If you had done something wrong and the court was offering you a choice between going to the Adirondack Correctional Facility and a facility called “Moriah Shock”, just based on the names, which would you choose? Which of those spells “love”?
Let’s look at a couple textual components from today’s Gospel Reading – John 21:15-19.
First, Jesus addresses Peter in a formal way – Simon, son of John. In the Greek, the word “son” is implied; it is not explicitly in the text. The reason we translate that verse in John 21:15 (and 16 and 17) with the phrase “Simon, son of John” is because the noun “John” is in the genitive case. The literal translation would be:
Simon, of John …
There is only one other time in the Christian Testament when this phrase is used, and that is in John 1:42 – The very first time Jesus encounters Peter, he addresses him in this formal way: Ʃίμων ό υίόϛ ̛ Іωάννου (“Simon, son of John”). In that instance, the word “son” – υίόϛ – is there. So, in their first encounter, and their last encounter, Jesus addresses Peter with a kind of uncharacteristic formality. There are several scholarly opinions about what is going here.
One opinion is that Jesus fails to address him in the story in John 21 with the more familiar “Simon Peter” or “Simon” because Peter has fallen out of favor with Christ. As a result of his denials of Jesus, states this opinion, Jesus is, in a sense, denying that he knows Peter – at least as a friend. It’s as if the relationship has been reset to “Zero”, and Peter has to win the trust of Jesus all over again.
Another opinion, related to the first, but less harsh – is that Jesus chooses the more formal greeting as a way of acknowledging the friendship has been bruised.
How do you greet a good friend who has let you down? In that first encounter following the hurtful incident, when maybe your eyes just can’t meet, but your heart wants so much to reach out, to forgive or be forgiven, to have the assurance that there is hope for the relationship … What’s the first thing you say, or do? Maybe Jesus’ formal greeting of Peter is along the lines of stepping back just a little from the more intimate salutation as a way of acknowledging some pain, but also suggesting hope that the breech can be mended.
I want to suggest a third possibility. Can it be that in the formal greeting Jesus uses he is not so much putting distance between himself and Peter as he is using formality both as an expression of respectful endearment and the first line in what is actually Peter’s formal commissioning?
When my wife, Jan, and I were dating I had a nickname I would call her. It was my best attempt at the time to let her know that I loved her, though from the perspective of 36 years of marriage, that nickname seems now to be more about a kind of “puppy love” than an authentic expression of affection.
But now, I am much more apt to call her not by a nickname, nor by her first name alone. I find myself more and more referring to her as “Jan Marie” – her first and middle name. When I was a child and my mother called out my first and middle name, it usually meant I was in trouble. But I find I use the more formal name for my wife as an attempt to communicate a deeper love for her, a respect that is both formal and intimate – my desire to express that I don’t take her for granted and want to honor her as a person, complete in and of herself – all the while telling her how much I love her.
And I wonder if Jesus isn’t doing the same thing with Peter? “Peter” is a name Jesus gave to Simon, and we know that the changing of a name in the Scripture indicates a mission or some new identity. But maybe in calling him Simon, son of John, just maybe Jesus was calling out to him from a deeper place – a place that acknowledges Simon’s value and dignity, even before Jesus comes along. Jesus was going to ask Peter a profound question. Jesus wanted not only to confer upon Peter a high honor, but also to elicit from him a lasting commitment. Maybe he wants Peter to respond from the very deepest parts of his being. Maybe it’s as if Jesus is saying:
Peter, don’t say you love me because you think you have to. Don’t follow me out of fear. If you are going to love me, do it from some authentic place, from the very beginnings of who you are – from the very roots of your life!
A second textual component I want us to consider is the question three-times asked by Jesus to Simon of John: Do you love me?
In the text, the first two times Jesus asks the question the Greek text uses the word άγαπας – agape. Peter responds in the affirmative, but not with the same word. The word in the Greek is ϕιλω – philo. Scholars tell us agape refers to an unconditional love, whereas philo – or phileo has more of a brotherly/sisterly connotation to it. Much has been made of the difference between what Jesus asks and how Simon responds. Finally, the third time, when Jesus asks if Simon loves him, the text uses the word ϕιλω. In other words, Jesus asks for what Simon is willing to give.
Of course, in reading the English, one would have no way of knowing this textual idiosyncrasy. But there is an interesting twist to this. It is generally agreed that the spoken language in Palestine in the First Century was Aramaic. The consensus is that the Christian Testament, for the most part, was first written in Greek – a Coine, or common Greek. In Aramaic and in Hebrew, there is basically one word for “love”. In Greek there are several. For most of the past 2000 years Bible Scholars have believed the distinction in this passage of John between the agape of Jesus and the philo of Simon are inconsequential. In the 19th Century some British scholars began to suggest some deeper implications for these textual idiosyncrasies. Most scholars today dismiss the attempts at distinguishing the subtleties between these words as irrelevant. This is to point out that our efforts to dig deeper sometimes yield important treasures. However, every now and then, as we continue to dig, we find ourselves back where we started from! That is the case here.
The idea is not to get caught up in the subtleties of the Greek words for “love”. Jesus asks Simon if he loves him. It’s not so much about degrees or different kinds of love as it is simply responding – from a deep place within – either “Yes” or “No”.
Peter’s denials of Jesus are a serious breach in the relationship, but not even a blip on the seismograph of God’s love for this Simon, son of John.
It’s not punishment that rehabilitates us. It’s love. It’s not fear that sets us straight. It’s love. This is not to say we never need to be corrected, though I doubt that “shocking” us is what God has in mind. It’s love – God loving us. That’s what makes all the difference! This world will be set straight when we start loving one another the way God, in Jesus Christ, is loving us.
Textual Notes : From Raymond Brown’s Commentary – Anchor Bible, Volume 29 & 29a. “Simon, [son] of John” – In John :42, the Greek is more specific – this is how Jesus first addresses Peter in John 1:42. Perhaps the more formal address to Peter in this chapter suggests a strain in the relationship that Jesus is trying to mend.
“Do you love me …” The first two times, the Greek is agapos me. The third time it is phileis me. Peter answers all three times with “philo se”. With the exception of Origen, early interpreters of the Scripture saw no substantive distinction between these words. This held true through the Reformation. 19th Century British scholars (Trench, Westcott, Plummer) discussed subtle shades of distinct meaning, but modern scholarship has once again returned to the notion that no such distinction is intended. The reason: in Aramaic and Hebrew there is only one word to express various types of love. Distinctions would have to have been made in the subsequent translation to Greek.
“…more than these?” We aren’t quite sure who the “these” are. More than Peter loves fishing and his boats? More than he loves the other disciples? More than the other disciples love Jesus? The question is all the more interesting given the fact that in the Gospel of John, Peter is not the “beloved disciple”. That status is reserved for John.
“..Peter was hurt…” Some ascribe Peter’s “hurt” to the fact that his denials had given Jesus cause to doubt him.
Leave a Reply