Many have observed that 20:30–31 could constitute an appropriate conclusion to the Gospel of John. It follows the climactic confession of faith made by Thomas, the last in a long line of confessions, and also refers back to the seven signs recounted in chapters 1–11. It urges readers to reflect upon these signs and put their faith in Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. There is, then, some merit to the view that an earlier form of the Gospel concluded at 20:31 and that 21:1–25 was added later as an epilogue, either by the beloved disciple himself or by later editors. However, there are strong arguments against this, as Michaels points out:
The transition between John 20 and 21 is not inconsistent with other narrative transitions in the Gospel. If it is a less-than-smooth transition – particularly given the shift from Jerusalem to the lake of Tiberias in Galilee – it is no more difficult than the transition from chapter 5 to chapter 6 (from Jerusalem to the same lake in Galilee!). This, together with the fact that no manuscript evidence exists for separating chapter 21 from the rest of the Gospel as an appendix (much less assigning it to a different author or a redactor), suggests that John’s Gospel be read canonically, with no thought that 20:30–31 is intended as a conclusion or definitive statement of purpose for the Gospel as a whole. Afterthought or not, chapter 21 continues the narrative of chapter 20 in much the same way as chapter 5 continues that of chapter 4, and chapter 6 that of chapter 5, and chapter 7 that of chapter 6 – all with exactly the same phrase, ‘After these things’.1
Köstenberger comments:
The presence of an epilogue seems required by the opening prologue in order to preserve balance and symmetry of structure. The prologue, in turn, is tied in so closely with the remainder of the Gospel that its composition cannot be easily relegated to a later follower of John. Hence both prologue and epilogue frame the Gospel in such a way that they form an integral part of the theological and literary fabric of the entire narrative.2
Whereas chapter 20 described Jesus’ appearances to his disciples in Jerusalem within the first week or so following his resurrection, chapter 21 describes an appearance to seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee some time afterwards. It comprises four sections.
Prior to his death, Jesus had told his disciples that, after he had risen, he would go before them into Galilee (Matt. 26:32/Mark 14:28). Following his resurrection, he told the women at the empty tomb to tell his disciples to go to Galilee, where they would see him (Matt. 28:10), something the angels reminded the women of at the tomb (Mark 16:7/Luke 24:6). In 21:1–14 Jesus’ meeting with his disciples in Galilee is recounted.
1–3. Afterwards [meta tauta, lit. ‘after these things’] Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Galilee. It happened this way: Simon Peter, Thomas (also known as Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. After these things probably refers to the resurrection appearances recorded in chapter 20.
Peter, Thomas and Nathanael all appear earlier in the Gospel, but the sons of Zebedee, James and John (cf. Mark 1:19), have not previously been mentioned by name. The two other disciples are not identified. Thomas is again said to have been also known as Didymus, which means ‘twin’, suggesting that he had a twin brother or sister, of whom no mention is made in any of the Gospels (cf. 11:16; 20:24).
‘I’m going out to fish,’ Simon Peter told them, and they said, ‘We’ll go with you.’ So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing. Some have seen in this activity evidence of ongoing disorientation or a dereliction of duty on the part of disciples who had been commissioned in 20:21–23, but there is no hint of that in the way the story is told. Others have suggested that chapter 21, if added later to the Gospel, may report events that took place earlier than the commissioning of 20:21–23. In this way, the anomaly of the disciples returning to their former occupation after their commissioning is overcome. However, it seems unnecessary to defend the disciples’ actions. According to Mark 14:28; 16:7, Jesus himself had told them to return to Galilee and that he would see them there. It was natural that they would occupy themselves fishing while they waited for him. Though night-time was the best time for fishing, the disciples caught nothing. Such an experience was not without precedent for them (cf. Luke 5:5).
4–6. Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realise that it was Jesus. In a similar way, neither Mary (20:15) nor the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:15–16) realized at first who it was when Jesus appeared to them. The boat was about 100 m offshore (21:8) and, in the early light of morning, it would not have been clear who it was standing on the shore. He called out to them, ‘Friends [lit. ‘Children’], haven’t you any fish?’ When they answered, No, he said: Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some. They followed his command and, When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish. In some ways, this was similar to the experience of Simon Peter and his partners recorded in Luke 5:4–9. In both cases, the authority of Jesus over nature is implied.
7–8. It is not surprising that then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, ‘It is the Lord!’ If the disciple whom Jesus loved is identified as John the son of Zebedee, then he was also a fisherman and was one of the partners involved with Peter on that earlier occasion recorded in Luke 5:4–9. Seeing a similar series of events unfold, he realized that the person on the shore was none other than Jesus. As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, ‘It is the Lord,’ he wrapped his outer garment round him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. The words the niv translates as for he had taken it off (ēn gar gymnos) would, literally rendered, be ‘for he was naked’. Ancient art and literature record that cast-net fishermen worked naked, so perhaps Peter, being naked, wrapped not a full outer garment but a simple loincloth around him, to show respect for Jesus before jumping into the water to make his way to the shore to meet him. However, the verb diazōnnymi, translated wrapped, can also mean ‘hitch up’. It is possible, therefore, that Peter was not completely naked and did not put on a garment at all, but rather hitched up the garment he was wearing so that it would not impede him in the water as he made his way towards Jesus. While Peter led the way to the shore and to Jesus, The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred metres [109 yds].
9–11. There was a welcome surprise awaiting them on the shore: When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread. How the risen Jesus had procured the fish he was cooking or the bread is not explained. He did not ignore the fruit of their labours: Jesus said to them, ‘Bring some of the fish you have just caught.’ Jesus addressed the seven disciples (them), but it was Peter who responded first: So Simon Peter climbed back into the boat and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. The evangelist’s reference to the number of fish is probably not meant to be symbolic, as some have suggested,3 but rather to emphasize the miraculous nature of the catch – there was a large number of fish, they were large fish, but even so the net was not torn.
12–13. Following the landing of the fish, Jesus said to them, ‘Come and have breakfast.’ The next statement is puzzling: None of the disciples dared ask him, ‘Who are you?’ They knew it was the Lord. If this reflects some lingering mental doubts, nevertheless, intuitively they knew it was the Lord. What Jesus did next would have removed any last traces of doubt: Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. They had seen him do this before for a multitude (6:1–13), just as they had heard him tell them on a previous occasion where to net many fish (Luke 5:4–9).
14. This episode concludes with the explanation: This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead. The first of the previous occasions related by the evangelist was when Jesus appeared to them when Thomas was absent (20:19–23), and the second, when he was present (20:26–29).4 This reference in chapter 21 back to events in chapter 20 supports the unity of the Gospel of John and indicates that, even if chapter 21 was added later as an epilogue, it was intended to link in with what had been previously written.
15. When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?’ Jesus singled Peter out and asked him whether he loved him more than these. What more than these means has been variously explained: (1) more than the other disciples present loved Jesus; (2) more than Peter loved those other disciples; (3) more than the large catch of fish, the boats and fishing gear; or (4) more than anything else. Of these options, the first is supported by the fact that Peter had been the most forward in asserting his dedication to Jesus (13:37–38; cf. Matt. 26:33). The second is unlikely because there is no mention elsewhere of Peter’s love for the other disciples. The third is possible if one regards Peter’s decision to go fishing (21:3) as a turning away from Jesus to go back to his old trade. The fourth represents the most comprehensive question: do you love me more than anything else? The first of these options has most to commend it for two reasons: (1) the other disciples were present; and (2) Peter had said, ‘Even if all fall away, I will not’ (cf. Mark 14:29).
In answer to Jesus’ question, Peter said, Yes, Lord, . . . you know that I love you. His response was positive but involved no bold claim to love Jesus more than these. He simply said that his Lord knew the truth about his love for him. In response to Peter’s affirmation of love for him, Jesus said, ‘Feed my lambs.’ His commission to Peter was to Feed (boske) his lambs (arnia) – that is, to care pastorally for those who believed in and belonged to Jesus. That in this verse they are described as lambs may suggest that new believers are in mind.
16. Again Jesus said, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ He answered, ‘Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.’ Jesus said, ‘Take care of my sheep.’ The only differences between this and the previous commission are (1) that Jesus does not ask if Peter loves him ‘more than these’; and (2) that the wording of this commission to Peter is to Take care of (poimaine) his sheep (prōbata), not to ‘Feed’ (boske) his ‘lambs’ (arnia) – but the sense is the same: to care pastorally for those who believed in and belonged to Jesus.
17. Then for The third time he said to him, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ It has often been noted that the verb ‘to love’ (agapaō) used in Jesus’ first two questions is different from the verb ‘to love’ (phileō) used in Peter’s first two answers, but that in the third question and answer phileō is used in both Jesus’ question and Peter’s answer. Sometimes a lot has been made of these differences, but, in fact, agapaō and phileō are used synonymously in the Gospel of John, and we should not make too much of the evangelist’s choice of verbs. 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) and the beloved disciple (13:23; 19:26; 21:7, 20/20:2), and the Father’s love for the disciples (14:23/16:27).
One difference here is the insertion of the editorial comment that Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, ‘Do you love me?’ Why he was hurt is not explained. Did he think that Jesus was not satisfied with his previous answers, or was he hurt because Jesus asked him the same question a third time? In response, He said, ‘Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.’ Peter’s answer was the same as before, except that he prefaced it with the words you know all things, to stress that he really meant it when he said you know that I love you and that Jesus who knew all things knew the state of Peter’s heart. In response, Jesus said, ‘Feed my sheep.’ This time, Peter was charged with the responsibility to Feed [boske] my sheep [probata], meaning that he was to provide spiritual nourishment for believers generally. It is noteworthy that each time Jesus told Peter to feed his lambs/sheep, he made it clear that they were my sheep.
Jesus may have given Peter three opportunities to re-express his love for him, and commissioned him three times as well, in the light of his threefold denial (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.
Two other things call for comment. First, it would seem that Peter’s love for Jesus had to be expressed in the shepherding of his Lord’s flock. Second, similar terminology is used in 1 Peter 5:1–4 and Acts 20:28–29, where elders are charged with the responsibility of shepherding God’s flock. This suggests that Jesus’ commission to Peter to feed his sheep here in 20:15–17 was not understood to be restricted to Peter in any exclusive way. More recent Roman Catholic scholars rightly point out that it is inappropriate to import questions of the Petrine office in Roman Catholicism into the exegesis of this text.5
18–19. Following his reinstatement of Peter, Jesus said to him, Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go. For the twenty-fifth and final time in this Gospel, Jesus prefaces a statement with the words Very truly I tell you (amēn amēn legō soi) to stress its importance. The enigmatic statement that follows contrasts Peter’s experience during his youth, when he dressed himself and went wherever he pleased, with what was to happen to him when he grew old. Michaels sets out the threefold contrast involved:
when you were young – when you get old
you used to gird yourself – another will gird you
and walk wherever you chose – bring you where you do not choose.6
Peter’s independence would be stripped away. He would be forced to stretch out his hands and others would dress him and lead him to a place he would not wish to go. ‘Stretching out the hands’ may be an allusion to the way those to be crucified were forced to stretch out their arms and bear the cross beam to the place of execution (cf. Barnabas 12.4; Justin, Apol. I, 35). The evangelist leaves us in no doubt about the intention of this saying: Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Peter is known to have suffered a violent death (cf. 1 Clement 5.4, written c. ad 96), and it was believed to have been by crucifixion (cf. Tertullian, Scorp. 15.3). If 21:18–19 refers to crucifixion, it is the earliest testimony to Peter’s martyrdom by this means.7 Jesus’ next words to Peter were, in that case, most apt: Then he said to him, ‘Follow me!’ Peter was to take up his cross literally and follow Jesus.
20–21. After hearing Jesus’ prediction concerning his own fate, Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. Perhaps we should picture Jesus taking Peter aside and the other disciple following at a short distance. This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, ‘Lord, who is going to betray you?’ The evangelist adds, When Peter saw him, he asked, ‘Lord, what about him?’ It is not surprising that Peter, having heard of his own fate, wanted to know what was to happen to this other disciple with whom he was so closely associated.8
22. In response to Peter’s question, Jesus answered, ‘If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.’ Jesus’ answer to Peter was emphatic: You [sy] must follow me. While Peter was to encounter a violent death, the beloved disciple might survive until Jesus himself returned (cf. 14:3). However, his fate was not Peter’s concern; he was to focus upon following Jesus. It is worth noting that, in the Gospel of John, the hope of the second coming of Jesus is still assumed, despite the emphasis on the present experience of eternal life and on the coming of the Advocate (see also 1 John 2:28; 3:2).
23. Because of this, the rumour spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. They assumed that Jesus would return during the lifetime of the beloved disciple. It has been suggested that the death of the beloved disciple caused a crisis of faith among these people, and that therefore the final editors of the Gospel added the explanation: But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, ‘If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?’ By dealing with this misunderstanding, the editors would also have dealt with the crisis of faith it had produced. Alternatively, the disciple whom Jesus loved, being aware of speculation that the time of Jesus’ return must precede the time of his own death, sought to correct this misapprehension by explaining that Jesus’ statement was prefaced by the words If I want him to remain. It was not a prediction that he would not die before Jesus returned.
24. This verse contains a reference back to Jesus’ statement about the beloved disciple remaining alive until he returned: This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. It is implied that the testimony preserved in the Gospel of John came from the beloved disciple and that he was also responsible for writing it down. These things is best understood to refer to the content of the whole Gospel, not just the events recorded in chapter 21, much less Jesus’ words to Peter in 21:23.
To whom the We refers, in We know that his testimony is true, has been subject to debate. Some regard this verse as an endorsement of the beloved disciple’s testimony by the final editors of the Gospel of John. Who these editors might have been cannot be determined with certainty. One suggestion is that they were elders in the church at Ephesus. Others suggest that the We in this verse is a literary device employed by the beloved disciple as a self-reference (cf. 1:14; 3:2, 11; 20:2, where the first plural ‘we’ refers to an individual speaker).9
25. The epilogue concludes with words reminiscent of, though not the same as, those found in 20:30: 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. If the ‘we’ of 21:24 is identified as the evangelist’s authorial plural, then we should probably regard the I suppose in this verse as a self-reference by the evangelist/the beloved disciple.10
The use of such hyperbole as the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written was common.11 It functions here as a reminder that the things done by Jesus that are recorded in this Gospel are but a small selection of all those he performed. But, as 20:31 indicates, they are sufficient to provide a basis for faith that Jesus is the Messiah, which will bring readers into the experience of eternal life.
Chapter 21 records a third post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to his disciples following his meeting with Mary at the tomb. In a one-on-one encounter, he asked Peter three times about his love for him. This provided Peter with an opportunity to express his devotion following his threefold denial of his Lord. The episode stands as an encouragement to all who fail their Lord under pressure, showing that he is willing to rehabilitate them. Following each confession of Peter’s love, Jesus commissioned him to feed his sheep. Peter would show his love for Jesus by caring for his people.
After commissioning him, Jesus revealed to Peter the way he would ‘glorify God’. When he became old, he would die by crucifixion. In this way, he would follow his Lord, who himself was crucified, and who said ‘Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me’ (Matt. 16:24; Mark 8:34). Jesus knew what lay in store for himself and he told Peter what lay in store for him as well. No doubt, the Lord would strengthen Peter for this ordeal, just as angels fortified Jesus in Gethsemane for his ordeal (Luke 22:43).
Having been told what lay in store for him, Peter wanted to know what the future held for the beloved disciple. Jesus’ response was: ‘If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.’ This was a reminder to Peter that he was to follow Jesus’ leading for himself, without concerning himself about the plans Jesus had for John – a principle equally applicable to believers today. Improperly understood, Jesus’ reply to Peter gave rise to a rumour that Jesus would return before the death of the beloved disciple. The evangelist had to explain that ‘Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”’ This shows how easy it is for people to jump to wrong conclusions when the word of the Lord is not carefully considered and properly understood.
The Gospel concludes with an endorsement of the trustworthiness of John’s testimony on which it is based: ‘This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.’ This underlines the historical reliability of the Gospel, providing a firm basis for our Christian faith.