Most of these sermons highlighted that in the Greek text there are different words for 'love' used ('agape' the first two times by Jesus and 'phileo' on the third, and 'phileo' by Peter all three times). All kinds of 'reasons' are put forth and various applications made as to 'levels' or 'types' of love referred to by these two words.
For sure when Scripture uses a particular word we should take note, even if we don't fully understand the 'why'. Since all Scripture is God-breathed, we shouldn't dismiss variations in words used, as irrelevent. However, there is debate amoung the scholars about what the differences mean and how much we can extrapolate from those different words and their use. There is a call to think beyond 'words only' and look at meanings and contexts.
Yet, this 'debate' also got me thinking further on the matter, and a counseling situation recently awakened my heart to a context I hadn't deeply contemplated before. (Cross-cultural counselling has a way of doing that with me!)
One point that was raised in the sermons I listened to (both in my own church and on-line) was how Peter denied Christ three times and then Jesus asked the 'love' question of Peter, also three times. The interpretation that was brought was that Jesus was showing Peter that for as many times as he denied Christ, Jesus was offering him a fresh start, forgiveness and a call to service and restored honour….and the call to service was an encouragement to Peter that true repentance means Jesus still has a job He wants you to do, don't just keep hiding in a corner.
However, on this Ascension Day, let me share with you the further thoughts I had, especially looking through the honour-shame lens.
Peter's Denial and Dishonour
What was Peter's denial of Christ? It wasn't just that he sinned three times as Jesus said he was going to. It wasn't just a signal to Peter of his own weakness in light of his prior boastings! It was more than that.
Peter's sin was that of denial - public denial. It was one of fear - fear for his own life, fear of exposure and fear of being seen/known as associated with the one who was about to be killed. Peter didn't want to be implicated, suffer and be shamed by association. He didn't want to be 'tagged with the same brush' as Jesus was.
Peter's denial was a choice to not be known to be 'with Chist', to be 'one of Christ's', to be 'belonging to Christ', or to be 'of the same beliefs and behaviour as Christ'. Christ was hated because he threatened the popularity and honour position of the Jewish religious leaders who were thoroughly jealous and angry. Peter believed he had at least some level of love for Jesus otherwise he wouldn't have even been in the vacinity of the events - he 'was hanging around', but when it 'came to the crunch' Peter didn't want to be known by anyone (not even a lowly servant girl) that he had any part or support of what Jesus had been arrested for.
To protect himself and his own reputation, Peter was willing to lie in order to deny Christ.
When the cock crowed, (if I was to imagine myself in his shoes momentarily), he would have had a wave of guilt hit him, and a huge sense of failure and shame overcome him as it reminded him he didn't and couldn't live up to his own promises never to deny Jesus (Matthew 26:35 ).
However, by the time Jesus met them on the beach after the resurrection in John 21, Peter had had a few days to think and reflect. For Peter, when the cock crowed, it wouldn't have just been a sin-reminder but a Jesus-revealer. It would have been a recognition that Jesus had predicted this exact situation. It was a reminder of who Jesus is - 'the Christ, the son of the Living God' (Matthew 16:16). He had just traded allegience with the God who knows everything, the all-Powerful, omnipotent, eternal, Creator of the Universe, for protection of his own temporary earthly reputation in the eyes of people around him, even the eyes of a 'mere' servant girl. He wanted to keep his own community honour at the cost of losing the honour of being a Christ-follower.
Here in Africa, if you have shamed yourself and dishonoured others, the one you dishonoured rejects you and shuts you out and excludes you. But it is also expected and 'proper' for you to exclude yourself from them. You have to wait until the one you dishonoured shows some kind of 'acceptance back', before you go near them again.
We Westerners look at Peter as one who renegged on his promise to follow Jesus, and went back to fishing. But maybe, he also felt that 'his place' no longer deserved to be with Jesus. It was dishonour upon dishonour to expect Jesus to even want him back.
Jesus' Challenge to Peter
But when Jesus came to them on the beach, Peter was the first one out of the boat. He was desperate for reconciliation and thrilled that Jesus would want to even associate with him again.
But reconciliation and forgiveness is not just about forgetting what lay behind, pretending it didn't happen and moving on….as it is so often in contexts of mis-placed honour/shame.
Jesus had a challenge for Peter.
Would Peter be willing to consider and follow Jesus' challenge to him?
Would Peter be willing to obey, to honour, to follow Jesus wholeheartedly?
Would Peter be willing to deny himself instead of deny the Messiah?
Would Peter be willing to walk a path of full allegience to Jesus, putting into practice and living out the true meaning and ramifications of his declaration that Jesus was the 'Christ the son of the Living God'?
Although I have read many Commentators who lay little significance with the fact that there might be 3 denials and then a thrice repeated challenge, I have more and more come to see it as not insignificant at all. Just as Peter denied Jesus three times, Jesus had three counter-challenges. His denials were all of the same root issue, and Jesus didn't 'beat around the bush' but just came straight to the point:
'Do you love me?'
The issue for Peter was one of who he loved - truly loved - and loved enough to not deny. It was the issue of the greatest commandment (Matthew 22:38 ), because the greatest commandment encapsulates the whole matter.
- 1. its a commandment - issue of obedience
- 2. its a commandment to love - issue of love
- 3. if you truly love God, you have to quit fearing man and fear God more, trusting that He is truly who He says He is - issue of holy fear and holy faith
Where Peter wanted to previously hide his allegience to Christ, Jesus was challenging him to be willing to have a public full allegience to Christ, and to start with thinking about who was his primary love.
But more than that, Jesus as the perfect counselor, wanted to challenge Peter not just to verbalise who it was he truly loved, but to understand it would mean a tough calling in the realities of life.
Jesus' Call to Peter
No longer was he just called to be a 'fisher of men' but now he was being called to be a 'shepherd of sheep'.
No longer was he just to walk through the world as someone seeking souls for Jesus, Jesus wanted him to be willing to be fully identified and publically known in the risky position of a leader, protector and encourager of those who followed the despised, rejected, disgraced, shamed, guilty, punished, and murdered enemy of the religious and cultural leaders, - Jesus.
Jesus' threefold challenge was a clear itemisation in no uncertain terms, that following wasn't a calling to popularity of being seen as part of the honoured and chosen disciples of the 'Teacher and Healer and Miracle worker", but a call to love Him above all else to the point he was willing to do the very thing he earlier refused to do….totally forgo his own repuation, and care more for Jesus honour than his own. Was he willing to deny his own life, even to the point of death for the sake of following Jesus - a concept he understood in far greater personal reality after Jesus' crucifixion?
I see nuances in Jesus' challenge of asking Peter to examine his heart - 'do you love Me?' - of a challenge to think more deeply about what he meant by his reply of 'you know that I love you'.
Peter Considers the Cost
Jesus' first challenge even incorporates a 'priorities' context to his question of love. This wasn't an abstract 'do you feel loving toward me?'. This wasn't about 'love as a theoretical concept' but love as a personal priority. The first and greatest commandment was about love, and the further commandments (not least the first of the ten in Exodus 20) clarify that 'loving God with all your heart' means not having any other higher or greater priority of love in your life. To serve another 'god', means you are not loving God with all your heart. So Jesus asks Peter, "do you love me more than these?"
Right there on the beach alongside the fish from their fishing trip (which they caught through Jesus' miracle, and was an almost exact repeat of the fishing miracle context in which Peter first left his nets to follow Jesus - Luke 5:1-11), Jesus makes Peter stop and think about whether he loves Jesus more than fish and fishing, and even more than the great number of fish he can catch when Jesus is with him, and thus, even more than the miracles Jesus can do… and by implication maybe, even more than a Jesus that gives Peter popularity by being associated with the miracle working Teacher. This was once again Jesus doing what Jesus did best….getting right to the heart of the matter …. the matters of the heart!
Just how much did Peter want to put Jesus first in His life? What was Peter's real reason for following Jesus? Did he love the benefit and popularity and honour he gained through the miraculous 'works of Jesus' , or was it because Jesus was truly His Lord and His God, as Thomas was prepared to declare? (John 20:28)
I believe Jesus deliberately used the 'agape' word first. And Peter deliberately used the 'phileo' word first (or their equivelent concepts in Aramaic). Maybe Peter in the light of a recognition of his own failure and inadequacy didn't feel like he could promise the 'agape' level of things especially with Jesus' delicate young spiritual lambs. Afterall he had learnt now not to overestimate his own ability to be loyal or responsible with what Jesus wanted of him.
He knew in his heart though, he didn't want to run from Jesus any more.
So he is given an opportunity to answer again, when Jesus repeats the question. But he again can't bring himself to declare 'agape' love.
But this time Jesus tells him to take care of the 'sheep', not specifally the lambs. What we are exactly meant to understand by this is also a matter of theological debate, but if anything, maybe its that Jesus was acknowledging Peter's recognition of his own inadequacy and asking him if he would be willing to consider 'agape' love if the assignment was to the sheep in general rather than the greater responsibility of the 'new' lambs.
(After all the new lambs are spiritually fragile, needing strong steady example, and clear unwavering faith teaching, and Peter knew Jesus' serious warnings about causing children to stumble (Matthew 18:6) so it was no less serious to be responsible for any stumbling of new-baby-Jesus'-followers) In shepherding all the sheep, he had other more mature and experienced sheep around him (as we see with Paul later in giving correction when Peter got a bit doctrinally off-track - Galatians 2:11-21).
Then the third time Jesus asks his question, after Peter is still not willing to match the 'love' word Jesus uses, its as if Jesus says:
"well I know you don't want to run the risk of thinking too highly of yourself and overestimating your abilities and you are now full aware of your own frailties, …..but are you willing to even just 'like me enough' to be willing to risk your neck and your reputation for my sake, and quit hiding and running away, and be publically aligned with my sheep and a public target of the religious leaders by being a leader of my sheep? Are you willing Peter to put your words into action, and not just pledge allegience, but demonstrate it by doing what is going to cost you everything in earthly terms?"
Jesus, knowing Peter's public denials, was willing to send Peter out to publically represent Him and His name, but was Peter willing to accept the challenge to be publically known as a Jesus-follower?
The very shame Peter had wanted to avoid in his denials, was he going to be willing to bear for Jesus' sake in following these new directions?
Peter Discovers a New Honour-Code
This time Peter is willing to align himself with Jesus' challenge, matching Jesus terms.
But Jesus doesn't leave it there….in case we have any doubt that this interaction was about Peter coming to terms with an personal honour-code reversal - no longer for his own honour, reputation and safetly, but for Christ alone - Jesus goes on to tell Peter that he is not going to have an easy life, he is going to have to go where he doesn't want to go and there was no escaping painful death for his choice to love Christ. He is going to have to lose his life (both physical pain and relational shame) for Christ's sake.
Jesus concludes with just two summing up words, now full with much greater meaning for Peter than when he first heard Jesus say them to him, maybe on the same beach 3 years earlier when Jesus called him to be a disciple in Mark 1:17…."Follow Me!"
But we mustn't think that from this point on Peter had it all together, because before the chapter finishes Peter is already asking Jesus about the fate of the other disciple John. Jesus' response reminds Peter, that following Him is not about comparing yourself to others, or how God is dealing with others, its about him following his Lord. Comparing with others only breeds envy and jealosy. It's not about if we are 'less' or 'more' than others according to our own analysis or what others see, our 'following' is about honouring Christ as our No. 1 life's-love and living for what He sees and wants.
Jesus' Call to You and to Me
This real-life story of Peter is like a picture that Jesus paints for us about what it means to follow Him:
- its not about the honour of being popular or being part of a religion that is popular
- its not about the honour of our own ability - which will fail us
- its not about any honour we might think we have through the promises we boastfully make to Jesus
- its not about the shame of the times we have failed
- its not about the honour of trouble free living
- its not about seeing ourselves as favoured and comparing ourselves with others
- its not about what others see
- its not about protecting our own temporary earthly reputation
…it is about humbly keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, being willing to lose our life for His sake, and seeking our honour in Him alone!
I don't want to seem that I am more theologically or linguistically knowlegable than many who have gone before me through the years and given insights into this passage, but as I learn more about the honour-shame context of Scripture, I see, or should I say 'taste' more and more of a flavour of Scripture that I had not previously learnt to recognise, look for, or seek to learn from.
It really does feel like I've had a cataract removed from one eye! Seeing more clearly through two eyes (honour-shame as well as innocence-guilt) presents so much more to learn and thus to share with others…especially those from honour-shame emphasis cultures that are just like the cultures of bible times in the Ancient Near East.
As I disciple those in an HS emphasis culture I am caused to see the inadequacy of my innocence-guilt only lens and how much frustration with lack of spiritual growth around me, is rooted in my own inadequate understanding of biblical contexts and thus an inadequate application in discipleship.
If we are truly going to obey Jesus' command to 'teach all that I have commanded you' so that people in HS cultures can be truly discipled to follow Jesus, we have to get clearer 'two-eyed' vision.
I'm sure there is even more to be learnt from this passage, but hopefully this example of 'digging deeper'' will encourage you in your own walk with Christ, and encourage you to dig deeper too!
No comments:
Post a Comment