I would wager that most people who have heard of the different Greek words for “love” have understood them something like this:

• “Agape” is God’s kind of selfless, giving love
• “Phileo” is brotherly love
• “Eros” is sexual love

I have attended church my whole life, and have heard these words repeatedly categorized in such ways. Perhaps you have too. But in C.S. Lewis’ The Four Loves, the Oxford don puts a different “spin” on the terms.

Lest one question Lewis’ background in Greek, he was taught at a young age by his tutor to read Greek, and consumed many of the Greek classics as a child. He loved Greek poetry and literature, and although not a New Testament Greek professor per se, had an extensive background in the language. And in The Four Loves he suggested that, of all things, what the Greeks called “Eros”, properly understood, can potentially point us to a closer relationship with God.

One of the things Lewis makes clear in his chapter on “Eros” is that this word, despite the popular modern understanding, was not limited in Greek usage to lust or physical desire. In fact, Lewis makes a very clear differentiation between what he preferred to call “Venus” (sex) and “Eros”, which we might better label “romantic love.” Lewis asserts that many engage in Venus, without a trace of Eros. It is not necessary to be “in love” to share the physical act. Lewis sums up that difference: “Sexual desire, without Eros, wants it, the thing in itself. Eros wants the Beloved.” He writes of that desire for the Beloved: “Eros, in all his splendor … (is) ready for any sacrifice except renunciation.” He goes on to describe how Eros will cause a person to sacrifice all – even justify breaking the laws of God and man – for the sake of the Beloved. In its more extreme forms, the Beloved may take the place of God – or as Lewis deftly points out, “the real danger seems to me … that they will idolize Eros himself” – not the person, but the feeling of “being in love.” Thus Eros, according to Lewis, is indeed a lower, and potentially very dangerous form of “love”; but for different reasons than we may have been led to believe. But he goes on to say, perhaps surprisingly, that Eros may also have its benefits:

“Eros … may become for us a means of Approach. His total commitment is a paradigm or example … of the love we ought to exercise towards God … It is as if Christ said to us through Eros, ‘Thus – just like this – with this prodigality – not counting the cost – you are to love Me …’”. So Eros, although not Agape, can teach us something valuable about that highest love. The longing, the constant thoughts and attention; all of the symptoms which everyone who has ever experienced it know of being “in love”, although not to be confused with Agape, can serve as a model for us in just how devoted our affections are to be towards our God.

So … perhaps it is indeed time to reconsider Eros; to go beyond the popular misunderstanding of the word, and see what the Greeks really meant by it – and what we may glean from it as we seek to have our hearts’ greatest longings satisfied in the Ultimate, Eternal Beloved.