Supplementary chapter in which Jesus again manifests Himself after the resurrection.
[There is no reason why this chapter should be ascribed to a different hand. The style is the same as that of the gospel, and although the gospel closed at the end of chap. 20, this supplementary chapter must have become an integral part of the gospel at a very early period. No trace exists of a gospel without it. It is by no means so certain that John 21:25 is Johannine. It seems an inflated version of John 20:30. The twenty-fourth verse is also rejected by several critics on the ground of . This may be valid as an objection; but it is in the manner of the Apostle to testify to his own truthfulness, John 19:35; and the use of the plural instead of the singular is not decisive.]
John 21:1. , John’s usual indefinite note of time, , cf.John 7:4, John 13:4; Mark 16:12; , over and above the manifestations in Jerusalem, at the Sea of Tiberias; see John 6:1.
John 21:2. , seven of the disciples had kept together, Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, further designated as , not to remind us of the miracles wrought there (Reynolds), nor “without any special design” (Meyer), but to emphasise the by showing that even though not belonging to the lake-side Nathanael remained with the rest. John indicates his own presence with his usual reserve, .
John 21:3. As the disciples stand together and see boat after boat put off, Simon Peter can stand it no longer but suddenly exclaims, , “I am off to fish”. This is a relief to all and finds a ready response, , At once they embark, and as we watch that boat’s crew putting off with their whole soul in their fishing, we see in how precarious a position the future of Christianity hung. They were only sure of one thing—that they must live. But , “during that night they took nothing”. —Aristotle, Hist. Animal., viii. 19, quoted by Lampe. [On , see John 7:30 and Revelation 19:20.
John 21:4. , “but early morning having now arrived,” i.e., when all hope of catching fish was past, [or ] , “Jesus stood upon the beach”; for , cf.John 20:19; John 20:26. It seems to indicate the suddenness of the appearance, ’ , “the disciples, however, were not aware that it was Jesus”.
John 21:5. ’ ; The is not merely continuative, but indicates that what Jesus said was in some respect prompted by their ignorance of His identity. This is neglected by Lücke when he says that is not Johannine, and that is the regular term used by Jesus in addressing the disciples. Yes, when He openly addresses them; but here He uses the word any stranger might use, and the rendering “children” retained even in R.V is wrong. It should be “lads”; being the common term of address to men at work, see Aristophanes, Clouds, 137, Frogs, 33; Euthymius, . Jesus appeared as an intending purchaser and cries, ; “Have you taken any fish?” (R.V: “have ye anything to eat?” misapprehends both the words and the situation). , as its composition shows, means anything eaten as seasoning or “kitchen” to bread; being the Hellenistic word used instead of the Attic or . Athenaeus and Plutarch both tell us that fish was so commonly used in this way that came to mean “fish”. has its quasitechnical sense, “have ye caught?” For this sense, see Aristophanes, Clouds, 705 (723, 731), where Socrates asks Strepsiades under the blanket, ; on which the Scholiast remarks, , · , . So that the words of Jesus are: “Lads, have ye caught no fish?” , “ ”. “They answered Him, ‘No,’ ” without any or .
 Revised Version.
 Revised Version.
John 21:6. ’ . “Cast your net on the right side of the boat, and you will find.” They supposed the stranger had been making observations from the shore, had seen a shoal or some sign of fish, and unwilling to come in empty, ’ . “They cast therefore, and were no longer (as they had been before) able to draw it [ , not , see Veitch’s Irreg. Verbs, seems here to be used as we use ‘draw’ in connection with a net, meaning to draw over the side of the boat so as to secure the fish. Contrast in John 21:8] for the multitude of fishes”; often means “on account of” in Dionysius Hal., Plutarch, and even in Thucydides and Sophocles as shown by Kypke.
John 21:7. This sudden change of fortune John at once traced to its only possible source, . “Vita quieta citius observat res divinas quam activa.” Bengel. ’ . The different temperaments of the two Apostles as here exhibited have constantly been remarked upon; as by Euthymius, “John had the keener insight; Peter the greater ardour”. Peter . Some writers identify the with the inner garment or , others suppose it was the outer garment or . And the reason assigned, , they say, is that he had only the . That one who was thus half-dressed might be called is well known (see Aristoph., Clouds, 480); but it was not the outer garment round which the belt was girt, but the inner. And besides, Peter must often have appeared before Jesus in their boat expeditions without his upper garment. And to put on his Tallith when about to plunge into the sea was out of the question. He was rowing, then, with as little on as possible, probably only a subligaculum or loin-cloth, and now picks up his , a garment worn by fishers (Theophylact), and girds it on, and casts himself into the sea.
John 21:8. The rest came in the little boat, ’ . Bengel correctly explains the , “Celeriter hi quoque venire poterant”. They were not far from the land, , “about one hundred yards”. , says Phrynichus, is ; we must use the form . Observe the unconscious exactness of the eye-witness. For the Hellenistic construction with . cf.John 11:18. The others came ’ , “hauling the net of the fishes,” or “netful of the fishes”; genitive of contents, like , a cup of wine. It is needless, with Lücke, to complete the construction with , cf.John 21:11.
John 21:9. ’ . “When, then, they got out upon the land, they see a fire (or heap) of coals laid and fish laid thereon, and bread”; or, possibly, “a fish” and “a loaf,” but see John 21:13. For , see John 18:18. The disciples were evidently surprised at this preparation.
John 21:10. But miracle is not gratuitously wrought; indeed, Weiss maintains there is neither miracle nor the appearance of one in this preparation. Accordingly Jesus says, ’ . And in compliance ’ . “Simon Peter went on board and drew the net on shore full of large fishes, 153, and though there were so many the net was not torn.” Mysteries have been found in this number. In Hebrew characters Simon Iona is equivalent to 118 + 35, i.e., 153. Some of the Fathers understood that 100 meant the Gentiles, 50 the Jews, 3 the Trinity. Jerome cites the authority of naturalists to prove that there were exactly 153 species of fish, and he concludes that the universality of the Gospel take was thus indicated. Calvin, with his usual robust sense, says: “quantum ad piscium numerum spectat, non est sublime aliquid in eo quaerendum mysterium”. Peter never landed a haul of fish without counting them, and John, fisherman as he was, could never forget the number of his largest takes. The number is given, because it was large, and because they were all surprised that the net stood the strain. The only significance our Lord recognises in the fish is that they were food for hungry men.
John 21:12. ’ , Jesus takes the place of host and says, “Come, breakfast,” make your morning meal. ’ , not one of the disciples ventured to interrogate Him; is “to examine by questioning”. Each man felt convinced it was the Lord, and a new reverence prevented them from questioning Him.
John 21:13. When they had gathered round the fire, ’ . “Jesus approaches and takes the bread and gives to them, and the fish” (used here collectively) “in like manner.” Evidently there was something solemn and significant in His manner, indicating that they were to consider Him as the Person who supplied all their wants. If they were to be free from care as His Apostles, they must trust Him to make provision for them, as He had this morning done.
John 21:14. A note is added, perhaps indicating no more than John’s orderliness of mind, explaining that this was the third manifestation given by Jesus to His disciples after rising from the dead. For the form of expression, , see 2 Corinthians 13:1.
John 21:15. , “when, then, they had broken their fast,” a note of time essential to the conversation following. Peter had manifested the most ardent affection, by abandoning on the instant the net of fish for which he had been toiling all night, and by springing into the sea to greet his Lord. But was not that a mere impulsive demonstration, “the wholesome madness of an hour”? Therefore He lets Peter settle down, He lets him breakfast and then takes him at the coolest hour of the day, and, at last breaking silence, says, [better, ] [better, ] ; “Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these?” So far as grammar goes, this may either mean “Lovest thou me more than the other disciples love me?” or “Lovest thou me more than this boat and net and your old life?” It may either refer to Peter’s saying, “Though all should forsake Thee, yet will not I,” or to his sudden abandonment of the boat and fishing gear. If the former were intended, the second personal pronoun would almost necessarily be expressed; but, as the words stand, the contrast is not between “you” and “these,” but between “me” and “these”. Besides, would the characteristic tact and delicacy of Jesus have allowed Him to put a question involving a comparison of Peter with his fellow-disciples? The latter interpretation, although branded by Lücke as “eine geistlose lächerliche Frage,” commends itself. Difference of opinion also exists about the use of and , most interpreters believing that by the former a love based on esteem or judgment is indicated, by the latter the affection of the heart. The Vulgate distinguishes by using “diligis” and “amo”. Trench (Synonyms, 38) uses this distinction for the interpretation of this passage, and maintains that Peter in his reply intentionally changes the colder into the warmer . It is very doubtful whether this is justifiable. The two words are used interchangeably to express the love of Jesus for John, see John 13:23, and John 20:2; also for His love for Lazarus, John 11:3; John 11:5; John 11:36. And that the distinction cannot be maintained at any rate in this conversation is obvious from John 21:17; for if the words differed in meaning, it could not be said that “Peter was grieved because Jesus a third time said, ”; because Jesus had not used these words three times. The words seem interchanged for euphony, as in Aelian, Var. Hist., ix. 1, where Hiero is said to have lived with his three brothers, . In Peter’s answer there is no sense of any discrepancy between the kind of love demanded and the love felt. It comes with a , . Why need He ask? .’ In this appeal to Christ’s own knowledge there is probably, as Weiss suggests, a consciousness of his own liability to be deceived, as shown in his recent experience.
John 21:15-18. Jesus evokes from Peter a confession of love, and commissions him as shepherd, of His sheep.
John 21:16. To this confession, the Lord responds, , “Feed my lambs,” showing that Jesus could again trust him and could leave in his hands those whom He loved. “Lambs” is used instead of “sheep” to bring out more strongly the appeal to care, and the consequent complete confidence shown in Peter. ’ . The second inquiry is intended to drive Peter back from mere customary or lip-profession to the deep-lying affections of his spirit. But now no comparison is introduced into the question, which might be paraphrased: “Are you sure that love and nothing but love is the bond between you and me?” This test Peter stands. He replies as before; and again is entrusted with the work in which his Lord is chiefly interested, . No different function is intended by : it repeats in another form the commission already given.
John 21:17. But to him who had uttered a threefold denial, opportunity is given of a threefold confession, although Peter at first resented the reiterated inquiry: ’ He was grieved because doubt was implied, and he knew he had given cause for doubt. His reply is therefore more earnest than before, ’ . He is so conscious of deep and abiding love that he can appeal to the Lord’s omniscience. The [or with recent editors] reflects a strong light on the belief which had sprung up in the disciples from their observation of our Lord. And again he is commissioned, or commanded to manifest his love in the feeding of Christ’s sheep. The one qualification for this is love to Christ. It is not for want of time no other questions are asked. There was time to put this one question three times over; and it was put because love is the one essential for the ministry to which Peter and the rest are called.
John 21:18. To this command our Lord unexpectedly adds a reflection and warning emphasised by the usual . It had been with a touch of pity Jesus had seen the impulsive, self-willed Peter gird his coat round him and plunge into the sea. It suggested to Him the severe trials by which this love must be tested, and what it would bring him to: , “when thou wert younger” (the comparative used not in relation to the present, but to the following) “thou girdedst thyself and walkedst whither thou wouldest,” i.e., your own will was your law, and you felt power to carry it out. The “girding,” though suggested by the scene, John 21:7, symbolises all vigorous preparation for arduous work. ’ . The interpretation of these words must be governed by the succeeding clause, which informs us that by them Jesus hinted at the nature of Peter’s death. But this does not prevent us from finding in them, primarily, an intimation of the helplessness of age, and its passiveness in the hands of others, in contrast to the self-regulating activity and confidence of youth. The language is dictated by the contrasted clause, and to find in each particular a detail of crucifixion, is to force a meaning into the words. is not the stretching out of the hands on the cross, but the helpless lifting up of the old man’s hands to let another gird him. . “Magnificus martyrii titulus.” Grotius. “Die conventionelle Sprache der Märtyrerkirche klingt an in . ; weil der Zeugentod zu Ehren Gottes erlitten wird.” Holtzmann. The expression has its root in John 12:23; John 12:28. ’ . It is very tempting to refer this to John 13:36, , and probably there is a latent reference to this, but in the first instance it is a summons to Peter to accompany Jesus as He retires from the rest. This is clear from what follows.
John 21:20. ’ . Peter had already followed Jesus some distance, but hearing steps behind him he turns and sees John following. The elaborate description of John in this verse is, perhaps almost unconsciously, introduced to justify his following without invitation. On the word , see Origen, in Joan., ii. 191 (Brooke’s edition).
John 21:21. Peter, however, seeks an explanation, ’ ; “Lord, and this man, what of him?”
John 21:22. To which Jesus replies with a shade of rebuke, ’ . Peter, in seeking even to know the future of another disciple, was stepping beyond his province, ; . Your business is to follow me, not to intermeddle with others. Cf. A Kempis’ description of the man who “neglects his duty, musing on all that other men are bound to do”. De Imit. Christi, ii. 3. Over-anxiety about any part of Christ’s Church is to forget that there is a chief Shepherd who arranges for all. This part of the conversation might not have been recorded, but for a misunderstanding which arose out of it.
John 21:23. ’ ; “There went forth this saying among the brethren, that that disciple should not die”. John himself, however, has no such belief, because he remembers with exactness the hypothetical form of the Lord’s words, ’ Another instance of the precision with which John recalled some, at least, of the words of Jesus.
In John 21:24, the writer of the gospel is identified with the disciple whom Jesus loved, and a certificate of his truth is added. The whole verse has a strong resemblance to John 19:35, and it seems impossible to say with certainty whether they were or were not written by the evangelist himself. The might seem to imply that several united in this certificate. But who in John’s old age were there, who could so certify the truth of the gospel? They could have no personal, direct knowledge of the facts; and could merely affirm the habitual truthfulness of John. Cf. too the of John 21:25 where a return to the singular is made; but this may be because in the former clause the writer speaks in the name of several others, while in the latter he speaks in his own name. Who these others were, disciples, Ephesian presbyters, friends, Apostles, it is vain to conjecture. and refer to the whole gospel, including chap. 21. Besides the things narrated ’ . The verse re-affirms the statement of John 20:30, adding a hyperbolical estimate of the space required to recount all that Jesus did, if each detail were separately told, .
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Nicol, W. Robertson, M.A., L.L.D. "Commentary on John 21". The Expositor's Greek Testament. https://www.studylight.org/
the First Week after Epiphany