Matthew 4:18

The Call of the Disciples

4:18 As ¹  he was walking by the Sea of Galilee he saw two brothers, Simon (called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea (for they were fishermen). ² 

Matthew 10:2

10:2 Now these are the names of the twelve apostles: ³  first, Simon ⁴  (called Peter), and Andrew his brother; James son of Zebedee and John his brother;

Luke 22:31-34

22:31 “Simon, ⁵  Simon, pay attention! ⁶  Satan has demanded to have you all, ⁷  to sift you like wheat, ⁸  22:32 but I have prayed for you, Simon, ⁹  that your faith may not fail. ¹⁰  When ¹¹  you have turned back, ¹²  strengthen ¹³  your brothers.” 22:33 But Peter ¹⁴  said to him, “Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to death!” ¹⁵  22:34 Jesus replied, ¹⁶  “I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow ¹⁷  today until you have denied ¹⁸  three times that you know me.”

John 1:42

1:42 Andrew brought Simon ¹⁹  to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon, the son of John. ²⁰  You will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter). ²¹ 

John 21:15-17

Peter’s Restoration

21:15 Then when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, ²²  do you love me more than these do?” ²³  He replied, ²⁴  “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” ²⁵  Jesus ²⁶  told him, “Feed my lambs.” 21:16 Jesus ²⁷  said ²⁸  a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He replied, ²⁹  “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus ³⁰  told him, “Shepherd my sheep.” 21:17 Jesus ³¹  said ³²  a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed ³³  that Jesus ³⁴  asked ³⁵  him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, ³⁶  “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” Jesus ³⁷  replied, ³⁸  “Feed my sheep.

John 21:1

Jesus’ Appearance to the Disciples in Galilee

21:1 After this ³⁹  Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias. ⁴⁰  Now this is how he did so. ⁴¹ 

John 1:1

The Prologue to the Gospel

1:1 In the beginning ⁴²  was the Word, and the Word was with God, ⁴³  and the Word was fully God. ⁴⁴ 

[4:18]  ¹ tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

[4:18]  ² tn The two phrases in this verse placed in parentheses are explanatory comments by the author, parenthetical in nature.

[10:2]  ³ sn The term apostles is rare in the gospels, found only here, Mark 3:14, and six more times in Luke (6:13; 9:10; 11:49; 17:5; 22:14; 24:10).

[10:2]  ⁴ sn In the various lists of the twelve, Simon (that is, Peter) is always mentioned first (see also Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:13-16; Acts 1:13) and the first four are always the same, though not in the same order after Peter.

[22:31]  ⁵ tc The majority of mss (א A D W Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 Ï as well as several versional witnesses) begin this verse with an introductory comment, “and the Lord said,” indicating a change in the subject of discussion. But this is apparently a reading motivated by the need for clarity. Some of the best witnesses, along with a few others (Ì⁷⁵ B L T 1241 2542^c sy^s co), do not contain these words. The abrupt shift is the more difficult reading and thus more likely to be original.

[22:31]  ⁶ tn Grk “behold” (for “pay attention” see L&N 91.13).

[22:31]  ⁷ sn This pronoun is plural in the Greek text, so it refers to all the disciples of which Peter is the representative.

[22:31]  ⁸ sn Satan has demanded permission to put them to the test. The idiom “sift (someone) like wheat” is similar to the English idiom “to pick (someone) apart.” The pronoun you is implied.

[22:32]  ⁹ sn Here and in the remainder of the verse the second person pronouns are singular, so only Peter is in view. The name “Simon” has been supplied as a form of direct address to make this clear in English.

[22:32]  ¹⁰ sn That your faith may not fail. Note that Peter’s denials are pictured here as lapses, not as a total absence of faith.

[22:32]  ¹¹ tn Grk “And when.” Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.

[22:32]  ¹² tn Or “turned around.”

[22:32]  ¹³ sn Strengthen your brothers refers to Peter helping to strengthen their faith. Jesus quite graciously restores Peter “in advance,” even with the knowledge of his approaching denials.

[22:33]  ¹⁴ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Peter) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[22:33]  ¹⁵ sn The confidence Peter has in private (Lord, I am ready…) will wilt under the pressure of the public eye.

[22:34]  ¹⁶ tn Grk “he said”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[22:34]  ¹⁷ sn That is, Peter’s denials will happen before the sun rises.

[22:34]  ¹⁸ sn Once again, Jesus is quite aware that Peter will deny him. Peter, however, is too nonchalant about the possibility of stumbling.

[1:42]  ¹⁹ tn Grk “He brought him”; both referents (Andrew, Simon) have been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:42]  ²⁰ 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]  ²¹ 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]  ²² 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]  ²³ 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]  ²⁴ tn Grk “He said to him.”

[21:15]  ²⁵ 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]  ²⁶ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:16]  ²⁷ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:16]  ²⁸ 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]  ²⁹ tn Grk “He said to him.”

[21:16]  ³⁰ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ³¹ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ³² tn Grk “said to him.” The words “to him” are clear from the context and slightly redundant in English.

[21:17]  ³³ tn Or “was sad.”

[21:17]  ³⁴ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ³⁵ tn Grk “said to.”

[21:17]  ³⁶ tn Grk “and said to him.” The words “to him” are clear from the context and slightly redundant in English.

[21:17]  ³⁷ 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]  ³⁸ tn Grk “Jesus said to him.”

[21:1]  ³⁹ tn The time reference indicated by μετὰ ταῦτα (meta tauta) is indefinite, in comparison with the specific “after eight days” (μεθ᾿ ἡμέρας ὀκτώ, meq’ Jhmera" oktw) between the two postresurrection appearances of Jesus in 20:26.

[21:1]  ⁴⁰ sn The Sea of Tiberias is another name for the Sea of Galilee (see 6:1).

[21:1]  ⁴¹ tn Grk “how he revealed himself.”

[1:1]  ⁴² sn In the beginning. The search for the basic “stuff” out of which things are made was the earliest one in Greek philosophy. It was attended by the related question of “What is the process by which the secondary things came out of the primary one (or ones)?,” or in Aristotelian terminology, “What is the ‘beginning’ (same Greek word as beginning, John 1:1) and what is the origin of the things that are made?” In the New Testament the word usually has a temporal sense, but even BDAG 138 s.v. ἀρχή 3 lists a major category of meaning as “the first cause.” For John, the words “In the beginning” are most likely a conscious allusion to the opening words of Genesis – “In the beginning.” Other concepts which occur prominently in Gen 1 are also found in John’s prologue: “life” (1:4) “light” (1:4) and “darkness” (1:5). Gen 1 describes the first (physical) creation; John 1 describes the new (spiritual) creation. But this is not to play off a false dichotomy between “physical” and “spiritual”; the first creation was both physical and spiritual. The new creation is really a re-creation, of the spiritual (first) but also the physical. (In spite of the common understanding of John’s “spiritual” emphasis, the “physical” re-creation should not be overlooked; this occurs in John 2 with the changing of water into wine, in John 11 with the resurrection of Lazarus, and the emphasis of John 20-21 on the aftermath of Jesus’ own resurrection.)

[1:1]  ⁴³ tn The preposition πρός (pros) implies not just proximity, but intimate personal relationship. M. Dods stated, “Πρός …means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another” (“The Gospel of St. John,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1:684). See also Mark 6:3, Matt 13:56, Mark 9:19, Gal 1:18, 2 John 12.

[1:1]  ⁴⁴ tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.