John 21 - Expositor's Bible Commentary - Abridged

A. The Appearance at the Sea (21:1–14)

1 “Afterward” implies an indefinite lapse of time (cf.2:12; 3:22; et al.), but not always a long time. Since this event is categorized as Jesus’ third appearance to the disciples after the Resurrection (v.14), it must have taken place between the beginning of the second week and the Ascension outside Jerusalem near Bethany (Lk 24:50–53; cf. Ac 1:1–12).

This appearance took place in Galilee. John is the only NT writer to use the name “Sea of Tiberias” for the Sea of Galilee (see Mt 4:18; 15:29; Mk 1:16; 7:31) or the Lake of Gennesaret (see Lk 5:1). John speaks once of the “Sea of Galilee” but qualifies it: “that is, the Sea of Tiberias” (6:1).

“Appeared” (GK 5746), translated by “happened” at its second occurrence in this verse, is a characteristic word in John. It was most frequently used to denote the self-revelation of Christ (1:31; 2:11; 9:3). It occurs three times in the epilogue (21:1 [[twice],14) in preparation for the final revelation of Jesus regarding the commissioning of Peter for his coming ministry. John also uses the term in his first letter, concerning both the incarnate Christ (1Jn 1:2; 3:5, 8; 4:9) and his return (2:28; 3:2). Not only was this occasion an appearance of Christ after his resurrection, but it was also a disclosure of his purpose for the disciples.

2 The seven disciples who were present include several previously named in this gospel: Simon Peter (1:40–42, 44; et al.); Thomas (11:16; 14:5–6; 20:24–29); Nathanael (1:45–50); the sons of Zebedee, who are not mentioned directly in this gospel; and two others, possibly Philip (1:43–46; et al.) and Andrew (1:40–42, 44; 6:8; 12:22). The reason for the disciples’ return to Galilee may have been to escape scrutiny and criticism by the mob in Jerusalem or to obey the command of Jesus (Mt 28:7, 10; Mk 16:6). Or perhaps they were discouraged by Jesus’ death and decided to return to their old occupation of fishing. The kingdom had not arrived, and they had to make a living.

3 The leadership of Simon Peter is apparent at this point, and the others assented to Peter’s proposal; so they embarked in a boat that was available for a night of fishing (possibly Peter’s; cf. “the boat”). Their enthusiasm ended in frustration, for no fish were caught.

4–5 Jesus appeared in the early morning, just as day was breaking. The fishermen no doubt were cold, wet with the dampness and spray of the lake, and discouraged by their lack of success. They failed to recognize Jesus, perhaps because they were preoccupied with their failure, or because they could not see him clearly through the morning mist on the lake. Jesus asked the disciples whether they had caught any fish. The construction of the question implies that he knew they had caught nothing. This was confirmed by their dispirited answer: “No.”

6–7 By commanding them to cast the net on the right side of the ship, Jesus was either testing their faith by recommending a procedure the Galilean fishermen never used, or he could discern the presence of a school of fish from the more advantageous viewpoint of the shore. Whatever the reason for the suggestion, the disciples evidently felt that one more attempt at casting the net could be no more futile than their nightlong efforts had been; and it might be worthwhile. The resultant catch was so great that they could not load it into the boat. The similarities between this episode and the one recorded in Lk 5:1–11 prompted the disciples’ recognition of Jesus. “The disciple whom Jesus loved” was the first one to recognize the mysterious stranger on the shore as none other than the Lord Jesus himself.

Peter’s quick reaction revealed his real feeling toward Jesus. Grasping his outer cloak, which he had laid aside to give him more freedom in working, he wrapped it around himself and dived overboard. His eagerness to see Jesus was consistent with his former profession of loyalty, which he had intended to keep but had not. This was probably not the moment of reconciliation, however, for Luke states that Jesus had met Peter personally on the first day of the Resurrec tion (Lk 24:35), as well as at the locked-door episodes (Jn 20:19–29).

8 A net full of live fish swimming toward the depths rather than toward the shore would be difficult to manage. The disciples in the ship pulled the net into shallow water where they could disembark and then sort out the fish.

9–10 Jesus had breakfast ready for the disciples, but he suggested that they bring some of the fish they had caught. Earlier, in the miraculous feedings of the multitudes with the fish and the loaves (see 6:1–14), the Lord had taken what the disciples had provided, multiplied it, and used it to supply the needs of many. Here he showed that he would continue to multiply and bless their efforts. However, they were yet to be told what direction those efforts were to take.

11 Simon Peter returned to the boat and pulled the net to land. If he did this by himself, he must have possessed unusual strength. One hundred and fifty-three fish plus a wet net would probably weigh as much as three hundred pounds. The observation of the exact number of the fish and the fact that the net did not break reflect both an eyewitness account and a fisherman’s perspective. John was impressed by the numerical size of the catch and the preservation of the net under the stress. These fish were probably sorted and distributed among the disciples.

12–14 When the catch had been safely brought to land and presumably sorted, Jesus invited the men to eat with him. Their attitude was peculiar. They desired to ask his identity, but they dared not do so because somehow they “knew” he was the Lord. He had appeared in their beloved Galilee and had repeated the same kind of miracle by which they first had been called to him. In spite of an apparent change in his outward appearance, the disciples’ spiritual instinct confirmed his identity. His action in serving them with the bread and fish must have recalled the Last Supper, when he offered them bread and wine. There was, however, no sacramental overtone to this occasion.

The text states that this was Jesus’ “third” appearance to the disciples as a group since his resurrection (see 20:19–23, 24–29).

V. The Epilogue (21:1–25)

Chapter 21 of John is a postscript to the main development of the book. It is not irrelevant to the preceding text; in fact, it completes it by illustrating the result of belief. It reads like a reminiscence that the author might have added subsequent to the composition of the first part by dictation to an assistant or scribe. The language bears a strong likeness both to the Synoptics and to other sections of John. The miracle of the catch of fish resembles the initial episode related to the call of the disciples (Lk 5:1–11); the action of Simon Peter is completely in character with other representations of his tendency toward impulsive speech or action (Mt 16:21–23; 26:33–35; John 13:36–38; et al.); the allusion to “sheep” follows the figure of 10:1–18; and v.19 uses phraseology concerning Peter that is applied to Jesus in 12:33. Apart from its relation to the themes and language of the main body of this gospel, it owes its origin to the need for dispelling a false legend that had become current concerning Jesus’ supposed prediction that the author of John would not die before Jesus’ return.

B. The Reinstatement of Peter (21:15–23)

15–17 The chief reason for the narration of this episode seems to be to let Peter know that the Lord still loved him and had not cast him out (Cf. 15:6). The three questions Jesus addressed to Peter stand in contrast to Peter’s three denials. The disciples were no doubt aware of Peter’s denial of Jesus, and the commission that Jesus renewed with him in their presence would reassure them of Peter’s place among them. The wording of the first question, “Do you truly love me more than these?” contains an ambiguity. There are three possible solutions:

1. Do you love me more than these other men do?

2. Do you love me more than you love these men?

3. Do you love me more than these things—the boats, the fish, etc.?

In view of Peter’s earlier boastful promise that whatever the others did he would not fail, the first option seems most likely.

The words translated “love” have also raised considerable debate. Two different terms are used: agapao (GK 26) is used in Jesus’ first two questions and phileo (GK 5797) is used in Jesus’ third question and in Peter’s three replies. The former is the same word “love” that appears in 3:16; it is used of divine love and usually carries the connotation of will or purpose as well as that of affection. Phileo implies affinity, friendship, and fondness. Both words represent a high aspect of love, for both are used of God (3:16; 5:20) and of humans (14:21; 16:27) in this gospel. Some maintain that these words here are interchangeable. On the other hand, a good case can be made for a difference in Jesus’ emphasis. There was less doubt concerning Peter’s attachment to Jesus than there was concerning his will to love at all costs; and the change of term in Jesus’ third question makes his probing of Peter even deeper. If the latter alternative is adopted, it explains better Peter’s distress when questioned a third time, since Jesus would not only be challenging his love but would be implying that it was superficial.

Peter’s affirmative answer to each question is substantially the same. The verb “know” (GK 1182) used in the first two responses is a word that implies the intellectual knowledge of a fact. In his third reply, however, Peter strengthened his statement by a word that denotes knowledge gained through experience.

Jesus’ commands to Peter also contain fine distinctions:

1. “Feed [pasture] my lambs” (v.15).

2. “Take care of [shepherd] my sheep” (v.16).

3. “Feed [pasture] my sheep” (v.17).

The first and third imply only taking the sheep to pasture where they are fed; the second implies the total guardianship a shepherd exercises. This threefold injunction does not necessarily give Peter the sole responsibility for the oversight of Christ’s followers; all of his spiritually mature disciples are called to be shepherds (cf. 1Pe 5:2). This challenge to Peter demanded a total renewal of his loyalty and reaffirmed his responsibilities.

18–19 The introduction of v.18 by “I tell you the truth” makes the statement of Jesus solemn and important. The author goes on to add an explanation of Jesus’ enigmatic words. They predicted Peter’s career: a new responsibility, a new danger, and violent death. Jesus placed Peter in a category with himself—a life spent for God and ultimately sacrificed to glorify God (Cf. 12:27–32; 13:31). The command “Follow me” literally means “Keep on following me.” Jesus showed Peter that if he were to fulfill his promise of loyalty, he would have to follow him to his own cross.

20–21 Peter’s question concerning John reflects curiosity and possibly uneasiness. Peter had been given an important commission, but what would his friend be expected to do? Would he share equally in both the responsibilities and the perils of the same task?

22–23 Jesus’ reply indicated that even if he intended that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” should outlive Peter, Peter’s main concern should not be a comparison of his lot with that of his friend; rather, Peter’s concern should be the fulfillment of Jesus’ purpose. In Jesus’ final comment, “You must follow me” (italics mine, reflecting the Greek), he was urging Peter to take his attention off his colleague and focus it on Jesus himself.

Jesus’ reference to his return is one of the few clear references to the Second Coming in this gospel. The use here is hyperbolic, for it marks the utmost point to which the beloved disciple could survive and remain active. This utterance was remembered in the church and formed the basis of the rumor that Jesus had promised John that he would live until Jesus returned. As a matter of fact, Jesus had offered a supposition, not a promise. The author’s explanation of Jesus’ announcement may be taken as evidence that the disciple was still living at the time this gospel was written and that he was the source of its content.

C. The Colophon (21:24–25)

24 The epilogue contains a number of parenthetic statements that are likely the author’s explanatory notes on the scene at the Sea of Galilee (vv.7, 12, 19, 20, 23). At the same time, they leave the impression that the account was written for a second generation of believers who were historically remote from the original events. This impression is corroborated by the last two verses, which are the endorsement of the narrative. Although v.24 is in the first person plural (“we know”), as if it were being certified by the testimony of a group, a different division on one word would make it a first person singular. In that case the author (or scribe) would be saying, “And I for my part know that his testimony is valid.”

25 The tremendous content of Jesus’ teaching and deeds is acknowledged again by the writer (Cf. 20:30). This gospel must have been written at a period when Christian literature was beginning to multiply and the church was becoming conscious of it. The letters of Paul were collected and circulated before the turn of the century, and the Gospels or writings like them were already known in the church (cf. Lk 1:1). Though John admits that what he recorded is only a fraction of what Jesus said and did, the content of this gospel is one of the most valuable assets the church possesses.