Michael's Abbey Bible Study - Gospel of John Chapter 21

1 After these things Jesus manifested Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and He manifested Himself in this way. The Sea of Tiberias is another name for the Sea of Galilee. Galilee is the region, and Tiberias is the largest city on the coast.
We should not make too much of the word "manifested". In Greek the word ephanerosen means literally to make known or reveal, as in to pull away a covering of a surprise. Manifested is an appropriate way to translate it as we know this was done by His power as God.
2 Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples were together. The sons of Zebedee were James and John, the author of this gospel. Peter, James and John were the inner circle of 3 disciples that were closest to Jesus. They were the only three who witnessed the transfiguration. John did not include that event in his account. Thomas was the disciple called doubting Thomas from 20:24-29. Nathanael was the disciple Jesus saw sitting under a fig tree from a great distance in 1:45-51. The other two disciples may or may not have been in the twelve.
3 Simon Peter *said to them, "I am going fishing." They *said to him, "We will also come with you." They went out and got into the boat; and that night they caught nothing. Fishing was how they made their living before they were called by Jesus. Many commentators and pastors try to make the argument that they were not obeying their calling and Jesus' commands in going back to their old lives. As evidence they point to the fact that they caught nothing. First, that is not proof of anything as anyone who has studied the Gospel of John should know. Chapter 9 makes it clear that adverse conditions are absolutely not a sign of bad behavior. And like in chapter 9, their failure may have been only to facilitate a miracle by Jesus. Second, this ignores that Jesus told them he would meet them in Galilee before the crucifixion in Matthew 26:32 and after in Matthew 28:10. Therefore they were obeying Jesus in waiting there for Him.
4 But when the day was now breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. This does not appear to be a miraculous disguise situation like some of the other encounters recorded in the other gospels. It was simply seeing a man at a distance on the beach and being unable to see his face in detail.
5 So Jesus *said to them, "Children, you do not have any fish, do you?" They answered Him, "No." Literally Jesus said, "Children, you do not have one fish?" Calling them paidia, Greek for children was not an insult. It literally referred to boys or girls from infancy to seven years old, of an age that puberty could not possibly have begun. However, it was used of adults to mean they were open to instruction. It was also used to refer to a person who is treasured like a parent treasures a child. Thus this was a compliment or a term of endearment.
6 And He said to them, "Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat and you will find a catch." So they cast, and then they were not able to haul it in because of the great number of fish. The disciples cast their net on the right side of the boat as Jesus instructed, although they still did not know it was Jesus. They had been away following Jesus for over three years and conditions change from season to season. It is likely that they thought this was a local expert who was better able to read the conditions than those who had been away so long. Thus it was worth trying the advice as they had nothing to show for their efforts yet. But to get such a great haul of fish with one casting was certainly miraculous.
7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved *said to Peter, "It is the Lord." So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea. Again, the disciple Jesus loved was John. John was the first to recognize that this was a miracle of Jesus and tells Peter his conclusion. Peter was wearing only his tunic which still preserved modesty but allowed for greater freedom of movement and was cooler. This would also keep the outer garment clean. As usual, Peter plunged into the water and swam to get to Jesus as quickly as possible.
8 But the other disciples came in the little boat, for they were not far from the land, but about one hundred yards away, dragging the net full of fish. The boat probably couldn't handle all the fish and them without sinking. It would have been a group effort to hold the full net and paddle towards shore. But no one could begrudge Peter's desire to get to Jesus.
The distance from shore was literally two hundred pechon, which is the Greek word for cubit. A cubit was an imprecise measurement that was the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger at this time. In other places and times it was from the elbow to the end of the knuckles of a fist. Here it was about 18 inches, making the distance about 300 feet or 100 yards.
9 So when they got out on the land, they *saw a charcoal fire already laid and fish placed on it, and bread. After working until morning they were certainly hungry. Jesus provided exactly what they needed. It is very likely that this was by miraculous means.
10 Jesus *said to them, "Bring some of the fish which you have now caught." Jesus told them to bring from the fish they had caught. There was no need as Jesus could produce all that was needed. John does not record if the fish were cleaned and added to the fire. Most likely this was symbolic of God working through His creation, and of us taking a portion of what we produce for the purposes of God. This was not a tithe, but a portion as they chose out of their abundance.
11 Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn. Since Peter was already out of the boat there was no need for someone to jump out to haul the net onto the shore, although at least one had to jump out to bring in the boat.
Small fish that did not escape through the net would be tossed back. But this did not mean that all the caught fish would be large. Such a big quantity of large fish would almost certainly tear the net. This was another miracle of Jesus.
12 Jesus *said to them, "Come and have breakfast." None of the disciples ventured to question Him, "Who are You?" knowing that it was the Lord. Now that they all heard his voice and were close enough to see his face they all could see it was Jesus. Being close enough to eat with Him they certainly saw the scars from the crucifixion.
13 Jesus *came and *took the bread and *gave it to them, and the fish likewise. Jesus served the disciples their breakfast. It is very likely that Him serving them bread and then fish reminded them of the times he fed a multitude in the countryside by handing them bread and fish to pass out to the people.
Any shred of doubt that this was God incarnate was eliminated by His resurrection, and here He was being their servant. Even in these last few days Jesus was demonstrating what it means to be His disciple. Jesus' leadership was by example, teaching, correction exortation, and rebuke. We should do the same. He did not claim titles or position. If referring to a title for Himself, such as one from prophecy, Jesus always used it in the third person as if He was talking about someone else. And though it was His right as he was God and creator to be head of every earthly institution, He did not claim that to be a thing He desired.
14 This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after He was raised from the dead. John calls this the third time Jesus made himself visible to the disciples. This sounds like a contradiction as the woman who saw Jesus at the tomb was also a disciple, and John records two other appearances behind locked doors. Writers at this time were more attuned to numerical differences as evidenced by there being both a singular and plural form of "you" and there being a case ending meaning two and a separate case ending meaning plural. The appearance to Mary was an appearance to one disciple, not disciples plural. Also, the two appearances behind closed doors could be viewed as a single appearance as they were the same with the exception of Thomas being present. Regardless, judging this using modern taxonomy and semantics is a good way to tie ourselves into useless knots.
While Jesus and Peter primarily repeat themselves in verses 15-17, there is a variation in the Greek words used. Translators reflect these differences by the use of different words in English that approximate both the similarities and differences. Many commentators and pastors emphasize these differences, especially in the words used for love in Greek. However, some of their conclusions appear to put more into the text than is really there. To clarify this the differences are covered in detail here. The Greek words are given in their inflected form which includes the person, tense and mood, followed by the uninflected form of the verb.
15 So when they had finished breakfast, 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." He *said to him, "Tend My lambs." 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." He *said to him, "Shepherd My sheep." 17 He *said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus *said to him, "Tend My sheep. While their hunger was satisfied, it seems their need for sleep was not. If so, the need for sleep was probably greater after the meal. This is the time Jesus chose to teach a lesson to Peter in verses 15-17. From verse 20 it appears that Jesus and Peter went for a walk while they talked. The reason for this lesson may be because Peter was the one always charging forward, especially to be with Jesus, and He wanted Peter to have a different focus. Regardless, this lesson is for all Christians, especially those that would claim to be leaders.
With small variations in the wording, these verses are a repetition between Jesus and Peter. In each verse Jesus asked Peter if he loves Him. Peter replied that Jesus knows that he loves Him. And Jesus gave him a command to feed his lambs. In the first exchange Jesus asked Peter if he loves Him more than these. "These" is specifically referring to the other disciples present, but also refers to other people in general. This is consistent with Jesus' teaching and Judaism that the love for God must be above the love of anything else. The third time causes Peter pain to think Jesus didn't believe him.
First, let's look at the differences in how love is used. Each time a verb for love is used by Jesus it is in the second person present active indicative tense, and by Peter it is in the singular present active indicative tense, meaning these are both a present and continuing action. The inflected forms of the verbs have the same meaning as the root, but reflect the different tenses of the verb.
15 Jesus used agapas from agape for love.
Peter used philo from phileo for love.
16 Jesus used agapas from agape for love.
Peter used philo from phileo for love.
17 Jesus used phileis from phileo for love.
Peter used philo from phileo for love.
I have heard and read a lot of nonsense about the four Greek loves from pastors and others. There seems to be a lot of projection by some people of what they wish these meant rather than the actual meanings. I say this to prepare you as there is almost certainly one or more contradictions to what you have heard and believed about them. But to understand if there is anything significant about the change in wording we must use the real definitions and not something someone thought sounded good a few years ago.
Agape is the highest love in Greek philosophy. Many say this is unconditional love, but that is a misunderstanding. It is a love that does not require a return of love, or a benefit to the one expressing it. This is a love that comes from the will, a decision. Even when getting hate in return agape continues. But it is not unconditional. It can be ended by choice, which is usually because of a change in conditions. A person can have agape love for another even though the other does not return it. But it can stop, such as when the other does a heinous act. The most accurate way to describe it is love regardless of a lack of return or benefit.
Phileo is most often referred to as brotherly love, but that is oversimplified and often misunderstood. It does not come from family affiliation even though it is common among family members. This is reciprocated love that comes from experience. Between people it refers the warm feeling that comes from shared difficulties and triumphs. When used about situations or things it is based on the pleasure or benefit one gets from it. This is love that is like a brother, a brother-like bond. It is is brotherly rather than about brothers. However, phileo and agape can sometimes be used interchangeably. For example, the Pharisees phileo loved the attention and deference they got from the other Jews, the choice seats, and the power. But in some instances scripture uses agape for the exact same things.
Storge is not in these verses but is listed here for clarity. This is familial love. This is not necessarily reciprocated love, although that is normally the case. A mother can still storge love a child that hates them. Phileo love would diminish in that circumstance. A person can have storge love towards someone they dislike. This is the closest to unconditional love of the four, except it does have the condition of family status.
So does the change in love verbs matter here? The early church leaders, (euphemistically referred to as the church fathers,) were utterly silent about the change between agape and phileo in these verses. There is no comment on it for hundreds of years. Additionally, the hard and fast distinctions between the Greek four loves held by Christians today are not reflected in secular Greek writing of the first century. Nor does Jesus correct Peter's choice of a different verb. Thus it is almost certain that the change in verb usage is not about the differences between the two verbs, but is about the traits they have in common. Both are acts of conscious thought and will. Both are from knowledge. Thus the only sure information we can get from the change in verbs is that they are referring to a kind of love that is based on those common qualities.
Next, let's look at the differences in Peter's reply. Peter uses two different words for know. In all three verses Peter says that Jesus knows, oidas from oida, that he loves Him. In verse 17 Peter says you know, oidas, all things and you know, ginoskeis from ginosko, that I love you. Oida is to know, and ginosko is to know from experience. In other words, Jesus knows because He is God, and He knows because He has personal and extended experience with Peter. The only thing this difference means is that the third time Peter was emphasizing that Jesus knew him personally from years of experience and shouldn't need to ask.
Next, let's look at the differences in how Jesus refers to those Peter is supposed to to feed. In 15 Jesus used arnia from arnion which means lamb or little lamb, although it was also used for sheep of any age in the first century. In 16 and 17 Jesus used probation, which is a diminutive of probaton, which means sheep. In other words, this is like using Johnny for a boy named John, or Mikey for a boy named Mike. It is another way of saying young sheep or lamb. But like arnion, it was also used for sheep of any age. Both words strongly imply lamb, but could also be used for sheep in general. From the context of Jesus' command, what is important is not whether He meant lamb or sheep, but that He was referring to their need to be cared for.
Finally, let's look at the differences in Jesus' commands to feed his lambs. Each time Jesus uses a verb for feed it is in the second person present active imperative tense, meaning this is a command. There are differences between the verbs used in Jesus' commands here.
15 Jesus commands to tend, boske from bosko, which means to feed or graze.
16 Jesus commands to shepherd, poimaine in Greek, which means to shepherd or feed. The Latin word for shepherd is pastor, which is where we get that title from.
17 Jesus switched his command back to boske.
Here the difference is without much difference. All three refer to feeding of sheep.
The significance of verses 15-17 is not the differences in these three exchanges between Jesus and Peter, but in their repetition. The variation in words with the same meaning was like a parent who gives the same instruction to a child over and over, but changes the wording to make sure they heard and understood without tuning out the repetition. The purpose of the repetition is to foot-stomp the message Jesus was trying to get across. Feeding His sheep means teaching, specifically teaching the gospel and scripture. The scriptural qualifications for church elder include being rooted in sound doctrine and being able to teach. Both of these require that we know scripture and be able to discern what is false from what is scriptural. If leaders really love Jesus they will feed His sheep good food and not the poison of the enemy. Leaders that don't care about the truth don't care about Jesus.
18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go." Jesus followed his foot-stomping of the command to teach with a prophecy specifically about Peter.
Gird is an exact translation of the Greek word zonnumi. But gird itself is an archaic English word that also requires translation in today's world. It literally means tying the sash that holds the clothes together, and is the last step of getting dressed throughout most of history. While the button was invented about 2000 B.C. it wasn't commonly used to fasten clothing until the 20th century. And the zipper wasn't even invented until the 20th century. To tie the sash, or gird, was euphemistically used to refer to the entire process of getting dressed and can be accurately translated as dressed.
Jesus used metaphoric language for this prophecy. Basically, Peter could dress himself and go where he chose now as a young man. But when he is older he will stretch out his arms, will be dressed by another, and taken someplace against his will. This prophesied that Peter would be crucified. The stretching out of his hands is for crucifixion. Those who are crucified do not choose what they are wearing. And either a cross or the death is the place he doesn't wish to go. The wording is that Peter will stretch out his hands rather than it being done involuntarily. This is likely pointing to the historical fact that Peter went to the cross rather than deny Jesus.
Some commentators attempt to make a point that this doesn't actually mean crucifixion. However, verse 19 makes it clear this was about Peter's death. And the record is that Peter was crucified rather than recant his faith. There is a tradition that Peter chose to be crucified upside down because he felt he did not deserve to die the way Jesus did. However, this tradition was not written until about 200 AD and is not supported by the historical record. Being upside down would prevent the torture death by suffocation that was the point of crucifixion, and it is very unlikely this would have been allowed.
19 Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He *said to him, "Follow Me!" This makes it clear that the prophecy in the previous verse was about Peter's death. Jesus finished with the command to follow Him. This command is connected to Peter's death. However, Jesus was not commanding Peter to die as a martyr. In Matthew 10:23 when Jesus was sending out the twelve to evangelize Israel He instructed them to flee to another city when they were persecuted. Jesus was telling Peter that he should follow Him. That means to evangelize and teach as Jesus did. But in doing so without fail, Peter would become a martyr for Jesus.
20 Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?" This was an exhaustive way of being completely clear that the disciple who was following was John, the author of this gospel.
21 So Peter seeing him *said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?" In the context of hearing how he will die, Peter asked Jesus about John's fate.
22 Jesus *said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!" Jesus' reply was a little on the harsh and scathing side. Jesus was literally saying that even if He wants John to remain here and alive until the second coming it was none of Peter's business. Peter should worry about his own duty, which is to follow Jesus. Following Jesus certainly meant teaching others the gospel and the scriptures just like Jesus did. In the case of Peter this also meant to follow Jesus to crucifixion. As one led to the other, it seems to mean both.
23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?" This verse explains that some took Jesus' statement in verse 22 to be literal. But Jesus was teaching Peter using hyperbole and not being literal.
24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. John was identifying himself as the author of this gospel, and an eyewitness to the things he documented here. That his testimony was known to be true refers to the hundreds of other eyewitnesses who would have refuted this gospel it if it wasn't true. But they universally affirmed that this was true. False gospels were rejected by the church because they contradicted the eyewitness testimonies.
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written. It wasn't possible to include everything that Jesus did and said in John's gospel account. As John wrote here, the whole world may not be big enough to contain a detailed record of everything. Even if this is hyperbole, it is certainly true that an exhaustive and detailed account would take thousands of volumes and many lifetimes to write.
This verse makes it clear why there are differences between the four gospels. Each author included the events that were relevant to their gospel. They couldn't include everything.

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB © The Lockman Foundation.


If you have a question, you can find the email address to write to on the FAQ Page under the Questions FAQ.

John 20   -   Gospel of John                    

Bible Study Page   -   Michael's Abbey