Tend my sheep: John 21:15-17

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
MariaG:
Like I said my personal revelation was more of a “oh my gosh I had never read that before”. I had always read feed my sheep 3 times. Not the 3 different directives.

. . . Obviously, it was new to me, but clearly, not new to the Catholic Church.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria
Click to expand...
MariaG: I thought of this last night while reading I Peter 5:1-5:

So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Tend [poimanete] the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory. Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”
 
40.png
MariaG:
Hi Melissa,

Good to have you. So you see no significance in the fact that Jesus was speaking directly to Peter?

Your sister in Christ,

Maria
Click to expand...
No I don’t, because he was addressing John.
 
Melissa,
Addressing John? Read it again. Jesus asks Peter do you love me? After Peter says yes Jesus then says feed my lambs. Where is Jesus speaking to John in these passages?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria
 
40.png
MariaG:
Melissa,
Addressing John? Read it again. Jesus asks Peter do you love me? After Peter says yes Jesus then says feed my lambs. Where is Jesus speaking to John in these passages?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria
Click to expand...
Maria,

Sorry, I was referring to the passage I included from Luke that says “those who are not against you are with you”.

As for Jesus addressing Peter in the other verse, I don’t have a straight-forward answer for you. It think Matthew 16:18 has been misinterpreted. I believe that Jesus is the Rock, and he gave the keys to Heaven to all of his disciples to build the Church upon Christ. Is that not what 1 Corinthians 10:4 tells us?

“For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.”

Your sister in Christ,

Melissa
 
40.png
NewChristian27:
Maria,

Sorry, I was referring to the passage I included from Luke that says “those who are not against you are with you”.

As for Jesus addressing Peter in the other verse, I don’t have a straight-forward answer for you. It think Matthew 16:18 has been misinterpreted. I believe that Jesus is the Rock, and he gave the keys to Heaven to all of his disciples to build the Church upon Christ. Is that not what 1 Corinthians 10:4 tells us?

“For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.”

Your sister in Christ,

Melissa
Click to expand...
Nobody denies that Jesus is the rock, the cornerstone, the foundation. Your quotation from I Corinthians is a magnificent pastoral image of Christ. That Jesus calls Peter “this rock” upon which he will found his Church does not detract from any representation of God or of Christ as “rock” but unites Peter to the Body of Christ in a special way. Indeed, only to Peter (in Greek it is “to thee”) does Jesus promise the keys. Yet the other apostles also act with the authority of the keys when in union with Peter.
 
Actually, I know most Protestant I know think that Mt. 16:18 has been misinterpreted by Catholics. However, even Protestant scholars are now saying that Peter is referred to as Rock in this statement by Christ. Christ calling Peter Rock is significant, because as you pointed out, this is the title used to refer to God. But that is one of the reasons I started this thread with this verse.

John 21:15-17.

: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.

Here Jesus is making Peter a shepherd. Now Christ is the Good Shepherd yet here he is giving the job of shepherd to Peter. Does that take away Jesus’ title of Shepherd? In no way. It does however completely fall into place with the Catholic understanding of Pope. A man appointed by Christ Himself who tends the flock with Christ’s authority. It in no way means Christ is not still the head, it just means Christ has named a “supervisor” if you will.

Here no one denies that Christ is speaking only to Peter and only to Peter does Christ give the directive to tend the sheep, as well as feed the lambs and feed the sheep.

While I can read this and personally think I may have a job to help “feed the lambs” Christ was speaking to Peter in front of the other Apostles. How do you think they heard Christ’s words?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria
 
40.png
MariaG:
. . . .Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep.

**Here Jesus is making Peter a shepherd. Now Christ is the Good Shepherd yet here he is giving the job of shepherd to Peter. **Does that take away Jesus’ title of Shepherd? In no way. It does however completely fall into place with the Catholic understanding of Pope. A man appointed by Christ Himself who tends the flock with Christ’s authority. It in no way means Christ is not still the head, it just means Christ has named a “supervisor” if you will.

Here no one denies that Christ is speaking only to Peter and only to Peter does Christ give the directive to tend the sheep, as well as feed the lambs and feed the sheep.

While I can read this and personally think I may have a job to help “feed the lambs” Christ was speaking to Peter in front of the other Apostles. How do you think they heard Christ’s words?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria
Click to expand...
MarieG – Last night, while reading Peter’s first letter, I noticed that he refers to Christ six times as the “stone” or “rock” of the faith – quoting Old Testament texts to point to Jesus as the “cornerstone.” Now Peter whom Jesus named “Rock” points entirely to Jesus as THE Rock – just as you note Peter’s role as shepherd: there is no conflict. Jesus is not in the least diminished as shepherd or as cornerstone by Peter’s role. Who better than Peter would know that Christ is the cornerstone? And in that same epistle Peter poignantly charges the elders to “shepherd” the people. Neither Christ nor Peter is diminished by the other.
 
40.png
NewChristian27:
Maria,

As for Jesus addressing Peter in the other verse, I don’t have a straight-forward answer for you. I think Matthew 16:18 has been misinterpreted.*** I believe that Jesus*** is the Rock, and he gave the keys to Heaven to all of his disciples to build the Church upon Christ. Is that not what 1 Corinthians 10:4 tells us?

“For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.”

Your sister in Christ,

Melissa
Click to expand...
When Jesus said to Peter I give "YOU" the keys to the kingdom, the word for “you” in that passage in the Greek is “soi” which is **2nd person singular NOT plural. That means Jesus was talking specifically to Peter alone No other passages does Jesus refer to giving the keys.

Jesus is establishing the office of a prime minister here. Just as the complimentary OT passage of Is 22:22… shows. Only one person got the keys in Is 22:22… and one person got the keys in Mt 16:18…
 
steve b:
Strongs. bju.edu/resources/strongs/greek/4165.inc
Click to expand...
Usage in the KJV:

feed 6, rule 4, feed cattle 1

Total: 11

Steve, did you read the whole of the link you gave me? It states that in the KJV the word “poimaino” has the meaning of “rule” in four places which I believe you will find are:

Matt 2:6
Rev 2:27
Rev 12:5 and Rev 19:15.

The above passages definitely have the meaning of “rule” which means that Strong’s excludes John 21:15-17 from taking on that meaning.
Your own sources contradict you and back up what I have been saying to you all along.

John.
 
40.png
Aris:
When reading the Bible, there is always three ways we can look into the verses.
  1. Personal view of how it is applicable to one’s personal life
  2. How it is applicable to the community at large
  3. Church teaching applicable to it.
All three views must be done under the guidance of the Church. So far Maria’s views have been consistent with Church Teaching.
Click to expand...
I have yet to find your churches teaching anywhere among the Church Fathers, though they mention this passage quite a lot.
40.png
MariaG:
As Aris so kindly pointed out, my “personal” revelation is in keeping with the interpretation of the Catholic Church.

I know this is not going to be satisfactory to my Orthodox friends in Christ, but I just wanted to clarify the “personal” revelation part. Obviously, it was new to me, but clearly, not new to the Catholic Church
Click to expand...
From my studies so far it does indeed appear to be “new” to the Catholic Church.

John

PS. I’ll be visiting the monastery of Saint Nektarios over the next few days so I’ll have to put my reading of Church Fathers on hold until I get back.
 
40.png
prodromos:
Usage in the KJV:

feed 6, rule 4, feed cattle 1

Total: 11

Steve, did you read the whole of the link you gave me? It states that in the KJV the word “poimaino” has the meaning of “rule” in four places which I believe you will find are:

Matt 2:6
Rev 2:27
Rev 12:5 and Rev 19:15.

The above passages definitely have the meaning of “rule” which means that Strong’s excludes John 21:15-17 from taking on that meaning.
***Your own sources contradict you ***and back up what I have been saying to you all along.

John.
Click to expand...
Not at all.

Mt 2:6 is an OT type, pointing to a “ruler who will shepherd my people” in the future. Jesus is the shepherd and ruler, and Jesus calls Peter to be shepherd and ruler as well. Jesus is leaving us with a prime minister. He uses the word poimaino to Peter, He is using it in reference to Mt 16:18… as well. This is exactly what Jesus asks of Peter. To tend, to feed, to shepherd, AND rule His Church. That’s why Jesus builds His Church on Peter, and gives Peter the keys to the kingdom. There is no contradiction here.
 
Here’s a point worth mentioning on this thread.

There was apparently a difference between the way gentiles and Jews tended sheep. Jews** led** their sheep, while gentiles drove them and herded them with goads: hence, all those “guide me,” “lead me” images in the psalms with reference to God. Remember, David was a shepherd. AND a king.
 
2 points. Strongs Concordance is a Protestant resource. It does not contain all of the Bible. Second, the site it was on is Bob Jones University, an anti-Catholic place. I would be highly surprised to find the reference to John be placed under “rule”.

God Bless,
Maria
 
Hi John,

*I *decided to look take up Aris on his suggestion. I found this here: newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm at New Advent.Here is a small piece of the imformation.

It is in this copy of the “De Unitate” that Cyprian appears most probably to have added in the margin an alternative version of the fourth chapter. The original passage, as found in most manuscripts and as printed in Hartel’s edition, runs thus:

If any will consider this, there is no need of a long treatise and of arguments. 'The Lord saith to Peter: ‘I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; to thee I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what thou shalt have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what thou shalt have loosed shall be loosed in heaven.’ Upon one He builds His Church, and though to all His Apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power and says: ‘As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins you shall have remitted they shall be remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins you shall have retained they shall be retained’, yet that He might make unity manifest, He disposed the origin of that unity beginning from one. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power, but the commencement proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one. This one Church the Holy Ghost in the person of the Lord designates in the Canticle of Canticles, and says, One is My Dove, My perfect one, one is she to her mother, one to her that bare her. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church? The substituted passage is as follows:

. . . bound in heaven. Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, ‘feed My sheep’. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, **but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. **And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church? These alternative versions are given one after the other in the chief family of manuscripts which contains them, while in some other families the two have been partially or wholly combined into one. The combined version is the one which has been printed in man editions, and has played a large part in controversy with Protestants. It is of course spurious in this conflated form, but the alternative form given above is not only found in eighth- and ninth-century manuscripts, but it is quoted by Bede, by Gregory the Great (in a letter written for his predecessor Pelagius II), and by St. Gelasius; indeed, it was almost certainly known to St. Jerome and St. Optatus in the fourth century. The evidence of the manuscripts would indicate an equally early date. Every expression and thought in the passage can be paralleled from St. Cyprian’s habitual language, and it seems to be now generally admitted that this alternative passage is an alteration made by the author himself when forwarding his work to the Roman confessors. The “one chair” is always in Cyprian the episcopal chair, and Cyprian has been careful to emphasize this point, and to add a reference to the other great Petrine text, the Charge in John, xxi. The assertion of the equality of the Apostles as Apostles remains, and the omissions are only for the sake of brevity. The old contention that it is a Roman forgery is at all events quite out of the question

So here is one ECF who actually used the same text to support the primacy of Peter.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria
 
This seems to support Catholic view, it actually says the primacy of Peter. Yet it does not deny the equalness that is part of Orthodox.

How does the Orthodox interpret the primacy of Peter comment? Is it that Orthodox think that too much emphasis is given to the primacy of Peter? Not enough to the equalness? Help me to understand the view or the Orthodox.

Your sister in Christ,

Maria

p.s.

It would appear to me that the Catholics developed this primacy and equalness but the Orthodox deny the primacy aspect and stand on the equalness. (Obviously my view is Catholic, but spin it Orthodox to help me understand)
 
John****John 21

**15 **When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

οτε ουν ηριστησαν λεγει τω σιμωνι πετρω ο ιησους σιμων ιωαννου αγαπας με πλεον τουτων λεγει αυτω ναι κυριε συ οιδας οτι φιλω σε λεγει αυτω βοσκε τα αρνια μου

**16 **He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

λεγει αυτω παλιν δευτερον σιμων ιωαννου αγαπας με λεγει αυτω ναι κυριε συ οιδας οτι φιλω σε λεγει αυτω ποιμαινε τα προβατα μου

**17 **He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

λεγει αυτω το τριτον σιμων ιωαννου **φιλεις **με ελυπηθη ο πετρος οτι ειπεν αυτω το τριτον φιλεις με και λεγει αυτω κυριε παντα συ οιδας συ γινωσκεις οτι φιλω σε λεγει αυτω ο ιησους] βοσκε τα προβατα μου

there are 5 words in the greek for love:

agape=pure love αγαπας
filios= brotherly love **φιλεις **
eros=romantic love
 
40.png
prodromos:
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.
Click to expand...

It depends what is meant by “papal supremacy” - IMO you’ve made a good case, in your two consecutive posts, for a Petrine office; which I assume is something different from “papal supremacy”.​

I’ve never heard of that Protestant interpretation - and a reference to the fish sounds a little far-fetched. ##
 
Last night in Adoration I came upon this passage in Ezekiel that reminded me of this thread. EZ 34:1-10

I think when Jesus is reminding Peter that in taking the position of leader he is responsible for His people. I have more that I worked out, but I also have a two-year old that won’t let me write!

Hoe do you view this passage in relation to John 21:15-17?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top