John 103 – Feed My Sheep
09/06/2026
Scripture 1: (Jn. 21:15-19 ESV)
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”
He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.”
He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?”
He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.”
He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”
Scripture 2: (1 Pet. 5:1-12 ESV)
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight,not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Sermon:
Another reason that I think the twenty-first chapter of John is so easily overlooked and ignored is because it seems like a very personal chapter; specifically as regards Simon Peter. Peter is the central focus of this chapter, not the resurrected Christ. Jesus always remains the most important character but in this story, He takes on more of a supporting role because, now that His work of redemption was done, He was setting up the future operation of His Church.
While the first story in chapter 21 was focused on Jesus’ third post-resurrection appearance, it also emphasized Peter’s impetuousness in abandoning his companions in order to reach Jesus as well as having the miraculous, overly large catch be an echo of Peter’s original call, from Luke 5.
This second story prominently features a personal conversation between Jesus and Peter, with Jesus alternating between interrogating and commanding Peter.
And, although the third story will be more concerned with “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn. 21:20 ESV), it will also be a moment for Jesus to tell Peter to mind his own business and to be more concerned with his own obedience, than with the future of his fellow disciple.
So, as you can see {following a small chiastic form}, the first and last stories frame Peter as the central focus of chapter 21 and this conversation with Jesus is the reason why.
Now, please recall the scene. The resurrected Jesus sat by the shore of the Sea of Galilee eating breakfast with Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, James, John, and two other unnamed disciples {belonging also to “the Twelve”, presumably}. This would have been during the mid/early morning hours, for “When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?””. The meal was done. They fell into routine, tending to their regular and ordinary clean up tasks; cleaning up from the meal and cleaning up the nets from their fishing trip. I would expect that Jesus and Peter presently had the kind of “public privacy” where people were around but no one was paying close attention to them. This is the likely “when and where” of Jesus first asking Peter, “Simon…do you love me more than these?”, as Jesus probably waved His nail scarred hand to indicate the other disciples present {as representative of all the disciples or perhaps all who were presently believing in Christ}.
Peter answered Him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.”, but, knowing Peter, he probably did not think too hard about the question. He may not have even thought about it at all. He probably answered, as by reflex. {Yes, of course, Jesus. Yes, Lord, of course I love you. You know that I do.} Then Jesus told him, “Feed my lambs.”.
But that was a rather odd command. It was unexpected. Peter was a fisherman by occupation, not a shepherd. Most of his personal experience with sheep would have been buying Temple sacrifices; animals that were probably chosen for him, by the Levite workers. However, this was also Jesus talking to him. Peter was used to Jesus saying things and telling him things that did not make sense, at first. So, he probably just accepted it and did not think anything more about it, trusting that Jesus would explain what He meant in His own time, just like He always did.
But then, Jesus asked Him again, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?”. Now, whether Jesus asked him immediately or maybe there was some conversation in between, the Evangelist does not say. Yet I am sure that Peter answered Jesus a little bit slower this time. I am sure that he hesitated before answering because Jesus was not known for repeating Himself, especially not in quick succession, unless He was making a point; unless He was performing an object lesson. And Peter knew that if that was what Jesus was doing, then he was about to be a part of the lesson.
Peter answered Jesus, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” and Jesus told him, “Tend my sheep.”.
For a third time, Jesus again asked Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” and this time, the Evangelist tells us what Peter was feeling. John explains that “Peter was grieved because [Jesus] said to him the third time, “Do you love me?”…”. Jesus’s interrogation did not merely make Peter feel sad or generically sorrowful. Jesus’s questioning caused Peter to feel severely distressed. He would have been as anxious as he was upset. He would have been nervous and beginning to feel embarrassed. Peter was grieved and he was reacting this way because things were now clicking into place. Suddenly, Peter was putting -3 (negative three) plus +3 (positive three) together. He felt distressed because he realized what Jesus’s questions pertained to: his three denials of knowing Jesus as he waited in the High Priest’s courtyard during Jesus’ trial (John 18).
So, Peter confessed, guiltily, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” and again, “Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.” … And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”.
Remember:
Back in John 18, three times Peter denied being one of Jesus’ disciples (John 18:17, 25, 27).
Now, in John 21, three times Peter affirmed his love for Jesus (John 21:15, 16, 17).
Therefore, we understand Peter’s three denials as being undone by these three affirmations and so, with Jesus’s final command of “Follow me.” Peter was fullu redeemed and restored to his beginning, to when he first met Jesus. Back in Luke 5, after experiencing that massive catch, Peter fell down at Jesus’ feet and begged Him, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” (Lk. 5:8 ESV). Yet Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men.” (Lk. 5:10 ESV) or, as Matthew records, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” (Matt. 4:19 ESV). Peter was redeemed and restored from his guilt and, presumably, he now understood that Jesus had forgiven him for his failure: his failure to stand firm against the world’s pressure to deny Christ. Yet, since Peter’s failure is a failure that we each similarly experience, this gives us hope that we shall similarly be forgiven.
However, that is not all we may glean from this passage. That is not the whole of what the Evangelist wanted us to learn and understand from this story. But unfortunately, our English translations obscure important truths that would have been immediately heard and understood by the original, Greek speaking (and reading) 1st century Christians. These points are not a matter of mere linguistic fancy. They have doctrinal importance and relevance to our expression of love for Jesus, and our ecclesiology.
Sometimes our English translation of the Bible betrays us. You will remember that most times when we encounter the word “love” in the New Testament, it translates the Greek word agape, but not always. There are five different words that are commonly translated as “love”.
Agape – describes a selfless and unrequited love.
Phileo – describes the love of friendship; describing the bonds of “brotherhood”.
Storge – describes familial love; love for one’s parents, siblings, and children.
Eros – describes sexual love; a love rightly expressed within the marital union.
Philautia – describes the love of self; a selfishly focused and self-centered love.
There are three other words which get associated with the English term “love”, but I disagree that their concepts are rightly considered “love”:
Ludus – describes a “playful” love characterized by “flirting” or “friendly banter”.
Pragma – describes an enduring relationship that is built upon duty, reason, or shared goals.
Mania – describes an obsessive relationship which is often characterized by jealousy, emotional dependancy, and a lack of trust.
Here within this passage, we find the Greek translated as “love” six times {the seventh instance is an echo and repetition of the sixth} and, in this case, it does not always translate the same Greek term. When Jesus asked Peter: “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” and, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?“; He actually asked him “Do you agape me?”. But Peter responded by actually answering Him, “I phileo you.”. Peter did not love Jesus in the same way that Jesus loves him. Simply put, by Peter’s answer, he “Friend-Zoned” Jesus and, although there might be little difference in the emotional feeling between agape and phileo, the substance of these two loves are very different.
Agape is selfless. Agape is gracious. Agape is unmerited and undeserved. Agape is costly. Agape neither provides nor generates any benefit for the one who agape‘s. Agape has no expectation for gratitude or thanksgiving, although those are always an appropriate response. Agape is given freely and it is always received, even when unwanted. Agape cannot be refused, rejected, or denied. The power and strength of agape comes from the one who loves, not the one who is loved (1 Corinthians 13:4-8a).
Phileo is mutual. Phileo is transactional. Phileo is earned and reciprocated. Phileo is often a “break even” relationship. Phileo is a benefit to both parties; sometimes equally, sometimes not. Phileo expects for phileo in return, but phileo is not always reciprocated or returned. Phileo may be rejected or refused. The power and strength of phileo is found in its mutuality; in the parties’ cooperation and shared experience. It literally is the “power of friendship”.
When Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love me wholly; with your whole self, your whole being, more than you love yourself or any of these others?”, He was asking him, “Am I your Number One, your top priority, without any reservation?”, and Peter told Jesus, “You are my best friend.”. Except, Jesus had earlier said, “A new commandment I give to you, that you agape one another: just as I have agape’d you, you also are to agape one another.” (Jn. 13:34 ESV).
Christians are not called or commanded to be friends with one another and with Jesus; at least, not as a primary love.
We are commanded to agape one one another and friendship, phileo, is often a natural, secondary consequence of agape.
Twice Jesus asked Peter, “Do you agape me?” and twice he replied, “Of course, I phileo you.”. But, the third time, Jesus actually asked him, “Do you phileo me?”. The third time, Jesus changed the question. Now that is something significant. Jesus now asked Him about a different quality of love. He asked:
for friendship, rather than self-sacrifice;
for a relationship based on mutuality, rather than between an active giver and a passive receiver;
for an agreed-upon and well-defined relationship between equals, rather than an imposed relationship like a master with their servant.
But Jesus did not reduce the quality of love. He did not lower His expectation from Peter. Instead, through this change, Jesus raised Peter up in His estimation, along with all Christians (including us). Jesus elevated His expectation by improving the relationship of Master and servant, to also include mutual friendship (even as between unequal persons).
This change reflects another of Jesus’s statements during the evening before His arrest, when He told them, “You are my friends if you do what I command you.” (Jn. 15:14 ESV). While Jesus forever remains our Lord and Master, the character of Peter’s relationship with Him (and our relationship with Him) has been changed through the cross. Jesus is not just our LORD. He is also our Friend and our Brother, by divine adoption. However, there is an important caveat to this change: Peter would only be considered Jesus’s friend if he did as Jesus commanded. Likewise, we may only rightly say that we are friends to Jesus if we also obey His commands.
Which leads us back to Jesus’s commands to Peter. Responding to Peter’s affirmations of friendship with Jesus, Jesus issued him three strange and unusual commands:
“Feed my lambs.”
“Tend my sheep.”
“Feed my sheep.”
But, these commands are not strange to us. They should feel familiar, obvious, and expected because we stand upon two thousand years of church history, interpretation, and application. Yet these commands are only become strange and unusual if we try to interpret them literally.
Jesus was a tradesman. He was a carpenter and craftsman, not a shepherd. It is improbable that He owned any livestock and, even if He had, they would have been with His brothers in Nazareth. It is safe to assume that Jesus did not own any livestock of the Ovis Genus.
Meanwhile, Peter was a fisherman by occupation. He and his brother Andrew owned a boat and had all the requisite equipment. They had even been partnered with James and John, the sons of Zebedee (Luke 5:10), in an operational enterprise. Their vocational lives revolved around the Sea of Galilee,not the pasture land. It is unreasonable to assume that Peter had much practical experience managing sheep.
Therefore, these three commands of Christ should only be understood symbolically, allegorically, and spiritually because they literally are metaphorical. But, before we can rightly understand them metaphorically, we need to understand what the literal commands meant.
The Greek command “to feed” (Greek: boske) means, particularly in relation to vocational shepherding: to nourish, support, and provide for. It literally describes the provisional work of a shepherd’s care: of them feeding and watering the flocks under their charge and care.
The Greek term translated “to tend” (Greek: poimaine), specifically relates vocational shepherding. It literally means “to do the work of a shepherd”, as the Greek term for shepherd is poimen. Poimen – shepherd (noun), poimaine – to shepherd (verb). Such work not only included “feeding” but also leading, guiding, and guarding the sheep.
So, if Jesus was not telling Peter to literally become a shepherd (this was not a case of Jesus telling Peter to go “quit his day job”), then He must have been telling him to, at least, act like a shepherd: to act in the same kind of manner; to do the same kind of work that a shepherd would do.
But, who was Jesus telling Peter to metaphorically “shepherd”?
Jesus’s lambs and His sheep.
By lambs, Jesus was meaning His followers who still needed the most help and care. Specifically, those who were still children in faith. Those who were still weak in faith and understanding, whether because:
they were the new converts, new in the faith;
they were the young in age (as baptized, covenant children); or,
they were the older in age, those older and longer in the faith yet still young in their beliefs, knowledge and understanding.
By sheep, Jesus meant the whole covenant community; meaning everybody who belongs to Jesus Christ: past, present, and future.
All believers, in all places, and in all times are Jesus’s “sheep”. Like sheep we all “…have gone astray; we have turned– every one– to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isa. 53:6 ESV) But Jesus is “the good shepherd” (John 10:11) who sacrificed His life for ours. But although He died for us, He also rose from the dead for us. Then, after He rose, He ascended into heaven to reign for us and to reign over us. But, since Jesus is in heaven now and we are still here, we still need just as much (if not more) shepherding. So, beyond the restoration of Peter, we find that this is the greater purpose of Jesus’ commands; to establish an order of under-shepherds who would be made responsible for the care of His sheep.
This conversation with Jesus was surely one of the most important, transformative, and pivotal moments in Peter’s life, if not the most. This conversation was also important for all of Jesus’s disciples, and especially for the twelve apostles because, this is the moment in Scripture which we interpret as being the establishment of the pastorate. Even setting aside all of the Roman Church’s claims concerning Peter’s primacy, here he was ordained as the first pastor. {Here, as the prime pastor, along with their claim about his receipt of the “keys” to the kingdom (Matthew 16:19), are the principal texts used by the Roman church to establish Peter at the top of the apostolic hierarchy.}
Every lawfully ordained pastor’s authority derives from this moment, through two millenia of “apostolic succession”.
Throughout the book of Acts and Pauls’ three “Pastoral Letters”, we observe the practice of elders being appointed to govern guard, and guide the particular churches through the laying on over hands, by one generation of elders to the next (Acts 11:30, 14:23, 15; 1 Timothy 4:14; Titus 1:5).
Historically, the ministerial role of elder (within both the old covenant and the new covenant communities) has been one of federalist representation (Exodus 4:29-31), ruling and decision-making (Acts 15), and making judicial judgments (Exodus 18:13-26).
But, the civil role of shepherding was left to the Judge or King, while the spiritual role was left to Levites and priests.
Thus, what we observe here is a change in the administration of the covenant, moving the shepherding roles of the civic and priestly spheres to consolidate their authority within the ministerial.
We find this interpretation further confirmed by Peter, in his first epistle. Peter writes, “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.” (1 Pet. 5:1-4 ESV).
Yet without claiming any personal priority or superior status, Peter described himself first as a “fellow elder” (as equal in status; superior only in his unique experience).
Then he commands his audience, the “elect exiles of the Dispersion” (1 Pet. 1:1 ESV), addressing their elders specifically, to “…shepherd (Gk: poimaine) the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.”.
Peter dictated the job description for church elders, both Ruling and Teaching Elders. Just as Jesus first told him, he likewise commanded them to do the work of a shepherd in their churches. Commanding them:
to rule, guard, and guide their churches;
to feed, nurture, teach, support, and disciple their churches.
Finally, he warns and promises them that “…when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.”. The presence of a “chief Shepherd” naturally implies the presence of multiple shepherds. And, the presence a “chief Shepherd” naturally implies a hierarchy among these shepherds, thereby making all other shepherds His “under-shepherds” and therefore, they are subordinate to the “chief Shepherd” and under His authority. Therefore, all such “under-shepherds” are governed by and must rule according to the word of the “chief Shepherd”: the commands of Jesus Christ, the Logos who is Theos and Andros, the true “Good Shepherd”.
Under-shepherds are commanded to minister to their flock and to speak, declare, and explain Jesus’s words to them. But their authority does not extend into the civil realm, remaining only within the spiritual and ecclesial sphere. The church is, in this sense, separated from the State. This is why the seventh and eighth Preliminary Principles of our PCA Book of Church Order[1] affirm that:
7. All church power, whether exercised by the body in general, or by representation, is only ministerial and declarative since the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice. No church judicatory may make laws to bind the conscience. All church courts may err through human frailty, yet it rests upon them to uphold the laws of Scripture though this obligation be lodged with fallible men.
{Our inability to “bind the conscience” means that, for example, we cannot tell you what you must believe or do in regards to immigration, neither can we tell you how you must vote.}
8. Since ecclesiastical discipline must be purely moral or spiritual in its object, and not attended with any civil effects, it can derive no force whatever, but from its own justice, the approbation of an impartial public, and the countenance and blessing of the great Head of the Church. (Jesus Christ)
That is an example of our theology in action.
Yet considering this commanded instruction “to do the work of a shepherd”, we do not call our elders shepherds, do we? I am often called Pastor Joseph or Pastor Joe, not Shepherd Joe. However and except, the Greek word poimen, that we translate into English as shepherd, actually translates into Latin (the language in which sacred Scripture was once trapped for a thousand years) as pastor. There is the origin of the clerical honorific; an honor and title that is also rightly shared with my fellow Ruling Elders.
Pastoral ministry is rightly understood as a Calling, not as a chosen vocation (although it is justly aspired to; 1 Timothy 3:1). A man ought not seek to become a pastor, merely because it is what they think they should do (although they do need to want to do it). The challenges, stresses, and sacrifices which they (and their families) must make in support of the ministry are not ordinarily considered desireable. But, when we are called, we experience and endure them gladly and with thanksgiving (which is also difficult to do and impossible without our faith and the Holy Spirit’s help). Those who are Called know that they need to do this. It is more than just their wanting and this need is also recognizeable by others.
Truly, our role, purpose, and job as Elders is to be pastors: to do the work of a shepherd; to shepherd Jesus’s sheep, as He commanded.
We are to feed you God’s Word. Teaching you the Scriptures and helping you to understand both what they mean and what they mean for you.
We are to support you and help encourage you in your faith; both as it is now and, as it grows and increases.
We are to train you in the ways in which you should go.
This is the work of discipleship; of discipling and being discipled.
This includes teaching you how to pray and encouraging you to pray more.
This includes teaching you how to read Scripture for yourself; to encourage you to listen to Christ more and, more better.
This includes teaching you how to share what you believe about Jesus and to share that Good News alongside you.
This includes leading you in good works of love and charity, both by finding and providing us all opportunities as well as engaging in them.
We are to guard you and guide you in matters of doctrine, protecting you against erroneous and false teachings; to lead you and help you make good choices in your own lives.
We are to lead you in right worship; both by leading you in worship and by teaching you why we worship, the way we worship, according to Scripture.
Even still, this list is not inclusive of all that an Elder is called and commanded to do. (For more information on when we believe concerning the role and office of Elder, please see the PCA Book of Church Order, Chapter 8.)
Our understanding of the Elders’ role, our understanding of what pastoral ministry is meant to be, according to Scripture, is greatly lessened and far less robust if we overlook this chapter of John’s Gospel. Ignoring this chapter or failing to understand the truths that may get obscured by our English translation, diminishes our Elder’s understanding of their role; thereby diminishing the honor and respect that their role (and they) deserve for their ministerial service.
Again, while this narrative was principally about Peter and him being restored from his denial of Christ, the application of this passage also has a lot to say concerning the Elder’s pastoral role and obligations. It helps explain why the leaders of the early Church often acted the way that they did and why they established the ecclesial structures that they did {explaining why the church became more hierarchical over time, as “bishops” gradually became considered to be “pastors of pastors”}.
Because they were following the model and methods of shepherds and shepherding.
Because they were following the model and methods of Jesus, our Good Shepherd.
So, we need to do likewise and we do so for your good and for God’s glory.
We do so out of our love for you and to please the chief Shepherd for when He ultimately appears.
AMEN
[1] PCA Book of Church Order, 2025
- PDF 174 KB