Preaching styles

That's a bit odd, since Jesus keeps repeating himself until he and Petera are talking about the same thing:

J - Peter do you love me completely (agape)?
P - I love you like a brother (phileo).
J - Peter do you love me completely (agape)?
P - I love you like a brother (phileo).
J - Peter do you love me like a brother (phileo)?
P - You know I love you like a brother (phileo)!

You can't read this passage in the Greek and not see the significance on the two separate words, whose distinct meaning is lost in the English. There are many places where the words can be contextually interchanged. But this is not one of them. There's a reason Jesus and Peter are using different words here. We need to understand why they are doing so. We cannot understand this without looking at the source texts.

 

.Yeah, maybe for us in the 21st century America. Was it there in the Greek syntax of the original conversation with Peter? In other words, does the word order and relationships of the Greek words indicate a progression? Would it have been the same if Christ used the same word each time? Also, how many times have we been told that it was there in the Greek semantics?

 

Gary M. Burge, John, NIV Application Commentary mentions the following:

1. Peter replied "Yes" to Jesus' question, even if he used a different term to reply. "Peter seems to be acknowledging and accepting that he indeed bears the sort of love Jesus describes, even though he uses phileo." (587)

2. "John has two words each for love, send, heal, ask, speak, do feed, sheep, and know, and in most cases these variations seem to merely avoid monotony." (588)

3. "The focus of Peter's conversation with Jesus has to do with his commission to tend the flock of Christ, not the quality of his love for him. Peter is thus upset (21:17) not because Jesus has changed the verb for love, but because Jesus has asked him the same question for the third time." (588)

4. Burge notes that the word for the flock is varied as well, with no significant difference.


------------

I decided to post from this commentary because it's a good summary devoid of jargon.

 

That's a bit odd, since Jesus keeps repeating himself until he and Petera are talking about the same thing:

J - Peter do you love me completely (agape)?
P - I love you like a brother (phileo).
J - Peter do you love me completely (agape)?
P - I love you like a brother (phileo).
J - Peter do you love me like a brother (phileo)?
P - You know I love you like a brother (phileo)!

You can't read this passage in the Greek and not see the significance on the two separate words, whose distinct meaning is lost in the English. There are many places where the words can be contextually interchanged. But this is not one of them. There's a reason Jesus and Peter are using different words here. We need to understand why they are doing so. We cannot understand this without looking at the source texts. </font>[/QUOTE]The strange thing is that Peter, who was present, did not seem to see the significance. How can we, who live two thousand years later, see the significance that he missed. None of us really speak and use Kione Greek as a language today. Like the old Irishman: "Wonderful things in the Bible we see; most of them put there by you and me." Remember that the guys who wrote the Greek grammars and lexicons have never really spoken and used Kione Greek as a functioning language.

Just follow your argument with the emotions of the face-to-face encounter:
J(passionately) - Peter do you love me completely (agape)?
P(coolly) - I love you like a brother (phileo).
J(passionately) - Peter do you love me completely (agape)?
P(coolly) - I love you like a brother (phileo).
J(coolly) - Peter do you love me like a brother (phileo)?
P(coolly) - You know I love you like a brother (phileo)!

It just doesn't read. IMHO, Peter was rebuked and clearly understood it to his own chagrin.

 

I see the conversation in the same manner I see this kind of English conversation.

Woman: Do you think I am more attractive than her?

Man: Yes, you know that I think you're pretty.

Woman: Wash the dishes.

Woman: Do you think I attractive?

Man: Yes, you know that I think you're pretty.

Woman: Take care of the plates.

Woman: Do you think I'm pretty?

Man: (exasperated) Yes, you know I think you're pretty!

Woman: Wash the plates.

-------

This is a simple analogy, but it basically represents my thoughts.

 

That's exactly it. Peter was using the words interchangeably. Jesus was not. Jesus was being distinct about "agape". Since Peter wasn't getting that distinction, Jesus meets Peter at his level of understanding. Jesus accepts Peter's phileo, but Peter never catches on, and gets frustrated, thinking that Jesus had simply asked the same thing numerous times, when Jesus did not.

 

Since there is a strong possibility this conversation took place in Aramaic, the Greek word choice is meaningless. As far as I know you will not find a respected Greek scholar who finds significance in the distinct uses.

 

I agree with your conclusions, but the Greek word choice isn't "meaningless." The author of the Greek text chose those words for a reason. I believe he chose them for variety, but that's not "meaningless."

 

That's not what I meant. I simply meant there is no theological significance in the shift of word choice.

 

That's what I figured. I just wanted to make sure those on the other side of the argument wouldn't bring up the "he chose them for a reason" argument.

 

I agree. If a person can explain the text in such a way that the people can understand then he has accomplished the task.

What I have noticed is those who try to explain things regularly referring to the Greek text often know very little.

Many times I have preached from a Greek text never referring to it once and afterwards people would ask me what Bible I preached from until they knew what I did. All they saw was a red covered NT.

Several years ago when my daughter was young she asked me about 50 words she had written down from one of my sermons. Se had written down exactly 50 words she did not understand. From that point on my language changed keeping her in mind as I preached. People responded by saying they had noticed a difference. My sermons were easier for them to understand.

 

Wow! We agree again although I would say the word choice is without significance rather than meaningless.

 

That's exactly it. Peter was using the words interchangeably. Jesus was not. Jesus was being distinct about "agape". Since Peter wasn't getting that distinction, Jesus meets Peter at his level of understanding. Jesus accepts Peter's phileo, but Peter never catches on, and gets frustrated, thinking that Jesus had simply asked the same thing numerous times, when Jesus did not. </font>[/QUOTE]How do you know this? We do not have the face-to-face conversation to read all the nuances that went into it. After all, we must use emoticons to express our feelings over the Internet.

 

bump