Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 21:15 - 21:17
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_21:15-17. The thrice-repeated question: “ut illi occasionem praeberet, triplicis abnegationis maculam triplici professione eluendi,” Wetstein, which Hengstenberg arbitrarily denies.
Σίμων Ἰωάννου ] Thrice the same complete mention of the name with a certain solemnity of deeply-moved affection. In the use of the name Simon Joh. in itself, we are not to recognise—since certainly it is not at all susceptible of proof, that Jesus elsewhere addressed the apostle by the name Peter or Cephas—another and special purpose as in view, neither a reminiscence of the lost confidence (De Wette), nor of the human presupposition of the apostolical calling (Luthardt), nor a replacement into the natural condition for the purpose of an exaltation to the new dignity (Hengstenberg). The name of Peter is not refused to him (Hoelemann).
ἀγαπ .] He does not ask after his faith; for this had not become wavering, but the love proceeding from the faith had not been sufficiently strong.
τούτων ] ἢ οὗτοι , than these my other disciples. They are still present; comp. on Joh_21:20. Peter had given expression, in his whole behaviour down to his fall, to so pre-eminent a love for Jesus (let Joh_6:68, let the washing of the feet, the sword-stroke, and Joh_13:37 be borne in mind), and in virtue of the distinction, of which Jesus had deemed him worthy (Joh_1:43), as well as by his post at the head of the apostles (comp. on Mat_16:18), into which he was not now for the first time to be introduced (Hengstenberg), so pre-eminent a love was to be expected from him, that there is sufficient occasion for the πλεῖον τούτων without requiring a special reference to Mat_26:33 (from which, in comparison with Joh_13:37, a conclusion has been drawn adverse to the Johannean authorship).
Peter in his answer places, instead of the ἀγαπ . (diligis) of the question, the expression of personal heart emotion, φιλῶ , amo (comp. Joh_11:3; Joh_11:5, Joh_20:2), by which he gives the most direct satisfaction to his inmost feeling; appeals, in so doing, in the consciousness of the want of personal warranty, to the Lord’s knowledge of the heart, but leaves the πλεῖον τούτων unanswered, because his fall has made him humble, for which reason Jesus also, in tender forbearance, is silent as to that πλεῖον τούτων in the questions that follow—vivid originality of the narrative, marked by such delicacy of feeling.
βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου ] Restoration to the previous standing, which the rest of the apostles did not require, therefore containing the primacy of Peter only in so far as it already previously existed; see on Mat_16:18.
ἀρνία ] Expression of tender emotion: little lambs, without obliteration of the diminutive signification also in Rev_5:6; Isa_40:11, Aq. The discourse becomes firmer in Joh_21:16, where πρόβατα , and again, more touched with emotion in Joh_21:17, where προβάτια , little sheep (see the critical notes), is found. By all three words, the ἀρχιποίμην [285] means His believing ones in general (1Pe_5:4), without making a separation between beginners and those who are matured (Euth. Zigabenus, Wetstein, Lange, and several others), or even between laity and clergy (Eusebius, Emiss, Bellarmine). Maldonatus aptly remarks: the distinction is non in re, sed in voce, where, notwithstanding, he, with other Catholic expositors, erroneously lays emphasis on the fact that precisely to Peter was the whole flock entrusted; the latter shared, in truth, with all the apostles, the same office of tending the entire flock.
πάλιν δεύτερον ] See on Mat_26:42.
ποίμαινε ] More universal and more expressive of carefully ruling activity in general (Act_20:28; 1Pe_5:2; Rev_2:27; Rev_7:17, and see Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. x. 9) than βόσκε , in which rather the special reference of nourishing protective activity is brought out (Hom. Od. μ . 97, ξ . 102, et al.; comp. βοσκή and βόσκημα , victus, and the compounds like γηροβοσκεῖν , et al.; see also Philo, deter. insid. pot. I. p. 197; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 312 f.). The latter, therefore, corresponds to the diminutive designations.
In His third question, Joh_21:17, Jesus takes up the φιλῶ σε of Peter, and cuts, by means of the thus altered question, still more deeply into his heart. Peter was troubled about this, that Jesus in this third question appeared to throw doubt even upon his φιλεῖν . Hence now his more earnest answer, with an appeal to his Lord’s unlimited knowledge of the heart: σὺ πάντα οἶδας , κ . τ . λ ., which popular and deeply emotional expression is not to be interpreted of absolute omniscience (Baur), but according to the standard of Joh_16:30, Joh_2:25, Joh_4:19, Joh_6:64, Joh_1:49 f.
[285] To apply the sense of the thrice-uttered behest so differently: duty of individuals; care for the whole; leading in of individuals for the whole (Luthardt),—is a separation of the idea which cannot be proved by the change of the words, and is entirely out of keeping with the mood of emotional feeling. In each of the three expressions lies the whole duty of the shepherd. “Quam vocum vim optime se intellexisse Petrus demonstrat, 1Pe_5:2,” Grotius.