Are there different ‘loves’ in John 21?
When I first came to studying John's gospel, I was armed with two things: a business organization to pay attention to the details of the text; and the knowledge of all earnest Christians (thank you to C Due south Lewis) that there were four words for 'honey' in Greek (eros, storge, philiaand agape) pointing to the 4 different meanings, iv unlike uses of 'love', and four different ways humans are drawn to others. (If any of that is right, then the slogan 'Love is love' is meaningless.)
So when I came to read John 21, and Jesus' threefold questioning of Peter after the great catch of fish (echoing Luke 5) and the evocative breakfast on the beach, I was immediately alarm to the changes of words used in Jesus' question:
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you honey me — agape love — more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love y'all — phileo beloved–." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He said to him a 2d time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me — agape beloved — ?" He said to him, "Yeah, Lord; yous know that I love you — phileo beloved –." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you honey me — phileo love –?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me? — phileo love –" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you lot know that I dear you — phileo love –." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. (John 21.fifteen–17)
And, of class, I was non alone! Many a preacher besides comments on the different words used, and this example is typical:
Why the divergence in words for "love" in this conversation? Why did Jesus use agape and Peter use phileo? Jesus was request Peter if he loved him with the love of God, a love that may require sacrifice. After all, Jesus had but gone through horrendous torture for Peter's sake (and ours), something he did not want to do but did anyhow because of his agape love. In contrast, Peter avoided possible torture by denying Jesus.
Jesus twice asked Peter, "Practice y'all agape me? [That is, are you willing to practice things for my sake that you exercise not want to practice?]" Peter, on the other hand, still felt the sting of having denied Jesus, and was hopeful that their friendship was intact. Did Jesus hold Peter's denial against him? Would he still treat Peter as a shut associate and companion? Peter was not sure where he stood with Jesus, and so he was trying to let Jesus know that he was yet a true friend, and had phileo dearest for Jesus.
The tertiary fourth dimension Jesus spoke to Peter, he came to Peter's level and asked if Peter were indeed a truthful friend (phileo), which grieved Peter. However, it was important, because Jesus knew what Peter did not know—that Jesus would ascend into heaven, and Peter and the others would be left to carry out his piece of work on earth, which would require that they all exist his good friends and do his will even when it meant hardship.
This does not just give insight into the episode in the text, but potentially has implications for life situations and pastoral practise:
My dad has Alzheimer's disease and every day my mom goes to visit him at the care facility. She sits with him, she shares a meal with him and she speaks to him. He'southward not giving back in whatever manner and isn't in a state where he can physically take care of himself. She loves him with both 'agape' and 'phileo' beloved. She loves him unconditionally, but she also loves him relationally and intimately after years and years of living life together. Recently, while visiting my dad, I noticed a homo who was taking intendance of his wife in the same style and with the same level of devotion. She was in a far worse state than my dad and yet, he remained steadfast. When I asked him about his wife, after engaging him in casual conversation, he replied, "I made a pledge, a vow to be at that place. That'southward not conditional on anything. I'm gonna alive that out."
Distinguishing between these kinds of love has real plausibility, since we can see for ourselves that different motivations that lead us to care for others. And information technology appears that the approach of C S Lewis has been re-expressed by D A Carson in hisThe Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (which I have recently bought, and now realise I must soon read!).
But there are several serious issues with this mode of reading John 21. The get-go is that, if there was a pregnant difference betwixt the ii terms, why would Jesus brand the progression that he does, from the 'college' form of honey to the 'lower'? Surely he should start asking Peter virtually the most undemanding form of love, and then progress to that which will sustain him through the trials that Jesus says he is to face? And the apply of these two synonyms also needs to exist put in the context of Jesus' synonyms for 'feed' and 'my sheep'. The guild is as follows:
| Jesus' question | Peter'southward respond | Control | Object |
| agapao | phileo | bosko | arnia |
| agapao | phileo | poimaino | probata |
| phileo | phileo | bosko | probata |
I am not aware of any commentator who makes much of the synonyms for 'feed my sheep' as a progression, then why should we think that the changes of synonyms for 'love' is of import? Moreover, Peter does non respond to Jesus' question 'Do yousagapao me?' with 'No, Lord, but I dophileo you'—he responds 'Yes!' And he is grieved in verse 17not considering Jesus has changed the verb he uses, only (as John tells us quite explicitly) because Jesus asked him 'a third fourth dimension', a phrase John repeats for emphasis. Is this because Peter naturally feels that he has given an adequate answer already? Or is it because he is at present wincing within at the threefold question that he was asked in the courtyard past the fire, and this 3rd question of Jesus is both a painful reminder of that failure, and the excruciating process of healing that wound, just as nosotros wince in hurting as someone pulls a splinter or thorn from our manus that has embedded itself in the skin? The deed is painful, merely without it healing cannot come. (Bultmann is but about lonely in all the commentators in history who does not see the parallel hither.)
I was first disabused of my belief in the 'love' departure by reading the commentary of C K Barrett, and initially found it hard to be persuaded. Even if words are close synonyms, they never exactly overlap, and surely at that place is some nuance of difference? Barrett is having none of it (p 584), and brings to his defence the parallelism earlier in John:
Anyone who loves (agapao) me will obey my teaching. My Father will love (agapao) them, and we will come to them and make our abode with them (John 14.23)
No, the Begetter himself loves (phileo) yous considering you have loved (phileo) me and have believed that I came from God. (John 16.27)
Barrett likewise notes that the two verbs appear to be used interchangeably in the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (Lxx), citing equally an example Prov 8.17 'Those who love (phileo) me I dear (agapao), and those who seek me will observe me', both Greek verbs hither translating the aforementioned Hebrew verbahv.
Vineyard scholarJohn uses the afraidword-group (in diverse forms) about 37 times (including Jn. 3:16, 3:xix, 3:35, eight:42, 10:17, 11:5, 12:43, xiii:1, thirteen:1, thirteen:23, 13:34, xiv:15, xiv:21, 14:23, fourteen:24, fourteen:28, xiv:31, 15:nine, 15:12, 15:17, 17:23, 17:24, 17:26, 19:26, 21:seven, 21:fifteen, 21:xvi, 21:20), and this includes the maxim that people loved (agape love) the darkness rather than light in Jn. 3:19 and that the Pharisees loved (agape love) the approval of men more the praise of God in Jn. 12:43. On the other hand, John uses phileo (in various forms) about thirteen times (Jn. v:20, 11:3, eleven:36, 12:25, fifteen:xix, 16:27, 20:2, 21:15, 21:xvi, 21:17), and this includes the Father loving (phileo-love) the Son in Jn. v:twenty, Lazarus, whom Jesus loved (phileo-love) in Jn. xi:13 and 11:36, Barrett'southward example of God'south love in John 16.27, and the disciple whom Jesus loved (phileo love) in Jn. twenty:2. John's actual uses does not sustain the mutual differentiation between the two terms in his gospel—whatsoever usage elsewhere might look like.
Then is there any significance to the construction and variation in Jesus' three-fold questioning of Peter? It seems to me that the central point here is the restoration of Peter, and information technology is characteristic of John to make connections backwards and forwards throughout his gospel; the reference to 'feeding my sheep' takes the states back to Jesus' claim to be the skillful shepherd in John 10—and John has already made a connection between this didactics and Peter's betrayal by using the aforementioned discussion (aule) for both the sheep-pen of the good shepherd (John 10.1, xvi) and the courtyard of the failed disciple (John 18.15).
At the level of John'south utilise of linguistic communication, there is further significance. Mark Stibbe argues confronting the widely-held view that John 21 is an appendix to the gospel, probably written by someone else at a later date, past noticing 16 features of John 21 that are feature of the earlier chapters—including the employ of synonyms for 'love', 'sheep' and 'know' (in the SheffieldReadings commentary serial, 1993, pp 207–208). (Richard Bauckham offers a quite different argument related to the numerology of the 153 fish and the connections with numerological construction in the opening chapter.)
Only what does this meaning for our reading, preaching and pastoral practice? For me, there is even so a question to exist resolved about the use of these terms in John and the differentiation between the four terms for dearest in wider Greek usage. Just the lesson about language is that words are not but packets that conduct significant, and dictionaries are non magical keys which give usa unassailable answers to questions. Words find their meaning in their context, and dictionaries merely sum up the mode that words have been used in the range of unlike contexts that they occur. Equally Burchard protests:
This is what we may call "Stiff'due south Concordance" Greek. It'due south done by lots and lots of people who have learned to expect up the lexical forms of Greek words in their Strong'due south Cyclopedia without knowing much of annihilation about Greek grammer, or the means in which word usage is a chief aspect of determining word meaning in Biblical literature (just as it is in our own language and literature). These gaps in understanding oft lead to these kinds of exegetical fallacies that come off sounding deep and insightful to others who are only as uninformed. Additionally, these Greek gymnastics actually lead to missing the actual indicate of a text that is often correct in front of our faces in favor of more "oooh-aaaaah deep and insightful" conclusions that are actually not good conclusions at all.
Practiced preaching needs an understanding of languages—and adept preachers demand to refer to commentaries, and not rely solely on internet resources, helpful though these can be.
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance footing. If you have valued this mail, would yous considerdonating £1.20 a month to back up the production of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, practice share information technology on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you accept valued this mail, you lot tin brand a unmarried or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Adept comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, can add together real value. Seek starting time to sympathize, then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view contend as a conflict to win; accost the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/are-there-different-loves-in-john-21/
0 Response to "Are there different ‘loves’ in John 21?"
Post a Comment