungible.

There seems to be something very much right with this response. Relationships grounded in love are essentially personal, and it would be odd to think of what justifies that love to be merely non-relational properties of the beloved. Nonetheless, it is still unclear how the historical-relational propreties can provide any additional justification for subsequent concern beyond that which is already provided (as an answer to question (1) ) by appeal to the excellences of the beloved’s character (cf. Brink 1999). The mere fact that I have loved someone in the past does not seem to justify my continuing to love him in the future. When we imagine that he is going through a rough time and begins to lose the virtues justifying my initial love for him, why shouldn’t I dump him and instead come to love someone new having all of those virtues more fully? Intuitively (unless the change she undergoes makes her in some important sense no longer the same person he was), we think I should not dump him, but the appeal to the mere fact that I loved him in the past is surely not enough. Yet what historical-relational properties could do the trick? (For an interesting attempt at an answer, see Kolodny 2003 and also Howard 2019.)

If we think that love can be justified, then it may seem that the appeal to particular historical facts about a loving relationship to justify that love is inadequate, for such idiosyncratic and subjective properties might explain but cannot justify love. Rather, it may seem, justification in general requires appealing to universal, objective properties. But such properties are ones that others might share, which leads to the problem of fungibility. Consequently it may seem that love cannot be justified. In the face of this predicament, accounts of love that understand love to be an attitude towards value that is intermediate between appraisal and bestowal, between recognizing already existing value and creating that value (see Section 4.3 ) might seem to offer a way out. For once we reject the thought that the value of our beloveds must be either the precondition or the consequence of our love, we have room to acknowledge that the deeply personal, historically grounded, creative nature of love (central to bestowal accounts) and the understanding of love as responsive to valuable properties of the beloved that can justify that love (central to appraisal accounts) are not mutually exclusive (Helm 2010; Bagley 2015).

Annas, J., 1977, “Plato and Aristotle on Friendship and Altruism”, Mind , 86: 532–54.
Badhwar, N. K., 1987, “Friends as Ends in Themselves”, Philosophy & Phenomenological Research , 48: 1–23.
–––, 2003, “Love”, in H. LaFollette (ed.), Practical Ethics , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 42–69.
Badhwar, N. K. (ed.), 1993, Friendship: A Philosophical Reader , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bagley, B., 2015, “Loving Someone in Particular”, Ethics , 125: 477–507.
–––, 2018. “(The Varieties of) Love in Contemporary Anglophone Philosophy”, in Adrienne M. Martin (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Love in Philosophy , New York, NY: Routledge, 453–64.
Baier, A. C., 1991, “Unsafe Loves”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 433–50.
Blum, L. A., 1980, Friendship, Altruism, and Morality , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
–––, 1993, “Friendship as a Moral Phenomenon”, in Badhwar (1993), 192–210.
Bransen, J., 2006, “Selfless Self-Love”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 9: 3–25.
Bratman, M. E., 1999, “Shared Intention”, in Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 109–29.
Brentlinger, J., 1970/1989, “The Nature of Love”, in Soble (1989a), 136–48.
Brink, D. O., 1999, “Eudaimonism, Love and Friendship, and Political Community”, Social Philosophy & Policy , 16: 252–289.
Brown, R., 1987, Analyzing Love , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clausen, G., 2019, “Love of Whole Persons”, The Journal of Ethics , 23 (4): 347–67.
Cocking, D. & Kennett, J., 1998, “Friendship and the Self”, Ethics , 108: 502–27.
Cooper, J. M., 1977, “Aristotle on the Forms of Friendship”, Review of Metaphysics , 30: 619–48.
Delaney, N., 1996, “Romantic Love and Loving Commitment: Articulating a Modern Ideal”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 33: 375–405.
Ebels-Duggan, K., 2008, “Against Beneficence: A Normative Account of Love”, Ethics , 119: 142–70.
Fisher, M., 1990, Personal Love , London: Duckworth.
Frankfurt, H., 1999, “Autonomy, Necessity, and Love”, in Necessity, Volition, and Love , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 129–41.
Friedman, M. A., 1993, What Are Friends For? Feminist Perspectives on Personal Relationships and Moral Theory , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
–––, 1998, “Romantic Love and Personal Autonomy”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 22: 162–81.
Gilbert, M., 1989, On Social Facts , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
–––, 1996, Living Together: Rationality, Sociality, and Obligation , Rowman & Littlefield.
–––, 2000, Sociality and Responsibility: New Essays in Plural Subject Theory , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Grau, C. & Smuts, A., 2017, Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Love , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hamlyn, D. W., 1989, “The Phenomena of Love and Hate”, in Soble (1989a), 218–234.
Han, Y., 2021, “Do We Love for Reasons?”, Philosophy & Phenomenological Research , 102: 106–126.
Hegel, G. W. F., 1997, “A Fragment on Love”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 117–20.
Helm, B. W., 2008, “Plural Agents”, Noûs , 42: 17–49.
–––, 2009, “Love, Identification, and the Emotions”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 46: 39–59.
–––, 2010, Love, Friendship, and the Self: Intimacy, Identification, and the Social Nature of Persons , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Howard, C., 2019, “Fitting Love and Reasons for Loving” in M. Timmons (ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics (Volume 9). doi:10.1093/oso/9780198846253.001.0001
Jaworska, A. & Wonderly, M., 2017, “Love and Caring”, in C. Grau & A. Smuts (2020). doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199395729.013.15
Jollimore, T, 2011, Love’s Vision , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kolodny, N., 2003, “Love as Valuing a Relationship”, The Philosophical Review , 112: 135–89.
Kraut, Robert, 1986 “Love De Re ”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 10: 413–30.
LaFollette, H., 1996, Personal Relationships: Love, Identity, and Morality , Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Press.
Lamb, R. E., (ed.), 1997, Love Analyzed , Westview Press.
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R., 1940, A Greek-English Lexicon , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 9th edition.
Martin, A., 2015, “Love, Incorporated”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 18: 691–702.
Montaigne, M., [E], Essays , in The Complete Essays of Montaigne , Donald Frame (trans.), Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958.
Naar, H., 2013, “A Dispositional Theory of Love”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 94(3): 342–357.
Newton-Smith, W., 1989, “A Conceptual Investigation of Love”, in Soble (1989a), 199–217.
Nozick, R., 1989, “Love’s Bond”, in The Examined Life: Philosophical Meditations , New York: Simon & Schuster, 68–86.
Nussbaum, M., 1990, “Love and the Individual: Romantic Rightness and Platonic Aspiration”, in Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 314–34.
Nygren, A., 1953a, Agape and Eros , Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press.
–––, 1953b, “ Agape and Eros ”, in Soble (1989a), 85–95.
Ortiz-Millán, G., 2007, “Love and Rationality: On Some Possible Rational Effects of Love”, Kriterion , 48: 127–44.
Pismenny, A. & Prinz, J., 2017, “Is Love an Emotion?”, in C. Grau & A. Smuts (2017). doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199395729.013.10
Price, A. W., 1989, Love and Friendship in Plato and Arisotle , New York: Clarendon Press.
Rorty, A. O., 1980, “Introduction”, in A. O. Rorty (ed.), Explaining Emotions , Berkeley: University of California Press, 1–8.
–––, 1986/1993, “The Historicity of Psychological Attitudes: Love is Not Love Which Alters Not When It Alteration Finds”, in Badhwar (1993), 73–88.
Scruton, R., 1986, Sexual Desire: A Moral Philosophy of the Erotic , New York: Free Press.
Searle, J. R., 1990, “Collective Intentions and Actions”, in P. R. Cohen, M. E. Pollack, & J. L. Morgan (eds.), Intentions in Communication , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 401–15.
Setiya, K., 2014, “Love and the Value of a Life”, Philosophical Review , 123: 251–80.
Sherman, N., 1993, “Aristotle on the Shared Life”, in Badhwar (1993), 91–107.
Singer, I., 1984a, The Nature of Love, Volume 1: Plato to Luther , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edition.
–––, 1984b, The Nature of Love, Volume 2: Courtly and Romantic , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
–––, 1989, The Nature of Love, Volume 3: The Modern World , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn.
–––, 1991, “From The Nature of Love ”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 259–78.
–––, 1994, The Pursuit of Love , Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
–––, 2009, Philosophy of Love: A Partial Summing-up , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Soble, A. (ed.), 1989a, Eros, Agape, and Philia: Readings in the Philosophy of Love , New York, NY: Paragon House.
–––, 1989b, “An Introduction to the Philosophy of Love”, in Soble (1989a), xi-xxv.
–––, 1990, The Structure of Love , New Haven: Yale University Press.
–––, 1997, “Union, Autonomy, and Concern”, in Lamb (1997), 65–92.
Solomon, R. C., 1976, The Passions , New York: Anchor Press.
–––, 1981, Love: Emotion, Myth, and Metaphor , New York: Anchor Press.
–––, 1988, About Love: Reinventing Romance for Our Times , New York: Simon & Schuster.
Solomon, R. C. & Higgins, K. M. (eds.), 1991, The Philosophy of (Erotic) Love , Lawrence: Kansas University Press.
Stump, E., 2006, “Love by All Accounts”, Presidential Address to the Central APA, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association , 80: 25–43.
Taylor, G., 1976, “Love”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 76: 147–64.
Telfer, E., 1970–71, “Friendship”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 71: 223–41.
Thomas, L., 1987, “Friendship”, Synthese , 72: 217–36.
–––, 1989, “Friends and Lovers”, in G. Graham & H. La Follette (eds.), Person to Person , Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 182–98.
–––, 1991, “Reasons for Loving”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 467–476.
–––, 1993, “Friendship and Other Loves”, in Badhwar (1993), 48–64.
Tuomela, R., 1984, A Theory of Social Action , Dordrecht: Reidel.
–––, 1995, The Importance of Us: A Philosophical Study of Basic Social Notions , Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Velleman, J. D., 1999, “Love as a Moral Emotion”, Ethics , 109: 338–74.
–––, 2008, “Beyond Price”, Ethics , 118: 191–212.
Vlastos, G., 1981, “The Individual as Object of Love in Plato”, in Platonic Studies , 2nd edition, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 3–42.
White, R. J., 2001, Love’s Philosophy , Rowman & Littlefield.
Whiting, J. E., 1991, “Impersonal Friends”, Monist , 74: 3–29.
–––, 2013, “Love: Self-Propagation, Self-Preservation, or Ekstasis?”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 43: 403–29.
Willigenburg, T. Van, 2005, “Reason and Love: A Non-Reductive Analysis of the Normativity of Agent-Relative Reasons”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 8: 45–62.
Wollheim, R., 1984, The Thread of Life , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wonderly, M., 2016, “On Being Attached”, Philosophical Studies , 173: 223–42.
–––, 2017, “Love and Attachment”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 54: 235–50.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Aristotle , Nicomachean Ethics , translated by W.D. Ross.
Moseley, A., “ Philosophy of Love ,” in J. Fieser (ed.), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

When Roderigo, who is madly in love with Desdemona, hears that she has eloped with Othello, he complains to Iago. Roderigo thought Iago was on his side in his pursuit of Desdemona, so Iago has to explain that he really hates Othello, even though he's still serving under his command. He tells Roderigo of how Othello passed him over for promotion in favor Cassio, and then says, [bound] . He follows this up by saying that he does not serve Othello [personal] . [ ] . "Still" means "repeatedly"; Brabantio gave Othello a lot of positive attention before Othello married his daughter. . [ ] . He means that the natives are friendly to him and that they all will want to meet and greet Desdemona. . This prediction comes true. [ ] . . Othello believes that Iago is his loyal friend, and so he expects the truth from him. Iago professes much reluctance, but does provide the requested information, only leaving out the fact that he masterminded the whole thing. What Iago says is damning to Cassio, but Othello thinks that because Iago is Cassio's friend, it could have been more damning. He says to Iago, , and then turns to Cassio with his verdict: . Othello, unlike Iago, really does love Cassio, but it's impossible to keep an officer who gets into a drunken brawl while on duty. , and when Cassio thanks him for his advice, Iago replies, . Where Iago says "I protest," we would say "I promise you." [ ] . [ ] . However, Cassio has less faith in the power of love than does Desdemona, and he's worried [given to another] . . She goes on to make it clear that she believes that she is doing Othello a good turn by getting him back together with his loving friend, Cassio. . To this, Iago says, , and Othello then says, . The "stops" are the significant pauses Iago has been taking, as if considering just what to say next. Othello goes on to say that he knows that a person can use such stops as a way of pretending to know more than he's saying, but Othello is sure that Iago is not playing such a trick. Actually, Iago playing that very trick, but Othello can't see it because he trusts Iago's love and honesty. . He goes on to tell Othello that he should keep his eye on Desdemona because Venetian women can't be trusted, and because Desdemona fooled her father when she fell in love with him. At this, Iago sees that Othello is becoming visibly upset and says, . Othello says that what Iago has been saying has not upset him, but Iago replies . Thus Iago, who never acts or speaks except out of hatred, assures Othello that it's only love that is making him say all of this. . "God buy you" is the grandmother of our word "goodbye," and "take mine office" means "I quit." In short, he's pretending that he's about to leave Othello all alone to solve his problem by himself. As Iago heads for the door, he talks to himself (though loud enough for Othello to hear), telling himself that he's a fool to be so loving and honest. He goes on in this way until he promises that from now on he'll [since] . Othello, who believes that his best friend and his wife have both betrayed him, can't bear the thought of losing his last friend, so he calls Iago back. Iago then proceeds to add more fuel to the fire of Othello's jealousy. . He then delivers a cock-and-bull story about a dream that he says Cassio had about Desdemona. , and then asks Iago to arrange for the murder of Cassio. Of course Iago is glad to accept the assignment. [ ] . Today, instead of saying that he wants to "be a member of his love," Cassio would probably say that he wanted to "be a member of his team," and that he has "deep respect" for Othello, but in Shakespeare's time such things were spoken of as a matter of "love." [ ] [reconcile] . Othello, overhearing her, takes her expression of brotherly love the wrong way, and in a few moments he strikes her and humiliates her. [ ] . Implicit in this statement is a distinction between romantic love, which is consecrated to just one person, and brotherly love, which God wants us to feel for all worthy persons. [ ]

City of Brotherly Love

By Chris Satullo

When naming a newborn, you feel the weight of the decision, the fond hope that the right name might provide a push along a hoped-for path.

Even as names seek to nudge destiny, sometimes they merely set up irony: Faith, the fiery atheist; Victor, the embittered failure.

We can’t know all the thoughts that coursed through William Penn’s mind when he chose Philadelphia as the name for his new city, tucked onto the peninsula between the Delaware River and the Schuylkill. What we do know is that he chose boldly, aiming for the vault of heaven, daring irony to strike. The name he gave his city combined the Greek words for love ( phileo ) and brother ( adelphos ), setting up the enduring civic nickname: the City of Brotherly Love. Then Penn gave his city a street grid, a charter and a diplomatic first act that he hoped would enable it to live up to that name.

So how did it turn out, this Holy Experiment?

In modern popular culture, the verdict is often rendered with a sneer. “City of Brotherly Love” has turned into a phrase invoked more often in sarcasm than admiration.

In 1994, a Gallup Poll named Philadelphia America’s most hostile place. The most durable stereotypes about the city cluster around its fans’ penchant for booing and the colorfulness of its crime and corruption.

So William Penn’s choice can sometimes seem less destiny than irony.

But that judgment is neither complete nor fair. It ignores so much evidence.

Thanks to its founder’s impetus, and to the furthering energy of citizens from Benjamin Franklin to Richard Allen, from Lucretia Mott to John Wanamaker, from Richardson Dilworth to Mary Scullion, Philadelphia has remained one of America’s most inventive laboratories for exploring the civic potential of brotherly love and sisterly affection.

Destiny vs. Irony

Its history can be read as a long duel between destiny and irony, each vying to seize the upper hand in interpreting City of Brotherly Love . Philadelphia hosts a continuing dialogue about what brotherly love looks like in the civic sphere.

Be clear on this: It won’t do to reduce the notion of brotherly love to saccharine sentiment, to feelings only tender and soft.

Brotherly love does not imply the absence of conflict. Have you ever seen young brothers together? Their bond, strong as cement though it might be, gets expressed often as not through competing, jousting, gibes, and dares.

Anger is also a way to express caring, and in Philadelphia’s long history, a common one. Even today, some of Philadelphia’s best rowhouse citizens, who work doggedly to keep blocks decent and children safe, regard their hometown with what can only be called an angry love. It is loyal, it endures – but it has spikes and edges.

Like the nation that chose this city (and not by accident) as the spot to declare, then define, itself, Philadelphia has struggled to define brother . Who is inside the circle, who not?

The city’s story follows a cycle: high aspiration thwarted by weakness, strife, and division, then redeemed by a new round of noble struggle, which broadens understanding and widens the circle.

Penn himself, while nobly distinguished among colonizers for his fair and respectful relations with the native Lenape, had a blind spot about blacks. He owned slaves, and excluded blacks from many of the protections of Pennsylvania’s charter. While he founded his city upon a writ of religious tolerance that made it a rare and fruitful haven, he still excluded Catholics, Jews, and Muslims from the franchise.

Some Quakers later on repaired the lapses of Penn and other forebears, becoming leaders of the abolitionist movement and the Underground Railroad. Richard Allen and Absalom Jones helped advance Penn’s vision of religious freedom by insisting that it extended to the black person as well.

Abolitionist Lucretia Mott also sounded the clarion call that women, too, deserved a full role in America’s civic drama – that in fact, they were vital to bringing phileo to the polis.

As Philadelphia thrived, thanks in no small part to Penn’s legacy of openness, immigrants poured in. The inevitable backlash flared, especially in the nineteenth century. The Nativist riots of 1844 in Kensington were anti-Catholic bias at its ugliest. But in the long run the disorder helped make the case for the consolidation of the city into a larger, more governable but also more diverse whole.

Back and forth through the decades the dialogue flows around the city’s public squares, noisily and sometimes violently: Will the City of Brotherly Love embrace the destiny of its name, or reject it with cruel irony?

Along with dark moments – riots and beatings and tribal corruptions – Philly has birthed great testaments to shared civic bonds, from Fairmount Park to the settlement houses to the Free Library to the Mural Arts Program .

Its National League ball team once taunted Jackie Robinson most shamefully, but the Phillies now boast two beloved African American MVPs, whose jerseys are proudly worn on backs white as well as black.

Penn’s Legacy Persists

Through it all, the legacy of William Penn, his dreams, wisdom and example, still hums in the city’s blood – despite our cantankerous failings, our ritual suspicions about the latest bidders to join the circle of brothers and sisters.

Philadelphia, by its very name, is an unfinished dream of civic feeling and common purpose, an audacious wager upon the better angels of our nature.

We, the heirs and inhabitants of a city named for love, remain quick to anger, prickly and prideful, wary of the new.

It is our way, and God knows we have some reason for it.

But we are also stubborn in love, fierce in loyalty, and our embrace of those we let inside the circle is warm, protective and unfailing.

We need to let more in, and more easily, with fewer tests.

But we Philadelphians are young, still, in this Holy Experiment, and still learning.

May the Spirit that inspired civic heroes such as William Penn, Absalom Jones, Barnard Gratz and St. Katharine Drexel to the heights of brotherly love and sisterly affection continue to guide us.

Chris Satullo is Executive Director of News and Civic Dialogue at WHYY. (Author information current at time of publication.)

This essay, which also appeared in the Currents section of the Philadelphia Inquirer on March 20, 2011, and on Newsworks.org , is published in partnership with the Historical Society of Pennsylvania , with support from the Pennsylvania Humanities Council .

Related Collections

Charter of Privileges (digitized), American Philosophical Society , 105 S. Fifth Street, Philadelphia.

Penn Family Papers, Historical Society of Pennsylvania , 1300 Locust Street, Philadelphia.

Recording of Greater Philadelphia Roundtable discussion program, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, March 23, 2011
Has Philadelphia lived up to its reputation as the "City of Brotherly Love"? (Video by WHYY's Newsworks)
"City of Brotherly Love" Discussion Summary, Greater Philadelphia Roundtable, March 23, 2011
The Vision of William Penn (ExplorePAHistory.com)

Connecting the Past with the Present, Building Community, Creating a Legacy

Get a fresh perspective of people, events and trends that shape our world. A mix of news, features, interviews and music from around the world presents an engaging portrait of the global community.

Listen Live

BBC World Service

The latest news and information from the world's most respected news source. BBC World Service delivers up-to-the-minute news, expert analysis, commentary, features and interviews.

WHYY is your source for fact-based, in-depth journalism and information. As a nonprofit organization, we rely on financial support from readers like you. Please give today.

Sermons on brotherly love: showing 1-15 of 162,615

4 stars or more
3 stars or more
Last 3 Months
Last 6 Months

Denominations

*other (3661)
Adventist (258)
Anglican (1971)
Apostolic (500)
Assembly Of God (6328)
Baptist (44833)
Bible Church (624)
Brethren (1031)
Calvary Chapel (1632)
Catholic (1286)
Charismatic (1418)
Christian Church (1929)
Christian Missionary Alliance (1267)
Christian/Church Of Christ (14575)
Church Of God (3314)
Congregational (648)
Disciples Of Christ (77)
Episcopal (382)
Episcopal/Anglican (633)
Evangelical Free (1377)
Evangelical/Non-Denominational (17655)
Foursquare (837)
Free Methodist (778)
Friends (240)
Grace Brethren (14)
Holiness (1593)
Independent Bible (5)
Independent/Bible (6387)
Lutheran (5562)
Mennonite (578)
Methodist (4795)
Nazarene (2544)
Orthodox (478)
Other (5794)
Pentecostal (9636)
Presbyterian/Reformed (5411)
Salvation Army (940)
Seventh-Day Adventist (435)
United Methodist (2775)
Vineyard (152)
Wesleyan (2270)
English (159299)
Spanish (164)
Tagalog/Filipino (45)
Filipino (9)
Manuscript (140298)
Outline (22317)

Sermon Type

Community (158234)
SermonCentral (338)
Premium (259)
Youth (256)
Adults (122547)
All (37946)
Teen (1619)
Teens (280)
Clear & Biblical Preaching
Try PRO Free

Popular Preaching Resources

New Sermon Series Now Available

Everything you need for your next series

AI Sermon Generator

Generate sermon ideas with a safe, secure tool for solid preaching.

Biblical Sermon Calendar

Customizable sermon manuscripts for verse-by-verse preaching

Sermon Research Assistant

Free custom sermon in 5-10 minutes!

Topical Sermon Calendar

Preach with creativity and impact throughout the year

Sermon Kits for Preaching

I Desire Mercy Not Sacrifice

Experiencing the mercy of God in our lives

Ready & Faithful

Looking to Jesus for help now and hope in the future

Why Suffering?

Help your church understand God's plan in pain

Confident Preaching

Brotherly Love

Contributed by scott coltrain on sep 11, 2002.

A look at the love Christ desires to exist between His followers.

I. Called ’brotherly’ because we are spiritual kin. Ephesians 2:19, "So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household," Romans 8:16, "The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God," 1 Timothy ...read more

Scripture: John 13:34 , 1 John 2:9-10

Denomination: Christian/Church Of Christ

Contributed by Doug Sanders on Feb 16, 2002

I personally don’t believe the world will believe us when we say that we love them, because they see how we love and treat each other.

Brother Love 1 Peter 1:22-2:3 I titled my sermon this morning from a word that I got out of verse 22. Philadelphia it means "brotherly love." When I became a teenager I really started to understand what was being taught in Sunday School , from the pulpit about how God loved the church , and that ...read more

Scripture: 1 Peter 1:22-23

Denomination: Baptist

Contributed by Dr.w.samuel Legon on May 31, 2013

Learn to love all Gds children.

BROTHERLY LOVE Rev.1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. One of the most ...read more

Scripture: Revelation 1:9-19

Contributed by Chuck Sligh on Oct 14, 2012

Paul teaches in 1 Thessalonians 4:9-10 that brotherly love is God-taught to the true believer, but must be manifested practically and is capable of growth. That is the subject of this sermon.

Brotherly Love Chuck Sligh October 14, 2012 TEXT: 1 Thessalonians 4:9-10 – “But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another. 10 And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we ...read more

Scripture: 1 Thessalonians 4:9-10

Brotherly Love Series

Contributed by glenn pease on mar 31, 2021.

That is the New Testament demand, and you are to learn to love all who claim Jesus as Lord and Savior. Brotherly love is not a matter of affection, but of duty to Christ, and commitment to His purpose.

D. L. Moody has related a tradition concerning the sight of Solomon's temple. It seems that the land was occupied by two brothers. One had a family and the other was unmarried. One evening after harvesting the wheat, as they sat in their separate dwellings, the elder brother said to his wife, ...read more

The Joy Of Brotherly Love Series

Contributed by jordan muck on sep 9, 2016.

Sermon Series on 1 John

Series: 1 John Week: 14 Passage: 1 John 3:16-19 Title: The Joy of Brotherly Love Focus: Brotherly Love STORY: We live in a love-obsessed world. • “All we need is love.” (Beatles) was first performed by The Beatles on Our World, the first live global television link. Watched by ...read more

Scripture: 1 John 3:16-19

Denomination: Evangelical/Non-Denominational

The Demands Of Brotherly Love Series

Contributed by jeffery anselmi on sep 16, 2005.

Brotherly love demands some things from us. Are we up to the task?

INTRODUCTION SLIDE #1 • In life, everything has demands. If you want children, when you have them, they demand a lot of time and a lot of money. • If you want a spouse, it will require a lot of time, effort and patience once you get one. If you want to be a good ball player, it will demand a lot ...read more

Scripture: 1 John 3:13-18

To The Church Of Brotherly Love Series

Contributed by mike fogerson on nov 13, 2006.

Keeping God’s word brings incredible blessing to the believer.

If Jesus Passed a Note in Church, What Would It Say? (Part 6 of 7) (Series of sermon content original to W. Herschel Ford) To the Church of Brotherly Love Rev. 3:7-13 Nov. 12, 2006 FBC, Chester Mike Fogerson, Pastor Introduction: A Jesus points no fingers ...read more

Scripture: Revelation 3:7-13

Brotherly Love I

Contributed by stephen fournier on aug 28, 2002.

BROTHERLY LOVE I TITUS 1:3 This is a little story about a man named Josh. Josh had live a long, faithful life, and was now in the hospital hooked up to a respiratory machine, very near to death. The family called their long-time pastor to stand with them. The pastor arrived just in time, for ...read more

Scripture: Titus 1:3

Denomination: Bible Church

Brotherly Love Ii

TITUS 1:4 / 1 JOHN 3:16-24

BROTHERLY LOVE II TITUS 1:4 / 1 JOHN 3:16-24 I want to begin this morning’s message by telling you about some of my relatives. There was my uncle Charlie, my mom’s brother. Uncle Charlie passed away quite a few years ago, but as a kid we saw my uncle Charley just about every Sunday. He ...read more

Scripture: Titus 1:4 , John 3:16-24

Proof Of Brotherly Love Series

Contributed by guy mcgraw on may 25, 2001.

A sign that I am walking with God is that I have a love for my brother’s and sister’s in Christ

Caricatures: Drawn with similarities to the real thing but distorted(Nose, eyebrows, eyes, mouth, hair, ears). Rarely are they mistaken for the real thing, except in Christianity. The work of the devil is always to twist and distort the truth into something close but far enough away to be of no ...read more

Scripture: 1 John 2:7-11

The Blueprint For Brotherly Love Series

Contributed by jeffery anselmi on jun 12, 2015.

John gives us the blueprint to follow!

INTRODUCTION • SLIDE #1 • When one decides they are going to have a house built, they may go to a home builder to get it done. • One of the things the homebuilder should have is some plans or blueprints for building the house. • Can you imagine what kind of home you would ...read more

The Church Of Brotherly Love Series

Contributed by martin holland on oct 19, 2012.

What an encouraging Church who obviously loved the Lord and the brethren.

The Church of Brotherly Love Revelation 3:7-13 28 miles southeast of Sardis is the city of Philadelphia. The city was name after a king of Pergamum, Attalus Philadelphus who built it. Philadelphia = brotherly love which occurs seven times on the Bible: Rom. 12:10, 1 Thessa. 4:9, Heb. 13:1, 1 Peter ...read more

Show Brotherly Love PRO Sermon

Contributed by sermon research assistant on dec 27, 2023.

This sermon encourages Christians to persevere in faith, embody brotherly love, righteous suffering, and heart service to God, as guided by Apostle Peter's teachings.

Welcome, beloved, to this gathering of hearts and souls, united in our shared love for our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. We gather here, not as strangers or mere acquaintances, but as a family, bound by the divine love that transcends human understanding. Each of us brings a unique story, a unique ...read more

Scripture: 1 Peter 3:8-15

Topics: Enduring , Brother

"The Church Of Brotherly Love - Philadelphia" Series

Contributed by andy grossman on sep 29, 2009.

Lessons from the church of brotherly love.

REVEALING REVELATIONS -2 “Philadelphia” October 4, 2009 "To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I know your deeds. See, I have placed ...read more

Denomination: Holiness

How to go to Heaven

How to get right with god.

What is brotherly kindness?

For further study, related articles, subscribe to the, question of the week.

Get our Question of the Week delivered right to your inbox!

The Power of Sibling Bonds in The Brothers Karamazov

In the year of Dostoevsky’s bicentennial, a revisiting of familial relationships in one of his most popular works.

A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. (John 13:34) He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling him. (1 John 2:10)

These two biblical verses exemplify Christ’s calls for brotherly love and were notably both highlighted by Fyodor Dostoevsky in his personal copy of the New Testament. To Anna A. Berman, an expert on nineteenth-century Russian novels , this fact reinforces a “system of connections” at the heart of The Brothers Karamazov : sibling bonds.

Given its title, it would seem obvious to assume that Dostoevsky’s last novel revolves around brother relationships. Yet, as Berman points out, historically The Brothers Karamazov has “been looked at as a study of the breakdown of father-son relations,” largely overlooking the redeeming power of sibling bonds. In contrast to past critics, Berman argues that brotherhood not only offers an alternative to hierarchical, paternal love, but can also “restore faith … offering a model of how people can love one another selflessly,” in the manner of Christ.

The most famous part of the novel, typically known as “The Grand Inquisitor,” may be a case in point. In the preamble to this chapter, Ivan—the intellectual Karamazov—stages a “rebellion” in which he renounces the world of God. More than anything, Ivan is disturbed by the existence of pain and misery. He “claims to be so horrified at man’s inhumanity to man … that he questions the love of a God who could set up a world where such atrocities take place.” Speaking with his younger brother Alyosha, Ivan begins to recite a poem about Christ’s return to Earth during the Spanish Inquisition, exposing his ideas on freedom and suffering.

In this poem, the Inquisitor accuses Christ of burdening human beings with free will. In Berman’s view, the Inquisitor’s solution to this is a model “of nurturing and benevolent despotism … as a totalitarian father’s love for a weak, helpless, childish humanity.” Dostoevsky himself describes this arrangement of lives “like a children’s game,” in which people must cling to religious authority “like chicks to a hen.” Once the Inquisitor finishes his speech, Christ, who remained silent throughout, gives him a kiss on the mouth.

Weekly Newsletter

Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.

Berman claims the kind of love this kiss embodies is “the love of a brother for a brother,” a reading that finds confirmation in Alyosha’s own gesture: When Ivan wraps up his own thought experiment, his brother kisses him on the lips too. Soon after, Ivan replies, “Well go to your Pater Seraphicus,” referring to his brother’s spiritual guide, Zosima. In other words, the kiss allows Ivan to accept Alyosha and his beliefs, just as it releases Christ, who is allowed to live—instead of die, executed—by the Inquisitor.

Dostoevsky, Berman concludes, “valued the sibling bond precisely for its ability to forge bonds of mutual dependence.” Both Christ and Alyosha counter rejection with an intentional act of unconditional love, which draws them closer to their purported rivals. For Berman, “the Inquisitor’s love for mankind removed the burden of free choice, while Christ’s love offered a challenge—a model for goodness that people must freely take upon themselves despite the suffering it may entail. If we are to choose Christ over the Inquisitor, then we must be prepared to accept the challenge of actively choosing to love others as our brother.” That challenge may be onerous, but it may also bring us together.

Support JSTOR Daily! Join our new membership program on Patreon today.

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

Get Our Newsletter

L. M. Montgomery’s Plain Jane

When Aldous Huxley Dropped Acid

The partially destroyed National and University Library of Bosnia, 1992

Whence Warchitecture

Derek not so Smalls performs during the 2008 Cuervo Black US Air Guitar Championships at The Regency Grand Ballroom in San Francisco, California

Like, It’s a History of Air Guitar, Dudes!

Support JSTOR Daily

Essay on Brother

Essay generator.

Brotherhood is a multifaceted relationship that transcends mere familial ties, encompassing deep bonds of friendship, loyalty, and love. It is a relationship that shapes our character, influences our choices, and provides a unique support system that can be found nowhere else. This essay delves into the essence of brotherhood, exploring its various dimensions and the profound impact it has on individuals and society.

Brotherhood

Brotherhood, at its core, is a bond shared between brothers, whether by blood or by choice. It is characterized by a deep sense of empathy, understanding, and a commitment to stand by each other through life’s myriad challenges and joys. This bond is not confined to biological relationships; it extends to those we choose to consider our brothers, forming an unbreakable chain of trust and camaraderie.

Brotherhood in Families

In families, brotherhood starts from childhood. It is a relationship often marked by a shared history and experiences. Brothers grow up learning from each other, sharing joys, sorrows, and life lessons. The family environment plays a crucial role in nurturing this bond, teaching values of respect, understanding, and support. This familial brotherhood lays the foundation for how individuals relate to others in their future life.

The value of having a Brother

Sibling Bond: A brother is typically a male sibling and shares a special bond with you that is often characterized by love, trust, and a sense of camaraderie.
Support System: Brothers can be a reliable source of emotional support, guidance, and encouragement during various stages of life.
Shared Memories: Growing up together, brothers create numerous shared memories, from childhood adventures to family gatherings, that can be cherished for a lifetime.
Sibling Rivalry: While brothers can have a close bond, they may also experience sibling rivalry, competing for attention or resources at times, which can help build resilience and conflict resolution skills.
Protective Instinct: Many brothers have a protective instinct towards their siblings, especially younger ones, and often take on a guardian role.
Lifelong Friend: Brothers can become lifelong friends, offering companionship and someone to share life experiences with as you both grow older.
Different Personalities: Brothers may have different personalities and interests, which can lead to diverse perspectives and a chance to learn from each other.
Sibling Responsibilities: Brothers often share responsibilities within the family, such as helping with household chores, caring for parents, or supporting each other in achieving personal goals.
Shared Interests: Similar interests and hobbies can bring brothers even closer, as they can bond over activities they both enjoy.
Celebrating Achievements: Brothers often take pride in each other’s achievements, whether it’s academic success, career milestones, or personal accomplishments.
Fights and Arguments: Like any close relationship, brothers can have disagreements, arguments, and conflicts, but these experiences can also contribute to personal growth and better communication skills.
Learning from Each Other: Brothers can be influential in each other’s lives, teaching valuable life lessons, skills, and values.
Celebrating Special Occasions: Brothers often celebrate birthdays, holidays, and other special occasions together, creating lasting memories.
Sibling Traditions: Many families have their own traditions and customs that brothers partake in, adding to the shared family culture.
Unconditional Love: Despite the ups and downs, the love between brothers is often unconditional, and they can be there for each other through thick and thin.
Confidants: Brothers can be trusted confidants, with whom you can share your thoughts, feelings, and secrets.
Mutual Respect: Over time, brothers often develop a deep respect for each other’s opinions and choices in life.
Role Models : Older brothers can serve as role models for younger ones, providing guidance on navigating challenges and making important life decisions.
Lifelong Connection: The bond between brothers is typically a lifelong connection that endures even as family dynamics change with time.
Building a Family Legacy: Brothers may work together to uphold family traditions, values, and legacies, ensuring they are passed down to future generations

Brotherhood Beyond Blood

Brotherhood is not limited to those who share genetic ties. It often develops among friends, colleagues, or comrades who share common interests, struggles, or goals. This form of brotherhood is prevalent in various settings, such as among soldiers, in academic institutions, or within sports teams, where individuals bond over shared experiences and mutual support.

The Role of Brotherhood in Personal Development

The influence of brotherhood in personal development is profound. Brothers, whether by blood or choice, often serve as role models, confidants, and mentors. They challenge each other to grow, learn, and improve. This relationship fosters a sense of security, allowing individuals to take risks and explore new horizons, knowing they have a support system to fall back on.

Brotherhood in Times of Crisis

In times of crisis, the true essence of brotherhood shines brightest. Brothers stand together, offering emotional, physical, and financial support. They become pillars of strength, helping each other navigate through difficult times. This solidarity is not only comforting but also empowering, enabling individuals to overcome challenges they might not face alone.

Brotherhood and Social Harmony

Brotherhood extends beyond individual relationships and impacts social harmony. It promotes values of empathy, cooperation, and mutual respect. These values are essential for the functioning of any healthy society. By fostering understanding and tolerance, brotherhood can bridge divides, whether cultural, racial, or religious, promoting a more inclusive and harmonious society.

The Challenges of Brotherhood

While brotherhood is a source of strength, it is not without its challenges. Conflicts, misunderstandings, and differences in opinions are common. However, these challenges also present opportunities for growth. Through conflict resolution, compromise, and open communication, brotherhood can be strengthened, leading to deeper understanding and respect.

In conclusion, brotherhood is a dynamic and enriching relationship that plays a significant role in personal growth and social harmony. Whether between siblings or friends, it is a bond built on trust, empathy, and mutual support. Brotherhood teaches us the value of loyalty, the strength of unity, and the importance of understanding. It is a relationship that, when nurtured, can lead to a fulfilling and harmonious life. As we navigate through our journey, let us cherish and strengthen the bonds of brotherhood, for they are the ties that bind us together in the shared experience of humanity.

Text prompt

Instructive
Professional

Generate an essay on the importance of extracurricular activities for student development

Write an essay discussing the role of technology in modern education.

History Classics
Your Profile
Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
This Day In History
History Podcasts
History Vault

Philadelphia

By: History.com Editors

Published: March 8, 2019

Philadelphia, a city in Pennsylvania whose name means City of Brotherly Love, was originally settled by Native American tribes , particularly the Lenape hunter gatherers , around 8000 B.C.

By the early 1600s, Dutch, English and Swedish merchants had established trading posts in the Delaware Valley area, and in 1681, Charles II of England granted a charter to William Penn for what would become the Pennsylvania colony.

Penn arrived in the new city of Philadelphia in 1682. A Quaker pacifist, Penn signed a peace treaty with Lenape chief Tamanend, establishing a tradition of tolerance and human rights.

But in 1684, the ship Isabella landed in Philadelphia carrying hundreds of enslaved Africans. Tensions over slavery , especially among local Quakers, resulted in the 1688 Germantown Petition Against Slavery, the first organized protest against slavery in the New World.

Penn’s colony thrived, and soon Philadelphia was the biggest shipbuilding center in the colonies. Among those attracted to the city was Benjamin Franklin , who in 1729, became the publisher of The Pennsylvania Gazette .

The Pennsylvania State House—later known as Independence Hall—held its first Assembly meeting there in 1735. State representatives ordered a large bell for the building in 1751 with a Biblical inscription: “Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the inhabitants thereof.”

British Parliament passed a series of tax acts on the colonies in the 1760s, including the Stamp Act and the Townshend Acts , sparking colonial outrage. In response, the Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia in 1774.

After Philadelphia resident Thomas Paine 's pamphlet Common Sense met with widespread acclaim, the stage was set to formally declare independence, which the Founding Fathers did on July 4 , 1776. Philadelphians were the first to hear the Declaration of Independence read aloud in the State House yard.

In 1790, after the Revolutionary War (during which the city witnessed the Battle of Germantown ), Philadelphia served as capital of the United States . By that time, it was the new nation’s biggest city, with 44,096 residents. The First Bank of the United States and the first U.S. Mint were founded in Philadelphia, and the U.S. Constitution was written there in 1787.

With the city’s history of civil rights—the Pennsylvania Abolition Society met there in 1775— Philadelphia was an ideal spot for William Lloyd Garrison to establish the American Anti-Slavery Society, which grew to nearly 250,000 members by 1838. Local abolitionists adopted the old State House bell as a symbol, renaming it the “ Liberty Bell .”

Philadelphia rallied to the Union cause during the Civil War , and local industries profited by supplying weapons, uniforms and warships. In 1876, suffragette Susan B. Anthony delivered the Declaration of the Rights of Women outside Independence Hall.

The city grew in size and prestige during the Gilded Age , as wealthy suburbs sprouted along the Main Line of the Pennsylvania Railroad. During the 1870s, the first U.S. zoo and the Centennial Exhibition fair opened in Philadelphia.

The city’s shipbuilding industries supplied the Allies in World War I , but Philadelphia was also a center of the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918-1919—over 500,000 citizens contracted the deadly disease.

After World War II , new highways allowed workers to easily reach bedroom communities outside the city. With suburbanization and industrial decline, Philadelphia lost population and jobs, and soon many of the city’s famed shipyards were shuttered.

Poverty and racial tensions soon followed, and in 1985 a police confrontation with the radical group MOVE ended with the bombing of a predominantly black neighborhood—11 people in the MOVE compound were killed.

New developments, such as the Philadelphia Navy Yard and Center City, have helped to revitalize the area, which is now home to more than 1.5 million residents. The city rejoiced when the Eagles won the 2018 Super Bowl . For visitors, a perennially popular destination is the statue of Rocky Balboa, depicting the fictional boxer, arms outstretched, at the top of the steps to the Philadelphia Art Museum. Rocky, played by Sylvester Stallone, famously runs up the 72 steps to train for a fight in the 1976 movie , "Rocky" (and in sequels). Now the stairs to the museum are simply known as the "Rocky Steps."

SOURCES : The Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia ExplorePAhistory.com History of Philadelphia, United States History

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Plutarch, De fraterno amore W. C. Helmbold, Ed.

("Agamemnon", "Hom. Od. 9.1", "denarius")

All Search Options [ view abbreviations ]

Hide browse bar Your current position in the text is marked in blue. Click anywhere in the line to jump to another position:

This text is part of:

Greek and Roman Materials

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

Editions/Translations
Author Group

4 That is, the Seven Wise Men. Plutarch so uses σοφιστής ( cf. Moralia , 96 a, where all mss. but one read σοφιστοῦ ; 857 f); so also Aristotle, Frag. 5 ed. V. Rose. Cf. the earlier usage of Herodotus, i. 29 (where Wells's note is hopelessly wrong); ii. 49; iv. 95; Hippocrates, De Vet. Med. , 20.

5 Cf. Moralia , 1083 c; Fraser's note on Apollodorus, ii. 7. 2 (L.C.L. vol. i. p. 249).

The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.

This text was converted to electronic form by optical character recognition and has been proofread to a high level of accuracy.

Purchase a copy of this text (not necessarily the same edition) from Amazon.com

Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar:

DOI: 10.1017/S0025727300024224
Corpus ID: 40750486

BROTHERLY LOVE: AN ESSAY ON THE PERSONAL RELATIONS BETWEEN WILLIAM HUNTER AND HIS BROTHER JOHN

Published in Medicina e historia 1 January 1959
History, Medicine

11 Citations

The hunterian museum (glasgow), medicine and music: a note on john hunter (1728–93) and joseph haydn (1732–1809), men in the family: constructions and performance of masculinity in england, c.1700-1820.

Highly Influenced

Eponyms and Names in Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Sheehan, harold leeming (1900–1988), william hunter (1718–1783) and his contributions to obstetrics, colin mackenzie md (st andrews): an estranged pupil of william smellie *, apgar, virginia (1909–1974), aschheim, selmar (1878–1965)zondek, bernhard (1891–1966), pomeroy, ralph hayward (1867–1925), one reference, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

IMAGES

Brotherly love Poems
My brother Essay in english
Four Brothers: A Tale of Brotherly Bond Free Essay Example
100+ BEST Brother Quotes And Sayings About Brotherly Love
I love you poems for brother
Best Brother Poems That Reflect Love And Care

VIDEO

Brotherly Love intro
Brotherly Love… What a beautiful thing😂 part II #acting #comedy #skit #relatable #viral #shorts
"Unveiling the Bonds of Brotherly Competition: Transforming a Challenging Relationship"
[Season 1 Episode 1] Brotherly Love "The Chase"
Brotherly Love
Brotherly love Meaning

COMMENTS

How Does A Christian Show True Brotherly Love
Learn the biblical meaning and importance of brotherly love, and how to express it to your fellow believers. Find out the commands, examples, and benefits of loving one another as Jesus loved us.
What is Brotherly Love? (1 Thessalonians 4:9-10)
Brotherly love (φιλαδελφία) is a metaphor for the mutual affection and respect among Christians. It reflects the family of God and the honor of God the Father. Learn how this term was used in the Greek world and the New Testament.
Bible Study Guide
Learn how to love one another as Christ loved us, and what it means to be His friends and followers. This guide covers the biblical texts, testimonies, and practical applications of brotherly love as a new commandment and a fruit of the Spirit.
Exploring Brotherly Love in the Bible
The core of brotherly love lies in serving one another, bearing each other's burdens, and forgiving one another. It implies a commitment to unity, respect, and genuine care for fellow believers, transcending personal differences or conflicts. Brotherly love, as taught in the Bible, is not limited to just fellow believers.
Brotherly Love: Because Jesus Loved Us First
This web page explores the biblical command and importance of brotherly love among Christians. It contrasts the love of God and Jesus with the hindrances to brotherly love, such as sin, pride, and division.
Brotherly Love in Beowulf: [Essay Example], 697 words
Conclusion. In conclusion, brotherly love is a central theme in Beowulf, shaping the relationships between characters and providing a moral and ethical framework for the narrative.Through the bonds between Beowulf and Wiglaf, Beowulf and Hrothgar, and the contrasts with characters like Unferth and Heremod, the poem underscores the importance of loyalty, mutual support, and shared values.
PDF Brotherly Love
Introduction. Within families and churches, brotherhood is an important concept, which lends itself to a proper relationship and a wonderful closeness, described by the Holy Spirit, as being "knit together.". From the fleshly brothers and sisters in the Bible, we learn both positive and negative lessons on the subject of brotherly love.
Definition Of Brotherly Love Essay
There isn't anything stronger than love in this world. No matter what, our lives are fueled by love; It is what keeps us going. For those who have not experienced love, it is one of the most warming experiences a person will ever feel. But brotherly love is a whole different type of love. It isn't the friend zone type of love, but the love ...
Love
Love. First published Fri Apr 8, 2005; substantive revision Wed Sep 1, 2021. This essay focuses on personal love, or the love of particular persons as such. Part of the philosophical task in understanding personal love is to distinguish the various kinds of personal love. For example, the way in which I love my wife is seemingly very different ...
The Theme of Brotherly Love in Shakespeare's Othello
Explore how Shakespeare explores the theme of brotherly love in Othello through the relationships between Othello, Iago, Cassio, and Desdemona. See an annotated list of relevant passages and scene summaries.
City of Brotherly Love
Learn how Philadelphia, founded by William Penn, has struggled to live up to its name as a city of brotherly love and sisterly affection. Explore the history, culture, and challenges of this civic experiment through essays, maps, timelines, and collections.
'City of Brotherly Love' a duel of destiny vs. irony
Why did William Penn name his new city after a Greek phrase for love and brotherhood? How has Philadelphia lived up to or challenged this civic ideal over the centuries? Explore the legacy and challenges of the City of Brotherly Love in this essay by WHYY.
Sermons about Brotherly Love
based on 3 ratings. This sermon encourages Christians to persevere in faith, embody brotherly love, righteous suffering, and heart service to God, as guided by Apostle Peter's teachings. Welcome, beloved, to this gathering of hearts and souls, united in our shared love for our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
What is brotherly kindness?
Brotherly kindness is a Christian virtue that involves loving and caring for others as spiritual siblings. It is based on humility, self-control, and obedience to God's command to love one another. See how brotherly kindness is described and illustrated in the Bible.
Brotherly Love
Brotherly Love. Better Essays. 2715 Words. 11 Pages. Open Document. Admiration of a younger brother. When you have an older sibling often at a young age you use them as your idol, almost as if you're their own personal god. They're essentially the cool kid at your school that you model yourself after. You want to dress, talk and even eat like them.
The Power of Sibling Bonds in The Brothers Karamazov
These two biblical verses exemplify Christ's calls for brotherly love and were notably both highlighted by Fyodor Dostoevsky in his personal copy of the New Testament. To Anna A. Berman, an expert on nineteenth-century Russian novels, this fact reinforces a "system of connections" at the heart of The Brothers Karamazov: sibling bonds.
Essay on Brother
Essay on Brother. Brotherhood is a multifaceted relationship that transcends mere familial ties, encompassing deep bonds of friendship, loyalty, and love. It is a relationship that shapes our character, influences our choices, and provides a unique support system that can be found nowhere else. This essay delves into the essence of brotherhood ...
Brotherly Love In Romeo And Juliet
311 Words2 Pages. The most commonly expressed theme in/of Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare that has been seen throughout the acts is love. The play/novel expresses different types of love from friendships to romances. The first sign of love expressed was brotherly love/friendship. A pair of characters that express this love are romeo and ...
Philadelphia: A History of the City of Brotherly Love
Learn about the origins, events and landmarks of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the city that was the capital of the United States in 1790. Find out why it is called the City of Brotherly Love and ...
Plutarch, De fraterno amore, section 1
In like manner do I also dedicate this treatise On Brotherly Love to you, Nigrinus and Quietus, 2 a joint gift for you both who well deserve it. For as to the exhortations this essay contains, since you are already putting them into practice, you will seem to be giving your testimony in their favour rather than to be encouraged to perform them ...
[Pdf] Brotherly Love: an Essay on The Personal Relations Between
DOI: 10.1017/S0025727300024224 Corpus ID: 40750486; BROTHERLY LOVE: AN ESSAY ON THE PERSONAL RELATIONS BETWEEN WILLIAM HUNTER AND HIS BROTHER JOHN @article{Morris1959BROTHERLYLA, title={BROTHERLY LOVE: AN ESSAY ON THE PERSONAL RELATIONS BETWEEN WILLIAM HUNTER AND HIS BROTHER JOHN}, author={W. I. C. Morris}, journal={Medical History}, year={1959}, volume={3}, pages={20 - 32}, url={https://api ...
Rhetorical Analysis Of The Coca-Cola Commercial: Brotherly Love
The commercial also creates logos for their product in their commercial through subtle imagery such as the colors and logos that appear throughout it. Whenever the older brother is messing with his little. Free Essay: In the Coca-Cola commercial "Brotherly Love" the audience is shown a young boy getting teased by his older brother all the ...
Brotherly Love Siblings Reflect on Growing Up With Childhood Stardom
The Lawrence brothers, Joey Matthew and Andrew Lawrence, reminisced about their childhood stardom and their sitcom, Brotherly Love, at a 90s convention in Da...