“Simon, son of John, do you agape (ultimate unwavering love) me more than these?”
“Yes Lord, you oida (know) that I phileo (devoted fraternal love) you.”
“Feed my lambs.”
“Simon, son of John, do you agape (ultimate unwavering love) me?”
“Yes Lord, you oida (know) that I phileo (devoted fraternal love) you.”
“Poimaine (tend, guide, care for, rule) my sheep.”
“Simon, son of John, do you phileo (devoted fraternal love) me?”
“Lord, you oida panta (know everything); you ginosko (knowledge that comes from uncovering the “hidden”) that I phileo (devoted fraternal love) you.”
“I command you to bosko (pasture or tend by grazing) my sheep.”
(From John 21.15-17, italicized NA27 Greek Lemma)
A (brilliant) friend of mine asked me last night why we find all the changes in the Greek terms. He felt like there must be some reason. After dusting out some of the cobwebs from my Greek, I gave him an answer I was only partially satisfied with, so I did some more digging late last night and early this morning and what to share more fully the answer to this great question.
Many scholars say the terms are all synonymous and shouldn’t be made to seem to be too much. Other (more pastoral) scholars draw many different inferences from the interchange of terms. There is not a settled interpretation of this last recorded conversation between Peter and Jesus (from John’s writings), although there are a plethora of great approaches and applications. In spite of lack of “agreement” I think there are some signficant things we should take away from this dialogue.
To begin, it seems to me that the obvious connection to Peter’s denial must be the foundation for understanding. The gospels record Peter as being the disciple to most quickly and passionately articulate his devotion to Jesus. Peter is also the only disciple to be recorded verbally and definitively denying even the oida or knowledge of Jesus (Mt. 26.72; Mk 14.71; Lk 22.60). When Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love me more than these (other disciples)?” one must wonder if Peter swallowed the guilty lump in his throat before he said, “Yes.”
Oddly enough John keeps the question of Peter’s declaration of “no knowledge” during his denial a mystery, choosing instead to simply record that Peter denied being a disciple or being in Jesus’ company in the garden when Jesus was arrested (John 18.25-27).
Why the “love” and “knowledge” interchange then?
First, Peter knows that his passion for his now resurrected Lord is undiminished, but Peter cannot bring himself to proclaim the love than “never fails.” How could he to the face of the one he denied?
Second, Peter knows that Jesus is fully aware of his limitations. Had not Jesus rebuked Satan (Matthew 16.23; Mark 8.33) because of him? Had not Jesus rescued Peter from drowning (Matthew 14.30-31) due to Peter’s own faltering faith in the midst of the storm? Peter is willing to go as far as he can genuinely confess; his phileo for Jesus remains.
Third, Jesus challenges Peter even at the level of phileo, questioning whether or not Peter can produce even this kind of devoted love. Peter exclaims what he feels and confesses that only Jesus really knows the reality of the love in Peter’s heart. Had not Jesus prophesied Peter’s denial (Matthew 26.35, Mark 14.30-31, Luke 22.33-34, John 13.37-38) even as Peter promised to lay down his life for his Lord? The one who knows betrayal before it happens surely is able to know the depth of love.
This conversation would be brutal if not imbued with grace:
Jesus graces Peter by giving this man of action specific things to do with his “love.” To Peter is given the responsibility of being under-shepherd of the Great Shepherd who first promised, and then performed, the ”laying down of his life for his sheep.” (John 10.11) What magnificent affirmation to be given such an honor. Still, one can only imagine how difficult it was for Peter to “keep up” as Jesus alternately challenged Peter’s love and then challenged him to love-driven action.
Jesus further graces Peter by prophesying that Peter will indeed fulfill his promise to “die for him” thus expressing, by act, agape-level love which Peter could not bring himself to confess with his lips (John 21.18-19). Peter obviously follows Jesus’ thought pattern here because he wants to know if John will get to fulfill “his promise” (Matthew 20.20ff, Mark 10.35ff, contrast John 18.11) as well.
Jesus responds to Peter in the same manner he still calls each of us: If you love me, follow me.
Let it be said that I loved (and followed) truly for the sake of the knowledge of the one who loves and knows me!