On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
10 me that no - culty whatever in retaining a positive and distinct answer ,, and in expressly declaring that he loved his Lord more than his employment as a fisherman , or any other worldly occupation . On this account I feel a considerable deinree of reluctance in adopting- this
interpretation ; and this reluctance is greatly increased by the circumstance of Peter and his companions having quitted their vessel some time t > efore our Lord began the conversation , and likewise of their having probably left their fishing tackle behind them when thev came on shore .
The second interpretation— " Lovest thou me more than thou lovest thy fellow-disciples ?—is not liable to these difficulties . Jesus had just finished his repast with his disciples , and
had begun a short but interesting conversation , by turning to Peter , and putting to him , in an abrupt and unexpected manner , the question - which has given rise to these remarks . The Apostle instantly perceived the drift
w this question , and was aware of the embarrassing situation in which it placed him . His reply , therefore , was more guarded and deliberate than usual . Jesus had said , on a former occasion , when he caUed his Apostles together and commissioned them to
preach in his name , " He that lovetb father or mother more than m # , is not worthy of me ; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me , i « not worthy of me . " ( Matt x . 37 . ) The time had now arrived , when the necessity of acting up to the spirit * of this injunction
was more imperative and binding than ever . But , instead of devoting himself exclusively to the support of his Master ' s cause , Peter was discovered amottg his old associates , pursuing , his employment-fts a fisherman , and apparently forgetful-of his duty as an apostle of Jesus Christ . With a
? lew , therefore , as it would seem , to ascertain his comparative attachment to Jesus and his ftshing companions , our Lord puts to him the question-, | Lovest thott me more than Me ** ?" ' Yea , Lord / ' replies Fete * , *« « hou fcno J tvest « that I lore theo . " Then say * e&tis , * Feed my lambs . " " Let i * 6 t thy JUwe for # fA * r * - <» xciii 4 e me from * phuto in thy action * y but | we me througk ty tftarf ^ j ^ ad J * «** umd , ***** m *« i ***> ^ e ^ ts -at * nnmt
Untitled Article
effectually promoted , mine will be ict least danger of being jprgotteu / ' Such appears to be the true interpretation of this confessedly difficult passage ; , and the grammatical construction of at * * ii . ¦ ¦» • - •¦ -a ..
the clause , as it stands in the original , seems to me to require this interpretation : Ayccrcqc s fj , £ vXsiqv T 8 T&y ; The personal pronoun < rv is oaaly implied in the termination of the verb : the
emphasis , therefore , rests cxnreetly and properly upon the word pe" Lovest thou me more than these V On this account I feel strongly mclined to suspect that Doddrkige and others are not justified in adopting the third interpretation , — " Lovest thoiL me more than these love me ? " "/ The
nominative of the personal pronoun ,- ** , says Matthias , {§ 465 , ) " is usually omitted with the personal termination of verbs , except where tkene is an em- * phasis , e- g . in an opposition , that is
expressed or understood . " It fallows , therefore , that , where such opposition exists , the insertion of the pronoun is essential ; as in the following instance : " All these have of their abundance
cast in unto the offerings of God ; but she ( a ^ TYi ) of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had . " ( Luke xxi . 4 . ) In this and other similar cases the opposition is marked by the insertion of the pronoun ; and its absence in our Lord ' s question to Peter affords strong presumptive evidence against the correctness of Doddridge ' s
interpretation Others have objected to this interpretation on different grounds , alleging that it was impossible for Peter to say whether hia own * love to Christ or that of his fellow-disciples was the stronger . He oould have had no difficulty , it may be said , in affirming , that he was more attached to the cause
of Jesus than to his employment as a n&heraian , if he had understood the question proposed to him , as Wkitby and Pearce hare understood it : jmd ke could easily have ascertained tbst comparative extent of bis affection for Christ a&d his feliovr-discipies , thoogh
he migkt \ m unwillmg ^ r > n it > any accounty t& declare it in expre ^ Oor ms in their presence * Bat he could not possibly have d ^ ternatn ^ d fey aay te&& l > ut th « t of expe * ienac , whetner hia love to Jegus wm otrwager than that ot Thmnm « r N « Kh * ituk # 4 , James or 4 olm . l % ft « to fl ^ art to mo , how ^ fer ,
Untitled Article
T he could bate bad diffi Remarks , an eur Lard * Question to Peter , John xxi . 15 . 7 . * . _ ¦ ti J ^ . ^ i i i i ^ v *
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Feb. 2, 1822, page 77, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2509/page/13/
-