John 21:15-17

[Archaea]

Unlike AA who read John in Greek in a semester, and who is both smart, able and quick, it took me a bit longer.

And I come to a pericope which most know but still perplexes as to why the exchange is as it is.'

ὅτε οὖν ἠρίστησαν λέγει τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρῳ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Σίμων Ἰωάννου ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων λέγει αὐτῷ ναί κύριε σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε λέγει αὐτῷ βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου 16 λέγει αὐτῷ πάλιν δεύτερον Σίμων Ἰωάννου ἀγαπᾷς με λέγει αὐτῷ ναί κύριε σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε λέγει αὐτῷ ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατά μου 17 λέγει αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον Σίμων Ἰωάννου φιλεῖς με ἐλυπήθη ὁ Πέτρος ὅτι εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον φιλεῖς με καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ κύριε πάντα σὺ οἶδας σὺ γινώσκεις ὅτι φιλῶ σε λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά μου

Thi is the section where Christ asks Peter if he loved Him three times. Or at least that's our translation.

In the first two inquiries, Christ asks using agapw, and Peter answer each time using philw. Christ uses philw the third time.

What escaped my notice the first million times I read it, was the word for sheep changed. The first time he uses the little sheep arnia.

the second time he refers to bigger sheep, probata.

And he uses different forms of feed.

In the first and third time he uses boske, [boske means to "feed" or to "graze"] and but in the second injunction he uses poimane. This does not mean to feed but to shepherd. He's reminding him to "shepherd" his sheep. Watch over, not just feed. The distinctions appear subtle, but why.

It is an interesting exchange upon which much has been written but it remain interesting to see the Greek distinctions and to ponder the teaching reason for the meanings.

English version:

1617

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’ A second time he said to him, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Tend my sheep.’ He said to him the third time, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, ‘Do you love me?’ And he said to him, ‘Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my sheep.

I find it also interesting that the Lord had finished breakfast whereupon he used the imagery of grazing, shepherding the lamb, the sheep.

In one respect, I wonder if the initial injunction is a double symbol reflecting the Lamb of God, and projecting some imagery upon his children becoming the lambs of God.

And by using poimane, he's pointing out that the apostle have become surrogate Shepherds a la the Good "Shepherd", through the use of poimane.

The distinctions between philrw and agapw can better be explained by others, but the agapw means to love in a moral or social sense, which is the term initially used by Christ, and Peter uses the more intimate philew, affectionate kind. By the end of the encounter both are using the intimate affectionate kind of love, pointing to the grazing as shepherds of the flock.

I note the English fails to fully translate ἐλυπήθη which is an aorist for to grieve or give pain, so Peter was quite hurt that he had to plead his affection a third time, or so it seems.

Meanderings, I am certain and AA and Solon can assist the old dumb guy, but thanks for playing.

21 is a beautiful chapter and I'm trying to see how the entire 21 fit in together, with the beautiful Greek imagery at the beginning finishing up with a Greek play on words with some very Hebraic imagery. Still not certain what to make of it, but John is a beautiful work.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Unlike AA who read John in Greek in a semester, and who is both smart, able and quick, it took me a bit longer.

And I come to a pericope which most know but still perplexes as to why the exchange is as it is.'

Thi is the section where Christ asks Peter if he loved Him three times. Or at least that's our translation.

In the first two inquiries, Christ asks using agapw, and Peter answer each time using philw. Christ uses philw the third time.

What escaped my notice the first million times I read it, was the word for sheep changed. The first time he uses the little sheep arnia.

the second time he refers to bigger sheep, probata.

And he uses different forms of feed.

In the first and third time he uses boske, [boske means to "feed" or to "graze"] and but in the second injunction he uses poimane. This does not mean to feed but to shepherd. He's reminding him to "shepherd" his sheep. Watch over, not just feed. The distinctions appear subtle, but why.

It is an interesting exchange upon which much has been written but it remain interesting to see the Greek distinctions and to ponder the teaching reason for the meanings.

English version:

1617I find it also interesting that the Lord had finished breakfast whereupon he used the imagery of grazing, shepherding the lamb, the sheep.

In one respect, I wonder if the initial injunction is a double symbol reflecting the Lamb of God, and projecting some imagery upon his children becoming the lambs of God.

And by using poimane, he's pointing out that the apostle have become surrogate Shepherds a la the Good "Shepherd", through the use of poimane.

The distinctions between philrw and agapw can better be explained by others, but the agapw means to love in a moral or social sense, which is the term initially used by Christ, and Peter uses the more intimate philew, affectionate kind. By the end of the encounter both are using the intimate affectionate kind of love, pointing to the grazing as shepherds of the flock.

I note the English fails to fully translate ἐλυπήθη which is an aorist for to grieve or give pain, so Peter was quite hurt that he had to plead his affection a third time, or so it seems.

Meanderings, I am certain and AA and Solon can assist the old dumb guy, but thanks for playing.

21 is a beautiful chapter and I'm trying to see how the entire 21 fit in together, with the beautiful Greek imagery at the beginning finishing up with a Greek play on words with some very Hebraic imagery. Still not certain what to make of it, but John is a beautiful work.

My Greek teacher for my gospel of John class insists that there is no significance behind the slight variation of the words. Both the words "agapw" and "philew" are used in the Gospel of John to describe how the Father feels about the Son, and therefore there is no need to assume that philia is somehow a lesser form of love. His basic reasoning is that these are tricola, a rhetorical device wherein a certain element is repeated three times. You can expect variatio just to help the flow along, but you can nevertheless treat any elements that are nearly synonymous as synonymous.

To be honest, I don't know that I completely agree. But when a PhD in Classics argues it, it's worth at least bringing up in the conversation before you disagree with it. I think the differences are at least a little significant, but perhaps we overplay it.

As far as Peter being troubled or grieved, I always thought it was because he remembered denying Christ three times, and realized the connection between the three-time denial and the three-time confession.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

My Greek teacher for my gospel of John class insists that there is no significance behind the slight variation of the words. Both the words "agapw" and "philew" are used in the Gospel of John to describe how the Father feels about the Son, and therefore there is no need to assume that philia is somehow a lesser form of love. His basic reasoning is that these are tricola, a rhetorical device wherein a certain element is repeated three times. You can expect variatio just to help the flow along, but you can nevertheless treat any elements that are nearly synonymous as synonymous.

To be honest, I don't know that I completely agree. But when a PhD in Classics argues it, it's worth at least bringing up in the conversation before you disagree with it. I think the differences are at least a little significant, but perhaps we overplay it.

As far as Peter being troubled or grieved, I always thought it was because he remembered denying Christ three times, and realized the connection between the three-time denial and the three-time confession.

Not having any significant training, or any training in Greek whatsoever, a smarter man would bow out at this juncture, but nobody's ever accused me of being wise.

My responses are merely observations.

First, Christ and the apostles probably spoke in Aramaic or Hebrew, so the changes are changes which the gospelist desired to emphasize, so it could just be a form of "elegant variation". If that's all it is, then so be it.

Second, Greeks appeared very sensitive to changes in word, grammar and other aspects, so it would surprise me that the writer intended to convey no nuance by the shift.

Perhaps your instructor is correct, but you now have a God speaking to his friends in very grand terms using agapw, shifting at the end to philew when his friends is trembling. Perhaps no sense is intended, but under the circumstances I could see why the speaker and receiver would sense otherwise.

Philew seems more subservient in Peter's usage, but then again, this is coming from the Greek village idiot.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Not having any significant training, or any training in Greek whatsoever, a smarter man would bow out at this juncture, but nobody's ever accused me of being wise.

My responses are merely observations.

First, Christ and the apostles probably spoke in Aramaic or Hebrew, so the changes are changes which the gospelist desired to emphasize, so it could just be a form of "elegant variation". If that's all it is, then so be it.

Second, Greeks appeared very sensitive to changes in word, grammar and other aspects, so it would surprise me that the writer intended to convey no nuance by the shift.

Perhaps your instructor is correct, but you now have a God speaking to his friends in very grand terms using agapw, shifting at the end to philew when his friends is trembling. Perhaps no sense is intended, but under the circumstances I could see why the speaker and receiver would sense otherwise.

Philew seems more subservient in Peter's usage, but then again, this is coming from the Greek village idiot.

That was always how I understood it-- that Jesus twice asked him if he loved him with the divine form of love, agape, but Peter insisted that he loved him with philia. Jesus then condescends, responding to the weakness of his servant, by asking him if he loved him with philia. I kind of liked the idea. But it is tough to say that philia is somehow a lesser, inadequate form of love, since in John 5:20, the father loves the son with philia.

Other uses of filew and agapaw:

Lk.6:32 "And if you love (AGAPE) those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love (AGAPE) those who love (AGAPE) them."

Lk. 11:43 "Woe to you Pharisees! For you love (AGAPE) the front seats in the synagogues"

Lk. 16:13 "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love (AGAPE) the other"

Jn. 5:20 "For the Father loves (FILEO) the Son"

Jn. 16:27 ".. for the Father Himself loves (FILEO) you, because you have loved (FILEO) me.. "

Jn. 20:2 "And so she [Mary] ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved (FILEO).. "

1 Cor. 16:22 "If any one does not love (FILEO) the Lord, let him be accursed."

2 Tim. 4:10 ".. for Demas, having loved (AGAPE) this present world"

Tit. 3:4 "But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love (FILEO) for mankind appeared"

Tit. 3:15 "Greet those who love (FILEO) us in the faith"

Rev. 3:19 "Those whom I love (FILEO), I reprove and discipline.. "

And, yeah, they probably spoke Aramaic, but since the Greek is as original as we can get, I don't see any harm in treating it as such. We treat Herodotus and Xenophon as primary sources, after all.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Unlike AA who read John in Greek in a semester, and who is both smart, able and quick, it took me a bit longer.

And I come to a pericope which most know but still perplexes as to why the exchange is as it is.'

Thi is the section where Christ asks Peter if he loved Him three times. Or at least that's our translation.

In the first two inquiries, Christ asks using agapw, and Peter answer each time using philw. Christ uses philw the third time.

What escaped my notice the first million times I read it, was the word for sheep changed. The first time he uses the little sheep arnia.

the second time he refers to bigger sheep, probata.

And he uses different forms of feed.

In the first and third time he uses boske, [boske means to "feed" or to "graze"] and but in the second injunction he uses poimane. This does not mean to feed but to shepherd. He's reminding him to "shepherd" his sheep. Watch over, not just feed. The distinctions appear subtle, but why.

It is an interesting exchange upon which much has been written but it remain interesting to see the Greek distinctions and to ponder the teaching reason for the meanings.

English version:

1617I find it also interesting that the Lord had finished breakfast whereupon he used the imagery of grazing, shepherding the lamb, the sheep.

In one respect, I wonder if the initial injunction is a double symbol reflecting the Lamb of God, and projecting some imagery upon his children becoming the lambs of God.

And by using poimane, he's pointing out that the apostle have become surrogate Shepherds a la the Good "Shepherd", through the use of poimane.

The distinctions between philrw and agapw can better be explained by others, but the agapw means to love in a moral or social sense, which is the term initially used by Christ, and Peter uses the more intimate philew, affectionate kind. By the end of the encounter both are using the intimate affectionate kind of love, pointing to the grazing as shepherds of the flock.

I note the English fails to fully translate ἐλυπήθη which is an aorist for to grieve or give pain, so Peter was quite hurt that he had to plead his affection a third time, or so it seems.

Meanderings, I am certain and AA and Solon can assist the old dumb guy, but thanks for playing.

21 is a beautiful chapter and I'm trying to see how the entire 21 fit in together, with the beautiful Greek imagery at the beginning finishing up with a Greek play on words with some very Hebraic imagery. Still not certain what to make of it, but John is a beautiful work.

Probata doesn't just necessarily mean sheep - it really means "flocks." I think you could make an argument that there is a difference between "lambs" = arnia and "flocks" - which can include goats, sheep, or really anything that's herded. I've mused before that "lambs" might refer to the fledgeling church, while "flocks" are the great masses . . . but I could be reading too much into it.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by All-American

As far as Peter being troubled or grieved, I always thought it was because he remembered denying Christ three times, and realized the connection between the three-time denial and the three-time confession.

That's a very interesting thought I had never considered or heard before. Cool stuff.