John 21 - the significance of the OTHER synonyms (per AGAPAO/PHILEO)

Dmitriy Reznik reznik1 at juno.com
Sat Jan 6 12:38:44 EST 2001


Hi Steve:
I think we mustn't forget that original conversation was not in Greek but
in Hebrew or Aramaic. I doubt Jesus could make in those languages that
distinction you point to. For example syraic Peshittah uses same word for
"to love" three times.

Dmitriy Reznik

On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 22:26:52 -0500 "Steve Godfrey" <sgodfrey at irk.ru>
writes:
> My thanks to Carl Conrad for responding to my previous posting on 
> John
> 21:15 and ff., and for pointing me toward previous postings 
> regarding John
> 21, AGAPAO, and PHILEO.  He asked insightfully, "What about the 
> other
> synonyms?"  After browsing through some of the previous postings, 
> and then
> reflecting further on the text, I would like to offer the following 
> in
> reply:
> 
> Many argue that if there is to be a distinction made between AGAPAO 
> and
> PHILEO that one must also hold out for a distinction between the 
> other
> pairs of synomymns: OIDA/GINOSKO, VOSKO/POIMANO, ARNIOV/ PROBATON.  
> There
> is a distinction between these terms that brings the emotional
> significance of this entire exchange into full relief.
> 
> Jesus puts his first question to Peter in the simplest possible 
> terms. 
> Feeding lambs is not difficult.  One need only be able to hold a 
> bottle of
> milk while cradling the little beast.  And yet, to this simple
> requirement, Peter hedges in reply, by using a synonym for 'love' 
> that by
> implication falls short of the full love Jesus has in mind.  The 
> reason
> Peter hedges is that he is ashamed of the way that he denied Christ
> previously.  He considers himself damaged goods, never again to be 
> as
> useful to his master as he was before his great fall.
> 
> Jesus understands, and therefore graciously raises the stakes of 
> what he
> has in mind in the second round.  He repeats the question unchanged,
> insisting on his own term: Peter, do you AGAPAO me?  Again Peter 
> hedges
> with PHILEO, stubbornly refusing to take Jesus on the Jesus' own 
> terms.
> 
> So the third time, to show Peter just how much he is loved, and just 
> how
> valuable he remains to the kingdom of God, Jesus switches to Peter's 
> term
> of preference.  "Okay, Peter, do you PHILEO me?"  Peter was hurt 
> both
> because his second response wasn't considered sufficient, and 
> because
> Jesus had now lowered the standard, and was seeming to question 
> Peter's
> integrity even at this reduced level of love.  So Peter answers, 
> "Lord you
> know all things, you know innately (GINOSKO) that I love you."  
> Peter here
> appends a synonym to OIDA for passionate emotional emphasis.  Jesus 
> then
> grants affirmation and grace in how he phrases his third charge.  He
> switches back from "shepherd" to "feed", while keeping "sheep" 
> instead of
> "lambs".  It is to say, "Peter, what I am asking you to do you can 
> do,
> because you do love me, and because sheperding my sheep involves 
> little
> more than feeding them.  In the most poetic language possible, the 
> author
> (John) has Jesus saying to Peter, "My dear son,  I believe in you."  
>  And
> in so doing, Jesus has affirmed Peter the same number of times that 
> Peter
> had denied Christ.  The grace of Christ is sufficient to cover even 
> our
> most egregious sins.
> 
> Those who doubt must be able to justify their view by reading the 
> passage
> out loud in Greek.  The biblical text is not a lab rat to be cut up 
> and
> analyzed word by word.  It is literature, and literature can only be
> understood when viewed in totality.  One does not understand Van 
> Gogh by
> comparing one brush stroke to another, but rather by taking in the
> glorious combinations of subtle stroking and shading in composition. 
>  In
> John 21, we are given a portrait of the restoring grace of Christ.
> 
> Conclusion
> A distinction between PHILEO and AGAPAO is intended.  However, the
> distinction is not grounded in the innate meanings of the words, 
> which are
> indeed very close synonyms.  The distinction is in how Peter was
> responding to Jesus, with a term other than the one Jesus used in 
> his
> question.  Whatever term Peter might have used in the actual Aramaic 
> is
> not germane: the point is that John, the author, has something 
> important
> to say in Greek.  John wants to say that while we may shirk from the
> perfect love of Jesus, the Lamb of God is nevertheless gracious 
> enough to
> come to us and to restore us beginning at the level of love of which 
> we
> are currently capable.
> 
> Steve Godfrey
> 
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [reznik1 at juno.com]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send a message to 
> subscribe-b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu
> 
> 

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.



More information about the B-Greek mailing list