Tend my sheep: John 21:15-17

[MariaG]

In John 21:15-19 Christ is speaking to Peter after Peter’s 3 time denial. In that Christ asks 3 times if Peter loves Him. After each affirmation, Christ gives Peter 3 different directives. This is from my Max Lucado NKJV Bible (a protestant Bible)

:bible1: 15…“Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?”
He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.”
He said to him, “Feed My lambs.”
16He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?”
He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.”
He said to him, “Tend My sheep.”
17He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?”
And he said to Him, “Lord You know all things; You know that I love You.”
Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep.

The lambs are the lay people, the sheep are the leaders of the church (priests, deacons, bishops, etc.) Christ tells Peter to feed both the lambs and the sheep. But He also tells Peter to tend the sheep. The one who tends the sheep is a shepherd. This is why Catholics believe that the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ”. Christ gave Peter, and through Peter, succeeding Popes, the authority to lead His Church. A shepherd leads the sheep. One who tends sheep would be called a shepherd.

This is *one *of the places in the Bible that Scripture shows us that the Catholic belief in the pope is actually a directive from Christ Himself. Not a “man-made” thing, but a directive from Christ Himself.

What do Protestants believe these verses mean?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[Annunciata]

Maria,
Interesting…I always thought the three times… was to make up for the three times Peter denied the Lord? Annunciata

 

[MariaG]

It may well have been the three times do you love me was to make up for the 3 time denial, but that still does not address the 3 *different *directives after each affirmation.

 

[MariaG]

Well, I guess the interpretation I stated is correct.

Interesting. Whenever I start threads with Scripture in it, there is a very lukewarm response.

Last chance everyone. No response and I’ll let it die a natural death.

Your sister in Christ,

Maria

 

[Raphael]

This scripture is even deeper then shown here. The original writings use three different words to take the place of the word love. Archbishop Sheen used to relate of this verse that the meaning of the uses of love would be more like this.

Peter do you love me with a totally committed sacrifical love.
And Peter replies, Lord you know I love you with an intense brotherly love.

Peter do you love me with a totally committed sacrifical love.
Lord you know I love you with an intense brotherly love.

Peter do you love me with a totally committed sacrfical love.
Lord you know all things you know I love you in a purely human kind of way.

Our Lord was both reminding Peter of his weakness and allowing him to practice true humility. Because he went in a short period of time from bragging that he was prepared to die with Christ to admitting that he was only a sinful human creature.

While all this was going on he still recieved the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

 

[MariaG]

Thanks, I never knew about the different kinds of love. Does he have a sermon or paper on it? Do you know if it is available online? (Yes I am being lazy, but if you already know, you can save me a search )

God Bless,
Maria

 

[steve_b]

MariaG:

In John 21:15-19 Christ is speaking to Peter after Peter’s 3 time denial. In that Christ asks 3 times if Peter loves Him. After each affirmation, Christ gives Peter 3 different directives. This is from my Max Lucado NKJV Bible (a protestant Bible)

:bible1: 15…"Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these]
He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.”
He said to him, “***Feed ***My lambs.”
16He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?”
He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.”
He said to him, “Tend My sheep.”
17He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?”
And he said to Him, “Lord You know all things; You know that I love You.”
Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep.

1. you left out more than these] at the end of the 1st sentence in vs 15. Jesus is making a special point with Peter. As in Mt 16:18… Jesus is singling out Peter again, in front of all the apostles, confirming Peter’s role and commission.
2. The Greek word for "feed" in those verses is “bosko” which literally means to feed. But the Greek word for ***tend ***is ***poimaino which also means rule. ***

---

MariaG:

This is *one *of the places in the Bible that Scripture shows us that the Catholic belief in the pope is actually a directive from Christ Himself. Not a “man-made” thing, but a directive from Christ Himself.

:yup: That’s right!!! Feed and rule His Church. It goes with Mt 16:18… The papacy is absolutely biblical.

 

[MariaG]

Wow, thanks guys! I have not studied other languages. I know that I probably should, but haven’t taken the time. Clearly in this case, there are layers upon layers. Maybe that is why no Protestant has yet to bring an alternative interpretation of such loaded Scripture?

God Bless,
Maria

Hmm? What do the Orthodox say about these verses?

 

[bengal_fan]

steve b:

1. you left out more than these] at the end of the 1st sentence in vs 15. Jesus is making a special point with Peter. As in Mt 16:18… Jesus is singling out Peter again, in front of all the apostles, confirming Peter’s role and commission.
   .

i had heard though, that the “more than these” was referring to the great catch of fish they just had. peter was a fisherman and Jesus was asking him if he loved Him “more than these” (fish) meaning did he love Him more than his old life and was he willing to give up his old life for Christ. i had heard the different types of love. good post, and good thread maria.

 

[p90]

MariaG:

What do Protestants believe these verses mean?

I cannot speak for all Protestants, and I haven’t studied this beyond reading some commentary a few years ago, but my understanding of this passage is that Christ is forgiving Peter for his three denials of Him before His death on the cross. (The three questions can be viewed like another chance for Peter to express his love for Christ.) As far as feeding His sheep, Christ is referring to the care of the Christian flock of all believers. The appropriate response to being forgiven is to use the gifts He has given us to serve others.

~Matt

 

[MariaG]

Hi Matt,

Glad to have you, While I too have always understood that this was Jesus restoring Peter (Although someone said this is not what Catholics believe? Anyone?) Whether or not that was what was being done, how do you explain the 3 different directives. It is not just feed the sheep, it is tend the sheep, and feed the lambs also. And as was pointed out above, the greek tend is actually rule.

Comments?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[prodromos]

MariaG:

Hmm? What do the Orthodox say about these verses?

I thought you’d never ask

John 21:15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He says to him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I am attached to thee. He says to him, Feed my lambs.

The words, “lovest thou me more than these?”, serve as a reminder of Peter’s self-confident words, “If all shall be offended in thee, I will never be offended”, “If I should needs die with thee, I will in no wise deny thee” (Matthew 26:33-35), and, “Lord, with thee I am ready to go both to prison and to death” (Luke 22:33). We see that Peter has grown in humility since then as he does not dare answer in a manner that puts himself before the others as he had done so before.

The threefold question, “lovest thou me?”, corresponds to the threefold renunciation by Peter, whom at this point the Lord no longer calls “Peter”, but “Simon”, his former name. The fact that Peter was grieved after the Lord’s third question would be completely inexplicable if we were to understand this conversation as Christ placing Peter at the head of His church, yet it is completely understandable if Peter had seen in the Lord’s words a reminder of his renunciation. It is also hard to reconcile the supremacy of Peter with the manner in which Jesus speaks to him shortly after in verse 22, “If I will that he abide until I come, what [is that] to thee? Follow thou me”. It is rather odd that Jesus would speak in such a manner to the one he had just assigned as His vicar and prince of the Apostles.

The interpretation that lambs are the lay people and sheep are the leaders of the church is altogether arbitrary and has no support at all among the church Fathers The words sheep and lambs are indifferently used in Holy Scripture to describe the same object:
“Go: behold I send you forth as lambs in the midst of wolves”(Luke 10:3)
“Behold, I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves”(Matt 10:16)
Speaking to the faithful in 1Peter 2:25 Peter says, “For ye were going astray as sheep, but have now returned to the shepherd and overseer of your souls”
So you see from Scripture that it is not possible to give different meanings to the words sheep and lambs, nor to interpret the word sheep in the sense of pastors or clergy. If you feel we must give them different meanings, it would be more natural to assume they refer to those who are mature or young in the faith respectively.

Sorry, but there is no support for papal supremacy in this passage. (You did ask )

John.

 

[prodromos]

steve b:

1. you left out more than these] at the end of the 1st sentence in vs 15. Jesus is making a special point with Peter. As in Mt 16:18… Jesus is singling out Peter again, in front of all the apostles, confirming Peter’s role and commission.

Jesus is singling Peter out here because it was only Peter who denied him.

1. The Greek word for “feed” in those verses is “bosko” which literally means to feed. But the Greek word for ***tend ***is ***poimaino which also means rule. ***

---

As I pointed out to Steve in another thread, “poimaino” only takes on the meaning of “rule” in the context of a king. Steve’s assertion that it means “rule” in this passage has absolutely no Patristic support whatsoever.

John.

P.S. I work here (greeklanguage.gr/) with a whole bunch of Greek Philologists who know their language backwards. Steve has the benefit of a couple of Greek/English dictionaries.

 

[p90]

I apologize, but I don’t have time to proof this.

MariaG:

Whether or not that was what was being done, how do you explain the 3 different directives. It is not just feed the sheep, it is tend the sheep, and feed the lambs also.

If such distinctions are seen as a reference to different parts of the church, I think the argument is far too arbitrary to be of any use. There’s no indication that Christ was relating anything significant by varying the command to care for the Christian flock. If there is something to be read into the distinctions, how do we know that one conclusion is more valid than another? If I believe that feeding the sheep is a reference to preaching, tending to teaching, and feeding the lambs to providing food for hungry infants, why would you reject my interpretation in favor of yours?

And as was pointed out above, the greek tend is actually rule.

I am not knowledgable in Greek, so my opinion in this matter is restricted to current English translations. As such, I am not aware of any that translate this passage as “rule” my sheep.

~Matt

 

[mercygate]

Matt,

These are great suggestions, and as with much of Scripture – despite what a lot of people believe about the Catholic view – there is room for interpretation. There is no reason in the world that a Catholic could not view this pericope in the way you indicate. There is no reason in the world that a Catholic needs to view a single pericope in one way alone.

Take, for example, the Song of Solomon: The love of God for Israel? The love of Christ for his Church? The love of a husband for his bride? Right! All of the above, or any of the above, at any given time.

“Private interpretation” is not something forbidden to Catholics within the confines of doctrinal Orthodoxy, of course. There are times when, like MariaG here, a person comes across a passage of Scripture that suddenly turns the lights on and reverberates (sorry, mixed metaphor) all down the corridors of one’s heart – and that personal view may not make much sense to anyone else. We are not immune to the Holy Spirit as we read these sacred texts.

 

[p90]

mercygate:

There is no reason in the world that a Catholic could not view this pericope in the way you indicate. There is no reason in the world that a Catholic needs to view a single pericope in one way alone.

If passages can be interpreted in a variety of ways, on what grounds do you decide if a particular interpretation (for example, a non-papal interpretation of the three distinctives to feed the sheep) is not valid? Is that method one that Protestants such as myself would find acceptable in terms of determining whether or not a certain passage supports the Papacy?

~Matt

 

[mercygate]

p90:

If passages can be interpreted in a variety of ways, on what grounds do you decide if a particular interpretation (for example, a non-papal interpretation of the three distinctives to feed the sheep) is not valid? Is that method one that Protestants such as myself would find acceptable in terms of determining whether or not a certain passage supports the Papacy?

~Matt

Matt, you already know the answer. If a passage of Scripture directly affects doctrine, then the Church’s interpretation trumps the private one for DOCTRINE. But that still doesn’t mean we can’t receive a personal message from it. For example, Catholics belive that the Resurrection is a historic necessity of the Christian faith. So when we read John 20, we are required to understand that passage as the Church understands it. However, in private reading, I can also understand in a deeply personal way, a way that convicts my entire being, the words, “she did not know that it was Jesus.”

 

[MariaG]

You are right Matt, why should you believe my interpretation of Scripture over yours. But then why should I believe yours? (Yes I know you have not asked me to.) That was one of the reasons I came to the Catholic Church. Too many conflicting interpretations. I could see the Scripture myself in the Bible, so why was the Catholic Church wrong and the reformers right?

I choose the church that traces it’s beginnings and interpretations back to the apostles, not those who say the Catholic church went off track, which is contrary to Scripture, and said they will provide the real interpretation 1500 years after the fact.

Just didn’t make sense to me.

Mostly, I am still a fundamentalist at heart who loves to “find it in the Bible”. And Catholic beliefs are all in the Bible.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

Okay so the orthodox disagree to the interpretation provided. I know you have probably discussed this before, but I have not so would you mind telling me the orthodox interpretation of Peter and the keys in Matthew?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[p90]

mercygate:

Matt, you already know the answer.

To those questions, yes, I knew there was a high probability that the presented solution was going to be one that requires submission to Catholic authority. Since that is the case, do you see why appealing to that passage to prove the Papacy becomes problematic in terms of convincing a Protestant that their non-papal interpretation is incorrect and should be abandoned? Why would the Protestant obey the Catholic authority in rejecting his non-papal interpretation when he has not yet been convinced that the authority is to be heeded?

In short, there needs to be a method by which Protestants can test whether a papal interpretation is the most likely and correct interpretation of a passage that does not involve submitting to the authority that they are testing.

~Matt