30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
COMMENTARY
30 If ch. 21 is taken as an epilogue, then vv.30–31 of ch. 20 comprise the original ending of the gospel. Serving as a summary statement, they declare that not all the miracles done by Jesus were recorded in the gospel. Those that were recorded advance the goal of bringing people to faith in Christ in order that they might receive eternal life (v.31). John has been selective in his approach because there is no need to cite every last miracle to elicit the response of faith. The “miraculous signs” to which John refers are the many remarkable deeds performed by Jesus during his earthly ministry. They may include additional, unrecorded appearances of the resurrected Lord as well.
31 The gospels were never intended to be taken as biographies of Jesus. John’s gospel is a carefully constructed narrative of significant words and works of Jesus for the purpose of bringing about faith in Christ. They were written “that you may believe.” Manuscript testimony is rather equally divided between pisteuēte (present subjunctive) and pisteusēte (aorist subjunctive), two forms of the verb “to believe” (GK 4409). The present yields, “that you may go on believing,” indicating that the gospel was directed primarily to believers with the hope that their faith would grow and be strengthened; the aorist translates, “that you may come to believe,” in which case the target audience would be nonbelievers. Since faith is not a static state, both emphases may be involved; neither tense in and of itself may convey the entire meaning. Certainly the gospel of John has been used by the Holy Spirit down through the ages to bring men and women to faith in Christ; equally it has strengthened the faith of believers and led them to an ever-increasing trust in their Savior and Lord. On this basis, “life in his name” encompasses not only life eternal but also the transformed life here and now.
31 NA27 places the sigma in square brackets (πιστεύ[σ]ητε, pisteusēte) in order to represent both readings. The NET’s lengthy study note here reviews the arguments for both readings and then concludes that it is probably best to say that “the evangelist wrote with a dual purpose: (1) to witness to unbelievers concerning Jesus … and (2) to strengthen the faith of believers.” Morris, however, 855 n.82, noting that the present tense πιστεύετε (pisteuete) has strong MS support and that the aorist would normally be expected in a sentence like this, concludes that “the present has transcriptional probability and it is likely to be correct.”
OVERVIEW
The final verse of ch. 20 sounded very much like the end of John’s gospel. In summary fashion he reported that many of the miraculous signs done by Jesus had been included in his gospel so that readers might believe that Jesus is the Christ and have life in his name (20:31). But now follows another chapter, which at least for some scholars seems to be an addition written either by a different author or by the same author at a later time.
A major reason for the additional material is said to have been the desire to correct a misunderstanding about the time of Jesus’ return (“Didn’t he say he would return before John died?” cf. 21:20–23). Arguments supporting the integrity of ch. 21 include: (1) the large number of Johannine idioms, (2) the absence of any break in style, and (3) the lack of any indication that the gospel ever circulated without this last section. Morris, 859, confesses “to being a little mystified by the certainty of those who regard it as self-evident that this last chapter is a late addition.”
1Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Tiberias. It happened this way: 2Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. 3“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.
4Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.
5He called out to them, “Friends, haven’t you any fish?”
“No,” they answered.
6He said, “Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some.” When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.
7Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. 8The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards. 9When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread.
10Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.”
11Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. 12Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. 13Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.
COMMENTARY
1 Chapter 20 begins with an indefinite time reference: “afterward.” There is no indication as to when the incident that follows took place. All we know is that Jesus appeared again to his disciples. (In v.14 we will learn that it was his “third” appearance to the disciples as a group following the resurrection.) The encounter took place by the Sea of Tiberias. This appears to be the official name of the sea (after the Roman emperor Tiberius), though it was commonly called the Sea of Galilee. (In Lk 5:1 it is referred to as the “Lake of Gennesaret.”)
2–3 Seven of the disciples were together at the lake. We are not told anything about the other four (or more, if the “two other disciples” were those on the road to Emmaus rather than two of the original twelve; see Lk 24:13–35). Peter announces that he is “going out to fish” (v.3). It is interesting that in spite of his disowning of Jesus on the eve of the crucifixion, Peter seems not to have lost his ability to serve as leader. “We’ll go with you,” echo the others, and so the fishing expedition begins.
Peter is sometimes criticized for returning so quickly to his old line of work (Mk 1:16). But was he in fact returning to his former career as a fisherman? Is it not more likely that Peter was simply choosing to use his time profitably rather than to remain idle? The disciples “got into the boat”—the definite article may indicate a specific boat, perhaps the one they formerly used in their trade—and shoved off from shore to begin their work. But “that night they caught nothing.” Apparently it was customary in Galilee to fish during the night so that the catch would be fresh for market in the morning.
4 It must have been discouraging to work all night long and have nothing to show for it. As the day was dawning, Jesus “stood on the shore.” The text does not say that he arrived at the shore but that he stood there. It may be that the author wants us to understand that Jesus appeared there quite suddenly, much as he did behind closed doors following his resurrection (cf. 20:19). The disciples, however, did not recognize that the one standing on the shore was Jesus. Perhaps a combination of the distance (about a hundred yards, according to v.8) and the dim light of early morning kept the disciples from identifying Jesus. On the other hand, it is quite probable that Jesus kept them from recognizing him. Remember that Mary Magdalene took the risen Jesus to be a gardener (20:15), and the disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize him until “their eyes were opened” (Lk 24:31).
5 Jesus called out to the disciples and asked about their catch. The way the question is put in Greek (with the negative particle mē) normally expects a negative answer (“You haven’t caught anything, have you?”), but it may be better to take the statement as a cautious assertion (some conjecture mēti, rather than mē ti, and translate, “Surely you have a bit to eat?”). The greeting paidia (“friends,” GK 4086) is the diminutive plural form of the word for “child.” BDAG, 749, notes that it is used figuratively “as a form of familiar address on the part of a respected pers., who feels himself on terms of fatherly intimacy w. those whom he addresses.” Outside the NT, the word for fish used by Jesus (prosphagion, GK 4709) “normally referred to some type of relish eaten with bread, but in Jn 21:5 (the only occurrence in the NT) the reference is to the flesh of fish” (L&N 5.17).
The disciples’ response to Jesus’ inquiry was an abrupt no. They had toiled all night and had nothing to show for it. Calvin, 2:216, writes, “If we always succeeded when we put our hand to any labour, scarcely anyone would attribute the reward of his work to God’s blessing, but all would boast of their own industry and shake hands with themselves.” The night of work without results would serve to underscore the power of Jesus in what he was about to do.
6 Responding to Jesus’ instruction to cast the net on the right side of the boat, the men landed such a large catch that they were unable to hoist the net over the side and dump its load into the boat. This seems to be the meaning of “haul the net in,” because v.10 reports that they towed the loaded net to shore behind the boat. Whether or not this catch should be considered a miracle depends on one’s definition of “miracle.” Some think that a person on the shore would be able to see a large shoal of fish hidden from the view of those in the boat. However, the size of the catch and the dimness of the morning light favor viewing the incident as a genuine miracle. In either case, it is described with considerable restraint.
7 It was John, “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” who first recognized the man standing on the shore. It was not that he had better eyesight but that he had keener insight. Who else but Jesus could have directed them to such a miraculous catch of fish? So he turned to Peter and exclaimed, “It is the Lord!”
Scholars differ as to whether the text intends to portray Peter as putting on his outer garment or only tucking it up under his belt. Taken literally, the Greek text says that he was “naked” (gymnos, GK 1218); however, the word can mean—and in this context undoubtedly does mean—“to be lightly clad” (NASB, “he was stripped for work”). The “outer garment” would be a short fisherman’s coat. If Peter put the coat on, it would seem that he was working in nothing more than a loincloth.
Here the question is why a person would put a garment on if he wanted to swim to shore. One answer is that in the Jewish culture the exchange of greetings was a religious act not to be carried out unless both parties were properly clothed. On the other hand, if Peter was wearing the coat while working and then tucked it up under his belt, it could have been that he had nothing on under it and therefore would not have taken it off to swim (or wade) to shore. The same verb (diazōnnymi, “to tie around, put on,” GK 1346) is used in 13:4 to describe Jesus’ tying of a towel around himself in order to wash the disciples’ feet. The latter option becomes more plausible if we picture Peter wading to shore rather than swimming. The northwestern portion of the Sea of Galilee is relatively shallow for some distance out from the shore.
8 In any case, it was Peter, the impetuous one, who threw caution to the wind to get to Jesus without delay. Temple, 2:229, remarks that Peter had “the stains of recent disloyalty” on his conscience and more than the others needed personal assurance of forgiveness. The other disciples, towing behind them the net full of fish, followed in the boat. They were not far from shore—only about a hundred yards (two hundred cubits, a cubit being approximately the length of a man’s arm).
9 When the other disciples arrived at shore, they found a fire burning, with a fish being roasted along with some bread. It is interesting that the narrative uses three different Greek words for fish: prosphagion (GK 4709) in v.5, the more common ichthys (GK 2716) in v.6, and opsarion (usually a small fish, GK 4066) in v.9.
10 Jesus asks the disciples to bring him some of the fish they have just caught. It would seem that he wished to add them to the one fish (opsarion in v.9 being singular) already on the fire; yet in v.13 he provides breakfast for the disciples by giving them bread and “the fish” (once again singular).
11 Peter climbed aboard the boat and dragged the net full of fish to the shore. We are probably to understand that Peter was the one supervising the work rather than doing it all by himself (though Bruce, 401, accepts the latter position and notes that hauling up the net single-handedly was a tribute to the physical strength of “the big fisherman.”
The net was full of large fish, 153 in number, yet it was not torn. Numbers have a strange fascination for biblical scholars, so there is no shortage of suggestions regarding the symbolic meaning of 153. Jerome reported that, according to Greek zoologists, there were 153 different kinds of fish in the world (thus indicating, perhaps, the wide range of converts that would be brought in by the net of the gospel). Others note that 153 is the sum of the numerical values of Simōn (76) and ichthys (77). It is also the triangular number of 17, i.e., the total of all the numbers from 1 through 17. Seventeen is then thought to represent the law (10) and grace (7), so that 153 would refer to all who come to Jesus either by law or grace. The simplest answer is to take 153 as the actual number of fish that were caught. Even today, fishermen remember the details of all their largest hauls!
12 Jesus invited the disciples to have breakfast with him, but not one of them ventured to question him as to who he was: “they knew it was the Lord.” Apparently there was a certain mysterious quality about the encounter, and the disciples, while convinced that he was the Lord, for some reason didn’t raise any questions. It was common in those days to have two meals per day. The first was the ariston (“breakfast,” GK 756), normally eaten before the day’s work began. As a rule, the major meal of the day was the deipnon (GK 1270; cf. Mk 6:21; Jn 12:2).
13–14 Jesus took the bread and gave it to the disciples; he then did the same with the fish. Many commentators see in the actions of Jesus a reference to the Eucharist. John closes the incident by noting that this was “the third time” that Jesus appeared to his disciples following the resurrection (v.14). Jesus had also appeared to Mary Magdalene and to others (including the disciples on the road to Emmaus), but John is not concerned with what was recorded in the other gospels or with Jesus’ appearances to individuals. His reckoning has to do solely with his own narrative and with the larger group of disciples (20:19–23, 26–29).
NOTES
2 The name Σίμων Πέτρος (Simōn Petros) is typically Johannine. It is used once by each of the other gospel writers and fifteen times by John.
5 The word παιδία (paidia) is translated “children” by the KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, Goodspeed; “friends” by the NIV, JB, NEB, NLT; “young men” by the TEV; and “lads” by Moffatt, Phillips, Williams. While it is not easy to ascertain the degree of familiarity that would be appropriate in the setting, the more colloquial “lads” is probably the closest approximation.
8 In vv.3 and 6 the boat is a πλοῖον (ploion, GK 4450), while in v.8 the diminutive πλοιάριον (ploiarion, GK 4449) is used. That both terms are used of the same vessel would indicate that the latter has tended to lose its diminutive force.
REFLECTIONS
This passage (21:1–14) is often discussed in terms of the spiritual lessons it teaches. From it we learn that (1) Christian leaders are to be fishers of people; (2) unless the Lord directs our activity, we will labor without results; (3) when the net of the gospel is drawn in, it will be filled to overflowing with people from every tribe and nation; and (4) believers are looking forward to the marriage supper of the Lamb, when we will share an eternal feast with the Lord. Scripture often lends itself to homiletical application without specifically teaching the point that is being made. As long as we do not insist that the Bible means what it means to us rather than what it meant to the writer, we are on safe ground.
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
17The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
18Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, 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.” 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”
20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”
22Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. 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?”
15–17 After breakfast, Jesus turned to Peter and asked, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” The phrase “more than these” most likely means “more than these other disciples” rather than “more than these things” (the fishing gear and all that it stood for). Since the pronoun toutōn (“these”) is both masculine and neuter, either reference is possible. On the eve of the crucifixion, Peter had declared his loyalty: “Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will” (Mt 26:33). Perhaps Jesus is reminding him in a gentle way that actions rather than words are the ultimate expression of love.
Some commentators think that in the ensuing dialogue between Jesus and Peter it is significant that two different words for love are used. Jesus twice asks, “Do you truly love [agapaō, GK 26] me?” to which Peter answers, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love [phileō, GK 5797] you.” When he poses the question for the third time, Jesus resorts to Peter’s word, which is then used yet again by the disciple. Unfortunately, those who see a distinction between the verbs as used in this context are at odds as to what the difference signifies.
Some think that Jesus is using the more noble word for love while Peter responds with a less exacting term (TCNT translates, “You know that I am your friend”). Then in posing the question for the third time, Jesus drops to the level of Peter’s word and asks whether even that is true. Others understand the exchange as Peter’s declaring of a warm and affectionate love in response to Jesus’ use of a word for love that may connote a certain aloofness. When Peter twice affirms his affectionate devotion for Jesus, the Lord rises to Peter’s choice of words and asks, “Do you really love me like that?”
Ancient commentators took the two words for love as essentially synonymous and understood the variation as stylistic. Many twentieth-century scholars (especially British scholars) insisted that while the meanings of the two verbs overlap, they are by no means exactly synonymous (see Hendriksen, 2:494–500, for a discussion supporting this point of view). Contemporary writers acknowledge the lexicographical differences but believe that John varied his words not to express fine shades of distinction but for purposes of style and syntax. Several arguments support this position: (1) Both agapaō and phileō are used somewhat at random in the LXX for the same Hebrew word; (2) the common view that agapaō is a higher kind of love does not fit in 2 Timothy 4:10, where the deserter Demas is said to have “loved [agapēsas] this world”; (3) the two verbs are used interchangeably within the fourth gospel (cf. 19:26 with 20:2; 14:23 with 16:27).
If the only variation in the narrative were the two words for love, an interpreter might be more inclined to see in them a difference in meaning. But such is not the case. John also uses two different words for taking care of the flock (boskō, “to feed,” GK 1081, and poimainō, “to shepherd,” GK 4477), two words (or three, following some MSS) for the flock itself (arnia, “lambs,” GK 768, and probatia, “little sheep,” GK 4584), and two words for “know” (oida, GK 3857, and ginōskō, GK 1182). To press the differences between the synonyms for love establishes a hermeneutic that should be applied to the other synonyms as well. This, however, would lead to an unnatural and overly subtle interpretation of the entire encounter. It is preferable to see the differences as stylistic. (I do admit, though, that it is difficult to resist Temple’s suggestion, 2:406–7, that the Lord’s questions follow a declining scale and the commissioning follows an ascending scale.)
Jesus’ charge to Peter (“feed my lambs”) underscores the basic responsibility of those who minister in the local church as pastors and teachers. Sadly, the business of the church and the felt needs of a congregation tend to usurp a pastor’s time and energy. As a result, the flock goes hungry and problems multiply exponentially. Jesus has commissioned the clergy to be pastors, not livestock herders. The measure of ministers’ love for Jesus is clearly demonstrated by their willingness to feed those entrusted to their care.
16 The second question repeats the first, except that the qualifying phrase “more than these” is omitted. Peter’s answer is an exact duplication of his first response. Jesus then instructs Peter to “take care of my sheep.” Poimainō (“herd,” “tend,” “look after”) is a broad term indicating the full responsibilities of a shepherd for his flock.
17 When Jesus asks the question for the third time (“Simon son of John, do you love me?”), Peter is distressed, not because Jesus adopts the word for love that Peter has been using, but because the same question has been asked three times. The reason for the threefold repetition arises from Peter’s threefold disowning of Jesus (18:17, 25, 27). Three times Peter repudiated his relationship with Jesus; three times he is called on to reaffirm his love.
Twice Peter had answered, “You know that I love you” (vv. 15, 16). Now, ashamed that he must repeat himself yet again, he says, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Lindars, 635, notes that if in v.17 there is a distinction in the two words used for “know,” then oidas would indicate knowing as a fact and ginōskeis would be knowing in a feeling and intimate way. Some texts read probata (“sheep”) rather than probatia (“little sheep”) in v.17 and understand the Lord as committing to Peter’s care the lambs (arnia, v.15), the young sheep (v.16), and then the entire flock (v.17). Unless our understanding of John’s use of synonyms is incorrect, interpretations of this sort go beyond what is written.
18 Here again we see the characteristic Johannine double amēn (NIV, “I tell you the truth,” GK 297). It serves to prepare the listener for a truth of unusual importance. For Peter it was an indication of the manner of his death (cf. v.19). Many writers see a proverbial saying behind the text as it appears in John. Bultmann, 713, suggests, “In youth a man is free to go where he will; in old age a man must let himself be taken where he does not will,” but Haenchen, 2:226, notes that it is incomprehensible why anyone would lead a helpless old person where he or she did not want to go.
The proverb had to do with death (that’s where a person doesn’t want to go) rather than the helplessness of old age. If martyrdom is the thrust of the original proverb, then the addition of the clause, “you will stretch out your hands,” would serve to indicate the specific kind of death that awaited Peter. Tertullian (Scorpiace 13), writing in the early third century, reported that Peter was crucified in Rome under Nero, and a century later Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.1) added that Peter at his own request was crucified head downward (cf. the second-century apocryphal Acts of Peter 37–38). Most scholars consider the details of Peter’s martyrdom as embellishments, though they agree that in all probability he was put to death by crucifixion.
19 John notes that Jesus said what he did “to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God.” Martyrdom is not defeat but victory. As the Father was glorified by the death of the Son (17:4), so will the martyrdom of Peter bring glory to God. Peter’s love for his Master resulted not only in a commission to serve but also in the opportunity to die. Love inevitably involves not only responsibility but also sacrifice.
20 Apparently Jesus had taken Peter aside from the others for the discussion recorded in vv.15–19. Now Peter turns and sees “the disciple whom Jesus loved … following them.” John is further described as the one who in the upper room leaned back on Jesus to ask about the one who would betray the Lord (cf. 13:25).
21 Seeing John following them, Peter asked, “Lord, what about him?” It was a natural curiosity on Peter’s part to know what would happen to another of the Lord’s disciples. Having just learned of his own martyrdom, he would wonder about the fate of his companions.
22 Jesus responded by saying that even if John should remain until he came again (the parousia), what concern would that be to Peter? His responsibility was to follow Jesus. Each person has his own calling. For Peter, the man of action, following Jesus meant a life of caring for Jesus’ sheep; for John, the man of thought, it was a life of testifying to the truth as revealed in the man, Christ Jesus (cf. Tasker, 231). One follower may sacrifice his life on a cross while another may complete his years in relative peace, but both are equally the followers of Jesus Christ. Curiosity about the future is a human trait. We should be glad that God withholds from us what the future has in store. To know what tomorrow holds and be unable to alter it would be an insufferable burden. To know that God holds the future is a source of great comfort.
23 Jesus’ hypothetical statement about John’s remaining alive until Jesus should return was misunderstood by some. The rumor spread that John would not die, but John corrected it by explaining what Jesus said to Peter, namely, that if Jesus wanted John to remain alive until he returned, what would that be to Peter?
Over the years there have grown a number of traditions to the effect that the beloved disciple never did really die. One is that down through the centuries he has been wandering throughout the world. Another is that he is only asleep in his grave at Ephesus and that the movement of the ground above the tomb is caused by his breathing. The human mind has an incredible ability to create evidence in support of what it has already decided to believe.
NOTES
15 In an extended translator’s note, the NET offers three alternatives for the interpretation of τούτων (toutōn, “these”) in Jesus’ question to Peter, “Do you truly love me more than these?”: (1) “these things,” i.e., “the boats, nets, and fishing gear nearby”; (2) “the other disciples,” meaning, “Do you love me more than you love these other disciples?”; and (3) “the other disciples,” meaning, “Do you love me more than these other disciples do?” The NET note argues (correctly, I believe) that the third alternative is to be preferred.
19 That the first sentence of v.19 is an explanatory comment by the gospel writer is made clear by placing it in parenthesis, as in the NRSV, NAB, TEV, NET, Moffatt, and others. In v.20 the NIV correctly identifies the writer’s comment by placing it in parenthesis (contra NASB).
The phrase ἀκολούθει μοι (akolouthei moi) in this context means to “follow me in death.” In 1:43 the same expression means “to follow Jesus as a disciple” (cf. 8:12; 10:27, the two other occasions in John where the verb ἀκολουθέω, akoloutheō, GK 199, is followed by the pronoun μοι, moi).
23 The noun ἀδελφοί (adelphoi, “brothers,” GK 81) refers not merely to the immediate disciples of Jesus (as it does in 20:17) but to the larger body of believers associated with the apostle John and his ministry (see Brown, 1110).
OVERVIEW
One’s interpretation of the last two verses of the fourth gospel depends on a prior decision regarding its authorship. Since “the disciple who testifies to these things” is spoken of in the third person, it would seem that the one making this statement would not be that disciple. On the other hand, if v.24 has been added by another person, the gospel would have closed with v.23, a “curious if not impossible way to end a Gospel,” according to Morris, 879. In the immediately preceding verses, John has been writing a narrative in which he was one of the participants. Would it not be quite natural for him to point out that this same disciple is the one who is now testifying to what happened?
It may be that “these things” is intended to refer not only to the final chapter but to the entire gospel as well. This same disciple also wrote them down. Taken in this way, we have a claim to authorship on the part of the disciple whom Jesus loved. Bruce, 409, writes that in v.24 we have “a plain statement that the beloved disciple is the real author of the Gospel.”
24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
25Jesus 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.
COMMENTARY
24 There is no way of knowing who it was that attested the reliability of the author by saying, “We know that his testimony is true.” It could have been a group of elders from the church at Ephesus. They knew that his testimony was true, not because they were eyewitnesses of the events proclaimed, but because the truth had validated itself in their personal experience. They had come to experience and realize the “self-authenticating quality of eternal truth” (Bruce, 410).
25 This verse repeats a theme from 20:30–31 but expands it with considerable hyperbole. If all the things that Jesus did had been written down, there would not be enough room in the whole world to contain the books. The opinion of Lindars, 642, that this is “an exaggerated literary conceit” assigns the author a somewhat tarnished motive. Better to allow the writers of Scripture the same literary freedom that we assign to all other writers. Hyperbole is an exaggeration for the sake of emphasis, not a moral fault.
NOTES
25 Instead of the aorist infinitive χωρῆσαι (chōrēsai, GK 6003), א1 B C* read the unusual χωρήσειν (chōrēsein), which could be either a true future infinitive or an aorist infinitive formed by placing a present ending on an aorist stem (cf. J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1929], 2:216).