Are there different kinds of ‘love’ in John 21?
When I first came to studying John's gospel, I was armed with two things: a business to pay attending to the details of the text; and the knowledge of all hostage Christians (thanks to C S Lewis) that there were four words for 'beloved' in Greek (eros, storge, philiaand agape) pointing to the four unlike meanings, 4 dissimilar uses of 'beloved', and four different ways humans are fatigued to others. (If any of that is right, then the slogan 'Honey is love' is, of form, meaningless.)
And then when I came to read John 21 (the gospel lectionary reading for this Sunday) and Jesus' threefold questioning of Peter after the great take hold of of fish (echoing Luke 5) and the evocative breakfast on the embankment, I was immediately alert 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 dearest me — agape love — more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; yous know that I love you — phileo beloved–." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He said to him a second fourth dimension, "Simon, son of John, do yous honey me — agape beloved — ?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; yous know that I dear you — phileo love –." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the tertiary time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me — phileo love –?" Peter was grieved considering he said to him the tertiary time, "Do y'all beloved me? — phileo dearest –" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; y'all know that I love you — phileo love –." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. (John 21.15–17)
And, of course, I was non lonely! Many a preacher also comments on the unlike words used, and this instance is typical:
Why the deviation in words for "honey" in this conversation? Why did Jesus apply agape and Peter use phileo? Jesus was asking Peter if he loved him with the love of God, a love that may require cede. After all, Jesus had just gone through horrendous torture for Peter'southward sake (and ours), something he did not want to do but did anyway because of his agape dear. In contrast, Peter avoided possible torture by denying Jesus.
Jesus twice asked Peter, "Do you afraid me? [That is, are you willing to do things for my sake that you do not desire to do?]" Peter, on the other mitt, yet felt the sting of having denied Jesus, and was hopeful that their friendship was intact. Did Jesus concord Peter's denial against him? Would he still treat Peter as a close associate and companion? Peter was non sure where he stood with Jesus, so he was trying to let Jesus know that he was even so a true friend, and had phileo dear for Jesus.
The 3rd time Jesus spoke to Peter, he came to Peter'south level and asked if Peter were indeed a truthful friend (phileo), which grieved Peter. Nevertheless, 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 bear out his work on earth, which would require that they all be his skillful friends and do his will even when it meant hardship.
This does not just give insight into the episode in the text, simply potentially has implications for life situations and pastoral practise:
My dad has Alzheimer's disease and every solar day my mom goes to visit him at the care facility. She sits with him, she shares a repast with him and she speaks to him. He's not giving dorsum in whatever manner and isn't in a country where he can physically take care of himself. She loves him with both 'agape' and 'phileo' love. She loves him unconditionally, but she besides 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 care of his married woman in the same way and with the same level of devotion. She was in a far worse land than my dad and all the same, he remained steadfast. When I asked him almost his wife, after engaging him in casual conversation, he replied, "I made a pledge, a vow to be there. That'southward not conditional on annihilation. I'one thousand gonna alive that out."
Distinguishing betwixt these kinds of love has existent plausibility, since nosotros tin 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 accept recently bought, and now realise I must soon read!).
But there are several serious issues with this style of reading John 21. The offset is that, if there was a significant divergence between the two terms, why would Jesus make the progression that he does, from the 'higher' form of honey to the 'lower'? Surely he should start asking Peter almost the most undemanding form of love, and then progress to that which volition sustain him through the trials that Jesus says he is to face? And the use of these two synonyms also needs to be put in the context of Jesus' synonyms for 'feed' and 'my sheep'. The order is every bit follows:
| Jesus' question | Peter'south reply | Command | 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 not answer to Jesus' question 'Do youagapao me?' with 'No, Lord, but I exercisephileo y'all'—he responds 'Yes!' And he is grieved in verse 17non because Jesus has changed the verb he uses, but (as John tells u.s.a. quite explicitly) because Jesus asked him 'a third time', a phrase John repeats for emphasis. Is this because Peter naturally feels that he has given an adequate answer already? Or is information technology considering he is now wincing inside 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 equally nosotros wince in hurting every bit someone pulls a splinter or thorn from our hand that has embedded itself in the skin? The act is painful, only without it healing cannot come. (Bultmann is but well-nigh alone in all the commentators in history who does not see the parallel here.)
I was first disabused of my conventionalities in the 'love' difference by reading the commentary of C Chiliad Barrett, and initially found it hard to be persuaded. Even if words are close synonyms, they never exactly overlap, and surely there 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 educational activity. My Father will dear (agapao) them, and we volition come up to them and make our home with them (John 14.23)
No, the Father himself loves (phileo) you because you lot have loved (phileo) me and have believed that I came from God. (John 16.27)
Barrett besides notes that the two verbs appear to exist used interchangeably in the Greek version of the Quondam Testament, the Septuagint (70), citing every bit an example Prov 8.17 'Those who love (phileo) me I love (agapao), and those who seek me will find me', both Greek verbs here translating the same Hebrew verbahv—and this fact is crucial for our understanding of how words are used in the New Attestation, since both its writers and readers will have been reading the LXX.
Vineyard scholarJohn uses the agapeword-group (in various forms) about 37 times (including Jn. 3:xvi, 3:nineteen, three:35, 8:42, 10:17, 11:5, 12:43, 13:1, thirteen:1, 13:23, 13:34, 14:fifteen, 14:21, 14:23, 14:24, fourteen:28, xiv:31, 15:9, 15:12, 15:17, 17:23, 17:24, 17:26, 19:26, 21:7, 21:15, 21:16, 21:20), and this includes the proverb that people loved (agape dear) the darkness rather than lite in Jn. three:19 and that the Pharisees loved (agape love) the approval of men more than the praise of God in Jn. 12:43. On the other hand, John uses phileo (in diverse forms) nigh 13 times (Jn. v:twenty, eleven:three, 11:36, 12:25, fifteen:19, xvi:27, 20:2, 21:15, 21:xvi, 21:17), and this includes the Male parent loving (phileo-beloved) the Son in Jn. 5:twenty, Lazarus, whom Jesus loved (phileo-love) in Jn. 11:thirteen and 11:36, Barrett's example of God's love in John 16.27, and the disciple whom Jesus loved (phileo love) in Jn. xx:2. John's actual uses does not sustain the mutual differentiation between the two terms in his gospel—whatever usage elsewhere might await like. (It is worth noting that C S Lewis' differentiation might well have practical in different contexts—and that his main indicate is non about linguistics, simply virtually theology, and that point stands.)
So is there whatsoever significance to the structure and variation in Jesus' three-fold questioning of Peter? It seems to me that the key indicate here is the restoration of Peter, and information technology is characteristic of John to make connections backwards (known as 'analepsis', 'looking again') and forwards ('prolepsis', 'looking ahead') throughout his gospel; the reference to 'feeding my sheep' takes united states of america back to Jesus' merits to be the expert shepherd in John x—and John has already fabricated a connexion between this education and Peter's betrayal by using the same word (aule) for both the sheep-pen of the good shepherd (John 10.i, 16) and the courtyard of the failed disciple (John xviii.15). The theme of restoration is in fact one that has already occurred, especially if nosotros meet the great catch of fish before in the chapter as a conscious repeat of the episode in Luke v which began the ministry of Peter and the others; here is another new commencement, but one in the light of Jesus' resurrection life.
At the level of John's utilise of language, in that location is farther significance. Mark Stibbe argues against the widely-held view that John 21 is an appendix to the gospel, probably written by someone else at a later appointment, by noticing 16 features of John 21 that are characteristic of the before chapters—including the apply 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 structure in the opening chapter.)
Just what does this meaning for our reading, preaching and pastoral practice? For me, in that location is still a question to exist resolved about the use of these terms in John and the differentiation between the four terms for love in wider Greek usage. But the lesson about linguistic communication is that words are non merely packets that comport meaning, and dictionaries are not magical keys which give u.s.a. unassailable answers to questions. Words observe their pregnant in their context, and dictionaries only sum upwardly the mode that words have been used in the range of unlike contexts that they occur—the direction of motion is from language use to dictionaries, non the other way around! As Burchard protests:
This is what nosotros may call "Strong's Concordance" Greek. Information technology'southward done by lots and lots of people who have learned to look upward the lexical forms of Greek words in their Strong'south Concordance without knowing much of annihilation about Greek grammar, or the ways in which word usage is a primary aspect of determining discussion significant in Biblical literature (only equally it is in our own language and literature). These gaps in agreement oft lead to these kinds of exegetical fallacies that come off sounding deep and insightful to others who are just as uninformed. Additionally, these Greek gymnastics really lead to missing the actual bespeak of a text that is often right in front of our faces in favor of more than "oooh-aaaaah deep and insightful" conclusions that are really not good conclusions at all.
Skillful preaching needs an understanding of languages—and expert preachers need to refer to commentaries, and non rely solely on net resource, helpful though these can be.
(This was starting time published in a slightly revised form in May 2018, the last time John 21 was the lectionary gospel.)
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media, mayhap using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you lot accept valued this post, would you considerdonating £1.xx a calendar month to support the production of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you lot have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Expert comments that appoint with the content of the mail service, and share in respectful fence, can add real value. Seek showtime to understand, then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to larn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/are-there-different-kinds-of-love-in-john-21/
Post a Comment for "Are there different kinds of ‘love’ in John 21?"