How St. Peter Was ‘Punished’ for Denying His Lord

Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?

– John 21:15-17 –

__________________________

The context shows that these words were addressed by the Redeemer to St. Peter on the occasion of his third manifestation to his disciples after his resurrection. This was presumably three or four weeks after the Master’s resurrection from the dead. His manifestations to the women on the morning of his resurrection and his later manifestation to the two as they went to Emmaus are evidently not counted, but the manifestation the same evening in the upper room, when all the disciples except Thomas and Judas were present, is counted the first. And the manifestation a week later, Thomas being present, is counted the second.

The delay in giving this third manifestation was evidently for the purpose of testing the faith of the Apostles and of leading them to reach a conclusion respecting their future course, which Jesus wished to correct. So far as we can understand the record at least two Sundays passed without any further manifestation of Jesus to his disciples, and then, giving up hope, they decided to return to the fishing business and did so. The journey to Galilee and the resumption of business presumably took another week.

During all those thirty days the mental attitude of all the Apostles and the other disciples can be better imagined than described. They were perplexed, they had indeed had evidences of the Master’s resurrection; they had had the Scriptures called to their attention which proved that this was necessary and that God had previously so arranged. They had hoped for further conferences with Jesus and that he would have told them definitely what to do.

Instead, left to themselves, the disciples were thoroughly disheartened. They had left all to follow him, to tell the people that he was the Son of God, the long-promised Messiah, and that he would soon set up his kingdom, which would bring blessings, primarily to Israel and, secondarily, through Israel, to all the families of the earth in harmony with the Abrahamic Covenant. Now apparently all of these hopes were dashed, frustrated. How foolish they thought it would seem for them to try to convince the people that a man, crucified as a malefactor, as a blasphemer, was indeed the Messiah! How foolish it would seem to tell of his resurrection! They felt that they could do nothing else than abandon the ministry as a lost cause; and the resumption of the fishing business was the logical conclusion.

They Toiled All the Night

Their first night was a discouraging one they caught nothing. It looked indeed as though God was punishing them for the course they had taken in becoming disciples of Jesus that everything was going wrong. But not so; they were merely being taught needed lessons.

In the morning they beheld a stranger on the shore who beckoned and shouted to know if they had any fish for sale. They replied, No, they had made no catch. The stranger suggested casting the net on the other side of the boat. And, although the suggestion seemed a foolish one, having been so unsuccessful, yet they did so, and immediately the net was filled with fishes! It did not require long for them to learn the lesson. They knew instinctively that the unknown stranger upon the shore was none other than their Master. They remembered a very similar experience at the time they were first called to leave their nets and to become fishers of men.

All interest had just centred in the fishing business, but now boats and fish and nets all lost their value in the estimation of these fishermen. Here was their risen Lord, for whose third appearance they had been waiting now nearly three weeks. Fearing that the Master would disappear, even before he could get to him, St. Peter plunged into the sea and swam ashore. To his surprise the stranger already had fish and had them cooked, and all were invited to join in the breakfast on the shore of Galilee.

The stranger had not the clothing by which they had known their Lord, neither did he have the marks of the nails in his hands and feet, that they might thus identify him. This was a different manifestation. They knew him as did those with whom he walked to Emmaus, who recognized him in the blessing of the bread, and not by his features or clothing or wounds. They recognized that none other than he could have performed such a miracle. They did not ask who he was; they felt a restraint; as we read, ‘None of them durst ask who he was,’ but all knew that he was the Lord.

‘Lovest Thou Me More?’

The stranger addressed St. Peter particularly, saying, ‘Lovest thou me more than these’ these boats and nets, etc., pertaining to the fishing business? St. Peter answered, ‘Lord, thou knowest that I affectionately love thee’. He used a word expressing fondness of love. Jesus replied, ‘Feed my lambs’.

Then came the question a second time, ‘Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?’ A great pressure was felt by St. Peter. Why did the Master so particularly question his love? Why did he put this question more to him than to the others? Was it because he had been the first of the disciples to suggest the resumption of the fishing business? Was he to blame for this? But he answered, ‘Lord, thou knowest that I affectionately love thee’. Jesus this time replied, ‘Tend my sheep.’ For the third time Jesus said to St. Peter, ‘Simon, son of Jonas, dost thou affectionately love me?’ Here Jesus used the same word that St. Peter had used, as though he questioned the affection and depth of St. Peter’s love. Ah! the third time must have sent the memory of St. Peter back to the scene in Caiaphas’ Judgement Hall, when he denied his Master the third time, even with cursing. And now Jesus for the third time had asked him respecting his love and whether it was really a love of affection! St. Peter’s choking reply was, ‘Lord, thou knowest all things! Thou knowest that I affectionately love thee!’ The Lord’s reply was, ‘Feed my sheep’.

In harmony with these words of the Master to St. Peter the chief work of his followers has been to minister to the needs of the spirit-begotten sheep. It is in full harmony with this that St. Paul, addressing the Elders of Ephesus, counselled that they ‘feed the flock of God, which he had purchased with the blood of his own Son’. There is a point here that perhaps is too frequently overlooked. If all of the Lord’s followers could realize that the message to St. Peter is the same as comes to all of us, perhaps it would make a change in most of our preaching. . . .

We must not leave the text without calling to memory a most wonderfully instructive lesson concerning the proper way to reprove and rebuke our brethren when the same is surely necessary. So far as the record shows, the three inquiries which our Lord made of St. Peter respecting his love for him were the only rebukes ever given him as an offset, or punishment for his shameful denial of the Master on the night in which he was betrayed.

Had many of us been in the Master’s place we would have felt that it was necessary to make St. Peter very humbly apologize before we would have anything further to do with him. We would have been inclined to speak of his weakness, of his ingratitude, of how he knew better, etc., etc. Our sense of justice would, in many instances, have entirely overshadowed our sense of mercy and sympathy. But not so with the Master. He knew the loyalty of St. Peter’s heart. He knew that he had already gone out and wept bitterly over the matter. He knew what a sense of shame would be upon him and how much courage it would mean for him to think at all of meeting the Master whom he had denied.

Surely it was on account of this sympathy for St. Peter and this appreciation of the tendency he would have to become entirely discouraged that led our Lord to mention St. Peter first amongst the Apostles on the morning of his resurrection, saying to Mary, to whom he first appeared, ‘Go and tell my disciples, and Peter’ don’t let Peter think that he is an outcast. Let him know that I think of him and love him and sympathize with him and have forgiven him, because I know he did it under stress.

We Should Copy the Master’s Methods

And if our Lord and Master has set us such an example of benevolence and forgiveness without request, how are we learning this lesson? To what extent do we forgive others their trespasses and to what extent do we go more than half way to let them know that we harbour no resentful feelings toward them? To what extent do we send them word that we think of them kindly, generously? And when the appropriate time comes and it is proper for something to be said can we not take a lesson from the Redeemer’s loving forbearance and gentleness in his merely asking the erring one if he had a proper kind of love, and when he confesses special love, then to ask him if he is sure that he has the special love?

No doubt our success as the Master’s servants in feeding the brethren, the flock, and helping instead of hindering them, will be in proportion as we remember and copy his style and methods. So, then, while feeding his flock, let us have continually before us the great Shepherd’s example of how the flock should be dealt with.

__________

* By Charles T. Russell, published July 1, 1912, p. 207. Text is unaltered except that it has been conformed to our house format. Some paragraphs have been omitted for fit, denoted by ellipsis.

__________________________

ukbiblestudents – July-Aug 2019

↑Return top of page ↑