I’d like to try something new. I’m not sure if I’ve got nearly enough commenters on this blog, or if enough of them are former or current Christians. But hopefully we can get started. I want to think about the rather odd passage in John 21:15-17, where a ressurrected Jesus asks Peter three times if he loves him, and each time, when Peter agrees that he does, Jesus tells him some variation on ‘feed my sheep’.
The passage is:
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.”
– John 21:15-17 (NIV)
Christ's Charge to Peter by Raphael 1515-1516. Currently in the Victoria and Albert museum, London. This stunning piece is a combination of two scenes: Matthew 16:18-19 (giving Peter the keys to the kingdom), and our John 21:15-17 (pointing to a flock of sheep to feed).
I haven’t used my translation of this. I’m using the NIV translation because I don’t want to introduce my bias onto the text at this point (although I did select the translation to use, so I’m not entirely innocent).
So the question I want us to answer is this: what does this mean? What is Jesus saying, what are the significant elements to the story? Is there an explanation of why it is in this format (why three times, why sheep, why Peter emphasizes Jesus’s knowledge, why love, why ‘Simon son of John’, etc). No explanation will cover more than one or two of these features, but I’m interested to see the gamut of interpretations.
Please add in the comments, but can I ask you to state carefully whether your response is a personal intepretation, or one you’ve been taught (if the latter, can you say where: a sermon, a bible study, sunday school). You can add as many comments as you like with as many interpretations.
Anyone is welcome to contribute and your intepretations will not be ridiculed (not by me, anyway – comments are always free to disagree). There is no correct answer I’m looking for, and I don’t have any bombshell to undermine the text. You don’t need to know the original greek, or be a bible scholar or theologian. Simple explanations are as welcome as complicated ones. I am curious because I know of several different ways of reading this passage, and I suspect there may be many, many more. If you are a believer and lurk here, please contribute.
Why start with such a simple passage. It is obvious, Jesus had a bit too much wine.
I think many things are being addressed in the passage. I have gotten these from various teachings and then independent reading.
First, you have Jesus calling him Simon. While it is his name, Jesus began calling him Peter once he began following Jesus. Here, without the Peter it could symbolize that Peter has blasphemed his way out of the kingdom of God.
Second, you have the word sheep which indicates a flock. A shepherd is dedicated to protecting the flock even to the extent of giving their own life. It could symbolize the level of commitment that is expected from him, given that he already rejected Jesus without his life being directly threatened.
Third, you have the two different words for love being used. Twice Jesus uses agapaō for love when asking Peter with the response from Peter being phileō. On the third time Jesus asks, he switches love to phileo at which point Peter breaks into tears. Jesus is possibly stressing the type of love that is required to do the work. Do you love divinely and not just a fondness of. The third time he asks, it comes off that he is questioning Peter on if he even loves him in a phileo manner.
@Xander, thanks for all three of these points. And a big welcome, and I love the gravatar!
In your second point, about sheep, do you put any meaning in the use of slightly different terms to talk about the sheep each time?
In your third point, do you look at the three questions as being of decreasing force? “agapas me more than these ones (pleon tauton)?”; then just “agapas me?”; then “phileis me?”. Or do you just distinguish between the agape and phileo?
@sabio Not much to say about that theory!
NB: I said you didn’t need to know any greek to take part, so apologies if it looked like I broke into greek at the first chance – but Xander did start it…
Two different words are used. The later words are broader — gee, we could run to a more universalist Christianity with this progression !
15 ἀρνίον (lamb) Lamb
16 & 17 πρόβατον (sheep)
whatever goes forwards, that is moves its limbs forwards in going; hence, quadrupeds, as distinguished from things creeping, flying, or swimming: especially tame animals; hence, generally, beasts, cattle. In Attic and NT usage, only of sheep.
( Coincidentally, my next post contains this distinction ! Or is it God speaking to us ?? )
Below little background for folks who don’t have the resource on the Greek words translated “love”.
It seems to say that Jesus was just moving the argument up to “I want little kiss” — why is everyone making this so complicated? And gee, what does this say about the sheep?
So:
“If you prefer me, sure, you can take care of a few folks, but if you are passionate about me, you can take care of the world.”
Verses 15 & 16
ἀγαπάω (agape)
ἀγαπάω (agapaō 25)
1. love [verb] -ed, -edst, -est, -eth
to regard (Latin, diligere) esteem (the principle of internal feeling of delectation and kindliness), to acquiesce with satisfaction, to cherish with reverence, to love, considered in reference to the tendency of the will (elsewhere translated beloved).
2. beloved
to love, it denotes the deliberative exercise of the judgment; the giving of a decided preference to one object or person out of many. It frequently implies regard and satisfaction, rather than affection. A higher word therefore than φιλέω (phileō 5368), which denotes greater strength of feeling, as between brethren in blood.
Verse 17: φιλέω (love)
1. love [verb] -ed, -edst, -est, -eth
to kiss, to love (Latin, amare), used of the more direct demonstration of regard; (hence, φίλος (philos 5384) a friend, is from φιλέω (phileō 5368) from φίω (phiō) or from πίλω (pilō) to press; φίλος (philos 5384) is he whom we embrace, or kiss. Again, φιλία (philia 5373) is friendship between men, but love when between the sexes), to love, considered in reference to a natural inclination, or an emotion (that is to say the passion of love) (elsewhere translated to kiss).
[Note. — These two words are not used indiscriminately. ἀγαπάω (agapaō 25) never means to kiss; φιλέω (phileō 5368) never means to acquiesce or cherish with reverence. φιλέω (phileō 5368) denotes the sense or passion of love, but in ἀγαπάω (agapaō 25) is implied the cause ο (o 3588)f φιλέω. ἀγαπάω (phileō. agapaō 25) is to make much of a thing, to admire for some good and sufficient reason, but φιλέω (phileō 5368) denotes the love which springs naturally from the thing loved, even where no just cause of love exists. ἀγαπάω (agapaō 25) is never used of an improper love; φιλέω (phileō 5368) is. Hence, in the NT φιλέω (phileō 5368) is never used of man's love to God, but ἀγαπάω (agapaō 25) always. Both words are used of God's love to man, ἀγαπάω (agapaō 25) when He is said to "Love the world" (Joh 3:16, etc.) and when He wishes men good, and seeks their salvation; and φίλέω (phileō 5368) is affirmed of His love to His people who please Him (Joh 16:27, etc.) Again, φιλέω (phileō 5368) is used of Jesus' love for Lazarus (Joh 11:3,36); but in verse 5 the word is ἀγαπάω (agapaō 25) because there the sisters are included, and therefore this word was more correct. Again, we are commanded to love our enemies, etc., but here ἀγαπάω (agapaō 25) is used, never φιλέω (phileō 5368); love cannot be required in this case, though kindness and compassion are. Again, in Joh 21:15-17, in the first question Jesus uses ἀγαπάω (agapaō 25) but Peter uses the word φιλέω (phileō 5368) in his reply; this is repeated, and then Jesus uses Peter's word in the third question. Once more, to love (φιλέω (phileō 5368)) life, from an excessive desire to preserve it, and so to lose sight of the real object of living, is reproved by our Lord (Joh 12:25). "Whereas to love (ἀγαπάω (agapaō 25)) life, is to consult its real interest. Other examples may be traced out with much profit, for example Mar 10:21.]
Thanks for the Strongs, Sabio. I don’t want to get too absorbed in that particular interpretation as if it were the only one that this passage can provide. It is certainly one of the most famous. But from a linguistic and historical point of view it isn’t quite as simple as you suggest. But I don’t want to get into the nitty gritty of biblical criticism on this verse, I’m more interested in the general families of interpretation the passage admits.
> Or is it God speaking to us ??
> why is everyone making this so complicated?
You’re the only one I can see posting paragraphs of greek linguistic reference!
> It seems to say that Jesus was just moving the argument up to “I want little kiss”
So is your reading that the change in the wording for love suggests that initially Jesus is interested in Peter loving the world, but later it becomes more intimately about their relationship with one another? If so that is an interesting inversion of the usual exegesis which has Jesus increasingly compromising with Peter’s weak answers, rather than increasingly moving towards Peters point of intimacy.
Also I think your sheep comment is a little bit odd. I wasn’t asking if there is any difference between a sheep and a lamb, just asking Xander if that distinction carried weight in this story. We all use synonyms all the time, but sometimes the particular choice is more significant than others.
No, I was implying that the author may have been alluding to his belief that if we love Jesus passionately (deep in our hearts), we can reach the whole world and not just fellow believers.
Thus the sheep-lamb issue is not trivial, nor the philo-agape issue. But, seriously, I was always bad in Literature classes at University — why can’t people just say what they mean like philosophers do (*said with wry smile).
Cool, thanks. I think that is a novel exegesis in my experience.
Good discussion so far. Nice blog, Ian. I’m going to poke around and do some more reading.
Not only the different terms, but also the different functions associated with the sheep. Feed my lambs, I think holds to instruct the new believers. Lambs are young and need more attention as not to wonder away from the flock. In addition, they do not have the same experience with the voice of the shepherd as a grown sheep which would indicate that they are more likely to follow another. Tend my sheep, implies an overseer role for the flock as a whole. Tending to sheep is a full time job. He would not be just a hireling as they were not trusted to watch the flock, so this seems to be a greater calling than that. It also follows Peter returning to fishing after rejecting Christ. Feeding sheep meant going pasture to pasture. It was not static and meant walking and protecting them on the journey. It would mean leaving his old life and embracing this new life until death.
I don’t think the questions were in decreasing force as more of addressing the heart.
Jesus: Peter, do you love me unconditionally? In a self-sacrificing way more than these others proclaim?
Peter: Of course, Jesus! I am very fond of you!
Jesus: No, no Peter. Do you love me unconditionally, no matter how hard life might get?
Peter: Of course, Jesus! I am very fond of you!
Jesus: Peter, are you even fond of me?
Peter: You know my heart Jesus. You know I am fond of you and I will become self-sacrificing to you.
Jesus: Good, cause you are going to die in a painful and humiliating way.
Paraphrased of course.
I also find it interesting that it is asked three times and answered three times. I want to say that verbal contracts followed this process. Three times in front of witnesses to be certain beyond a doubt about what is occuring and that both parties are in agreement.
here’s my take that is both a mix of my Jesuit upbringing and seminary training which i will hope to note where one stops and the other begins. i will then provide my own translation and all of this will be off the cuff so to speak with no reference to the stack of books i have sitting next to me. here we go:
the RC tradition states that this is Peter’s welcoming back into Jesus’ flock and not only that, but putting him at the head of it as lead ‘pastor’ while Jesus is gone. Peter denied Christ three times, betrayed him metaphorically whereas Judas was literally. Judas killed himself, Peter was shamed and was deeply guilty, so the dogma states. Jesus no only forgives, but restores Peter to the head of the flock.
i largely agree with that interpretation of the text, i’m all about forgiveness and restoration, where i differ is with the idea that there is to be “one” head of the flock. i’m protestant after all, and Jesus is it. Peter would do okay but not as good as the “good shepherd” would because Peter, after all, is a sheep in the metaphoric sense.
what Jesus asks Peter is what every Christian is asked. here’s my interp:
Jesus: Peter, are you loyal to me and my teachings? Are you willing to die for them?
Peter: Of course, Jesus! I am very loyal!
Jesus: No, no Peter. Do you love me unconditionally, no matter how hard life might get?
Peter: Of course, Jesus! I am very loyal to you!
Jesus: Peter, are you sure? like, for realizes?
Peter: JESUS Dude! You know me. You know I am loyal and I was close to you during that whole “cross thing” and despite my lack of courage, I have found what it means to be radically loyal to you, to the point of self-forgetting.
Jesus: Good, cause odds are, you’re going to die because of it. what happened to me will happen to you. but your example will be spiritual food to others who wish to find what it means to live as we do.
hope that satisfies.
if a more detailed reading is needed, i can supply sources, but for the sake of brevity both in my writing and your reading, this is what i make of it initially.
No, that’s perfect thanks Luke. I am more curious about the breadth rather than the depth. I like your paraphrase, thanks.
I guess it goes unspoken but …
If I really was curious (or cared) about what this passage meant, I would have to:
Study the overall intent of John’s Author (JA) — to see what JA is trying to make his Jesus say by understanding his intended audience and his philosophy as opposed to other gospel writers. I wouldn’t try to mix it with some mythical Jesus conjured in my mind by blending all the Gospels stories together. I would also have to look at literary devices at that time (as Xander hinted with the 3 time thing). And much more. Ancient texts are tough. Hell, relatively modern literature is tough — I am reading William James and without knowing his setting and the styles back then and who his friends were etc, it is easy to read him and make him say hugely various things — I imagine.
I am sure Ian knows that better than any of us, but I did want to mention it.
@Sabio, yes, I agree. But two things I’d want to say on that.
a) You’re describing the quest to know what was meant by that story (i.e. authorial intent). That is important, and what I’m most interested in with biblical studies (as impossible as it is, even so). But that is slightly different from what the story means. From well before Jesus, the biblical texts were recognized as having many layers of meaning. In Jewish thought this process has taken on monumental scale, but it is part of normative Christian practice too. From a historical critical point of view these may be eisegetical meanings (meanings brought to and expanded by the text, rather than meanings derived from them). But from a confessional point of view they are valid meanings. I’m fine with that, as long as folks don’t attempt to convince me that their midrash is critically valid. In this case I have some understanding of the historical critical scholarship of John (though John is notoriously complex, and if pushed I’m really a synoptic guy), but I am interested in what the passage means outside of that focus.
b) You’re fine to call John’s Author, John. As in John Doe, maybe. The question of which people in NT studies are the same and which are different is very complex, so most scholars just call the evangelists (gospel writers) by their conventional names, without there being any implication that they are the same individuals as their traditional authors. So John may not have been the beloved disciple, but we don’t have a better name for him, so we call him John.
@ Ian
I agree.
But how about “F-John”, instead of John, in mimicing Lost’s “F-Locke”.
You probably don’t get that TV show in Wales — but thought you may have heard of it.
The potential parallels are astounding, actually.
@Sabio – F-John, neat suggestion. I don’t watch Lost (I don’t have a TV, actually, so I’m limited to watching shows online), but I watch it by proxy by reading James McGrath’s blog.
@Ian
Most people, Christians, don’t really appreciate the complexity of John because they don’t take the time to understand the symbolism that is commonly present in Jewish writings. It can really be fascinating trying to figure out what all is being said instead of just taking it at face value and being moved by it.
One reason I enjoy your blog so much is that you do enjoy the challenge of looking beyond the surface.
@Xander I agree, and I confess I struggle to really get my head around the literature on the Johannine community. And thanks for the compliment.
Just heard another take on it.
The third time Jesus asked, He was coming down to the level of commitment that Peter was able to make. Not sure if I agree with it right now, but an interesting point of view.
Xander,
Thanks for that. Yes, that’s a valid interpretation of the change in emphasis, I think. Jesus does seem to be diminishing the force of his verb each time, and Peter from the outset is using the ‘weakest’ form. In the third repetition they match.
alright… like what xander is explaining here i would also like to point out that with greek language LOVE has its degree… Agape which means unconditional love, Phileo, brotherly love, Eros love for the opposite sex and Storge which is like an affection example is when a mother cuddles her baby to sleep at night. On that particular situation, correct me if i am mistaken… on the original Bible text which was written in Greek cause they say that Greek is the perfect language, that’s why Jesus chose that. the conversation goes like: Jesus was asking Peter if he Agape Him and Peter keep on answering, “Yes Lord, I phileo you.” As what i have said earlier, agape is an unconditional love. Loving no matter who or what you are!
Hope it helps!
Thanks for posting your views, Chris.
“Greek is the perfect language”
I misspoke when I put agape as a divinely type of love. It is just not there in that context.
John 3:19 And this is the basis for judgment: The light has come into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light because their actions were evil.
People agape the darkness more than the light. Not a very divine though.
Maybe Jesus is stressing the non-emotional aspect of love that is required to follow Him.
I see why this stuff interests you Ian. Even without ascribing to the religious beliefs, it provides so much in the way of mind puzzles.
Just wanted to add a comment here to say, its been several months since this discussion, but I am still interested in further or different viewpoints. There’s a steady stream of folk who land here via google. Please don’t let an old date put you off – there are quite a few people still subscribed to the comments on this post, and I for one am more than happy to read further ideas.
Hello, I stumbled accross this blog while researching the word agapaō in Google. My wifes therapist/Church Sister said “To Love others you must first Love yourself”. My wife asked me what it means and I started looking at it. I realized I don’t really love myself. So Im going to go to therapy to help me to learn to Love myself so I can express the Love to Others so I can Love Jesus and God. I was wondering if Jesus could have been saying “do you love me because you love yourself (we should love the things God Loves). And Peter’s reply could have ment “I don’t love myself there fore I will love you because you are worthy of all my affection”. I noticed that Agapao uses the word Love in the diffenation where as Phileo does not actually use the word Love. Someone said to me to actually Love you must know Love.
Thanks for posting Robert, and bringing your understanding to the question.
I haven’t come across that angle before – the idea of Jesus finding out from Peter what is the worthy source of his love. I struggle to fit it myself, but I’m grateful you took the time to add it.
I didn’t quite understand this. Phileo is normally translated ‘love’, as is Agapeo. Is that what you meant?
Good luck with the therapy, Robert, I hope it does give you the space to understand and appreciate yourself more.
I am so sorry for that bit of confusion. Bad mistake on my part. I have been digging into this question for about 3 weeks. When some people read their Bible’s they read like the buterfly. Others read like the bee. The buterfly touches each word savoring it. The bee digs deep into it to taste the word.
The reference came from one of my notes. Agapaō is defined as To esteem, love, indicating a direction of the will and finding one’s joy in something or someone.” (Complete Word Study Dictionary).
Phileō is defined as “To have to have affection for someone, to be fond of, to like, indicating feelings, warm affection.” (Complete Word Study Dictionary)
Like I said I have been searching it through google enough to basically answer a question i have about myself “why it’s been so hard for me to repent away from the things I know doesn’t show my love for God. Like doing the things God Commands 1 John 5:3. I came to the answer that I don’t love myself. Peter said basically I’ll learn to Love myself enough to Love Others the way you said when you said to Love your nieghbors as much as you love yourself.
Matthew 22:37-39 NIV Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ (38) This is the first and greatest commandment. (39) And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
The Love Jesus was refering to is Agapao
Matthew 22:37-39 NASB+ And He saidG5346 to him, ” ‘YOU SHALL LOVEG25 THE LORDG2962 YOUR GODG2316 WITH ALLG3650 YOUR HEARTG2588, AND WITH ALLG3650 YOUR SOULG5590, AND WITH ALLG3650 YOUR MINDG1271.’ (38) “ThisG3778 is the greatG3173 and foremostG4413 commandmentG1785. (39) “The secondG1208 is likeG3664 it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVEG25 YOUR NEIGHBORG4139 AS YOURSELFG4572.’
Got ya, thanks for the clarification. My best wishes again for the therapy!
Please discount this if this isn’t helpful. But there’s a pattern that I’ve seen in many of my evangelical friends. The conversion experience is so charged, and the initial period of learning about God and learning about his will is so very exciting. During this period there is a genuine change in a person. You do see stuff differently, and can act differently. It isn’t a huge chore: you want to act that way
But this is very difficult to keep up. The human mind just isn’t wired to keep exciting things feeling exciting. Any stimulus becomes boring: that’s the way we are.
So the experience of many evangelicals is of periods of euphoria (of which the first is usually the best and most long lasting), followed by increasing dry spells. This isn’t a reflection of your spirituality, just of your psychology. In those dry spells it is very difficult, if not impossible, to make yourself go through the motions of doing the stuff that evangelicalism tells you you should. The stuff that might have been easy in the first few months after your conversion. So most people pretend. Admitting you aren’t that person feels like an insult to God, rather than an acknowledgment of reality.
I think this a problem with the portrayal of Christianity by evangelical churches. It doesn’t match the actual experience of Christians through the centuries. It is, at base, a lie.
I’ve seen people go through that roller coaster and end up in real trouble. If they’re lucky they can engineer a situation where they get another boost, and things are great for a while. But the boosts always get shorter and shorter. Even though those around them are lying and saying that of course everyone struggles, but it can be done: you can receive the transformation you crave. By will alone you can claim what you’ve been told is there for the claiming. Despite that, I’ve not found anyone (who I actually know well enough to tell) who genuinely could. Instead it can breed genuine mental illness: depression, anger, and horrible, horrible guilt. All of which can fester if, for example, you go for treatment to an evangelical therapist or counselor.
So I would say, just from my experience (and it is only my experience – I’m not a therapist, pastor or Christian counsellor), don’t condemn yourself because you don’t live up to some ideal of what a Christian should be.
Particularly one that is being fed to you through Evangelicalism. My experience over many years is that the people telling you that aren’t that way either.
There are Christian traditions and groups who take a more honest approach to their struggles and the reality of their Christian faith. There are even evangelical churches and groups that don’t go in for the dangerous parts of the Christian subculture. Groups that are far more genuine and cause far less mental illness in their congregations.
what this means is when you love someone sometines you need to show them, words are not enough. I learned this today from the missionarys and a church member. I am learning about faith and this is one of the examples they gave me. It confused me and im not sure if this helps you but I thought I’d share it anyway. Thank u
Thanks xiuxiu, that’s an interpretation that hasn’t been suggested here before. You might want to read back over the comments to see the different other ways in which the passage is understood.
I do not believe that it should be complicated to understand what Jesus was doing. He was obviously testing Peter, to make sure that there was no pride in him..
How often is pride seen in the children of God? Pride is a very dangerous thing, it can blind you from doing the will of God.
Jesus had also told Peter that he would deny Him 3 times, but Peter did not believe it, and once again, Peter stood up and told Jesus that he will not let anything happen to Jesus.
Jesus saw the pride in Peter and said, “Satan get behind me” That was the very beginning of when sin was found in Lucifer, it was pride..
Pride goes before the fall.. We have to be broken inside, so Jesus can work in us and through us.. Pride gets in the way.. We can love Jesus with all our hearts and all our soul, but until we are ready to accept the truth of Jesus, then now in God’s name can we follow the plan Jesus has for us?
Pride has to go, in order for us to do the will of the Father… When pride is in a child of God, then it’s easy to deny Jesus. Can a child of God have pride? Oh yes!! That’s why we need Jesus, our Lord and Savior to help us remove that pride. If we were perfect, than we don’t need a Savior, right? None of us is perfect, except Jesus, and He is the only one that can truly give us a new clean heart in Him.. No man has that power..
I can put scriptures to back up everything I written.. But Jesus wants me to be real as He has always been real to me.
2Timothy 3:16 ~ All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Nilda, Thanks for commenting.
“I do not believe that it should be complicated to understand what Jesus was doing. He was obviously testing Peter”
Obvious to you, of course. But there have been many many different interpretations of this passage over the last 2000 years, many of them made by people who were as certain as you are that their interpretation was “obvious” and right, and by people who had plenty of bible passages to back up their opinion.
Thanks for posting your view on this, I do appreciate another viewpoint.
But I’d strongly suggest you lose the arrogance, and let yourself find out a bit more about this passage and others in the bible.
Looking through the comments on this post, your comes out by far the most proud of all, proud of the sure and certain knowledge of God you have, and that others may not.
Hello Ian, this is what you have written, and the reason why I shared what I shared.
“Anyone is welcome to contribute and your intepretations will not be ridiculed (not by me, anyway”
You saying that I will not be ridiculed by you.. That’s exactly what you did..
Sorry for sharing on this site.. I only shared from my heart..
My heart is really for Jesus.. I don’t want any pride in me, even when I share..
May God’s blessings be upon you in all that you do in the love of our Lord and Savior..
Hello Ian,
Please excuse me, I need to correct myself.. When I read your description on ~John 21:15-17 (NIV)~ I did not read your profile.. I missed the part that you say that you’re an Atheist.. So, Jesus is not your Lord and Savior.. Please forgive me for thinking that He was..
You sound more like Agnostic, not an Atheist.
May God be with you in the answers you’re looking for..
In Christ always,
Nilda
Nilda,
Yes…. I guess I was too forthright, sorry. But given that this post was about various people’s interpretation of the passage, I found it moderately insulting to everybody that you began your comment with how it was “obvious” what the writer of this passage meant by it.
I didn’t ridicule your opinion, I think it is valid, it adds to the discussion, and it provides a new angle we haven’t seen before, so I sincerely thank you again for sharing it.
But you would do better generally if you didn’t start from the position of claiming you know the answers to these questions, and that they are obvious (and therefore by implication that any folks who spend time trying to figure it out are just missing the obvious). I hope you can see why that is arrogant and prideful.
My belief is pretty much irrelevant, since most of the people who’ve come before you in these comments *are* Christians, and not one of them so far has agreed that the interpretation of this passage is obviously about pride.
On a side note, you’re not the first person to decide that I’m not a real atheist, I’m ‘more like’ an agnostic, or a seeker, or something. (That itself, a rather arrogant thing to say, you must agree, just as if I decided you weren’t a ‘true’ Christian on the basis of what you’d written). I suspect that some Christians find it strange that an atheist should be interested in the bible or early Christianity, maybe you’re the same. But it is normally nicer to find out why, rather than just label someone, or decide that you know they are looking for answers from God.
Actually Ian,
Please excuse me for my choices of words.. Yes, you are right when you said “Obvious” that it may not be obvious to others.. I understand that, that was my ignorance, that said that.
When it comes to pride, Jesus often talked about pride in people’s hearts.
Pride has gotten in the way, and it separated people from God.
If you see fit to judge my heart, then do you know Who Jesus really is?
Do you know who I really am?
I happen to stumble across this site, because I do serve Jesus, and He is my Lord and Savior.. I was writing about pride, and I decided to read about Peter.. I am not a Theologian, I am not a teacher, I am nothing to anyone.. I am just a child of God, who is seeking to do His will not mine. You can think that I am being prideful and arrogant, but I have nothing to gain. I just love Jesus, and I want the whole world to know who He really is.
But if pride is in our hearts before God, then how can we see Who He really is?
I will leave you with this, you are more than welcome to watch my first live video, where I bear my soul.. And you can judge my heart all you want before God, and ask me then, if I have pride in me.. I don’t care what the world thinks of me, because of what I have been through. Jesus was with me through it all.. I am a writer for Jesus, and He’s the one that judges my heart by convicting my heart.. That’s why, I am drawn to Peter.. I don’t need a scholar, I need Jesus, He is all I need. And His grace is sufficient..
Nilda,
Thanks for the response. And thanks for staying with this. I really believe there is value in these kinds of back-and-forth, where we allow ourselves to be accountable to folks with whom we disagree. From your touching video, and the write-up, I get the sense that pride is something that you often think about, it is something you often use to work out where you are and where others are. So it is totally valid, I’d say, that you see Peter and Jesus’s dialog in those terms too. Once again, I thank you for sharing that new angle.
And I get the sense now that you weren’t necessarily trying that say that it was “obvious” what that passage should mean, but maybe it is just obvious what it means to you. If that was what you were saying, then I got the wrong end of the stick, sorry again.
I’m not sure where to go from here.
In all these things, I happy to be disagreed with. I’m genuinely interested in your faith, what makes it tick, and the shape and character of the God you worship. And if we can get past the barrier of you deciding I’m lost and need Jesus (and you have the answers) and get to a point where we can actually share from a point of humility (I think this, but I confess nobody could know for sure) then it could be a valuable dialog, I think. Several of the Christians who comment here regularly are happy to share their opinions, and to honestly look candidly at their beliefs, and I am happy to share where I’m at likewise and examine my presuppositions.
But it isn’t a common skill. So its really up to you. Given that I’ve insulted you, that’s fine if you’d rather not.
Dear Ian,
Thank you for taking the time in discerning these things. I see that you are searching. I will pray for you, and I do hope you find the answers that you are looking for in your own life.
Please visit me on my own channel, and read what I really am about. There is more to a person who gives their life to Christ, than what you only see on the surface.
Here is another live video that I made on December 2010.. May this helps you understand more about Who Jesus really is, in the lives of others, such as me and my Team4Jesus partner, some really live for Him, as others learning about Him.. We are a work in progress for Jesus, we are growing in Christ, just like any child that are growing in their own lives.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkbPJPHXXw&feature=channel_video_title
Of course I think about pride, it exist.. I find myself from time to time in being prideful, and I see how I become in my thoughts, may God help me, that I don’t want any pride in me..
I am not ashame in who I am in Christ.. He is my true reason for living. I have no reason to live without Him.. He has given me pure joy and love..
When I read about Peter, he was a very good example to why Jesus kept asking him, if he love Him.. I mean, all you have to do is really look around in these large ministries and see the pride in that..
I am not trying to judge anyone, I am just merely bringing out what is going on..
If you read my description, I wrote about pride, in that video.. This is something Jesus put in my heart, that pride has a life of its own.. People do not have a clue, unless that pride is literally taken away from them.. This is why in scriptures it does say that pride goes before the fall..
So, look at the part when Jesus asked Peter 3 times if he loves Him? Then read up, during the last supper, when Jesus told Peter that he will deny Him 3 times before the rooster crows.. Now it all leads the night at Gethsemane, when Judas betray Jesus and the soldiers were taking Jesus, while the disciples were sleeping and then finally thye wake up, and Peter took his sword and cut off the soldier’s ear.. Jesus told Peter to put away his sword.
Now, do you think at that moment, there was pride in Peter? Of course there was. Even though it was Peter’s natural reaction to protect Jesus, but, Peter did not understand what was going on..Because pride was in Peter. That’s why Jesus was teaching Peter something, that he needed to be humbled..
Now more pride comes in with Peter, when he denies Jesus 3 times, even though he was afraid, but it was his pride that blinded him that he could not see the truth.. When the rooster crowed, that was the beginning of fall for Peter, realizing what he has done.. Peter wept and became broken..
When pride is in the child of God, we can easily fall. This is why Jesus does test us.. That is what I believe with all my heart and soul, as Jesus taught me this, through my personal walk with Him, and what He teaches us in Scriptures.. We are called to spiritually discern these things.
I hope this helps a little.. May you be blessed in your own journey as you seek the truth in Who Jesus really is..
God bless you,
In all things Jesus,
In Christ always,
Nilda
” I see that you are searching.”
See, there you go again.
If you see that I’m searching, then you’re most definitely not seeing very well. I’ve *very* much found. I was once where you are and I discovered things beyond. I didn’t lose my faith, I discovered what was beyond it, what I couldn’t have imagined for one minute when I stood where you are. What I would have ridiculed, or condemned or ignored or just plain misunderstood. I found the good news.
Don’t jump to conclusions about where others are just because you don’t understand them (or worse, because you think you understand them). You’ve been sold a lie about what atheism is, I suspect, certainly about the kind of atheism I hold, because I’ve heard those lies preached often.
You might want to stick about and see what I’m talking about. There are Christians here who’ve also found the light, and who still call themselves Christians. If you think I am searching, then there is much more to God and to the world than you think.
Thank you Ian for sharing.. Visit me anytime on my own channel.. You can look me up.. I am working on a video now, don’t have much time, I going away..
So you know this.. I was alone my whole life, I had no one to help me, everything was taken away from me to a point that I was stripped down to nothing, I was very lost and I have suffered greatly for more than 40 years of my life, which I will be sharing a video as I depict the story of my life in how Jesus rescued me..
My life is worth nothing, without Jesus in it.. Atheism gives absolutely no hope, you would be surprise that it took 5 hours of me getting beaten up by an Atheist, who tried to get me to deny God, which I stood up to him and said, that I will never deny God, because He is my creator. I didn’t know Who Jesus was then, but, it was Jesus who saved me in May 1992, I have given my life to Him, when He showed me Who He really is.. Jesus is the Lord of my life!!
I will still pray for you, in hopes you someday find out Who Jesus really is.. Once you let Jesus into your heart, you will never be the same again.. You would experience the greatest joy in your life.. Oh, and believe me you, it’s true.. I am sorry that you were the one that is being told a lie.. Jesus is the only one that can give you eternal life.. You don’t have to wait til you die.. You can have it now. You can’t enter heaven without Jesus..
For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. ~John 3:16
Now, I will give you a challenge.. Without me debating with you.. You take the time and watch this playlist that I put together, that I share with Muslims and Atheists..
WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE>>>>http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FAA45E16614E5D26
You want to challenge the very things of God, then challenge all those that God has touched the lives of muslims, missionaries, movies about a man who was angry, hateful and abusive who was about to kill his wife.. These are all based on true stories..
Enjoy.. May God be with you!!
In Christ always, Nilda
“Atheism gives absolutely no hope”
Oh well, sorry you can’t get to the point of real sharing Nilda, of finding out whether I have hope, and if so on what. I’m sorry you can’t get past the point of telling me what I believe.
I’m afraid I’ve met so many people who’s only response to something they don’t understand is to hammer at it with an ugly, hand-over-the-ears evangelism. “Jesus is the answer, Jesus is the answer, Jesus is the answer”, never stopping to find out what the question is.
You don’t even know what I believe, but you know I’m wrong. That’s truly sad.
I’m sorry for your hurt. I’m glad in your faith you found solace, an escape from domestic abuse, and a way to rebuild your self-esteem and to find your purpose.
I won’t be joining you on your channel. Unfortunately, I really can’t take that level of arrogance for long. You seemed almost human a couple of comments back, but I think we’ve lost you back into the parroting of clichés again.
God bless you Ian, Jesus is the true answer to life.. May someday you find out..
Take care.
Pingback: Numbers | Irreducible Complexity
I am interested in the commentary on this passage, I am a Christian youth worker who works for a church and am preparing a talk on Peter’s denial of Jesus and Jesus’ response. I really enjoy looking for the layers of meaning, but also realising that the Holy Spirit can bring to light particular lessons from passages that we need at certain times. I have been praying God would show me what message he would like to give to the young people I will be speaking to tomorrow about this passage. I like to read, research and hear others’ opinions and allow God to speak through them and show me what to share. Sorry if you aren’t a Christian and that sounds a little ‘airy fairy’ or vague, put simply I am following the comments on here and interested in asking questions of the passage. I hate to make a ‘sit on the fence’ kind of comment, but I think this passage highlights all the things people have contributed. I found Robert’s interpretation refreshing, because i haven’t heard it before. I do think, without going all new agey and psychological, that loving yourself is part of realising that God loves you. If you can accept that someone loves you in spite of flaws you can learn to love yourself and accept yourself and I think this definitely makes you more tolerant of others and more able to accept and love them. I think what I would take away from this passage though, is that yes, to a certain degree, Jesus is speaking into Peter’s situation and calling him back into the fold and commissioning him for ministry, but this passage and what he calls Peter (the everyman ) to is to be someone who seeks to love those who don’t know God and those who do and to earnestly try, without pride to really love them and be a positive influence, despite the fact that we might fail. It may be a lesson in perseverance, Jesus endured agony and separation from God at the cross. Are we willing to do the same for the sake of others?
Thanks for the comment, Jen. Through the vast majority of Christian history, the bible has been understood as operating on three levels.
1. the story – what it actually says
2. how the story is a metaphor or an allegory for deeper things
3. how the story illustrates moral or ethical principles, again by analogy.
Christians have always understood that the contents of the bible itself are only level 1, and that additional inspiration is needed to get 2 or 3. So I think there are tons of things at levels 2 and 3 you can read into this passage – I picked it because lots of things have been said. The comments have added more than I wasn’t aware of. The meaning around perseverance you want to bring out with your kids is another.
It’s a fascinating process.
The only thing that you can’t do with 2&3 is say what the passage ‘really means’, and losing the fact that there is one correct meaning is difficult for some Christians who have been taught that somebody (the pastor, or maybe the youth leader, maybe
) is always right. Depending on the ages of your group, it might be cool to do a session on that: get them to suggest a meaning, and talk about the way that, ultimately, only they can understand what it means to them, as they seek to do something with it…
Hi
I am from India and belong to the Indian Orthodox Church. Our state language is Malayalam and this passage is read in Malayalam in our Church.
In Malayalam Jesus asks Do you love me more than these and uses the word Sneham meaning love/ agape.
Peter answers “Enikku ninnodu priyam undu’ He uses the word Priyam which means affection/ liking/partiality etc.
We are given to understand that Jesus asked Peter this question privately for 2 reasons
1. To confirm to Peter that he is forgiven for rejecting Jesus thrice. Peter is not rejected by Jesus, but commissioned to feed his lambs, sheep and ewes- our reading says all these 3 groups.
2. To show him that Priyam/ affection is not sufficient to carry out the mission. Only a great self sacrificing love can. Affection would cause one to run away when times are difficult.
Jesus knows everything, including the end awaiting Peter.
Thanks
Susan
Susan,
Thanks so much for commenting, and welcome to the blog. I enjoyed clicking through and reading some of your blog.
Very interesting that the Malayam translations is able to illustrate the change in ‘love’ that the greek has, but the English doesn’t. Thanks for your two interpretations.
I’m not sure I understood your #2 – in what way did Jesus show him that Priyam isn’t sufficient? In the end Jesus drops down to Peter’s verb, doesn’t he?
Sorry it took me so long to respond, for some reason the blog hasn’t been sending me notifications.
Well, Jesus being alpha and omega knew what was ahead for Peter. He descended to Peter’s level to lift him up to His own. Perhaps.
Okay. So you’re basing that on stuff that isn’t in this passage, right? I was asking about your assertion that the passage shows that Priyam isn’t sufficient, where the forms of the verbs seems to suggest the opposite (i.e. Jesus eventually settles on Priyam, which Peter has maintained all along).
I don’t mind your suggestion at all, by the way, no snarkiness is intended. No passage stands alone. I just want to be clear what you are saying about this particular passage.