“Do you love me?”
This statement is one of the hardest statements to get past in Scripture. The implications for Peter, as well as for us, are many and they are hard.
The context is familiar to all of us. When Jesus was enduring trial and crucifixion, Peter was denying Him. Three times Peter denied Him. The text doesn’t say it but I’m sure Jesus heard all three. He knew Peter’s heart as well as his sin. When we arrive at this text in the book of John, Jesus has risen from the dead and is now sitting on the beach with some of the disciples. Among them is Peter. After they finished eating breakfast, Jesus asks Peter three times, “Do you love me?” Peter’s response each time is “yes” with added emphasis on the last time.
Jesus knew Peter’s heart but He asked anyway. Some people have speculated that Jesus was asking the questions for Peter’s sake or that the questions were to reemphasize to Peter his own love for Christ. This could be true but I don’t think that’s the main point. When I read this text I wondered what the original language was. Did Jesus really ask the exact same question three times? According to the Greek text, the answer is no. The first two times Jesus essentially asks the same question. It was just worded differently. The third time however, Jesus changes the question. In the first two questions Jesus uses the word “agape.” This word means to love or cherish. But the last time Jesus uses the word “phileo.” This word still means to love or cherish but it is a more active word. When Jesus asks, “Do you love me” He also was implying “Peter, is your love for me active?”
This question was asked of Peter specifically but it is also the essence of our Christian faith. We don’t just believe in Him, we love Him. This is what sets us apart from the world. Most people in the world believe in Jesus but their love for Him, if it exists, is not active. They live their lives with little regard for Him and His commands.
The fact of the matter is, if we truly love Jesus we will be different. “How can we who have died to sin still live in it?” (Rom 6:2) Paul’s point is Jesus point. We have been changed. Sin cannot reign in our mortal bodies (Rom 6:12) for this reason we are commanded to flee from it. Jesus’ command to Peter was to care for His people and from this was built the Church of God. In our life however the active question of our love for Christ stands ever before us. Do we love Christ? If we do, our actions will mirror Christ’s and our lives will be a living witness to the truth of the gospel. Sin cannot reign in us because it does not reign in our God. A life of sin is no reflection of Him.
Do you love Christ? Then Prove it.
2 comments:
I like this. It is empathetic yet rings true. Thank you for writing this.
Laura,
I like the point of your post. I think it is valid. The verbs used here are all present (or continuous)active verbs. This is talking about on going action. However, your exegesis is not so good.
First, you say that phileo "is a more active word." Do you have any grounds for saying this? In what way is agapao not active? Agapao is used to describe God's inter-trinitarian love (see John 17: 23-24, 26 for example). Is there a sense in which God's love toward himself is not active? I would hope not. Agapao is also used to describe our love toward God in the sense which Jesus is asking Peter for (John 14:24, 28, 15:17). Placing a such a strict meaning universally upon a word is usually a bad idea, unless you have good evidence to prove it.
Also, Peter responds all 3 times with phileo. If that was the response Jesus was looking for, Peter got it right the first time.
Finally, the phrases that accompany Jesus' question of love change each time: "feed my lambs," "shepherd my sheep," and "feed my sheep." You did not see any significant meaning in the change of the language here. Probably rightly so. Authors use different words for style and feel all the time. This is probably the case with the these three phrases and, I believe, the reason why John uses phileo the third time Jesus answers the question. It is a matter of style.
See D. A. Carson's book Exegetical Fallacies (pp.50-53) for a good explanation here.
Post a Comment