"Lovest Thou Me?

"
A Study of John 11:15-17.
By EDWARD A. McDoWELL, JR.
INSTRUCTOR IN NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

The conversations of Jesus and Simon Peter are all in-

teresting but none holds greater interest than the last re-
corded conversation between the Master and his chief
Apostle. Only the Fourth Gospel preserves this interview, a
fact in itself to arouse attention. But that which has always
created the liveliest interest in this conversation is the pres-
ence in the text of two distinct Greek words, each of which
is translated "love."
After all that has been said and written, the question of
a distinction in the use of the two verbs in this passage is
still the subject of debate. B. B. Warfield states that he is
unable to see how there could be any doubt concerning a
real distinction in the use of the verbs in these verses, but
remarks, "The list of those who have expressed such doubt,
however, is neither short nor undistinguished, running as it
does from Grotius to Gildersleeve."! In an article in the
Bibliotheca Sacra of July, 1889, Dr. Wm. C. Ballantine re-
marked that since a previous article by him on this passage
had evidently escaped the notice of scholars, and since
"learned authors have gone on repeating in standard works
the errors which the investigation exposed, it seems proper
to present the facts again in greater detail in these pages.">
Dr. Ballantine concludes his article: "The conversation, as
it stood unannotated in the old version, seemed so natural,
so explicable, so complete, that plain readers will be reluc-
tant to believe that it turned largely on the balancing of
two Greek synonyms so delicately differentiated that the
language of Tennyson and George Eliot and Robert Brown-
ing cannot reproduce them. It is a relief to find that Grotius
1 Princeton Theological Review, Vol XVI, p. 195.
2 Vol. XLVI, p. 524.
 "Louest Thou Me?" 423

was right and that science is on the side of simplicity: for

this 'subtlety' and 'delicate play' of logomachy are 'alto-
gether a profanation of that deep, abstracted, holy scene'."!
These remarks were made forty-six years ago by a schol-
ar who apparently thought he had settled the question. But
much has been said, good and bad, since the author of that
article undertook to say the last word on so live a subject.
In justice to Dr. Ballantine it must be remarked that much
progress has been made in the science of language since he
wrote. Particularly is this true of New Testament Greek,
upon which in recent years a flood of new light has been
shed, not only by the papyri and the inscriptions, but by
the new methods of grammar and exegesis.
Well aware of the numerous and varying opinions of dis-
tinguished scholars, but with an unbiased and open mind,
seeking to arrive at the truth, we attack the problem of this
passage. John relates in these verses how Jesus, after break-
fast with the seven disciples on the shore of Galilee, asked
Simon Peter three times if he "loved" him. Thrice Peter
declared his love for Jesus, and at each declaration Jesus
delivered a charge to him. But while Jesus uses clyu1T&w in
the first two questions addressed to Peter, the third time
he asks </nAlis P.(.j Peter, in replying to the questions of Jesus,
always uses </nAiw. John comments that "Peter was grieved"
because the third time Jesus inquired </>l.A('.. P.(.; The prob-
lem is whether or not a distinction was made in the use of
two verbs, and if so, what the distinction is, and what its
significations are.
Before the problem is attacked directly, attention must
be called to some errors commentators have fallen into in
interpreting this passage.
One of the most serious of these has been a wrong con-
ception the commentators have had concerning the inherent
qualities of the verbs d.YU1T&W and rPlAiw. It has been common
to speak of the former as the "higher" or "nobler" word and
the latter as the "lower" term. Westcott remarks, "He
3 Vol. XLVI, p. 542.
424 "Lovest Thou Me?"

(Peter) does not venture to say that he has attained to that

higher love (dYI111"c1V) which was to be the spring of the
Christian life."4 Plummer says, "Peter's preference for ep,}..w
is (doubly) intelligible: it is the less exalted word; he is
sure of the natural affection which it expresses; he will say
nothing about the higher love implied in &"Y(111"w."5 Vincent
has this to say: "Jesus uses the more dignified, really the
more noble, but as it seems to Peter, in the ardor of his af-
fection, the colder word for love."6 Woosley thinks it was
Peter's humility and feeling of unworthiness which led him
to choose eptA£W. 7
These statements contain elements of truth, but they are
wrong in emphasizing the "nobler" or "higher" aspects of
&yall"&w, and the "lower" aspects of eptA£W. The best answer
to this view concerning the two terms is the use Jesus him-
self made of .ptA£W. In the passage under consideration the
-Lord employs .ptA£W in the final question he puts to Peter, as
he seeks to draw from his disciple the last great declaration
of undying devotion. Again, Jesus uses .ptA£W in 'speaking
of the love of the Father for himself (John 5:20). Can it
be said that Jesus, in these instances, was speaking of love
that was not high and holy? The difference in these verbs
is not that between "high" and "low," but in the ideas they
inherently convey. In itself neither word is inherently
good, nor inherently bad. The function of neither is to
express either elevation or declension in the moral scale,
but simply to tell something men think or feel, and that
may be good or bad. This notion of one word's being "high"
and the other "low" has done much to becloud the question
and has led many commentators astray.
At this point it is well to inquire briefly into the classical
usage of the verbs, and examine a few examples of their
use in the papyri. This will doubtless reinforce the conten-
• The Gospel According to John, II, on v; 15.
5 St. John, in the Cambridge Series, on v. 15.
6 Word Studies in the New Testament, II, p. 300.
7 Andover Review, Aug. 1885, Vol. IV, p. 182.
 "Lovest Thou Me?" 425

tion that the verbs are not to be distinguished as "high"

and "low."
The use of d:ya.'lrQ.w to convey the meaning "to regard," "to
esteem," or "to prize" is found frequently in the works of
the classic writers. Isocrates describes certain ones who
had gained freedom as no longer esteeming or prizing free-
dom-'T~v £Acv8£pta.v dya1l"av (69d). In Phaedo (1. 110) Plato
speaks of precious stones as dya1l"wp,£va.-"highly prized." Plate
makes Socrates say to Cephalus, Mol tOo~a, l1epoBpa dya1l"av TO.
xp~p,aTa-"You seem to me not to regard riches-excessively."
Plato uses the verb to express choice or preference, as is
seen in the quotation from the Republic (II. 359): "And
this justice being half-way between both these, is preferred
(dya1l"au8aL) , not as good, but as being held in honor." Homer
employs epLA£W to express strong personal affection, as in the
remark of the swineherd, Eumaeus, concerning the long-
absent Odysseus, 1l"£PL yap p,·£epOI.£L Kat K~B£TW 8vp,~-"For he
loved me exceedingly and cared for me at heart" (XIV. 146).
In Plato's Lysis, Socrates says to the boy Lysis, "Doubtless
your father and mother love (epLMi) you very much"
(Sec. 11).
There are several instances in the writings of classic au-
thors in which the verbs appear in the same passage, and
clearly convey different meanings. In Lysis (Sec. 26) Plato
represents Socrates as raising the point as to whether people
who are alike can be friends. He reasons that they can-
not render assistance to one another, and asks, therefore,
how they "can be held in regard" (dya1l"Tl8({Tl) by one another.
"It is not possible," he declares. Now follows the question,
"But how can that which is not held in regard be a friend?
("0 BE p,~ ttya1l"~TO 1l"W, ept.Aov)." This is also answered in the
negative. Socrates continues (Sec. 27) with an elaboration
of his argument: "And he who stands in need of nothing
will not regard (dya1l"ceTl dV) anything?" Again, the reply is
in the negative, Socrates continuing, "But he who does not
feel a regard cannot love? ("0 BE p.~ dya1l"cfTl o~8' &.v ept.Aoi:)." Thus
do the verbs appear side by side in such fashion as to de-
426 "Louest Thou Me?"

mand that a distinction be made in their meanings. Farther

on Plato makes Socrates say: "The poor man is compelled
to be a friend to the rich and the weak to the strong, for the
sake of assistance, and the sick man to the physician, lCat
".aVTa 8i] TOV p.~ E/8oTa o:ya:lriv TOV E/80Ta Kat CPL>"(ZV." This sen-
tence may properly be translated: "And everyone who is
ignorant must regard and love him who has knowledge."
The words come together again, as Socrates is made to say
(Sec. 38): "For if there were nothing to hurt us any more,
we should stand in need of no assistance whatever. And
thus it would become evident on 8Ll, TO KalCOV T&:YOOOV ~ya7rwp.(v IC,"
(CPLAOVP.(V _ that we had regard for and loved the good on ac-
count of evil."
In the papyri CPtA€W is found as expressing warm personal
affection. In a letter of A. D. 110 (Fayium Towns an Their
Papyri, CXVIII, Grenfell, Hunt, Hogarth) we find a typical
salutation of the time: '" AU7ra~olJ 'E7rayaOov Kat Ta~s CPJ.OVVT(S ~p.a.s
7rpas aAt70WV - "Salute Epagathos and those loving us truly."
It is reasonable to suppose that TO~" cpJ.OVIIT(S refers to close
friends or loved ones. In a letter of A.D. 3 (Tebtunis Papyri,
Grenfell, Hunt, Goodspeed, II, No. 408 ) we find Hippolitus
writing to the diocetes Acusilaus urging him to restrain the
generosity of the writer's sons. He addresses him as
'AKOlJU[!..aO/ T~ CPJ.TaT<e-"dearest Acusilaus," and begins his plea
thus: 'E".LuTap.(VOS 7rWS U( TiO(/-'UL K£ CPJ.w-"Since you know
how I regard and love you-." It appears that the person to
whom the letter was addressed was a close friend to the
writer, else the very personal request to restrain the liber-
ality of the absent sons would not have been made. No cer-
tain use of aya7raw in the papyri to convey the idea of person-
al. affection was discovered.
These examples are sufficient to illustrate the distinction
in the words in their use in the classics and in the every-day
writings of the Roman world.
Abbott weakens cpJ.;'w to "like," though he apologizes for
doing so. His position is stated thus: "Take, for example,
the dialogue between our Lord and Peter after the Resur-
 "Louest Thou Me?" 427

rection, in which the former tenderly implies a reproach for

past professions of 'love (dya7l'aJl),' while the latter, penitent
and humilated, does not venture to say any longer that he
'loves' Jesus, but only that he 'likes (cPL)..£iJl) ' him. The Eng-
lish 'like' is too inaccurate to be admitted (even with an
apology) into the rendering of such a passage; and there is
no word in our language that can exactly give the meaning;
but since it implies a humble protest on the part of the
Apostle that he still retains a lower kind of love for his
Master, we may for want of anything better, paraphrase it
as 'I still love'i'" Abbott again makes cPLA,€W "like" in his
comment on Xenophon's Mem. II, 7, 9, 12, in which he
translates the remark of Socrates to Aristarchos concerning
the fourteen nieces, "You will like them," and then renders
the author's conclusion of the matter, "They began to like
him as their protector.';" Nothwithstanding Abbott's "apolo-
gy," it is evident he is thinking of cPLA,€W as nearer "like"
than "love." He makes cPtA,€W the colder of the two words.
Without assuming that d'Ya7l'c1w is "cold," it may be confidently
asserted that what is nearer the truth in regard to cPt)..£w is
that the reverse of Abbott's view is true. cPt)..£w is shot
through with the breath of life and is anything but "cold."
"Like" in no wise approximates its warmth of feeling and
emotion. Would it have been natural for Peter, who had
thrown himself into the sea in his eagerness to reach his
Master this memorable morning in Galilee, shamefacedly to
have answered the soul-searching questions of Jesus with "I
like you?" Never would that answer to the occasion or to
the character of Simon Peter.
Dr. James Moffatt is one of the scholars who regard the
use of the two terms as a simple interchange of terms with-
out significance. In his book, Love in the New Testament,
he states his position thus: "The only satisfactory explana-
tion of such linguistic phenomena is that, whilst d'Ya7l'aJi was
the ordinary term in the Christian vocabulary, its older
synonym cPtA,£LJI could still be employed for the sake of
8 Johannine Vocabulary, p. 1.
9 Ibid., p. 240.
428 "Lovest Thou Me?"

variety, as is plainly the case in xxi. 15-17. The interchange

of the two terms is so natural elsewhere that there is no
reason to imagine any distinction in the two in the dialogue
between Jesus and Peter. Here </nA(LV and a'Y«1Tiiv are syn-
onyms. It is forced and fanciful to infer any fine distinc-
tion between them here or elsewhere in the New Testament,
as though for example <!>,Xlw meant no more than 'be a
friend' to, whereas d.'Ya1Taw denoted the higher love of devo-
tion. Peter is not represented here as claiming modestly
no more than natural affection or personal attachment, for
in Hellenistic Greek the verb <!>tA€W is applied by Paul to the
highest Christian love for the Lord (I Corinthians xvi: 22)
and in Revelation iii: 19 to the divine love for men, and in
the Fourth Gospel itself the usage makes it impossible to
suppose that the writer attached any special nuance to the
one or the other."!" It is evident that Dr. Moffatt is laboring
to answer those commentators who have given meanings to
d.'Ya1Taw and <!>tA€W which do not belong to the words.
Marcus Dods does not think a distinction between the
terms can be maintained.l! The commentators who take
this view all seem to agree with Moffatt that the use of two
verbs here is "no more than a literary variation."12 In an
effort to make out a case for the use generally by John of
cl'Ya1T.1w and <!>tA€W (as well as other synonyms) without re-
gard to distinctions, John A. Cross inadvertently makes a
point against his position in his article in The Epositor (Lon-
don).13 With reference to the boats used by the Apostles
(John 21), he says, "The vessel in which the Apostles were
fishing is first called 1TXOLOV (vv. 3, 6), and then ".AOt&'ptOIl (v.
8). It is remarkable that the same two words are applied
in a similar way to the vessels that are mentioned in the
Sixth Chapter. First the word 1TAOLOV is used four times
(vv. 17, 19, 21), then 1TXOtd.ptOV three times (vv. 22, 23), and
then 1TAOLOIl again (v. 24). There can be no doubt that in
10 p. 46, 47.
1.1Gospel of John, in Expositor's Greek Testament, on v, 15.
12Love in the New Testament, p. 47.
13 April 1893, No. XL, 4th Series, pp. 313, 314.
 "Louesi Thou Me?" 429

both of these chapters the two words are applied to the

same vessels, or that the words themselves are strictly speak-
ing different in meaning. This looks as if the two words
were used simply to avoid monotony, just as we might use
the words" 'ship' and vessel'." It is the reverse of this that
is true, and the use of these two words is but another illus-
tration of the well known accuracy of the author of the
Fourth Gospel. The 1TAOiov, of course, was the large fishing
boat which could not be pulled up on the beach because of
its size, while the 1TAotJ.pWV was the little flat-bottomed boat
that was used to make the remaining distance from the big
boat to the shore. It was towed behind the big boat when
movements were made from one side of the lake to the
other. Often, of course, such little boats were used for go-
ing about the lake independently of a big boat. Hence the
TO. 1TAOLapLa. from Tiberias (John 6: 23, 24). A careful reading
of the passages involved will substantiate clearly this ex-
planation, and obviously refutes the view of Cross and oth-
ers that John often used different words to denote the same
thing, simply for the sake of variety or style.
It is to be noted that John does use the same term with
almost monotonous regularity when it suits his purpose to
do so. In Chapter 14, for instance, between verses 15 and
31, a'Ya1Tc1w occurs nine times and in no place does cPLAEw inter-
vene. In verse 21 of this passage a'Ya.1Taw appears four times
with "monotonous regularity." In 13:34, a short verse of
fifteen words, a'Yu1Taw appears three times, ljJLAtw not at all.
In the account of the blind man to. whom Jesus gave sight
(Chapter 9), or8a. occurs eleven times and 'YLVWUKW not at all.
Ten times it is found in verses 20-31. It is maintained
by some commentators that these two terms are used by
John without discrimination. If that be true, it is quite
unusual that he did not bow to "literary style" here and in-
sert 1'LVWUKw for the sake of "variety." It is strange, too, that
the author of the Fourth Gospel did not appear to feel the
necessity for "variety" with regard to the use of a'Ya.1Taw and
cPL}..tW until he reached the very conclusion of the Gospel.
430 "Louest Thou Me?"

Moulton and Milligan have this to say in reply to those

who believe that John employs synonyms without distinc-
tion being made in their use: "In so severely simple a writer
as John it is extremely hard to reconcile ourselves to a
meaningless use of synonyms, where the point would seem
to lie in the identity of the word employed."14 With this
timely comment, we must turn from this phase of the ar-
gument to meet another objection to the position that in the
passage under discussion a distinction is observed in the use
of the two verbs.
The objection in question is founded upon the hypothesis
that John's Gospel was written originally in Aramaic, or
that Jesus and Peter spoke in Aramaic, which, it is claimed.,
had but one word for "love." Dr. C. F. Burney has written a
scholarly book to prove the thesis that there was an Aramaic
original of the Fourth Gospel (The Aramaic Origin of the
Fourth Gospel, Clarendon Press, 1922). In the introduction
to this book (p. 3), Dr. Burney says, "Thus it was that the
writer (himself) turned seriously to tackle the question of
the original language of the Fourth Gospel; and quickly con-
vincing himself that the theory of an original Aramaic docu-
ment was no chimera, but a fact that was capable of the full-
est verification, set himself to collect and classify the evi-
dence in a form which he trusts may justify the reasonable-
ness of his opinion, not merely to other Aramaic scholars,
but to all New Testament scholars who will take the pains
to follow out his arguments."
In an article in The Expositor (London), R. H. Strachan
has a footnote in which he says, "It is impossible to decide
whether the distinction of o.'YCt7raw and clnX£w was introduced
by the Johannine writer in translating from an Aramaic
source which had only one word, or A is responsible for
the distinction in xxi. The former is the more probable."15
Again, Bernard in his "Additional Note on cjnXf.LV and a'Y0.7rav"
in his Commentary on John's Gospel in the International
Critical Series (II), remarks, "John purports to give a trans-
14 The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, Part 1, p. 2.
15 1914, 8th Series, Vol. 7,
p, 267.
 "Lovest Thou Me?" 431

lation in Greek of Aramaic words spoken by Jesus." In The

Johannine Theology (p. 271), Stevens says, "Moreover, it
must be remembered that this conversation, in all proba-
bility, was held in Aramaic, in which no such distinction as
that between the two Greek verbs could have been marked:'
And this statement comes from Dr. Ballantine: "In that
tender last interview at the sea of Galilee, it is altogether
improbable that Jesus (who afterward addressed the
learned Saul of Tarsus 'in the Hebrew language,' i. e.,
Aramaic) spoke to Peter in Greek. Aramaic was as incap-
able of expressing the supposed distinction as is the Eng-
lish."16
In reply to these views, it is to be remarked:
1. The claim that John's Gospel is from an Aramaic
original is founded upon hypothesis. No Aramaic original,
nor the fragment of an Aramaic original, has been brought
to light. The Aramaisms and the Aramaic tone of John's
Gospel may be very reasonably explained on another
ground, clearly and acceptably set forth by Lightfoot in his
Biblical Essays (p. 128) thus: "John was not a man of the
lowest class socially. He was a native of Bethsaida, and had
connections or friends in high quarters at Jerusalem (xviii.
16). He would be able to understand and speak Greek from
his boyhood, possibly even to write it. But he would think
in Aramaic. Aramaic would mould the form of his thought.
Take the case of a person writing in a language which was
not the common language of his daily life, not his mother-
tongue. What would be the phenomena, which his style
would present? The two parts of a language in which a
person writing in a foreign tongue is apt to be at fault are
the vocabulary and the syntax. As regards vocabulary, we
should not expect great luxuriance of words, a copious com-
mand of synonyms for instance. In the matter of syntax,
we should not look for a mastery of complex and involved
syntax, or of sustained and elaborate periods." The hypo-
thesis of an Aramaic original of John's Gospel is not borne
out by sufficient evidence and must be rejected as a valid
16 The Bibliotheca Sacra, 46, 1889, p. 526.
432 "Louest Thou Me?"

objection to the view that a distinction is maintained in the

use of the verbs a')'aTaw and ¢LA£W in John's Gospel.
2. It is admitted that the conversation between Jesus
and Peter was most likely in Aramaic. It may be admitted,
for the sake of the argument, that there was an Aramaic
original of the Fourth Gospel; but where is there proof for
the claim that the Aramaic had only one word for "love?"
There is in existence practically no Aramaic literature of
the time of Christ. The Aramaic portions of the Old Testa-
ment are few indeed. The fact that these scant passages
and a body of literature of the period several centuries sub-
sequent to the time of Christ contained only one word for
"love" is not proof that there was no other Aramaic word
for "love" in use during the first century.
3. It was not necessary for the Aramaic to have two
words for "love." In the Septuagint a')'all"£tw is used to trans-
late no fewer than nineteen different Hebrew words. The
translations are not all accurate, to be sure, but the Hebrew
words must have been associated in the minds of the trans-
lators with some form of affection, regard or esteem. Now,
if nineteen Hebrew verbs could be construed as meaning, or
as associated with a')'all"aw, is it not reasonable that several
verbs in Aramaic not strictly meaning love, may have been
translated by a')'dll"£tw? Looking at the matter thus, the conten-
tion that the conversation was in Aramaic strengthens the
argument for a distinction in the meaning of the Greek
terms. Let us suppose that Christ asked Peter if he "es-
teemed" him above all else; would he not have used in
Aramaic a word which was not strictly confined to the mean-
ing "to love?" It is reasonable to think so, and there was an
Aramaic verb which meant "to esteem" or "to regard" or
"to account." It is given by Brown, Driver, and Briggs in
their Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament
(under Hashav) as h-shav.
. .
4. Whatever the words used by Jesus may have been,
we should accept in good faith the rendering of these words
by the Apostle John, who heard the conversation. None
 "Lovest Thou Me?" 433

of the Gospel writers was more careful concerning details

than was this writer. Why follow him in so many places
where like points of accuracy are involved, and desert him
here? If we accept his Gospel at all, we should accept the
critical text as we have it.
We conclude, therefore, that neither the hypothesis of an
Aramaic origin of the Fourth Gospel, nor the probability
that Jesus and Peter spoke in Aramaic, is a valid objection
to the view that there is a distinction in the verbs in John
21: 15-17.
One other mistake which has been made in the treat-
ment of this passage must be pointed out. It is the mistake
of studying the verses 15-17 apart from the larger context.
John's Epilogue (Chapter 21: 1-23) is a unity, and it is faulty
exegesis to isolate these verses from the remainder of the
passage. This improper method many commentators have
followed. Misinterpretations have resulted. Perhaps the
worst of these is that which makes the 7rX€OV TO~TWV, "more
than these," of verse 15, refer to the other disciples who
were present. According to this interpretation, Jesus is
made to ask Peter, "Do you love me more than these other
disciples love me?" The list of scholars who have adopted
this interpretation is a long and distinguished one, includ-
ing as it does Plummer, Godet, Meyer, Moulton and Milli-
gan, Woolsey, Warfield, Strachan, Vincent and Wescott.
Bernard and Dods, both proponents of the view that there
is no distinction in the verbs, believe that 7rXEov TOVrWV refers
to "the boats and the nets and the fishing to which Peter
had returned after the Passion and the Resurrection of his
Master."17 These two scholars have taken the larger con-
text into consideration in arriving at this view, and rightly
so, but they have failed to grasp the importance of Peter's
return to the old life and have thereby missed the light
which this fact sheds upon the questions put to Peter by
Jesus and his use of terms. After all, they, like the others,
have shut themselves up to the verses 15-17, for although
they seem to see Jesus pointing toward the boats and nets,
17 John, II, (Bernard), in International Crit. Commentary, p. 705.
434 "Louest Thou Me?"

they fail to grasp the significance of these as symbols of the

crisis that had come about with the return of Peter and the
disciples he took with him to the former occupation and the
old life in Galilee.
Having given due consideration to the errors of approach
to the interpretation of this passage, and the misconceptions
that tend to becloud the entire problem, let us proceed with
our own interpretation. We shall begin with the considera-
tion of what led up to the conversation between Christ and
Peter. And here, we take up again the discussion concern-
ing the meaning of the 7r"Awv Tovn.;v, the "more than these,"
of verse 15. Why did Jesus ask Peter, "Simon, son of John,
lovest thou me more than these?"
The answer is to be found in Peter's announcement to his
fellow-disciples, recorded in the 3rd verse of this chapter.
That announcement was, 'Y 7r o."{w <i"Al£V£lV, "I am on my way to
go on fishing." 'A"Al£v£LV is in the present tense, and therefore
expresses linear or continuous action. The English "I go a
fishing," or as some commentators have it, "I am off to fish"
(Bernard and Dods), does not correctly render the force of
the present tense. Peter meant that he was going back to
his old business and that he was to continue at it. The fact
that Peter carried with him four, and perhaps six, of the
Apostles, all evidently bent upon resuming their old occu-
pation, precipitated what was a crisis indeed.
That the author of the Fourth Gospel himself in later
years realized the turn in events and the gravity of the situ-
ation, is fully indicated: (1) In that an addition to his Gos-
pel was called for as a reminder of and an explanation of
these events for the benefit of the Christians of the early
Church. (2) The way in which the Apostle relates these
events to the "manifestation" of Jesus. The events of this
chapter are chronicled under the statement, "After these
things Jesus manifested himself again to the disciples at the
sea of Tiberias; and he manifested himself on this wise"
(v. 1). Actually Jesus did not manifest himself until after
Peter's announcement, followed by his return with the other
 "Lovest Thou Me?" 435

disciples to the fishing business; the inference is that the

conduct of Peter and the other disciples called for another
"manifestation" of Jesus. (3) The care with which five of
the Apostles who returned to the old life are named and
identified. (4) The painstaking detail with which the nar-
rative of events is given. Distinction is made, for instance,
between the TO 1I"Aoiov, "the boat" (v. 6), and the TO 1I"AOLapLOv,
"the little boat" (v. 8); reference is made to Peter's being
partially clad, his putting on his fisherman's coat before
jumping into the shallow water to go to land (v. 7); the
exact number of fish caught is given (v. 11), etc.
Again, the gravity and importance of these events are
seen in the anxiety over the situation manifested by Jesus;
in the nature of his "manifestation;" in the things he did
and in the words he spoke. These may be briefly stated
as follows:
1. He showed himself to be Jesus-the same person the
disciples had known before his crucifixion. This he wished
the disciples to understand: he was the same Jesus. Hence,
he eats with them, himself handing them the bread and the
fish (vv. 12, 13, 15). This explains John's remark, "And
none of the disciples durst inquire of him, Who art thou?
knowing that it was the Lord" (v. 12). It was important
that these men should know that the Lord-the same Lord
they had been with and served before his death-was still
alive.
2. The Lord manifested himself in his supernatural pow-
er. Hence, the performance of the miracle which filled the
net to the breaking point. (vv. 6, 11). Thus was attested,
after his ignominious death, his claim to be the Son of God.
The Son of God demonstrates in this particular miracle his
superiority over the old life to which these, his professed
followers, had returned; he was able to fill their empty net
with fishes.
3. Jesus manifested himself as the giver of life. Such
was the lesson of the meal of bread and fish, which he him-
self prepared and gave to the disciples (vv. 9, 12, 13).
436 "Lovest Thou Me?"

4. Jesus welcomed his disciples, not only as partakers of

the life he provides, but as helpers in passing this life on.
This is the interpretation we are warranted in making of the
symbolism of vv. 9-12. As a result of the exercise of his
supernatural power, the disciples had been provided with a
great catch of fish, but Jesus invites them to add of their
fish to what food he had already prepared. They are work-
ers together with him.
5. Having demonstrated to these men he had so care-
fully trained for three years that he was the same Jesus
they had known; having shown them that he was the Son
of God; suggesting in symbolic action that he was also the
giver of life and that they are to co-operate with him in
sharing life, Jesus seeks from these men an avowal of their
choice of him over the old life to which they have returned,
a declaration of their undying devotion to his cause. When
breakfast was finished (note the close sequence, i$T£ o~"
~p{uT'Y/lJav), Jesus turns and begins to question Simon Peter,
but the questions are asked in the presence of all and are
meant for alP8 Peter is still the leader of what remains
of the "Twelve." With each avowal of devotion that Peter
makes for himself and the others, a charge is given by Jesus:
first, "Feed my lambs;" then, "Shepherd my little sheep;"
finally, "Feed my little sheep." The undershepherds had
gone fishing; Jesus, giver of life, stands pleading with them,
who have been taught to join with him in passing life on
to the great unshepherded flock. Touching and tender in-
deed is the refrain as Jesus speaks of the "little lambs"-
"my little lambs" (Ta apv{(L p.ov) , and of the "little sheep"-
"my little sheep" (TO. 7rpo{3ana p.ov). He is thinking of mul-
titudes down the ages, like those he had seen in Galilee
and Judea, and had been distressed over, because they were
"as sheep without a shepherd." Peter answered for him-
self, but in his avowals of love were the avowals of all.
18 For a similar instance see Mark 8:32. Peter remonstrated with
Jesus when the latter predicted his rejection and death at the
hands of the authorities, whereupon Jesus "turning about and
seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter."
 "Lovest Thou Me?" 437

6. Jesus having thus secured the pledges of loyalty, now

enforces in symbolic fashion the lesson of following him.
Jesus paints a picture of the future trials in store for Simon
Peter and suggests that he will die a martyr's death (vv. 18,
19) . Turning away from the little group, he calls to Peter,
as if to say, "Though the way ahead of you be dark, never-
theless"- "keep on following with me" (aKoAoli/hl, present
tense: po« associative instrumental case). John wanted to
follow also, and Peter became inquisitive (vv. 20, 21),
whereupon, Jesus drove home another lesson, namely, "You
keep on following with me" (uli emphatic, p.cJl aK OAoli8fL), as
if to say, "You must not order your devotion to me by what
others may do; your chief business now is to follow on with
me." There is the suggestion here, too, that Jesus meant to
convey to Peter the idea that the other disciples would fol-
low him (Peter) in following Jesus. He was still, as he had
been, the leader of the "Twelve."
With this view of the entire course of events before us,
it is well to consider in detail some of the points in vv. 15-17.
In the light of our careful study of the entire Epilogue, we
must conclude in regard to the 1I"AEO VTOUrWV, the "more than
these" of v. 15, that this phrase refers to the old life and
business to which the disciples had returned. The comment
of Dads is pertinent here. He asks, "Would the character-
istic tact and delicacy of Jesus have allowed him to put a
question involving a comparison of Peter with his fellow-
disciples?"19 Jesus is not concerned with whether or not
Peter loves him more than the other disciples; nor is his
object the restoration of Peter to the "apostolic office," a
view advocated by Meyer, Bernard and Godet. Jesus may
have wished to restore Peter publicly to his apostolic office,
and the "restoration" may have resulted from this conversa-
tion, but the overwhelming concern of Jesus is that Peter
and the other disciples shall be more devoted to him than
they are to the business of fishing and the old life he called
them from to become "fishers of men." The issue is sharply
19 John in The Expositor's Greek Testament, ad loco
438 H Lovest Thou Me?"

drawn; there must be choice between serving Christ and fol-

lowing the old life. Peter is still, as in the old days, the
leader and spokesman; Jesus, as he had often done before,
addresses him. "Do you love (&:ya1l"?~, that is 'Do you esteem,
regard') me more than these?" is the Lord's searching ques-
tion when breakfast had been finished, and as he pointed,
no doubt, to the nets, the fish and the boats. The verb &:ya1l"aw
carries with it, as it often did, the connotation of choice or
preference. As much is suggested by the 1l"AEOV TOVTWV.
We are not to translate the verb as "prefer" or "choose,"
but we are to understand that when it is rendered "love,"
it is love which embodies choice, choice that is deliberate
and reasoned. The entire historical background of the term
offers ample evidence of this position with regard to the
meaning of the verb.
Peter's answer to Jesus' question is Nat, "Yes;" or
Ned, Kvpt£, "Yes, Lord." The ancient manuscripts were not
punctuated, so the accepted text mayor may not represent
the true flow of the writer's thought. Both Westcott and
Hort and Nestle have it: Nai, Kvpt£, <TV or8a.~ on eptAW <T£, as also
Peter's reply to the second question of Jesus is punctuated.
Assuredly, the way is open to observe a stop equivalent
to our semi-colon, or even to place a period, after N al, or
after KVPL£. If such punctuation is adopted, Peter at once
affirms that he has a higher regard for his Lord than for the
old life, that he chooses him in preference to the old busi-
ness. This is what one would expect Peter to do. But
Plummer and others think that Peter disregarded 1l"AEOV TOVTWV.
"Not only does he (Peter) change ci-ya1l"w to epLAW," says Plum-
mer, "but he says nothing about 'more than these': he will
not venture any more to compare himself with others."2o
Bernard makes the N aL a point in favor of the view that
a-ya1l"aW and epLAEW are absolute synonyms here. He says,
"Peter is represented as saying 'Yes' to the question a-ya1l"al;
po£; VaL, eptAW <T£ in his answer. This is fatal to the idea that
zo St. John, in Cambridge Series, ad loco
 "Lovest Thou. Me?" 439

Peter will not claim that he loves Jesus with the higher
form of love called o:YU1r'T/, but that he ventures only to say
that he has ljILA{d. for his Master. For why should he say
'Yes,' if he means 'NO'?"21 Ours is not a defense of the
theory that Jesus had in mind a "higher" word rendered by
John as o.'Yd.'Ir~S, but it must be pointed out in reply to Ber-
nard that he has disregarded two important words in arriv-
ing at his conclusion, namely,uv oI8a,S . Regardless of the
punctuation, Peter's added declaration is "Thou. (uv em-
phatic) knowest (intuitively) that I love thee." The em-
phasis here is upon <TV, "thou," and ljILAw, "love." It is wrong
to emphasize ol8as, "knowest." It is not, "Thou know est
that I love thee."
So, therefore, what Peter says immediately to Jesus is,
"Yes," or "Yes, Lord." By that he means to say that he has
a higher regard for his Lord than he has for the old life.
But he does not stop with this declaration. His devotion to
and his consuming love for Jesus will not be satisfied with
a simple "Yes" to the searching question of Jesus. He has
something to say on his own part. Appealing to his Lord's
power of intuition and perception, he declares further, "Thou
knowest that I love (c/JLAW) thee." More than choice, more
than preference, more than esteem, is the passion which
surges in Peter's soul. With his tPLAC> a« Peter adds to and
beautifies these, warming them with the fires of human emo-
tion, kindled anew as he stands again in the presence of him
whom he had loved and lost for a while.
As if to echo that other charge, "If ye love me, ye will
keep my commandments" (John 14:15), Jesus pleads with
Peter and the others, "Feed my little lambs."
Jesus puts another question to Peter. It is different from
the first. Jesus leaves off reference to the old life now; he
accepts Peter's declaration that the regard he has for him is
greater than his regard for the old life; deeper now he
probes into the heart and mind of his disciple; no room is
21 Gospel According to John, II, in International Crit. Corn., pp. 703-4.
440 "Louest Thou Me?"

left now for Peter to compare his devotion to Jesus with

anything; the question is simply, "Do you love (a'Yd'll"~~) me?"
that is, "Do you esteem, do you choose me?" Again Peter's
reply is Nat, KVPL(, "Yea, Lord," and he quickly adds the for-
mer declaration of deep devotion: uv oUlos 6TL tPLACi u(, "You
know that I love you." "Be a shepherd ('II"OLJLdLII() to my little
sheep," is the answer of Jesus to this second declaration of
love.
But Jesus has a third question, different from either of
the other two; deeper still Jesus plunges into the depths of
Peter's heart; the climactic question has come; Jesus is to
make Peter's own voluntary avowal of unbounded devotion
these two times the final test; the final question is, tPLA('~ JL(;
"Do you love me?" And here John breaks in on the record
of the conversation to give an eye-witness' report of the
effect of this last question on Peter. He writes, "Peter was
grieved because he said to him the third time tPLA(L~ JL(;"-
"Do you love me?" What could have grieved Peter? The
view of Woolsey is typical of some of the explanations given
by commentators in answer to this question. He asks, "Was
this grief awakened by the recollection of the words, "The
cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice'?"22 But
John does not say that Peter was grieved because Jesus
asked three times (TpL~), tPLA(L~ JL(; but because he said the
third time (TO TpLTO") tPLA(L~ JL(. It was a different question
from the second or the third. It was that Jesus interrogated
him as to his own twice volunteered declaration of strong
personal devotion that caused Peter to be hurt.
Peter, longing now to convince his Master beyond ques-
tion of his great love, appeals again to the power of Jesus
to read men's hearts ('II"allTd UU or8a~, v. 17), but this last ques-
tion of Jesus calls forth from Peter an added appeal; it is
uU 'YL"WU"(L~ 6TL tPLACi U( (uv, emphatic; 'YLIIWU"(L~ emphatic)-
"Thou knowest that I love thee." By this Peter means to
say that by this time Jesus has taken knowledge, has come
22Andover Review, Vol. IV, August 1885, p. 183.
 "Louest Thou Me?" 441

to know, that he knows as a result of what he has seen in

Peter's face, by what he has heard from his lips, that he
loves his Master. Once again Jesus gives a charge. It is
BO(7"K( Tel 7rpo{3ana }LOU, "Feed my little sheep." Thus does Jesus
accept Peter's avowal of great personal devotion, his tP,M (7"(.
There is no "coming down" to "Peter's level." Rather does
Jesus, master psychologist that he was, so conduct his ex-
amination of his disciple that there is a progression in the
penetrative power of his questions; so that, when he is done,
the gamut of Peter's emotions has been run and his heart
laid bare.
Peter has confessed great love and well he may, for there
are fiery trials ahead. This undivided and overwhelming
devotion for the Man of Nazareth and the Lord of Glory
must meet even greater tests than this test on the shores
of beloved Galilee. Of these Jesus warns the spokesman of
the Twelve, and because they will come, he gives a final
command; it is: "You follow on with me!" (v. 22).