Galatians 2:20 says "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me."
Scripture is filled with hard things, sayings and commands that are difficult to interpret and even more difficult to follow. For instance what did Christ mean when he said to the masses 'Anyone who does not eat of my flesh and drink of my blood is not worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven'? (a paraphrase) The above verse, one of a few in which Paul puts forth this idea, is one of these. What does it mean when Paul says 'I no longer live'? Obviously he does not mean this literally, if he were dead he could not have written the words.
I first began to understand this verse through a Japanese proverb, 'Live as though already dead', the meaning behind this was integral to the nature of the Samurai culture. The idea was that one was to be wholly devoted to one's lord, to the point that if the lord ordered one to kill oneself one could do so without hesitation. Hence Samurai were to live as though they were already dead so that they could be so wholly devoted to their lord.
Here Paul is speaking of the same thing, Christ is our lord, we are to be so wholly devoted to Christ that no matter what he asks of us we will do it without hesitation. This is not an easy thing to do, in fact the Apostle Peter failed at least once.
In John 21 we find a story of one of Christ's appearances after the resurrection. In this story Peter, feeling unworthy because of his failure and denial of Christ returns to his former profession, fishing. The story itself is very similar to the story in which Simon-Peter is first called as one of the disciples, however it ends with a test from the risen Messiah, one that Peter apparently fails. First let me explain the meaning of two Greek words for love, these are 'agape' and 'phileo.' These two words are both translated 'love' in the English text of the story, however there is an important difference between them, 'agape' (often refered to as Godly love) bears with it the idea of unconditional love. This would be similar to saying to someone with complete sincerity 'I love you and nothing you could ever do would change that love.' Now, obviously this is quite a statement if one means it with the full intent of the words, to say to someone that nothing they could possibly do would change one's love effectively gives them free reign in one's life to do whatever they wish for good or ill. The second word, 'phileo' is more akin to what we normally consider love, it is similar to saying 'I care deeply for you, but you could still mess it up if you do something really bad.'
In this story Christ asks of Peter 'Peter, do you agape me?' and Peter responds, 'Lord, you know I phileo you.' Again Christ asks of him 'Peter, do you agape me?' and Peter responds again 'Lord, you know I phileo you.'
The third time Christ asks 'Peter, do you phileo me?' and Peter responds (and I can almost here the pain in his voice when I read the text), 'Lord, you know I phileo you.'
Now please bear in mind that, while we often hold Peter up as an example of rashness and failure, he certainly fulfilled Paul's statement in Galatians 2:20, he did great things for God and died in a manner similar to Christ, being crucified upside down (according to tradition). From the teachings of Paul and the example of Peter we can certainly see how difficult it is to devote ourselves to Christ in the manner required. However we can also see that, even after repeated failure, it is still possible.
I encourage all of you, 'live as though already dead' and give all that you are to Christ, no matter how difficult that might be.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I had never heard that the words used for "love" in that passage were different between what Jesus asked and what Peter answered. It's interesting that Jesus used phileo instead of agape the third time. Do you know of a good source that explores this further?
ReplyDeleteOff the top of my head I don't. Some commentators will mention it but I don't know of any that explore it in depth. One of the things that interests me about this passage is that, after Christ asks his "Do you phileo me?" the test says that Peter was 'distressed' or 'grieved'. The Greek word used here implies a deep, emotional distress, possibly akin to the grief one feels when a loved one dies. I think that this was Peter's final failure, remember that not long before Peter had denied Christ. Now he has the chance to redeem himself, when Christ asks 'do you agape me?' Peter excitedly responds 'Yes Lord, I phileo you!' By the third question it seems to me that Peter has figured out that he is not capable of giving the answer which Christ wants to hear. Christ wants agape love, something that Peter isn't yet capable of giving, and so Christ lowers the bar for him. Essentially Christ is saying to Peter 'you can't love me the way you should, so I'll accept the love that you can give.' I think that this would have felt, to Peter in his mindset at the time, like just as great (or possibly a greater) failure as his denial.
ReplyDelete