article55

§49 The Third Appearance (John 21:1–14)

In contrast to a series of careful time designations reaching back at least to 19:14 (“it was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour”) and continuing through 19:31, 42; 20:1, 19, 26 (“the day of Preparation,” “the Jewish day of Preparation,” “early on the first day of the week,” “on the evening of that first day of the week,” “a week later”) the account of Jesus’ last resurrection appearance begins with the vague expression afterward (v. 1; cf. 5:1; 6:1; 7:1). How long after, we are not told; nor are we told the circumstances of the disciples’ journey from Jerusalem to Galilee.

The angelic message of Mark 16:7 intended for “his disciples and Peter” was that “he is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” It may be that Jesus’ appearance in verses 1–14 to seven of his disciples at the Sea of Tiberias (i.e., “the Sea of Galilee,” cf. 6:1), with its accompanying dialogue with Peter (vv. 15–22) was remembered by Jesus’ followers as the fulfillment of that specific promise. The narrator does not say so, but he does seem to have decided at some point that at least one of the “many other miraculous signs … which are not recorded in this book” (20:30) must be written down in order for the book to be truly complete.

There is wide agreement that chapter 21 forms some kind of an appendix to the Gospel. Yet it is closely linked to what immediately precedes it, not only by the connective afterward in verse 1, but by the more detailed notice in verse 14 that it was the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead. Most commentators assume that it is third in relation to 20:19–23 and 20:26–29 as the first and second, respectively. Some argue ingeniously that at earlier stages of the tradition it was the third of Jesus’ Galilean miracles in relation to 2:1–11 and 4:43–54 as the first and second (cf. 2:11; 4:54). But in the Gospel text as it stands, verses 1–14 are most plausibly understood as the third resurrection appearance of Jesus in relation to 20:11–18 and 20:19–29, respectively. If the narrator is the same here as in chapter 20 (i.e., if the writer of the Gospel is also responsible for the appendix), then the reference in verse 14 to the third appearance presupposes the story line of both preceding appearance narratives. The beloved disciple’s announcement, It is the Lord! in verse 7 thus corresponds to Mary’s “I have seen the Lord” in 20:18 and to the group’s “We have seen the Lord!” in 20:25.

Though it is true that the two appearances to disciples as a group are, rather, 20:19–23 and 20:26–29, yet the disciples in chapter 21 are, in any case, not the same group to whom Jesus appeared in chapter 20. They are not “the Twelve”; nor are they eleven or ten; they are seven in number, and it is not certain that the two anonymous disciples of verse 2 were even included among “the Twelve” mentioned in 20:24. The appearance being described is the third appearance to disciples of Jesus, not to one group of disciples in particular. The appearance to Mary Magdalene was a distinct and unique disclosure to one who functioned throughout as a disciple (even though the term was not used), whereas the appearance to Thomas simply verified and completed the decisive appearance to the so-called Twelve.

Why were the disciples fishing instead of fulfilling the task for which Jesus had sent them (20:21–23)? The Gospel of John does not preserve the tradition found, for example, in Mark 1:16–20 that Jesus called several of his disciples from the occupation of fishing to the task of being “fishers of men” (Mark 1:17). Yet the resurrection appearance described in verses 1–14 builds on that very tradition. The activity of fishing serves the narrator in two ways: first, as a literal description of what the disciples were doing, and second, as a metaphor. This means that the story must be read on two levels.

First, the story purports to be a literal account of a miraculous catch of fish made possible by an appearance of the risen Lord in Galilee. It is not so strange that the disciples are back in Galilee and engaged in the secular task of fishing if one remembers Jesus’ warning to them that “you will be scattered, each to his own home. You will leave me all alone” (16:32). The beloved disciple had taken Jesus’ mother “into his home” (19:27), and even after he and Peter had seen the empty tomb of Jesus they “went back to their homes” (20:10). Temporarily, their “homes” were in Jerusalem, but the same principle can be assumed to apply to their permanent homes in Galilee. Nathanael is specifically said to be from Cana in Galilee in verse 2, and Peter, at least, was explicitly identified as a Galilean in 1:44 (for Thomas and the sons of Zebedee, cf. Mark 1:19; 3:17–18). No blame is attached to Peter’s announcement that he is going fishing or to the other disciples’ decision to join him (v. 3). Fishing as a livelihood is simply one expression of what it means to be “scattered” in the world, and the disciples were indeed scattered, not only by Jesus’ predictive word (16:32), but by his sovereign action as well (18:8–9). Their dispersion in the world was to be the occasion for their mission to the world (17:9–19) and for the gathering of “the scattered children of God” into one (11:52; 17:20–23).

This background in the sayings of Jesus highlights the metaphorical character of verses 1–14. Two things are being described simultaneously: the efforts of the disciples to fill their net with fish and their efforts to complete their mission of making God known in the world by proclaiming the message Jesus gave them. In the first stage of their encounter with Jesus (vv. 4–6), his identity was hidden from them just as it was hidden from Mary Magdalene in 20:14–15 (or from the two disciples on the way to Emmaus in Luke 24:15–30). They saw him only as a stranger standing on the lakeshore early in the morning, after a whole night of unsuccessful fishing (v. 4). The stranger’s passing suggestion that they try the right side of the boat precipitates the miracle (a net loaded with fish) and so dramatizes Jesus’ earlier statement that “apart from me you can do nothing” (15:5). It also makes his identity known, first to the beloved disciple, then to Peter, and finally to the others.

The very form of the stranger’s words may have been the first clue: Throw your net … and you will find (v. 6) perhaps reminded the beloved disciple of the familiar saying of Jesus, “seek and you will find” (Matt. 7:7/Luke 11:9). But it was undoubtedly the immediate, miraculous catch of fish that prompted his recognition of the stranger as Jesus. He had seen the empty tomb and believed that Jesus had gone to the Father (20:8), and he had presumably shared with the other disciples in their decisive meeting with the risen Lord in Jerusalem. Now, like Mary, he had his own encounter with Jesus and the opportunity to share it with Peter and the rest. His testimony, It is the Lord, revealed the stranger’s identity to Peter (v. 7a), though the other disciples may have conclusively known it was the Lord only in verse 12, after Jesus had invited them to his meal of fish and bread.

Peter’s immediate response was to swim for shore, while the other disciples followed in the boat (vv. 7b–8). Normally a person would discard an outer garment in order to swim unhindered, but because Peter was wearing only the outer garment, with nothing under it, he instead tucked it or tied it around himself so as to allow maximum freedom of movement without having to come out of the water naked. Peter did not want to greet his Lord unclothed (contrast the young man who “fled naked” from Jesus and the scene of his arrest according to Mark 14:51). Such vivid detail evidences once more the observation of an eyewitness (presumably the beloved disciple), not primarily the symbolic interests of a theologian.

There are symbolic aspects to the narrative, however. When the disciples came ashore, Peter swimming and the others in the boat, the first thing they saw was a fire of burning coals (v. 9) serving as a reminder (to the reader of the Gospel if not the disciples) of another “charcoal fire” in the high priest’s courtyard (18:18) when Peter had denied his Lord three times. Peter had made his home for a time with Jesus’ enemies, but now he and his scattered companions were back with the Lord at their true home, free to enjoy its fire and share in what Jesus had provided. The story of a miraculous catch of fish merges here into a story of a meal at which the disciples are the guests and the risen Jesus is the host. The stories overlap: The account of the meal is given in verses 9–13, yet woven into this account is the decisive ending of the story about the great catch of fish (vv. 10–11). It is the overlapping that most pointedly raises the question of the symbolic intent of the narrative as a whole. The conclusion to the story of the miraculous catch has suggested to many the theme of mission or evangelization. Fishing, it is urged, is used here as a symbol of being “fishers of men” (Mark 1:17), that is, of winning converts to Christianity by proclaiming the message of Jesus. The full net (153 fish is a lot of fish when they are all large) indicates the successful completion of that mission, while the unbroken net (contrast Luke 5:6) illustrates the principle, voiced by Jesus several times, that “I have not lost one of those [the Father] gave me” (18:9; cf. 6:39; 10:28; 17:12).

Yet when the metaphor is pressed too far, confusion is the result. If the 153 big fish represent “those who will believe in me through [the disciples’] message” (17:20), how is it that Jesus immediately invites his disciples to a breakfast of—bread and fish (vv. 12–13)? The metaphor threatens to become one of cannibalism! It is true that Jesus has fish of his own prepared for the meal (v. 9), but he also tells the disciples to bring some of the fish you have just caught (v. 10). An easy way to clear up the confusion would be to drop the notion of symbolism altogether, but a better way is to recognize that fish are used by the narrator in two distinct ways: first, as a metaphor for the new community brought into being as a result of the disciples’ mission (cf. the “one flock” of 10:16), and second, as one element in a fellowship meal by means of which Jesus and his disciples were reunited.

This distinction does not help very much until it is recognized that bread functioned on occasion in the same two senses. In the second century church manual known as the Didache, “bread” is both an element in the Lord’s Supper (Didache 9.3) and a metaphor for the church (9.4): “As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, but was brought together and became one, so let your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.” Such imagery is based on the Gospel accounts of the feeding of the five thousand (perhaps esp. John 6:1–13). It appears that the narrative of the miraculous catch on Lake Tiberias does for fish what the narrative of the feeding of the five thousand (beside that very same lake, cf. 6:1) did for “bread.” And just as fish were incidental to the “bread” narrative (6:9), so bread is incidental to the fish narrative (21:9, 13). Even the statistical exactness of “five small barley loaves and two small fish” (6:9) and “twelve baskets … left over” (6:13), with the concern “that nothing may be lost” (6:12, RSV), finds its parallel in 153 fish and a net that was not torn (21:11). It is likely that if the feeding of the five thousand in John’s Gospel had not been followed by a discourse on Jesus the Bread of life (6:26–59) it would have been interpreted symbolically with reference to the unity and corporate life of the church, particularly meal fellowship. In chapter 21, there is, of course, no comparable discourse on Jesus as the life-giving Fish—even though Tertullian, more than a century later, could write, “But we, being little fishes, as Jesus Christ is our great Fish, begin our life in the water” (On Baptism 1.3). (Even the letters of the Greek word for fish [ichthys] came to be widely used as an abbreviation for the Greek equivalent of “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.”) Consequently, 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 (cf. e.g., chapter 17), and in particular with the expression of this unity in meal fellowship.

Even the terminology for Jesus’ distribution of the food is broadly similar in the two passages (the italics indicate verbal parallels):

Jesus then took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to those who were seated as much as they wanted. He did the same with the fish (6:11).

Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish (21:13).

The ceremonious, almost liturgical-sounding, descriptions of Jesus’ procedure, as well as the fixed order (first bread and then fish, regardless of which has played the more prominent role in the narrative), suggest that the narrator may have in mind the fellowship meals of the churches he is familiar with as well as the specific historical incidents being described.

The third appearance of the risen Jesus thus brings the disciples from being scattered to their homes in Galilee into full involvement in the mission to which they were called, and so back into table fellowship with Jesus and each other (cf. 13:1–20). John’s Gospel, unlike Luke’s, is not the first half of a two-part work, yet chapter 21 functions as a small “Acts of the Apostles,” told in the form of one more symbolic narrative or sign rather than a continuous account of the establishment and expansion of the church in history. After the sign, it remains only to compare briefly the acts of two apostles in particular as models of what it means to follow Jesus.