No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
^ This was on my FB feed. I looked quickly at an interlinear to confirm that indeed the different verbs for "love" was used as claimed.
Yet, something seems off about this.
Exegetical Meme Factcheck
- Thread starter No Other Name
- Start date
- Status
^ This was on my FB feed. I looked quickly at an interlinear to confirm that indeed the different verbs for "love" was used as claimed.
Yet, something seems off about this.
JvMill
Puritan Board Sophomore
It’s possible, but it is also possible that he just used a different word. I’ve heard that the difference between the loves has often been over blown.
In my head I can hear the beginning of C.S. Lewis’ four love radio show
lol
Two things make me think this is overblown:
1. It certainly does not say the word ‘even’ or anything like it as far as I can tell. I’m merely a Greek one student so experts please help me.
2. The text straight up says that Peter was grieved because Jesus asked a third time. It’s possible that the difference in words used adds to the pain but it cannot be right to say “he wasn’t upset because Jesus said it three times.” It certainly corresponds to his three denials.
Also, this conversation likely didn’t happen in Greek in the first place… how do you think that should impact our understanding? Would the original dialect have had those nuances? Is that even something we should think about?
In my head I can hear the beginning of C.S. Lewis’ four love radio show
lolTwo things make me think this is overblown:
1. It certainly does not say the word ‘even’ or anything like it as far as I can tell. I’m merely a Greek one student so experts please help me.
2. The text straight up says that Peter was grieved because Jesus asked a third time. It’s possible that the difference in words used adds to the pain but it cannot be right to say “he wasn’t upset because Jesus said it three times.” It certainly corresponds to his three denials.
Also, this conversation likely didn’t happen in Greek in the first place… how do you think that should impact our understanding? Would the original dialect have had those nuances? Is that even something we should think about?
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
From Gordon Keddie in his commentary:
"The three questions are, as the saying goes, ‘the same but different’. Much has been made of the two Greek words for ‘love’ employed in this passage—ἀγαπάω / agapao and Φιλέω / phileo. Jesus uses ἀγαπάω twice, and Φιλέω the third time. Peter’s answers all use Φιλέω. The conversation would have been in Aramaic, and we can only assume that the Greek accurately reflects the substance of the original exchange. What this difference amounts to is not very clear. The standard view in recent times has been that the former refers to a higher form of love (a Christian love), while the latter is a lower form (a personal affection, even passion). If that is the case, then Jesus’ switch from ἀγαπάω to Φιλέω with his third question has to be explained as a gracious condescension to Peter’s weak response, and while that sounds wonderful, it really only masks Peter’s failure to express a deeper love for Christ and begs the question as to the true state of his commitment. The older commentators are often either silent, treating them in practice as interchangeable (e.g., Calvin and Puritans like Owen and Manton), or, like the later Puritan Matthew Henry, take the view that Φιλέω was the more emphatic form of love. This last view is now regarded as philologically untenable, but it had the virtue of preserving the obvious thrust of the passage, which is to demonstrate with some force that Peter’s love for Christ was faithful and full.
Most recently, commentators have been warning against overinterpretation of these verbs and have pointed out that they are sometimes used interchangeably (3:35; 5:20; 11:5, 36) and that ἀγαπάω is used in one instance of a distinctly unchristian ‘love’ (2 Tim. 4:10). If we do grant that ἀγαπάω and Φιλέω are practically interchangeable, while still referring to different objects in other contexts, we can acknowledge that Jesus’ conforming to Peter’s language signifies something of both the rising intensity of Peter’s expression of devotion and Christ’s acceptance of this as the ground of his public reinstatement. It is the unfolding of the context that demands this, whatever the precise weight of the words themselves may or may not be.
The differences between Jesus’ three questions, then, are not so much attributable to the verbs employed, but the mounting insistence evident in the delivery of the questions. The first question, ‘Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me more than these?’ inevitably reminded Peter of the foolish boast that implied that he was the most devoted disciple of all (Matt. 26:33). Here was what Manton calls ‘the core of his [Peter’s] distemper’. Jesus is asking, ‘Is thy love surpassing the love of all my disciples?’ Jesus was not interested in Peter or the others rating their love for him on a scale of 1 to 10. His intention was to bring Peter to a humbled testimony of his love so that he should never again fall into the snare of comparing himself to others in a self-aggrandizing way. The second and third questions, by the fact that they were repetitious, searched ever more deeply into his soul and forced him to face more fully the implications of his three denials, and so to come to express more certainly his love for Christ. ‘It is some conviction to a liar to make him repeat his tale,’ observes Manton. ‘A deceitful heart will be apt to reply, that he is not worthy to live that doth not love Christ; but urge it again and again, Do I indeed love Christ? Yea, leave not till you can appeal to God himself for the sincerity of your love: Lord thou knowest all things, and thou knowest that I love thee.’"
"The three questions are, as the saying goes, ‘the same but different’. Much has been made of the two Greek words for ‘love’ employed in this passage—ἀγαπάω / agapao and Φιλέω / phileo. Jesus uses ἀγαπάω twice, and Φιλέω the third time. Peter’s answers all use Φιλέω. The conversation would have been in Aramaic, and we can only assume that the Greek accurately reflects the substance of the original exchange. What this difference amounts to is not very clear. The standard view in recent times has been that the former refers to a higher form of love (a Christian love), while the latter is a lower form (a personal affection, even passion). If that is the case, then Jesus’ switch from ἀγαπάω to Φιλέω with his third question has to be explained as a gracious condescension to Peter’s weak response, and while that sounds wonderful, it really only masks Peter’s failure to express a deeper love for Christ and begs the question as to the true state of his commitment. The older commentators are often either silent, treating them in practice as interchangeable (e.g., Calvin and Puritans like Owen and Manton), or, like the later Puritan Matthew Henry, take the view that Φιλέω was the more emphatic form of love. This last view is now regarded as philologically untenable, but it had the virtue of preserving the obvious thrust of the passage, which is to demonstrate with some force that Peter’s love for Christ was faithful and full.
Most recently, commentators have been warning against overinterpretation of these verbs and have pointed out that they are sometimes used interchangeably (3:35; 5:20; 11:5, 36) and that ἀγαπάω is used in one instance of a distinctly unchristian ‘love’ (2 Tim. 4:10). If we do grant that ἀγαπάω and Φιλέω are practically interchangeable, while still referring to different objects in other contexts, we can acknowledge that Jesus’ conforming to Peter’s language signifies something of both the rising intensity of Peter’s expression of devotion and Christ’s acceptance of this as the ground of his public reinstatement. It is the unfolding of the context that demands this, whatever the precise weight of the words themselves may or may not be.
The differences between Jesus’ three questions, then, are not so much attributable to the verbs employed, but the mounting insistence evident in the delivery of the questions. The first question, ‘Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me more than these?’ inevitably reminded Peter of the foolish boast that implied that he was the most devoted disciple of all (Matt. 26:33). Here was what Manton calls ‘the core of his [Peter’s] distemper’. Jesus is asking, ‘Is thy love surpassing the love of all my disciples?’ Jesus was not interested in Peter or the others rating their love for him on a scale of 1 to 10. His intention was to bring Peter to a humbled testimony of his love so that he should never again fall into the snare of comparing himself to others in a self-aggrandizing way. The second and third questions, by the fact that they were repetitious, searched ever more deeply into his soul and forced him to face more fully the implications of his three denials, and so to come to express more certainly his love for Christ. ‘It is some conviction to a liar to make him repeat his tale,’ observes Manton. ‘A deceitful heart will be apt to reply, that he is not worthy to live that doth not love Christ; but urge it again and again, Do I indeed love Christ? Yea, leave not till you can appeal to God himself for the sincerity of your love: Lord thou knowest all things, and thou knowest that I love thee.’"
We can't assume what is not in evidence, namely what words in another language Jesus might have used. We are shut up to the Greek text, which must be regarded as a reliable account of the exchange.
The switch in terms shouldn't be understood as Jesus coming to doubt Peter's commitment. Rather, it shows Jesus in the third instance choosing Peter's own term, accepting and restoring him though Peter should doubt himself. Truly, the "third time" is meant to connect to the three denials Peter made, and Peter's sorrow proves he made that connection himself.
The switch in terms shouldn't be understood as Jesus coming to doubt Peter's commitment. Rather, it shows Jesus in the third instance choosing Peter's own term, accepting and restoring him though Peter should doubt himself. Truly, the "third time" is meant to connect to the three denials Peter made, and Peter's sorrow proves he made that connection himself.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
By the way, do you know that we got the word dynamite from dunamis (power)?
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Agreed 100% as does my friend.
My friend is not claiming Jesus doubts Peter's commitment. He agrees Christ knows fully Peter's heart - even more than Peter does himself.
The claim is that the text can be exegeted that during the first two interchanges, Peter used "philo" hesitatingly - that he felt less sure of his own self while Jesus was initially asking "Do you agape me?"
Then when Jesus asks the third time: "Do you phileo me?" it is interpreted by my well-intentioned friend that Jesus is asking "do you EVEN phileo me as you say the first two times?" and Peter noticing Jesus switches from "agape" to "phileo" is grieved because Peter now thinks Jesus is doubting him altogether: "Lord, you know all things ..."
So that when Jesus finally says "Feed my sheep" it is only after Peter noticed the verb change in addition to the fact Jesus knew Peter needed three times in order to see that Jesus is restoring Peter and validating his faith despite his failures.
The underlying assumption is that agape > phileo in terms of strength of conviction and responsibility of what it means for one to "agape" another vs. one who "phileo" another. So that there is a subtle meaning in this text that is held out for those who have understanding.
My thinking is that focusing on the different verbs is unnecessary as Jesus also used different answers each time. "Feed my lambs" to "Shepherd my sheep" and finally "Feed my sheep".
It seems no more noteworthy to notice similar verbs practically identical in meaning than it is to notice the different phrases of denial by Peter on that night that are likewise similar phrases yet practically identical in meaning. (although now that I think of it Peter's three denials reflected almost perfectly the same vocabulary as the individual inquisitors unlike here in this scene with Jesus).
And I agree that we are not to assume Peter's grief stems from the Lord's "reduced" term--it's a different term, with a different shade; not quite the ranked relationship between the two terms that some posit, yet Peter's prior use of it may hint at his own chastened ambition. Peter's not bummed out because it appears Jesus may now hesitate to credit him with unstinting devotion, or that other disciples will suppose Jesus' estimate of him could fall even further than that. It is Peter's restoration, after all, not his denigration.
Peter had made his repudiation of the Lord Jesus into a most noteworthy spectacle. Anyone who doubted of Peter's love for Jesus had already ample justification, provided by Peter's own mouth. By Jesus asking of Peter's love even once, that public doubt was having a spotlight put on it. By repeating the inquiry again, and a third time--the glare of that relentless spotlight truly put Peter's monstrous denial on display (but ultimately for a kindly, not cruel intent).
Anyone of us would be pleading for the shame-inducing moment to pass as briefly as possible into oblivion and forgetfulness of onlookers. A quick affirmation of the Lord's forgiveness and settlement of the issue, the spotlight fades or moves on. But it is necessary for the emphasis to continue, for the surgery to be complete, for the wound to be fully healed--just as publicly and spectacularly. I suppose Peter's greatest sorrow flows from the realization that Jesus must ask him a third time, for only then can his ordeal pass.
As painful for Peter as his restoration was, the pain of Peter's three denials (which the One who knows all things knew, and prophesied) was experienced in full measure by Christ--worse pain for how undeserved it was, and how cruel was Peter's whip. In Jesus' third proposition to Peter, he does not lower the bar so to speak, as if to say: "Humph... could you even get this high? Doubt yourself a bit more." He simply adopts Peter's own language for the last trial.
- Status
