Now Jesus takes the third step in His endeavor to bring these runaway disciples back to their responsibility of carrying on the preaching of the gospel after He should leave this earth for heaven. He knew that He had a tired, cold, discouraged, guilty group of men with whom to deal. Great issues were at stake, and He had to feel His way carefully. Instead of broaching the subject of their desertion, and calling them to repentance and a return to their preaching mission at once, He first sees to it that their physical needs are supplied, that they are rested, warmed, and fed. It is the same technique employed by missions engaged in soul-winning among the so-called derelicts of society. It is soap, soup, and then salvation. The man is easier to reach if his physical needs are cared for, and his mind and heart are at rest.
John gives us this in the following words: “Then, when they got out on the land, they see a charcoal fire, and fish laid upon it and bread. Jesus says to them, Bring now some of the fish which you have caught. Simon Peter went up and dragged the net to the land, full of fish, great ones, one hundred fifty-three. And even though there were so many, the net was not torn. Jesus says to them, Come here, have breakfast. No one of the disciples was daring to ask Him, As for you, who are you? knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus comes and takes the bread and gives it to them, and the fish likewise. This already is a third time in which Jesus showed Himself to the disciples, having been raised from the dead.”
The a.v., reports our Lord as saying, “Come and dine.” The Greek word refers to the act of breaking one’s fast in the morning, namely, having breakfast. This is just another illustration of the matter-of-fact language which the Bible writers used, and also of the unnatural polish which the a.v., puts upon the presentation of the inspired penmen.
Jesus now takes the fourth step in bringing the disciples back to Himself and to their preaching mission. He addresses Peter, the key-log in the jam, knowing that if He can dislodge him, the others will follow down-stream. He turns therefore to the ringleader, and deals with him at the camp-fire in the hearing of the other disciples. He says to him, “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me more than these?” Our Lord could have meant either one of the following three things, “Do you love Me more than these disciples?” “Do you love Me more than these disciples love Me?” or, “Do you love Me more than these fish?” The context decides. We have seen that it was Peter’s purpose to break his relations with the Lord Jesus so far as his preaching commission was concerned, and to go back permanently to his fishing business. The Lord Jesus goes at once to the heart of the matter, and asks Peter whether he loves his fishing business better than his Lord. It simmers down to the question as to whether Peter loves fish or Jesus.
The word for “love” John uses to report the question of Jesus is agapaō (ἀγαπαω). This brings us to the problem as to whether the two different Greek words used for “love” in the conversation between Jesus and Peter, are used interchangeably here without any difference in meaning, or whether each has its distinctive meaning each time it is used.
The Lord Jesus uses the word agapaō (ἀγαπαω) the first two times He questions Peter, and phileō (φιλεω), the last time he asks Peter whether he loves Him. Peter uses the word phileō (φιλεω) each time he answers the Lord. The question before us therefore is, as to whether these words are used interchangeably by John in reporting the conversation between Jesus and Peter, or whether each word is used deliberately for a certain purpose in each place.
We understand, of course, that the conversation was held in Aramaic, the mother tongue of Jesus and Peter. It was John’s responsibility to report it in the koine (κοινε) Greek of the first century. God’s word teaches that the Bible writers were verbally inspired. By verbal inspiration we mean that the Holy Spirit guided the writers infallibly in the choice of each word in the Greek text of the original manuscript. As to whether these two Greek words had their exact equivalents in Aramaic or not, or whether the ideas in them were contained in several Aramaic words, is beside the point when we take into consideration the fact that the Greek text of the New Testament was verbally inspired. We therefore will confine ourselves in the following discussion to the Greek text of the New Testament.
It will be well at this point to present a brief sketch of each of these words. The writer is greatly indebted to two articles appearing in the Princeton Theological Review of January and April of 1918. They are entitled, The Terminology of Love in the New Testament, and are written by Benjamin B. Warfield. This writer has done a thorough piece of work in presenting the uses of the Greek words for “love” in classical Greek, in the Septuagint, and in the New Testament.
Agapaō (Ἀγαπαω) is used in its various forms in the New Testament about three hundred and twenty times. It is a love called out of a person’s heart by an awakened sense of value in an object which causes one to prize it. It expresses a love of approbation and esteem. Its impulse comes from the idea of prizing. It is a love that recognizes the worthiness of the object loved. Thus, this love consists of the soul’s sense of the value and preciousness of its object, and its response to its recognized worth in admiring affection.
Phileō (Φιλεω) is used forty-five times in its various forms in the New Testament. This is an unimpassioned love, a friendly love. It is a love called out of one’s heart as a response to the pleasure one takes in a person or object. It is based upon an inner community between the person loving and the person or object loved. That is, both have things in common with one another. The one loving finds a reflection of his own nature in the person or thing loved. It is a love of liking, an affection for some one or something that is the outgoing of one’s heart in delight to that which affords pleasure. The Greeks made much of friendship, and this word was used by them to designate this form of mutual attraction. Whatever in an object that is adapted to give pleasure, tends to call out this affection. The words which best express this kind of love are “fondness, affection, liking.” It shows the inclination which springs out of commerce with a person or is called out by qualities in an object which are agreeable to us. As an outgrowth of its meaning of fondness, it sometimes carries that sentiment over into an outward expression of the same, that of kissing.
In contrasting phileō (φιλεω) and agapaō (ἀγαπαω), we might say that the former is a love of pleasure, the latter a love of preciousness; the former a love of delight, the latter a love of esteem; the former a love called out of the heart by the apprehension of pleasurable qualities in the object loved, the latter a love called out of the heart by the apprehension of valuable qualities in the object loved; the former takes pleasure in, the latter ascribes value to; the former is a love of liking, the latter a love of prizing.
These two words for “love” were taken over into the New Testament by the inspired writers. Agapaō (Ἀγαπαω), a relatively empty word, not much in use by the classical writers, was chosen by the Bible writers as the distinctive word to be used when speaking of God as love, of the love which the Holy Spirit produces in the heart of the yielded believer, and the love with which God loves the world of unsaved humanity. We have seen that it was admirably fitted for use in John 3:16, where God loves each lost sinner with a love called out of His heart by the preciousness of that lost soul. In its context there, an added meaning which the word never had in classical Greek was poured into it, namely, a love which sacrifices itself for the benefit of the object loved, that object being both unlovely and unlovable, and a bitter enemy of the one who loves. Paul chose this word as the one that would adequately denote Christian love, and poured into it in I Corinthians 13:, its various elements. The word phileō (φιλεω) is never used in any of the above connections, showing that the Bible writers made a keen distinction between the words, and used them advisedly. Phileō (Φιλεω) was used for instance, where the Pharisees were fond of being seen praying on the street, and fond of the chief seats at a banquet. It was used of our Lord’s friendship for Lazarus (John 11:3). It was used of God’s fondness for believers who were fond of Jesus (John 16:27). But when it comes to speaking of the divine love which God is, and which He produces in the heart of the yielded believer, phileō (φιλεω) is never used. We gather, therefore, that agapaō (ἀγαπαω) is a love of devotion, while phileō (φιλεω) is a love of emotion. There is another distinction we must be careful to note, and that is that agapaō (ἀγαπαω) is love that has ethical qualities about it, obligations, responsibilities, where phileō (φιλεω) is a non-ethical love, making no ethical demands upon the person loving. As a rule, these distinctions are rigidly adhered to in the use of these words in the New Testament. John, writing somewhere between a.d., 85 to 90, had the usage of these two words before him as he was recording the conversation between Jesus and Peter. There are, however, a few places where they are used, or seem to be used, interchangeably. But this does not invalidate the keen distinction usually observed by the writers in the use of these words. Archbishop Trench in his valuable book Synonyms in the New Testament, has this to say: “It is plain that when we affirm two or more words to be synonyms, that is, alike, but also different, with a resemblance in the main, but also with partial difference, we by no means deny that there may be a hundred passages where it would be quite possible to use the one as the other. All that we affirm is that, granting this, there is a hundred and first, where one would be more appropriate and the other not, or where, at all events one would be more appropriate than the other.” Granted, that agapaō (ἀγαπαω) and phileō (φιλεω), in some places are used interchangeably. But in the conversation between Jesus and Peter, one cannot but be impressed with the fact that John used the words with a studied carefulness and deliberateness. Jesus uses agapaō (ἀγαπαω) twice, then suddenly goes to phileō (φιλεω). Peter uses phileō (φιλεω) throughout. Jesus asks Peter for a love of devotion. Peter offers Him a love of emotion. Had Peter had a love of devotion for his Lord, he would not have deserted Him at this important and strategic time, for such a love would have impelled him to remain true to his Master and to the preaching commission which he was given. Naturally, under the circumstances in which Peter found himself, caught in the act of desertion, Peter could only confess to a love of emotion, a fondness for Jesus as his Teacher, a liking for Him and His fellowship. What Peter offered Jesus here was a non-ethical affection. For a more extended study of the Greek words for “love” see the author’s book, Bypaths in the Greek New Testament.
The question comes as to whether Peter could have exhibited an agapaō (ἀγαπαω) love for the Lord Jesus at this time in view of the fact that this kind of love, a divine love which impels the person to sacrifice himself for the object loved, is only produced in the heart of a saved person in whom the Holy Spirit has established His residence. The answer is found in John 20:22 where Jesus says to the disciples previous to His meeting them at the Sea of Galilee, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” The verb “receive” is in the aorist imperative, which construction in Greek commands instant obedience. The word is lambanō (λαμβανω) which means “to receive” in the sense of personally appropriating the thing to be received. The language and construction of the original here, can only mean that the disciples at that time received the Holy Spirit as an indweller as He is received by a believing sinner in this Age of Grace. Our Lord at one time spoke to the disciples of the Holy Spirit who was with them and would be in them. Here is the fulfillment of that prediction. It is unthinkable that our Lord would demand of a follower of His, something which he was not equipped to do. It does seem that this divine provision at this time was for the very purpose of forestalling such a crisis as developed in the desertion of Peter and his fellow-disciples. But alas, the human element entered in and also the great arch-enemy of man, Satan.
Jesus now takes the fifth step in His attempt to bring this renegade disciple back to his preaching mission. He says, “Simon, son of Jonas, do you have a love for Me called out of your heart by my preciousness to you, a love which impels you to sacrifice yourself for Me? And with this love do you love me more than you love these?” There were the great fish which they had caught, possibly still in the net, showing intermittent signs of life. The question simmered down to this, “Peter, are these fish more precious to you or am I more precious? By your actions you tell me plainly that you regard your fishing business of more value than the preaching mission upon which I sent you.” This seems a terrible indictment of Peter, but when one takes into consideration the fact that the totally depraved nature is still in the saved individual, also that Satan is running around loose, and that tremendous and eternal issues were at stake here, one can understand the possibility of such a thing. This was no ordinary preacher called to preach by God, who leaves his pulpit to go back into business. That has happened over and over again. The only solution to such an action is, that the man loved material things better than his Lord. In the case of Peter it was the love of material things. But even though he was one of the chosen Twelve, yet it was perfectly possible for him to thus desert his Lord, in view of the tremendous factors involved. Again, how else could one understand the question of our Lord? He was attempting to bring Peter back to his preaching mission, and He appealed to his love for his Master as the impelling motive for service.
To this question Peter answered, “Yes, Lord, as for you, you know with positive assurance that I have a fondness for you.” Peter knew very well that he was not exhibiting agapaō (ἀγαπαω) love for the Lord Jesus in his role as a deserter, and he could only assure Him of an affection and a fondness. To this our Lord answers, “Be feeding my lambs.” The verb is in the imperative mode, which mode issues a command to be obeyed. One does not command a person to do something when he is already doing it. It is clear that this command of Jesus was addressed to one who was not at that time obeying it. Peter was not feeding the great Teacher’s lambs. This was a clarion call to go back to his preaching mission which he had deserted. Jesus had failed to elicit a love of devotion from Peter, and thus not having that fulcrum with which to call him hack to his responsibility, commands him to do so. Our Lord’s words here made an indelible impression upon the apostle, for writing many years afterwards, he said, “The elders which are among you I exhort, I, who am your fellow-elder, and a witness to bear testimony of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed; shepherd the flock of God which is among you, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind” (I Pet. 5:1, 2).
Jesus says to Peter a second time, “Simon, son of Jonas, do you have a love for Me called out of your heart by my preciousness to you, a love which impels you to sacrifice yourself for Me?” He says to Him, “Yes, Lord, as for you, you know with positive assurance that I have a fondness for you.” He says to him, “Be tending my sheep.” Jesus says to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonas, do you have a fondness for Me?” Jesus now takes Peter’s word and in effect says, “Peter, I am beginning to believe that you do not even have a fondness for Me, judging from your actions of deserting Me and your preaching mission.” John says that Peter was grieved that our Lord used the word phileō (φιλεω) the third time He asked him whether he loved Him. The point is not that Peter was grieved that the Lord asked him three times whether he loved Him, but that Jesus used the word He did with the implications back of it.
Peter answers, “As for you, you know by experience that I have a fondness for you.” Jesus says to him, “Be feeding my sheep.”
Now comes what seems to be an abrupt change of subject matter in the conversation. Previous to this the matter of Peter’s love for our Lord was discussed. but now in a most abrupt fashion, our Lord predicts the kind of death which Peter will die. He speaks of Peter being carried as an old man to a place where he does not want to go, and that he will at that time stretch forth his hands. John comments on this statement by saying that the Lord Jesus was speaking of Peter’s death which would glorify God. This together with the tradition that Peter was crucified as a Christian martyr, clearly indicates that our Lord was speaking of the martyr death of Peter.
But what is the connection between the foregoing conversation which was limited to Peter’s love for Jesus and his preaching mission, and the announcement of the kind of death Peter would die? Jesus had appealed to Peter for a love of devotion, a love that would impel him to sacrifice himself for Him. All that Peter offered Him at that time was a love of emotion, a fondness or affection that offered no restraint to Peter in his desertion of his Master, and no impelling motive to faithfulness to his commission. Our Lord says in effect, “Peter, I asked you for a love of devotion. You have given Me only a love of emotion. Nevertheless, some day you will have a love of devotion for Me, even such a love that will impel you to die a martyr’s death on a Roman cross for Me.” We submit, that unless we take note of the distinction between the two Greek words for “love” here, there is no logical connection between the previous conversation and the announcement of the death which Peter would die.
Translation (John 21:1–19). After these things Jesus showed Himself again to His disciples at the Sea of Tiberias. And in this manner He showed Himself. There were there Simon Peter, and Thomas, the one commonly called The Twin, and Nathanael, the one from Cana of Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and others of His disciples, two. Simon Peter says to them, I am going off, severing my previous relationship, to engage continually in fishing. They say to him, We also are coming with you to join you in the same. They went out and went on board the boat, and during that night they caught not even one thing. And as it was already becoming morning, Jesus stood on the seashore. Thereupon Jesus says to them, Little children under instruction, you do not have any fish, do you? They answered Him, No. And He said to them, Throw the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find. They threw therefore, and no longer were they strong enough to drag the net because of the great number of fish. Thereupon, that disciple whom Jesus was loving, says to Peter, The Lord it is. Then Simon Peter, having heard that it was the Lord, put his fisherman’s blouse about himself, for he was only partially clad, and threw himself into the sea. And the other disciples came in the little boat, for they were not far from the land, but about three hundred feet, dragging the net of fish. Then, when they had stepped off upon the land, they see a charcoal fire there, and fish lying upon it and bread. Jesus says to them, Bring now some of the fish which you caught. Simon Peter went up and drew the net to the land, full of fish, great ones, one hundred fifty-three. And even though there were so many, yet the net was not torn. Jesus says to them, Come here, have breakfast. No one of the disciples was daring to ask Him, As for you, who are you? knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus comes and takes the bread and gives it to them, and the fish likewise. This already is a third time in which Jesus showed Himself to the disciples after He had been raised from amongst the dead. Then when they had breakfasted, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me more than these, with a love called out of your heart by my preciousness to you, a love which impels you to sacrifice yourself for Me.? He says to Him, Yes, Lord. As for you, you know with absolute assurance that I am fond of you. He says to him, Be feeding my lambs. He says to him again a second time, Simon, son of Jonas, do you have a love for Me called out of your heart by my preciousness to you, a love which impels you to sacrifice yourself for Me? He says to Him, Yes, Lord. As for you, you know with positive assurance that I am fond of you. He says to him, Be tending my sheep. He says to him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, do you have a fondness for Me? Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, Do you have a fondness for Me? And he said to Him, Lord, as for you, all things you know with positive assurance. As for you, you know by experience that I have a fondness for you. Jesus says to him, Be feeding my sheep. Truly, truly. I am saying to you, When you were young, you girded yourself and kept on walking where you were desiring to be walking. But when you become old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you are not willing to be carried. And this He said, indicating by what kind of a death he should glorify God.
From the foregoing study, it is clear that the Christian has two kinds of love for the Lord Jesus, a phileō (φιλεω) love, that is, an affection or fondness which is non-ethical in its nature, in that it makes no demands upon the person loving so far as self-sacrifice is concerned with a view to benefitting the one loved, and an agapaō (ἀγαπαω) love, namely, a love that impels the one loving to sacrifice himself for the benefit of the one loved, this latter kind of love being of the highest ethical nature.
Every Christian is fond of the Lord Jesus, has an affection for Him. This is a natural thing. It is based upon a community of nature and interests. The Christian partakes of the same nature which the Lord Jesus has, the divine nature. Thus, he finds in the Lord Jesus a reflection of what God has put in him in the divine nature, and therefore is fond of Him. But this kind of love will never impel the Christian to serve Him and live a life of obedience and self-denial for Him. It did not do that for Peter. Nor will this kind of love keep a Christian from disobeying the Lord. It did not keep Peter from deserting Him. Phileō (Φιλεω) love is a perfectly proper thing in its place. But it must not be depended upon to furnish the motive power for the living of a Christian life or for service in Jesus’ Name.
It is the other kind of love, the agapaō (ἀγαπαω) kind which produces the incentive for holy living and sacrificial service. Our Lord used that word when appealing to Peter to go back to his preaching commission. Our Lord said, “If a man love Me (agapaō (ἀγαπαω)), he will keep my words” (John 14:23). It is to the degree in which we have this kind of love flooding our souls, that we will live holy lives of self denial in the service of the Lord Jesus. And the secret of the production of this love is in the supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit. And the degree of this operation of the Spirit is dependant upon the yieldedness of the Christian to the ministry of the Spirit. The fruit of the Spirit is love (agapē (ἀγαπη)), Paul tells us (Gal. 5:23). He says again, “The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 5:5). The secret of Christian service that glorifies the Lord Jesus is in the love which the Holy Spirit produces in the heart of the Christian. The quality of that service is measured by the intensity of the love in the heart of that Christian. The intensity of that love is determined by the degree of yieldedness of that person to the Holy Spirit.
Peter, in his first letter (1:22), gives us a beautiful illustration of the possibility of the amalgamation of these two kinds of love in one personality. Writing to Christians, he says: “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth, resulting in an unfeigned brotherly love, out of the heart love one another fervently.”
Phileō (Φιλεω) is used first by Peter, and then agapaō (ἀγαπαω). These Christians to whom the apostle was writing, had a fondness, an affection, for one another. It was one Christian heart responding to another Christian heart. They found the Lord Jesus in the heart of a fellow-Christian, and therefore they were fond of that Christian. This was a non-ethical love. Now, Peter exhorts them to saturate this phileō (φιλεω) love with the Holy Spirit produced agapaō (ἀγαπαω) love, and make that fondness and affection a thing of heaven. It is the amalgamation of the two loves which will result in an ideal Christian experience. Just so, the believer must be careful to see that the phileō (φιλεω) fondness he has for the Lord Jesus, is saturated with the agapaō (ἀγαπαω) love produced by the Holy Spirit, lest a lack of the latter will result in a Christian experience in which the believer exhibits a great fondness for the Lord Jesus, but manifests little love for Him by a life devoid of earnest obedience and service. Here lies the explanation of why some Christians can sing and pray and testify about their love for the Lord Jesus, and yet their lives do not show a rich, ripe, mature experience. These have much phileō (φιλεω) love, little agapaō (ἀγαπαω) and for the reason that they do not live Spirit-controlled lives. The ideal is an amalgamation of the two kinds of love.
Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader, vol. 22 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 119–131.
Shop for Wuest’s Word Studies in the Greek New Testament on Logos
month of November 2023 Logos Bible Software Discount code PARTNERDISCOUNT10 |
Posts
.jpg?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/quality,q_70/resize,m_mfit,w_350,h_350/format,webp)
No comments:
Post a Comment