John 21 - Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

21:1-14 Due to the many similarities with Luke 5 (fishing all night and catching nothing, a command to cast nets, obedience and a miraculous catch, the mission motif) most critical scholars conclude they are one and the same story, and the debate is whether Luke is original (Dodd, Bultmann [1963, History of the Synoptic Tradition], Benoit) or John is (Bultmann 1971, Brown, Barrett). Some (e.g., Pesch 1969, Schnackenburg, Beasley-Murray, Perkins) think two separate traditions (a fishing story and a eucharistic meal story) have been combined. However, there are also many differences between Luke and John (different disciples present, the nets almost ripped in Luke, the centrality of the beloved disciple in John, Peter swimming to shore in Luke, the meal fellowship in John), and it is most likely they are separate stories (so Osborne 1984, Morris, Carson, Blomberg, Köstenberger). Keener (2003:1221) says, “If one reads the Gospel as a whole, John 20:30–21:25 can function as a final farewell scene (in which case 20:30-31 and 21:24-25 function as a rather obvious inclusio).”

21:1-25 There has been a great deal of debate surrounding the origin of this chapter and its place in the fourth Gospel. The majority of scholars conclude that it is non-Johannine and was added at a later date. Many (Brown, Schnackenburg, Kysar) regard it as one of the final additions of the Johannine Circle (cf. “Author” in the Introduction), possibly written after the death of the beloved disciple. Others (Osborne 1984:255-256, Comfort, Witherington) have said that John himself added it as an appendix at a later time. Several points favor the view that John wrote ch 21 as part of his Gospel rather than separately: (1) The language and style are so similar to the rest of John’s Gospel that it most likely was written by the same person (cf. Osborne 1981:293-295). (2) While 20:30-31 could be the intended conclusion of the original Gospel, that does not obviate adding further material, and John elsewhere has had purpose statements followed by an epilogue (1 John 5:13; Rev 22:6; so Blomberg). (3) John 21 centers on mission, and thus John ends the same way the Synoptics conclude, with the mission of the church. (4) There is no evidence that the Gospel ever circulated without ch 21. (5) Chapter 21 provides a natural conclusion to the interaction between Peter and the beloved disciple, ending with Jesus prophesying Peter’s death. (6) The reinstatement of Peter is a natural denouement to his denials. (7) Chapter 21 makes perfect sense as an epilogue, thus framing the Gospel with the prologue of 1:1-18. Therefore, it is more likely that John wrote ch 21 at the same time as the rest of the book as a conclusion for his Gospel (so Hartman 1984:29, Morris, Carson, Ellis 1992, Ridderbos, Whitacre, Burge, Blomberg, Keener, Köstenberger).

21:7 put on his tunic. There are two possibilities as to what Peter did: he was working naked (perhaps because he was swimming out to secure the nets) and so put on his outer garment to swim or maybe wade to shore; or, he was wearing only a worker’s smock and simply tucked it into his belt or wrapped it around himself before swimming in (the same verb is used of Jesus wrapping a towel around him in 13:4). Since the first option involves Peter swimming totally clothed to Jesus (and since 100 yards is a long distance for wading in the Sea of Galilee), the second makes more sense in the situation (cf. Carson, Burge, Keener).

21:11 153 large fish. There have been an incredible number of suggestions regarding the meaning of “153” (cf. Brown, McEleney 1977, Beasley-Murray, Burge, Keener): (1) one of the oldest is that proposed by Jerome—that in Jesus’ day, they believed there were 153 species of fish and this therefore symbolized the number of nations to be netted; but this has been shown to be untrue. (2) Many have seen gematria (the sum of the numerical value of the letters of a word, e.g., 666 in Rev 13:18) in the number, deriving words such as “Jesus Christ, God” (McEleney), “church of love,” “children of God,” or “Pisgah”—the mountain from which Moses commissioned his followers. (3) Emerton (1958) combines gematria and Old Testament background, pointing to Ezek 47:9-10, where a stream flows from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea and is filled with fish from En-Gedi (numerical value of 17) and En-eglaim (= 153). Since 17 is the triangular number of 153 (that is, the sum of the Numbers 1–17, a concept well-known to ancients), this has gained some attention. (4) Others have built allegorically on 17 and 153, e.g., Augustine who thought of 153 believers inspired by the seven gifts of the Spirit to obey the Ten Commandments or Origen who thought it signified the Trinity (50 x 3 + 3). (5) Since the options above continue from one imaginative solution to another, it is best to say simply that the number signifies the abundance of the blessings Christ poured out upon the disciples and therefore upon the church in the midst of its mission. This is the view favored by most today.

21:15 After breakfast. It is common for critical scholars to assert that this is a separate tradition (perhaps the first appearance mentioned in 1 Cor 15:5) clumsily attached to 21:1-14 by “after breakfast.” There is little basis for this other than from critical assumptions that stories like this floated independently in the oral period before the Gospels were written. It was natural, however, for Jesus to reinstate Peter in front of the other disciples since Peter had boasted that he would be true to Jesus before them (13:37-38). John 21:15-17 fits well in the context of the appearance of Jesus on the shore and is not a separate episode (cf. Carson, Köstenberger).

21:15-17 do you love me? . . . you know I love you. Many scholars and pastors (e.g., Hunter, McKay 1985) have thought that this episode deals with two levels of love due to the two Greek verbs employed. If this were true, the meaning would be something like this:

21:22 until I return. This is further evidence that John has both a final eschatology centering on Christ’s return and the end of the age (Cf. 5:25, 28-29; 6:39-40; 14:2-3) and a realized eschatology centering on the present possession of eternal life. There is a greater balance in John’s eschatology than many critical scholars are willing to acknowledge.

21:23 this disciple wouldn’t die. There are two issues: (1) Some (e.g., Bultmann) believe the beloved disciple was not an actual person at all but a literary construct to typify the ideal disciple (for Bultmann symbolizing the Gentile church). This passage, of course, treats him as an actual historical person, but Bultmann believes this was added by a later redactor (1971:715). This hardly makes sense because at the least it proves the later redactor within a few years considered this disciple to be historical. (2) Others (Beasley-Murray, Carson) assert that this indicates a problem in the church similar to 1 Cor 1–4, in which some were exalting John over Peter or lining up as followers of one or the other (cf. 1 Cor 1:12). This is certainly possible, but there is no hint in this or any other passage in John that the beloved disciple was elevated above Peter; both were on the same level (so Barrett, Blomberg). If that problem did exist, John’s testimony here is that both he and Peter were equal before the Lord and the church; each was to find his own destiny within God’s will (Ridderbos, Köstenberger).

21:24 the one who . . . has recorded them. The identity of the author noted here as the beloved disciple, John (Cf. 19:35), is disputed. Some believe this does refer to the “disciple Jesus loved” as the author of the book (Westcott, Lindars, Morris, Bruce), others that he caused them to be written by someone else (Bernard, Witherington), perhaps as the source of the tradition (Brown, Barrett). In light of the wording of 21:24 and the parallel in 19:35, the first is certainly the meaning here.

we know. Three options exist for the “we” and therefore for the author of these two verses: (1) “we” could be indefinite and equivalent to the expression “as is well-known” (Dodd 1953b:212-213); (2) an editorial “we,” like those in 1 John 1:2, 4, 5, 6, 7; 3 John 1:12, referring to John himself (Bernard, Carson, Köstenberger); and (3) the imprimatur of the church, perhaps the elders of Ephesus (Westcott, Hendriksen), to the veracity of this work (Brown, Barrett, Morris, Bruce, Whitacre, Burge, Blomberg, Keener). The first is possible but is an unusual rendering and does not quite fit. The second is more viable but does not quite fit the tone of 21:24, which contains the third person singular as well as first person plural. The most likely is the third option, the witness of the church to the trustworthiness of John’s Gospel. This may have been added by the community as an imprimatur similar to 19:35 (see the parallel on the death of Moses in Deut 34—Moses could hardly have chronicled his own death).

While chapter 20 centered on the issue of faith, chapter 21 centers on the mission of the church. As we have seen, God’s mission to the world is also at the heart of John’s Gospel (cf. “Mission” in the Introduction). Each aspect of these appearance narratives contributes to the mobilization of the church and especially to the task of the leaders as they reach out to God’s flock and his world with the Good News. The miraculous catch of fish (21:1-14) reminds us of the similar miracle in Luke 5, with the same message—when God’s people surrender to the leading of the Lord, great things will happen for those who are “fishing for people” (Luke 5:10). Then the reinstatement of Peter (21:15-17) also centers on the responsibility of the leaders of the church to “feed” or care for God’s flock. Finally, there is the poignant passage (21:18-23) reminding each of us that as we serve the Lord and go through hard times, our response must always be to follow the Lord, no matter what is going on with others. In addition to Jesus, the key characters in this chapter are Peter and the beloved disciple, as all three stories center on them, especially on Peter, who was not just restored but given his commission and told his destiny.

John does not tell us that Peter and Andrew, James and John were fishermen (cf. Mark 1:16-20 and parallels), but that would have been widely known in the early church. It must be remembered that when Jesus called them to “fish for people” (Luke 5:10), that did not mean they were to quit their jobs. Peter and the sons of Zebedee kept their boats and probably fished whenever they were not with Jesus. In fishing, they would use either a hand net (a circular net about 10 or so feet in diameter with weights so that it could be thrown and retrieved by a single person), or a large trawl or seine net with sinkers on the end (as in this scene), which was held between two moving boats (each boat being about 26.5 feet in length and 7.5 feet across—the measurements of one recently discovered in Galilee). The net would trap a large school of fish, and after they were encircled, the fishermen would haul them in with casting nets. In this scene, where the disciples have returned to their “secular work,” there is no true atmosphere of aimlessness (Brown), let alone apostasy (Hoskyns). They were simply engaged in their normal activity, while waiting for the Lord to act—and soon he would!

It was normal to fish at night when the fish would come up to the surface to feed (cf. Luke 5:5). When the sun came up, the fish would go deeper, and nets would be useless. As in Luke 5, they fished all night and caught nothing (it is doubtful that “night” here means the time of sin and darkness as in 3:2; 13:30). They again learned the important lesson that apart from Jesus they could do nothing (15:5, so Whitacre). Dawn arrived (21:4), and they were undoubtedly tired and discouraged. Suddenly someone appeared on the shore; it was Jesus. At a hundred yards in the early light (21:8), they could not make out who it was. Disciples being slow to recognize Jesus or initially doubtful about his resurrection is a common feature of the resurrection narratives (e.g., Luke 24:11-16). As in Luke 24:13ff (the Emmaus Road journey), Jesus appeared as a stranger.

Jesus called them paidia [TG3813, ZG4086] (21:5), which might be translated colloquially, “lads.” It was a term of endearment. When he asked them if they’d caught any “fish” (technically a piece of fish to eat), they had to admit how disappointing the night was. Then the stranger on the shore said an unusual thing, telling them to throw out their casting nets on the right side of the boat, and this without moving the trawl net to gather the fish! It is hard to know why they complied, possibly it was because they thought the stranger had seen something (so Morris). The result was extraordinary. There is little doubt that when we get to heaven, Peter will tell us that the two greatest catches he made in his life were those recorded in Luke 5 and John 21. There were so many large fish (153 in all, 21:11) that they could not even bring the net into the boat. Here and in Luke 5, there is certainly a parabolic or symbolic significance. The message is that when we obey Jesus, even if it doesn’t seem logical, wonderful things will happen. The missiological overtones are also obvious.

At this point, the beloved disciple recognized that it was Jesus and said, “It’s the Lord!” (21:7). Dodd (1953a:109) called this recognition scene the central element in the pericope. In 21:1 and 14, the story is framed by Jesus revealing himself (cf. “appeared,” NLT) to the disciples, and here the beloved disciple responded to that revelation. Impetuous Peter then jumped into the water to swim to Jesus. His eagerness to be with the Lord is evident. He was wearing a worker’s smock in the boat and so was naked underneath. He wrapped his smock around himself (possibly tucking it into his belt or putting on a loincloth, so Whitacre) and started swimming (so Brown, Barrett, Burge). The other six disciples rowed the boat to shore with the catch of fish. Interestingly, we are not told what transpired when Peter met Jesus; John wanted to wait until 21:15-17 for that. Also, we are not told what the other disciples did with the huge catch of fish. Presumably, they did what any fisherman then or today does, placing them in some type of bin or tank.

Their focus then shifted to a meal already prepared (21:9). Jesus continued his servant ways: in 13:1-20, he washed their feet; now he prepared them breakfast. The same Lord who ensured their miraculous catch of fish continued to provide for them—another lesson for the reader. Fish cooking in the fire and fresh bread were the basic Galilean meal (the same was provided in the multiplication of the loaves, 6:1-15). Since there were seven disciples, Jesus needed more fish to fix for them, so he asked Peter to fetch some of the fish they had just caught. The disciples shared of their own bounty—the bounty miraculously provided by Christ.

In fact, here we learn that when Peter dragged the net ashore, they discovered two incredible miracles: First, they had caught the astounding number of 153 fish, which certainly sounds like a fisherman’s tale! Second, the net had not torn with that incredible weight of fish. Since we have seen symbolism throughout this story, it is no surprise to find more here. Of course, the number is recorded because that indeed was what happened, but as with the 12 baskets of scraps left after the feeding of the 5,000 (6:13, cf. also the seven baskets left after the feeding of the 4,000, Mark 8:8), there is also a symbolic overtone. The number signifies the over-abundant blessing Christ had given to the disciples and therefore to the church in its mission. The unbroken net may signify the unity of the church (so Brown, Kysar, Whitacre) or perhaps that there would be no limit to the number of converts (Bruce; Witherington adds “without losing any”).

Then comes the meal scene (21:12-13). Jesus was still in charge; in both their external ministry (the catch of fish) and in their internal needs (the breakfast), it was Jesus alone who could truly provide. The first of the we-petitions in the Lord’s Prayer is, “Give us today the food we need” (Matt 6:11), and its meaning is not “gimme, gimme” but rather, “Lord, I rely entirely upon you for my needs.” The reaction of the seven disciples is surprising. In spite of the fact that they knew it was the Lord, we are told “none of the disciples dared to ask him, ‘Who are you?’ They knew it was the Lord” (21:12). Historically, there are several possible explanations as to why the disciples would have asked the Lord who he was. Perhaps they could see Jesus was more than just a man brought back from the dead but had new powers as the Risen One and so were filled with awe; or they still could not come to grips with his death and resurrection; or they were still confused by the reality of the Resurrection (so Carson). Theologically, Albert Schweitzer’s classic statement (1968:403) may be the best explanation: “He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old.” The emphasis is on Jesus, who now “belonged to another order of existence” (so Bruce; Ridderbos, “wholly-otherness”).

The meal itself (21:13) is closely connected to the multiplication of loaves, as in 6:11, “Jesus took the loaves, gave thanks to God, and distributed them to the people. Afterward he did the same with the fish.” There is a question as to whether this is a eucharistic celebration (so Brown, Shaw 1974, Pesch, Schnackenburg, Perkins), but that is unlikely because fish did not become a eucharistic symbol until later in the church. In a sense, it is tied to 6:1-15; if that scene is interpreted in a eucharistic direction, this one will be also. But it is doubtful that 6:1-15 is eucharistic (see note on 6:11), so this scene is probably not either. Rather, the emphasis here is on table fellowship—the sharing of a meal as the sharing of life. As Michaels says (1989:356), “The story of the miraculous catch and of the breakfast by the lake is to be understood in connection with the mission and unity of the church . . . and in particular with the expression of this unity in meal fellowship.” The mission is conducted by a church that is both dependent on Jesus and in intimate fellowship with him and with one another (Cf. 15:4-7; 17:11, 20-23). Hartman (1984:40) connects the meal with the theme of chapter 6: Jesus the Bread of Life who gives eternal life to those who partake of him (and who provides spiritual food for his followers; so Keener).

John then tells us this is “the third time Jesus had appeared to his disciples” (21:14). The appearance to Mary was not “to his disciples,” so John was enumerating those appearances found in his Gospel (20:19-23, 24-29). When comparing this to the Synoptics, it would also fit, for Luke 24:36-44 probably describes the same event as 20:19-23 (see commentary on 20:19-23), and Matthew 28:17-20 probably occurred later (cf. Osborne 1995:40-41). Still, there is strong emphasis on the veracity of the appearances: “That there was in the Evangelist’s mind some evidential value in this episode as support of Jesus’ resurrection is confirmed by this verse, which forms a literary inclusio with 21:1” (Carson 1991:674-675). The framing is seen in the term “appeared” (ephanerōthē [TG5319, ZG5746]), which means he “was revealed” to them (i.e., he disclosed himself as the risen Lord to them). The emphasis is on the reality and truth behind the Resurrection. The revelation of God in Jesus is another dominant theme of the fourth Gospel.

When Peter responded positively, “Yes, Lord, . . . you know I love you,” then Jesus commissioned him to “feed my lambs.” This is the major emphasis of this commissioning service: love for Jesus must result in taking care of his flock. This is stressed by the variation in words for the responsibility of tending Christ’s flock: feed/take care of my lambs/sheep. This is stylistic variation for emphasis. Note how Peter “was hurt” (21:17) when Jesus asked the same question three times, replying, “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” He did not understand why Jesus kept hammering on the same point. The reason is not just that Peter had failed three times but even more that repetition underscores an important point. The importance of a threefold repetition is best emphasized in the trisagion, “Holy, holy, holy” (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8), rightly labeled by the Greek Orthodox as the heart of the worship of God in Scripture. The threefold repetition emphasizes a superlative truth. So it is here; the heart of ministry is caring for the flock of God, so Jesus drove the point home via his threefold repetition. Köstenberger (2004:597) adds that the threefold repetition reflects “the Near Eastern custom of reiterating a matter three times before witnesses in order to convey a solemn obligation, especially with regard to contracts conferring rights or legal dispositions.” So this becomes a virtual covenant obligation for Peter, the disciples, and us.

Maintaining the flock of God is the key to the mission of the church. The lost cannot truly be reached until the saints are deeply fed and mobilized. This was the heart of Paul’s message to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28 (“Feed and shepherd God’s flock”) and of Peter’s challenge to the leaders in 1 Peter 5:2-4 (“Care for the flock that God has entrusted to you”). One could say that 1 Peter 5:1-4 contains Peter’s reflections on the significance of this event (21:15-17) for him. Both passages stress that the flock did not belong to Peter (or to us as leaders in the church) but to God and Christ, who is the “Great Shepherd” (1 Pet 5:4). He gives us a flock as our “assigned” portion (1 Pet 5:3), and it is our privilege to care for that flock as its shepherd. The shepherd image centered, first of all, on God as the Shepherd of Israel (Gen 49:24; Isa 40:11) and on Christ as the Good Shepherd (10:11, 14). The leaders of Israel were also shepherds (2 Sam 5:2; Ezek 34), and through Christ, the leaders of the church are shepherds (Acts 20:28; Eph 4:11). This pastoral care involves every aspect—feeding, protecting, guiding—and it is clear that our reward is not primarily in the here and now (to be had via lording it over the flock; 1 Pet 5:3) but is rather “treasures in heaven” (Matt 6:20; cf. 1 Pet 5:4). We are first of all servant-leaders (see note on 13:1-20), and all authority we have comes from God. Our task is humility and obedience to the will of God (love = obedience, Cf. 14:15, 21, 23; 15:10). It is the error of our times to separate evangelism from discipleship and to center on winning the lost rather than building up the church; the best means of reaching the lost is to develop excited Christians who will take the gospel to others.

In Peter’s youth (right up to that time), he had been in control and went wherever he wished, but later, like an old man (21:18), he would have no more control over his life. “Stretch out your hands” could mean simply that someone would take Peter where he did not wish to go (so Brown, Blomberg). More likely, it was a metaphor for crucifixion. The verb was used for stretching out the arms on the cross (so Barrett, Carson, Witherington, Keener) and in context prophesies that Peter will be led “where you don’t want to go”—namely, to his death, as explained in 21:19. Church tradition says that Peter was crucified upside down during the reign of Nero (Acts of Peter 37–39; Eusebius History 3.1); while we cannot be sure that he was crucified upside down (the tradition is late), this text would support the likelihood of crucifixion. Note that the emphasis is upon the “kind of death he would [die to] glorify God” (21:19). As Jesus’ death was ultimately “lifted up to glory” (Cf. 3:14; 8:28; 12:27-28, 32; 13:31-32), Peter’s death would share the same “glory.” His death would bring glory to God in the way spoken of in Revelation 12:11, “They have defeated him (Satan) . . . by their testimony . . . they were [not] afraid to die.” Every martyrdom is a victory over Satan and brings glory to God.

The central theme is expressed twice (21:19, 22): “Follow me.” This discipleship command is also used in 1:43 (to Philip) and often connotes discipleship in John (Cf. 1:37-38, 40; 8:12; 10:4, 27; 12:26). Peter had to “follow” the Lord in discipleship wherever it led, even to death. As before, Peter always spoke his mind, even when it meant putting his foot in his mouth! He turned around and saw the beloved disciple following, and he blurted out, “What about him, Lord?” He was virtually saying, “Why me and not him?!” This is an important message for all of us. When we face difficult experiences, we so often look at someone for whom everything seems to be going more smoothly and ask a question like Peter’s. Jesus’ response to Peter is the same message he would give to us: “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” (21:22). Peter’s responsibility was to follow Jesus, not to worry about the destiny of his friend. We are not to compare ourselves to others but are simply to seek and accept God’s will for us personally. John did in fact live to a very old age (he wrote the book of Revelation in AD 95, close to 30 years after Peter’s death), but God was not preferring John to Peter. Rather, he gave each the ministry (and death) that was best. No one would say that John therefore had a greater ministry than Peter’s; each fulfilled his call and glorified God accordingly. Whether we are called to a short but intense ministry, dying early like Peter, or to a lengthy life and ministry, like John’s, we are also told, “So what? Follow me!” God’s commission is not to the life we would like to live but to the life that God in his sovereign wisdom knows is best for us. This is true in many ways—for instance, when a friend is pastor of a big, important church while we have never pastored a church larger than 200. In God’s eyes, that does not mean the other pastor is more important to the Kingdom. Small church ministers are just as important to the Lord as are the super pastors! We each must be willing to accept the ministry the Lord has for us.

John also used this to dispel a rumor that had developed, certainly known among his churches (21:23), that he would not die until the Lord returned. This may even have led to a cult following that centered on the Lord’s returning soon. Some believe it means the beloved disciple had died, and this had been written later to address the problem his death seemed to cause. However, we have already shown the likelihood that John composed this chapter (see note on 21:1-25), and if he were indeed dead, all the later writer would have to say is that John’s grave proves the rumor false (so Carson). Still, fervor (on the basis of this rumor) undoubtedly increased as John’s advancing age made it seem likely that Christ’s return had to be imminent. John therefore felt it necessary to correct the misunderstanding.

John emphasized the conditional, “If I want him to remain alive until I return,” saying in effect that this was not Jesus’ intention. Jesus’ reply may have had a twofold purpose here: to emphasize the importance of true discipleship and submission to God’s will, and to prepare the church of John’s day for the time when all the apostolic eyewitnesses would be dead. “Peter and the ‘beloved’ are symbols of the church as a whole where obedience as well as discipleship remain critical regardless of how long it takes Jesus to return” (Osborne 1984:189; see the excellent chart on the beloved disciple and Peter in relation to Jesus in Köstenberger 2004:599).

Verse 25 changes from the “we” of 21:24 to “I,” and some believe it the work of the Evangelist himself (so Carson, Burge). This is quite viable. The point is that no Gospel could even begin to be exhaustive (for parallels in ancient writings see Keener 2003:1241-1242). To record all that Jesus said and did would require so much space that “the whole world could not contain the books that would be written.” All John could do was relate a few representative things Jesus said; he did this so that the reader could understand the truth about the God-man, Jesus. John wanted us to understand that no single book could capture the reality and power, the majesty and glory of the Son of God. This is why God inspired four Gospels; each gives us another nuance of Jesus’ life and impact.