John 21:15

Ὅτε οὖν ἠρίστησαν, “when, then, they had broken their fast,” a note of time essential to the conversation following. Peter had manifested the most ardent affection, by abandoning on the instant the net of fish for which he had been toiling all night, and by springing into the sea to greet his Lord. But was not that a mere impulsive demonstration, “the wholesome madness of an hour”? Therefore He lets Peter settle down, He lets him breakfast and then takes him at the coolest hour of the day, and, at last breaking silence, says, Σίμων Ἰωνᾶ [better, Ἰωάνου] ἀγαπᾷς με πλεῖον [better, πλέον] τούτων; “Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these?” So far as grammar goes, this may either mean “Lovest thou me more than the other disciples love me?” or “Lovest thou me more than this boat and net and your old life?” It may either refer to Peter's saying, “Though all should forsake Thee, yet will not I,” or to his sudden abandonment of the boat and fishing gear. If the former were intended, the second personal pronoun would almost necessarily be expressed; but, as the words stand, the contrast is not between “you” and “these,” but between “me” and “these”. Besides, would the characteristic tact and delicacy of Jesus have allowed Him to put a question involving a comparison of Peter with his fellow-disciples? The latter interpretation, although branded by Lücke as “eine geistlose lächerliche Frage,” commends itself. Difference of opinion also exists about the use of ἀγαπᾶς and φιλῶ, most interpreters believing that by the former a love based on esteem or judgment is indicated, by the latter the affection of the heart. The Vulgate distinguishes by using “diligis” and “amo”. Trench (Synonyms, 38) uses this distinction for the interpretation of this passage, and maintains that Peter in his reply intentionally changes the colder ἀγαπᾶς into the warmer φιλῶ. It is very doubtful whether this is justifiable. The two words are used interchangeably to express the love of Jesus for John, see John 13:23, and John 20:2; also for His love for Lazarus, John 11:3; John 11:5; John 11:36. And that the distinction cannot be maintained at any rate in this conversation is obvious from John 21:17; for if the words differed in meaning, it could not be said that “Peter was grieved because Jesus a third time said, φιλεῖς με ”; because Jesus had not used these words three times. The words seem interchanged for euphony, as in Aelian, Var. Hist., ix. 1, where Hiero is said to have lived with his three brothers, πάνυ σφόδρα ἀγαπήσας αὐτοὺς καὶ ὑπʼ αὐτῶν φιληθεὶς ἐν τῷ μέρει. In Peter's answer there is no sense of any discrepancy between the kind of love demanded and the love felt. It comes with a ναί, Κύριε. Why need He ask? σὺ οἶδας.… In this appeal to Christ's own knowledge there is probably, as Weiss suggests, a consciousness of his own liability to be deceived, as shown in his recent experience.