Chapter 48

John 21:15–25

Literary Context

The Gospel concludes with an epilogue that serves to explain the incorporation of the children of God into the mission of God and their specific participation in the life and ministry of Jesus. The epilogue begins with the mission of the church (21:1–14) and concludes in this pericope with the ministers of the church and, more specifically, the personal nature of their ministries with a particular focus on Peter and the Beloved Disciple. By focusing on these two specific disciples and the particularity of their callings, the Gospel explains how the message communicated by the narrative is manifested in an overtly personal manner, with the ministry of the Beloved Disciple being directly related to the production of the Gospel itself. In this pericope, the second of two in the epilogue, the reader is presented with the conclusion to the developing testimonies of two disciples of Jesus, Peter and the Beloved Disciple, in order to facilitate their understanding and application of believing and living the message of the Gospel.

  1. X. Epilogue (21:1–25)
    1. A. The Mission of the Church: Jesus and the Fishermen (21:1–14)
    2. B. The Ministers of the Church: Peter’s Reinstatement and the Beloved Disciple’s Testimony (21:15–25)

Main Idea

The Christian life is directed by a love for Christ and displayed by an obedient following of Christ. A true disciple of Jesus Christ believes in his person and work, participates in his life, and strives for his glory.

Translation

Structure and Literary Form

The structure of this pericope is different than the basic story form (see Introduction). This pericope is a combination of a basic story form and a dialogue, which the Gospel commonly combines in its narrative (see comments before 13:1). The narrative sets the context for the entire epilogue in the first pericope (21:1–14), with the disciples gathered for a sacred meal (cf. 21:13) around a charcoal fire (21:9; cf. 18:18) that creates a scene that facilitates reconciliation both within the group (for Peter especially) as well as to the world outside. Thus, this story-dialogue is carefully integrated with the context and movement of the previous pericope. In this sense then, the interaction of this pericope is a continuation of what precedes it; the epilogue functions as a unit.

Although this dialogue involves three people, Jesus, Peter, and the Beloved Disciple, the third person is only involved by the others near the end, though when he finally speaks it is neither to Jesus nor to Peter but to the reader. This dialogue is unique in that it is a symbol-laden dialogue with few words, befitting the symbolic nature of an epilogue (see comments before 21:1). In vv. 15–19, Jesus initiates a symbol-laden and pithy dialogue with Peter that brings resolution to his denial of Jesus in chapter 18. In vv. 20–23, Peter’s question provides Jesus with an opportunity to bring resolution to the implicit tension between Peter and the Beloved Disciple. Finally, in vv. 24–25 the Beloved Disciple reveals that he is the author of the Gospel and provides information regarding the Gospel’s origin.

Exegetical Outline

  1. B. The Ministers of the Church: Peter’s Reinstatement and the Beloved Disciple’s Testimony (21:15–25)
    1. 1. The Love and Sheep of Jesus (vv. 15–19)
    2. 2. “You Follow Me!” (vv. 20–23)
    3. 3. The Origin of the Gospel (vv. 24–25)

Explanation of the Text

The argument of this commentary is that chapter 21 is the intended and original conclusion to the Gospel and a significant part of its coherent structure and purpose (see comments before 21:1). While this pericope is the second of a two-part epilogue, its final two verses (vv. 24–25) are also the second of a two-stage conclusion (see comments before 20:24). Just as the first stage of the conclusion (20:30–31) raised several issues regarding the purpose of the Gospel, the second stage of the conclusion (vv. 24–25) raises several issues regarding the origin of the Gospel, primarily in relation to the identity of the Beloved Disciple (for a summary, see comments on 13:23) who reveals himself to be personally involved in the origin of the Gospel and, by extension and invitation, the belief of the reader.

21:15 Then when they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “Feed my lambs” (Ὅτε οὖν ἠρίστησαν λέγει τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρῳ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Σίμων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων; λέγει αὐτῷ, Ναί, κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε. λέγει αὐτῷ, Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου). The scene of this periocope has not changed from the previous one (21:1–14). On the shore of the Sea of Tiberias, Jesus had prepared a symbol-laden meal for his disciples with fish, bread, and a charcoal fire. When the meal ended, Jesus addressed Peter with a question about the object of his love. In light of v. 20, where Peter “turns” and sees the Beloved Disciple “following,” it is not a stretch to suggest that “we are probably to think of Peter walking down the beach with Jesus,” with the Beloved Disciple following not far behind and the rest of the disciples present implicitly.1

The last time Peter was asked a question about Jesus in the presence of a charcoal fire, he denied Jesus three times (see 18:18). Thus it is fitting that around this charcoal fire Peter is again asked a question about Jesus three times. This time, however, the questions are in an entirely different context and therefore have an entirely different agenda. For this time the questions come not from accusers but from the one who was himself the foremost accused, and this time the questions come not before but after the death and resurrection of Jesus. That is, the questions Jesus asks do not seek to take life but to restore it, for the person asking the question has already paid the price with his own life.

Even if this was a private moment between Jesus and Peter, Jesus’s formal address includes Peter’s father’s (family) name, “Simon, son of John” (Σίμων Ἰωάννου), matching Jesus’s first address of Peter at the beginning of the narrative (see comments on 1:42). It gives this conversation “an air of solemnity.”2 It might even signal that in what follows the nature of their relationship needs to be reestablished.3 This engagement between Jesus and Peter has traditionally (and rightly) been understood to be the reinstatement of Peter.4 The reader is being guided to understand that the discipleship and ministry of Peter—and the church thereafter—is facilitated not ultimately by courage (ch. 18) or competence (ch. 21), but by Christ.

This section of the pericope is directed by the significant question Jesus asks Peter: “Do you love me more than these?” (ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων;). Love is a—if not the—major motif in the Gospel. The love of God for the world (3:16) finds reception in the new commandment given to the church for mutual love (e.g., 13:34–35), which has as its source the mutual love between the Trinitarian God, most visible between the Father and the Son (e.g., 3:35; 14:31).5 Thus, the question brings the message of love presented by the Gospel full circle: Will the love of God that was first given to the world be appropriately returned to him? And just as the love of God for the world was most clearly expressed by the death of Jesus on the cross, will the love of a disciple for God be similarly expressed?

Jesus focuses the question by narrowing the comparison: “Do you love me more than these?” But what or who is the exact referent? The two most common options are the fishing (a way of life) or the disciples. The latter makes the most sense, but it is still not exactly clear. Does it mean “more than these disciples love me” or “more than you love these disciples”? Again the latter makes more sense, since the point of the comparison is the object of Peter’s love. The former option is quite possible and preferred by several interpreters, especially because the disciples are repeatedly urged to love one another (13:34–35; 15:12, 17).6 But just as Christ made the care for the poor secondary to or a subset of devotion (i.e., love) to him (see comments on 12:7), so here Jesus makes love for others, even for brothers and sisters in Christ, a subset of a love for Christ. In this way, then, just as the threefold denial of Peter revealed whom he loved (or feared) more, so befitting the reinstatement Jesus asks Peter again to compare his love for Jesus with his love for others. Even still, the ambiguous nature of the comparison serves to establish the ambiguous comparison between the synonymous words to follow (i.e., “love” and “sheep”).

Peter answers Jesus’s question with a strong and emphatic affirmation: “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you” (Ναί, κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε). Peter’s answer appeals to Jesus’s knowledge of him. Such an answer does not intend to rebuke Jesus (i.e., “Why ask me? You don’t know me, do you?”) but to make an appeal grounded upon Jesus and not himself.7 If his own actions speak with hesitation at best, the Good Shepherd’s knowledge of his sheep becomes not only the most secure foundation but also ultimately the (theologically) correct answer (2:24–25; cf. Job 16:19). Peter may not be answering the question in regard to its comparison, but he rightly grasps that the point of the question was in regard to his love of Jesus.

The most difficult issue presented by this verse and one of the most well-known in the Gospel is the use of different verbal forms for “love.” The Greek word for “love” (ἀγαπᾷς from ἀγαπάω) used by Jesus—agapaō—is different than the word for “love” (φιλῶ from φιλέω) used by Peter—phileō. In the first two questions Jesus uses agapaō and Peter uses phileō (vv. 15–16), but in the third question Jesus and Peter both use phileō (v. 17). Interpreters have long wrestled with the question of whether the alternation of verbs is narratively significant. Contemporary scholarship has almost unanimously concluded that there is no intended difference in meaning by the verbal alternation; it is simply a stylistic preference for using different but synonymous words (rather than repeating the same word).8 The reason for this is clear: “Attempts to draw a dependable semantic distinction between agapaō and phileō are doomed to failure whether in Greek literature generally, the Septuagint, the NT, or John’s Gospel itself.”9 The strongest example of this is the fact that both verbs are used for the Father’s love for the Son (e.g., agapaō in 3:35 but phileō in 5:20), and certainly God’s love is eternal and unchanging.

Yet as the Gospel narrative has revealed in five separate instances, while the Fourth Gospel frequently uses related or overlapping words synonymously across the narrative, when they are used in close proximity (especially in the same verse) there is usually a carefully nuanced distinction or comparison intended between them (see 13:10; 16:16, 23; 20:6, 21).10 Although this would suggest that a carefully nuanced distinction is intended, the options are not best determined from a reconstruction of the historical event, as in the common suggestion that since agapaō denotes a higher (or more divine) kind of love and phileō denotes a lower (or more human) kind of love, Peter is unable to claim the higher form of love, (graciously) forcing Jesus to accommodate to Peter. But neither are they to be determined from a purely narrative-critical analysis, as in the more recent suggestion that the use of agapaō by Jesus is an intentional allusion to 13:31–38, intending to continue the last conversation between Jesus and Peter.11

In each of the previous five instances, however, the meaning is derived directly from the narrative pressures innate to the specific pericope. But can the carefully nuanced distinction or comparison intended between them be determined in this pericope? It was not until the nineteenth century that interpreters pressed the distinction; even the Greek commentators (e.g., John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria) with the rest of the early church were unwilling to press a real distinction between the terms.12 In the least we can agree with McKay, who argues that although the variation in forms is not pointless, its contextual distinction “is not blatant, but gently significant.”13 Even interpreters who cannot see a distinction in meaning see clearly the distinction in terms, so that all readers can agree that the alternation is a “signal” of sorts to the reader.14 And this may be precisely the “gently significant” point.

Here at the end of the Gospel, with the message of the love of God in full view, the different terms for love used by Jesus and Peter need not mean anything at all for Jesus and Peter; in fact they might just be stylistic and rhetorically emphatic.15 For the reader, however, the difference might still be real and meaningful.16 The fact that Peter uses a different word than Jesus imposes itself upon the reader in a manner that cannot be (psychologically) reconstructed from Jesus or Peter. Without denying that the words are often used as functionally synonymous, the apparent comparative interaction between them in such close quarters stands out to the reader. Whatever the intentions of Peter, who remained consistent with his use of phileō in all three answers (vv. 15–17), the fact that Jesus changed from agapaō to phileō to match Peter in his third question (v. 17) suggests that the dissonance caused by the first two exchanges is resolved (in some manner) in the third. And befitting the message of the Gospel, it was God (not Peter) who bridged the gap. Even if the reader cannot draw any real meaning from this alternation in words based upon the words themselves, the narrative pressures the reader to desire a resolution to the dissonance caused by the different words and even between Jesus and Peter. The reader is directed by the scene to desire the love that matches the question of Christ.17 And befitting the purpose of an epilogue (see comments before 21:1), the dissonance is resolved neither by Peter nor Jesus but by the reader, the one for whom the written account of this threefold questioning is ultimately intended. The “interpretive” issue presented to the reader in the final pericope of the Gospel is not truly lexical; it is personal.

Jesus follows Peter’s answer to his first question with a command: “Feed my sheep” (Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου). Jesus’s response to Peter’s answer is not in the form of a correction but a commission. As we discussed above, just as love is not merely descriptive but also prescriptive, so also a love for Christ should be expressed in a fitting manner. Jesus commissions Peter to serve as a shepherd in his absence in view of his imminent departure.18 If the first pericope in the epilogue (21:1–14) concerned the work of God outside the church and in the world, this pericope is concerned with the work of God within the church. The qualification “my sheep” (τὰ ἀρνία μου) makes clear that this is the command of the Good Shepherd to an undershepherd, for just as there is “one flock,” there is also only “one Shepherd” (10:16).

Interestingly, in a manner similar to how the word “love” alternates in form in vv. 15–17, so do the following two other terms: “Feed my lambs” (Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου; v. 15);19 “shepherd my sheep” (Ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατά μου; v. 16); “feed my sheep” (Βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά μουv; v. 17). As before, even though the terms are generally synonymous, when they are used in close proximity there is usually a carefully nuanced distinction or comparison intended between them. In the context of this commission, the alternation reflects the variety of sheep and the range of shepherding required. The distinction in meaning is more obvious in the verbs but reflects the same intention. As the undershepherd, Peter is to care for the Shepherd’s sheep as the Lord cares for them, feeding them and performing all the duties of a shepherd in a manner entirely distinct from the “hired worker” in 10:12–13. This command of Jesus is ultimately the fulfillment not only of the expectation that Peter love him (vv. 15–17) but also of the new commandment given to the church for mutual love (13:34–35), which fittingly occurred earlier in the Gospel just before Jesus announced the betrayal of Peter (13:38).

21:16 He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “Shepherd my sheep” (λέγει αὐτῷ πάλιν δεύτερον, Σίμων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με; λέγει αὐτῷ, Ναί, κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε. λέγει αὐτῷ, Ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατά μου). Without waiting for Peter to respond to the commission, Jesus repeats “again a second time” (πάλιν δεύτερον) the question with which he began. The second exchange between Jesus and Peter almost directly parallels the first, with the continuation of the word variations discussed above. The comparison of the first question (“more than these”) is not repeated; the focus is now entirely on love for Jesus in both its descriptive (i.e., “Do you love me?”) and prescriptive (i.e., “Shepherd my sheep”) forms. By numbering this next question of Jesus as “second” (δεύτερον), as well as the “third” one to follow (v. 17), the narrator highlights the unitary purpose of vv. 15–17 and their parallel to the previous threefold denial by Peter. The repetition thus becomes a cumulative statement of its own; loving Jesus and pastoring the church are interrelated.

21:17 He said to him a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter became sorrowful because he said [this] to him a third time, “Do you love me?” He said to him, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “Feed my sheep” (λέγει αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον, Σίμων Ἰωάννου, φιλεῖς με; ἐλυπήθη ὁ Πέτρος ὅτι εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον, Φιλεῖς με; καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Κύριε, πάντα σὺ οἶδας, σὺ γινώσκεις ὅτι φιλῶ σε. λέγει αὐτῷ, Βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά μου). The “third” (τὸ τρίτον) question and commission concludes the threefold exchange in a manner that again nearly parallels the first two. There are a couple noticeable differences. First, the absence of “yes” (Ναί), which was present in both v. 15 and v. 16, makes Peter’s answer more forceful.20 Second, the narrator actually provides Peter’s internal response to this final question of Jesus. Peter “became sorrowful” (ἐλυπήθη), a verb likely functioning as an ingressive aorist, which stresses “the beginning of an action or the entrance into a state.”21 The word can denote emotional distress, offence, irritation, insult, or—as we have translated it here—sadness, sorrow, and grief (cf. 16:20).22 The narrator’s comment suggests that Peter did not understand the intentions of Christ. Even without fully understanding Jesus’s purposes, Peter understood his person so that what Peter said to Christ during his public ministry at a moment of confusion he similarly speaks now: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (6:68).

21:18 “Truly, truly I say to you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and walked where you wanted; but when you grow old you will stretch out your hands and others will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go” (ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ὅτε ἦς νεώτερος, ἐζώννυες σεαυτὸν καὶ περιεπάτεις ὅπου ἤθελες· ὅταν δὲ γηράσῃς, ἐκτενεῖς τὰς χεῖράς σου, καὶ ἄλλος σε ζώσει καὶ οἴσει ὅπου οὐ θέλεις). After the threefold exchange, Jesus offers an explanatory statement that begins with an authoritative preface, formalizing the remarks to follow (see comments on 1:51). Jesus presents Peter with a prophecy in the form of a comparative “illustration” (i.e., a symbolic saying), not uncommon in the Gospel (see comments on 10:6), in which a “younger” (νεώτερος)23 Peter has the freedom to move and live freely but an “old” (γηράσῃς) Peter will lose his ability to move and live freely. More specifically, Jesus explains to Peter, “You will stretch out your hands” (ἐκτενεῖς τὰς χεῖράς σου), which was understood in the ancient world to refer to crucifixion.24 The given order of the events need not be chronological, for the saying is an “illustration” and the manner of death is likely thrown forward for emphasis.

21:19 He said this in order to indicate what kind of death he would glorify God. And after he said this he said to him, “Follow me!” (τοῦτο δὲ εἶπεν σημαίνων ποίῳ θανάτῳ δοξάσει τὸν θεόν. καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν λέγει αὐτῷ, Ἀκολούθει μοι). Jesus explains what will happen to Peter, the narrator explains why to the reader. The narrator confirms that Jesus was speaking prophetically about Peter. Evidence from the tradition of the early church agrees, reporting that Peter died by crucifixion (Tertullian, Scorp. 15) and probably upside down (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.1). The narrator also explains that by his martyrdom Peter “would glorify God” (δοξάσει τὸν θεόν). Although this is a prophecy for Peter alone, certainly the glorification of God is required of all disciples.

Jesus concludes this illustration in the same manner as he did the exchanges in vv. 15–17, with a command: “Follow me!” (Ἀκολούθει μοι). In this way, Jesus ends his ministry with the same command with which it began (1:43). Coming at the end of the Gospel and directly after the prophecy of Peter’s violent end, this command is made more potent and necessary. Moreover, similar to the command “feed/shepherd my sheep” in vv. 15–17, this command becomes a second commission. Just as Peter’s ministry is to look similar to the ministry of Christ, Peter’s life is also expected to look like the life of Christ, a life that ended with a sacrificial death. While Peter’s ministry is not a replacement for the life and ministry of Jesus, it is a subset of his life and ministry. The link to the denial of Jesus is now made clear. Peter denied Jesus three times in chapter 18, but this comes after the exchange in 13:36–38, where Jesus not only predicted Peter’s denial but also hinted at the similarity of their deaths. As Jesus prophesies again here, Peter will follow Jesus in a similarly sacrificial manner.25 Jesus’s prophecy is only partially about “the end of Peter’s life” and primarily about the nature of his life in Christ. In this way the first section of the pericope concludes (vv. 15–19), with a final exhortation by Jesus to Peter that extends directly to the reader as well.

21:20 After turning Peter saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them (the one who also reclined on his chest at the dinner and he said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays you?”) (Ἐπιστραφεὶς ὁ Πέτρος βλέπει τὸν μαθητὴν ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀκολουθοῦντα, ὃς καὶ ἀνέπεσεν ἐν τῷ δείπνῳ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπεν, Κύριε, τίς ἐστιν ὁ παραδιδούς σε;). The second section of the pericope (vv. 20–23) is connected to what comes before, though the focus on Peter and the participle of motion, “after turning” (Ἐπιστραφεὶς), signals to the reader that a new section is beginning. The language of “turning” has played a significant role in the Gospel both at the beginning and end of Jesus’s ministry (see comments on 1:38 and 20:14–16). In both of those occurrences, the motion was theologically significant. While this occurrence is less clear, the oddity of the statement suggests that a similar importance is in play. In short, the “turning” of Peter serves to depict for a final time in the Gospel Peter’s misunderstanding regarding his calling and the Christian life. Peter had just been commanded, even commissioned, to follow Jesus. Why, then, is he not focused solely on him?

The narrative reveals quickly that the issue confronting Peter is that he is comparing himself with another disciple—but not just any disciple. When Peter turned, he saw the Beloved Disciple, whom the narrator explains in great detail to be the one who was reclining intimately on the chest of Jesus at the meal at which he gave the farewell discourse (see comments on 13:23). The scene that the narrator briefly recounts (see 13:24–25) brings to the surface again the Gospel’s depiction of an implicit competition or tension between Peter and the Beloved Disciple. This is the fourth of four comparison-like depictions of Peter and the Beloved Disciple (13:22–25; 20:3–9; 21:7; 21:20–23). In this final comparison, the implicit competition is made explicit and is rebuked by Jesus, giving the reader insight appropriate for an epilogue regarding the faithfulness expected of each disciple of Christ.26

21:21 After Peter saw him he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” (τοῦτον οὖν ἰδὼν ὁ Πέτρος λέγει τῷ Ἰησοῦ, Κύριε, οὗτος δὲ τί;). Peter “sees” the Beloved Disciple and brings him up to Jesus, raising a question that implicitly asks about the assignment of the Beloved Disciple. Since Peter just heard prophetically from the Lord about the life he has been called to give back to God, he now wonders what is to become of his fellow disciple. What kind of life-stretching assignment has the Lord assigned to him?27

21:22 Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” (λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἐὰν αὐτὸν θέλω μένειν ἕως ἔρχομαι, τί πρὸς σέ; σύ μοι ἀκολούθει). Jesus responds to Peter with a counterquestion that serves as a rebuke. The question is rhetorical and hypothetical, as the narrator explains in v. 23, and functions to make a separation between what Jesus “wants” (θέλω) for Peter and what he wants for the Beloved Disciple. The emphasis here is on Jesus’s authority, power, and will.28 And in his statement Jesus speaks as if he had already departed.29 Jesus offers a rebuke that challenges Peter’s assumption that his life and calling can be compared to that of the Beloved Disciple. Quite simply, Peter is told that the life assigned to the Beloved Disciple is none of his business (cf. Job 38–41).30 Jesus restates his “follow me” commission with the significant addition of an emphatic pronoun: “You follow me!” (σύ μοι ἀκολούθει), which denies Peter the ability to change the subject of “follow.”31 The “you” changes everything, for it demands that discipleship be viewed as “a single-minded following of Jesus.”32

These are the last words of Jesus in the Gospel of John, and they echo his very first: “What do you seek?” (1:38), “Come and see” (1:39), and “Follow me” (1:43). From start to finish, and forming something akin to an inclusio, the Gospel has invited the reader to follow Jesus Christ by believing in his person and work and receiving life in his name (cf. 20:30–31). Befitting an epilogue, the Gospel concludes by explaining that “following” Jesus is not one-size-fits-all. Using Peter and the Beloved Disciple as “representative characters,”33 the Gospel declares that the various lives assigned to the disciples of Jesus Christ are equally grounded in the one called the Life (1:4). As the apostle Paul explains, at the same time “to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it” there is still “one” body, Spirit, faith, Lord, and baptism, and “one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:4–7).

21:23 This saying went out among the brothers and sisters that that disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say to him that he would not die; rather, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” (ἐξῆλθεν οὖν οὗτος ὁ λόγος εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὅτι ὁ μαθητὴς ἐκεῖνος οὐκ ἀποθνῄσκει. οὐκ εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι οὐκ ἀποθνῄσκει, ἀλλ’, Ἐὰν αὐτὸν θέλω μένειν ἕως ἔρχομαι[, τί πρὸς σέ];). Although v. 22 brings conclusion to the issue Jesus had with Peter, in this verse the narrator himself notes that Jesus’s statement to Peter also stirred other disciples in the earliest church to make assumptions about the life of the Beloved Disciple. In one sense, this offers a fitting conclusion to the second section of the pericope (vv. 20–23), showing that all disciples must learn to commit themselves to a single-minded following of Jesus. In another sense, however, it transitions the narrative to the Beloved Disciple, who will reveal in v. 24 the assignment given to him by the Lord.

By providing such a detailed summary of Jesus’s statement to Peter in v. 22, the narrator, who is about to reveal himself as the Beloved Disciple, wants to make explicit what Jesus was not saying so that he could explain in his own words what Jesus was saying in regard to his ministry. This verse suggests that if Peter’s calling involves the ending of life, the Beloved Disciple’s calling involves the continuation of life, with each serving a different purpose.34

21:24 This is the disciple who testifies concerning these things and who wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true (Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ μαθητὴς ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ τούτων καὶ γράψας ταῦτα, καὶ οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀληθὴς αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία ἐστίν). The third section of the pericope (vv. 24–25) concludes not only the epilogue but the Gospel as a whole. As we argued earlier, vv. 24–25 are the second of a two-stage conclusion that frames the epilogue; 20:30–31 provide the purpose of the Gospel and vv. 24–25 explain the origin of the Gospel (see comments before 20:24). In a manner similar to 20:30–31, which were connected with the verses that preceded (20:24–29), vv. 24–25 are also directly connected to the preceding verses, serving as the answer to Peter’s question regarding the Beloved Disciple in v. 21 (“Lord, what about him?”). It is not Jesus, however, but the narrator himself who answers this question and who reveals that he is the one about whom Peter spoke. The narrator is the Beloved Disciple. In these verses, the person and the ministry of the Beloved Disciple are now explained, both of which are directly related to the production of the Gospel itself. This verse provides three insights into the identity and function of the Beloved Disciple.

First, the Beloved Disciple is established as the authoritative witness of the Gospel: “This is the disciple who testifies concerning these things” (Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ μαθητὴς ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ τούτων). The Beloved Disciple declares himself to be an eyewitness of the things written in this book and therefore to be personally connected to the people and events themselves.35 Although the character called the “Beloved Disciple” did not explicitly appear until chapter 13, he was almost certainly implicitly (i.e., anonymously) present in 1:40 with Andrew, Peter’s brother, as one of the two first disciples of Jesus. The placement of the Beloved Disciple as a witness at both the very beginning and very end of the Gospel creates a technical literary device common in the ancient world called the inclusio of eyewitness testimony. This technique not only makes clear that this disciple fulfilled the requirements of apostolic testimony (“from the beginning you have been with me” [15:27]), but it also serves to solidify the witness as participating in the reliable practices of historiography.36

Second, the Beloved Disciple is established as the author of the Gospel: “This is the disciple . . . who wrote these things” (Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ μαθητὴς γράψας ταῦτα). Although Johannine scholars have often treated authorship as a historical issue, it is more properly a hermeneutical issue. Interpretation of this Gospel has taken the form of a quest for the historical author. “The result: conservative and liberal commentators alike have treated authorship as a matter of apologetics rather than interpretation.”41 But if the origin of the Gospel is grounded in an eyewitness, then it is a testimony that demands that the author be taken seriously. A “witness” demands to be attended to and respected. “Of all literary forms, testimony most vigorously resists an interpreter’s reading something into it.”42 It is a generic form that innately requires the reader to “believe.” This does not guarantee the testimony is true; it might be a false witness. But the reader can only determine its truthfulness from the inside as one who receives the witness.43

Several aspects of the Gospel’s “witness” discussed in the first point are also directly related to the Gospel’s “author.” For example, an “insider” position is assumed by the author, for whom this Gospel is part of his eyewitness testimony, an ancient, historiographic practice (on eyewitness testimony, see Introduction). Other examples include the use of anonymity, the literary device of the inclusio of eyewitness testimony, and the representation of the Beloved Disciple as an ideal and authoritative witness. Just as a faithful witness is an author (of a testimony), so a faithful author (of a testimony) is also a witness. Only in this way does the “author” of the Gospel of John become as much a hermeneutical and theological issue as he is a historical one (on the identification of the historical author, see Introduction). To treat the authorship of the Fourth Gospel as an isolated debate is to compartmentalize inappropriately the message from its messenger.44 The role of eyewitness testimony in ancient historiography therefore is not primarily based on a relationship to a text (in this case, the Gospel) but to an author, one whose (interpretive) witness explains the text’s origin. The Gospel is ultimately the Beloved Disciple’s synthesis “of history and story, of the oral history of an eyewitness and the interpretive and narrativizing procedures of an author.”45

Third, the Beloved Disciple is established as the model disciple of the Gospel: “And we know that his testimony is true” (καὶ οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀληθὴς αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία ἐστίν). This is not the first time the narrator has described his witness as true (see comments on 19:35). By “model” disciple we are not suggesting that the Beloved Disciple functions as a more virtuous or more “Christian” disciple, but that he functions for the reader as an ideal reader, for he prefigures the ideal reader who receives, believes, and is affected by the testimony of the Gospel. “The Beloved Disciple is a model reader who not only follows testimony in the sense of understanding it, but follows out its implications to the point where his or her own life becomes a life of testimony. The aim of the author is to make the reader a disciple.”51

The reader models the Beloved Disciple by receiving his testimony, “by accepting the role of the narrate,”52 and by responding according to the rhetorical strategy of the narrative’s witness. As the first stage of the conclusion explained, the Gospel desires the reader to believe and have life in Jesus Christ (20:30–31). Just as the Beloved Disciple “saw and began to believe” (20:8), the reader of the Gospel “reads and believes.” By using the “we” of authoritative testimony (see comments on 1:14), the Beloved Disciple gives “added force to the self-reference,” for “the plural intensifies the authority expressed.”53 Its use in the epilogue forms an inclusio with the authoritative “we” in the prologue (1:14). The entire Gospel therefore has become the confession of a personal eyewitness of the person and work of Jesus Christ. The Gospel invites the reader to participate not only in the Beloved Disciple’s authoritative testimony but also in his personal confession of faith.54

21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if each one were written down, I suppose not even the world itself could contain the books that would be written (Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ ἃ ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἅτινα ἐὰν γράφηται καθ’ ἕν, οὐδ’ αὐτὸν οἶμαι τὸν κόσμον χωρῆσαι τὰ γραφόμενα βιβλία). If v. 24 is in reference to the author (the Beloved Disciple), then v. 25 is in reference to the text (the Gospel of John). The Beloved Disciple, speaking for the first time in the first person, concludes with a “hyperbolic praise” of his Gospel’s subject matter, a common literary convention, although the robust Christology of the Gospel and the truth of its subject matter reduce the hyperbole to reality.55 By referring to what could be written but was not, the author magnifies Jesus as worthy of endless description and gives greater emphasis to what was written.56 Since v. 24 alludes to the prologue, it is likely that this verse is as well. The Jesus to whom he bears witness is the incarnate Word, the one through whom “the world” (τὸν κόσμον) was made; there is not enough space in the world to contain the “words” needed to make known the fullness of the Word.57 While the use of this canonical Gospel should not be minimized, it is fair to say that even this part of God’s special revelation is unable to say all that could be said about God.58

This final verse makes clear that this Gospel was never intended to say it all, something the church clearly recognized with its appropriate reception of four authored Gospels. Yet as this Gospel has made clear, there is only one gospel of Jesus Christ, and this Fourth Gospel, the Gospel according to John, has intended to make it known. Let the reader believe its message and the church receive its life.

Theology in Application

The Gospel concludes in a personal way, depicting the ministerial callings of the two primary disciples in the Gospel, Peter and the Beloved Disciple, in order to orient the reader to the life and ministry of a disciple of Jesus Christ. This final pericope in the narrative serves as a conclusion to the Gospel and an introduction to its author, who is revealed to be the Beloved Disciple, for whom this Gospel was his personal ministry to its readers, the church. In this pericope the epilogue brings conclusion to the narrative of the Gospel by facilitating the readers’ understanding and application of believing and living the message of the Gospel.

The Christian Life: To Love and Follow Christ

According to this pericope, the Christian life is given direction by a love of Christ and is displayed by an obedience to follow Christ. The two-part nature of the Christian life was first expressed by the alternation of words for “love” between Jesus and Peter, which caused a resolution-requiring dissonance that encourages a proper love for Christ. Just as God’s innate love explains his intentions and purposeful response to the sinful world, so also does the Christian’s love of Christ explain and give guidance to their purposeful life in God. The foundational love is not our love for God but God’s love for us, for it was not we who loved first (as if his love were contingent upon ours) but God who first loved us (1 John 4:10). Christian love of God is not merely a result of his love; it is also a response to his love. And in this Gospel the logical expression of Christian love is action, just as God’s expression of his love for us is displayed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is why Jesus, after grounding Peter’s discipleship in a love for him, immediately commands for its expression to be in the form of an obedient and sacrificial following of him. To follow Christ is to make one’s own life a subset of the life of Christ. Just as the love of God was expressed by the cross, so the Christian’s life is to be a cruciform expression of their love of God.

Life, Death, and the Glory of God

The kind of discipleship Jesus commanded of Peter was a “life of outstretched hands.” But God’s intention was not ultimately the end of his life (death) but its fullest expression, that he “would glorify God” (v. 19). The church has long believed that the glory of God is “the chief end of man” (Westminster Shorter Catechism 1), and according to this pericope Peter’s end would do just that. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ serves as an invitation for the disciples of Jesus, who are invited to participate in their fullness—his death and the new life he provides—and therefore to participate in the fullness of life in God through Christ and by the Spirit. Ultimately, just as Christ gave his life as a gift to his children, so the Christian gives their life as a gift to their God. In this way all Christians are called to martyrdom, becoming a living sacrifice for God for the glory of God (Rom 12:1; 1 Cor. 10:31).

Shepherding the Sheep of the Good Shepherd

The exchange between Jesus and Peter reveals several aspects of the ministry Peter represents. First, the reinstatement of Peter is representative of every minister of Christ, who is equally in need of the grace and forgiveness Jesus provides. The gracious work of Christ in the life of the minister reminds them of both their place and purpose in relation to Christ and forces them “not to examine themselves facilely but to scrutinize [themselves] thoroughly.”59 Peter’s reinstatement required an understanding of the entire Gospel’s message regarding the love of God that not only is founded upon Christ’s person and work but properly ends with him (see v. 15).

Second, the commission of Peter, because it has been variously interpreted, needs to be properly applied. Beasley-Murray suggests that this is “the one issue in the entire Gospel where members of different Christian confessions not only divide, but find difficulty in understanding the answers of others.”60 Although Roman Catholics have used this pericope to establish the primacy of Peter as the first pontiff (often in connection with Matt 16:13–20), there is nothing in this narrative that explicitly supports such an interpretation.61 The narrative does, however, establish the primacy of Jesus as the chief pontiff, not only by giving the commission to Peter but also by calling the sheep his own (“my sheep”). There is nothing explicit in vv. 15–17 that suggests a unique role (as the “highest” undershepherd) or a distinct authority for Peter in relation to the other disciples. In this pericope Peter is restored to his intended apostolic role, not as the replacement for Christ’s role. Peter represents all ministers in the church who receive the role and authority to shepherd the sheep of Christ assigned to them. And their love for Christ is directly reflected by the manner in which they feed and shepherd Christ’s flock.

Receiving the Testimony of the Beloved Disciple

In this pericope the Beloved Disciple becomes for the reader the conduit or access point. The personal nature of the Beloved Disciple’s witness gives direction to the kind of reception required of the reader by displaying how the testimony of the Gospel is to affect the reader. That is, as both the author of the Gospel and a character in the Gospel, the Beloved Disciple is able to fasten himself to the reader (and their reading experience) in such a way that he guides the interpretation of the very book he authored. The appropriate reader follows the lead of the Beloved Disciple by “accepting the role of the narratees, by understanding Jesus from the perspective of belief.”62 The Beloved Disciple therefore is not merely the author; he is also a maker of disciples and fellow followers of Jesus: “It is his hope that each reader will be so drawn by the Gospel to believe in Jesus and to follow him, that he will discover himself in the true discipleship of the Beloved Disciple.”63 In this way the origin of the Gospel (21:24–25) perfectly matches its purpose (20:30–31).

The Origin of the Gospel

Scholarship on the Gospel of John has been fascinated with the Gospel’s origin, its author(s), source(s), and its historical location. Yet when the Gospel addresses its own origin, it places it in the true witness of a believing testimony (v. 24). Even more, the Gospel primarily locates its origin in its subject matter, Jesus Christ, about whom books filling the world would be too few (v. 25). While scholars have called the mystery of John’s origin “the Johannine Problem,” that is, an unanswerable question, it might best be viewed as its own kind of answer. Helpful here is Hoskyns’s description of the author’s concern with his Gospel’s origin: “At the end of our inquiry he remains no more than a voice bearing witness to the glory 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.”64

This Gospel is God’s Word, and its content directs us to its true subject matter, God himself. At the end of the Gospel, both author and reader alike are beckoned to believe and find life in the one who was “in the beginning” (1:1). For this Gospel declares the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is not a problem; it is the answer to the question of (eternal) life itself.