Luke 5:8

5:8 But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Go away from me, Lord, ¹  for I am a sinful man!” ² 

John 1:40-42

Andrew’s Declaration

1:40 Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two disciples who heard what John said ³  and followed Jesus. ⁴  1:41 He first ⁵  found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah!” ⁶  (which is translated Christ). ⁷  1:42 Andrew brought Simon ⁸  to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon, the son of John. ⁹  You will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter). ¹⁰ 

John 21:15-20

Peter’s Restoration

21:15 Then when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, ¹¹  do you love me more than these do?” ¹²  He replied, ¹³  “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” ¹⁴  Jesus ¹⁵  told him, “Feed my lambs.” 21:16 Jesus ¹⁶  said ¹⁷  a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He replied, ¹⁸  “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus ¹⁹  told him, “Shepherd my sheep.” 21:17 Jesus ²⁰  said ²¹  a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed ²²  that Jesus ²³  asked ²⁴  him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, ²⁵  “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” Jesus ²⁶  replied, ²⁷  “Feed my sheep. 21:18 I tell you the solemn truth, ²⁸  when you were young, you tied your clothes around you ²⁹  and went wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and others will tie you up ³⁰  and bring you where you do not want to go.” 21:19 (Now Jesus ³¹  said this to indicate clearly by what kind of death Peter ³²  was going to glorify God.) ³³  After he said this, Jesus told Peter, ³⁴  “Follow me.”

Peter and the Disciple Jesus Loved

21:20 Peter turned around and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them. ³⁵  (This was the disciple ³⁶  who had leaned back against Jesus’ ³⁷  chest at the meal and asked, ³⁸  “Lord, who is the one who is going to betray you?”) ³⁹ 

Acts 1:13

1:13 When ⁴⁰  they had entered Jerusalem, ⁴¹  they went to the upstairs room where they were staying. Peter ⁴²  and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James were there. ⁴³ 

Acts 1:2

1:2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, ⁴⁴  after he had given orders ⁴⁵  by ⁴⁶  the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.

Acts 1:1

Jesus Ascends to Heaven

1:1 I wrote ⁴⁷  the former ⁴⁸  account, ⁴⁹  Theophilus, ⁵⁰  about all that Jesus began to do and teach

[5:8]  ¹ sn Lord is a term of high respect in this context. God’s presence in the work of Jesus makes Peter recognize his authority. This vocative is common in Luke (20 times), but does not yet have its full confessional force.

[5:8]  ² sn Peter was intimidated that someone who was obviously working with divine backing was in his presence (“Go away from me”). He feared his sinfulness might lead to judgment, but Jesus would show him otherwise.

[1:40]  ³ tn Grk “who heard from John.”

[1:40]  ⁴ tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:41]  ⁵ tc Most witnesses (א* L W^s Ï) read πρῶτος (prwtos) here instead of πρῶτον (prwton). The former reading would be a predicate adjective and suggest that Andrew “was the first” person to proselytize another regarding Jesus. The reading preferred, however, is the neuter πρῶτον, used as an adverb (BDAG 893 s.v. πρῶτος 1.a.β.), and it suggests that the first thing that Andrew did was to proselytize Peter. The evidence for this reading is early and weighty: Ì^66,75 א² A B Θ Ψ 083 Ë^1,13 892 al lat.

[1:41]  ⁶ sn Naturally part of Andrew’s concept of the Messiah would have been learned from John the Baptist (v. 40). However, there were a number of different messianic expectations in 1st century Palestine (see the note on “Who are you?” in v. 19), and it would be wrong to assume that what Andrew meant here is the same thing the author means in the purpose statement at the end of the Fourth Gospel, 20:31. The issue here is not whether the disciples’ initial faith in Jesus as Messiah was genuine or not, but whether their concept of who Jesus was grew and developed progressively as they spent time following him, until finally after his resurrection it is affirmed in the climactic statement of John’s Gospel, the affirmation of Thomas in 20:28.

[1:41]  ⁷ tn Both Greek “Christ” and Hebrew and Aramaic “Messiah” mean “the one who has been anointed.”

[1:42]  ⁸ tn Grk “He brought him”; both referents (Andrew, Simon) have been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:42]  ⁹ tc The reading “Simon, son of John” is well attested in Ì^66,75,106 א B* L 33 pc it co. The majority of mss (A B² Ψ Ë^1,13 Ï) read “Simon, the son of Jonah” here instead, but that is perhaps an assimilation to Matt 16:17.

[1:42]  ¹⁰ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author. The change of name from Simon to Cephas is indicative of the future role he will play. Only John among the gospel writers gives the Greek transliteration (Κηφᾶς, Khfas) of Simon’s new name, Qéphâ (which is Galilean Aramaic). Neither Πέτρος (Petros) in Greek nor Qéphâ in Aramaic is a normal proper name; it is more like a nickname.

[21:15]  ¹¹ tc The majority of mss (A C² Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï sy) read “Simon, the son of Jonah” here and in vv. 16 and 17, but these are perhaps assimilations to Matt 16:17. The reading “Simon, son of John” is better attested, being found in א¹ (א* only has “Simon” without mention of his father) B C* D L W lat co.

[21:15]  ¹² tn To whom (or what) does “these” (τούτων, toutwn) refer? Three possibilities are suggested: (1) τούτων should be understood as neuter, “these things,” referring to the boats, nets, and fishing gear nearby. In light of Peter’s statement in 21:3, “I am going fishing,” some have understood Peter to have renounced his commission in light of his denials of Jesus. Jesus, as he restores Peter and forgives him for his denials, is asking Peter if he really loves his previous vocation more than he loves Jesus. Three things may be said in evaluation of this view: (a) it is not at all necessary to understand Peter’s statement in 21:3 as a renouncement of his discipleship, as this view of the meaning of τούτων would imply; (b) it would probably be more likely that the verb would be repeated in such a construction (see 7:31 for an example where the verb is repeated); and (c) as R. E. Brown has observed (John [AB], 2:1103) by Johannine standards the choice being offered to Peter between material things and the risen Jesus would seem rather ridiculous, especially after the disciples had realized whom it was they were dealing with (the Lord, see v. 12). (2) τούτων refers to the other disciples, meaning “Do you love me more than you love these other disciples?” The same objection mentioned as (c) under (1) would apply here: Could the author, in light of the realization of who Jesus is which has come to the disciples after the resurrection, and which he has just mentioned in 21:12, seriously present Peter as being offered a choice between the other disciples and the risen Jesus? This leaves option (3), that τούτων refers to the other disciples, meaning “Do you love me more than these other disciples do?” It seems likely that there is some irony here: Peter had boasted in 13:37, “I will lay down my life for you,” and the synoptics present Peter as boasting even more explicitly of his loyalty to Jesus (“Even if they all fall away, I will not,” Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29). Thus the semantic force of what Jesus asks Peter here amounts to something like “Now, after you have denied me three times, as I told you you would, can you still affirm that you love me more than these other disciples do?” The addition of the auxiliary verb “do” in the translation is used to suggest to the English reader the third interpretation, which is the preferred one.

[21:15]  ¹³ tn Grk “He said to him.”

[21:15]  ¹⁴ tn 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.

[21:15]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:16]  ¹⁶ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:16]  ¹⁷ tn Grk “said again.” The word “again” (when used in connection with the phrase “a second time”) is redundant and has not been translated.

[21:16]  ¹⁸ tn Grk “He said to him.”

[21:16]  ¹⁹ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ²⁰ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ²¹ tn Grk “said to him.” The words “to him” are clear from the context and slightly redundant in English.

[21:17]  ²² tn Or “was sad.”

[21:17]  ²³ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ²⁴ tn Grk “said to.”

[21:17]  ²⁵ tn Grk “and said to him.” The words “to him” are clear from the context and slightly redundant in English.

[21:17]  ²⁶ tc ‡ Most witnesses, especially later ones (A Θ Ψ Ë¹³ Ï), read ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (Jo Ihsou", “Jesus”) here, while B C have ᾿Ιησοῦς without the article and א D W ˹ 33 565 al lat lack both. Because of the rapid verbal exchange in this pericope, “Jesus” is virtually required for clarity, providing a temptation to scribes to add the name. Further, the name normally occurs with the article. Although it is possible that B C accidentally omitted the article with the name, it is just as likely that they added the simple name to the text for clarity’s sake, while other witnesses added the article as well. The omission of ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς thus seems most likely to be authentic. NA²⁷ includes the words in brackets, indicating some doubts as to their authenticity.

[21:17]  ²⁷ tn Grk “Jesus said to him.”

[21:18]  ²⁸ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

[21:18]  ²⁹ tn Or “you girded yourself.”

[21:18]  ³⁰ tn Grk “others will gird you.”

[21:19]  ³¹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:19]  ³² tn Grk “he”; the referent (Peter) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:19]  ³³ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author. The phrase by what kind of death Peter was going to glorify God almost certainly indicates martyrdom (cf. 1 Pet 4:16), and it may not predict anything more than that. But the parallelism of this phrase to similar phrases in John 12:33 and 18:32 which describe Jesus’ own death by crucifixion have led many to suggest that the picture Jesus is portraying for Peter looks not just at martyrdom but at death by crucifixion. This seems to be confirmed by the phrase you will stretch out your hands in the preceding verse. There is some evidence that the early church understood this and similar phrases (one of them in Isa 65:2) to refer to crucifixion (for a detailed discussion of the evidence see L. Morris, John [NICNT], 876, n. 52). Some have objected that if this phrase does indeed refer to crucifixion, the order within v. 18 is wrong, because the stretching out of the hands in crucifixion precedes the binding and leading where one does not wish to go. R. E. Brown (John [AB], 2:1108) sees this as a deliberate reversal of the normal order (hysteron proteron) intended to emphasize the stretching out of the hands. Another possible explanation for the unusual order is the Roman practice in crucifixions of tying the condemned prisoner’s arms to the crossbeam (patibulum) and forcing him to carry it to the place of execution (W. Bauer as cited by O. Cullmann in Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr [LHD], 88).

[21:19]  ³⁴ tn Grk “After he said this, he said to him”; the referents (first Jesus, second Peter) have been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:20]  ³⁵ tn The word “them” is not in the Greek text but is implied. Direct objects were often omitted in Greek when clear from the context.

[21:20]  ³⁶ tn The words “This was the disciple” are not in the Greek text, but are supplied for clarity.

[21:20]  ³⁷ tn Grk “his”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:20]  ³⁸ tn Grk “and said.”

[21:20]  ³⁹ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[1:13]  ⁴⁰ tn Grk “And when.” Because of the difference between Greek style, which often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” and English style, which generally does not, καί (kai) has not been translated here.

[1:13]  ⁴¹ tn The word “Jerusalem” is not in the Greek text but is implied (direct objects were often omitted when clear from the context).

[1:13]  ⁴² sn In the various lists of the twelve, Peter (also called Simon) is always mentioned first (see also Matt 10:1-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:13-16) and the first four are always the same, though not in the same order after Peter.

[1:13]  ⁴³ tn The words “were there” are not in the Greek text, but are implied.

[1:2]  ⁴⁴ tn The words “to heaven” are not in the Greek text, but are supplied from v. 11. Several modern translations (NIV, NRSV) supply the words “to heaven” after “taken up” to specify the destination explicitly mentioned later in 1:11.

[1:2]  ⁴⁵ tn Or “commands.” Although some modern translations render ἐντειλάμενος (enteilameno") as “instructions” (NIV, NRSV), the word implies authority or official sanction (G. Schrenk, TDNT 2:545), so that a word like “orders” conveys the idea more effectively. The action of the temporal participle is antecedent (prior) to the action of the verb it modifies (“taken up”).

[1:2]  ⁴⁶ tn Or “through.”

[1:1]  ⁴⁷ tn Or “produced,” Grk “made.”

[1:1]  ⁴⁸ tn Or “first.” The translation “former” is preferred because “first” could imply to the modern English reader that the author means that his previous account was the first one to be written down. The Greek term πρῶτος (prwtos) does not necessarily mean “first” in an absolute sense, but can refer to the first in a set or series. That is what is intended here – the first account (known as the Gospel of Luke) as compared to the second one (known as Acts).

[1:1]  ⁴⁹ tn The Greek word λόγος (logos) is sometimes translated “book” (NRSV, NIV) or “treatise” (KJV). A formal, systematic treatment of a subject is implied, but the word “book” may be too specific and slightly misleading to the modern reader, so “account” has been used.

[1:1]  ⁵⁰ tn Grk “O Theophilus,” but the usage of the vocative in Acts with ὦ (w) is unemphatic, following more the classical idiom (see ExSyn 69).