CHAPTER XXI

CHAPTER XXI

Preliminary Remarks on Chapter 21

I. Authorship 

Who wrote this chapter? See what has already been said with reference to this in Vol. I, on p. 28. Absolute certainty is probably not attainable. If a person chooses to believe that John himself with his own hand wrote (or at least that he dictated) chapter 21 in its entirety (or with the exception of verses 24 and 25), he will find nothing in its grammar or vocabulary which prevents him from doing this. 

That we, nevertheless, favor the theory that another leader at Ephesus (probably a disciple of John), under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and with the full approval of John, wrote 21:1–23 (and probably also verse 24 in the name of the elders — note the pronoun “we” —, and again personally verse 25; note how the “we” of verse 24 changes to “I” in verse 25) is due to the following considerations: 

1. The conclusion of chapter 20 (verses 30 and 31) leaves the impression that the account (chapters 1–20) ends there. 

2. The author of chapters 1–20 never mentions himself or the members of his immediate family by name (cf. 1:35–41; 13:23; 18:15; 19:25–27, 35; 20:2–10), but whoever wrote 21:2 mentions, “the sons of Zebedee” (the father of James and John). 

3. The lengthy descriptive clause which is used here in 21:20 to indicate “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” namely, “who also at the supper had leaned back on his breast and had said ‘Lord, who is it that is going to betray thee?’ ” — stands in rather sharp contrast to the veiled manner in which the author of chapters 1–20 constantly refers to himself (1:35; cf. 1:40; 13:23; 19:26; 20:2). 

II. Purpose 

Chapter 21 has always been a part of this Gospel. Why was it added after the beautiful conclusion found in 20:30, 31? Various reasons have been offered. Since there must have been some practical considerations which occasioned the addition of this Supplement, there is probably more than merely an element of truth in the following purposes which have been suggested: 

1. To prove that the risen Christ still takes an interest in his Church, and that his marvelous power and tender love have not diminished in any way. See 21:1–14; especially verses 5, 6, and 12. — However, does not 20:19–29 prove the same fact? It does, but chapter 21 may be considered additional evidence in this direction. 

2. To remind the disciples of the fact that they must be fishers, and this not only in the usual sense of the term (21:3) but also, and especially, of men (21:15–17). — However, in this connection it must be borne in mind that those to which reference is made in verses 15–17 are already in the Church; also, that the figure employed there is not that of a fisherman but that of a shepherd who cares for his sheep. Nevertheless, the suggested purpose may well be correct; for would not reflection upon the miracle recorded in 21:6 recall the earlier one recorded in Luke 5, and also the moral (or prophecy) appended to it in Luke 5:10 (that the disciples were going to catch men)? Kingdom-work must be resumed with vigor! 

3. To emphasize to the Church that Peter had been fully re-instated. It is possible that doubt had arisen with respect to the question whether a man who had sinned so grievously could still be entrusted with the important and responsible task of shepherding the flock of Jesus Christ. This chapter strives to remove that doubt. See 21:15–17. 

4. To stress once again the comforting truth of predestination, namely, that whatever happens in our lives has been wisely ordained by the Lord, just as the very manner of Peter’s glorious death had been foreseen and predicted. See 21:18, 19. 

5. To remove a misunderstanding with respect to a saying of Jesus regarding “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” that is, to banish the rumor that Jesus had meant, “Said disciple is not going to die.” See 21:20–23. 

6. To give an opportunity to the elders at Ephesus to present an official and united testimony with respect to the reliability of the things recorded in the Fourth Gospel. See 21:24. And finally, 

7. To explain why ever so many other events that had transpired during Christ’s earthly sojourn were not recorded. It is possible that otherwise some would have been asking, “Why was not this recorded? Why was not that included?” See 21:25. 

21:1–14

21 1 After these things Jesus manifested himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias; now he manifested himself as follows. 2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas, the one called the Twin, and Nathaniel, the one from Cana in Galilee, and the (sons) of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples. 

3 Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.” They said to him, “We will go with you.” They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing. 

4 Now when day was already breaking, Jesus stood on the beach, but the disciples were unaware that it was Jesus. 5 Jesus then said to them, “Lads, you haven’t anything to eat, have you?” 6 They answered, “No.” So he said to them. “Cast your net on the right side of the boat, and you will catch.” Then they cast (it), and now they were no longer able to haul it in because of the great number of fishes. 7 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” Then Simon Peter, when he heard that it was the Lord, belted his fisherman’s jacket about him, for he was stripped, and flung himself into the sea. 8 But the other disciples came with the boat — for they were not far from the land, only about a hundred yards away — dragging the net full of fish. 9 Then when they stepped ashore, they saw a charcoal fire all made and a fish lying on it, also a bread-cake. 10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish which you just caught.” 11 Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, a hundred fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn. 12 Jesus said to them, “Come, have breakfast.” None of the disciples was venturing to ask him, “Who art thou?” for they knew that it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came and took the bread-cake and gave to them, and the fish similarly. 14 This was now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples after having risen from the dead. 

21:1. After these things Jesus manifested himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias; now he manifested himself as follows. 

For the meaning of “after these things,” see on 5:1. Jesus manifested himself, that is, he displayed his glory. He not only made a sudden physical appearance, sothat his disciples could see him, but he proved his continuing power and love, his divine majesty and tender divine and human sympathy, as these qualities expressed themselves in his words and deeds at this occasion. 

In view of the context it is probable that the expression “manifested himself” must here (and in 21:14) be qualified even further. It refers here specifically to the self-disclosure of the Lord Jesus Christ to his disciples when he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs during a period of forty days (Acts 1:3). 

What we have here (21:1–23) is a record of one of Christ’s post-resurrection “appearances.” It is Number 7 in the list (see also on 21:14). 

Appearances

1. To Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9; John 20:11–18). 

2. To the women (Matt. 28:9, 10). 

3. To Cleopas and his companion (Luke 24:13–35). 

4. To Simon (Luke 24:34; I Cor. 15:15). 

5. To the disciples except Thomas (John 20:19–23). 

6. To the disciples, Thomas being present (John 20:24–29). 

All of these occurred in Jerusalem. After the disciples have gone to Galilee, in obedience to the instructions which they had received from the Lord, Jesus appears again:

7. To the seven at the Sea of Tiberias (21:1–14). 

8. To the disciples on a “mountain” in Galilee, where Jesus made a great claim, gave the great commission, and proclaimed the great presence (Matt. 28:16–20). By many commentators this appearance is identified with Number 9. 

9. To the five hundred (I Cor. 15:6). 

10. To James, the Lord’s brother (I Cor. 15:7). Whether this took place in Galilee or in Judea is not stated. 

The disciples having returned to Jerusalem:

11. To the eleven on Olivet, near Jerusalem (Acts 1:4–11; cf. Luke 24:50, 51). 

The next appearance that is specifically recorded is by the Lord from heaven: 

12. To Paul, when he was on his way to Damascus (Acts 9:3–7; 22:6–10; 26:12–18; I Cor. 9:1; 15:8). 

There may have been several others. How many there were we do not know (cf. Acts 1:3). 

With respect to these “manifestations” or “appearances” the following should be noted:

a. We are not dealing here with the universe of unreality, with a phantom, apparition, hallucination, merely subjective dream or vision. On the contrary, in every instance it is the Lord himself in person who manifests himself. 

b. The expression manifested himself is used here in 21:1, 14 in order to stress the idea that Jesus is no longer dwelling with men as he had done before. He suddenly appears upon the scene. Just as suddenly he disappears again. But while he is with them, they see him (though not always immediately) as their resurrected and glorious Lord. 

The words, “Now he manifested himself as follows,” are probably added because the account of this particular “appearance” is rather lengthy and circumstantial.

21:2. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas, the one called the Twin, and Nathaniel, the one from Cana in Galilee, and the (sons) of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples. 

To find these men together here in Galilee is not surprising. The Lord had promised to meet his disciples there (Matt. 28:7, 10; Mark 16:7). Besides, four of the five here indicated were also together at the very beginning of Christ’s ministry. We refer to Simon Peter, Nathaniel, and the sons of Zebedee (John and James). See on 1:35–51. At that time Andrew and Philip were also among those mentioned. Were these the “two others of his disciples” who now reappear at the close of the Gospel? But we just do not know who these two others may have been. That they belonged to the Twelve is well-nigh certain (see 21:1, “to the disciples”). That here in 21:2 the reason why the two are not mentioned by name is “because they had not yet been introduced in the main body of the book (chapters 1–20),” is rather improbable and would limit the possibilities to two out of the following three men: Matthew, James the Less, and Simon the Zealot. For the inference to be derived from the mention of “the sons of Zebedee,” see p. 474, 475. 

3. Simon Peter said to them, I am going fishing. They said to him, We will go with you. Peter is the man of action. He generally acts before John does. John generally understands before Peter does. So Peter says, “I’m off to fish” (literally). Does this mean that Peter turns his back (or: has already turned his back) upon preaching, considering it to be no longer worth-while, saying (or: having said) farewell to it, and returning (or having returned) to his former occupation? Some of the best commentators (including F. W. Grosheide) are of this opinion, while others (e.g., R. C. H. Lenski) seem to ridicule the very idea. Compelling proof in either direction is lacking. It is true that these men had to gain a livelihood, and at least some of those mentioned were (or had been) fishermen by trade (Matt. 4:18, 21). On the other hand, it is also true that by and by Jesus is going to emphasize and re-emphasize that Peter must be a shepherd of men. See, moreover, what was said on p. 475 above, under item 2. Besides, even though Jesus after his resurrection had already manifested himself to Peter, it may not have been entirely clear to the mind of the latter that he, who had basely denied his Master three times, had the right to resume his spiritual activities whether as a missionary or as a minister. Accordingly, the idea that Peter, for the time being at least, had given up his kingdom-activities and had returned to his former occupation cannot be entirely dismissed. And does not 16:32 imply that in this decision to resume the former occupations on a full-time basis, and to give up the idea of vigorous Kingdom-endeavor, he had been joined by the others? See on that verse. 

The other six disciples are ready to follow where Peter leads. In fact, when he said, “I am off to fish,” he may have implied “Who will go with me?”

They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing. Though these men, having gone on board “the” vessel (probably Peter’s), chose the most appropriate time to fish, and though at least some of them were experienced fishermen, they toiled and struggled all night long but caught nothing. History was repeating itself. Did they recall their former experience, the one recorded in Luke 5? And was their night-long failure a revelation of God’s displeasure with them for having neglected Kingdom-work? But God still loved them! Hence, in his loving providence their complete failure must serve the purpose of bringing into sharp relief the greatness of the gift which he was going to provide. 

4. Now when day was already breaking, Jesus stood on the beach, but the disciples were unaware that it was Jesus. The expression, “Early morning already arriving” stresses the frustration which these men had experienced through the long, the seemingly endless, night. At last, it was already dawn, and still they had caught nothing. Looking toward the beach they see a man. It was Jesus, but they did not recognize him. Why not? Because unbelief had closed their eyes? Because supernaturally their eyes were being prevented from recognizing him (cf. Luke 24:16)? Because of the nature and appearance of his body? The reason is not given. It can hardly have been that they were too far away from the shore. After all, they were only about a hundred yards off (21:8), within shouting distance (21:5). Perhaps in this case, where nothing is mentioned that would indicate any supernatural factor, the most natural explanation is the best, namely, that a mist or morning-haze made it impossible for them to identify the person on the beach. Certainty is, however, lacking. 

5. Jesus then said to them, Lads, you haven’t anything to eat, have you? Very lovingly the Lord of glory addresses these men as, “Lads,” or “Boys.” See Vol. I, p. 181. See also I John 2:13, 18, where the aged John uses the same expression. When Jesus added, “You haven’t anything to eat, have you?,” expecting a negative answer, he did not mean, “Have you something for me to eat? I would like to buy some fish.” Rather, he asks this question in order to rivet their attention on the fact that their return to the former occupation has been a complete failure. They had failed to reckon sufficiently with God’s plan for their lives. It is as if he were saying, “You have caught nothing at all, now have you? Without me you can do nothing. Please learn that lesson once and for all. And now I will show you where you should cast the net in order to catch fish (cf. verse 6). You haven’t anything to eat, have you? So I have prepared breakfast for you” (cf. verse 9). 

This explanation, as has been indicated, has the advantage of being in harmony with the context.

6. They answered, No. So he said to them, Cast your net on the right side of the boat, and you will catch. The tired disciples answer the stranger’s question (“Lads, you haven’t anything to eat, have you?”) with a single word, “No.” — “Cast your net on the right side (literally, “on the right parts,” but that is simply an idiom) of the boat, and you will find (in the sense of catch),” says the man on the beach. Was it this command which first opened John’s eyes, sothat he began to surmise who the stranger might be? Did he recall a somewhat similar instruction earlier in Christ’s ministry (cf. Luke 5:4)? Was there something about this stranger’s voice — calmness, majesty, certainty, authority — which impressed these weary fishermen? At any rate, they immediately obeyed: 

Then they cast (it), and now they were no longer able to haul it in because of the great number of fishes.

Experienced fishermen usually do not permit a perfect stranger to give them directions. Conceivably they might have said, “Do you, standing there upon the shore, a hundred yards away from us, mean to tell us where to cast the net? It is surely far easier for us to observe what is happening in the water on both sides of the boat than it is for you to see this from such a distance! Besides, we are fishermen. We know what we are doing. So, stranger, do not give us any unsolicited advice.” But they did nothing of the kind. They do not even begin to offer an objection and then change over to the course of obedience. They do not even say, “We toiled all night and caught nothing … but at thy word we will lower the nets” (cf. Luke 5:5). None of this! Instead — so deeply impressed were they by the compelling tone of the stranger’s voice — they obey with soldierly promptness. They cast the net on the right side, and at once it enclosed so many fishes that though these fishermen kept on exerting themselves (note force of the imperfect), they were unable to pull the net up into the boat. 

It was a miracle. Jesus did not suddenly create all these fishes, but he had seen to it that at the proper moment this shoal was at the right spot to be caught. And the purpose of the miracle was to open the eyes of these men, to make them see that by themselves they could accomplish nothing, and to strengthen their faith in him! 

7. Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, It is the Lord. What we said in connection with 21:3 — “Peter generally acts before John does. John generally understands before Peter does” — is illustrated also in this case. He who had been the first to grasp the significance of the linen bandages and of the sweat-band (20:8) was also the first to discern that the stranger on the beach was the Lord. He immediately acquainted Peter with his startling discovery. John and Peter are here together again, as so often (see on 1:35–41 — where John’s presence is implied —; 13:23, 24; 18:15, 16; 20:1–10; after 21:2, 7 also verses 20–22 of this chapter; then Acts 3:1–4; 22; 8:14–17; and Gal. 2:9). In the kingdom of God the man of action and the man of vision complement each other. For the meaning of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” see on 13:23. For the verb (loved) see footnote . 

Then Simon when he heard that it was the Lord, belted his fisherman’s jacket about him, for he was stripped, and flung himself into the sea. Characteristically Peter acts at once. The idea that he was already wearing his fisherman’s jacket and that he now merely fastens a belt around it (R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 1381) is in conflict with the clause which follows immediately, namely, “for he was stripped.” By putting on his jacket and fastening the belt Peter prepared himself for stepping ashore and meeting his Lord! Before this, in order to facilitate his movements during the busy but fruitless night, he (and perhaps the others also) was working stripped to his undergarment (or perhaps loin-cloth). Impetuously Peter flings himself into the sea, which, however, at this distance from the shore was probably not very deep. He is on his way to welcome his Lord. We do not meet him again until he steps off the beach again and into the boat (21:11). 

8. But the other disciples came with the boat — for they were not far from the land, only about a hundred yards away — dragging the net full of fish. 

The other disciples, being less impulsive than Peter, were somewhat slower in arriving, for they had remained in the boat. So by means of the boat, which must have landed very soon after Peter stepped on the beach — for the distance was only about “two hundred cubits” or a hundred yards — they got on land. The net full of fishes had been dragged along behind the boat. 

9. Then when they stepped ashore, they saw a charcoal fire all made and a fish lying on it, also a bread-cake. 

It was a wonderful scene which greeted the eyes of these disciples upon reaching the beach. In sharp contrast with their inability to provide food for themselves there was here a charcoal fire on which the One on the shore had prepared a simple meal of bread and fish (ὀψάριον, here as in 6:9, 11, a relish to go with the bread; see also footnote 296 above). 

A good argument can be presented for the idea that here in verse 9 we should translate a fish and a bread-cake instead of the indefinite “fish and bread,” which rendering — it must be admitted — is also possible. Verse 13 seems to indicate that there was only one bread-cake (note the definite article) and only one fish. Besides, the striking similarity between 21:13 and 6:11 seems to imply that in both cases we are dealing with a miracle of multiplication. 

10. Jesus said to them, Bring some of the fish which you have just caught. Jesus did not mean, “Bring some of your fishes because otherwise there will not be enough to eat.” On the contrary, he simply wanted them to dispose of the small fry and to save the big fishes, taking those out of the net and feasting their eyes on them, sothat they could meditate on the greatness of the miracle and its spiritual implications. 

11. Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn. From the edge of the boat Peter loosens the top of the net and through the water he drags it toward the beach, where, in all probability with the help of the others (for it was very heavy; see on verse 6 above), it was lugged ashore. When the large fish were taken out of the net, they were counted. They totaled one hundred fifty-three! Surely, a most remarkable catch! Such a heavy load of fishes might easily have caused the net to tear (as in Luke 5:6), but in the present case the Lord had seen to it that this did not happen. 

12. Jesus said to them, Come, have breakfast. From one miracle the account now proceeds to the next one, though in purpose the two are essentially one. As the men were tired and hungry, Jesus now invited them to have breakfast. 

None of the disciples was venturing (note the force of the imperfect here: they never arrived at the point of doing this) to ask him, Who art thou? for they knew that it was the Lord. They were too filled with reverence in his presence and also too thoroughly convinced in their minds with reference to the identity of the man on the beach to make any attempt by means of questioning to extract information from him regarding this subject. They knew that it was the Lord, the risen and glorious Master. 

13. Jesus came and took the bread-cake and gave to them, and the fish similarly. The significance of this statement has been suggested above on pp. 480. It is important to bear in mind that what the Lord gives to these men does not come from the fish which they had caught! He himself has prepared a breakfast for them, which mysteriously is multiplied sothat the one bread-cake and the one fish (in both cases the original has the definite article) becomes a breakfast for all these men. That it is the intention of the author to convey this fact is easy to see when one compares 6:11 (the miracle of the five bread-cakes and the two fishes) with the present passage (21:13): 

6:11

21:13

“Jesus, therefore, took the bread-cakes, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them among those who were seated; similarly the fishes as much as they wanted. 

“Jesus came and took the bread-cake and gave to them, and the fish similarly.” 

Much has been written about the fact that here in 21:13 we do not read, “And when he had given thanks.” But was it necessary for the evangelist to write down everything that transpired? 

14. This was now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples after having risen from the dead. 

For the meaning of the verb was manifested see on 21:1 and also footnote 294. Jesus did not manifest himself to his enemies (Acts 10:41), but to his friends. Although the present appearance is mentioned as Number 7 on the list given in connection with verse 1, nevertheless, if we exclude from our count those in which the Lord revealed himself to the women and to individuals, and count only those in which he appeared to the inner circle of his disciples considered as a group (though not necessarily with every member present), we arrive at the conclusion that this was the third manifestation. That John has this in mind is clear from the phrase “to the disciples.” The first is recorded in 20:19–23; the second in 20:24–29. 

For Synthesis see on p. 475. 

21:15–23

15 Now 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, “Indeed, Lord, thou knowest that I have affection for thee.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He said to him again a second time, “Simon (son) of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Indeed, Lord, thou knowest that I have affection for thee.” He said to him, “Shepherd my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, (son) of John, do you have affection for me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him this third time, “Do you have affection for me?” And he said to him, “Lord, all things thou knowest, thou dost realize that I do have affection for thee.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my dear sheep. 18 I most solemnly assure you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and to walk where you wished (to walk); but when you will have become old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and bring you where you do not wish (to go).” 19 (This he said to signify by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And having said this to him, he added, “Follow me.” 

20 Peter turned and saw following (them) the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also at the supper had leaned back on his breast and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray thee?” 21 So when Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” 23 The word then got out among the brothers that said disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If I will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” 

24 This is the disciple who is testifying concerning these things and who has written these things, and we know that true is his testimony. 25 Now there are many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the written volumes. 

21:15. Now when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon (son) of John, do you love me more than these? 

Breakfast finished, the Lord now turns to Peter in order publicly to re-instate him into his office or at least to make known to the entire Church that he has been forgiven and that he, as well as the others, has been entrusted with the care of the flock of Jesus Christ.

The circumstances must have reminded Peter of the scene of his denial. And if the circumstances as such did not remind him of this, what was about to happen was bound to do so. Note the following resemblances: 

1. It was at a charcoal fire that Peter denied his Master (18:18). It is here at another charcoal fire (21:9) that he is asked to confess (his love for) his Master. 

2. Three times Peter had denied his Master (18:17, 25, 27). Three times he must now own him as his Lord, whom he loves (21:15–17). 

3. The prediction with reference to the denial had been introduced with the solemn double Amen (13:38; see on 1:51). The prediction which immediately followed Peter’s confession was introduced similarly (21:18). 

But it has been shown that the resemblance is even more pointed. In reverse order the same three ideas — 1. following, 2. a cross, 3. denying — occur here in 21:15–19 as in 13:36–38. At that other occasion Jesus had said, “Where I am going you cannot follow me now.” With reference to Peter’s death on a cross Jesus had predicted, “But you will follow me afterward.” Then the Master had foretold the denial in these words, “I most solemnly assure you, the rooster will certainly not crow until you have denied me three times.” 

Over against 3., the three denials, stand the three affirmations which Jesus requires of Peter in answer to these questions: “Do you love me more than these? … Do you love me? … Do you have affection for me?” The prediction with reference to 2., Peter’s death on a cross, followed a little later in these words, “You will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and bring you where you do not wish to go.” And as to 1. following, the command, “Follow me … you follow me,” occurs toward the close of the story of Peter’s re-instatement. Cf. also Mark 8:34 for these same three concepts. 

There is, moreover, another striking trait of resemblance to which the passage now under study (21:15) calls attention. Jesus said to Peter, “Simon (the name which this disciple had even before he was found by Jesus; hence, very fitting here, to remind him of his behavior so like a person who does not know Jesus!), son of John, do you love me more than these?” The words, “than these” do not refer to such things as this boat, this net, these fishes, but to these men, standing here (see on 21:2). 

The question was very appropriate, for Peter had boasted, “Even though all be ensnared because of thee, yet will I never be ensnared” (Matt. 26:33). In thoroughly unjustifiable self-esteem he had placed himself above the others. This trusting in self had brought about his discomfiture. Hence, in the presence of these men he must now make his confession. 

He said to him, Indeed, Lord, thou knowest that I have affection for thee.

In two respects Simon’s answer differs from the Lord’s question: 1. He no longer compares himself with his fellow-disciples, to their disadvantage. His “Indeed” (ναί, not “Yes,” in the sense of, “Yes, I love thee more than the others do”) has reference to the fact that he feels sure that he has in his heart something similar to that about which Jesus is enquiring; something similar, but not the same; hence, 2. He uses another verb, a verb with a slightly different meaning.306 

With becoming modesty and pleasing diffidence Peter, humbled by the memory of his fall, refuses to use the higher term for love, the verb which Jesus had used. For the love of intelligence and purpose, the love of wholehearted devotion, about which Jesus was asking, Peter substitutes the more subjective affection. At the same time, instead of boasting, as if he were thoroughly acquainted with the state of his own heart, he casts himself upon (and appeals to) the penetrating knowledge of his Lord. Peter says, “Thou knowest that I have affection for thee.” With respect to the knowledge possessed by the Lord see on 2:25; cf. II Cor. 11:31; Gal. 1:20. 

Attachment to Jesus is an absolute prerequisite for rendering service in his kingdom. And in tender mercy Jesus is willing to bestow this great privilege upon one who lays claim to nothing better than the humbler (though still very precious) type of love. So

He (Jesus) said to him, Feed my lambs. For the meaning of this expression in comparison with the similar commands in verses 16 and 17 see on verse 17. 

16. He said to him a second time, Simon, son of John, do you love me? The second question differs from the first. It probes deeper and is more painful. It is as if Jesus were saying, “Simon, by your silence with reference to these others you have indicated that you no longer believe that you love me more than they do. But now, dropping all comparison, do you really love me?” Jesus again uses the same verb which he had used before. He is again asking whether Simon loves him with thorough-going devotion and with his entire person (not only the emotions but also the mind and the will). 

He said to him, Indeed, Lord, thou knowest that I have affection for thee. Peter gives the same answer as before. He still does not dare to affirm that he possesses the higher kind of love. 

He said to him, Shepherd my sheep. See on verse 17. 

17. He said to him the third time, Simon (son of) John, do you have affection for me? This time Jesus descends to Peter’s own level, using the very term for love which Peter had used. The Lord seems to doubt whether Simon really had even such humble affection as he was claiming. 

Peter was grieved because he said to him this third time, Do you have affection for me? And he said to him, Lord, all things thou knowest, thou dost realize that I do have affection for thee.

The fact that Jesus had now asked the question in this form grieved Peter. This is understandable. Anyone who mentally places himself in a similar situation can enter into this at once. How should Peter not be grieved when Jesus seems to call in question even his subjective attachment, his affection for the Lord? Within his heart Peter is convinced that he possesses this humbler love. But he has learned his lesson. He does not dare to appeal to anything within himself. So he appeals once more, and now more emphatically than ever, to his Lord’s omniscience. Says he, “Lord, all things thou knowest.” And because Jesus knows all things, he must be able to realize that Peter has affection for Jesus. (The first verb is οἶδας; the second is γινώσκεις see on 1:10, 31; 3:11; 8:28.) 

Jesus said to him, Feed my dear sheep.

Just what does Jesus mean by this threefold charge which he gives to Peter? It is hardly probable that in speaking of lambs (verse 15), sheep (verse 16), and dear sheep (or dear little sheep; note the diminutive, but this may not have reference to age or physical size, but may be due to Christ’s tender affection for his own) he had in mind three different groups within the Church; for example, little children, adults, and young people. The notion that Jesus refers to age-groups is no more reasonable than the belief that in the allegory of the Good Shepherd (chapter 10) three different groups of people are indicated by the thieves, the strangers, and the hirelings. 

Rather, while all three terms refer to the same flock of the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ, this flock is viewed from three different aspects. Believers and their children are looked upon, first of all, as lambs, for they are weak and immature; hence, in need of the strengthening food of the Word; secondly, as sheep, prone to wander and dependent in everything; hence, in need of being shepherded (see on chapter 10); and finally, as dear sheep, immature and in need of the tender and loving nourishment of the Word. 

It is as if the Master says to Peter: “Simon, you were weak like a lamb, wandering like a sheep, yet, throughout it all, you, like a dear (“little”) sheep, were the object of my tender and loving solicitude. Now, having profited by your experiences (because of your sincere sorrow), consider the members of my Church to be your lambs, and feed them; your sheep, and shepherd them; yes, your dear sheep, and in feeding them love them! Do not neglect the work among the flock, Simon. That is your real assignment! Go back to it!” 

Thus was Peter fully and publicly restored. With reference to shepherding the sheep and all that this implies, see on chapter 10. The metaphorical meaning of feeding — especially, as far as the character of the food is concerned — is explained in the following passages: Deut. 8:3; Job 23:12; Ps. 119:103; Is. 55:1, 2; Jer. 3:15; 15:16; John 6:33–35, 51, 58; I Cor. 3:2; 10:3, 4; I Peter 2:2; and Rev. 2:7, 17. 

18. I most solemnly assure you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and to walk where you wished (to walk); but when you will have become old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish (to go). 

For the words of solemn introduction see on 1:51; also above, on 21:15. Note: “When you were younger … when you will have become old.” This (together with the fact that Peter died during Nero’s reign, and was then already “old”) seems to indicate that in the year 30 a.d. Peter was middle-aged; older than John but not yet old. Now Jesus says, as it were, “In your younger days, whenever you wished to go out, you used to gird yourself (literally, “you used to put on your belt,” but here probably somewhat broader: “You used to get dressed for travel”) and would walk wherever you desired to walk.” The implication is that, on the whole, Peter did much as he pleased when he was younger. He did not always do the right thing either. Mercifully Jesus is not saying that this more or less free and undisciplined behavior was still characteristic of the man. We may believe that his experience of recent days had taught him a lesson. 

This description of Peter’s past uninhibited conduct is in sharp contrast with the prediction which immediately follows: “But when you will have become old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish (to go).” In his old age the moment would arrive when, far from enjoying freedom of movement, Peter would have to raise his arms, sothat a rope could be tied around him (or possibly: sothat he could be fastened to a cross; thus Tertullian). Contrary to the wish of the flesh, he would then be brought to the place of execution. In this connection it is interesting to note that the expression “to stretch out the hands” is often used by Greek authors and by the early fathers to indicate crucifixion. 

19. (This he said to signify by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) 

The passage clearly indicates that when it was written Peter had already passed from the scene of history. In his death God had been glorified (an expression also used with reference to Christ’s own passion and death, 13:31, 32), for in this apostle’s willingness to suffer martyrdom for the cause of Christ God’s grace was magnified. 

The manner of Peter’s death is related by the church-fathers, as follows: 

Eusebius: “But Peter seems to have preached in Pontus and Galatia and Bithynia and Cappadocia and Asia, to the Jews of the Dispersion, and at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head downward, for so he himself had asked suffer” (The Ecclesiastical History III, i). 

Tertullian: “At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood this rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another when he is made fast to the cross” (Antidote for the Scorpion’s Sting XV). Cf. also Origen, Against Celsus II, xlv). 

And having said this to him, he added, Follow me. The command, “Follow me,” was not meant literally, as if from now on Peter were again to accompany Jesus step by step. It must be borne in mind that the Lord’s former former visible, day-by-day association with his disciples had ceased. Accordingly, what Jesus meant was, “Be my disciple and apostle, and as such follow me in service, in suffering, and in death (by being willing to endure affliction and even martyrdom for my sake.)” It was a renewed call to discipleship and to the duties of the apostolic office (cf. Matt. 4:19, 20). 

20. Peter turned and saw following (them) the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also at the supper had leaned back on his breast and had said, Lord, who is it that is going to betray thee? 

Jesus walks away from the group, in order that presently he may vanish as suddenly from view as he had appeared. But as he walks away, Peter seems to have walked along with him. Some surmise that Peter did this because he had taken literally (see on 2:19) what Jesus had intended to be understood metaphorically (“Follow me”). Of this we have no definite proof. The suggestion cannot be lightly dismissed, however. The fact that Jesus is going to repeat his command (“Follow me”) may mean that Peter had failed to comprehend its meaning (see 21:22). 

Having walked a few steps by the side of Jesus, Peter, turning, notices someone following them. That someone was “the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also at the supper had leaned back on his breast and had said, ‘Lord, who is it that is going to betray thee?’ ” For this descriptive clause see on 13:23–25, also footnote 306; for the light which this clause sheds on the authorship of this chapter see p. 475. 

To see John following Peter is not strange. Very often the two are together, as has been indicated (see on 21:7). They were intimate friends. Where the one is, the other also wishes to be. 

21. So when Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, Lord, what about him? Being an intimate friend of John, Peter naturally is deeply concerned about his colleague’s future. A moment ago Jesus had predicted how Peter was going to glorify God in his death as a martyr. Was John going to accompany him in this experience? Peter wanted to know. 

But though to us, had we been present, the question might have seemed altogether commendable — proof of Peter’s friendly interest in his junior partner —, the penetrating eyes of the Lord probed deeper into the heart and mind of the oft-faltering disciple. Jesus knew that the sudden turn which Simon had given to the conversation indicated that the command, “Follow me,” had not registered, at least not sufficiently. Hence,

22. Jesus said to him, If I will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me! By means of these words the Lord impresses upon Peter’s mind the fact that curiosity about John’s future must make way for obedience to the Lord’s all-important command, “Follow me … Feed my lambs … Shepherd my sheep … Feed my dear sheep.” Peter must not be so deeply interested in God’s secret counsel (regarding John) that he fails to pay attention to God’s revealed will! It is a lesson which every believer in every age should take to heart. 

There is work to be done. There are souls to be reached. There is a task to be accomplished. Let Peter rivet all his attention upon this! Some people are always asking questions. They are asking so many questions that their real mission in life fails to receive the proper amount of interest and energy. There are times when questions are out of order. It has been well said that a man who has been wounded by a feathered, poisoned arrow should not begin to ask, “Of what wood is this arrow made? Of what bird did these feathers come? Is the person who shot it dark or fair, short or tall?” Let him do something first of all! 

23. The word then got out among the brothers that said disciple was not to die. 

Here we are introduced to the early Christian brotherhood. The term brothers is used here in a sense different from that which it has in 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10 (and even somewhat different from its connotation in 20:17); see on these passages. The members of the early Church are indicated here. They constituted a Christian family, and as such regarded themselves as brothers. Cf. Acts 1:16; 2:29, 37; 6:3; 7:2; 9:30, etc. 

These “brothers” misinterpreted the words of Jesus with reference to John. They also placed the emphasis where Jesus had not placed it. In the remark of Jesus to Peter the main thing by far was the positive directive: “You follow me!” The rest (“If I will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”) was secondary. To be sure, it was a necessary rebuke, but its intention was to turn Peter’s mind from his curiosity to his calling. That calling was, after all, the one important issue! By the brethren, however, what had been secondary was made the main thing, and misinterpreted besides! 

Although verse 23 would still be able to stand even if John had already died, nevertheless, it certainly conveys the most intelligible sense if it be construed as having been written while John was still alive! After John’s death the practical necessity for reporting this misunderstanding on the part of the Church with reference to a word of the Master regarding the beloved disciple would probably have vanished. The error would have corrected itself by the very fact of the apostle’s departure from this earthly scene. With John still alive the error must be corrected, in order that believers may again place the emphasis where it belonged, and may not be shocked in their faith when John dies. Hence, we read: Yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, If I will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? For the meaning of this see on verse 22. Note that the passage just quoted indicates three persons: Jesus … Peter (“him”) … John (“he”); and again, Jesus (“I”) … John (“he”) … Jesus (“I”) … Peter (“you”). 

The question now is, To whom does the word this in the next clause refer? 

24. This is the disciple who is testifying concerning these things and who has written these things. “This” cannot refer to Jesus, for he was no disciple. It must indicate either Peter or John. But Peter was no longer bearing witness (except indirectly through his epistles and through the testimony of those whom he had taught), as has already become clear, on the basis of 21:18, 19. Neither is it possible to introduce a new personality at this point. The pronoun “this” clearly refers to someone who has just been mentioned. Only John is left. That person must, therefore, be John. Accordingly, the passage must mean: “This disciple (John) is still bearing witness (the present participle is used: μαρτυρῶν) and, in addition, he is the one who has written (the aorist participle is used: γράψας; the definite article is probably authentic in both cases) these things.” The two ideas are distinct; hence, not: “By means of his Gospel John is still bearing witness,” but, “This disciple, John, is the one who is still bearing witness orally; and he recently recorded these things.” 

Verse 25 clearly shows that the expression “these things” does not refer to the contents of just one chapter. It refers to the very many things which the apostle related in chapters 1–20. Indirectly it refers even to the facts recorded in chapter 21, for this story about John and Peter and other disciples must have been obtained from (out of the very mouth of) the disciple whom Jesus loved. The manner in which it was finally recorded must have had his full approval. 

Nevertheless, it is also clear that others had a hand in writing chapter 21 (whether as a whole or in part), for the next sentence reads: And we know that true is his testimony. 

The Fourth Gospel is here called a testimony. It is the official proclamation, by an apostle and eye-witness, of the good news concerning Jesus, the Son of God. See also on 1:7, 8. 

Now what verse 24 offers is a statement of confidence, a testimonial regarding a testimony. The authors of this testimonial express themselves in very positive language. All the emphasis is on the adjective true. Notice its forward position in the sentence: “We know that true is his testimony.” Having known John for a long time, having lived with him from day to day, having heard the story from him and from others, having read about it in the Synoptics, above all: having experienced the testimony of the Holy Spirit in their own hearts with reference to the truthfulness and excellence of the contents of this Gospel, these men write as they do. 

The persons who present this testimony have not identified themselves by name. In all probability they were the elders of the church at Ephesus (or: the elders of the churches in Ephesus and surroundings). 

To be sure, the Fourth Gospel is not in need of this testimonial. It can stand on its own merits. It carries within itself the hallmark of its genuineness. But though this Gospel does not need this testimonial, the Cerinthus-circle needed it! See Vol. I, p. 33. By means of denying Christ’s deity it was destroying the significance of his atonement and undermining the faith of the Church. And that Cerinthus-circle is still with us. It has persisted throughout the centuries, appearing now in this form, then in that. It is the duty of the Church to bid defiance to Satan and to testify both officially and unofficially (both as an institution and as an organism). 

25. Now there are many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the written volumes. 

For the reason why this passage was added see on 20:30. This closing verse has been called hyperbole (rhetorical overstatement). Its importance has been minimized. It has been characterized as the subjective opinion of one scribe. But in reality what is presented here is a very fitting conclusion. Many, very many facts pertaining to the sojourn of Christ on earth had been recorded in this book. All of them served to strengthen the faith of the Church in the deity and all-sufficiency of Jesus. But, now that the book is finished, no one must begin to think that the story is complete in the sense that everything that Jesus did has been recorded. How could it ever be possible for anyone to deposit in writing the full significance of all that Jesus did, enumerating the facts one by one, and bringing out the significance of each word and deed in which his love (and all the other divine virtues) was so gloriously displayed? It is literally true that were one to attempt this he would discover that “the world itself could not contain the written volumes,” and this for the simple reason that no finite number can ever record the deeds performed by Infinite Love. 

Pencilled on the wall of a narrow room of an asylum were these familiar words:

“Could we with ink the ocean fill, 

And were the skies of parchment made;

Were every stalk on earth a quill,

And every man a scribe by trade;

To write the love of God above

Would drain the ocean dry;

Nor could the scroll contain the whole,

Though stretched from sky to sky.”

Synthesis of Chapter 21 

See the Outline on p. 446. The Son of God Triumphing Gloriously. Resurrection and Appearances. Appearance at the Sea of Tiberias 

See Preliminary Remarks, II. Purpose (pp. 475, 476), which at the same time gives a Summary or Synthesis of the contents and meaning of this entire chapter. 

Grammatical dissimilarity of sufficient importance to prove difference in authorship has not been shown by anyone, though attempts have been made. The fact, for example, that in the entire chapter the particle ἵνα, which abounds in the Fourth Gospel (in chapter 17 it is found no less than 19 times!) does not occur even once means very little. If this point should be pressed, Chapter II would present a real obstacle, for in that chapter the particle in question makes its appearance only a single time! 

Vocabulary also does not decide the issue. It leaves room for either theory: a. that the author was John himself; or b. that the author was someone else who stood in very close relation to John. Of the more than fifty different verbs (and verbals) found in verses 1–23 of this twenty-first chapter of John’s Gospel a dozen occur nowhere in the first twenty chapters. (However, four of these twelve are found in another work by the same author, the book of Revelation.) The verbs to which we refer are: to fish (verse 3), to be able (verse 6), to ask (verse 12), to have breakfast (verses 12 and 15), to feed (verses 15 and 17), to gird (verse 18), to become old (verse 18), to stretch out (verse 18); also the following (John 21 and book of Revelation): to drag (verse 8), to venture (verse 12), to shepherd (verse 16), and to turn (verse 20). 

Also, within this Gospel, of approximately thirty nouns that occur in 21:1–23 only eight are peculiar to this section (occurring nowhere else in the Fourth Gospel), namely, day-break (verse 4), beach (verse 4), something to eat (verse 5), net (verse 6), fish (verse 6), fisherman’s jacket (verse 7), cubit (verse 8: “two hundred cubits,” which equals a hundred yards), and lamb (verse 15). Naturally, when new subject-matter is introduced (John’s one and only fishing-miracle), new words will present themselves. A few others may be expected anyway. And sometimes a word may occur in a new sense; e.g., brothers (21:23). 

Note also the following resemblances between the contents of chapters 1–20, on the one hand, and 21:1–23, on the other: 1. Chapter 21 begins with the familiar phrase, “After these things” (see on 5:1). 2. The Sea of Galilee is called “the Sea of Tiberias” (21:1) just as in 6:1. 3. The three disciples whose names are mentioned in 21:2 have been named before. See footnote 295. However, here for the first time we learn that Nathanael was from Cana in Galilee. 4. There is mention here of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (21:7, 20) just as in 13:23; 19:26 (cf. 20:2). 5. There is here the same transition from πλοῖον (21:6) to πλοιάριον (21:8) as in chapter 6 (cf. 6:17–20 with 6:22). 6. The words, “Jesus came and took the bread-cake … and the fish similarly” (21:13) recall 6:11. 7. Verse 14 — “This was now the third time that Jesus manifested himself to his disciples” — has no meaning aside from 20:19, 26. 8. We meet the familiar double Amen in 21:18. See on 1:51. 

Literally: “and you will find.” 

Or “fish and bread.” 

John is fond of this verb to manifest. I count 18 instances of its use in the Fourth Gospel and First Epistle (Lenski counts 17, op. cit., p. 1376): 1:31; 2:11; 3:21; 7:4; 9:3; 17:6; 21:1 (twice); 21:14; I John 1:2 (twice); 2:19; 2:28; 3:2 (twice); 3:5; 3:8; 4:9. 

These 18 instances may be classified as follows:

a. first person singular aorist indicative active: 17:6 (I manifested thy name). 

b. third person singular aorist indicative active: 2:11 (Jesus manifested his glory); 21:1 (twice: Jesus manifested himself). 

c. third person singular aorist indicative passive: 21:14 (Jesus was manifested, was made manifest); I John 1:2 (twice: the life was manifested); I John 3:2 a (it was not yet made manifest what we shall be); I John 3:5 (he was manifested to take away sins); I John 3:8 (to this end was the Son of God manifested in order that he might destroy the works of the devil); I John 3:8 (the love of God was manifested for this purpose, that he might destroy the works of the devil); I John 4:9 (in this the love of God was manifested in us that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world). 

d. second person singular aorist imperative active: 7:4 (make yourself manifest — or simply: “show yourself” — to the world). 

e. third person singular aorist subjunctive passive: 1:31 (but in order that he might be made manifest to Israel); 3:21 (in order that it might become manifest — or evident — that his deeds were wrought in God); 9:3 (this happened in order that the works of God should be manifested — or: displayed — in him); I John 2:28 (if he shall be manifested … at his coming); I John 3:2b (when he will be manifested, we shall be like him). 

f. third person plural aorist subjunctive passive: I John 2:19 (that they may be made manifest that they all are not of us). Cf. also Rev. 3:18; 15:4. 

It is clear from this that the verb is used in connection with: a. the display of God’s glory in the words and works of Jesus at his first coming; b. the same, at his second coming; and c. more specifically, in connection with his post-resurrection appearances. It is also employed d. in a more general way, to indicate the coming to light of that which was hidden, the revelation of a person in his true character (whether good or bad) (I John 2:19; 3:2). 

The attempt (sometimes made) to distinguish between φανερόω and ἀποκαλύπτω in such a manner that φανερόω would mean public display (showing oneself to men in general) while ἀποκαλύπτω would indicate internal disclosure (to believers only) requires considerable modification in the light of the references given above (in which the verb φανερόω is used). In the light of these references we prefer the definition which we have given in this footnote and in the text. 

All the others (i.e., all except Matthew, James the Less, and Simon the Zealot) have been introduced before. See our comments on the following passages with references to the disciples whose names are mentioned or implied in the Fourth Gospel: 

A. Mentioned by name:

Simon Peter: 1:40, 41, 42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6, 8, 9, 24, 36, 37; 18:10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26, 27; 20:2, 3, 6; 21:11, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21. 

Andrew: 1:40, 44; 6:8; 12:22. 

Philip: 1:43, 44, 45, 46; 6:5, 7; 12:21, 22; 14:8, 9. 

Nathaniel (called Bartholomew in the Synoptics): 1:45, 46, 47, 48, 49; 21:2. 

Thomas: 11:16; 14:5; 20:24, 26, 27, 28, 29; 21:2. 

Judas the Greater: 14:22. 

Judas the Traitor: 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26, 29; 18:2, 35. 

B. By Indirect or Veiled Reference:

James, the brother of the author: 1:41. 

John: 1:35, 37, 38, 39; 13:23, 24, 25; 18:15, 16; 19:26, 27; 20:2, 3, 4, 8; 21:7, 20, 23, 24. 

προσφάγιον, a staple article of food of the genus fish, rather than a mere relish with the food. Compare the term used below in verse 9 and also in 6:9; see Vol. I, p. 221. On the two nouns προσφάγιον and ὀψάριον see J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, op. cit., pp. 470 and 551. 

I. The Question Formulated 

The question should be carefully formulated. It is not: “Are ἀγαπάω and φιλέω at times used interchangeably? Is there an area of agreement between them?” That the verbs have much in common and that ἀγαπάω is more and more encroaching upon the territory of φιλέω is well-known. We do not agree with those who believe that there is “a great distinction” (R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 1393) in meaning between the two verbs. But though the area of agreement may be very wide, this still leaves room for the question, “Is there any distinction, at least in certain contexts?” 

Nor is the question this: “Was it possible for these two men (Jesus and Peter), who conversed with each other in Aramaic, to choose synonyms with delicate distinction, in such a manner that the exact shade of meaning for each verb could be preserved when the story was translated into Greek; and have the precise Aramaic equivalents for ἀγαπάω and φιλέω been found?” We simply do not have the Aramaic written text, if there ever was one. And we do not know enough to be able to affirm categorically that in no possible way could such fine distinctions have been conveyed by means of the Aramaic of that day. We are compelled to proceed on the basis of the Greek text as it lies before us, in the conviction that it is fully inspired; hence, accurate in every way. 

The question, then, is this: “Here in 21:15–17 are the two verbs ἀγαπάω and φιλέω identical in meaning, sothat the variation in their use is merely stylistic; or do the two verbs as here employed convey meanings which differ to a certain extent, and does the point of the story hinge on this difference?” 

II. Those Who Accept the Former Alternative (Identity in Meaning) 

Among the translators who see no difference and therefore use the same verb seven times in their translation of 21:15–17 are the following: 

Wycliffe (1380), Tyndale (1534), “Cranmer” (The Great Bible, 1539), Geneva (1557), Rheims (1582), and A.V. (1611). For these six, in parallel columns, see The English Hexapla, London, 1841. Other English renderings that do not bring out any difference are: Coverdale (1535), John Rogers (1537), Taverner (1539), Bishops (1568), Al. Campbell (1826), Norton (1855), Anderson (1864), Noyes (1869), English Revised (1881), A.R.V. (1901) — see, however, its footnote —, Moffatt (1913), Ballantine (1923), Torrey (1933), Spencer (1937), New Catholic Authorized (1941), and R.S.V. (1946) without even a footnote to indicate that the original uses two different verbs. 

To this list should be added such translations into other languages as Syriac Peshitta (see the edition published by the American Bible Society, 1932, and also the one published by the British and Foreign Bible Society, 1950), Dutch (Statenvertaling, 1619), French (D’ Ostervald, 1917), German (e.g., Luther 1522, and later translations), Danish (see the Danish-English New Testament published by the American Bible Society, 1914), etc.

Among commentators, to mention only a few, M. Dods (in Expositor’s Greek Testament, on this verse) believes that the verbs were interchanged merely for the sake of euphony; W. F. Howard (in Interpreters Bible) sees no distinction; The Westminster Study Edition of the Holy Bible, in its comments, sees only stylistic variation, and a good many of the older commentators (including Calvin) are either entirely silent on this point or express it as their opinion that the two words are identical in meaning. 

G. Abbott-Smith, Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, entry ἀγαπάω, leaves the matter undecided (“If this distinction holds,” etc.); “Bauer and Kittel in their lexicons have thrown no fresh light upon the problem” (thus, E. G. Goodspeed, Problems of New Testament Translation. Chicago, 1945, pp. 117, 118; I agree.) 

John A. Scott, in an article, “The Words for Love in John xxi.15 ff,” CLW, 39 (1945–1946), 71, 72, defends the position that there is no distinction whatever between the two verbs, and that the author “regarded them as the very same word.” 

III. Those Who Accept the Latter Alternative (Difference in Meaning) 

The list of names on the other side is just as formidable. Jerome (383 a.d.) detected a distinction here, and he has had his followers throughout the centuries, even to the present. A few of these will now be listed, together with the rendering which they propose: 

“Diligis? … Amo” (Jerome in Vulgate, 383). 

“Do you love me? … you are dear to me” (Weymouth, 1903, and Montgomery, 1923). 

“Do you love me? … I am your friend” (The Twentieth Century, 1940). 

“Are you my friend? … I love you” (Ferrar Fenton, 1905). 

“Are you devoted to me? … I love you” (Goodspeed, 1923; again, 1945). 

“Dost thou love me? … I am fond of thee” (Concordant, 1927). 

“Dost thou love me? … I have affection for thee” (Lenski, 1931). 

“Dost thou care for me? … I love thee” (Ronald Knox, 1944). 

“Do you prize me dearly? … I love thee” (Verkuyl, Berkeley Version, 1945). 

“Are you devoted to me? … I tenderly love you” (Williams, 1949). 

“Hebt gij mij waarlijk lief? … (Gij weet dat) ik u liefheb” (Dutch, 1951, Nieuwe Vertaling). 

“Hastu my ljeaf? … (jo witte dat) ik fen jo hald” (Frisian, 1946). 

“Alskar du mig? … (du vet, att), jag har dig kär (Swedish, 1917). 

In support of this position there is a long list of commentators; e.g., C. Bouma, C. R. Erdman, F. W. Grosheide (though with commendable caution), R. C. H. Lenski, A. T. Robertson, Th. Zahn, etc.

J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan in their Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated From the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1952 (reprint of the 1930 edition), state (on p. 2), “In so severely simple a writer as John it is extremely hard to reconcile ourselves to the meaningless use of synonyms, where the point would seem to lie in the identity of the word employed.” R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, 1948 (reprint of the 1880 edition) devotes a section to these two words, and is clearly on the side of those who see a distinction in meaning here (see pp. 42, 43). L. Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1950, defends the same view (pp. 72, 73), as does also Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, New York, 1889, p. 653. 

One of the most scholarly and comprehensive articles written in favor of the distinction is that by B. B. Warfield, in PThR, XVI (1918), 153–203. He states: “That anyone should doubt that the words are used here (in John 21:15–17) in distinctive senses would seem incredible prior to experience.” 

With such a manifest division of opinion on this subject we deem it proper to present the pertinent facts, in order that the reader may get a clear picture of the manner in which the two verbs in question are used in the Four Gospels. Hence, we now present

IV. A Chart Indicating the Meaning of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in the Gospels. 

The meaning of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in The Gospels. 

References printed in italics indicate that φιλέω is used. The others have ἀγαπάω. 

MATTHEW

MARK

LUKE

JOHN

Quotation from Deut. 6:6 “love God” 

22:37

12:30; 12:33a 

10:27a

Quotation from Lev. 19:18 “love your neighbor.” 

5:34; 19:19; 22:39 

12:31; 12:33b 

10:27b (implied) 

The Father loving the Son

3:35; 10:17; 15:9a; 17:23b; 17:24; 17:26 

5:20

The Father loving the disciples

14:21c; 14:23b; 17:23a 

16:27a

God loving the world

3:16

Jesus loving the Father

14:31

Jesus loving his disciples (& loving the r.y. ruler)

10:21

11:5; 13:1a; 13:1b; 13:34b; 14:21d; 15:9b; 15:12b 

11:3; 11:36 

The disciple whom Jesus loved

13:23; 19:26; 21:7; 21:20 

20:2

Jesus issuing the precept: Love one another

13:34a; 13:34c; 15:12a; 15:17 

Jesus issuing the precept: Love your enemies 

5:44

6:27; 6:35 

The disciples loving Jesus

14:15; 14:21a; 14:21b; 14:23a; 21:15; 21:16

16:27b; 21:15; 21:16; 21:17a; 21:17b; 21:17c 

Sinful or very imperfect love; lack of love

5:46a; 5:46b 

7:6

6:32a; 6:32b; 6:32c; 6:32d 

3:19; 8:42; 12:43; 14:24; 14:28 

12:25; 15:19 

The Pharisees loving honor

6:5; 23:6 

11:43

20:46

Loving “our nation”

7:5

Loving father, mother, son, daughter

10:37a; 10:37b 

Loving the money-lender who cancels the debt

7:42

Loving much and loving little

7:47a; 7:47b 

Loving one’s master

6:24

16:13

Kissing

26:48

14:44

22:47

V. Results of the Study of the Chart

From a close study of the Chart the following becomes clear:

(1) By far the most prevalent word for love is ἀγαπάω. It is used in order to indicate almost every shade or variety of love. 

(2) Both verbs are used with respect to: 

a. The love of the Father for the Son.

b. The love of the Father for his disciples.

c. The love of Jesus for his disciples (the verb φιλέω being reserved for the love of Jesus toward Lazarus; while the verb ἀγαπάω is employed with respect to the love of Jesus for Martha, Mary, and Lazarus and for the Twelve). 

d. The love of Jesus for the apostle John.

e. The love of the disciples for Jesus.

f. Sinful love.

g. The love of the Pharisees for honor and public display.

Though this does not necessarily prove that the two verbs have identical meanings, it does indicate that the meanings in such contexts approach each other very closely. The verb ἀγαπάω is pushing out the verb φιλέω. 

(3) That there is, nevertheless, a difference — however slight and fading — between the two verbs (at least, in certain contexts) is evident from the following considerations:

a. Whenever a command or precept is issued (whether it be an Old Testament command or a New Testament precept makes no difference in this connection), the verb is always ἀγαπάω; never φιλέω. Thus “Love God,” “Love your neighbor,” “Love one another,” and “Love your enemies,” all require the verb ἀγαπάω (e.g., ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους). 

b. Love within the family-circle is indicated by φιλέω. 

c. Kissing (an outward sign of love) requires the verb φιλέω. 

All this certainly points in the direction of the conclusion that although the two verbs are very close together in meaning, so close that in certain connections they may be used interchangeably, a difference can still be detected. There are contexts in which ἀγαπάω is the right word, and φιλέω will not do; others where the opposite is true. 

Moreover, the area in which this difference in meaning must be sought is also clear from a study of the Chart. I can be ordered to seek (what I consider) someone’s good, and to do so from a high and idealistic motive, or/and out of devotion to a principle (whether good or bad). I cannot be ordered to have affection for a person. Devotion and emotion are not the same. Emotions do not permit themselves to be “ordered around.” Also, since φιλέω is the verb used in connection with family-ties and kissing it would seem that it implies and brings into prominence an element of subjective feeling which is not (at least not necessarily) stressed by the verb ἀγαπάω. 

The conclusions to which we have arrived on the basis of a study of the use of these two verbs in the Gospels (conclusions both as to closeness in meaning and as to probable difference in certain contexts) are fully confirmed by the rest of the New Testament. Paul uses φιλέω only twice (I Cor. 16:22 and Titus 3:15). Revelation has it twice (3:19; 22:15). For the rest it disappears completely. 

On the other hand, the noun kiss (φίλημα cf. φιλέω) occurs frequently (Rom. 16:16; I Cor. 16:20; II Cor. 13:12; I Thess. 5:26; I Peter 5:14 and also in Luke 7:45; 22:48). Note also “lovers of pleasure” (φιλήδονοι) rather than “lovers of God” (φίλόθεοι) in II Tim. 3:4. The verb ἀγαπάω is employed more than thirty times by Paul; about the same number of times by John in his epistles; and about half as many times in the other New Testament books. 

In present-day Greek φιλῶ is defined as meaning: “to kiss, to love”; ἀγαπῶ: “to love, to like, to be fond of.” Note that today ἀγαπῶ is very wide in meaning; yet the outward expression of affection in kissing is still φίλημα. Used widely is φίλος and φιλ— in combinations; cf. N.T. 

VI. Reasons Why We Agree With Those Who See A Distinction in The Meaning of These Two Verbs Here in 21:15–17 

(1) It has not been shown that these two verbs are completely identical in meaning everywhere else in the Gospels. Then why must they be completely identical here? The possibility of a distinction should, at least, be granted. 

(2) Would an author who usually carefully distinguishes between one verb and another verb for praying, cf. 11:22; 14:16; between one verb and another verb for knowing, 1:10, 31; 3:11; 8:28; and between several verbs for seeing, cf. 20:5–8, place next to each other two verbs for loving without any distinction in meaning, and would he do that in this context? This seems hardly probable. 

(3) Verse 17 does not say that Peter was grieved because Jesus had asked the very same question three times (or the same question for the third time), which, as a matter of fact, would not have been true even if we disregard the disputed difference in meaning between the two verbs, but that he was grieved because the third time (note the definite article here, and its absence in verse 16: “a second time”) he asked: φιλεῖς με;  

(4) By translating the two verbs exactly alike, the conversation is reduced to mere repetition. There is then no progress between questions two and three. Jesus once again asks the question which Peter has just answered. We grant that a reason can be suggested for this procedure, but it is hard to believe that Jesus would do this.

(5) The very fact that Peter in his answer chooses a different word than the one employed by Jesus in his question, and that he does this not once but twice in succession, points in the direction of a difference in meaning (be it ever so small) between the two words. It would be difficult — and perhaps impossible — to give an up-to-date illustration of the use of two synonyms thus employed, and not produce the same effect, namely, that of difference in meaning. For example: 

Q. “You have recommended this person, but do you actually know him?”

A. “Yes, I am acquainted with him.”

Q. “Do you know him?”

A. “I am acquainted with him.”

Q. “Are you acquainted with him?” 

The man frowned when this third time he was asked, “Are you acquainted with him?” He answered, “Now, listen! You know us well enough to realize that he and I are really acquainted with each other.”

To really know a person is one thing; to be acquainted with that person is not quite so strong, does not necessarily imply such a high degree of intimacy or familiarity. Synonyms are hardly ever (if ever!) exactly alike in meaning in every context. Hence also ἀγαπάῶ and φιλέω are not “the same word.” 

For the reasons indicated 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 φιλέῶ 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. 

Note on John 3:13b: “Who is in heaven.” 

By some this phrase is retained (Zahn, Lenski, Burgon, etc.). Impassioned pleas are made for its retention. Whether these arguments will convince even the majority of conservative scholars who have made a special study of textual criticism is doubtful.

The following should be consulted: N.N., textual apparatus, A. T. Robertson, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, New York, 1925, p. 111 (but cf. his remark with textual app. in N.N.); A. W. Argyle, “The Elements of New Testament Textual Criticism” in Bible Translator, July, 1953, p. 23; Grosheide, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 226, footnote 1; R.S.V. on this passage; the Dutch translation (Nieuwe Vertaling). 

A. T. Robertson states as his opinion that the phrase is “probably a gloss” (Word Pictures, Vol. V, p. 49). Grosheide adheres to Nestle’s text, and omits the phrase in his comments. Argyle states that the combined attestation of B,S,L is so strong that the words should probably be rejected.

Dr. B. M. Metzger of Princeton Seminary, who is known as an expert in textual criticism and has performed much valuable work in this field, has kindly furnished me with information to some of which at the moment I did not have access. He has also stated his own definite conclusion, which is that the phrase is not to be considered as authentic.

From his letter I quote the following:

“The clause is lacking in the following witnesses: Aleph B L W 083 33 1241 1293 and 1010; sahidic, some mss. of the bohairic, and the subachmimic Coptic (according to Sir Herbert Thompson …); Tatian (according to Ephraim and the medieval Italian Harmony in the Venetian Dialect); Didymus and Cyril of Alexandria. In the editions of Westcott and Hort, B. Weiss, H. von Soden, and A. Merk the clause is not printed as part of the original text; it is doubtless to be understood as interpretive gloss which crept into various types of N.T. text at an early date, the Neutral … text alone remaining without accepting this fundamentally ‘Western’ reading.” 

Further Dr. Metzger points out that in the set of Tischendorf’s 8th ed. of the N.T. which Hort owned and on which the latter (together with Westcott) worked in preparation of his own text, Hort has added various patristic evidences for the shorter text of John 3:13, and has corrected two errors in Tischendorf’s apparatus (where the latter cited patristic evidence in favor of the addition). Dr. Metzger accordingly states, “Thus there is less evidence in its favor and more evidence against the reading than the ordinary user of Tischendorf would surmise.” 

It is my own opinion that stronger internal-evidence arguments will have to be presented than have been presented thus far, before the majority of experts in the field of Textual Criticism will be convinced that these arguments are of sufficient weight to offset the textual evidence.

I am also of the opinion that if the words be retained, the example of the A.S.V. should be followed; that is, a note should indicate the fact that “many ancient authorities omit who is in heaven.” In fact, in that case, it might even be better, if space allows, to state precisely which texts retain and which omit these words. 

With respect to the question, “Does 3:13b express a truth?” the answer is very easy. It certainly does give expression to a sublime and most glorious Scriptural truth: Jesus Christ, the only begotten, is ever in the bosom of the Father (1:18). Jesus Christ (according to his divine nature) is present in heaven even while (according to his divine and human nature) he is present on earth. 

Literally, “the little boat,” or “the small sea-going vessel.” However, when a man becomes very familiar with a certain object through constant use, he may refer to it by means of a diminutive, without necessarily stressing its limited size. Cf. Dutch: “het bootje.” The same boat is meant in verse 8 as in verse 6. See further, p. 474 above. 

Note ὡς, just like in 11:18, where this idiom is explained. 

In creating the human body and its proportions the Lord provided us with a convenient standard for measurement, which was used by the ancients and to a certain extent has remained in use to this very day. The cubit, mentioned here in 21:8, belongs to this system of measurements. Thus we have: 

a. The thumb (cf. “rule of thumb”), Dutch: duim, the distance across this inner digit being about one inch. 

b. The finger or digit, the distance across being about ¾ inch (Jer. 52:21). 

c. The four fingers held together or handbreadth, a distance of four times ¾ of an inch, that is, three inches (II Chron. 4:5). 

d. The span, the longest possible distance covered by the expanded hand, a distance of three handbreadths; hence, nine inches (Ex. 28:16). 

e. The cubit, the length of the forearm. The word used here in 21:8 originally meant forearm, and acquired the secondary connotation length of the forearm. This equals two spans or eighteen inches (½ yard). 

f. The fathom, the length of the outstretched arms. This equals four cubits or six feet. Both the English and the Greek term (ὀργυιά) are derived from a root meaning to stretch out (Acts 27:28). 

g. The furlong (furrow-long) — Greek στάδιον — equals one hundred fathoms or 600 feet or ⅛ of a Roman mile. (6:19; 11:18; Rev. 14:20; 21:16). It was the length of the Olympic course. Hence, the term means race-course in I Cor. 9:24. 

h. The Sabbath Day’s Journey equals two thousand cubits or one thousand yards (Acts 1:12). 

i. The foot originally indicated the length of the human foot. The present English or American foot (length-measure) is longer than the average foot of the adult male. When no ruler or yardstick is handy, this common length-measure can be approximated by adding a span and a handbreadth.

j. The mile — Greek μίλιον, from the Latin milia passuum: a thousand paces —, the distance covered by taking one thousand double strides (Matt. 5:41). 

As the measurements of the human body are not constant, and also for other reasons, these distances are not exact and allow for variation in different periods of history and in different countries.

Among the strange and, for the most part, allegorical interpretations of this item of information I have found the following:

a. The fish were not counted until the shore had been reached, in order to teach us that the exact number of the elect remains unknown until they have reached the shore of heaven.

b. The ancients counted one hundred fifty-three varieties of fish!

c. There is here a veiled reference to Matt. 13:47, 48, and an indication that all kinds of people are going to be saved. 

d. The reference is to an important date in Church History, namely, 153 a.d. 

e. The total represents the sum of all the numbers from 1 to 17. Well, what of it?

f. In Hebrew characters the numerical equivalent of Simon Iona is one hundred fifty-three. 

g. The number one hundred fifty-three represents 100 for the Gentiles, 50 for the Jews, and 3 for the Trinity.

Note the prefix in this verb, similar to the one in our extract, examine. Literally the verb means to ask (in order to find) out; to enquire carefully; cf. the Dutch verb uitvragen. 

IIIB1; see Vol. I, p. 44. 

IIIB1; see Vol. I, p. 44. 

IIIB1; see Vol. I, p. 44. 

See John Foster’s article, “Denying Oneself,” ExT, 54 (1943), 331. 

The choice between πρόβατα and προβάτια in verse 16 is about even. N.N. has προβάτια in the text, but its critical apparatus does not show that it is better attested than πρόβατα. Since Jesus changed his question every time, something can be said in favor of the theory that he also changed the form of his command every time, though basically the charge to Peter remains the same. 

See J. H. Bernard, op. cit., pp. 708–710. 

↑ Back to top