D.Authentication (21:24-25)
JOHN 21
VIII. EPILOGUE (21:1-25)
There are two opinions about John 21, one that sees it as an integral part of the Gospel from the very first, and the other that regards it as an addition to an already completed work. We can subdivide the second into those who think that, apart from verses 24-25, it was written by the author of chapters 1-20 and those who think of a different author. If it was not part of the original Gospel it must nevertheless be very early, since the manuscript tradition knows nothing of a twenty-chapter Gospel.1
The principal reasons for thinking of it as a later supplement are, first, that 20:30-31 looks suspiciously like the end of a Gospel, and, second, that chapter 21 is held to contain within it a sufficient indication of how it came to be added. When the Beloved Disciple was growing old and some people thought that Jesus had said he would return before his beloved follower's death, it was necessary to correct the error. Harm could occur to the church if he died and still the Lord had not come. This chapter is held to be the result. Those who see this section as integral to the Gospel point to the fact that there is no break in style. As far as we can see, this last chapter came from the same pen as did the first twenty.2 To maintain that the closing words of chapter 20 form the end of the Gospel is to impose a standard of consistency on this writer that he does not always display elsewhere. Our ideas of what is proper are not necessarily his. And it may be relevant to notice that I John 5:13 is not dissimilar to this verse, but it does not end the Epistle. It is further contended that, while chapter 21 does indeed deal with the expected return of the Lord before the death of the Beloved Disciple, yet this is not the main thrust of the chapter. It is more concerned with Peter's reinstatement. Hoskyns makes the important point that "a Christian gospel ends properly, not with the appearance of the risen Lord to His disciples, and their belief in Him, but with a confident statement that this mission to the world, undertaken at His command and under His authority, will be the means by which many are saved." He points out that the first three Gospels all end this way. John 21 agrees with this, but John 20 does not.3 Lagrange is of the opinion that 20:30-31 originally stood after 21:23, and that this formed the original conclusion of the Gospel. Subsequently 21:24 was added, and this caused the removal of the words to their present place. This is ingenious, but it has not convinced very many.
There does not seem to be any way to reach a final solution. I must confess to being a little mystified by the certainty of those who regard it as self-evident that this last chapter is a late addition. While I think I see the strength of their arguments I incline the other way. If it is original to the Gospel, then of course there is no question as to authorship. If it is not original, it is more probable that it was a later addition by the same author than that it was written by someone else altogether.
A. THE MIRACULOUS DRAUGHT OF FISH (21:1-14)
1Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples by the Sea of Tiberias.a It happened this way: 2Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didy-mus), 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.b 9When they landed, they saw afire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread. 10Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught." 11 Simon 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.
a. 1 That is Sea of Galilee
b, 8 Greek About two hundred cubits (about 90 meters)
This is the longest account we have of any appearance of the risen Lord in Galilee.4 The fishing expedition plainly reveals the uncertainty of the disciples, an uncertainty thatcontrasts sharply with their assured sense of purpose from the day of Pentecost on. It is of interest that Peter has a place of leadership, even despite his fall. And, as happened when Jesus appeared to Mary Mag-dalene, he was not immediately recognized.
1 This verse forms a descriptive heading to the section. "Afterward" is a general time note and does not locate the following events with any exactness (see on 2:12). "Appeared," twice repeated in this verse (NIV renders the second, "happened"), is very much a Johannine word.5 It points us to the very real existence of Jesus in a sphere beyond this world of time and sense. He and his glory were from time to time "manifested" to people here and now; he showed himself as he is. This incident took place "by the Sea of Tiberias" (see on 6:1).
2 John proceeds to list those present. For the full name "Simon Peter" see on 1:40, for Thomas on 11:16, for Nathanael on 1:45, and for Cana on 2:1. John does not name "the sons6 of Zebedee," in keeping with his omission of their names throughout the Gospel. But the expression is precise. For reasons of his own he does not say who the other two were, but his love of precision comes out in the information that there were just two of them.
3 Peter proposed a fishing trip7 and evoked apparently a unanimous response. The impression left is that the proposal was completely spon-taneous. There is no plan, no settled aim. There may have been economic reasons behind the suggestion. It is possible that the thoughts of the fishermen were beginning to turn to their former occupation, now that they had lost the presence of Jesus. We do not know, and this incident is not enough to tell us. All that we can say is that this is a possibility and that the general impression left is that of men without a purpose.8 They went out, though John does not say from where. He has told us only that they were "together" (v. 2), and that the location of the incident was "by the Sea of Tiberias" (v. 1). They embarked in "the" (not "a") boat, but there is no way of knowing what this means. John evidently had the details clear in his mind, but we cannot enter into his knowledge. He proceeds to tell us that that night9 they caught nothing.
4 Just at dawn10 Jesus stood on the beach. It is not said that he came there or the like, and the choice of language may be a hint at the kind of thing we see in the earlier passages, where Jesus suddenly appears behind closed doors. John adds the note that the disciples did not recognize the Lord (cf. Mary Magdalene).
5 Jesus hails them. The diminutive "children" (NIV, "Friends") is not common as a form of address, though parallels can be found.11 Jesus asks whether they have any food. This is apparently directed to discovering whether they had caught any fish, but the word used does not denote fish specifically.12 However, in this context it is quite clear that "fish" is meant. The question appears to expect a negative reply ("you haven't caught any fish, have you?"),13 and the answer is a laconic negative.14 The brevity of the reply is natural in a conversation shouted by disappointed men over a hundred yards of water.
6 The miracle is described with the greatest reserve. First we have Jesus' instruction to cast the net on the right side of the boat.15 I have been unable to find any evidence that indicates which side of the boat was normally used by fishermen on the Sea of Galilee, so it is difficult to know whether this was unusual or not. Some commentators draw attention to passages in classical authors showing that the right side is the fortunate side, but it is difficult to understand what relevance this has to the New Testament. Obedience to Christ, not luck, is the important thing.16 Jesus' instruction is clear, and there appears to have been no discussion. The fishermen simply did as he told them. Possibly they thought that a man standing on the shore might detect some indication of fish that was not apparent to them.17 In any case, after a fruitless night anything would be worth trying. When they cast the net as directed they found themselves unable to draw it (Phillips, "they were now not strong enough to pull it in") for the multitude of fish. "Draw" here probably means "draw into the ship,"18 for a little later we read of Peter's drawing it to the land.
7 The miracle gave the Beloved Disciple all the clue that he needed. In what had happened he recognized the touch of the Master, so he could say to Peter, "It is the Lord!" (for "the Lord" see on 4:1). Impulsively Peter threw his coat19 around him (alternatively, "tucks it into his cincture,"Brown) and threw himself into the sea. Presumably he made his way to the shore, though this is not said in so many words. Peter is not said in fact to do anything between throwing himself into the water here and drawing the net to land in verse 11. It is not said that he reached the shore first or what he did when he got there, and Hoskyns, for example, can state that the disciples in the ship reached the land before Peter did. From the point where Peter leaped into the sea the story is told from the viewpoint of someone in the boat. The actions of both disciples are in character, the one being first to recognize the Lord and the other first to take action. The statement that Peter was naked may indicate something of the custom of the time when fishing, though singling Peter out might alternatively be held to mean that the others were not in the same state of undress. It is, however, not at all certain that Peter was wearing nothing whatever, as the English would lead us to expect. Standard lexicons cite passages where the word means "without an outer garment," "dressed in one's underwear."20 The probability is that here the word means that parts of the body normally covered were exposed, so that Peter was not naked but rather "stripped for work" (RSV, Barclay). This may mean that he wore a loincloth, or perhaps a sleeveless tunic that would not impede his movements.
8 Peter's example of diving into the water was not followed. The rest of the party came ashore more decorously in the little boat.21 We have another example of John's love of precision in the statement that they were about two hundred cubits (i.e., a hundred yards) from22 the shore. They dragged the net full of fish to shore.23
9 When they reached the land and disembarked they saw a charcoal fire (see on 18:18) with fish set on it, evidently cooking, and bread. The picture is one of a breakfast made ready.
10 Evidently there was not an abundant supply, for Jesus now tells them to supplement it from their recent haul.24 quot;Fish" in the previous verse could mean "a fish" (as ARV mg.).25 This probably means that there was not enough cooked for a meal for all, and that Jesus is requesting a further supply. Some, however, think that he wanted the disciples to do no more than simply exhibit some of their catch. They prefer to hold that Jesus was supplying the whole meal, perhaps in a miraculous feeding analogous to that in chapter 6. It is true that nothing is said of the disciples actually eating the fish they caught, but it is also true that there is no mention of a miraculous feeding. It is best to hold that the fish were directed to be brought for use in the meal.
11 When the Master spoke, it was Peter who hastened to act. He went up26 and dragged the net to land. Since the net has already been described as too heavy for the combined strength of the others to haul into the boat, this may mean that Peter organized the hauling of the net to shore rather than that he did it all himself.27 John goes on to tell us that the fish were big ones and that there were 153 of them. It seems probable that he says this for no more profound reason than that this was the actual number that had been caught. A love for exactness and a readiness to supply numerical detail can be docu-mented elsewhere in this Gospel. Temple says forthrightly, "It is perverse to seek a hidden meaning in the number; it is recorded because it was found to be the number when the count was made." A number of commentators remind us that, since the catch was presumably to be shared among the fishermen, it was necessary to count the fish preparatory to assigning shares. Fishermen, moreover, have always loved to preserve the details of unusual catches. Yet we must bear in mind that there was no absolute necessity for including the number (in the unusual haul in Luke 5 no number is given). The fact that John does record it may mean that he saw significance in it. This leaves us free to consider the suggestions that are offered, yet bearing in mind that John some-times records numbers where there is probably no inner significance (such as the number of waterpots in ch. 2).
The significance of the number is sometimes said to be that the ancients held that the total number of kinds of fish in existence was 153. The number is thus taken to symbolize the universal appeal of the gospel; it is meant for all people, not some restricted circle. The trouble with this is that the evidence so far adduced fails to carry conviction; there is no good reason for holding that this was in fact the case.28 Another suggestion arises from the fact that 153 is the sum of the numbers from 1 to 17. That is to say, it is the sum of 10, the number of the commandments and hence of the Law, and 7 representing the sevenfold gifts of the Spirit. Some point out that 153 dots can be arranged in an equilateral triangle with 17 dots along each side, an interesting geometri-cal fact, but "it remains to be explained, in a form which will carry conviction, what bearing this has upon the number of fish here taken" (Lightfoot). Such explanations may carry conviction to some, but I must confess to being completely unimpressed. So with other suggestions.29 If John meant us to discern a mystical meaning he has left us with no guidance. It is much simpler to view the number as a fisherman's record of a fact.30
John goes on to record the detail that the net did not break (as it did in the corresponding stage of the catch in Luke 5). This may point to something added after the resurrection. It was in the power of the risen Lord that the net did not break. "This would signify that the Church, s resources, with Christ in its midst, are never overstrained" (Strachan).
12 Jesus now invited the disciples to have breakfast.31 John mentions no response to this invitation. Instead he tells us that none of them dared to ask who Jesus was. This seems curious. If they knew32 who Jesus was, why should such a question be raised? One usually does not ask those one knows well who they are. Yet it must be borne in mind that there was something unusual about Jesus' appearance. Earlier Mary Magdalene had not recognized him, and that very morning, just a short time before, none of them knew him and even Peter had to be told who it was. But with this unasked question in their minds it must have been a strange meal.
13 Evidently the disciples found it hard to begin eating. There is no record of their responding to Jesus' invitation in verse 12. Perhaps because they did not respond, Jesus now comes (comes where? He had already called them to come to him, v. 12) and gives them bread, and fish too.33 This would have the effect of starting the meal, though John does not mention it. Indeed, from this point on he tells of nothing until the meal is over. And he says no more about the disciples, all the rest of this incident being concerned with Peter.
14 He rounds off this opening section of the story by reminding his readers that this was the third occasion on which Jesus was manifested to his disciples after the resurrection.34 This must refer to meetings with the Twelve, or most of them, for he has already recorded three meetings, one with Mary Magdalene, one to the disciples without Thomas, and one to them with Thomas. But this is the third occasion on which he appeared to any consid-erable group of disciples.
Β. PETER RESTORED (21:15-19)
15 When 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. "Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. 18/ 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!"
This passage must be taken in conjunction with Peter's threefold denial of his Lord. Just as he had a short time ago in the presence of the enemy denied all connection with the Lord, so now in the presence of his friends he affirms three times over that he loves his Lord. There can be no doubt but that Peter was under a cloud with his fellow disciples after the denial. This triple affirmation, accompanied as it was by a triple commission from Jesus, must have had the effect of giving an almost "official" sanction to his restoration to his rightful place of leadership. Yet this should not be pressed too hard. Peter is accorded no absolute primacy, and in particular nothing in this passage indicates that his position was in way superior to that of John. Throughout this chapter John is regarded as especially close to his Lord.
15 The meal concluded,35 Jesus addressed a question to Peter. There is an air of solemnity about John's use of the full name, Simon Peter, and then of his reporting that Jesus used the expanded form, Simon son of John (cf. 1:42).36 The question is a significant one, and it is accordingly prefixed by a serious form of address. Jesus asks, "Do you truly love me more than these?" This last term is not defined, and the question might mean, "Do you love me more than these men love me?" or "Do you love me more than you love these men?" or "Do you love me more than you love these things?'' Against the first way of taking the words is the difficulty of thinking that Jesus would invite one of his followers to compare the strength of his love with that of other disciples. Yet we must remember that Peter had explicitly professed a devotion to Jesus that exceeded that of the others in the apostolic band (Matt. 26:33; Mark 14:29; cf. John 13:37; 15:12-13). It may be that Jesus is asking Peter whether, in the light of what has since happened, he still thinks that his love for Christ exceeds that of all the others.37 Not many have taken the words to signify "Do you love me more than you love these men?" But this is possible.38 Peter had three times denied Jesus, so that his devotion to him must be held to be suspect. But he had remained with his fellows and had gone fishing with them. Where did his supreme affection lie? With his companions with whom he resorted, or with Jesus whom he denied? In the third case we should take the words to refer to the fishing equipment and all that it stood for.39 This symbolized an entire way of life. Taken this way, the question challenges Peter as to his whole future. Was this to be spent in the pursuit of fishing and the like? Or did he love Christ nmore than that? It is perhaps against this interpretation that in his reply Peter drops the comparison. There would be no point in this if it were his fishing that was in mind, but very much if people were involved. Perhaps there is most to be said for the first way of looking at the question. We are sometimes inclined to think that a question about Peter's love was superfluous. But this is not the case. His actions had shown that Peter had not wanted a crucified Lord. But Jesus was crucified. How did Peter's devotion stand in the light of this? Was he ready to love Jesus as he was, and not as Peter wished him to be? That was an important question. Peter must face it and answer it.
His reply is an ungrudging affirmative. "Yes, Lord," is his own assent, and he goes on: "you know that I love you." "You" is emphatic, as the disciple appeals to the sure knowledge possessed by the Master. His own actions have not been such as to reveal his love, and he is not in a position to point to them. But he can and does appeal to Christ's full understanding of the situation. A problem is posed by the use of different words for "love." Peter uses the same verb throughout, but Jesus uses a different verb in his first two questions. In the third, however, Jesus uses Peter's word.40 Not a few commentators hold that the change of word is significant.41 Some maintain that the word Jesus uses in the first two questions denotes a higher kind of love, while Peter's word points to a lower form of love, perhaps no more than a liking.42 If it is seen in this way, Jesus questions Peter as to whether he has a profound love for him, and Peter, not daring to claim so much, replies that he is fond of Jesus. Then in his third question Jesus descends to Peter's level. Other commentators, however, reverse the meaning of the two words. They see Jesus as inquiring whether Peter has a rather cool affection for him and Peter as replying that he has more than that, he has a warm love. Then in the last question our Lord rises to Peter's word.43
The unfortunate thing about these two interpretations is, of course, that they cancel each other out. A priori, one would have thought that a variation in vocabulary like this would be significant. But against it are certain diffi-culties. First, there is the difficulty just noted, that the precise difference is not easy to to discern so that competent commentators take opposite sides. Second, there is John's habit of introducing slight variations in all sorts of places without real difference of meaning (see on 3:5).44 There is no reason, on the grounds of Johannine usage, for seeing a difference in meaning between the two verbs. This point is rendered all the more significant in that the original conversation would have been in Aramaic, so that the choice of word in Greek would be John's rather than that of the original participants in the conversation. Third, Peter's "Yes, Lord" does not look like a correction. As Bernard asks, "Why should he say 'Yes,' if he means 'No'?" Peter seems concerned that his love is called in question, not about the precise quality of love that he displays. He is accepting Jesus' word, not declining it. It is simplest to find here a further example of John's love of variation in triple repetitions. Peter and Jesus will be referring to essentially the same thing.45
There is a slightly more complicated variation in the triple commission given to Peter.46 NIV reflects the variation in the Greek where both noun and verb are changed in the second charge, while on the third occasion the verb is that from the first charge and the noun that from the second charge. Some have drawn from this an indication that Peter is charged to do more things than one and to do them both to the lambs and the sheep.47 But most people take the variation as no more than stylistic.48 Peter is being commissioned to tend the flock of Christ. The absence of any good reason for seeing differences of meaning here strengthens the case for seeing none in connection with the words for love.
16 Jesus' question is repeated without the "more than these." Attention is concentrated on the question of love and the comparison drops out. Peter's reply is exactly as before. Again there is the agreement with Jesus' word, again the emphatic "you," and again the appeal to Jesus' own knowledge that Peter does indeed love his Lord. As noted in the previous verse, the commission varies. The verb used here has a somewhat broader meaning. It means "Exercise the office of shepherd" over against simply "Feed." There is doubt whether we should read "sheep" or "lambs" (see n. 00), but either way there is a commission to Peter to engage in pastoral duties.
17 This third time Jesus changes to Peter's word for love, though no attention is drawn to this. Peter was very sad,49 but it was because he was asked the question three times,50 not because of a change of meaning. This appears to be further evidence that there is no real difference in meaning between the words for love. Had there been, Peter would have been asked two different questions, not the one question three times over. His sorrow at the threefold question impelled him to a somewhat fuller reply. But, though his reply is fuller, it lacks the "Yes, Lord" of the two previous replies. Peter does not venture on his own affirmative this time, but relies on the Lord's intimate knowledge of all things, and specifically his knowledge of his servant. "Lord, you know all things," he said, a statement with important implications for Christology (cf. 2:25; 16:30). In the context it means at least that Jesus fully understood what went on in people's hearts, and specifically in Peter's heart. Incidentally we have another example of variation in vocabulary in that Peter's word for "know" is different from that in his previous replies.51 But again, there is no real difference in meaning. Jesus' final commission, as we saw, combines the verb from the first form with the noun from the second form.52
There can be little doubt but that the whole scene is meant to show us Peter as completely restored to his position of leadership. Three times he had denied his Lord. Now he has three times affirmed his love for him, and three times he has been commissioned to care for the flock. This must have had the effect of a demonstration that, whatever had been the mistakes of the past, Jesus was restoring Peter to a place of trust. It is further worth noting that the one thing about which Jesus questioned Peter prior to commissioning him to tend the flock was love. This is the basic qualification for Christian service. Other qualities may be desirable, but love is completely indispensable (cf. 1 Cor. 13:1-3).
18-19 The commission is followed by a prophecy introduced by the solemn "I tell you the truth" (see on 1:51). Jesus refers to Peter's past state53 rather than his present position, perhaps to contrast his first state with his last. Two things are singled out, the fastening of the belt (NIV, "dressed yourself") and the going where he willed. In youth Peter had done both of these things. In old age he will do neither. He will be restrained, and no longer master of his movements.54 John proceeds to an explanation of these rather enigmatic words. They refer to the death by which Peter will glorify God (for death as a glorifying of God cf. 12:23, etc.; 15:8 may also be relevant). The words are very general, but there is evidence that the stretching forth of the hands was held in the early church to refer to crucifixion.55 If this understanding of the expression goes back to the time of Christ ,then we have a prophecy of the exact mode of Peter's death. But unless we can be sure of this we cannot be certain of more than that the words point to martyrdom in some form. Against it is the word order, for "carrying" (NIV, "lead") would necessarily precede crucifixion (though the order may be determined not by the sense, but by parallelism with the first part of the verse).56 This prophecy is followed by a call to Peter to follow Christ. There is possibly significance in the use of the present tense; "keep on following" will be the force of it. Peter had followed Christ, but not continuously in the past. For the future he was to follow steadfastly in the ways of the Lord.
C. THE ROLE OF THE BELOVED DISCIPLE (21:20-23)
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?") 21 When 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?"
20 Happy in his own position, Peter now gave thought to his friend. He turned and saw the Beloved Disciple (see on 13:23) following. Quite in the Johannine manner, he is characterized by his question at the Last Supper (13:23ff.; cf. similar ways of describing Nicodemus, 19:39; Judas, 6:71, etc.; Caiaphas, 18:14).57 In view of the preceding, the term "following" is probably significant. What Peter had been twice urged to do John was already doing. "His obedience is assured; it was Peter's love that had been shown to be uncertain" (Hoskyns). The term may be used here partly in the literal sense, if, as many commentators think, Jesus was withdrawing a little with Peter, and John was behind them. But the important sense of the term throughout the passage is surely "follow as a disciple."
21 Peter, then, saw this man. Doubtless he was emboldened by his restoration to leadership and the prophecy about his martyrdom. All this put him in a very different light. So now he inquired about John's future. His question is a very general one: "But this man, what?"
22 Jesus, however, declines to satisfy Peter's curiosity. It is no business of Peter's what is to happen to the other. Even if Jesus wills that he remains alive until58 he returns, what is that to Peter? The question is an emphatic way of reminding the impulsive leader of the apostolic band that there are some things that are quite outside his province. It is followed by a repetition of the command of verse 19, "Follow me!"59
23 John proceeds to deal with an error that had arisen. A report had gone out among the brothers (this way of designating Christians is common in Acts, but here only in the Gospels, though cf. Matt. 23:8, and see thenote on John 20:17). This report was that the disciple would never die.60 He would live right through until the day when Jesus would return again. We can see how such an interpretation would arise. But John wants his readers to be clear that it was an interpretation. It was. not what Jesus had said. He did not say, "He will not die."61 He only asked what it mattered to Peter if in fact this man were to remain alive until the return of Christ. John wants us to be clear on what Jesus said and what he did not say. His "but" is a strong adversative:62 the two are in sharp contrast. In view of the fact that in this Gospel slight variations when statements are repeated are almost universal, it is noteworthy that here the statement is repeated exactly from verse 22.63 The precise words used are significant, and the writer is at pains to be accurate. Some have concluded from this section that John was already dead when it was written. But it is hard to understand how such a conclusion can stand. After John died Christians would not keep saying, "He will not die"! The fact that an explanation is called for shows that the Beloved Disciple was still alive, though possibly quite old.
D. AUTHENTICATION (21:24-25)
The last two verses look like a conclusion written by someone other than the author of the preceding.64 The conclusion brings in a number of people to authenticate what has been written. They can say, "We know that his testimony is true." Who these people were it is idle to speculate. They have left no indication as to their identity, and we can do no more than speculate that they were people respected in the church who knew the facts of the case. So they tell us now that this disciple "wrote these things," and they certify that his testimony is to be relied on. The strongest objection to this is that verse 23 is a curious if not impossible way to end a Gospel. This leads to the suggestion that the author is here supported by others who can vouch for his testimony and that he then goes on to write verse 25 in his own name (but see 1 Thess. 2:18 for a transition from plural to singular when there is no question about authorship).
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.
24 The concluding words form a testimony to the reliability of the Gospel's author. The first words of this verse make it clear that the witness behind the Gospel is the man just spoken of, the Beloved Disciple. The use of the present tense may be another indication that he was still living. It is not easy to fit it in to the hypothesis that he had died. "And who wrote them down" seems to indicate also that he was the actual author.65 Some hold that the Beloved Disciple was the witness in the sense that he vouched for the facts included in the Gospel, but that he was not the man responsible for the actual wording of the Gospel. This conclusion does not arise from such words as those written here. They ascribe authorship to the Beloved Disciple.66 They do not, however, indicate the extent of the authorship, and some readers hold that "these things" means no more than this final chapter. This seems unlikely. The words look like a reference to the witness of 19:35. Again, there seems no reason for a solemn attestation that the Beloved Disciple had written a few paragraphs to be tacked on to the end of someone else's Gospel. It is much more probable that "these things" refers to the whole book. It is a pity that there is no clue as to the identity of the "we." It would a help to know who these people were who speak so confidently about the authorship of the Gospel. All that we can say is that the words (and hence their authors) must be very early, for there is no textual doubt about these concluding verses.67 Barrett regards the plural as very important: "The 'we' is to be taken with full seriousness; there exists an apostolic church whose very existence is a confirmation and affirmation of the apostolic witness."
25 The Gospel closes with a reminder that the author has done no more than make a selection from the mass of material available. He has not written all he knows about Jesus. If all were to be written, he thinks the world itself could not68 contain69 the books to be written.70 With this delightful hyperbole he makes us aware that there is much more about Jesus than we know. It is fitting for us to bring our study of the Gospel to a close with the reminder of the limitations of our knowledge. It is well for us to be appreciative of the knowledge we have and to show a due gratitude to God for what he has revealed. But we should not exaggerate. Our knowledge of the truth is at best partial. The reader who appreciates the significance of these final words is kept humble.
1. Lightfoot does speak of a Syriac MS that lacks this chapter, and Brown refers to "A 5th-or 6th-century Syriac ms . . . that. . . has apparently lost the final folios." On the other hand, there are strong statements like those of Strachan, "There is no trace of any manuscript of the Gospel without this chapter," or Lenski, "No copies of the Fourth Gospel have ever been found from which chapter 21 is omitted, and no trace of such copies has ever been discovered."
2. Thus Plummer lists twenty-five points of vocabulary, grammar, etc., which tell in favor of identity of authorship. So also Howard, FGRCl, pp. 279-80. On the other hand, Moffatt finds several indications of divergence An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (Edinburgh, 1927), p. 572. G. W. Bloomfield counters this by pointing out that in every chapter of this Gospel there are divergences from all other chapters, and that chapter 21 contains rather less than the average (John, Peter, and the Fourth Gospel [London, 1934], pp. 147-48; he also discounts some of the evidence adduced by Moffatt). Bultmann in his commentary gives perhaps as good a case against identity of authorship as the linguistics will allow. It is all the more significant accordingly that Barrett, who favors a different author for chapter 21, does not find this convincing. He thinks the differences "not in themselves sufficient to establish the belief that ch. 21 was written by a different author." He is convinced by evidence other than the linguistic.
3. Similarly Temple notes that to end the Gospel at 20:31 "would be in a very real sense misleading. For the work of the Lord, which is at once the ground of faith in Him and the vindication of that faith, was in one sense incomplete. The victory was won; but its fruits had still to be gathered."
4. I am not impressed by the efforts made by some scholars to derive the miraculous catch in Luke 5 from this story or vice versa. Bultmann performs the interesting feat of doing both. In his commentary he maintains that the Johannine story is original: he sees some Easter stories that Mark has "projected back into the 'Life of Jesus'," and adds, "so will the case have been with Lk. 5.1-11" (p. 705). But in his The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford, 1963), he affirms that "The variant in Jn. 211-14 seems to me a later version, which in some way derives from Luke" (pp. 217-18). F. Neirynck has a summary of recent discussions (NTS, 36 [1990], pp. 321-36).
5. φανερόω is found 9 times in this Gospel (3 times in Mark including twice in the ending to ch. 16, and not at all in Matthew or Luke) and 9 times in 1 John. It is not by any means exclusively Johannine; it occurs 22 times in the Pauline Epistles. John does not use it outside this chapter for the resurrection appearances, though it is used of them in Mark 16:12, 14.
6. His expression is oἱ τοῡ Ζεβεδαίου. Elsewhere, where the expression is plural, υἱοί is always inserted but Ζεβεδαίου lacks the article, thus: oἱ υἱοὶ Ζεβεδαίου. In the singular, however, υίός is not used, and Ζεβεδαίου regularly has the article, as in 'Ιάκωβος ὁ τοῡ Ζεβεδαίου. The present passage must be taken as resembling the usual construction in the singular rather than as one where we should supply some other word than υοί.
7. This appears to be the meaning of 'Υπάγω άλιεύειν. Whatever Peter's ultimate intentions, it is pressing the meaning of the present tense too hard to see in it a proposal to resume his former life as a fisherman. The verb άλιεύειν is used here only in the New Testament.
8. Loyd, however, draws the lesson that "when the pause comes and the vision begins to be less vivid, we are not to be idle or despondent. We are to go on with the obvious tasks of every day. . . . How wise were these disciples who calmly went back to their fishing!"
9. Turner and Mantey cite Aristotle: "Fishermen, especially, do their fishing before sunrise and after sunset." They add, "This is still the custom of commercial fishermen who fish in the Sea of Galilee." Cf. Luke 5:5.
10. πρωἶας indicates first light. The present γινομένης (with AB al bo) is to be
preferred to γενομένης ( 
WΘ etc.). It shows that day was in process of arriving rather
than that it had already come. Dawn was just breaking.
11. παιδία occurs, for example, in 1 John 2:14, 18. More usual as a form of address is τεκνία (13:33; 1 John 2:1, 12, 23, etc.). MM finds a parallel to παιδία only in modem Greek (the Klepht ballad, where it is used of soldiers). They draw attention to the English use of "Lads" and the Irish of "Boys" (Carson adds the American "Guys"). Parallels are cited from Aristophanes (Clouds 137; Frogs 33), but clearly it is far from common as a form of address. A number of translations have "Friends," which is to forsake the original.
12. The word is προσφάγιον, defined by AS as "Hellenistic for ὅψον ... a relish or dainty (esp. cooked fish), to be eaten with bread." MM cites a papyrus giving a stone cutter's wages as ἄρτον ἕνα χαὶ προσφάγιον, and others to show that the term refers to one of the items in an ordinary meal; they take it as referring to "some staple article of food of the genus fish, rather than a mere 'relish.' " Addressed to a party of fishermen in their boat, there can be no doubt as to what they had in mind.
13. Abbott points out that μή is used thus interrogatively in this Gospel more often than in all the others put together, but whereas they confine it to the words of Jesus John uses it in this way twice only, here and in 6:67 (2235).
14. For οὔ see on 1:21.
15. The expression is είς τά δεξιά μέρη τοῡ πλοίου, found here only in the New Testament. Robertson classes it among the idiomatic plurals of the New Testament (Robertson, p. 408), which makes it equivalent to our "on the right side." I have not discovered any other example of this phrase applied to a boat. Bernard likewise finds no linguistic parallel. Hendriksen says that it "is simply an idiom," but he cites no other example of its use. μέρη is used a number of times in Hermas of directions. Thus εἰς τά δεξιά μέρη and εἰς τά άριστερά μέρη are used of sitting on the right hand or on the left (Vis. 3.1.9; 3.2.1). He also refers to "the four parts" (or directions, Sim. 9.2.3) and "the outer parts" (the outside of a building, Sim. 9.9.3). J. Schneider speaks of these passages as the only ones in which μέρος is used in this way (TDNT, IV, pp. 595-96). We must regard John's expression as unusual. But the meaning is clear enough.
16. "There is no need to seek symbolical meanings for the right and left side. The difference is not between right and left, but between working with and without Divine guidance" (Plummer).
17. Η. V. Morton tells of seeing a fisherman casting a hand net into the Sea of Galilee when a friend on shore cried out that he should fling the net to the left. When he did this he caught fish. Morton says, "It happens very often that the man with the hand-net must rely on the advice of someone on shore, who tells him to cast either to the left or right, because in the clear water he can often see a shoal of fish invisible to the man in the water" (In the Steps of the Master [London, 1935], p. 199). Whether this would be valid for people one hundred yards apart is another matter. But Morton's incident is interesting and may be relevant.
18. Trench maintains that the verb ἑλxύω used here and in v. 11 means to draw to a certain point (here into the ship, in v. 11 to the shore), whereas σύρω in v. 8 simply means dragging the net after the boat (Synonyms of the New Testament [London, 1880], pp. 73-74).
19. The word is ἐπενδύτης, here only in the New Testament. It denotes an outer garment, without being specific. Barrett draws attention to a Jewish idea that since offering a greeting was a religious act it could not be performed unless one was clothed. Thus greetings were not given in the baths, since all were naked. If the point is relevant, as seems likely, Peter wanted to be sufficiently clad when he reached the shore to give the usual religious greeting.
20. LS, BAGD; Horsley cites a papyrus asking the addressee to "purchase a tunic for Thermouthis: she has nothing to wear (γυμνή ἐστιν)" (New Documents, 2, p. 79).
21. The word is πλοιάριον, strictly the diminutive of πλοῖον. But since the latter term seems to be used of the same vessel in vv. 3 and 6, there appears to be no difference in meaning here. We should probably put it down to John's love for variation. There is a somewhat similar situation in ch. 6, where some see a difference in meaning (see on 6:22), as do a few commentators here. They think that the πλοῖον was a large fishing vessel, which drew too much water to come near the shore. So the disciples left it and came ashore in the dinghy. This is possible, but it does seem to be getting a lot out of a change of word. It is better to take the two words as referring to the one boat.
22. For ὰπό in measuring distance cf. 11:18; Rev. 14:20.
23. τò δίκτυον τῶν ὶχθύων, literally "the net of the fish." The expression is unusual, but there can be no doubt but that the meaning is "the net full of fish."
24. "Bring" translates ἐνέγκατε, noteworthy as the solitary example of the aorist imperative of this verb in the New Testament (elsewhere the present is invariable, even in contexts where we might expect an aorist). It may be that this is meant to give special urgency to the command.
25. Though, as Bultmann notes, in that case we should have expected that there would have been a ἕν with ὀψάριον (p. 708, n. 8).
26. ἀνέβη, which provokes the question, "went up where?" The verb is, however, used of embarking on a ship and that is probably the meaning here.
27. There is no αύτός or μόνος or the like, such as would indicate a solo performance.
28. The belief would have to be a widespread one, else the point would be missed. But very little evidence for it can be cited, and none of real weight. Attention is usually called to Jerome's comment on Ezek. 47:9-12: "Those who write on the nature and properties of animals, who have learned ἀλιευτικά as well in Latin as in Greek, among whom is Oppianus Cilix, a very learned poet, say that there are one hundred and fifty-three different kinds of fish all of which were caught by the Apostles. . . ." This has all the appearance of a comment called forth in the attempt to find an edifying meaning for the number in John rather than an objective statement of a widespread belief. Jerome cites no authority other than Oppian, and no one else appears to have found the statement in this author. W. F. Howard comments, "until some more reliable evidence than Jerome's vague statement is forthcoming, we can hardly make use of this interpretation, and it would be well to leave Oppian's name out of the question" (FGRCI, p. 184. Moreover, Pliny says that the total number of fish in existence is 74 (Natural History 9.43), and he is much nearer the date of the New Testament than is Jerome.
29. Ascending to one view, the numerical values of the letters in the names Σίμων = 76 and ἰχθύς = 77, for a total of 153; Peter is thus a divinely empowered fisherman or the like! Others find a reference to the Trinity, the number being 3 times 50 plus 3. Some missionary minded folk think of 100 as representing the Gentiles, 50 as standing for Israel, and 3 for the Trinity. Ο. T. Owen argues from gematria that there is a reference to Pisgah (ExT, 100 [1988-89], pp. 52-54). See further J. A. Emerton, JThS, n.s. IX (1958), pp. 86-89 (with the further comment by P. R. Ackroyd, JThS, n.s, X [1959], p. 94) for references to lists of interpretations, a refutation of some previous suggestions, and the author's own view that there is a reference to the passages in Ezek. 47 where the fishermen spread their nets. There seems to be no end to the "meanings" that can be extracted from the number. But that John intended any of them is quite another matter.
30. Robinson remarks, "I confess to being innocent enough to believe that fishermen do actually count their catch, particularly a bumper one . . . and especially when a partnership is involved" (Priority, p. 164)
31. He says, ἀριστήσατε. First-century Jews normally ate two meals a day, and the ἄριστον was the first of them. It would be eaten as a rule before starting the day's work, though on occasion it could be an early lunch. The other meal was the δεῖπνον (see on 12:2).
32. The construction is unusual since εἰδότες does not agree with anything. But the anacoluthon is quite effective. The meaning of the participle might be "because they knew" or "although they knew."
33. In 6:11 he also gave them bread and fish to eat, but it is not easy to draw a satisfactory conclusion from the fact. Some commentators think that there is a eucharistic reference here on account of the connection with ch. 6. But since the link with the eucharist is far from certain there, it will need more than a mention of bread and fish to see it here. Others draw attention to the use of bread and fish in some early eucharistic representations. But this forms too hazardous a link for us to connect the kind of food that would naturally be used for a lakeside meal with the sacrament. Strachan says bluntly, "The meal described in w. 12, 13 is not a Eucharist" (similarly. Bailey).
34. The use of ήδη is rather curious. Perhaps, as Godet thinks, it "allows us to suppose other subsequent appearances."
35. οὖv here appears to be no more than resumptive (see on 1:21).
36. Although Jesus gave Simon the name Peter there is only one subsequent
occasion recorded when he addressed him by it (Luke 22:34). His habit is to call him
Simon. The Synoptists usually refer to him as Peter, but John often uses Simon Peter (he
has the name Peter 34 times, and it is combined with Simon 17 times). The Received Text
here reads Σίμων Ίωνᾱ (with Α Θ f1 fl3, but Σίμων 'Ιωάννου is to be preferred with ( BDW lat co)).
37. This view is accepted by Westcott, Bultmann, Lenski, Barclay, and others. It is seen also in the translations of Goodspeed, Weymouth, Moffatt, Amplified, GNB, JB, Cassirer, and others.
38. See, for example, BDF, 185(1).
39. This is accepted by C. B. Williams, Rieu, and others.
40. Peter's verb throughout is φιλέω. Jesus uses αγαπάω on each of the first two occasions, but φιλέω in his third question.
41. Perhaps the best case for seeing a distinction of meaning is that made by Hendriksen in his special note (II, pp. 494-500), but he fails to notice that it is John's habit to introduce slight variations in repetitions. This makes his argument less cogent. We may well agree that, while the two verbs are of very similar meaning, there is yet a distinction on occasion. But it does not follow that a writer who elsewhere shows himself prone to slight variations, including the use of synonyms, without appreciable difference of meaning (see on 3:5), does intend a difference of meaning in this passage. It is this that does not appear to have been made out. A. Marshall says that he has never met an explanation of the difference between the two terms that satisfies all the requirements. He adds to his note the interesting point that in the formation of compounds φιλ- is always used to express love, never ἀγαπ- (BT, 6 [1955], p. 48). If there were a real difference it would seem necessary for ἀγαπ- to be used on occasion.
42. Among those who see ἀγαπάω as denoting a higher kind of love are Westcott, Lenski, Plummer, and Temple. The last-mentioned affirms that no two words are ever exactly synonymous. He points out that in the list given by Bernard, which is intended to show that the words have much the same meaning, we always have φιλέω or ἀγαπάω alone. When the two occur together a distinction must, he thinks, be intended; but his case is weakened by the fact that he does not refer to John's habit of introducing minor verbal changes. This view is seen also in some translations, e.g., NIV, Cassirer, Twentieth Century, LB. Goodspeed renders ἀγαπας με; by "Are you devoted to me?" and φιλώ σε by "I love you," while Schonfield reverses the translations. We may take Hendriksen's summary as typical of the views of those who see ἀγαπάω as denoting a superior type of love: "we believe that ἀγαπάω in this story (and generally throughout the Gospels, though with varying degree of distinctness in meaning) indicates love, deep-seated, thorough-going, intelligent and purposeful, a love in which the entire personality (not only the emotions, but also the mind and the will) plays a prominent part, which is based on esteem for the object loved or else on reasons which lie wholly outside of this object; while φιλέω indicates (or at least tends in the direction of) spontaneous natural affection, in which the emotions play a more prominent role than either the intellect or the will."
43. Perhaps the typical representative of this point of view is Trench, who comments on ἀγαπᾷς με; "At this moment, when all the pulses in the heart of the now penitent Apostle are beating with a passionate affection towards his Lord, this word on that Lord's lips sounds far too cold; to very imperfectly express the warmth of his affection toward Him. The question in any form would have been grievous enough (ver. 17); the language in which it is clothed makes it more grievous still. He therefore in his answer substitutes for the άγαπας of Christ the word of a more personal love, φιλῶ σε (ver. 15). And this hedoes not on the first occasion only, but again upon a second. And now at length he has triumphed; for when his Lord puts the question to him a third time, it is not άγαπᾷς any more, but φιλεῖς" (Synonyms, pp. 42-43). C. B. Williams translates ἀγαπᾷς με; by "are you really devoted to me?" and φιλώ σε by "I tenderly love you." MacGregor takes this kind of distinction as that most likely to be drawn. He understands ἀγαπάω to mean "the esteem existing between benefactor and recipient," and φιλέω as "the personal affection existing between members of the same family." He cites Strachan as one who takes this view (but Strachan in his commentary denies a distinction in this passage while admitting that one may be drawn in classical Greek). It is possible that the Vulgate should be included here with its use of diligo to render ἀγαπάω and amo for φιλέω. MiM refuses to grade the verbs as higher and lower, but nevertheless regards ἀγαπάω as "less expressive of emotions of tenderness, of personal feeling and affection, than that verb used by Peter in his reply." Barclay says, "agapan . . . is a word which maybe has more of the head than the heart in it," while "philein is the word of the warmest and most tender affection" (The Revelation of John, I [Edinburgh, 1960], p. 183). See also Schnackenburg, Π, p. 462, n. 40
44. See further my Testaments of Love (Grand Rapids, 1981), especially ch. 6; Expository Reflections on the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, 1988), ch. 89.
45. This is the position taken up by most modern commentators — e.g., Barrett, Bernard. Many recent translations, such as NRSV, Rieu, Moffatt, REB, GNB, do not distinguish between the two verbs. Moffatt examines the Johannine use of the two terms and decides that there is no significant difference (Love in the New Testament [London, 1932], pp. 46-47). He concludes, "The use of φιλέω and ἀγαπάω in this dialogue is therefore no more than a literary variation, and to read anything recondite into it is to be subtle where simplicity is the mark of the writer's thought and expression." Barrett reminds us that the Beloved Disciple is several times called δν ήγάπα and once δν ἐφίλει (20:2) and proceeds, "it is highly improbable that there were two 'beloved disciples', one loved in a rather better way than the other." Bernard has a thorough analysis of the use of the two verbs and finds no difference. He points out also that the patristic commentators — Syriac, Greek, and Latin alike (except possibly for Ambrose) — do not treat the variation of words here as significant. He also reminds us that the Syriac and Old Latin translations make no distinction (though the Vulgate does). Curiously Marsh argues that here ἀγαπάω is "the strong word for love" and φιλέω "a weaker one." But he does not notice John's habit of variation, nor that many of those who draw a distinction between the two words see φιλέω as the strong word. His case cannot be held to be convincing.
46. Here Jesus says Βόσκε τά ἀρνία μου. There are intricate textual problems about the next two verses but we should probably read in v. 16 Ποίμαινε τὰ προβάτιά μου, and in v. 17 Βόσκε τὰ προβάτιά μου.
47. There are textual variants. Thus for ἀρνία here C* D it read πρόβατα. In v. 16 προβάτια is read by Β C pc and should probably be accepted, and πρόβατα by א A D W θ fl3.
48. The Vulgate renders both verbs by Pasce.
49. ἐλυπήθη. This word refers to "grief"; it does not mean "was vexed" (Barclay, Schonfield).
50. The text runs, ὅτι εἶπεν αύτῷ τό τρίτον, Φιλεῖς με; This should surely be taken to mean that the same question had been asked three times, rather than that the verb on the third occasion was Φιλεῖς. This is supported by the use of δεύτερον in v. 16.
51. Peter has twice said σὺ οἶδας. Now he retains this verb in his πάντα σὺ οἶδας, but then he says, σὺ γινώσκεις ὅτι φιλῶ σε. For οἶδα and γινώσκω see on 2:24.
52. This latter point is not certain. προβάτια is read by A Β C Wc pc, but there is also strong support for πρόβατα, namely D W* Θ f1 f 13 pi. Some scholars hold that a threefold variation is intended, but it appears that on this occasion twofold is more probable. The substitution of πρόβατα by scribes is intelligible, but that of προβάτια is not so easily explained.
53. The comparative νεώτερος strictly signifies "younger."
54. The singular άλλος invites comment. For any form of martyrdom we would expect a plural, for several persecutors would be involved. It may be that Christ himself or God is intended, the point then being that Peter would fulfill the divine will in his martyrdom. But this may be over-subtle. Perhaps nothing more is meant than a personifi-cation of the persecuting authorities.
55. Barrett draws attention to the interpretation of ἐξεπέτασα τάς χεῖρας μου (Isa. 65:2) as foreshadowing the crucifixion by Barnabas (12:4), Justin (1 Apol. 35), Irenaeus (Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 79), and Cyprian (Test. 2.20). There are similar interpretations of Moses' outstretched hands (Exod. 17:12), and Barrett finds one use of έxτείνω with reference to crucifixion in Epictetus (BAGD cites Josephus, Ant. 19.94, but this is dubious, to say the least). Trench cites some passages in Christian writers, the Epictetus passage and also one from Seneca (Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord [London, 1895], p. 503). Haenchen has a series of quotations from classical writers to the same effect. If these references be accepted as demonstrating the point, confirmation will perhaps be seen in the use of ζώννυμι, for the crucified were sometimes fastened to their crosses with ropes. Tertullian tells us that Peter was crucified in Rome under Nero, and he sees in crucifixion the fulfillment of the words about being girded by another (Scorp. 15). Eusebius reports that at his own request Peter was crucified head downward (HE 3.1.2), but most scholars find little reason for accepting this.
56. Cullmann, however, cites W. Bauer that the order is correct, for "the criminal had to carry the cross to the place of execution with arms spread out and chained to it" (Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr [London, 1962], p. 88, n. 87).
57. There is a characteristic Johannine variation. In 13:25 the question was Κύριε, τίς ἐστιν; there was no reference to betrayal, as here. But since the question refers back to Jesus' statement of 13:21, εἶς ἐξ ὑμῶν παραδώσει με, its present form is quite intelligible.
58. Both here and in the repetition of the statement in the next verse έως is followed by the indicative, a construction found fairly rarely in the New Testament. It puts some stress on the factuality of the coming. The present tense is curious, but it is reading too much into it to assert that John thought of the coming as a continuous process. Indeed, to take the coming in this way is to render the saying practically meaningless.
59. There is a slight difference in the wording, for this time the pronoun σύ puts emphasis on "you." The present imperative is used both times, which is consonant with a stress on the continuous process involved. In the former place the verb precedes μοι, here it follows. Schonfield brings out some of the difference with "Follow me. . . . You follow me." Similarly, Rieu has "For yourself, follow me" in the second place.
60. We would have anticipated the future tense for the verb "die," but John uses the present, οὐx ἀποθνήσxει, "does not die."
61. There is an ambiguity here. ὅτι is usually taken to mean "that," giving the sense as NIV. But it could mean "because": "Jesus did not say (this) to him because he would not die." But NIV is to be preferred.
62. "He did not say 'He will not die' BUT (άλλ') 'if I will ...,' "
63. This is not the case if we omit the words τί πρός σέ with 565 *א a e syrs. But the words should be read; their attestation is strong.
64. This is not completely certain. In the first place the word οἴδαμεν might conceivably be read as οἴδα μέν, corresponding to ἕστιν δέ. This, however, gives an unnatural sequence and should probably be rejected. In the second place, the plural is sometimes used of one person plus his associates as in 3:11; 6:5; 1 John 1:1, etc. In favor of this is the fact that, if added by others, we would expect the attestation to stand right at the end, but it does not do so; v. 25 with its singular οἶμαι follows. However, this does not appear to be decisive and the sense strongly favors a genuine plural, giving the attestation of others than the author of the preceding (though perhaps including him).
65. This is especially the case if the ὁ before γράψας be omitted with א* A W f1 pi, or if we read ὁ xαί γράψας with Θ f13 33. xαί ὁ γράψας is read by Β D it syr.
66. "The most natural meaning of these words, and therefore the meaning to be adopted unless very strong reasons are brought against it, is that the disciple himself not only bore witness to but also wrote down ταύτα" (Barrett; he regards as "conceivable but perhaps not probable" the view that γράψας means "caused to be written"). Sometimes curious inferences are drawn from this word. Thus Bernard cites Pilate's writing of the Titulus on the cross and Paul's use of his own "writing" of Romans (Rom. 15:15), though we know that the actual penman was Tertius (Rom. 16:22). He reasons that the verb may mean "dictated," and that here "the Beloved Disciple caused these things to be written. They were put into shape by the writer who took them dawn." On this Η. P. V. Nunn comments: "No one supposes that Pilate actually wrote on the board any more than that he nailed it to the cross, but we are told in the immediate context that he identified the words which he caused to be written with his intention in a most emphatic manner. Any scribe who ventured 'to put them into shape' would have got into serious trouble. We do not know that it has ever before been suggested that Tertius did anything more than write down the exact words which St. Paul dictated to him" (The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel [Eton, 1952], p. 8). Robinson remarks, "it has been maintained that 'he wrote it' need mean no more than 'he caused it to be written', as presumably it does with Pilate in 19.22. But the use of γράφειν of a private individual to imply more than the employment of an amanuensis cannot be paralleled, and this would still mean that the beloved disciple wrote the Gospel of John as much as Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans (15.15, ἕγραψα), even if Tertius (described in 16.22 as ὁ γράψας) actually penned it" (Priority, p. 105).
67. Tasker cites evidence that the verse was originally lacking in Sinaiticus but that the original scribe erased an ornamental colophon and inserted the verse. This is not without its interest, but it cannot be held to outweigh the consensus of the manuscripts.
68. The negative οὐδ' is noteworthy since it is to be taken with the infinitive χωρήσειν. It is perhaps more emphatic than μηδ' would have been. BDF takes the negative with οἶμαι (429), but Turner dissents, in my judgment rightly (Μ, III, p. 285).
69. It is not certain whether χωρήσειν is a true future infinitive, as its form indicates (Μ, I, p. 204, n. 2), or whether it is an example of the use of a present ending on the aorist stem to form an aorist infinitive (Μ, II, p. 216). The future infinitive is rare, but then so is the use of the present ending to form an aorist infinitive. Not much hinges on our verdict, for the meaning is much the same in either case. It should be added that some MSS here read χωρῆσαι.
70. There is an interesting parallel in Philo, De post. Cain. 144: "Were (God) to choose to display His own riches, even the entire earth with the sea turned into dry land would not contain (χωρῆσαι) them." SBk cites a saying of Jochanan b. Zakkai (who died c. A.D. 80): "If all the sky were parchment, and all the trees were writing pens, and all the seas were ink there would not be enough to write down my wisdom which I have learned from my teachers; and yet I have had the pleasure of only as much of the wisdom of the wise as a fly, who plunges into the ocean, takes away" (II, p. 587).