|
The edition that I will be using is the 1940, non-copyrighted version in PDF format. All page references will refer to the PDF page number as displayed on Adobe Acrobat Reader. The PDF text itself has no page numbers. Pages 1-467 in the PDF is OT Hebrew. Pages 468-1602 is the NT Greek.
************
Vine, W. E. (1940; PDF p. 903).
BROTHER, BRETHREN, BROTHERHOOD, BROTHERLY
ADELPHOS (ἀδελφός) denotes a brother, or near kinsman; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life.
(the word 'sisters' is used of believers, only in 1 Tim. 5:2);
Notes: . . . philadelphos, (phileo, to love, and adelphos), fond of one's brethren, . . . 'loving as brethren,' R.V.; philadelphia, 'brotherly love'.
Vine, W. E. (1940; PDF p. 1089-1091).
LOVE (Noun and Verb)
A. Verbs.
2. phileo (φιλέω, 5368) is to be distinguished from agapao in this, that phileo more nearly represents tender affection. The two words are used for the love of the Father for the Son, John 3:35 (No. 1), and 5:20 (No. 2); for the believer, 14:21 (No. 1) and 16:27 (No. 2); both, of Christ's love for a certain disciple 13:23 (No. 1), and 20:2 (No. 2). Yet the distinction between the two verbs remains, and they are never used indiscriminately in the same passage; if each is used with reference to the same objects, as just mentioned, each word retains its distinctive and essential character.
Phileo is never used in a command to men to 'love' God; it is, however, used as a warning in 1 Cor. 16:22; agapao is used instead, e.g., Matt. 22:37; Luke 10:27; Rom. 8:28; 1 Cor. 8:3; 1 Pet. 1:8; 1 John 4:21. The distinction between the two verbs finds a conspicuous instance in the narrative of John 21:15-17. The context itself indicates that agapao in the first two questions suggests the love that values and esteems (cp. Rev. 12:11). It is an unselfish love, ready to serve. The use of phileo in Peter's answers and the Lord's third question, conveys the thought of cherishing the Object above all else, of manifesting an affection characterized by constancy, from the motive of the highest veneration. See also Trench, Syn., Sec. xii.
My Response
Vine's 'explanation' of John 21:15-17 doesn't really explain anything. You can't make sense of this passage unless you understand it as hierarchical! Consider the situation in which this dialogue took place. Jesus had died and risen. He was together with His disciples, speaking privately with Peter. Peter's response made perfect sense. Peter had been with Jesus for years and had gotten to know Him intimately. So, Peter came to like and love [Phileo] Jesus. But Jesus wasn't content with a Phileo kind of love.
Why? Peter had the chance to get to know Jesus personally. The ate together. They traveled together. They worked together. Jesus had taught Peter many things. Peter had come to know Jesus intimately, in a way that today's Christians simply can't. When Jesus was unhappy with Peter's response, it MAY have been that Peter's response was the result of this very direct, personal relationship that they shared. A type of relationship so many others would never share. It COULD be that Jesus wanted an Agape love from Peter, because He knew that Agape was the kind of love that all the coming generations could share.
Yes, that is a possibility. But, I don't think so. IF that was the case, WHY did Jesus ask Peter the third time if Peter Phileo'd Him? Apparently there is something about the relationship between Phileo and Agape that would lead one to question the underlying existence of Phileo, given that Agape was not present. How might that happen?
IF the relationship between Phileo and Agape is hierarchical or causal, THEN this dialogue makes perfect sense. If Phileo somehow precedes Agape, and maybe is involved in the production of Agape, that would explain this exchange. Basically, Jesus' third question could be understood as: 'If you don't Agape me, then do you really Phileo Me?' This question seems to be operating on the assumption that: IF one had Phileo, THEN Agape would be produced from it.
John 21:15-17 records the conversation that Jesus had with Peter. Peter was one of the major participants in the conversation. John's description in John 21:20 reports that: "Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them." From this verse it SOUNDS like Jesus and Peter were walking together and speaking with one another privately, and that John was following them at something of a distance. If Jesus wanted to 'test' His Apostles, this would seem to be a reasonable way to do it. I wouldn't want to reprove someone publicly, if I could help it. It sounds like Jesus went out of His way to teach Peter a lesson about Love. It would seem likely that Peter would have thought about this conversation for some time. Later, because it was a private conversation, Peter would have to have recounted it for the other Apostles, or at least John, so that John could include it in his Gospel. Then, later, when Peter set himself the task of passing on what he had learned for posterity [2 Peter 1:13-15], Peter crafted his sequence of virtues with Philadelphia/Phileo carefully distinct from Agape, which crowned the entire sequence. As this was one of the last recorded conversations Peter had with Jesus, it would seem reasonable that it would be memorable for Peter. This conversation MAY be part of the reason that 2 Peter 1 is crafted with the order that it has.
It is my contention that Jesus knew Agape to be the more mature kind of love, and that Phileo was involved in creating it. So, when Peter said he didn't have Agape for Jesus, but did have Phileo, Jesus took a step back and challenged Peter. Asking whether Peter actually HAD Phileo for Jesus. If the relationship between Phileo and Agape is as described, this would explain the dialogue fully.
Thus, it would seem that the broad understanding of spiritual development obtained from a study of 2 Peter can help to clarify otherwise troublesome Biblical passages!
|
