John 21:1-19
Restored for a Purpose
It is not certain that New Testament writers always used words with fine distinctions of meaning. Westcott, along with others, has legitimate grounds for his interpretation of this passage. It goes like this:
Jesus used agapao, the stronger term, and twice Peter replied with phileo, the weaker term. Then Jesus accommodated his question to Peter, not demanding the highest love of Peter because he was not yet capable of giving it. Peter was in turn exhorted to feed lambs, tend sheep, and feed sheep. The chief need of small lambs is to be fed, while grown sheep need to be tended or cared for by the shepherd; but sheep also need to be fed. This, to me, is the most satisfactory interpretation which can be placed upon this passage. However, it is well to observe that such distinctions can easily be carried too far. did Jesus find as much reason for changing from agapao to phileo as He had for changing from lambs to sheep and from feed to tend? Certainly it is not correct to say that agapao means divine love and phileo means human love.
The pattern of verse 15 is repeated in verses 16–17: Jesus asks of Peter’s love for him, Peter affirms his love, and Jesus charges Peter to care for his sheep. These questions and Jesus’ command to Peter to care for Jesus’ sheep recall 10:11–18 and the love commandment of 13:34–35. Jesus is calling Peter to show his love for Jesus by loving his sheep as Jesus has loved them. Peter is asked to love like a good shepherd, to love “to the utmost.” The meal that Jesus has just prepared is an example of the work that Peter is called to continue. The three questions about Peter’s love for Jesus also counterbalance Peter’s three denials of Jesus (13:38; 18:17, 25–27). Peter’s former denials do not prevent him from participating in the work to come. Yet Jesus’ repeated commands make it clear that there must be a direct relationship between love for Jesus and Peter’s actions. Peter’s care for the sheep will show his love for Jesus.