Justifying our interpretations of John 21

Steve Godfrey sgodfrey at irk.ru
Wed Jan 17 00:08:29 EST 2001


Dear Carl and list,

I greatly appreciate the help you, Steven, and others have given me in
thinking through John 21.  I needed some time to percolate, and life always
intervenes, so my response is probably coming well after everyone else has
considered the horse dead and beaten.  However, I thought it best to clarify
my own thinking, and then offer this for considered review:

I think we've reached general consensus on the following points:

1)  the synonymns, particularly AGAPAO / FILEO, are present for more than
stylistic variation

2)  the general usage of AGAPAO and FILEO in the NT provide no justification
for reading AGAPAO as a higher love and FILEO as a lower love.  This is to
commit a root fallacy, and with FILEO, to commit a semantic anachronism (by
letting "Philadelphia", the city of brotherly love, guide the discussion).

3)  Context must be the primary factor in determining how we understand the
differences intended in this passage.


You suggested that reading FILEO as the stronger term provides a more
satisfactory reading.  Your justifications were that this provides "a
positive climax of warm mutual acceptance," and that this reading fits well
with Raymond Brown's suggestion of the NT as a working out of mutual
understanding between the Petrine and Johannine communities.  I don't yet
find these justifications persuasive.  First, the reading I offered seems to
provide an even more satisfactory climax than yours does (grace resolving
shame).  Second, while I greatly respect Raymond Brown's scholarship, I
don't see how this bears on taking FILEO as stronger than AGAPE.  You might
appropriately ask at this point, "What then are the real justifications for
your interpretation?"  I particularly at this point appreciate Steven De
Vullo's sentiments.  It is indeed important not to read our preconceptions
and agendas into the passage.  Here then are my justifications for taking
AGAPAO as the stronger term:

a)  the semantic domain of AGAPAO centers around the idea of love based on
unconditional high regard, while that of FILEO centers on love based on
association (per Louw&Nida).  (I base this not on my inherent regard for
Louw&Nida, but rather on a review of the NT occurences of AGAPAO and FILEO,
which in my view justifies their treatment.)

b)  I disagree, nevertheless, with Louw&Nida's argument that no difference
of meaning between these synonyms is intended in John 21, based on your
summary of John's style ("simplicity masking massive depth"), as well as the
function of John 21 (as an epilogue), as well as Peter's urging in his first
epistle to "shepherd the flock of God" (1 Pet. 5:2).  Regarding this last
point, these are the words of a man deeply committed to personal holiness
and ministry inspired by shame resolved by grace.

c)  It is probable that Peter was experiencing significant shame at the
beginning of John 21.  He had betrayed Christ 3 times in front of a little
girl.  His friend John was there to see the whole thing.  I believe this to
be the implication John intends when he has Peter say in 21:3, "I'm going
out to fish."  Peter is going back to what he knew before, because he is
confused about what he has come to know subsequently.

d)  If shame is the operative dynamic, then it makes more sense to treat
AGAPAO as the stronger term.  When Jesus moves from AGAPAO to FILEO, it
seems most probable he is providing for the resolution of Peter's shame.

Steven De Vullo voiced concern earlier that the implication of this
interpretation would be to inflict on congregations ministers with defective
love commitments, and therefore it can't be the correct interpretation.
First of all, I am hesitant to revise an interpretation, if it is
appropriately justified by inductive reasoning, merely because the
implication might be uncomfortable.  Uncomfortable implications are often
the most helpful ones.  Second, I don't think in any case that Steven's
concern follows.  The reading I'm suggesting in no way lowers the standard
of love required for ministers.  Rather, it compels ministers to the
standard of love embodied in Jesus' gracious seeking out of Peter after a
profound personal failure on Peter's part.

With appreciation,

Steve Godfrey
Irkutsk, Siberia (via Milwaukee, WI)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/20010117/c00cd64a/attachment.html 


More information about the B-Greek mailing list