Dick Harfield misleading answer on Quora
.jpg)
DICK HARFIELD'S RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION
Had Jesus asked in Aramaic whether Peter loved him, Peter’s answer that he loved Jesus, also spoken in Aramaic, would have satisfied Jesus each time, because the same verb (ḥav) would have been used, regardless of how strong Peter’s love was. Jesus could not have perceived from Peter’s answers that his love was not as strong as he might have desired.
Koine Greek allows different nuances, so Jesus asked for sacred love (agape) but Peter responded by saying that his love (philia) towards Jesus was like the love of a good friend. The gospels were written in Greek for Greek-speaking readers, so the conversation would have seemed natural to people who probably did not even realise that Jesus and Peter could not meaningfully have had this conversation in the local language, Aramaic.
When translated into Latin, the Greek nuances were lost, so the Church simply assumed that “feed my sheep” was an instruction to lead, rather than an expression of frustration.
MY RESPONSE TO DICK HARFIELD
The explanation you provided reflects a common popular interpretation, but it has several linguistic and historical problems. I’ll evaluate it point-by-point.
1. Claim: The conversation could not have happened meaningfully in Aramaic
This claim is generally rejected by most modern scholars. Jesus and Peter almost certainly spoke Aramaic as their everyday language in Galilee. However, the argument that Aramaic could only use one verb for love is incorrect or oversimplified.
Aramaic had multiple expressions for love, including:
-
ḥav / ḥab – love, affection
-
rḥm (raham) – deep love or compassion
-
other expressions of affection or devotion
Therefore, it was possible to express different shades of love in Aramaic, even if the vocabulary did not map perfectly onto Greek categories.
Because of this, scholars such as D. A. Carson and Craig S. Keener argue that the Aramaic original would not necessarily have carried the agape/philia distinction that many sermons highlight.
2. Claim: Greek creates a deliberate contrast between agapē and philia
In the Gospel of John 21:15–17, the Greek text alternates between:
-
ἀγαπάω (agapaō) – often translated “love”
-
φιλέω (phileō) – often translated “love/affection”
Jesus asks twice with agapaō, Peter responds with phileō, and the third time Jesus uses phileō.
This has led to the popular sermon interpretation:
-
Jesus: “Do you love me with divine love?”
-
Peter: “I only love you as a friend.”
However, most Greek scholars say the verbs are often interchangeable in Koine Greek.
Examples in the same Gospel show overlap:
-
The Father “loves” the Son with agapaō (John 3:35)
-
The Father “loves” the Son with phileō (John 5:20)
Similarly:
-
Lazarus is loved with phileō (John 11:3)
-
Lazarus is loved with agapaō (John 11:5)
Because of this, many scholars conclude that John is va rying vocabulary stylistically, something he frequently does.
3. Other word changes in the passage
The passage also alternates other synonyms:
| Concept | Word 1 | Word 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Feed | boskō | poimainō |
| Sheep | arnia (lambs) | probata (sheep) |
These variations are usually considered stylistic rather than theological distinctions.
4. Claim: “Feed my sheep” expresses Jesus’ frustration
There is no strong linguistic evidence that the phrase implies frustration.
Most scholars interpret the passage as:
-
Peter’s restoration after denying Jesus three times
-
Each question reverses one denial
This restoration theme fits the narrative context of **Gospel of John 18 (Peter’s denial) and John 21 (Peter’s restoration).
5. Claim: The Latin translation lost the meaning
When translated into Latin Vulgate, both verbs became forms of diligere or amare. However, the claim that the church misunderstood the passage because of Latin is unlikely, because early Greek-speaking theologians also did not strongly emphasize this agape/philia distinction.
6. The stronger scholarly interpretation
Most modern commentators conclude:
-
The conversation could have happened in Aramaic.
-
The agapē / philia contrast is probably overstated.
-
The real emphasis is on Peter’s reinstatement and commission.
-
The three questions mirror the three denials.
Dick Hartfields error
Your explanation reflects a popular preaching interpretation, but it is not widely supported by modern linguistic scholarship.
The main weaknesses are:
-
Aramaic was not incapable of expressing different kinds of love.
-
Agapaō and phileō are often interchangeable in Koine Greek.
-
The passage’s focus is more likely restoration and pastoral commissioning than a debate about levels of love.
