quote:

---

Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I have NEVER understood, or heard a plausible explanation of, the uses of agape/fileo in that conversation between Jesus and Peter. It seems like it has to be important, that different verbs are used, but it makes no sense to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
for what it's worth, I'm told by the Vietnamese fisherman that night time is the best to go fishing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
1) Why did John add these stories to the end of the book, when he had already concluded the book in John 20: 31-32?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
2. Why did the disciples decide to go fishing in the middle of the night?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
3. Why did Jesus tell the disciples to throw the net on the right side of the boat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
5. Why does John specifically mention there were 153 very large fish in the net?....

Lots of questions. Loaded story. Question, I am really wondering about: why the 153 fish?

---

quote:

---

Genesis 7:24 And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.

Genesis 8:3 And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
1) Why did John add these stories to the end of the book, when he had already concluded the book in John 20: 31-32?

---

From a brain-dead litgeral reading (always the best place to start, its a good idea to work out what the text actually says before trying to work out what you think it ought to have said) "John" didn't.

The last words of the chapter "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" imply that the person writing the book is not the disciple who witnessed these things, but someone else writing or compiling that disciple's testimony. So maybe he got to the end of one source than added some extra stories on to show who the author was. Either way, if "John" is the person whose witness we have just been reading, the last chapter is not his, but someone else telling us that John';s witness is true.

I'm not claiming that this is what actually happened, but I am saying that this is what the book seems to claim happened - there is a story of Jesus attributed to "the disciple that Jesus loved" that ends at the end of chapter 21, and a sort of appendix about that disciple added on at the end by someone else - who we are presumably meant to think of as a copier or editor or compiler or redactor or possibly even scribe of the mai body of the text.

The first 18 verses of Chapter 1 also obviously feel like some sort of prologue in a different hand. I think the Fourth Gospel presents itself to us as one continuous narrative attributed to John (or someone very like him) with a short bit added on at the begining and end. (Which makes it probably the simplest of all four Gospels in that respect, except maybe for Mark)

As I said I'm not saying that is how it came to be written - who could possibly discover that with no external standard of comparison as we have for the Synoptics? - but I think I cam saying that that is what it looks like and perhaps how the final editor intends us to read it. (And the final editor may well have been the original editor as well, how could we possibly know either way?)

[ 09. April 2013, 15:09: Message edited by: ken ]
 

---

Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
Sermon
2nd Sunday after Easter. (Main Eucharist)

It's a beautiful still evening on the lake of Galilee. A warm and gentle breeze ripples the water as the setting sun turns it into shimmering molten gold.

There in the distant west is the snow-capped top of mount Carmel, thirty miles away by the Great Sea. Across the lake, just fifteen miles away was where Jesus grew up, Nazareth. Seven men struggle to drag their fishing boat down the shingle of the beach.

“Hard work now with only the seven of us here tonight. Thomas, Nathaniel, James and John, Andrew, Mathew and me, Galileans all of us. Still the others never really understood what it is about us and fishing, huh landlubbers. 'It's the quiet I think, that’s what I like most. So quiet, just the lap, lap, lap of water on wood. Out there, in the dark, just me and me mates, and the nets.

Me and me mates, how can I look em in the eye ever again, Oh I've noticed! They don't look me straight in the eyes now, ever since that night. They’ll never trust me again as a leader, why should they? I can't blame them. It’ll be getting colder as it gets dark. No fire to warm myself on out there though. Just as well I’d have to say, I’ll never forget that night, ever. Oh why couldn't I help him when he really needed me? And I'd promised him, swore I'd never leave him to die alone. ‘Course I know He forgives me. That was always his way, came to me specially, before the other men, just to show me He forgave me and he was alive again. But I can't forgive myself, and I can't expect the others to accept me either.

So now I just make suggestions. I don't give orders anymore, that way there's less risk of em not being carried out by those who don’t think much of me as a leader.' 'Funny thing though, no catch tonight either, sunrise already and nothing, doesn't happen that often here. Now last time that happened . . . I remember that, how could anyone forget, 'fishers of men He said'.. Couldn't happen that way again though.'

' OK lads, shall we, haul em in, we've got nothin’ to show for tonight’s work but we'll catch even less in broad daylight, we might as well head in now.

The Second Reading Today was from Chapter 21 of Johns Gospel. It comes as a postscript to the Gospel itself and some scholars even think it was added on later. The last two verses of chapter 20 being much more like the author’s actual ending.

'Now Jesus did many other signs which are not written in this book; But these are written that you might have life in His name'.

However if it were added later it must have been added before the gospel was ever copied because there are no copies of Johns Gospel with this chapter missing. It seems likely that this chapter was added by some of Johns devoted followers who thought it important that his memory of this incident be included. I'm just glad that we have it because it is one of my favourite stories. Peter was well known as a prominent leader of the early church. By the time John's Gospel was written and circulated both Peter and Paul had almost certainly already been martyred under the persecution of Nero about the year 63, some 35 years after this meeting on the beach,

I think it most likely that Peter and his Galilean fishing friends went fishing to help them cope with their feelings after the events of Passover. Betrayal, denial, trial, execution, resurrection, rumours, reappearances, fear, joy, what a roller coaster ride of new experiences. Youngsters of today would say ‘It’s doin’ me ead in, I’m off out.’ No wonder Peter came up with the idea of a fishing trip in familiar surroundings. A very sensible way to come to terms with what had happened to them. What’s more, hadn’t Jesus said he would go before them to Galilee.

But recreation, a good rest, doesn’t stop those nagging little voices inside does it? When we feel guilty about the things we have done or said or not done or not said it can make us feel rotten to the bones and’ there is no health in us’. And what could be done. On his own, of course Peter could do nothing. It was his guilt. The fact that the other disciples were also guilty was no help to him. He had sworn never to forsake Jesus even if the others did, and they had ALL said the same. ‘They would never let him down’. No Peter’s problem could only be dealt with by Jesus himself. And Isn’t that true of every one of us?

Imagine the feeling of excitement therefore when, as Peter and the others struggle with a net full of unexpected fish, he suddenly realises it’s happening again. He hears someone say ‘It’s the Lord.’ Pausing only to make himself decent, he forgets the catch, the boat, his friends, and goes overboard for Jesus.

I have to say, if ever there was a cue in a sermon for an appeal to those who have not yet turned to Christ, then this is it. Being a Christian starts by taking the plunge, letting go and launching out to the only person in earth or heaven who can lift your burden, lighten your heart and ease your concience. Jesus. Don’t let anything hold you back, not your career, not your money, not even your friends, let them follow later, like the other disciples, to come in the boat dragging the net full of fish. They’ll get there OK, just you make sure you’re on the beach with Jesus. Then like Peter you can go back to help them haul the net ashore if you like, and the net won’t break and all will be saved.

Some of you must have heard many a sermon on the number of fish 153 of them. There are so many possible theories why 153 that they can’t possibly all be right. One does intrigue me though. If you add up all the numbers between one and seventeen, what do you get? The answer is not that you get bored. What you get is – you guessed it, 153. Why seventeen? Well 10 and seven were very special numbers back then. Ten commandments, seven days of creation ( if you include God’s day off ). Seven represented completion, perfection. It is finished, There are no further appearances of Jesus in John’s Gospel, the work of leadership on earth is handed over to Peter and the others, and then to us. Enough said.

I’m not going to talk much about the catch of fish either, other than to point out like many others, that success depends on taking advice from Jesus, rather than our own headstrong ideas. The success of all evangelism depends entirely on how much we listen to Jesus. He says where and He says when, and He says how, otherwise we are wasting our time and possibly even doing harm.

But that;s not my message today!

My message is about breakfast.

When Peter and the others arrived where Jesus was they found breakfast already being cooked. Jesus asked them to add their fish to the meal and they sat around chatting while theirs cooked. But starters was cooked and caught by Jesus. And their catch was really his too. There’s a lesson here for us. How ever clever or talented we might think we are, all things come first from Jesus. He uses what we offer of ourselves but our spiritual nourishment comes first from Him.

This leads to what I think is the real point of this story. John 21: v15 says. When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter .’Simon son of John.‘

When they had finished breakfast’.

Peter knew that there was unfinished business between him and Jesus. No doubt we all feel that way from time to time, we often let Jesus down. If we say we have no sin we make him a liar and the truth is not in us. But notice this. Jesus does not exclude Peter from the fellowship breakfast until things are put right between them. He offers hospitality to ALL of them without exception, then and only then, after breakfast, when Peter feels loved, accepted and fully included does Jesus deal with Peters problem.

WE all know how it goes. When a friend or relative has let you down or failed you, or let their standards slip, are you ever tempted to exclude them, drop them from your social calendar, not invite them to the wedding, anniversary, funeral. NOT Jesus. That is not his way. Breakfast first, business later.

Notice also the way Jesus addresses Peter. Simon son of John, NOT Peter the rock now but Simon the child, son of John. Jesus sees inside us that well. All the pain, all the insecurity, all the fear of failure. He knows Peter as he really is. Not the rock man that he wants to be, just Simon the son of John. And Jesus loves him.

Notice, Jesus does not say ‘ Are you sorry Peter’? ‘Do you apologise’? ‘Do you repent’?

No. Jesus says Do you love me, more than these’? ‘ Do you love me’. ‘Do you love me’?

Peter does not say ‘ Much more than them Lord, they might fail you I never will ‘. No, not this time.

Peter now knows himself better. He says ‘ Yes Lord, you know I’m your friend.’ And that’s as far as he is going. No boasting, just an honest answer. In the original Greek, the word for love Peter uses here, just means friendship.

Peter is lovingly restored by Jesus to his former position among the others. The questions are asked and answered for his friends to see and hear. He is publicly re-instated and knows himself to be forgiven and they know too. Furthermore he is given responsibility for Jesus’ most precious possession, paid for in blood and bought with a price. “ Feed my lambs “, “ Tend my sheep”, ”Feed my sheep” What a lesson in loving, caring, compassionate, leadership from our Lord. If only there were more like him in the church ! - in the world !

And Finally, what will it cost Peter, this new shepherd life? He would Glorify God by his death. Previously Jesus had said “Where I go you cannot follow”. But He now says “Follow me”. Now through the power of the Holy Spirit Peter is able to follow, even to the death. And Jesus still says to countless generations of disciples. “ Follow me.”
 

---

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
A point I missed entirely (until yesterday) was the setting. When the disciples come ashore they find Jesus has a charcoal fire going. There are only two places where this word is used. The first time is in John, as well, when Peter is warming himself at a charcoal fire. There Peter had denied him three times. Consequently, it is at this charcoal fire Jesus gives Peter the opportunity to testify of his love for Jesus.

But three times Peter can only admit he considers himself a friend of Jesus.

Maybe it has to do with Peter's continuing feelings of guilt for denying Jesus in the first place. Maybe it also is an indication of no matter how deeply we may feel about Jesus on this side of eternity we can not reach full love.

Still Jesus accepts Peter--and us--and charges us to feed his sheep. Jesus is still willing to use such imperfect vessels to feed the sheep around us.
 

---

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
I think that last point about the charcoal is really cute. But I also think that the idea of this scene being one of Jesus' reinstatement of Peter is pure wishful thinking. Peter is intransigent, truculent, throughout the whole conversation. The semantic argument based on agape/phillio is a red herring. It's just Jesus trying to get through to his deaf disciple, who far from accepting both his guilt and Jesus' forgiveness, is intent on revenge. We don't know who the "these" are that Jesus refers to because we come into the conversation half way through. But it really doesn't take much imagination to realise that Jesus' question is a response, not and initial remark.

To answer some of your questions, (1) Why include it? Know way of knowing, but possibly at the insistence of disciples who, although not eye-witnesses themselves, had documentary evidence from those who were (possibly attested in the text itself - "this is the disci-ple who saw these things" - and dictated to someone who could write.

(2) Why fishing? It was what they did. Very therapeutic. They were close to despair. They had abandoned/betrayed/denied their lord and master, and he had been killed.

(3) Why on the right - possibly symbolic. Or maybe Jesus had a better view from where he was. Odd how sometimes you can be right on top of something and miss it altogether....

4) Why dress? Modesty? Hard to argue with somebody when you're bollock naked.

(5) 153? God knows.

Which English translations miss out the conversation with Peter? I missed something there.


Shippies following The Gospel of John, a verse at a time: have no fear. If we ever get this far, I will try with all my might to be a good listener andf keep my troublesome secular gob shut.
 

---

Posted by CuppaT (# 10523) on :
 
Most people when they were going swimming in the olden days would strip off their clothes! But Peter felt a need to clothe himself before meeting God. Even when we get to Heaven things like this will be changed from the way they started. We began in nakedness, and then in sin clothed ourselves out of modesty. But in Heaven will we be returned to our pure naked selves? By no means! We will be clothed with Righteousness. Jesus wore clothes shining whiter than any had seen. Peter had the right instincts.

One of the church fathers, or some early writer that I read once, and I cannot remember who, said that around the first century the number of known countries was 153. He did not expound on the evangelizing fish/sea, boat/church theme too much but left it as completely understood as natural. I, on the other hand, was astounded at the implications.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
pimple:

quote:

---

The semantic argument based on agape/phillio is a red herring. It's just Jesus trying to get through to his deaf disciple, who far from accepting both his guilt and Jesus' forgiveness, is intent on revenge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Revenge? Huh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Revenge? Huh?

---

I wondered the same thing. Is it because of what Peter says about John "what about this man?"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
Why would Jesus say "What's it to you, If I want him to go on living?" if Peter had not indicated that he would like it otherwise? You don't deny a non-existent question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't see it as revenge. Peter has just been told he's going to die a mysterious but horrible death, and he naturally wonders what Jesus has in store for the rest of the disciples-- of whom John is the handiest example, being only a step or two away. There might also have been some mild jealousy involved, as John is the one disciple who came closest to not totally screwing up at the crucifixion. So Peter naturally wants to know what horrors (if any) Jesus has in store for him.

And Jesus, just as naturally, rebukes a train of thought that is at best busybody anf at worst jealous. "What is that to you? Even if (taking the extreme "unfair" example) I want him never to die at all, let alone as a martyr, that would still be none of your business. Get on with your own job and follow me."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't see it as revenge. Peter has just been told he's going to die a mysterious but horrible death, and he naturally wonders what Jesus has in store for the rest of the disciples-- of whom John is the handiest example, being only a step or two away. There might also have been some mild jealousy involved, as John is the one disciple who came closest to not totally screwing up at the crucifixion. So Peter naturally wants to know what horrors (if any) Jesus has in store for him.

And Jesus, just as naturally, rebukes a train of thought that is at best busybody anf at worst jealous. "What is that to you? Even if (taking the extreme "unfair" example) I want him never to die at all, let alone as a martyr, that would still be none of your business. Get on with your own job and follow me."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
1) Why did John add these stories to the end of the book, when he had already concluded the book in John 20: 31-32?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
2. Why did the disciples decide to go fishing in the middle of the night?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
3. Why did Jesus tell the disciples to throw the net on the right side of the boat. (Greek part of story a little different than English part here: instead of Jesus asking "Children, did you catch any fish? as written in English. the better translation would be "So, you didn't catch any fish, children?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
4. Why, when the disciples realized it was Jesus, did Peter first put on his clothes and then swim to shore?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
5. Why did Jesus tell the disciples to bring more fish to the fire for breakfast, when he already had fish on the fire (and where did he get those fish?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
5. Why does John specifically mention there were 153 very large fish in the net?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
An interesting observation

The English translations miss the exchange between Jesus and Peter

After they had finished breakfast, Jesus asks Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love (agape) me more than these?'
Peter answered him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I am fond (fileo) of you."
Jesus says to Peter, "Feed my lambs."
A second time Jesus asks Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, doe you love (agape) me>"
Peter again answers, "Yes, Lord, you know that I am fond (fileo) of you."
Jesus says: "Tend (or Shepherd) my sheep>"
A third time Jesus asks, "Simon Peter, are you fond (fileo) of me?
Peter, feeling hurt, replies ¿Lord, you know everything; you know that I am fond (fileo) of you.¿
Jesus said to him, ¿Feed my sheep...'

Note how two times Jesus uses the term "agape"
Peter can only say he is fond (fileo) of Jesus
Jesus then says "Are you fond of me?" As if to catch Peter at what he is saying--or is it because Jesus decides something is better than nothing?

---

quote:

---

Is there a significant difference in meaning between the two words for love used in the passage, ἀγαπάω and φιλέω (agapaw and filew)? Aside from Origen, who saw a distinction in the meaning of the two words, most of the Greek Fathers like Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, saw no real difference of meaning. Neither did Augustine nor the translators of the Itala (Old Latin). This was also the view of the Reformation Greek scholars Erasmus and Grotius. The suggestion that a distinction in meaning should be seen comes primarily from a number of British scholars of the 19th century, especially Trench, Westcott, and Plummer. It has been picked up by others such as Spicq, Lenski, and Hendriksen. But most modern scholars decline to see a real difference in the meaning of the two words in this context, among them Bernard, Moffatt, Bonsirven, Bultmann, Barrett, Brown, Morris, Haenchen, and Beasley-Murray. There are three significant reasons for seeing no real difference in the meaning of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in these verses: (1) the author has a habit of introducing slight stylistic variations in repeated material without any significant difference in meaning (compare, for example, 3:3 with 3:5, and 7:34 with 13:33). An examination of the uses of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in the Fourth Gospel seems to indicate a general interchangeability between the two. Both terms are used of God’s love for man (3:16, 16:27); of the Father’s love for the Son (3:35, 5:20); of Jesus’ love for men (11:5, 11:3); of the love of men for men (13:34, 15:19); and of the love of men for Jesus (8:42, 16:27). (2) If (as seems probable) the original conversation took place in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew), there would not have been any difference expressed because both Aramaic and Hebrew have only one basic word for love. In the LXX both ἀγαπάω and φιλέω are used to translate the same Hebrew word for love, although ἀγαπάω is more frequent. It is significant that in the Syriac version of the NT only one verb is used to translate vv. 15-17 (Syriac is very similar linguistically to Palestinian Aramaic). (3) Peter’s answers to the questions asked with ἀγαπάω are ‘yes’ even though he answers using the verb φιλέω. If he is being asked to love Jesus on a higher or more spiritual level his answers give no indication of this, and one would be forced to say (in order to maintain a consistent distinction between the two verbs) that Jesus finally concedes defeat and accepts only the lower form of love which is all that Peter is capable of offering. Thus it seems best to regard the interchange between ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in these verses as a minor stylistic variation of the author, consistent with his use of minor variations in repeated material elsewhere, and not indicative of any real difference in meaning. Thus no attempt has been made to distinguish between the two Greek words in the translation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Whoa, jumping to a ton of conclusions there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said "'Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?" 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about him?" 22 Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" 23 So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
3. Why did Jesus tell the disciples to throw the net on the right side of the boat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
5. Why did Jesus tell the disciples to bring more fish to the fire for breakfast, when he already had fish on the fire (and where did he get those fish?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
5. Why does John specifically mention there were 153 very large fish in the net?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
Note how two times Jesus uses the term "agape" Peter can only say he is fond (fileo) of Jesus ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
1) Why did John add these stories to the end of the book, when he had already concluded the book in John 20: 31-32?

---

quote:

---

2. Why did the disciples decide to go fishing in the middle of the night?

---

quote:

---

3. Why did Jesus tell the disciples to throw the net on the right side of the boat. (Greek part of story a little different than English part here: instead of Jesus asking "Children, did you catch any fish? as written in English. the better translation would be "So, you didn't catch any fish, children?

---

quote:

---

4. Why, when the disciples realized it was Jesus, did Peter first put on his clothes and then swim to shore?

---

quote:

---

5. Why did Jesus tell the disciples to bring more fish to the fire for breakfast, when he already had fish on the fire (and where did he get those fish?)

---

quote:

---

5. Why does John specifically mention there were 153 very large fish in the net?

---

quote:

---

agape/fileo

---

quote:

---

Also note
Jesus says 1) Feed my lambs; 2) Shepherd my sheep; 3) Feed my sheep.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I heard that 153 was the amount of known species of fish at that time, and so it represents the disciples ultimately 'fishing' the whole of humanity.

---

The source for that is the 153 species enumerated by Oppian of Corycus in a poem of his. The problem is that the poem post dates (mid 2nd century) the likely date of composition of John. So for this to the case, either Oppian was referencing some other unknown work, or the numerical reference was inserted into John much later than it's original composition.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
I just like the fact that Jesus fixed them breakfast.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0