John 21:15

So when they had dined,.... The Persic version adds, Jesus turned his face to Simon Peter; he did not interrupt them whilst they were eating; but when they had comfortably refreshed themselves, he

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

Lovest thou me more than these? More than the rest of my disciples love me? For so Peter had professed, when he told our Saviour, , Though all men should be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended. Peter now having by his temptation learned more humility and modesty, doth not reply, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee more than these; he only avers the truth and sincerity, not the degree of his love. Christ replies, Feed my lambs: by which he understands his people, his church; not the pastors of it, (as if Christ by this had made Peter the chief pastor over the rest of the apostles), but the community. The papists from this text argue for Peter’ s primacy and authority over his fellow apostles, as well as over the members of the church. But Christ said not to Peter only, but to all the rest of the eleven, , Go ye, preach the gospel to all nations; and it was to the rest as well as to Peter that he said, , Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted. So as it is apparent, whether feeding only signifies instructing, or feeding by doctrine, or (as most judge) comprehends government, and signifies that universal charge which ministers have over the church, the same power which Peter had was also committed to the other disciples.

15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. Ver. 15. Lovest thou me more than these?] As thou hast not spared to profess and promise (for when the rest said nothing, Peter said he would lay down his life for him), and as thou now pretendest, by casting thyself into the sea, to come first to me. Thou knowest that I love thee] Being asked of the measure, he only answereth of the truth, q.d. for the quantity I can say little, but for the truth I dare affirm. The upright are perfect in God’ s account. And Peter had now turned his crowing into crying. Feed my lambs] These were his first care. The Syriac addeth, ìé li, mihi, feed them for me. And Drusius reckons this among the eastern apothegms, Quicquid agas, propter Deum agas. Whatsoever thou doest, do it for God’ s sake. Propter te Domino, propter te, was a godly man’ s motto; it should be every minister’ s especially.

(15) Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas.—The better text here and in John 21:16-17, is, Simon, son of John. The contrast of the name by which the Evangelist denotes, and with that by which the Lord addresses Peter, at once strikes us as significant, and the more so because it comes in a context containing several significant verbal contrasts. Our Lord’s words would seem to address him as one who had fallen from the steadfastness of the Rock-man, and had been true rather to his natural than to his apostolic name. (Comp. Note on John 1:42, and Matthew 16:17.) Lovest thou me more than these?—i.e., than these disciples who are present here with thee. It seems unnecessary to add this explanation, but not a few English notes on this verse explain the word “these” of the fishes, or of the boats and nets, as though the question was, “Lovest thou Me more than thy worldly calling? Art thou willing to give up all for Me?” The obvious reference is to Peter’s own comparison of himself with others in the confidence of love which he thought could never fail. (Comp. Matthew 26:33; Mark 14:29.) The thrice-asked question has been generally understood to have special force in the restoration of him who had thrice denied his Lord, and now thrice declares his love for Him, and is thrice entrusted with a work for Him; and we feel that this interpretation gives a natural meaning to the emphasis of these verses. It may not be fanciful to trace significance, even in the external circumstances under which the question was asked. By the side of the lake after casting his net into the sea had Peter first been called to be a fisher of men (Matthew 4:19). The lake, the very spot on the shore, the nets, the boat, would bring back to his mind in all their fulness the thoughts of the day which had been the turning-point of his life. By the side of the “fire of coals” (see Note on John 18:18, the only other place where the word occurs) he had denied his Lord. As the eye rests upon the “fire of coals” before him, and he is conscious of the presence of the Lord, who knows all things (John 21:17), burning thoughts of penitence and shame may have come to his mind, and these may have been the true preparation for the words which follow. Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee.—Peter uses a less strong expression for love than that which had been used by our Lord. The question seems to ask, “Dost thou in the full determination of the will, in profound reverence and devotion, love Me?” The answer seems to say, “Thou knowest me; I dare not now declare this fixed determination of the will, but in the fulness of personal affection I dare answer, and Thou knowest that even in my denials it was true, ‘I love Thee.’” He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.—More exactly, little lambs.

Verse 15. Simon lovest thou me] Peter had thrice denied his Lord, and now Christ gives him an opportunity in some measure to repair his fault by a triple confession. More than these?] This was a kind of reproach to Peter: he had professed a more affectionate attachment to Christ than the rest; he had been more forward in making professions of friendship and love than any of the others; and no one (Judas excepted) had treated his Lord so basely. As he had before intimated that his attachment to his Master was more than that of the rest, our Lord now puts the question to him, Dost thou love me more than these? To which Peter made the most modest reply - Thou knowest I love thee, but no longer dwells on the strength of his love, nor compares himself with even the meanest of his brethren. He had before cast the very unkind reflection on his brethren, Though all be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended, Matthew 26:33. But he had now learned, by dreadful experience, that he who trusteth his own heart is a fool; and that a man's sufficiency for good is of the Lord alone. The words, more than these, Bishop Pearce thinks refer to the provisions they were eating, or to their secular employments; for says he, "It does not seem probable that Jesus should put a question to Peter which he could not possibly answer; because he could only know his own degree of love for Jesus, not that of the other disciples." But it appears to me that our Lord refers to the profession made by Peter, which I have quoted above. It is remarkable that in these three questions our Lord uses the verb αγαπαω, which signifies to love affectionately, ardently, supremely, perfectly - See Clarke on Matthew 21:37; and that Peter always replies, using the verb φιλεω, which signifies to love, to like, to regard, to feel friendship for another. As if our Lord had said, "Peter, dost thou love me ardently and supremely?" To which he answers, "Lord, I feel an affection for thee-I do esteem thee-but dare, at present, say no more." There is another remarkable change of terms in this place. In John 21:15; John 21:17, our Lord uses the verb βοσκδω, to feed, and in John 21:16 he uses the word ποιμαινω, which signifies to tend a flock, not only to feed, but to take care of, guide, govern, defend, c., by which he seems to intimate that it is not sufficient merely to offer the bread of life to the congregation of the Lord, but he must take care that the sheep be properly collected, attended to, regulated, guided, c.

15–19. The Commission to S. Peter and Prediction as to his death15. dined] See on John 21:12.saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas] For ‘Jonas’ read John here and in John 21:16-17, as in John 1:42. Note that the writer himself calls him Simon Peter, but represents the Lord as calling him ‘Simon son of John.’ This is not only in harmony with the rest of this Gospel, but with the Gospels as a whole. Although Jesus gave Simon the name of Peter, yet, with one remarkable exception (see on Luke 22:34), He never addresses him as Peter, but always as Simon. Matthew 16:17; Matthew 17:25; Mark 14:37; Luke 22:31. The Synoptists generally call him Simon, sometimes adding his surname. S. John always gives both names, excepting in John 1:41, where the surname just about to be given would be obviously out of place. Contrast in this chapter John 21:2-3; John 21:7; John 21:11 with 16, 17. Should we find this minute difference observed, if the writer were any other than S. John? [12] This being the general usage of our Lord, there is no reason to suppose that His calling him Simon rather than Peter on this occasion is a reproach, as implying that by denying his Master he had forfeited the name of Peter. That S. John should add the surname with much greater frequency than the Synoptists is natural. At the time when S. John wrote the surname had become the more familiar of the two. S. Paul never calls him Simon, but uses the Aramaic form of the surname, Cephas.lovest thou me] The word for ‘love’ here and in the question in John 21:16 is agapân (see on John 11:5). S. Peter in all three answers uses philein, and our Lord uses philein in the third question (John 21:17). The change is not accidental; and once more we have evidence of the accuracy of the writer: he preserves distinctions which were actually made. S. Peter’s preference for philein is doubly intelligible: (1) it is the less exalted word; he is sure of the natural affection which it expresses; he will say nothing about the higher love implied in agapân; (2) it is the warmer word; there is a calm discrimination implied in agapân which to him seems cold. In the third question Christ takes him at his own standard; he adopts S. Peter’s own word, and thus presses the question more home.more than these] ‘More than these, thy companions, love Me.’ The A. V. is ambiguous, and so also is the Greek, but there cannot be much doubt as to the meaning: ‘more than thou lovest these things’ gives a very inadequate signification to the question. At this stage in S. Peter’s career Christ would not be likely to ask him whether he preferred his boat and nets to Himself. S. Peter had professed to be ready to die for His Master (John 13:37) and had declared that though all the rest might deny Him, he would never do so (Matthew 26:33).

Lovest thou me more than these? - There is a slight ambiguity here in the original, as there is in our translation.

15. Had dined—But still sat at the meal. Peter was likely to be upon one side and John upon the other of Jesus, at the head.