John 21

It may be that Peter, after having denied Christ, could not bring himself to use the word "agape" when asked if he loved Christ, but instead used the lesser "phileo." On the other hand, the two words are sometimes used interchangably to mean essentially the same thing. It may be that, the third time, Christ was telling Peter that phileo was enough if he would just be faithful. Our love is far from perfect, even at its best.

 

Could be in reference to the Godhead?

Do you love the Father more than these?
Do you love the Son more than these?
Do you love the Holy Ghost more than these?

Feed my Sheep and feed my Lambs!... Just a thought... Brother Glen

 

If you look at Peter before the betrayal, he was always quick on the word -- often before thinking.

He's changed by John 21. He has been humbled, humiliated, and in pain for what he has done. He knows that his words were too quick and too rash before. From this point on we see a new honesty in Peter -- a thoughtful and straightforward honesty which could only have arisen out of the pain of knowing he had betrayed his Lord.

And so now his response is much more careful. Much more honest. Because of this, he is much more useful to Christ. This is the first time we see this change, in this conversation with Christ. And it reflects the two great commandments. As Peter declares his real love for Christ Jesus, Jesus then directs him to the sheep. Now that the relationship between Jesus and Peter is not just restored but straightened out in Peter's mind, he is ready to start the work he was chosen for.

[ September 20, 2002, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

I think that too much has probably been made of the difference between agapao and phileo here in John 21. The words have definite overlap in meaning and are used interchangably on several occasions, e.g., cf. John 3:35 (agapao) with 5:20 (phileo); both words are used to describe Jesus' love for Lazarus (John 11:3,5); and for the "disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 19:26; 20:2).

In Exegetical Fallacies (p. 30), D. A. Carson states, "...there is nothing intrinsic to the verb agapao or the noun agape to prove its real meaning or hidden meaning refers to some special kind of love." He shows several uses of it that are contrary to the prevailing notions, such as its use in the LXX to translate the reference to Amnon's incestuous rape of Tamar in II Samuel 13, or its use to describe Demas' love for the world (I Tim. 4:10). I highly recommend Carson's comments on agapao/phileo in the afore-mentioned book.

If we actually read the meaning into the passage that is quite popular, the discussion actually goes something like this -
Jesus: Do you agapao me?
Peter: No, but I phileo you.
Jesus: Do you agapao me?
Peter: No, but I phileo you.
Jesus: Then do you phileo me?
Peter: Yes, I phileo you.
Now to me that doesn't even make any sense on the surface, and besides that, Peter's answer to the first two questions was "Yes" rather than "No". Lastly, I think some consideration should be given to the fact that the inspired writer said that Jesus asked Peter the third time whether he loved Him. It implies that Jesus asked the same question three times, rather than one question twice and then a different question.

 

I think an another important point is the response to Peter's answers by Jesus "feed my sheep".

This phrase also differs in word choices,

I believe it is part of the Great Commission.
It is focused on those who would be pastors.
Missionaries go forth and establish local churches and presumably move on.
These (like Peter) are the pastoral guardians of the flock.

Feed my sheep!

HankD

 

There have been some really good comments here. I appreciate rlvaughn post tremendously. I have always been uncertain as to the meaning of the word play, and even if there was any real significance to them. That really cleared that up for me, thanks.

Also what Helen pointed out has been something I have always considered to be part of the reason for Jesus three time question. She said :

It could also have been a straightening out in the minds of those around Peter. It was John who outran Peter to the open tomb (John 20:3-10). Maybe it was going through John’s mind, and others, that Peter loves Jesus less, or not at all. This gives Peter a chance to say it three times in front of Jesus Himself. Also when Jesus arose, the angel told Mary to get the other disciples and Peter also. Maybe because of the denial of Jesus three times, people were wondering. Even Peter himself! So Peter had a chance to make it up to himself, and to others three times.

But there is something about Peter and three. In Acts 10 when the large sheet was being let down to Peter the Lord had to tell Peter 3 times to eat the unclean food. What is it with Peter and the three times? 3 denials, 3 I love you’s, 3 times God told him to eat.

I have also wondered if the context of John 21 all together had something to do with Jesus telling Peter to feed His Sheep. Earlier Peter had made it clear that he is going fishing. To Spiritualize this a bit, and maybe wrongly so, maybe this is a superficial “soul winning” attempt on Peters part. But as he is out there fishing, he catches nothing. His attempts to "soul win" his way is failing. Then he is approached by Jesus and Peter does not even recognize Jesus. He is also caught naked, a picture of his sin. Jesus tells him to cast the net on the right side of the boat. Doing the “soul winning” Jesus way will result in fish. Then on shore Jesus address Peter as Simon [/b] not as Peter the small rock. (Matthew 16) Jesus speaks to Simon about real discipleship, to really feed his sheep. And this must be done with love for Jesus Christ.

Just some further thoughts, nothing dogmatic. Don this was a great topic for a thread!!

 

P.S. Don, welcome back. Did you see your latest PM?