October 07, 2009
Respondent
In the courtroom when an attorney doesn’t get the response he wants from a witness he often rephrases the question and asks it again. I see something similar when Jesus questioned Simon Peter. Jesus says, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? Simon, son of John, do you love me? Do you love me?” (John 21:15-17 ESV) We know that Peter answered correctly because three times he said, “Yes Lord…” But interestingly, it wasn’t until Peter answered the third time that he was grieved by the questioning. I believe it was then that Jesus got the response He was looking for.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Gail;
-----many times we have heard preachers explain the difference between the Greek terms for love. We have also heard about the interplay of the different Greek terms Jesus and Peter were using in this conversation. The Kingdom Translation is useful here, because its translators recognized the difficulty Peter had with Jesus’ third question and attempted to make his difficulty obvious. Jesus asked Peter, “...do you love me more than these?” Peter responded, “...you know I have affection for you.” Again Jesus asked, “...do you love me?” Again Peter responded, “...you know I have affection for you.” Then, finally, Jesus asked, “...do you have affection for me.” “Peter became grieved that He said to him, ‘...do you have affection for me?’” (TKT) Jesus was asking if he loved Him, agapao. Peter was answering that he loved Him, phileo. Preachers like say that Jesus gave Peter three opportunities to restate his love for Him since Peter was so distraught about having three times denied knowing Him. And most translations make that impression available. But when the subtleties of the Greek are observed, they show Jesus was simply doing what we do when we have received indirect answers to direct questions - we rephrase the question. Jesus first asked Peter if he had a godly, serving love for Him more than the others. Then He just asked if he had a godly serving love for Him. Finally He directed the question towards the indirect answer Peter used to evade His first questions. The declining level of commitment regarding the love Jesus referenced should have been particularly bothersome to Peter, and maybe that bother was present in Peter’s trouble with Jesus’ asking the third time only if he had affection for Him.
-----Preachers like to present the meaning of His three responses to Peter, “Feed My lambs...Tend My sheep...Feed my sheep...” as Jesus wanting him to disciple new believers, tend the flock of believers, also feeding mature believers. Maybe this nuance is in Jesus’ three expressions; it certainly fits the needs of the church. But I see a deeper nuance in the interplay between these responses, Peter’s evasions, and Jesus’ adjustments to the question. After Peter indicated affection instead of a godly love ascending that of the others, He tells Peter to feed His lambs. Do you think, maybe, the tone of Jesus’ voice could have been the do-it-anyway tone? I do. Again Jesus’ response to Peter’s second evasion of just loving Him with a godly love is for him to tend His flock (maybe anyway). Again after Jesus finally adjusts His question to fit Peter’s answer, He tells him to feed His sheep. I think the message running between these lines is that Jesus accepts Peter’s phileo, even though it should be agapeo more than the others, and regardless, Peter is to care for all His believers.
-----For us, I consider this conversation to be equally important as The Great Commission. Much fanfare is made of The Great Commission’s call for our service to God. But just as much fanfare should be made over His direction to feed and tend His flock, a call for us to serve and care for one another in as much as we can. Peter, Paul, John, and James wrote much about service and obligation to one another. Paul and James were direct about that service being impartial. Since this conversation does not get the same attention from the pulpit The Great Commission does, and since I believe its equal imperative also calls for a title, I call it The Great Omission. The way the church has expressed partisan service to all its fractures, splinters, and denominations, rather than to His flock, underscores how it has evaded Jesus’ desire and has omitted this particular call to serve His whole flock. Yet Jesus accepts it anyway.
Love you all,
Steve Corey
Post a Comment