We’re all working on that last part.

Excerpt from Fr. Murray Watson’s commentary for the Third Sunday of Easter (April 18, 2010)

For centuries, commentators and preachers have been intrigued by an apparently unusual linguistic shift in vv. 15-17 (the dialogue between Jesus and Peter). In the first two questions that Jesus puts to Peter, He asks him, “Simon, son of John , do you love me [more than these]?” —and the Greek verb in both cases is ἀγαπάω, agapaō. Peter’s response, however, makes use of a different verb, ϕιλέω, phileō . In the third questioning, however, Jesus switches to phileō, and Peter responds with the same verb. Those who are familiar with C.S. Lewis’ well-known little book The Four Loves will know that Lewis distinguishes (and expounds upon) the four most common terms for love in ancient Greek … Lewis concludes that phileō refers, more or less, to a love of warmth and friendship, a close bond of affection and loyalty between people who care about each other. But, he argues … that the distinctively Christian love—to which Christ calls us—is not philia but agapē, a powerful, self-sacrificing kind of love … It is that love, Lewis would argue, which is most perfectly made visible to humanity in the Passion and death of Jesus on the Cross, and it is the model for all Christian loving. It is, therefore, the “summit” of the different types of love, the ultimate that a human being can attain—a lofty and challenging goal. It is for this reason, commentators suggest, that Peter (chastened and humbled by his own experience of weakness and betrayal) does not promise to love Jesus with this agapē–love. He realizes all too well that his past professions of love, loyalty and devotion have been proven false—the memory of Holy Thursday and Good Friday remains bitterly imprinted in his memory. Peter, who once was so exuberant in his promises to serve and defend Christ, has learned how easily he can fail in actually living that love—and so he offers to Christ what he is able to do: to offer Him the love of a devoted friend, which is something less than the agapē Jesus proposes. After twice asking Peter for this agapē, Jesus then “comes down” to Peter’s level, and asks him, not for agapē, but for philia. The lesson, therefore, would lie both in Peter’s newly-acquired humility, but also in Jesus’ loving condescension to Peter’s confessed limitations—not demanding more of him than Peter feels he is able to give. Jesus welcomes the humble, limited, imperfect love that Peter is capable of, and it is enough of a foundation for Him to build further upon. Of course, ancient Christian tradition states that Peter does, in fact, give his life in martyrdom for Jesus—does, in fact, end his life in Rome with an act of agapē (and the end of today’s Gospel alludes cryptically to Peter’s death as a martyr). But that is still in the future, and, for the moment, Peter is not prepared to make such a commitment, having discovered (the hard way) the rashness of such bold and impetuous professions of valour .
…
John wishes us to see parallels between Peter’s threefold profession of love and fidelity toward Jesus, and his earlier threefold denial of Him in the courtyard of the High Priest’s house on Holy Thursday night. That this is so is further emphasized by the fact that Jesus is said to be cooking the breakfast over “a charcoal fire” [anthrakia]—an unusual and unnecessary detail that specifically recalls the place where Peter was warming himself with the guards a few nights earlier (18:18, 25), when he had so emphatically denied any knowledge of Jesus. There is a powerful sense of reconciliation and healing here: Jesus is offering Peter a much-needed opportunity to repent of his previous infidelity, to re-commit himself to his Lord, and to be strengthened, both for his role of leadership in the Christian community, and for the sufferings and violent death that will await him in the future, in Rome . But it is done with gentleness and compassion, without confrontation or recrimination—a model for all of us, in terms of how we should offer forgiveness and reconciliation to those who have hurt, rejected or betrayed us.

I love that last part, how we should offer forgiveness and reconciliation to those who have hurt, rejected or betrayed us. Without confrontation or recrimination. I’m still working on that.

Have a blessed Sunday