Interpretation 1: This is the reconciliation of Christ and Peter

Summary:   

Christ rehabilitates Peter by redeeming him as an apostle in the midst of (some of) the other apostles after his denial on the night of Jesus’ arrest.

Arguments in favour of this view:

1. Peter denied Christ three times. Therefore, Christ now asks him three times whether he truly loves him.

2. In his first question (Do you love me more than these?) Jesus goes back to what Peter had said on the night of the arrest: Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away (Matthew 26:33).

Arguments against this view:

1. All the apostles, with the possible exception of John, denied Jesus when he was captured by fleeing in various directions.

2. Christ already spoke to Peter in private on the day of his resurrection (Luke 24:24; 1 Corinthians 15:5). Wouldn’t Peter’s denial have been discussed and reconciled at that time?

3. On the evening of Christ’s resurrection, all the apostles—without Thomas, but with Peter—were already confirmed in their ministry as apostles (John 20:19–23). Christ then also spoke about the forgiveness of sins, but apparently did not find it necessary to address Peter once more about his denial in the circle of the other disciples.

4. If the Lord considered it necessary to underscore the restoration of honour on the shores of Lake Tiberias one more time in the midst of the other apostles, why did he do so in the presence of only six of them (John 21:2)?

5. If the denial had not yet been settled between Jesus and Peter, would Peter immediately and spontaneously have jumped overboard and waded to the shore when he understood that it was the Lord who was standing there?

6. This view does not take into account why Christ, in his three responses to Peter’s replies, charges him with the apostleship (with some variations) using the metaphor of shepherding his flock.

Interpretation 2: This is Christ teaching Peter what he needs in his church

Summary:   

Christ teaches Peter, in the midst of the other apostles, that for the apostleship he does not need daredevils, bodyguards, strong-bodied persons, or something in that strain, but simple shepherds who care deeply for his sheep.

Arguments in favour of this view:

1. By human standards Peter seemed tailormade for the apostleship:

   a) He dared to just climb overboard and walk across the water to Jesus (John 21:2).

   b) When Jesus asked who he was according to his disciples, Simon Peter was the first to reply, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16).

   c) After other followers became annoyed with Jesus’ words and walked away from him, Jesus asked his disciples, Do you want to go away as well? it was Peter who replied, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God (John 6:66–69).

   d) When Christ announced that he would be imprisoned and killed and that his disciples could not follow him on that road, Peter again replied, Lord, why can I not follow you now? I will lay down my life for you (John 13:36–37).

   e) And Peter meant the words above sincerely, because when the temple police tried to arrest Jesus, Peter jumped to his feet out of zeal to defend his Lord, at the risk of his life, and struck a servant of the high priest with his sword (John 18:10).

   f) Peter was the only apostle who, again at the risk of his own life, along with John followed his captured Lord to within the palace garden of the high priest. It is even possible that he still had his sword with him. Was he perhaps considering that at some point, at a sign from his Lord, he would have to assist and free Jesus?

   g) In the account of John 21, when Peter understands that it is Christ who is waiting for them on the shore, he not only immediately jumps overboard to go to him, but it is he who single-handedly hauls the overflowing net with fish onto the land.

2. Christ puts this impulsive and overenthusiastic disciple in his place, again calling him by his own name Simon and reminding him of his lineage: he is the son of Jonah, just a fisherman.

3. Christ confronts Peter with his statement that Jesus might expect more from him than perhaps from the other apostles he had chosen (see Matthew 26:33). Is Peter’s love really that strong?

4. Christ repeats his question, but this time without the words, more than these. Does Peter—apart from the other apostles—now really love Jesus that strongly?

5. Peter responded to Jesus’ use of a strong word for love (Greek: “agapao”) with a weaker word for love (Greek: “fileo”). Unfortunately, this difference is not immediately clear from the ESV. When Jesus, for the third time, asks Peter about his love for him, he adopts this weaker term from Peter: Is this simple love then at least the basis such that I can use you, Peter?

6. Peter is not grieved that Christ is yet asking about his love for him a third time. Because this reminds him (only now?) of his threefold denial. Instead Peter is saddened by what Christ asks the third time: Jesus even puts a question mark behind Peter’s simple love! Thus, Peter feels himself made rather small in the midst of his fellow apostles: what does he actually have to offer himself to Christ?

7. In response to Peter’s assurance that he does simply love Christ, Christ assigns to him three times, with some variation, the shepherding of his sheep. This was not an honorary job in those days, but was assigned to simple people—those who had a heart for their sheep, and who would pay personal attention to each one of them. Christ needs Peter for that kind of work.

8. That Peter learned this lesson well becomes evident from what he writes in his first letter (1 Peter 5:1–4). Peter even learned that he himself is not even a good shepherd, but only an servant shepherd serving under the truly good chief Shepherd.