Jesus’ Appearance to the Disciples in Galilee, 1-14

21:1 After this Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias. Now this is how he did so. 21:2 Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael (who was from Cana in Galilee), the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples of his were together. 21:3 Simon Peter told them, “I am going fishing.” “We will go with you,” they replied. They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.

Although many commentators regard ch 21 as a later addition (by another hand) there are some good reasons for considering it to be an original and integral part of of the Gospel.  See Carson’s commentary for a review of the discussion.

The Sea of Tiberias – Another name for the Sea of Galilee, John 6:1.

It is clear from v7 that one of these six was the ‘beloved disciple’.  This was not Peter (who sat next to the ‘beloved disciple’ at the Passover Eve meal).  We can also discount Thomas called Didymus, Nathanael from Cana and the two unnamed disciples as being too insignificant to have set next to Jesus at the meal (Jn 13:23).  Of the two Zebedee brothers, we know that James was killed in the early 40s (Acts 12:2).  Since it is clear that the Gospel was written later than the 40s, we conclude from the process of elimination that the ‘beloved disciple’ was John the son of Zebedee.  (See Paul Barnett, in In Defense of the Bible, p227)

“I’m going out to fish” – It was maintained by a few of the older commentators that this indicated an intention on Peter’s part to go back to his fishing business permanently.  But this is unlikely.

They caught nothing –

‘They caught nothing.’  F.F. Bruce tells of a Christian brother, a fisherman, who explains it thus:

‘They should have known better than to expect anything.  We are told that they had with them the two sons of Zebedee.  These were the men whom Jesus called the “sons of thunder”, and it is a fact well known to all fishermen that when there is any thunder in the atmosphere, the fish bury their heads in the sea-bed, and it is impossible to catch any.’ (In Retrospect: Remembrance of Things Past, p11)

21:4 When it was already very early morning, Jesus stood on the beach, but the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 21:5 So Jesus said to them, “Children, you don’t have any fish, do you?” They replied, “No.” 21:6 He told them, “Throw your net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they threw the net, and were not able to pull it in because of the large number of fish.

There is deep symbolism here.  Without Jesus, even the things that we think we are good at will prove ultimately fruitless.

21:7 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” So Simon Peter, when he heard that it was the Lord, tucked in his outer garment (for he had nothing on underneath it), and plunged into the sea. 21:8 Meanwhile the other disciples came with the boat, dragging the net full of fish, for they were not far from land, only about a hundred yards.

A wonderful eyewitness touch: he got dressed and then jumped into the water.  Did he put on his ‘outer garment’ through a sense of shame and guilt?  It is vaguely reminiscent of a rather similar earlier occasion, when Peter had recognised the moral distance between himself and Jesus: “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.”

21:9 When they got out on the beach, they saw a charcoal fire ready with a fish placed on it, and bread. 21:10 Jesus said, “Bring some of the fish you have just now caught.” 21:11 So Simon Peter went aboard and pulled the net to shore. It was full of large fish, one hundred fifty-three, but although there were so many, the net was not torn. 21:12 “Come, have breakfast,” Jesus said. But none of the disciples dared to ask him, “Who are you?” because they knew it was the Lord. 21:13 Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 21:14 This was now the third time Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.

Although there were so many, the net was not torn – Could it be (as McGrew suggests, in Hidden in Plain View) that John remembered a previous, very similar miracle, where the net was torn (even though he does not record that earlier miracle: it is found in Lk 5:5-7)?  If so, this would an undesigned coincidence.

“Come and have breakfast” – ‘How loving of Jesus to feed Peter before He dealt with his spiritual needs. He gave Peter opportunity to dry off, get warm, satisfy his hunger, and enjoy personal fellowship. This is a good example for us to follow as we care for God’s people. Certainly the spiritual is more important than the physical, but caring for the physical can prepare the way for spiritual ministry. Our Lord does not so emphasize “the soul” that He neglects the body.’ (Wiersbe)

Peter’s Restoration, 15-19

21:15 Then when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these do?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus told him, “Feed my lambs.”

This passage, as Morris says, must be understood in relation to Peter’s threefold denial of Jesus

‘Just as he had a short time ago in the presence of the enemy denied all connection with the Lord, so now i n the presence of his friends he affirms three times over that he loves his Lord.’

Morris adds that Peter would have been under something of a cloud with his fellow-disciples since his denial.  What happens now restores him, in their eyes as well as his, to a position of leadership (but he is never accorded absolute primacy) amongst the first believers.

Comparing the Gospel accounts with that of Paul in 1 Cor 15, it would seem that this was fourth time that the risen Lord had appeared to Peter.  We can only guess at why he left it until this occasion to deal with Peter’s restoration.  But Jesus may have left it until Peter was back on his own home territory; indeed, it was in this locality that Jesus had originally called Peter to leave his fishing nets and follow him.  Or, possibly, Jesus waited patiently to see if Peter would address ‘the elephant in the room’ himself (he had three opportunities to do so).

When they had finished eating – The significance of this is that, just as Peter had boasted of his reliability in the presence of the other disciples, Jn 13:8,37f, so now is his restoration. This is despite any private forgiveness that Jesus had extended to Peter when he revealed himself as risen to Peter alone, Lk 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5. Nevertheless, although Peter’s restoration took place in the presence of the other disicples, it also took place in the context of a friendly, sociable gathering – at the end of a meal.  Later, it is clear that Jesus and Peter were walking together along the beach, with the beloved disciple not far behind, v20f.

The threefold challenge to Peter is probably modelled on his threefold denial of the Lord.  It is noticeable, however, that Jesus does not explicitly mention that denial.  Some of our faults are too obvious to us to need mentioning.

“Do you truly love me?” – In the first two of our Lord’s questions, agapao is used. In the third, phileo is employed. In each of his answers, Peter uses phileo. Some commentators (e.g Hendriksen) think that the variation is significant: agapao being, in their eyes, a higher form of love than phileo.  See also this post.  However, in the NT these words are often used interchangeably, and it is probably wrong to attach any special meaning to their varied use here.  In John’s Gospel, the two words are used interchangeably in expressions such as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’, ‘the Father loves the Son’, and ‘Jesus loved Lazarus’.  Compare, also, Jn 3:35 with Jn 5:20.  John is especially prone to introducing slight variations in repetitions without.  Within the present passage, John uses three other pairs: bosko and poimaino (‘feed’ and ‘take care of’ the sheep); arnia and probata (‘lambs’ and ‘sheep’); and oida and ginosko (‘you know’, v17): as Carson drily remarks, ‘These have not stirred homiletical imaginations; it is difficult to see why the first pair should.’

Kruse agrees:

‘Agapaō and phileō are used synonymously in the Fourth Gospel. For example, both agapaō and phileō are used of the Father’s love for the Son (10:17; 15:9; 17:23, 24, 26/5:20), Jesus’ love for Lazarus (11:5/11:3, 36), the disciple whom Jesus loved (13:23; 19:26; 21:7, 20/20:2), and the Father’s love for the disciples (14:23/16:27).’

See this discussion by Ian Paul.

What is beyond doubt is the centrality of love for Christ in this interaction.  As Ryle says, the question is a simple but searching one.  Simple, because even a child can understand love.  But also searching: we much know much, and talk much, and do much, and give much, and endure much, and yet if we lack love for Christ, our Christian profession is empty and lifeless:

‘Do we love Christ?  That is the great question.  Without this there is no vitality about our Christianity.  We are no better than painted wax figures, lifeless stuffed beasts in a museum, sounding brass and tinkling cymbals.  There is no life where there is no love.’

“More than these” – who, or what, are ‘these’? Jesus probably means, “Do you love more more than these disciples do?” Peter has always boasted of his preeminence amongst the disciples, insisting that he would lay down his own life for his Master, Jn 13:37; Mt 26:33; Mk 14:29. But it was he who publicly disowned Jesus.

Indeed, McGrew can suggest that an undesigned coincidence is apparent here, in that it is Matthew’s Gospel which most explicitly records Peter as boasting that “If they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away!”

‘It may be that Christ is asking Peter whether, in the light of what has since happened, he still things that his love for Christ exceeds that of all the others.’ (Morris)

‘Whatever potential for future service he had therefore depended not only on forgiveness from Jesus, but also on reinstatement amongst the disciples.’ (Carson)

“Yes, Lord…you know that I love you” – This is a positive affirmation, but involves no bold claims such as Peter had made previously (Kruse).

“Feed my lambs” means, according to Kruse, ‘to provide spiritual nourishment for new believers’.

‘Peter had not wanted a crucified Lord.  But Jesus was crucified.  How did Peter’s devotion stand in the light of this?  Was he ready to love Christ as he was, and not as Peter wished him to be?’ (Morris)

21:16 Jesus said a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus told him, “Shepherd my sheep.”

“Take care of my sheep” – implies, says Kruse, ‘pastoral care of believers generally’.  But many commentators think that the differences between “feed my lambs” and “take care of my sheep” are merely stylistic.

21:17 Jesus said a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that Jesus asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” Jesus replied, “Feed my sheep.”

Peter was hurt – not because Jesus used a different word for ‘love’, but because Jesus asked him the third time.

Ryle thinks that this probing was intended to stir up grief, albeit gently and restoratively:

‘We need not doubt that our Lord, like a skilful physician, stirred up this grief intentionally.  He intended to prick the Apostle’s conscience, and to teach him a solemn lesson.  If it was grievous to the disciple to be questioned, how much more grievous must if have been to the Master to be thrice denied!’

“Lord, you know all things” – This statement has, of course, important implications for Christology (cf. Jn 2:25; 16:30).  Morris: ‘In the context it means at least that Jesus fully understood what went on the hearts of men, and specifically in Peter’s heart.’

There is no self-righteous boasting now, just an appeal to the Lord’s knowledge.

“Feed my sheep” – Cf. the parallel in Jn 10:27.  That Peter went on to do so is attested in, for example, 1 Pet 5:1-4. But be it noted, in the context of some Roman Catholic exegesis, that ‘these verses deal with Peter’s reinstatement to service, not with his elevation to primacy.’ (Carson)

‘The charge to Peter was “Feed my sheep;” not “Try experiments on my rats,” or even “Teach my performing dogs new tricks.” (C.S. Lewis)

Kruse notes a possible link between Peter’s threefold denial and threefold recommission:

‘Jesus may have given Peter three opportunities to re-express his love for him and recommission him three times as well because of his threefold denial, Jn 18:15-17, 25-27.  The record of Peter’s reinstatement stands as an encouragement for all who might crack under pressure and deny their Lord.  This is not the same as cold-blooded apostasy, and is not regarded as such by the Lord.’

A Roman Catholic argument in favour of the primacy of Peter turns on the fact that when Jesus says, “Take care of my sheep,” he is using an expression that speaks of ‘tending’ or even ‘governing’ Christ’s people. But this is a tenuous inference. Although it is clear that Peter was the leader of the Jerusalem church, there is no indication that he was ever regarded as the chief of the early apostles. Paul was at least his equal and, indeed, rebuked Peter at one point.

Kruse argues that we should no seek to import notions of the Petrine office into this text:

‘Similar terminology is used in 1 Peter 5:1-4 and Acts 20:28f to urge elders to shepherd God’s flock, suggesting that Jesus’ commission to Peter to feed his sheep here in 20:15-17 was not understood to be restricted to Peter in an exclusive way.  More recent Roman Catholic scholars rightly point out that it is inappropriate to import questions of the Petrine office in Roman Christianity into the exegesis of this text.’

On the pre-eminence of love:

‘It is worth noting that the one thing about which Jesus questions Peter prior to commissioning him to tend the flock is love.  This is the basic qualification for Christian service.  Other qualities may be desirable but love is completely indispensable, cf. 1 Cor 13:1-3.’ (Morris)

21:18 “I tell you the solemn truth, when you were young, you tied your clothes around you and went wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and others will tie you up and bring you where you do not want to go.” 21:19 (Now Jesus said this to indicate clearly by what kind of death Peter was going to glorify God.) After he said this, Jesus told Peter, “Follow me.”

“You dressed yourself and went where you wanted” – Peter had done that this very morning, v7.

Whatever else this enigmatic saying might mean, it certainly suggests a loss of independence in old age.

“You will stretch out your hands” – This is understood by many to be an allusion to death by crucifixion. According to 1 Clement 5-6 Peter was martyred in a time of persecution. The Acts of Peter, an apocryphal work of the second century A.D., and also Eusebius say he was executed by crucifixion with his head downward. Peter’s grave is thought to be in Rome. Eusebius quotes Gaius, a second century presbyter of Rome, who said that one could still see in his day the grave marker of Peter in the Vatican. Excavations in the Vatican have found several graves from the first century. Over one ancient grave had been scratched “Peter is within.”

The kind of death by which Peter would glorify God – Cf. Jn 12:23.  Peter himself would come to see and to teach that following Jesus to the point of death is a means of bringing glory to God, 1 Pet 4:14-16.  Carson points out that Peter would have gone on to serve hims Master for three decades with this sombre prediction hanging over him.

Peter would have died – probably in Rome, under Nero – by the time the Fourth Gospel was written. Accounts of Peter asking to be crucified upside down, because he felt unworthy to die in the same way as his Master, are probably unreliable.

When a Christian has come to terms with his own death, then he is ready, as Peter was not ready, to follow Christ wherever he leads, and to do whatever he bids.  And death, when it comes, will not be a tragedy, but a means of crowning a God-glorifying life with further glory to God.

“Follow me” – In the immediate context, this is probably an invitation to walk along the beach (see v20).  But, in broader context, Peter would indeed take up his cross and follow Jesus.  And it was with the words, of course, that Peter’s relationship with Jesus started, Jn 1:43. It is as if Jesus is saying, “Let’s start all over again.” What wonderful grace that so completely restores a person after such a fall!

Peter and the Disciple Jesus Loved, 20-23

21:20 Peter turned around and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them. (This was the disciple who had leaned back against Jesus’ chest at the meal and asked, “Lord, who is the one who is going to betray you?”) 21:21 So when Peter saw him, he asked Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” 21:22 Jesus replied, “If I want him to live until I come back, what concern is that of yours? You follow me!” 21:23 So the saying circulated among the brothers and sisters that this disciple was not going to die. But Jesus did not say to him that he was not going to die, but rather, “If I want him to live until I come back, what concern is that of yours?”

The reference back to Jn 13:24f reminds us of the intimate friendship that existed between Jesus and that disciple; it is in the knowledge of that intimacy that Peter asks his question.

Jesus has just revealed the nature of Peter’s death; but he declines to do the same with regard to the beloved disciple.  In such ways God treats his people differently, and we may not assume that if a ‘word of knowledge’, for example, is given to one person something similar will be granted to another.  We should be content with the knowledge we have been given, and not be curious to know more than has been revealed.

‘It is worth noting that in the Fourth Gospel the hope of the second coming of Jesus is still assumed, despite the emphasis on the present experience of eternal life and the coming of the Counsellor (cf. also 1 Jn 2:28; 3:2).’ (Kruse)

Because of this rumour, the death of the beloved disciple would have caused a crisis of faith among ‘the brothers’.  This verse is inserted to deal with that crisis.

A Final Note, 24

21:24 This is the disciple who testifies about these things and has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

This is the disciple – this identified the beloved disciple as the Evangelist.

Who testifies about these things – ‘Is testifying’ – referring to the entire content of the Fourth Gospel.  ‘What is implied here is that the basic testimony preserved in the Fourth Gospel came from the beloved disciple, and that he was also responsible for writing it down.’ (Kruse)

We know that Jesus lived. He was a man in history, as well as a man for all times. Tacitus, perhaps the greatest Roman historian born in the first century, speaks of Jesus. Josephus, a Jewish historian born A.D. 37, tells of the crucifixion of Jesus. A contemporary Bible scholar said that

‘the latest edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica uses 20,000 words in describing this person, Jesus. His description took more space than was given to Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed or Napoleon Bonaparte.’

On the truthfulness of testimony:

‘Human words can be true or false. They are testable, (Gen 42:16,20) especially in the legal sense of eyewitness testimony. (Deut 19:15-19) Keeping one’s word was highly esteemed (Ps 15:4) and an obligation in making vows and oaths; (Nu 30:2 Jud 11:30,36) but breaking one’s word, especially of promises made to the Lord, was a serious offense holding grave consequences for the offender. (cf. Deut 23:21-23; Ec 5:1-7) In view of these Old Testament considerations, for a Gospel writer to profess that his testimony is true, reliable, is a weighty claim (John 21:24; cf. Zec 8:16-17). In effect, he asserts that its contents are true in the legal, investigative sense and as on oath before God because of its claims about God’ (cf. John 3:33 7:28 8:26) (EDBT)

We know that his testimony is true – The ‘we’ may have been

(a) the elders in the church at Ephesus,

(b) the readers,

(c) a circle of eyewitnesses, or

(d) the author himself.

This passage has tied up some loose ends regarding Peter and the beloved disciple (whom we take to be John).  Peter’s pastoral ministry has been strongly affirmed.  But what also comes through is John’s written ministry.  Through long reflection on his intimate relationship with Jesus, he has been enabled to leave us with a book of incomparable beauty and value.

21:25 There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Jesus did many other things – A realisation of this will help us to understand why there is little overlap between John and the Synoptics. We can assume that John was written either to supplement the first three Gospels, or was written independently of them.

In all, only about 50 days of Jesus’ ministry are touched upon in all the combined gospels. Jesus’ minimum term of ministry equaled three years, or 1080 days (360 days per year). That means 4.6 percent of the days that Jesus was actively ministering are actually recorded in the gospels. Imagine all of the teaching, the conversations, and the ministry that we never heard about. No wonder John wrote, “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written”.-Ken Boa, Talk Thru the New Testament, p.14. (Statistics corrected)

It may be that John is alluding here to the cosmic work of Christ as referred to in the Prologue.  If so, then this verse is not a forgiveable exaggeration, but a literal truth:

‘The Jesus to whom he bears witness is not only the obedient Son and the risen Lord, he is the incarnate Word, the one through whom the universe was created.  If all his deeds were described, the world would be a very small and inadequate library indeed.’ (Carson)

Carson adds:

‘It is as if John has identified himself, v24, but is not content to focus on himself, not even on his veracity.  He must close by saying his own work is only a minute part of all the honours due to the Son.’

Hoskyns discusses the anonymity of the Fourth Gospel:

‘…the author has done his best, apparently with intention, to cover up his tracks. For his theme is not his own workshop, but the workshop of God, and to this we have no direct access! Where the author’s personal ideas and reminiscences? Where is his personal experience? No doubt they are there; no doubt, indeed, there is nothing else there but what he thought and what he experienced, but he does not intend us to bury ourselves with him as though he himself were himself the goal of our inquiry. He has, in fact, so burnt himself out of his book that we cannot be certain that we have anywhere located him as a clear, intelligible figure in history. At the end of our inquiry he remains no more than a voice bearing witness to the glory of God. So anonymous is his book, so intentionally anonymous, that there is in it, apart from the shy little ‘I suppose’ of the last verse, no ‘ego’ except the ‘Ego’ of Jesus, the Son of God. The author of the book has effaced himself, or, rather, has been decreased and sacrificed, in order that the Truth may be made known and in order that the Eternal Life which is in God may be declared.’ (The Problem of the Fourth Gospel, quoted here)