John 21

CHAPTER XXI

The Supplement, Chapter 21

It is quite impossible to regard the last two verses of chapter 20 as anything but the formal and proper conclusion of John’s Gospel. The impression made on us is that, when John penned or dictated these final verses, he intended to add nothing further. We must even say more: he left his Gospel together with its conclusion as it was. He did not cancel the conclusion, insert new sections, and then rewrite the conclusion. In an operation such as that he most certainly would not have used the incidents found in chapter 21. For these incidents stand apart, are in a class by themselves, and thus are not in a direct line with those found in chapter 20.

They deal with the apostles personally; therefore also Paul does not list the appearance to the seven disciples at the Sea of Tiberias in his record in 1 Cor. 15:4. Often this vital point, the type and the contents of chapter 21, is overlooked. We should not say simply that here we have another “sign,” another appearance of the risen Lord. This is too superficial to be connected with an apostle like John. He could utilize material such as that found in chapter 21, only as he did, namely as a supplement to his Gospel proper. The term “appendix” is not adequate, “supplement” or Nachtrag is far better.

No copies of the Fourth Gospel have ever been found from which chapter 21, is omitted, and no trace of such copies has ever been discovered. This means that the Gospel contained 21 chapters from the date of its publication onward. For if any copies that contained only 20 chapters had ever been made, no power on earth could have prevented their spread, or could have obliterated all trace of such abbreviated copies. And this, in turn, means that chapter 21 was added to John’s Gospel almost immediately, thus, to say the least, under John’s own eyes and supervision. It is John who stands back of the entire 21 chapters.

But did John himself write or dictate chapter 21? This question, naturally, is meaningless for those who reject the Johannine authorship of this entire Gospel; doing that, they would not consider as much as the possibility that John wrote chapter 21. This question has meaning only for those who see and know that John wrote the twenty chapters preceding. Let us at once say that the so-called linguistic evidence, the fund of words and the general style, is in favor of John as being the writer also of chapter 21. But the assertion is still made in certain quarters, that the language of chapter 21 differs in a marked way from that used in the body of the Gospel. The persistence of this assertion is not due to the evidence at hand.

Aside from the type and the style of the language used, three indications in the chapter itself necessitate the conclusion that John himself is not the author of this chapter. He could not himself have written the last two verses. On this point sound scholarship is in general agreement. But this might leave the rest of the chapter to John’s pen. Yet would John, who never mentions any member of his family by name in the long course of twenty chapters, break this rule and after all now mention his father’s name in 21:2? We cannot think that he would.

We see how John, when he is compelled to refer to himself, does this in a veiled, reticent way in 13:23; 19:26; 20:2: “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” After doing this in such a marked way in the course of twenty chapters, is it likely that finally in 21:20 he would expand this reference by adding the long relative clause, “who also leaned on his breast,” etc? Is it likely that John’s own pen would have made this addition when the simple designation already used three different times and thus made familiar to his readers, would suffice also in 21:20? This long addition betrays another hand.

But while the writing by another hand is thus admitted, this hand wrote the narrative as John himself had told it again and again, for the language is John’s own, and the chapter was added under John’s supervision. Of course, only one man penned the chapter, but v. 24 proves the presence of other authoritative persons (οἴδαμεν, “we know”). It is a safe conclusion that these men were the presbyters of the Ephesian church. They had often heard John relate the contents of chapter 21, and after John’s Gospel had been completed by him and had been read to them, they induced John to have this supplement added. Chapter 21 is thus an addition, not by one hand, but by the will and wish of the entire presbytery. John consented.

God used these presbyters for preserving to the church this additional precious revelation. In this connection we may recall how much of the inspired writing was occasioned; and we may include even the twenty chapters by John’s own hand or dictation. The reproduction of John’s oral narration by the Ephesian presbytery, one of whom did the writing, John himself accepting the result, removes all difficulties as to the inspiration of chapter 21. The view which allows about ten years before the adding of the supplement to the Gospel proper appears arbitrary. It is highly probable that the addition was made without delay. Copies of the work would be made almost at once, and all of them had 21 chapters.

John 21:1

1 After these things Jesus manifested himself to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias. Now he manifested himself in this manner. The connection “after these things,” those narrated in 20:26–29, is in John’s usual style. The fact that more is to be added, namely, still later events, although 20:30, 31 has already brought the conclusion, indicates quite sufficiently that what now follows is a supplement. It presents another manifestation of Jesus to the disciples. The verb “to manifest” occurs six times in the preceding chapters, in 7:4 with the reflexive as here, and appears seventeen times in John’s writings.

Like Paul in 1 Cor. 15:4, etc., John distinguishes between the appearances of Jesus and regards those to the disciples as a class separate from those to the women. The locality is mentioned: “at the Sea of Tiberias,” John’s way of naming the sea or lake (6:1) from the pagan city situated on its shores, the only town of all the towns that once graced its shores that has survived. So the disciples had gone to Galilee, which indicates that John knew about the directions they had received to this effect (Mark 14:28; Matt. 28:7 and 10). The fact that John now mentions the change of locality indicates that the appearance to Thomas occurred in Jerusalem. Just when the disciples removed to Galilee is nowhere indicated. From 1 Cor. 15:6 we conclude that the meeting of Jesus with the five hundred was the chief object of the directions given by Jesus before his death and repeated by him and by the angels after his resurrection.

This, however, would not preclude the more incidental appearance here at the seaside.

To say that the addition, “Now he manifested himself in this manner,” is unusual for John, is to mistake the situation. This circumstantial addition agrees with the supplementary character of the narrative now introduced, and the “manifestation” thus introduced is itself quite elaborate (v. 2–23), warranting an additional introductory word.

John 21:2

2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael from Cana of Galilee, and those of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples. We may ask why five of these seven are identified and two are left unidentified. The real interest of the narrative centers in Peter and John, so that one might expect these two alone to be identified with the additional remark that some others, or five others, were also present. The idea that the five who are named were apostles, and the other two disciples in the wider sense, seems unwarranted. Another answer is that the five have been named in the body of the Gospel and thus have already been introduced to the readers, while the other two have not been thus previously named. The fact that Thomas is mentioned is significant after 20:24, etc.

This time we find him where he belongs. Again his Hebrew name is translated into Greek, “Didymus,” which is “Twin.” Since Thomas is entirely silent in this narrative, this Greek version of his name cannot intend to remind us of any duality in his nature (compare 11:16; 20:24). On Nathanael see 1:46; incidentally we here learn that he was from Cana, which recalls 2:1, etc.

“Those of Zebedee,” namely his sons John and James, by actually naming John’s father violates the unwritten canon John has obeyed throughout his Gospel not to name himself or any of his relatives (1:35–41; 13:23; 18:15, etc.; 19:25–27 and 35; 20:2–10), extending this anonymity even to the mother of Jesus, so as to make us think that she, too, is one of John’s relatives. Here “Zebedee” is suddenly named outright. It is so unlike John to do this that we cannot pass by this naming of his father as being without significance. We can only say that others are here writing not John in his own person. The canon John set up for himself is not foisted upon others by him; they are free to insert his father’s name here, he himself would not have done so.

John 21:3

3 Simon Peter says to them, I go a-fishing. They say to him, We, too, are going with you. They went forth and entered a boat, and in that night they caught nothing. The story is told in detail, which, instead of being unlike John, is much like him. All is vivid, the persons constituting the party, their words, and their actions. Since John had often told these incidents, his presbyters now record them.

Peter’s word, “I go a-fishing,” is one of familiar discourse. The indicative he uses, as well as that found in the response made by the others, denotes only definite assertion, R. 923. He declares what he will do in such a way as to invite the others to join him. On the infinitive with ὑπάγω see R. 353, 990, 1062. The preposition σύν indicates that the others intend to help him. It was evening, the best time for fishing being the night. “The boat” is definite, the one owned by Peter and his brother.

Having originally been fishermen, it was natural that these men, or most of them, should go back to their old occupation. All we know is that they did so this night. The assumption that they plied their old trade regularly is hastily drawn. The critics assume this and declare that what is here related is inconsistent with the commission given in 20:21, etc., and thus they place John’s narrative prior to the resurrection and make it a version of Luke 5:1, etc. This type of criticism needs no refutation. It is entirely like Peter to make the proposition to do a bit of work; he likes activity.

Besides, a good catch of fish will not come amiss while they wait for the further directions of their Lord.

But strange to say, though they labored all night long at their task, they caught nothing. This recalls Luke 5:5. But an effort to combine the two accounts into one occurrence goes awry the moment the totally different details are noted.

John 21:4

4 Now early morning being already at hand, Jesus stood on the beach; however, the disciples were not aware that it was Jesus. The fact that John here writes πρωΐα (ὥρα) is due to the genitive absolute and is not an indication of a vocabulary differing from that of John, such as that in 20:1 where he has the adverb πρωί. The preposition εἰς is static, R. 593. John told only the fact that the disciples were not aware that the figure standing on the beach was (the Greek retains “is”) Jesus. Did the morning haze on the water render sight indistinct? Did Jesus will not to be recognized at once? Or was his appearance quite different from the previous appearances? All three explanations have been offered.

John 21:5

5 Jesus, therefore, says to them, Lads, you haven’t anything to eat, have you? They answered him, No. “Therefore” refers to the action of standing on the beach, so that Jesus could well call out to those in the boat. On the address παιδία in the sense of “lads” (not “children”), used even with reference to soldiers in the papyri, see M.-M. 474. The προσφάγιον is Zukost, anything eaten with (πρός) bread, and refers almost exclusively to “fish,” M.-M. 551. The question introduced by μή implies that a negative answer is in the mind of the speaker. Jesus, of course, knew that the disciples had caught nothing. He does not ask for this information but wants to have the disciples themselves state that they have nothing in order that he himself may direct them what to do.

John 21:6

6 But he said to them, Throw the net on the right side of the boat and you shall find. They, therefore, threw it and were no longer strong enough to draw it for the multitude of the fish. The disciples were aware only of the presence of a strange man on the beach and this man’s apparent good will. That he seemed willing to buy fish is not indicated; then his question would have been introduced by οὑ, implying an affirmative answer. The remarkable thing is that, when this stranger ordered the disciples to throw their net on the other side of the boat, they at once did so. Professional fishermen do not let a stranger, who may know nothing at all about their work, direct their work in this peremptory manner; nor would they accept a stranger’s promise of success on rendering him such blind obedience.

It is fantastic to say, “Perhaps Jesus had seen a school of fish on that side of the boat.” The two sides of the boat are only a few feet apart; those in a boat are able to see what is in the water on both sides, not so a man on the shore more than 300 feet away. Yet these men obey the orders of Jesus with strange promptness. Something compellingly authoritative seems to make obedience to Jesus altogether natural. Something masterfully assuring seems to put the promise of Jesus (“you shall find”) altogether beyond question. The plural τὰδεξιὰμέρη is idomatic for our singular, “the right parts,” for “the right side,” R. 408. Nothing occult or superstitious can possibly lurk in this mention of the right side by Jesus as though the disciples are to think of this as the lucky side.

They had fished all night, now on this, now on that side of their boat.

The miracle was instantaneous. The net was so heavy with fish that the disciples could not haul it up into the boat. Here ἀπό indicates cause, R. 580. The imperfect ἴσχυον pictures the disciples exerting all their strength. Jesus had filled their net, as he had once before done in Luke 5:6, 7, only the details are entirely different.

John 21:7

7 That disciple, therefore, whom Jesus loved says to Peter, It is the Lord. Here John’s regular manner of designating himself reappears unchanged. It is John who recognizes Jesus more quickly than the rest. This astounding catch of fish reveals to him the presence of the Lord. His first thought is to tell Peter. So sadly has John’s Gospel been misunderstood that John (or denying his authorship, the imagined author) has been charged with elevating himself above Peter in this Gospel, whereas the truth is constantly brought out that John and Peter are the closest friends. See 1:41; in 13:24 Peter and John act together; in 18:15, etc., John takes the blame for bringing Peter in; in 20:2 Peter and John are together; in 21:20, etc., Peter is concerned about John; in Acts 3:1, etc., Peter and John heal the lame man, and in 8:14 these two inspect the work in Samaria.

Simon Peter, therefore, having heard that it is the Lord, girdled his blouse around him, for he was naked, and threw himself into the sea. By means of the mass of fish Jesus had made his presence known, and Peter abandons everything, boat as well as fish, and runs straight to Jesus. Here is the same old impetuosity of the man. John remains in the boat with the rest. Only an eyewitness could mention the detail about the blouse. The disciples had worked “naked,” which, however, does not mean stripped of all clothing, as some suppose.

For γυμνός is also used when those parts of the body that are usually covered with clothing are exposed. The disciples had on common working blouses, which reached almost to the knees, had short sleeves, and were left to hang loose. This ἐπενδύτης Peter fastened around his waist with a girdle (R. 810) before he jumped into the water. Comparing 13:4 where Jesus first “took” the linen apron and then tied it around him, we note that here Peter does not “take” the blouse but only draws a girdle around it, evidently because he already has the blouse on. The deduction is therefore out of place that Peter first dressed before he came to the Lord, and that this was due to his reverence for the Lord. When anyone leaped into the water, any garment he wore would become wet and would cling tightly to the body.

What John intends to narrate is the haste of Peter. In a second or two he is through, simply fastening his Arbeitskittel with a girdle to hold it properly in place. Not that he expects the other disciples to do the same and thus to abandon the boat and the rich catch of fish the Lord had granted to them. He acts only on his own impulse, leaving the others to act on theirs. We shall always meet such differences, for the Lord’s disciples are really complements to each other.

John 21:8

8 But the other disciples came by means of the little boat, for they were not far from the land, but about two hundred forearm lengths, dragging the net of fish. The dative τῷπλοιαρίω may be instrumental, “by means of the boat” (R. 533), and thus in contrast to Peter, or, as R. 521 prefers, the locative, “in the boat.” The change from πλοῖον, “boat,” to the diminutive πλοιάριον, “little boat,” matches the same change in 6:17–20 and 22. We have no reason to think of two boats, one full-sized and one a “punt”; for the disciples would then be in the punt, and no one in the big boat. With γάρ the explanation of the eyewitness is added that the distance to the shore was not far, only about 200 πήχεις, (πῆχυς, the “length of a forearm,” 1½ feet), thus 300 feet. We have ὡςἀπό exactly as in 11:18. Even with Peter in the boat these seven men did not have the strength to haul up the net.

With Peter removed, they were still less able to do so. They thus simply dragged the net to shore. The weight indicated hints at the size of the fish. So richly laden the disciples come to the shore. Nothing is said about what Peter said and did after he reached the shore ahead of the boat. In the “net of the fish” the genitive is that of the contents, R. 499.

John 21:9

9 The astounding manifestations of this early morning hour are by no means ended with the catch of fish. When, therefore, they went up on the land they see a charcoal fire laid, and a fish laid thereon and bread. The surprise of the disciples is marked by the present tense, “they see,” namely here on the shore an ἀνθρακιὰκειμένη, I charcoal fire that has been laid, the coals glowing! And on these coals a fish has been laid, lying there roasting! And bread is there, too, ἄρτος, a cake of bread to go with the ὀψάριον, the same word as that used in 6:9 and 11 (which see, Zukost, regularly used regarding fish)! Everything is ready for a meal!

How did all this get here? We pass by the answers that Jesus had carried everything to this place, that he had employed some stranger to do so, or that Peter had hurried to bring the materials to shore, had lit the charcoal, etc. The fire, the fish, and the bread are here through the miraculous power of Jesus. Those who seek to combine Luke 5 with this section of John’s Gospel are here completely upset. In v. 13 the article τὸὀψάριον settles the question as to whether the roasting fish was one fish or several, enough for seven men. The debate on this point overlooks the singular ἄρτον.

If several cakes of bread were in he mind of the writer, the Greek certainly would have used ἄρτοι. Just as one fish would ordinarily not suffice for seven persons, so also one cake of bread as baked in those days would not satisfy so many. When fire, fish, and bread are provided miraculously, why insist on quantities? Did Jesus not feed the 5, 000 with only five cakes of bread and two small fishes? First Jesus blesses his disciples with a rich catch of fish after a night of labor, then he has everything ready to refresh them with food, tired and hungry as they now were.

John 21:10

10 But before the meal begins, the catch of fish, still in the net and in the water, must be safely brought to land. In Luke 5 the great catch is left behind by the disciples, who are asked to follow Jesus, but left in other hands, not to be wasted and lost; here the situation is different, the seven disciples are to take proper care of their catch. Jesus says to them, Bring part of the fish which you just caught. This command is misread when it is thought to mean: Bring a few more fish to roast, enough for all of you. Verse 11 shows that the disciples did nothing of the kind. The partitive ἀπό (R. 519), “part of the fish,” means that only the large fish are to be retained by the disciples, all the smaller ones are to be emptied out of the net back into the lake.

So the command really means: Before you eat with me, go and take care of the fish you want to keep; finish your catch and then dine. The aorist ἐπιάσατε indicates an act that has just happened, where we usually write the perfect, R. 843, 845.

John 21:11

11 Simon Peter, accordingly, went aboard and drew the net to the land, full of great fishes, I hundred and fifty-three; and, though being so many, the net was not torn. What Peter does is what the Lord wanted done. The top of the net had been made fast to the boat, the prow of which rested on the beach. It was no great labor for one man to unfasten the net and to bring its top to the hands waiting at the water’s edge. Then the fish were sorted out of the net, all the sizeable ones thrown into the boat, all the small fry dumped back into the lake. John remembers the exact number, 153 fish in all.

He does more. Such a load of fish, yielding so many big ones, would be likely to tear the net and let some of the catch escape. This happened in the incident recorded in Luke 5:6, but not here. It is fanciful to imagine that only these 153 big fish entered the net, and still worse to seek some kind of symbolism or mysticism in the number 153, or some mysterious way in which the number 153 is attained. John’s narrative is exact, that is all; he remembers the very number of the fish. The wonder of it all has never faded from his mind.

Those who say, “undoubtedly symbolic,” need to furnish the proof. The notion that the ancients counted 153 varieties of fish, an idea derived by Jerome from Oppian (end of the second century), cannot be verified and would amount to nothing if it could be. Pliny might be consulted on a point like this, but he knows of 174 kinds.

John 21:12

12 With the fish properly put away, the disciples may rest and eat. Jesus says to them, Come breakfast! And no one of the disciples had boldness to investigate regarding him, Who art thou a since they knew that it was the Lord. The asyndeton: Δεῦτεἀριστήσατε is a common idiom, R. 949. The entire appearance of Jesus on this occasion is remarkable in that no word is uttered regarding himself and none regarding the relation of the disciples to him. From beginning to end everything is action, and every word spoken by Jesus pertains only to the action, omitting to add even the slightest reason for, or explanation of, the action.

The disciples longed for more, especially for some word from Jesus that it was indeed he. But none of them ventured to make investigation. The verb ἐξετάσαι does not mean “to inquire”; it is much stronger than ἐρωτᾶν. It means “to make investigation,” to ask or to say something that might lead Jesus to say that it was he indeed. “Who art thou?” is not a direct question put to Jesus but the thought or main point in a possible investigation. The imperfect ἐτόλμα does not mean that the disciples feared to investigate, but that something held them back. They did not feel bold and free to speak as under other circumstances in their former familiar intercourse they would have done without hesitation.

The reason for this reverent timidity is given: “since they knew that it was the Lord.” The participle is causal (R. 1128), its case agreeing with οὑδείς, its number with μαθητῶν (R. 437, etc.). But we must note ὁΚύριος, “the Lord,” no longer merely, “Jesus”; compare v. 7. They knew the Lord’s presence through the miracles here wrought so wondrously. This statement about the way in which the disciples here feel in the presence of Jesus leads many to think that on this occasion the appearance of Jesus differed to a marked degree from his previous appearances. In fact, we are unable to say whether even any two appearances during the forty days were similar. Perhaps all were different, although who would venture to say in just what manner?

It is quite possible that after the disciples truly believed in his resurrection Jesus manifested more and more of his glory to them in his subsequent appearances. Ever more fully he revealed himself as “the Lord.” Yet the idea that Jesus passed through a glorifying process during the forty days, gradually growing more divine and heavenly in his human nature until he ascended bodily to heaven; or that his human nature was gradually absorbed into the divine nature and finally was lost in divinity altogether, is speculation only.

John 21:13

13 Jesus comes and takes the bread and gives to them, and the fish in like manner. The disciples also come; but the narrative shows that their eyes were looking only at him, watching his actions. Not a word is spoken, the Lord’s actions speak for him. He does not need to bless the food as he did in 6:11, when he was still in his state of humiliation; he has himself, as the divine Lord, provided this food, and that is its blessing. No longer does he need to look to heaven and pray his Father to bless the food he dispenses; his own presence and his hands, his own divine touch constitute the blessing. Some think that the blessing was spoken by Jesus in the usual way, and that John makes no mention of that fact because he takes it for granted.

But when John writes, “Jesus comes, takes, gives,” etc., we cannot think that he would have omitted the one verb or participle necessary to indicate the blessing, if the Lord had indeed spoken the blessing. While some are sure that a blessing was spoken, they yet think that when Jesus said, “come” (δεῦτε), the disciples did not come but held back. So they think that Jesus comes to them (ἔρχεται) and brings them the bread and the fish. Would they put him to this trouble? Would they not sit on the ground, as Orientals still do, in a close circle about the fire and the food, and thus let Jesus serve them?

Jesus first takes the bread and gives this to the disciples. He breaks pieces from the one cake. It multiplies under his hands, so that these hungry men receive all that they need. He does the same with the roasted fish, and it, too, proves to be enough for all of them. The miracle of 6:10, etc., is repeated, but now with a new significance, one pertaining to the apostles and future ministers of the Lord alone. Did also Jesus eat ?

He did, we are told, because in v. 5 he asked whether the disciples had anything to eat. Yet why should he ask on his own account, why could not this question have been asked on the disciples’ account? The question is certainly properly understood when it is taken in the sense, “Have you anything yourselves so that you can eat?” Moreover, the Lord himself provides the food for the disciples to eat, which shuts out the very idea introduced in v. 5 for support of the conclusion that Jesus, too, ate. Acts 10:41 is adduced as proof that Jesus ate. Aside from Luke 24:42, 43 no eating of Jesus is reported in any of the appearances, and drinking is never mentioned anywhere. When the eating and the drinking to which Peter refers took place no one is able to say.

Here, indeed, in this one appearance it might have occurred. The reason for hesitation in assuming that it did lies in the character of all that is here done by Jesus—it is all symbolical. If the eating and the drinking on the part of Jesus himself could be fitted into the symbolism here presented, we should be ready to say that it took place. The text itself leaves out such action on the part of Jesus.

The critics have their own version of this incident. Luke 5:1, etc., and John 21:1–14 are one and the same event. Then Matt. 4:18–20 and Mark 1:16–20 are also brought into the combination, with Luke 24:36–43 as “a counterpart.” Finally, this is made “a eucharistic meal.” Why this term “eucharistic”? Is it to lead us to think of the actual Eucharist, the Lord’s Supper, so as to combine the Sacrament with this meal (bread and fish) beside the lake? But criticism should be soundly and sanely historical; in this case it proves altogether unhistorical.

John 21:14

14 For this, the third time already, was Jesus manifested to the disciples after having risen from the dead. It is characteristic of John thus to round out and to mark off a narrative by a final statement, separating it from anything that follows. In this case the separate statement proves to be rather important. It shuts out the view of some that v. 1–14 furnish only the general setting for what they consider the main account, the Lord’s dealing with Peter and his prophecies concerning Peter and John. Quite the contrary. John would have us understand that the draught of fishes and the meal beside the lake constitute an independent piece full of a meaning and import of its own.

John records this as the third appearance “to the disciples,” i.e., to the men who belonged to the Twelve. We see that he classifies the various appearances. He leaves in what we may call the minor class the appearance to the women, to Mary Magdalene, to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5), and to the two disciples at Emmaus. The major class are the appearances in 20:19, etc., and in 20:26, etc. Paul classifies somewhat differently in 1 Cor. 15:5, etc. We need not be disturbed about ἤδη, which simply means that these three main appearances followed each other at only short intervals.

It surely does not mean to deny other appearances. The participle ἐγερθείς, without the article, denotes the time: “after having arisen,” and is not a predicate: “as the one who was risen.” The passive is used as the middle. On the phrase ἐκνεκρῶν see 2:22.

The symbolical character of the entire action connected with this appearance, like that of Luke 5:1–11, has been so generally recognized that we need note only the fact. When Jesus first called the two pairs of brothers to be “fishers of men” he taught them by means of a miracle that their success was absolutely sure if they would obey his command and rely only upon his Word, no matter what their own skill and reason might advise, or how foolish they might appear to the multitude. All night long, fishing in the best places, with their own best skill, they had caught nothing. But, as Peter put it, “casting the net at thy word,” now at the worst time in the middle of the day, in the worst place out in the deep of the lake, under the worst circumstances with a critical crowd looking on from the shore, their net had been filled miraculously by the Lord even to breaking, and they had to call for help to bring in the catch. Thus were they to become fishers of men. This symbolical miracle is now repeated after the commission is renewed in 20:21–23, also including Thomas (v. 26, etc.).

Again, not all of the apostles are present, although the symbol is intended for all. The place of Judas is as yet vacant. Yet seven are assembled. No real symbolism has been found in either this number or in the number of the great fish caught. The scene is all action with only enough words to insure the action. Again, I night of fruitless labor—human effort alone is nothing.

Again the Lord’s Word, and the net is filled. Only on the other side of the boat, which the experience of fishermen and all human wisdom would say amounts to nothing, and yet the net is filled. The Lord’s Word and his promise filled it, these and nothing else. The entire account of the apostolic labor in the Acts is the commentary of reality on the symbol granted in advance in the miracle. What the Lord revealed in the day of his humiliation he now corroborates in the day of his glorification. The net may be strained to the breaking point, or may be too heavy with fish to be hauled into the boat, the apostles shall not lose anything of their marvelous success.

But now the symbol advances beyond that of Luke 5; Matt. 4:18–20; Mark 1:16–20. There the chosen disciples left their catch to other hands; for as the Lord’s fishermen he would provide for all their needs (Luke 22:35). This assurance is now repeated. Beside the lake the Lord has his table ready. They are to eat nothing taken from their own catch, they are to be fed with the bread and the fish provided in advance by the Lord. Let the apostles see and learn again, more graphically than before, that the Lord himself will feed and care for them as his own chosen and called servants.

Their one thought is to be to do his will and his work according to his Word; all bodily and temporal cares belong in the Lord’s hands. Some bring into the symbolism of the meal beside the lake the heavenly refreshment which the Lord has in store for his servants, but the passages adduced (Matt. 8:11; Luke 12:37; 13:29, 30; 14:15) include more than the apostles and their called successors and take in all believers. It is enough to abide by the assured symbolism and not to force it to include more.

We now see why this narrative was not placed into the body of his Gospel by John. The purpose of the Gospel proper is to bring about faith in Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God. The purpose of the appearance of Jesus to the seven beside the lake is far narrower, namely to establish them in the specific apostolic work to which they were called. John consented to place this narrative into a supplement, and this, indeed, is its fitting place.

John 21:15

15 The risen Lord had appeared to Peter alone on Easter Sunday, Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5. What passed between them was never recorded, but we shall not go amiss when we say that this appearance involved Peter’s personal absolution from the sin of his threefold denial. For already when the angel sent the first message by the women he said, “Tell his disciples and Peter,” Mark 16:7. Peter was present when Jesus appeared behind the locked doors and gave the disciples the commission, “So I, too, send you.” Peter was thus absolved and reinstated into his office and was again established among the believers, including the eleven. His case, however, was so grave that Jesus proceeded to do more. Here at the lakeside he takes Peter in hand in order to eradicate from his heart the last trace of false self-confidence, and at the same time in order to cut off any possible foolish criticism on the part of any members in the church, he formally and publicly reinstates Peter into his office.

Two striking circumstances deserve attention, the draught of fishes and the fire of coals. The former recalls Peter’s first instatement as a fisher of men, Luke 5:10; the latter the fire of coals beside which Peter forfeited his apostleship. That occurred in the middle of the night, the fire now glows in the early morning. Then he stood and sat among the enemies of Jesus, now he is with Jesus and with six of his fellow-apostles.

When, therefore, they had breakfasted, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon of John, dost thou love me more than these? He says to him, Yea, Lord; thou dost know that I have affection for thee. To all that had preceded with regard to Peter is added this breakfast which Jesus had prepared beside the lake for the seven disciples. Jesus had broken the bread for Peter as he had done for the rest. He treats Peter as one who belongs to the rest. But that is the very reason for what Jesus now does with Peter.

John always calls him “Simon Peter” (1:42), only once using the latter alone. But Jesus here addresses him, “Simon, son of John,” and does not add, “Peter,” the name he himself had bestowed on this Simon. Some see no significance in this form of address, but there is a significance. Others err in another direction, taking it that on the part of Jesus the entire past discipleship of Peter was regarded as though it had never existed, but this is rather radical. Jesus uses the old name of this apostle, borne by him before he joined Jesus, in order to remind him of his natural descent and of all that had clung to him in the way of weakness because of this descent. Impetuous and rash by nature, he had spoken and promised grandly and then, when the test came, I test he had foolishly, wilfully brought upon himself, he had fallen miserably, had thrice denied his Lord.

He had shown himself only as Simon, son of John; he had been nothing of a Peter. To say that “Simon of John” marks the solemnity of the present occasion and to refer to Matt. 16:17, shows that both solemn occasions are not understood beyond the mere solemnity.

Jesus asks, Ἀγαπᾷςμε; and Peter answers, φιλῶσε. To this day, despite the information long available regarding these two words, some reverse the meaning of these two verbs and let ἀγαπᾶν refer to the lower form of love (the English “like”) and φιλεῖν to the higher form. And they confuse the true ideas, for they think of ἀγαπᾶν only as love for a benefactor and of φιλεῖν as love for the person himself. Older commentators think that the two verbs show no difference. An appeal to the Aramaic is beside the mark. While Jesus here spoke this language, the narrative is recorded in Greek.

The Aramaic may or may not have two verbs that are the exact counterpart of these used in the Greek; every language has means at hand besides bare verbs for indicating desired differences of thought, such as are most decidedly indicated in this entire section (v. 15–17). The verb ἀγαπᾶν is the love of intelligence, reason, and comprehension, coupled with corresponding purpose; in this its content it vastly outranks the other type of love. And φιλεῖν expresses the love of mere personal affection or liking, including even the passions where the context requires, and no intelligence or high purpose is involved; this content places the verb on a low level. It could never be said of God that he φιλεῖ the sinful world; as far as φιλεῖν is concerned, he could only abominate the foul world. Jesus never asked us to love our enemies in the sense of φιλεῖν; he never himself loved his enemies in this way. But ἀγαπᾶν—yes, with this love God did love the world, and we can love our enemies, comprehending all that is wrong with them and reaching out with the mighty purpose of removing that wrong, sanctifying the world, converting our enemies.

Compare 3:16, and every other passage in which either of the verbs is used in this Gospel. Only in a few cases, where either type of love would apply, either verb might be used; but even then the great distinction would remain—the two are never equal.

“More than these” so evidently refers to Peter’s boasting in Matt. 26:33; Mark 14:29, that we must read πλέοντούτων as a masculine: “more than these other disciples.” The alternative which would regard this word as a neuter: “more than these things,” i.e., boat, net, and shall we add fish, is without motivation and makes the whole scene quite insipid. Why ask only Peter whether he preferred Jesus to his old profession when all seven had been fishing? The trouble with Peter was not that he had fished but that he had thrice denied the Lord for whom he had claimed love and loyalty greater and more enduring than that of the other disciples. Here is the sore spot on which Jesus now lays his finger in order to heal it completely from the inside out.

The direct, personal, intimate question thus addressed to Peter marks a change from the attitude of Jesus displayed in v. 1–14. There the actions speak their symbolical language, here the words of a true pastor and a loving Lord are used.

Peter had learned much since his fall. The loud protestations of that former hour have vanished, I deep humility bows Peter’s soul. He does not now venture to make comparisons, and by dropping all comparison with others silently takes back the proud comparison he once made. He does not even venture to assert a love for Jesus such as ἀγαπᾶν indicates. Even now, with bowed head, he himself realizes that his love has been anything but the high love of the true understanding of his Lord and of the sincere purpose of living up to that understanding. So often he has misunderstood, so often Jesus had to correct his wrong impulses.

No; he dared not claim real ἀγάπη. So he answers, φιλῶσε, “I have affection for thee.” And even this he cannot say on the evidence of his past record. If that were examined, it would show even lack of affection; for no φιλία, love of ordinary attachment, could possibly be discovered in the three denials, and only a perverted φιλία in his disobedient following of Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard. Therefore Peter says, “Yea, thou knowest that I have affection for thee.” Compare 2:25. From all his past acts and the sad record he had made Peter turns to the Lord’s omniscience. By so doing he truly honors Jesus and places all his trust in his Lord. “Thou knowest,” thy divine knowledge of what is in my heart is infinitely more certain than any examination I could make of my heart.

By saying this Peter hopes that Jesus will, indeed, find at least a measure of φιλία in his inmost soul. Remember this scene when reading Acts 1:24, “who knowest the hearts of all men.” Peter makes full confession in his answer to Jesus, and confession is good for the soul.

The Lord accepts his confession and profession. He pronounces the absolution of Peter, an absolution so complete as to be crowned with a formal and an authoritative reinstatement into his apostolic office: Pasture my lambs! This brief command recalls all the tender imagery of 10:1–18, also Acts 20:27 and Isa. 40:11. Those who erase the distinction between ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν do the same with “my lambs” and “my sheep” and with the verbs βόσκειν and ποιμαίνειν Jesus mentions the lambs first, but certainly not because they are less valuable or require less care; rather the reverse is true. Think of Matt. 18:1–14 and 19:14; Mark 10:13, etc., voicing the special love of Jesus for children. Jesus here places his most loved possessions into Peter’s care.

The spiritual feeding and nourishment of children is here made the first part of the great apostolic office. Too often the called shepherds of the flock have forgotten what Jesus here does with Peter. They have counted the little ones as of little value, often neglecting them altogether, devoting themselves to shining in the world. Yet “feed my lambs” stands in the sacred record as their first essential work. Nor may pastors ever transfer this work to others as though it constituted only a minor appendix to their office. The love of true understanding will follow the example of Paul in Eph. 5:1, etc., of Luther who wrote the two precious catechisms, and of all genuine pastors, who knowing the mind of Christ and making his purpose their own, have made the spiritual care of the lambs their most delightful work.

This work is never featured on the front pages of the world’s dailies, but the Lord here features it on the front page of Peter’s commission.

The durative imperative βόσκε means, “be feeding,” “keep feeding,” i.e., providing with forage, with pasture, i.e., with the spiritual nourishment aptly called “the milk of the Word,” 1 Pet. 2:2; “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have said unto you,” Matt. 28:20; 1 John 2:12, 13. “To feed means to teach the church the faith with living voice, or to govern by the gospel.” Luther. “Do not, my brother, exchange the shepherd staff of the gospel for the driver’s stick of the law.” Koegel. The care of the lambs has been called “the sunny province” of the pastor’s calling. It requires at least the φιλεῖν of Peter, and ἀγαπᾶν would be much better. To feed is, of course, not intended as the opposite of “to shepherd,” to tend and to lead, but only lifts out of the pastoral work that part which is especially vital for children. To lead children is easy enough, for they follow easily and trustworthily; their feeding is the real task, for they must grow and become strong and mature.

John 21:16

16 He says to him again a second time, Simon of John, dost thou love me? He says to him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I have affection for thee. The pleonasm “again a second time” marks the repetition of the question of Jesus as being something unusual. Yet a significant change distinguishes this question from the one that precedes. When in the first question Jesus asked, “more than these,” Peter could not but see a reference to his boasting prior to his threefold denial. So now, when in the second question Jesus omits the comparison of Peter with the other disciples, Peter must have been quick to note the omission.

Perhaps a flash of gratitude accompanied the perception. Some stop with that idea. But we must note another point, that this second question probes far more deeply than the first. The Lord’s three questions to Peter are by no means just repetitions with unessential variations. The question whether Peter loves Jesus more than do the other disciples leaves it unquestioned that Peter loves Jesus at least as much as the others and reminds him not to put himself above the others. But now this second question asks whether Peter at all loves Jesus.

His threefold denial had made it questionable whether Peter had any love left for Jesus, namely love in the higher sense (ἀγαπᾶν). If the first question was justified, then certainly this second one was also in order. Peter thus merely repeats his former answer; for already in that first answer, dropping all invidious comparisons such as he had once made so rashly, he had assured the Lord that he loved him.

Again Jesus accepts Peter’s answer, and the acceptance is again a public absolution and a public reinstatement into office. He says to him, Shepherd my sheep. The reading is πρόβατα, the ordinary word for “sheep,” with somewhat less textual evidence for the variant προβάτια. With the general term “sheep” the general verb ποίμαινε, “be shepherding,” be doing the work of ποιμήν or shepherd, would correspond exactly. “My sheep” are here the entire flock and thus include any lambs, though without mentioning them in particular. Thus also ποιμαίνειν includes βόσκειν, though again without dwelling on the latter in particular. Why erase these distinctive meanings as some do?

Why generalize, where the Lord particularizes? Of course, the Lord might call his entire flock “my lambs,” τὰἀρνίαμου, or again the entire flock τὰπρόβάτιάμου, “my sheep,” or still a third time his entire flock, “my young sheep,” “my dear sheep,” τὰπρόβάτιάμου (v. 17). And again, when he first says “my lambs” and then finally “my young sheep” he certainly does not intend to transfer to Peter’s care one section after another of his flock, for “my sheep” in v. 16 embraces all of them. But these observations are untenable. For to picture the whole flock as “my lambs” is impossible without thinking of actual lambs, which is equally true of “my young or dear sheep.” And for Jesus in the present connection to mention any part of his flock means, not a divided section as though the lambs were sundered and separated, but this part in its natural connection with the entire flock. The same applies to the change in the verbs employed.

When it is said that no reason appears in Peter’s answer to Jesus for distinctions in the commissioning commands of Jesus, since each time Peter asserts only his affection for Jesus, this remark would lead us to look at Peter, whereas we really ought to look at Jesus, It is Jesus who is conducting matters and thus it is he who spreads out his commission in three separate commands. He is the one who thus would impress Peter with the greatness of the commission he is entrusting to Peter’s love. It is as though “the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls” comes to Peter, leading his entire flock. First he says: “Look at these lambs in the flock; I am placing them into thy care. They especially need feeding; do thou feed them aright!” Then he points to the whole flock, as if to say: “Look at this entire flock; I am placing the whole of it into thy care. It needs all that shepherding implies; be thou its true shepherd!” And even this is not enough for the heart of Jesus.

A third time (v. 17) he bids Peter look at the flock, now to impress most deeply upon him what lies in the possessive “my” which is used thrice. For now Jesus calls the flock τὰπροβάτιάμου, using the tender, loving diminutive “my dear sheep,” i.e., my little precious ones, for whom my heart goes out, who so much need care. “I place them into thy hands; feed them all as a bade thee to feed my lambs!” Thus all the affection Peter has for Jesus is to flow out toward the flock which is so precious to Jesus. As he feeds and shepherds this flock, so will he prove his affection for his Lord. What is so near and dear to the heart of Jesus will be equally near and dear to Peter’s heart.

John 21:17

17 He says to him the third time, Simon of John, hast thou affection for me a Peter was grieved because he said to him this third time, Hast thou affection for me? And he said to him, Lord, all things thou dost know; thou dost realize that I do have affection for thee. Twice we are here told that it was “the third time” that Jesus asked Peter. The hint in the first question, “more than these,” connecting this catechism with Peter’s denial, is here clinched. Three times Peter denied Jesus; it is proper that now in this public absolution and reinstatement he should confess him and own his love for him three times in succession. This is the true implication in the repeated adverbial accusative “the third time.” I wrong turn is given the word when Peter is thought to grieve because Jesus asked him about his love for the third time.

If this were correct, his grieving should have begun when he was asked the second question. We may well say that, when the first question intimated to Peter that Jesus was referring to his denials, Peter found it quite in order that Jesus should now ask of him three successive confessions of love. The wrong kind of emphasis is placed on “the third time” by those who fail to see the force of the third question because they confuse ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν. What went to Peter’s heart was this verb φιλεῖν in the final question, “Hast thou affection for me?” When Jesus twice asked about the higher love, once as to its degree compared with others, and then about its very presence, Peter with all due humility ventured to assert only the lower form of love. But now in this third question Jesus probed even for this lower love, of which Peter felt so sure that for its presence in his heart he could appeal to the omniscience of Jesus. This grieved him so deeply.

But he could not be spared this pain. In his denials even all common affection and regard for Jesus had been thrown to the winds. He claimed that he did not even know the man, etc. Peter must drink the cup of full and complete confession. The verb ἐλυπήθη means to be grieved, wounded, made sorrowful; the word should not be translated, “he was vexed,” or, “he was annoyed.” Jesus does not vex or annoy; like a good physician, he may hurt, but he does this only in order to heal. So we should not read impatience with Jesus or even resentment into Peter’s reply.

His reply is the same as that given to the other questions, it is only made stronger by stating more fully what the other replies contain: “Lord, all things thou dost know (Ps. 7:10); thou dost realize that I have affection for thee.” Even his hurt does not lead him to claim more than the lower form of love. His humility stands the test of this third question. Even his hurt does not mislead him now at least to stand on his own assurance. He survives also this part of the test and clings to the Lord as the one who truly knows. And this reliance on the Lord he bases on the actual omniscience of Jesus: “all things thou dost know.” And then he adds a new verb in what may be called a deduction, “thou dost realize” with full, direct, and penetrating insight into my soul “that I do have affection for thee.” The answer shows not the slightest annoyance with Jesus. Like the other answers, it states quite plainly that Peter feels that the reason for these questions is not that Jesus doubts his love and is seeking to allay such doubts.

Jesus knows. When Peter says this he shows that he, too, realizes what Jesus really intends, namely by this questioning before others in a public way to place him where Jesus wanted him to be.

As before, so again Jesus, who knows all things, accepts Peter’s answer. Jesus says to him, Pasture my dear little sheep. Here the weight of textual authority is in favor of the diminutive προβάτια with its connotation of tender affection. Since this diminutive appears in the last question it cannot refer merely to “young sheep,” half-grown, between lambs and old, mature sheep. It must refer to the entire flock as indicated in v. 16. If the diminutive could be textually assured for the second question, and πρόβατα, “sheep,” for the third, we could make three classes: lambs, young sheep, mature sheep.

But a study of the textual evidence shuts this out. That προβάτια is genuine in one of the questions is certain. It was easy to carry πρόβατα from v. 16 into v. 17 and make both read alike; likewise some copyists carried προβάτια from v. 17 into v. 16. Hence the confusion in the readings. We have followed the better authorities in both verses.

Some of the interpretations of the Lord’s dealings with Peter are fanciful. Cases of triple repetitions such as Matt. 26:36–46; Acts 10:9–16; and 2 Cor. 12:8, 9, are not analogous, for these are only repetitions, but the three questions directed to Peter contain a marked advance and thus attain a climax. Some explain the three questions as a repetition for the sake of emphasis, but incorrectly, for in order to secure emphasis only one repetition is made. Rome uses this incident with regard to Peter to bolster up its false doctrine. It sees in the lambs the laity and in the sheep the clergy, and both are put under Peter. “As to that which is said John 21:15, etc., ‘Feed my sheep,’ and, ‘Lovest thou me more than these a’ it does not as yet follow that a peculiar superiority was given Peter. He bids him ‘feed,’ i.e., teach the Word, or rule the church with the Word, which Peter has in common with the other apostles.” Concordia Triglotta, 513.

The dealings of Jesus with Peter are no special exaltation of Peter but a serious reminder of his grave defection. The Lord nowhere places Peter above the other apostles. Just as the other apostles had no apostolic successors, so Peter has none. When John wrote his Gospel, Peter had been dead for about 35 years, and John knows of no successor to Peter. Could John, himself an apostle, have been placed under a papal successor of Peter? We know, too, that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, surpassed Peter, yea, all the Twelve together, in the fruitfulness of his work (1 Cor. 15:10), especially also in the writings which form the New Testament, the foundation of the church for all time.

John 21:18

18 The next great word connects directly with the commission to feed the Lord’s dear sheep: Amen, amen, I say to thee, when thou wast younger thou wast accustomed to gird thyself and thou wast accustomed to walk where thou wouldst; but when thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch out thy hands, and another shall gird thee and shall carry thee where thou art not willing. And John informs us: Now this he said, signifying with what kind of death he would glorify God. After accepting Peter’s love and publicly reinstating him as an apostle, the Lord predicts what kind of death shall crown his career. We recall 13:36, “but thou shalt follow me afterward.” Once Peter rashly disregarded the word of Jesus that he could not then follow Jesus, and that rash disobedience had ended in denial. But already then Jesus told Peter that Peter should follow him, namely into death, “afterward.” And now, when Peter is again fully restored to his former place, the Lord amplifies the word spoken before Peter’s denial, the word about dying for his Lord. It is unwarranted to assume that Jesus is now still testing Peter and as much as asking whether he will furnish the highest proof of love.

Nor are these words only an admonition to patience and resignation. No, as John states, these words are direct prophecy. Peter is to know the kind of death he is to die and, knowing this in advance, he will not only go forward joyfully to meet it but will also while his life lasts devote himself most zealously to the flock entrusted to him. Paul was also told in advance “how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake,” Acts 9:16.

On the double “amen” (assurance of verity) and on the added, “I say to thee” (assurance of authority), see 1:51. Two contrasting pictures are placed side by side: first, young Peter, girding up his long outer garment himself, doing this whenever he is so minded, and then going wherever he may want to go; secondly, old Peter, now stretching forth his hands to let another person gird him and to bring him where Peter has no wish to go. The thought expressed in these images is quite transparent. The three imperfect tenses in the first picture denote customary actions, R. 971; on ἐζώννυες see R. 314. In the second picture the aorist γηράσῃς indicates a definite point, and the future tenses describe what shall then happen. In οὑθέλεις the negative is emphatic, R. 969.

These two pictures are not trivial: younger Peter going where he pleases, old Peter dependent on others and often taken where he does not please. Note the stretching out of the hands, the singular ἄλλος (not a plural), and the final clause, “where thou art not willing.” Jesus describes Peter’s active life, feeding and tending the flock during the 35 years of his apostolic ministry; then he pictures his death by martyrdom. Both pictures are drawn in figurative language, and the figure is not that of a shepherd or of a fisherman but of a man at one time free to do as he wills, then at last being forced by the will of another.

Peter was no longer young in age, but here the Lord intimates to him that he shall have a goodly period of active life as an apostle. He was executed in the year 64. John’s interpretation of the words of Jesus is historical not ethical. Those who are inclined toward the latter attempt what is unwarranted. Long before his death Peter was thoroughly humble, resigned to the Lord’s directions, no longer self-willed. To postpone this ethical development until his old age is to slander the great apostle.

Nor can the words, “where thou art not willing” be pressed to mean that in his old age Peter would not be willing to go where the Lord desired to lead him, for the contrary is true during his entire ministry. This ἄλλος, “other man,” who finally girds Peter and “will bring” him where he, the other, desires, is Peter’s executioner. Peter yields to him. The final girding, done for Peter by this other man, is figurative. Peter holds up his hands in order to have a rope tied around his body. Not his hands or his feet are tied in order to render him helpless, but a rope is tied around his waist as was customary in the case of criminals who were led to execution.

Some see in the stretching forth of the hands a picture of crucifixion, I nailing of the outstretched hands to the cross. But that places the crucifixion ahead of the leading to the cross. The text fails to describe the actual mode of Peter’s death; it says only so much, that an executioner would lead Peter to a martyr’s death. With that we should be content. Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 1, reports: “At last Peter came to Rome, where he was crucified head downward; for so he himself had desired to suffer”; and in Book 2, Chapter 25, he names the authorities for the fact that Peter was crucified by Nero. This apostle, as far as we know, was the only one to die by crucifixion.

John 21:19

19 Peter’s martyrdom “should glorify God” (the Greek retains the future tense “shall glorify,” whereas the English calls for “should”) by showing the work of the Lord brought to such perfection in Peter that he gave his life for the faith. “As in the case of the feeding of the sheep, so with regard to his suffering in death this favored apostle would follow in the Master’s steps and glorify God.” Koegel. In the early church the expression “to glorify God” came to have this special significance: “to endure martyrdom.” “Is it something strange that the servant should die for his good Lord when the Lord died for his evil servants?” Ambrosius. “Not at the end of every Christian’s course stands the martyr’s cross; but no Christian can finish his course without being led from Peter’s youth to Peter’s age and being exercised in cross-bearing.… According to the judgment of men will power is man’s glory, but Christians are manly and strong and grow into a perfect man and unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (Eph. 4:13) when they rest resignedly in the will of the Lord, whose hand performs miracles with a broken staff and a bruised vine-branch.” Besser.

And having said this, he says to him, Follow me! We do not read, “He accordingly says to him,” which would merely connect this command with the preceding prophecy. The participle, “having said this,” marks the prophecy as having been concluded. Very likely a pause occurred, and then Jesus said, “Follow (really, be following) me!” The command thus stands by itself, and its sense must be according. Since Jesus is no longer in the days of his flesh he cannot intend to say that Peter is to follow Jesus as a disciple follows his master. Peter has his commission and his reinstatement into office; besides this he has the prophecy that after a life of shepherding the flock he will glorify God with his death by martyrdom.

It is thus that Jesus now bids Peter to follow him—in the course thus mapped out, to the final goal thus set for him. From beginning to end it is a following of Jesus.

Does this bidding link up with 13:36, “but thou shalt follow me hereafter”? It surely does. For the very first question directed to Peter already carries with it the reference to this passage. While 13:36 tells Peter that he cannot now follow Jesus into death but shall follow him thus afterward, this reference to a following in death is now included in the command, “Follow me!” But the present command includes also the long, faithful apostolate. The latter cannot be excluded, so that a following only in death is referred to; for the preceding catechism and commissioning and the long activity before the martyrdom are too pronounced to be left out.

John 21:20

20 Peter, having turned, sees the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned back at the supper on his breast and said, Lord, who is it that betrayeth thee ? All the commentators wrestle with this situation, especially with the participle ἀκολουθοῦντα. One thing is acknowledged by all, that this means that John walked behind Jesus and Peter; for “sees him following” cannot possibly be understood ethically. Then, however, it is simplest and therefore best to think that when Jesus said to Peter, “Follow me!” he turned and walked away from the rest with Peter. Having gone a few steps, Peter looked around and saw that his dearest friend John was also starting to follow. It is idle to ask where Jesus was going when he started to walk away and flippantly to inquire whether he was going for a walk.

For the answer is that Jesus walked away and then suddenly disappeared. This walking away with Peter walking along may certainly also be considered as a symbolical action, symbolizing the ethical following implied in the command to Peter. In a chapter filled with symbolical actions this final symbol appears perfectly appropriate. But the opinion is unwarranted that Jesus had taken Peter apart from the rest of the disciples already in v. 15, had questioned him privately, and had told him of his coming martyrdom by himself alone. No; all that Jesus said to Peter including, “follow me,” was said beside the fire of coals in the presence of the other six disciples.

What induced John to follow when Jesus turned to go with Peter is easy to understand. We know how his heart was drawn to Jesus, and how Jesus had granted him the closest intimacy. He and Peter were also companions of the closest kind (1:41; 13:24; 18:15; 20:2; 21:7; Acts 3:1; 8:14). We have no intimation that Jesus was saying anything more to Peter, or intended to do so. Hence we must not say that John came after them in order to hear what Jesus might say. If anything of a deeper nature may be assumed, it is that when John heard Jesus bid Peter to follow him, John caught the implication of this symbolical act, and his great love to Jesus and to Peter aroused him to indicate that he likewise desired to follow in the life course and to the death goal set for Peter by Jesus.

Might it not be possible that Peter and John could go through life together as Jesus had once sent his messengers out two by two, and that John might even be joined with Peter in final martyrdom? And do not Acts 3:1 and 8:14 show that at first these two did work in closest companionship?

That John is here once more designated as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is perfectly in order, since this is John’s way of naming himself. It is with this designation of himself that he himself would have recorded this narrative. As it is, this way of naming him proves beyond question that this entire narration, I closely knit unit from v. 1–23, comes most directly from John. But now there follows a relative clause which still further identifies John, regarding which the judgment is certainly correct that John himself would never have used it, certainly not at this late point and in addition to the fixed formula thus far used regarding himself. That brief formula would surely have sufficed here if John had penned this chapter. Others are writing here, and this elaborate relative clause betrays their hand.

They speak of themselves in v. 24. If we ask why they thus go beyond John’s reticence and brevity and recall the details of 13:23 so fully we must admit that the narrative itself would be quite complete without this addition. The clause only repeats the evidence of the love of Jesus for John as it came to view at that last supper. For the aorist ἀνέπεσε, as well as the article in ἐντῷδείπνῳ, prevent us from assuming that John always reclined next to Jesus when dining. How often this occurred no one knows. The addition reflects the minds of the presbyters at whose instance this chapter was added to John’s Gospel.

For them the expression “whom Jesus loved” always recalled the scene in the upper room when John leaned back on Jesus’ breast. It is thus that they insert the additional clause. Of course, it fits well into the narrative, helping to explain John’s following Jesus and Peter at this moment. But this alone is insufficient explanation for its presence even when Peter’s concern for John is strongly stressed. We must add the feeling and the thought of the writers.

John 21:21

21 When Peter, therefore, saw him he says to Jesus, Lord, and what of him ? The nominative absolute οὗτος is followed by the interrogative word τί, and nothing needs to be supplied; δέ, however, intends to place John beside Peter, the latter having received his prophecy from Jesus, the former still being without one. And this is the meaning of Peter’s question as to what the Lord may have in store for Peter’s beloved friend and companion John. The question emanates from Peter’s love for John. It intimates that, having received from Jesus the glorious promises of apostolic service crowned with martyrdom, Peter inquires whether a like glorious prospect awaits his beloved companion John. He sees John, too, starting to follow, i.e., to join him in this significant following.

That puts the question on Peter’s lips; shall they be joined thus in life and in death? Ye need not assume that John’s following indicated that he himself would like to ask such a question, for instance, ἐγὼδὲτί; and that Peter’s promptness in asking only anticipates John. John would be content without asking.

But strange to say, Peter’s question has been given the very opposite sense. Peter is supposed to be jealous of John, Peter having drawn the harder lot. He asks Jesus whether John is to be left off so easy. This is untenable. Peter has not so soon forgotten the pointed reminder “more than these” given in v. 15. Peter is not the base fellow this envy and jealousy make of him.

A conception of this kind cancels all that we know about the special friendship existing between these two. It likewise overlooks the fact that from Peter’s first boasting onward, and certainly from v. 19 onward, “by what kind of death he shall glorify God,” martyrdom was considered the highest possible honor and distinction any believer might achieve (Matt. 5:12), the only way by which to join the company of the old martyr prophets. So Peter’s question is the very reverse of envy, for its sense is this: “Shall my beloved John have less than is promised to me?”

John 21:22

22 Jesus says to him, In case I will that he on his part remain until I come, what is that to thee? Do thou on thy part keep following me! The answer Peter receives is wholly indefinite. The Lord uses this word to withhold from Peter what Peter would really like to know. This was gentle treatment which we should not try to turn into harshness. The force of this reply is not, “This is none of thy business!” but a kindly intimation to leave John’s future in the hands of his Lord, whose will in regard to him will be revealed in due time.

For the emphasis on αὑτόν, placed before θέλω and not after it, and the corresponding emphasis on σύ, are plain. Let Peter leave “him” to the Lord’s will; let Peter’s care be for himself (“thou on thy part”) to follow his Lord. The Lord will see what is best for John. He does not say whether he has decided what John’s lot shall be; ἐὰνθέλω only supposes something that he might will if he should be so minded.

It is the strangeness of the supposition thus introduced that has caused so many different interpretations. “Remain until I come” should be understood as it stands: “remain alive until the end of the world, until the Lord returns on judgment day.” The next verse shows that the brethren living in John’s own day so understood these words. In this they were right; but they failed to note that Jesus had spoken conditionally, “Suppose I will.” They changed the conditional utterance into a categorical statement, or took it that back of the conditional utterance lay the secret decision not to let John die. As far as the Lord’s coming at the last day is concerned, when Jesus spoke, no man knew when this would occur. All they knew was what the church of all later ages knew: it might occur at any time. We, who live now, indeed know that the Lord has delayed his coming these many years and may delay still many more. But we must guard ourselves against reading this knowledge of ours into the minds of the first disciples. When Jesus said in effect, “what if I should decide to let John live until I return,” they could certainly not say that this would be impossible.

We thus discard the idea that “until I come” could mean, “come to John in the hour of his death,” or “in his quiet, natural death.” Nor can the Lord’s “coming” here refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, his coming in the visions of Patmos (in Revelation), his coming in the conflict with Rome under Domitian, or any combinations of these preliminary and figurative comings. The Lord impresses Peter with his sovereignty and his power. He could let John live as long as he might decide was best for his kingdom even as he decides when he himself shall come again. In the days of his humiliation he did not know the time of his second coming (Mark 13:32), but this does not apply to his state of glorification. Because we now know that almost 2, 000 years have elapsed, let us not curtail the Lord’s power as though he could not have preserved John alive until now. The first church misunderstood the Lord’s word in one direction; let us not misunderstand it in another. Our misunderstanding would be even worse.

John 21:23

23 There went out, therefore, this saying among the brethren, that that disciple does not die. But Jesus did not say to him that he does not die; on the contrary, In case I will that he on his part remain until I come, what is that to thee ? The conditional word with which Jesus placed John’s career and his end into his own sovereign power was made unconditional; ἐὰνθέλω was made, at least by intimation, a direct θέλω. This was expressed in the saying that went the rounds, “That disciple does not die,” the futuristic present expressing the strongest certainty, R. 870. But the two statements, that of Jesus and that of this report among the brethren in Ephesus and in Asia Minor, are not identical in meaning. Jesus did not say, “John shall not die.” What he did say is therefore repeated with all exactness.

However, it is only repeated, and no interpretation of any kind is added. That means that only the wrong ideas of the brethren are here contradicted. That means, furthermore, that even John had no interpretation. His case was similar to that of Peter. Only when Peter was actually crucified in the year 64 was the prophecy spoken by Jesus concerning his martyrdom (v. 18) fully and positively understood. So in the case of John—the event would finally make clear just what the Lord’s will concerning him was.

The statement here made, therefore, means only one thing: it calls upon all to wait until such time as the Lord himself will make plain what his will concerning John is. In Peter’s case Jesus pronounced an actual prophecy; in John’s he declined to utter a prophecy and left John’s career wholly in the secrecy of his will.

Verse 23 is of decisive importance for the genuineness and the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. The report, “This disciple does not die,” was spread among the brethren when chapter 21 was being written. But this report could not stand a single day beyond the date of John’s death. The moment John died, the words of Jesus concerning John would either have to be abandoned as containing a prophecy about John, or some other meaning than this that John is not to die would have to be connected with Jesus’ words. After John had died nobody could say, “He dies not.” After John had died, nobody could write that brethren are reporting, “He dies not,” unless he should add, “But he died, nevertheless.” This proves most completely that when v. 23 was written, John was alive, and that John, as well as the writers of this chapter, were waiting to see what the Lord’s will concerning him would be. If John was alive when chapter 21 was written, he certainly was equally alive when the preceding twenty chapters were written.

And thus once more in the most decisive way the Gospel itself settles the questions regarding its genuineness and its authorship. In the caustic language of Th. Zahn: “It ought to penetrate finally that a man of sound sense could write thus only as long as John was still alive. The manipulations of the critics, who absolutely have to have John dead before this Gospel was written—the longer dead, the better—may becloud the facts and may deceive many but they leave the facts unchanged as they are.”

The attack generally follows two lines. Attention is called to the legend, existing in various forms, that in spite of John’s natural death and burial he was supposed to be alive in his grave, the earth moving to his breathing, or that his body had been translated to a higher world and there lived on; and we are to believe that v. 21–23 were written to contradict this legend. But Zahn points out that this hypothesis necessitates the ridiculous conclusion that John 21 could not have been written until the third or the middle of the fourth century. For none of the writers intervening, not even the phantastic composer of the Acta of John in 160–170, or the bishops of Asia, in whose name Polycrates of Ephesus wrote to Rome in 190, or any others beyond Eusebius, who speak of John’s great age, death, and grave, know about this legend. If this late legend began in small circles far earlier and needed contradiction, the one way was to examine the grave, and the one way not to contradict this incipient legend was to write as the authors of v. 23 did, leaving the word of Jesus altogether devoid of explanation. The second hypothesis is that John 21 attempts to shield Jesus against the charge of having prophesied falsely since John had actually died.

The answer to this is almost too simple. If after John’s death either brethren in the faith or outside scoffers still supposed that Jesus had intended to say that John was not to die, simply to repeat the word Jesus had spoken would only have continued to expose Jesus to the charge of having prophesied falsely. To meet such a charge, made after John’s death, would have called for an interpretation of the words of Jesus which showed that he never intended to say or said what the charge alleges. But not only is this alleged charge an invention pure and simple, its alleged refutation is no refutation but, if anything, the contrary. Still other hypothetical constructions are offered to make it plausible that John was dead and buried when chapter 21 was written, but when men are determined to have hypotheses, no matter how untenable, rather than facts, nothing more needs to be said.

John 21:24

24 The closing words are attached to the preceding narrative in such a simple and natural way that one must conclude: both come from the same pen. This is the disciple that is testifying concerning these things and did write these things; and we know that his testimony is true. Two facts present themselves: that John was alive when this conclusion was written; and that a number of other important persons in Ephesus attest John’s writing and authorship and thus reveal that through them this supplement was written and added to the Gospel. Verse 23 deals with John; and now with οὗτος he is indicated as the subject of two actions: ὁμαρτυρῶν, καὶγράψας. Both the tenses and the order of these participles are important. The first is present: “he that is testifying concerning these things”; then the second: “and did write these things.” Some texts have a second article: ὁγράψας.

If it is genuine, it makes the two actions, already strongly differentiated by the tenses and by the order of the participles, stand out still more as being distinct. It will not do to say that “this disciple,” although dead this long while, still goes on testifying concerning these things by the written record he has left of them. If this were the intention, the order of the participles would have to be reversed: “who did write these things and (thus) is continuing to testify concerning these things.” Or if the order is left as it is, instead of μαρτυρῶν we should have to have the aorist μαρτυρήσας, “who did testify,” or the perfect μεμαρτυρηκώς, “who has testified,” i.e., when he was alive in our midst. As the participles stand they say one thing: John is still alive and still testifying by means of his oral statements, and, besides this, in the recent past he has made a written record of these same statements. No manipulation, exegetical or otherwise, will ever upset the two facts here stated.

Those who deny John’s authorship generally ignore the order of the participles. Only when this is done, are they able to say, “His ‘witness’ may continue after death just as does that of Moses and the prophets (5:39).” But καὶγράψας remains, which would say that John “did write” this Gospel whether he be dead or alive when v. 24 was penned. To ignore this participle will not do. As an aorist it states a historical fact. It is removed, however, by raising a cloud of uncertainty; it is called “a kind of afterthought.” Attention is drawn away from this aorist by asserting that “most prominence at all events is given to his having borne witness” (note that the tense of μαρτυρῶν is changed). Finally, since the participle still stands where it is, its plain, honest testimony is annulled by the claim: the writer of v. 24 “is not quite so sure that he (John) is the actual author of the Gospel.” Need we say that manipulations like this would destroy any testimony?

It is neither a critical nor a historical canon that, when a writer uses two verb forms connected with “and,” he is not sure of the fact expressed by the second of these verb forms. This sample of the critical method is taken from a commentary on John’s Gospel published in 1929.

“Concerning these things” and the simple accusative “these things,” of course, apply to chapter 21. But whoever would apply “these things” only to the last chapter is left with the question: “How about the other twenty chapters? Are they, too, John’s testimony, John’s writing?” The question answers itself: “They most assuredly are!” In fact, it is far more important to know the origin of the body of the Gospel than to know that of the supplement. The two, however, cannot be disjoined. The very way in which 21:1 begins shows this, and its contents do likewise. If “these things” apply only to 21:1–23, some plain intimation in v. 24 would have to reveal that this is intended; and then we should be left with the question, whence come all the contents of the other chapters? In this connection note what follows in v. 25.

“We know that his testimony is true,” i.e., ἀληθής, placed forward for emphasis: that his testimony reports the facts as they actually occurred. This plural “we know” cannot be reduced to a singular. It is no mere editorial or majestic plural, for John never uses such a plural. He could not do so here by way of exception, for no writer could call himself “this disciple” and then in the same breath add “we know,” meaning “I know.” Even those who think that John himself penned or dictated 21:1–23 admit that others are responsible for v. 24, 25. Who these persons are will never be known; their names can never be recovered. All that we can say is that they must have been the presbyters of Ephesus, the prominent leaders of the churches associated with John. “We know” is weighty, and by writing this down through the hand of one of their number they fully realize what weight this their attestation will have for all the other churches to whom this new Gospel record is brought.

They know on the basis of direct and certain evidence. John has been in their midst for many years, they know his entire history. Their knowledge reaches back to other apostles, with whose testimony they could and did compare that of John. These apostles need not have been in Ephesus itself, for the presbyters could have known and conferred with them elsewhere. Finally, they had the other evangelists. Thus the weight of “we know” is ample.

The testimony of the presbyters is not added to John’s Gospel as though without such certification the veracity of John’s Gospel would be subject to doubt. The synoptists had written long ago, and their records had been published far and wide. Now, after so long an interval, this fourth Gospel goes out to the churches from Ephesus not from Palestine. The farther this last Gospel penetrated, the more the question of its origin would be raised. Witness the criticism to which the Fourth Gospel is still subjected! We at once see the value of this attestation at its close.

While John is his own witness, and his testimony speaks for itself (just as does that of Jesus, 8:14), the added word of the Ephesian presbytery, in whose very midst this apostle lived, labored, and wrote his Gospel, carries its own additional assurance to the churches. It is like the testimony of the earliest fathers, every scrap of which is carefully treasured to this day; but this attestation directly appended to the Gospel itself by a representative body of men and not merely by one individual exceeds in weight and in value all subsequent testimony by important church authorities.

John 21:25

25 Now there are also many other things which Jesus did, the ‘which, if they should be written one by one, even the world itself, I suppose, will not hold the written books. From John as one authority the presbyters in Ephesus learned about the many things that Jesus did and that were not recorded. John himself refers to them in 20:30. But note the simplicity of John’s statement compared with the rather strong hyperbole of the scribe who writes for the presbyters. It has been said truly that John would not write in this fashion. It is uncalled for, however, to press the hyperbole as though it were intended to be understood literally; and equally uncalled for to change the meaning of the words in order to eliminate the hyperbole.

For χωρήσειν means exactly what it says: “the world itself will not contain, will not hold” all the books that would result; and not the men in the world “will not hold in their minds” all the books. The hyperbole expresses the writer’s feelings and nothing more.

The verb ἐποίησεν is used in a broad sense and intends to cover the entire ministry of Jesus with all that it contained; καθʼ ἕν is distributive: “one by one.” The singular οἶμαι is no more than a casual adverb, and thus it in no way interferes with οἴδαμεν in v. 24. This plural, as well as both final verses, make it impossible to attribute οἶμαι to John himself as R. 406 does. The future infinitive χωρήσειν in indirect discourse and replaces the future indicative, R. 1030 and 1040. “The written books” is in contrast with the one already written by John, to which the penman of the presbyters is now adding the last word. This contrast establishes the fact that “these things” in v. 24 refer to John’s entire Gospel and not merely to 21:1–23. The reader, then, must content himself with what John’s Gospel and its supplement present. Much more might have been introduced into either or into both.

In fact, entire new books in goodly number might have been written. We here have a hint as to how the supplement came to be added. The presbyters had heard its contents from John as they had heard him relate many other things that are not included in the synoptists. While they saw that this appearance beside the lake did not fit into the Gospel proper as this was planned and completed by John, since this appearance dealt only with two of the apostles personally and thus with the holy office established by Jesus, as presbyters and incumbents of the pastoral office they saw the great value of this account for the ministry and the church of all future time. John consented to their just desire. He allowed them to add this supplement, reproducing his own narration in a way which he approved, together with a final word of attestation and conclusion.

The Ephesian presbyters have earned the gratitude of the church of all ages for having John close his Gospel with a chapter that is so precious to us all.

Soli Deo Gloria

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.