John 21:15

The Commission to S. Peter and Prediction as to his death

15. dined See on John 21:12.

saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas For -Jonas" read John here and in John 21:16, 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; John 21:7; John 21:11with 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 phileinin 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 phileinis 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 agapânwhich 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 allthe rest might deny Him, hewould never do so (Matthew 26:33). Jesus recalls this boast by asking him whether he nowprofesses to have more loyalty and devotion than the rest.

Yea, Lord; thou knowest "We have once more an exquisite touch of psychology. It is Peter's modesty that speaks, and his sense of shame at his own short-comings … He has nothing to appeal to, and yet he is conscious that his affection is not unreal or insincere, and He trusts to Him who searches the hearts." S. pp. 268, 9. Not only does he change the word for -love" from agapânto philein, but he says nothing about -more than these:" he will not venture any more to compare himself with others. Moreover he makes no professions as to the future; experience has taught him that the present is all that he can be sure of. The -Thou" in -Thou knowest" is emphatic. This time he will trust the Lord's knowledge of him rather than his own estimate of himself. Can all these delicate touches be artistic fictions?

Feed my lambs Not only is he not degraded on account of his fall, he receives a fresh charge and commission. The work of the fisher gives place to that of the shepherd: the souls that have been brought together and won need to be fed and tended. And this S. Peter must do.