From: Bill Barton (phos@prodigy.net)
Date: Sat Jan 06 2001 - 22:12:02 EST
Perhaps it would be well to consider the background of the dialogue in this
passage, in order to elucidate the language. If I may offer an
interpretation of the background:
Peter was fishing when Jesus first called him. At that time Jesus directed
him to an enormous catch, presumably to make the point that Jesus could
give him all the fish he wanted. But Jesus challenged Peter to abandon his
trade and become a fisherman who fished for men.
In the course of his discipleship Peter boasted that he would never leave
Jesus. But later he publicly denied three times that he even knew Jesus.
When Jesus died Peter went home and returned to his fishing.
Peter was fishing when the resurrected Jesus met him again. Once again
Jesus directed him to a large catch of fish, to make the point that Jesus
could give him all the fish he wanted. And now Jesus challenged him to
accept a second chance to abandon his trade and become a fisherman of men.
The first question from Jesus was the same question that was posed in the
beginning: "Do you love me more than these [fish]?"
As Peter had denied him three times, Jesus now prompted him to affirm three
times that he loved Jesus more than his old life of fishing; and that he
would again take up the trade of being a fisherman of men, and feed Jesus'
lambs, prompted by his love of Jesus.
With that background, the question becomes, what does it mean to love
Jesus, and what does it mean to tend his lambs. Did Jesus intend any
semantic difference among agapao, phileo; bosko, poimano; probaton, arnion.
Or was he just varying the language as a matter of style.
It's been shown here that it's hard to prove that a semantic difference is
necessarily implied based strictly on the terms, since the terms overlap in
semantic domain. Likewise it's hard to prove that a semantic difference is
not implied, since the semantic domains are not identical; that is, the
terms can be used with the intent of expressing a different meaning.
Regardless of any semantic subtleties, however, the thrust of Jesus'
exhortation seems clear: Peter was to provide leadership and Peter was not
to quit; on the basis that he was greatly loved, he was forgiven, and he
was to receive the enablement of the Spirit of God in a short time.
Peter accepted the challenge and his leadership began immediately when at
Pentecost he made a speech that prompted a large number of people to repent
and be baptized. Years later Peter was a pillar of leadership according to
the apostle Paul.
Nor is there any indication that Peter ever got discouraged and quit.
Rather the book of Acts notes that at one time he accepted a flogging and
at another time he accepted imprisonment with the expectation of death.
Likewise early tradition notes that he finally accepted martyrdom rather
than deny Jesus.
A few years ago I had the opportunity to visit the north end of the sea of
Galilee. The nearby warm springs still make the fishing at Capernaum good
and the fishing boats still go out to fish. The foundation of the
synagogue in which Jesus taught is still there, with the traditional site
of Peter's house close by.
Bill Barton
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:46 EDT