John 21:15-17

Twice now John 21:15-17

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

has been brought to my attention, first by Duncan Trussell (yes, he is awkward) and now by Leo XIV. I remember a sermon pointing out that Christ gave Peter the opportunity to affirm his love for Him three times, in order to heal the wounds that his denial to know Him had caused, and I think this is a safe assumption. However, in those two instances the argument revolves around the deviation of the translation from the Greek. Peter always uses φιλῶ for I love, whereas Christ only asks for that the third time, while the first two times he asks ἀγαπᾷς: do you love.

Wiktionary is no help when it comes to explaining the difference between these two verbs for love. However, the latter is the one used in Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. and Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

That Peter doesn't want to apply this verb to Jesus is a simple case of lèse majesté, i.e. he is in no position to help Him in this way, rather Jesus can only help Peter in it. Jesus recognises that and stops pushing Peter on it. Peter, however, seems to take it as an insult, as if Christ had first tried to trap him and is now doubting his introspection. Then of course follows John 21:18 and John's own comment (τὸν Θεόν in 21:19 probably refers for the second time to Christ as Θεὸς, cf. 1:18, and should accordingly be translated as the god in the bombastic sense, i.e. Roger Pomfret Hodgson, the god, just like in 1:18) on it, taking it as if Jesus had said: If you still have doubts about your love for me when you're old, let yourself be martyred for me.

Of course, for this to possibly be a case of lèse majesté, Peter had to regard Christ as man and neighbour and not God. One could say that my previous post details what it means to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, that is honouring what we care for by taking care of it, or in the words of Michael Jackson: Heal the world, make it a better place, for you and for me and the entire human race, and if one agrees with this, then the second commandment can't be separated from the first, but is contained in its substance and Peter essentially says: How can I take care for You when all I can take care of I can only take care of because You took care for me?

Well, that's commentary enough. As for Leo XIV, I wonder whether he considers us all brothers and sisters in the family of the church with Jesus being our catechist and God our father or whether he thinks that somebody else is our father in that family and our catechist. The language of the Catholic Church clearly suggests so, after all. As for myself, I'm trying to find a way and part of that is that others find it too. It's all in the person who honours God living up to it, not in the authority of a teaching. And of course, if only few live up to it, the outcome is dire.