Part 4: Chapters 79 to 104

Select a chapter:

251. “I go a-fishing” (John 21:1-11)

John’s gospel now tells of a third appearance of Jesus to his disciples — not the third manifestation since his resurrection (see 20:14), but the third to be recorded here, the other two being both of them appearances in the upper room (20:19,26), one on the day of resurrection and the other exactly a week later. So it seems likely that this encounter with their risen Lord now to be narrated was again on the first day of the week, just two weeks after his resurrection.

Was this to teach the disciples that the first day of the week would prove always to be the best time for communion with their risen Lord?

This new phanerosis evidently took place after an interval of some days during which the disciples were left to their own resources. A full week may have elapsed without any further personal fellowship with their beloved Master. And in this time the eleven had apparently become split into two groups. Six of them were with Peter. But what about the other four? It may be (John gives virtually no detail regarding this) that Peter’s leadership had become an issue between them, the four deeming him to be disqualified by his outrageous denials of Jesus on the night of the Lord’s arrest. But what of themselves? Hadn’t they all turned and fled (Mt. 26:56)?

The threat of a rift in the One Body — a thing disciples of Jesus have always been “good” at — would explain the very strong emphasis in this concluding episode in John’s Gospel on Peter and his special responsibilities (see v.7,1 1,15,18,19,22).

Naturally Thomas, the first to be mentioned here among the six, now stood shoulder to shoulder with Peter, for up to a week ago had he not stoutly denied his Master’s resurrection until it was madness to deny any longer?

Again, it may be that, after the Lord’s repeated message on the gathering-in of Gentiles (ch.171) and the resurrection emphasis on Galilee of the Gentiles (see ch. 256) there were some among the eleven who were already making an issue of this principle. The unexpected use of “Tiberias” instead of the much more familiar “Sea of Galilee” might perhaps be intended as a deliberate hint in this direction.

Nor is it unlikely that John’s intensely symbolic mind saw a like meaning behind Peter’s abrupt: “I go a-fishing.” At the time, the apostle doubtless meant no more than the expression of an eagerness to indulge his old enthusiasm. But, with hindsight, John was capable of unique insight into the significance of ordinary events. The “feed my sheep” episode may also be intended to add a Gentile flavour to this narrative.

There are two curious details about this fishing expedition. It included two who go nameless. Why should John make this deliberate omission? One of the two wasalmost certainly Andrew, Peter’s brother and himself a fisherman. Since there is reason to believe that in writing his gospel John had some collaboration from Andrew, it is not unlikely that that apostle insisted: “Keep my name out of this”.

The only plausible guess that can be made as td’ the identity of the other anonymous member of the party is that he was Philip, for had not he and Andrew been already associated earlier with the Lord’s provision of bread and fish (Jn. 6:5-9), and were not he and Nathaniel long-standing friends (1:45fif)?

But why should Nathaniel be included in this fishing expedition? No fisherman he, surely! did he not come from land-locked Cana? Then must not his insistence on joining the rest be read as a declaration of unanimity with them?

But by indulging his enthusiasm for his old trade (see ch.29) Peter was in error here. His Master had called him more than once from his fishing (Jn. 1:41,42 —no longer son of Jonas the fisherman; Lk. 5:8-11; 22:32; cp. Jn. 17:18; 20:21). Peter was giving the wrong lead. The reproof of this retrograde step comes out clearly enough by and by.

Fruitless Toil

In fact, that reproof came, in one sense, right away. It was a dark moonless night, the end of Passover month. Yet when conditions were in that respect ideal, they had no catch at all. Peter, ought you not to have learned something from those long dark discouraging hours?

At last, as the brightness of dawn was spreading across the sky, they headed back to shore. And there at the water’s edge they saw a fire, and by it a stranger who hailed them as though he would purchase a fish out of their catch: be’-‘Boys, you haven’t anything to eat, have you?”

A strange question. Why did he not say:

“Boys, sell me a fish, will you?”

Instead, he seemed to imply a knowledge that they had caught nothing — “not one (fish)”, for themselves, let alone for customers.

The reply came, curt and disconsolate:

“No!”

What fisherman likes to admit to total lack of success? This encounter only served to accentuate their misery.

Why this failure? Was there any stretch of water in the wide world more prolific of fish than Galilee? even a small boy with a stick, a piece of string and a bent pin would have done better? Then, why this failure?

Even whilst a grumbling Peter called to mind the one other occasion (Lk. 5:5) when he had fared so badly, the stranger shouted to them again:

“Try the right side of your boat, and you will find!” Find! It was a strange word to use about fishing; much more suitable to describe finding men.

Now a grumbling Peter had something else to grumble about.

‘What does an amateur like him know about this? ‘”We’re the professionals, aren’t we? If there were a shoal offish alongside, wouldn’t we recognize it in this daylight?’

But there was authority in that voice. So, even though not identifying the speaker, they did as they were bidden, and forthwith (Gk.) their net was loaded (Gk. mestos) with the best fish in Galilee. Six more pairs of hands came to Peter’s assistance, yet all their united straining, as they gasped with both effort and amazement, could not bring that net on board. Two hundred pounds of fish per man was more than they could manage.

Recognition

But now came recognition. Strange that they should have failed to recognize the figure of Jesus. Yet more strange that they failed to identify the voice (Jn. 10:4). But now John, the most discerning of the Twelve when it came to seeing the meaning behind the facts (e.g. 20:8), all at once knew the truth. It is always so. Men whose minds are close to the mind of Christ readily recognize his presence by what he does in their own personal experience.

With a mighty effort of self-discipline John suppressed his excitement and said quietly to Peter at his side:

“It is the Lord!”

Of course, of course! The apostle could scarce hold in a mighty shout of gladness. And then, as on so many other occasions (p.707) he was in the grip of an uncontrollable eagerness to be at his Lord’s side. What cared he now for this abundance of fishes? Was not this a repetition of what the Lord had done for him on a certain much talked-of occasion? So he left the net to the helpless six, and grabbing his heavy fisher’s coat (for he was clad only in swimming trunks), he wrapped the garment round him, and threw himself over the side to get to Jesus.

The others, just as eager as Peter, doubtless, scrambled into the dinghy, now near to capsizing, and rowed the hundred yards to shore, towing the net-full of fishes into shallow water.

Soon they were all gathered round that fire on the beach, and they marvelled that there on the hot embers lay a large fish, cooked, ready for eating.

“Bring some of your catch, too” said Jesus, and forthwith Peter returned to the net and with a mighty effort quite beyond his normal powers, he dragged all the fish ashore and — his ingrained habit asserting itself—he began to lay them out (in fives?) to facilitate the counting of them. How many he now brought, as instructed, to lay before his Master, the record does not say.

Meantime all the apostolic group knew for sure that it was their Lord to whom they owed this astonishing experience. Yet none of them dared to interrogate him in confirmation of what needed no confirmation. In silence or with restrained speech they tried to cover up their shame and excitement and gladness. Thomas, of course, was quietly pointing at the marks in hands and feet.

Now, reclining round the fire, they satisfied their hunger with bread and fish, just as at the Feeding of the Five Thou sand (6:10). But now there was fire also. John’s unusual word for “fish” (opsarion) is the same in both places. And that fish on the coals was sufficient to satisfy the sharp appetites of seven hungry men — and Jesus. They did not eat what they had caught themselves. His provision was adequate, and incomparably appetizing. The words: “he taketh bread, and giveth them” are identical with the Lord’s Last Supper usage (Mk. 14:22); so it may be inferred that he also gave thanks for the God-given meal, as at the Last Supper (Mt. 26:26).

And the intensely symbolic mind of John (App.2) brooded on the extraordinary character of it all, and his soul also was nourished therewith.

Symbolism: Fish and FISH

It is now time to read this remarkable record with a different pair of spectacles. John never calls the Lord’s miracles “miracles”; he calls them “signs”, using a word which bids his reader look for a further meaning than what the superficial details suggest.

The highly symbolic nature of this sign will be the better appreciated when it is set alongside the earlier miraculous catch of fishes in Luke 5. The resemblances and differences between the two are impressive.

Luke 5	John 21
Jesus the teacher	Jesus the absent Lord
Toiling all night	Toiling all night
Not a single fish taken	Not a single fish taken
Peter the leader	Peter the leader
Jesus in the boat	Jesus on the shore — unrecognized
Two boats	One boat
All kind of fishes —	Great fishes —
countless	a precise number
Fish caught from both boats	Fish caught on the right side
Boat sinking	Even the dinghy did not sink
Fish pulled on board	Disciples unable to pull the net in
No fire, no bread	Fire, and bread and one fish shared by all
Nets breaking	Net not broken
“Depart from me”	Peter’s eagerness to be with Jesus
“I am a sinful man”	“Thou knowest that I love thee”
“Follow me”	“Follow me”
“A fisher of men”	“Feed my sheep”

The problems provoked here by correspondence and contrast:

The essential difference between the two is that the first miracle describes in symbol the ministry of the gospel by Jesus and his apostles. (See ch. 29 on this). The second miracle, coming at the beginning of a New Day, foreshadows the fruits of that ministry in the future when Christ is “manifested” (21:1).

Then, he is a Teacher. Now, in his unperceived, unrecognized coming, he is a glorious Lord.

The disciples toil all night. By themselves they have no catch in their gospel net. When Christ comes, all at once their catch is unbelievably great.

In the earlier days of the gospel, the nets were riven and the boat sank — a plain prophecy of division in the church and consequent failure, the two boats representing Jew and Gentile in the same work.

In the earlier phase, all kinds of fishes were caught, good and bad. In the last fishing only “great” fishes are caught; the numbering of them signifies that they are redeemed; their atonement price has been paid (see Ex. 30:12-14). And these are caught on the right side, this keyword recalling those who are set at the Lord’s right hand on Judgment Day. And in that day there will be no pathetic breaking nets. Instead, the glorious idea of one unbroken Body of Christ will be a realized ideal instead of a hypocritical mockery of truth.

For all there will be a relaxed participation in a meal of fulfilled fellowship, and in this meal Christ will also share. He, and not the apostles, is the one who has prepared it.

At that time the disciple, knowing himself to be sinful and unworthy still, will nevertheless once again be bidden: “Follow me”, this time no longer eager to gather fish into the net but instead to minister as a kindly shepherd after the pattern of him who is the Good Shepherd.

One last point: In this pattern Jesus himself is both broken Bread and appetizing fish. Here is the origin of the symbol, very common in the early days of Christian persecution, when Christians silently recognized each other by the wearing of a fish symbol.

The idea went further than that, for here is a mystic anagram, more evocative than any sign of the cross:

In Greek “fish” is:

I	Jesus
Ch	Christ
Th	God’s
U	Son
S	Saviour

NOTES: John 21:1-14

1.	The sea of Tiberias. Why this unusual name? To recall the remarkable symbolic happenings in 6:1,22,23,29?
	Shewed (note the AV italics); literally: he manifested (his glory in a final miracle?}; s.w. 2:1 1.
2.	Peter and Thomas. The two who denied him are set first!
	Nathaniel now experiences the fulfilment of 1:50.
	Two other. Gospel fishing is not restricted to the Twelve.
3.	I go.- Gk. hupago often has a suggestion of curt impatience.
	I go a fishing. The last occasion was Mt. 1 7:27. Contrast Jn. 20:21; 1 7:1 8. From this point on, in the N T fishing is replaced by keeping sheep; v.15ff.
	Caught nothing; cp. Ps. 1 27:1.
4.	On the shore. Mt. 13:48 helps the symbolism here.
	Knew not. The Gk. is emphatic: not one of them at all knew him. Does this verse carry disturbing implications concerning disciples when Jesus is manifest in the Last Day?
5.	Children. Boys. Is there a hint of reproof in the non-use of “brethren”? 20:17.
	Have ye any meat? Rather: You haven’t a thing to eat, have you? More reproof? Note the symbolism behind these happenings, and their appropriateness to the Second Coming:
		a. v.5: no food at all; then (v.6) an abundance.
		b. Jesus not recognized.
		c. The disciple unwilling to come to Christ naked; so he wears his fisher’s coat,
		d. A sudden endowment of superhuman strength.
		e. Christ provides a meal: One Fish for seven men.
		f. The text implies that Jesus knew the answer must be a negative.
6.	Ye shall find. This word is unexpected here. But s.w. 1 :45.
	Multitude of fishes. For interpretation, see Is. 60:5, and perhaps Ez. 47:9.
7.	When Simon heard. His name means ‘one who hears.’
	Why did not the others emulate Peter’s urgent resolution to go to Jesus? (a) non-swimmers? (b) more concerned about the fishes? (c) lacking Peter’s faith? (see next chapter). With reference to the Last Day sign, what is this detail meant to imply?
9.	Bread, fish. Both are symbols of Christ.
10.	In view of v.9, why this instruction? It seems pointless, but certainly isn’t. See note on verse 5.
11.	Went up should surely read went back to the dinghy. This prefix ana often has this meaning.
12.	Come and dine. Here again Jesus was made known to disciples in the Breaking of Bread.
	None durst ask him. Cp. 4:27; 16:23 (B.S. 1.09).
13.	Fish. Definite article: the Fish, the one now cooking on the fire.
14.	The third time. But it was at least the seventh. Then does John mean the third in his record, or the third appearance on the first day of the week (20:19,26)?

Part 3: Chapters 53 to 78

Select a chapter:

Part 8: Chapters 183 to 208

Select a chapter:

252. Miracles, miracles, miracles (John 21:1-11)

Discerning commentators have observed that John not only calls the Lord’s miracles “signs”, but also that the great catch of fishes is the eighth sign, as though suggesting a new Beginning comparable to the Lord’s resurrection on the eighth day. Very discerning!

But why, it may be asked, have they failed to perceive that this last sign was itself a multiplicity of signs? This characteristic almost shouts from John 21, yet its message seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

Then, how complete (how discerning?) is the list which now follows?

The first marvel was, as ch.251 has underlined, that in specially favourable conditions, a full night’s fishing brought the disciples no reward. Was not that an astonishing negative miracle?

Then, by contrast, there came such a mighty catch that seven men could not bring the full net on board. But, writes John with an amazement which had lasted for years, “for all there were so many, yet the net was not broken!” — and it was a professional fisherman who wrote those words. It has to be remembered, too, that in those days the fishers of Galilee did not have nylon or steel mesh for their trade. Another negative miracle, but not so negative as the other.

Although the weight of the fish was more than the entire group of men could handle (v.6,8), only a few minutes later Peter coped single-handed (v.l1).

Nor was this the only way in which the presence of Jesus made Peter superhuman. To go to his Lord, the apostle “did cast himself info the sea.” Certainly the commonest meaning of this preposition eis is “into”. Yet, strangely enough, in this short narrative John three times uses the same word with one of its less common meanings:

a. v.4: “Jesus stood on the shore.”

b. v.11: “Peter drew the net to land.”

c. v.9: “as soon then as they were come to land.”

To read into any of these verses the meaning “into”, is to make a nonsense, and accordingly King James’ men used their commonsense and came away from the strict grammatical meaning. It looks as though John, by these three examples, was giving his readers a hint. It is as if he were saying: ‘According to your insight be it unto you.’

Another detail points to the same conclusion that Peter cast himself upon the water, to walk to Jesus.

Why should he “gird his fisher’s coat unto him” for this operation? Being virtually naked, why did he not stay so and swim the hundred yards to the shore? (Is there any beach on the verge of hill-girt Galilee where a man can walk only waist-deep a hundred yards from shore?)

Again, would Peter be so absurd as to try to swim to shore with a heavy coat impeding his movement?

When it is remembered that on an earlier occasion (Mt. 14:28-32) Peter had twice walked on the water (when it was tempestuous, and not calm, as now), it is not difficult to understand that with faith begotten out of past experience he would assay to do the same again — and be empowered to succeed once again.

Other features of this complex “sign” suggest a further element of the extraordinary.

Why, for example, did the apostles not recognize Jesus when he shouted to them? If half-a-dozen words on the telephone readily betray a man’s identity (a commonplace experience, this), ought not at least one of the seven, all of whom had been with Jesus for three-and-a-half years, to have recognized that well-loved voice at once? Another negative miracle?

And whence came the bread and fire and fish on the coals?

If the suggestion advanced in ch.251 has any substance in it, that this eighth sign was symbolic in various ways of the New Day of Messiah’s appearing, this profusion of miracles takes on an appearance of marked appropriateness, for are not the works of the Holy Spirit in the early church described as “the powers of the age to come.” (Heb.6:5)?

There is a stimulating homework here for the diligent student – to explore what specific implications there might be behind these findings. What did the symbolic mind of John perceive, and his symbolic pen imply, in this unique assembly of wonders “written for our learning”?

253. Fishes – 153 of them (John 21:11)

A fishing party, which included the present writer, once caught in a fairly short time off the coast of British Columbia, six splendid salmon. Their total weight was sixty-three pounds. If the “great fishes” caught in Galilee were on a par with these, this would make the total catch now under consideration to be about three-quarters of a ton.

But why — the question may well be asked — was John so careful as to specify meticulously how many fish were caught? At different times thousands of his readers have scented a special significance here. There is a sound instinct behind this.

Here, then, is a list of suggestions (doubtless incomplete). Some of these have a good Biblical flavour; others not at all.

1.	153 = 9×17: and 9 is the number of judgment (is it?), whilst 17 combines the ideas of “spirit” and “order”: 10 + 7 (do they?). So it is said! (Companion Bible).
2.	There were not 153 fishes, but 154—and this is 11 x 14 (or 22 x 7), again with corresponding numerical meaning. Sic!
3.	Contemporary Greek zoologists asserted that the sea contains precisely 153 different species of fishes. So John saw this number as symbolizing men out of all nations within the gospel net (Hoskyns).
4.	By Gematria (that is, substituting the numerical value of each letter), the Greek word for “fishes’ (ichthues) gives 1224 which is 153 x 8. Thus, “fishes” suggests those caught in the gospel net according to the eighth sign.
5.	When “Sons of God” is written in Hebrew characters it gives, by Gematria once again (par.4): 153. This result only holds true, however, if the Hebrew definite article is included: B’nei ha-Elohim, which could signify: Sons (disciples, converts) of the Mighty (the Apostles), that is, the fruits of their preaching.
6.	2 Chronicles 2:17 gives 153 thousand and six hundred as the number of “strangers”, i.e. Gentiles, in Israel who were numbered by David. And in Exodus 30:14-16, numbering of the people is associated with atonement and redemption.
7.	And now, mathematics. For the reason made plain by this diagram, 10 is called a triangular number 4.
	* * ****
	The next in the set is, of course, 15; and then 21, and so on.
	153 is one of this family. 153 = triangular number 17.
	Similarly, 120 (Acts 1:15) = triangular number 15 (and 15 = triangular number 5).
	276 (Acts 27:37) = triangular number 23.
	666 (Rev. 13:18) = triangular number 36 (and 36 = triangular number 8).
	These are the most noteworthy, but not the only, examples to be found in the NT The odds against all the three-figure numbers in the NT being “triangular” are enormous. Has such a thing happened by “chance”? So it looks as though the early church saw special meaning in the idea of triangular numbers. But what? Possibly, but not certainly, according to Matthew 28:19, thus:
			Father
			/
		Son		Holy Spirit
	There may be some other more satisfactory explanation of 153 outside the range of the seven suggestions listed here. But it is not necessary to believe that the eighth sign has eight different meanings.

254. “Lovest Thou Me?” (John 21:15-19)

After the miraculous catch of fishes and the meal of fellowship which ensued, Jesus addressed himself to Peter in words which carry a certain ambiguity: “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?” Was the reference to these other disciples or to these fishes? i.e: ‘Peter, do you love me more than these other disciples love me?’ or: ‘Peter, do you love me more than you love your fishing?’

Grammatically it might be either. The reader has only the context of the words to guide him. The conclusion usually reached is that Jesus was making allusion to Peter’s strong declaration of loyalty that “though all shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended;” and, “even, if I must die with thee, yet will I in no wise deny thee” (Matthew 26:33,35). Nevertheless, within a few hours, Peter had thrice denied his Lord with oaths and curses. And now three times, as if with allusion to that abysmal lapse of loyalty, Jesus put the disquieting question: “Lovest thou me?”

Although with hardly an exception, the commentators prefer this interpretation, scarcely any one of them offers a reason beyond the correspondence of these three questions with the three denials and the sharp contrast between denial and love. Plumtre stresses also the mention of a “fire of coals” in John 21:9 and 18:1 8, but this seems rather pointless.

Then, in view of certain difficulties, can this conclusion be accepted with confidence? For instance, is it conceivable that Jesus would torture his apostle in this fashion, and in the presence of some of the others? True, he was about to confer big pastoral responsibility on Peter. But was a blunt, almost over-emphatic, reminder of Peter’s weakness a suitable prelude to such a commission? Is it conceivable that in the Day of Judgment, before Jesus accepts those whom he sets at his right hand, he will torment them with pointed reminders of past disloyalty? This is not the Jesus of the gospels.

The Lord had already appeared to Peter on the day of his resurrection with the express purpose of comforting him in his self-torture: “Go tell his disciples and Peter…”; “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon.” And it was doubtless with a vivid grateful memory of all that that encounter had meant to him that Peter wrote, years later: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:5). This is one of the many pointed allusions to the gospels to be traced in 1 Peter. For Peter that meeting with his risen Lord meant his own spiritual resurrection from a day of despair, self-recrimination and bitter weeping. Is it conceivable that, after the Lord had appeared to him to impart reassurance and consolation, he would then proceed to rub salt into a sore wound that was not yet closed? Again it has to be said – this is not the Jesus of the gospels!

Further, is it not difficult to imagine Jesus inciting one of his followers to assert over and over again that he does love the Lord more than the rest do? If Peter answered point-blank: “Yes, I do,” would he not be inviting a yet more pointed reminder of those tragic hours in the courtyard of the high priest’s palace. On the other hand, if the apostle had responded with an equally explicit: “No,”the answer would have been insincere, for none loved Jesus more than Peter did. And, either way, what was to be gained by making Peter so uncomfortable concerning the worst hour of his life? Had he not already suffered enough in his own soul because of it?

Yet another important objection, of a very different kind, is the complete lack of contextual connection between the narrative of John 21 and Peter’s denials of Jesus in John 18.

A powerful alternative

This weakness—a serious one, surely—is certainly not apparent when the alternative meaning is considered: “Simon, do you love me more than you love your fishing?” The context shouts for this interpretation. In the immediate prelude to this three-fold apostrophe, there is not the smallest allusion to pastoral responsibilities, but there is emphatic reference — of a disapproving kind — to fishing: “I go a fishing… they caught nothing”… then the Lord, having rubbed in their failure (v.5 Gk.), himself provides the catch, and also the much needed meal … the shame-faced silence of the disciples (“none of them durst ask him”). All this is followed by the Lord’s insistence that there be no more “girding of thyself” (v.18) with a fisher’s coat (v.7); instead, a repeated “Follow me” (v. 19,22), itself a pointed renewal of the call to be a fisher of men (Mt. 4:19), a call given immediately after the earlier provision of a miraculous net-full of fishes. The grim words: “another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldest not” become even more grim if taken to imply: Then ought you not to get on with my work as speedily and energetically as possible?”

With such a context to steer the reader’s understanding, one is left marvelling at the obsession of the commentators here with Peter’s denials.

Thus, John’s gospel can thankfully be read as concluding not with an encounter full of uncomfortable reproach for a lapse already much repented of, but as a necessary reminder that service of the risen Lord and his brethren must come before all else. The reader turns the page and is immediately aware in the Book of Acts that Simon the fisherman is dead. He too is risen – Peter the preacher, Peter the shepherd, Peter the rock.

This, surely, is why Jesus here addressed Peter as “Simon, son of Jonas.” Almost certainly Peter was a fisherman because his father had been a fisherman before him. Such was the way of life in those days. Moreover, Peter and Andrew had their own boat — a thing unlikely with young men, unless the boat was inherited. Such, at least, is the way of things to this day in most fishing villages of Britain. Consequently, if Jesus were alluding to Peter’s love for his trade, there would be much point in calling him “son of Jonas.”

The question is not to be lightly thrust aside. With such a designed emphasis throughout the entire incident on the contrast between Peter’s former employment and his new and big responsibilities in the gospel. It would seem to be at least possible that Jesus was pressing home in Peter’s mind: Do you love me or your fishing more? Are you not willing, Peter, to say a final farewell to that old life and to become instead a shepherd of my flock?

Many years later the lesson which Peter learned that day was still remembered, to be passed on to Peter’s successors facing a similar temptation: “Feed the flock of God… not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind” (1 Peter 5:2). Thus it seems by no means unlikely that “Lovest thou me more than these” was a reminder to Peter, that having been called to be a fisher of men, he must abandon his old trade altogether.

NOTES: John 21:15-19

15.	No reference here to Peter’s denials, but plenty to fishing: v.3a,c_; 6,7,12,15-17,18,1 9b; Mt. 4:19.
16.	Feed my sheep; 10:11,16; 1 Jn. 3:16; Acts 20:28. Peter can be a shepherd, but not a Door; Jn. 10:7. The Catholic application of these words is vetoed by 1 Pet. 5:1-4.
17.	Thou knowest all things; i.e. about us disciples; 16:30,27; 1Jn. 3:20.
18.	Walked; v.7.
	Old; Ps. 37:25..
	Stretch forth thine hands in crucifixion, the time when, in contrast with past failures, Peter would achieve more than he had purposed or promised (13:37). From now on he knew himself to be sentenced to crucifixion; cp. 14:27.
	Wither thou wouldest not; Is. 46:4.
19.	By what death; 10:14,15. Jesus apparently implied; ‘So go on with the work whilst you can.’
	Glorify God: crucifixion; 12:33.

255. “Follow Me” (John 21:19-23)

The ensuing dialogue with Jesus is one which has baffled the wit of generations of translators. Without an array of explanatory footnotes, it has been found impossible to render the various phrases in such a way as to bring out adequately the nuances of meaning implied in the terms which John preserves.

It needs to be recognized that the New Testament Greek employs two different words for love:

(a)	The normal NT word, by far the commoner of the two, has been defined in the following way: “The Greek word for love in the New Testament (agapao)does notsignify any sort of emotion, but a deliberate disposition of the will — something which is within everyone’s control if he chooses to have it so. We can put God indisputably first; and we can care impartially for the interests of those we like and those we don’t like” (Gore in “The Philosophy of the Good Life”).
(b)	The other word (philos, phileo): is more akin to the modern use of the word: affection (a more emotional word), and would cover the warm affection existing between close friends or the devotion of a mother to her children.
	The distinction is illustrated by John 1 1:3,5. “He (Lazarus) whom thou lovest^b is sick;” but “Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.” Jesus had a natural fondness for Lazarus, and for Martha and Mary, too, doubtless; but to have continued into verse 5 the use of the word used in verse 3 would have been to invite misunderstanding.
	It is somewhat surprising to note that some modern scholars have advanced me suggestion that John uses the terms interchangeably. But a really wholesome view of the divine character of these records will hardly allow of such a haphazard approach, especially in the light of verse 1 7: “Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest*³ thou me?” i.e. he was grieved because Jesus changed from the use of one word to the other.

Similarly, the passage under consideration employs two words for ”know:”

(c)	To know familiarly or instinctively; for example, to know one’s next door neighbours or to know that two and two make four.
(d)	To get to know, to perceive, or to learn.
	The variations in phrase can now be set out thus:
verse 15:		“Lovest (a) thou me more than these?”
		“Thou knowest (c) that I love (b) thee.”
		“Feed my lambs.”
verse 16:		“Lovest (a) thou me more than these?”
		“Thou knowest (c) that I love (b) thee.”
		“Shepherd my little sheep.”
verse 17:		“Lovest (b) thou me?”
		“Thou knowest (c) all things. Thou knowest (d) that I love (b) thee.”
		“Feed my sheep.”

When Jesus asked (twice) if Peter’s will were disposed to love him, Peter could not in honesty assert more than a natural impulsive affection (b) for Jesus, and of this affection Jesus was already aware.

But when Jesus adopted Peter’s own phrase and asked: “Peter, have you an affection (b) for me?”, then Peter was grieved, for he felt that his Master was now questioning that about which there could be no question. Hence the indignant reproachful response: “Lord, by innate power thou knowest (c) all things (ch. 16:30); thou canst perceive (d) even now (witness the eagerness with which I came to thee just now) that I have an affection (b) for thee.” Was Jesus suggesting that, in the years to come, when Peter was no longer a fisherman in Galilee but instead a shepherd of the ecclesias of Christ, there would be times of difficulty and discouragement, when his natural love for Jesus would be insufficient to carry him through except it were strongly reinforced by another love (a) (agape) which commanded his will more effectively?

The interpretation of the triple commission given to Peter is anything but easy. The “lambs, little sheep and sheep” may, possibly be “children, young men, and elders” to whom John sends exhortation elsewhere (1 John 2:12- 14). Or, the reference may be to individuals, ecclesias and the church as 3 whole. Or, again, preachers of the gospel (Luke 10:3) and Jews and Gentiles in Christ may perhaps be covered by these terms, It is difficult to say. There can be little doubt that with these variations of phrase, Jesus was making deliberate reference to Isaiah 40:1 1: “He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom (cp. Jn. 21:20), and shall gently lead those that are with young.”

Peter and Rome

Apologists of the Roman Church are in no doubt whatever as to the meaning of the words, “Shepherd my flock.” Here, they maintain, is the plainest of all demonstrations of the supremacy of the popes. In saying: “Shepherd my flock” Jesus was, so they aver, committing unto Peter full authority over the church; Peter was the first bishop of Rome; he transmitted that authority to his successors; there has been an unbroken line of succession to the office of bishop of Rome. Hence the pope is the supreme spiritual authority today. Q.E.D.!

Alas for Rome’s pretensions! The argument breaks down at the very beginning and at every stage thereafter. Full and complete authority in the church was not committed unto Peter alone (see, for example, Matthew 18:18, Galatians 2:9). Nor is it demonstrable that Peter was ever bishop of Rome. Nor can it be shown that there was a man-to-man transmission of spiritual primacy; on the contrary, both Peter and Paul addressed the like exhortation to others utterly unconnected with Rome (1 Peter 5:1-4; Acts 20:28). And lastly, the chequered history of popes of Rome utterly fails to exhibit an unbroken succession. At every point the claims of Rome are bogus.

“Peter, lovest thou me?”. The question which had moved Peter to indignation Jesus now answered for himself: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, when thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest; but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.”

The concluding words here are a prophecy of Peter’s martyrdom for Christ, “the death by which he should glorify God.” Now, since “greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his Friend,” from this prophecy it follows, as the night the day, that Peter did love his Lord. The answer to Jesus’ interrogation was in his own “Verily, verily.” He had used the same emphatic form of words when foretelling his own betrayal by Judas. Henceforth Peter’s faithful martyrdom was as certain as that fell act had been. Like his Master, Peter knew for certain, years before it happened, that he must one day end his life on a cross. “Let a man take up his cross and follow me,” Jesus had said. For Peter this was to be literally true.

The mode of foretelling this crucifixion of Peter (the fact of it is attested by strong tradition of the early church) is somewhat unusual. The reference is possibly to the method sometimes followed of binding the victim to the cross that his impaling to it might be more easily and thoroughly completed. “Bind the sacrifice with cords, even to the horns of the altar.”

A young Peter

Why is it that the Peter of the ministry of Jesus is almost always pictured as a man approaching middle-age, when everything that is written about him suggests the impetuosity of youth — these words strikingly so? ‘When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself and walkedst whither thou wouldest.” The allusion is to recent, not distant, past. Peter had girt his fisher’s coat about him and had gone fishing; Peter had also girt his fisher’s coat about him to reach Jesus on the shore. So it was Peter, a young man, who had done these things. However, the time would come when, as an old man, he would suffer the constraint that led to martyrdom.

Such a time seemed to be imminent only a few years later. It was Passover, and Herod was currying favour with the mob by persecuting the Christians. James, the son of Zebedee, he had beheaded already. Peter was the next on the list. There in prison Peter doubtless felt that now was the time for his Lord’s prophecy to be fulfilled; evidently he was to die at Passover like his Master. Yet had not Jesus said: “When thou shalt be old…?” That night the angel came to the sleeping prisoner, roused him and said: “Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals.” Thus in one short phrase, a deliberate contrast with “another shall gird thee,” it was intimated to him that the time was not yet come when another would gird him and lead him forth to a God-glorifying death. One minute more, and Peter was a free man.

The time did come, years later, in the persecution by Nero, when Peter died precisely as Jesus said; with evident allusion to the prophecy he wrote (only a very short while before his martyrdom): “Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me’ (2 Peter 1:13-14).

An unfinished story

A careful reading of the rest of John 21 reveals the astonishing fact, easily overlooked, that John ends his gospel with a story that is only half-told. A summary of verses 19-23 will make this evident:

Jesus walks away from the rest, commanding Peter to follow him.
Peter obeys, but John follows also.
Realising this, Peter asks Jesus about John, but
is bidden not to concern himself on this score.
John inserts a warning against a possible misinterpretation of Jesus’ words, and ends there.

The purpose of the Lord’s instruction to Peter to follow him to a place apart from the rest is left unexplained, and what eventually happened or was said is not mentioned at all.

It follows, therefore, that the entire purpose of the writer had been already fully achieved when he got as far as he did. What was that purpose? Probably it was to set forth symbolically the ultimate fate of the two leading disciples. The crucifixion of Peter had already been intimated (v.18) and was now re-affirmed in the command, “Follow me.” These words, with their allusion to John 13:36,37, had symbolic significance also: “Whither I go thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me afterwards … Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake.”

John also, the disciple whom Jesus loved, evinced a desire to follow Jesus and thus provoked Peter’s curiosity (and possibly his pique): “Lord, and what shall this man do?” — as who should say: “If my love for you is to end in death for you, what of this one whom you love most of all? Is he to die in like fashion?”

In reply, by intimating that he wished John to stay behind until his return from this special errand that he had with Peter, Jesus uttered what was taken thenceforward to be a symbolic prophecy of his beloved disciple’s future — he was to “tarry till I come.”

Now since verses 18, 19 are manifestly symbolic prophecies of what was to befall Peter, it is surely reasonable to regard verse 22 concerning John in the same light. In some sense the early brethren were surely right in the conclusion they came to. It is noteworthy, too, that in issuing no disclaimer, John does not insist that his Lord’s words were to be taken only literally and not symbolically also. Instead he issued a caveat by emphasizing the conditional form which the words of Jesus took: “If I will that he tarry till I come…”

What is the explanation of the enigma? An attempt to resolve this problem has been made in “Revelation: a Biblical approach.” HAW, p.259ff

NOTES: John 21:19-23

19.	By what death … glorify God; 12:33.
	Follow me; 1:43; 13:36; Mt. 16:24; 4:19; 8:22; 9:9; 19:21.
	All these emphasize not a literal following, but spiritual loyalty, and imitation.
20.	Turning about; allusion to Lk. 22:32 Gk.(61)?
	The disciple … following, without being told. John was spiritually ahead of Peter; v.7; 20:8.

Part 2: Chapters 27 to 52

Select a chapter:

256. In Galilee (Matt. 28:16-18; Luke 24:45-48)

It has already been pointed out that Matthew’s brief account of the resurrection appearances of Jesus is tied together by four allusions to his manifestation to the disciples in Galilee:

26:32: “But after I am risen I will go before you into Galilee.”
28:7: “Behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.”
28:10: “Go, tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.”
28:16: “Then the eleven disciples went away into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.”

This emphasis on rendezvous in Galilee was doubtless dictated by the very good reason that Jerusalem was now a city of fear for followers of Jesus. It had been the scene of their panic and flight at the time of his suffering; and now the apostles were marked men because of the alarm of the priests and elders after the report from the Roman guard. But more than this, the union of Master and disciples in Galilee of the Gentiles was surely intended to mark the dethronement of Jerusalem from her position of queenly privilege and the end of Jewish prerogative in the divine purpose. Here in Galilee of the Gentiles was to be assembled the largest company of believers who saw the risen Christ.

Jesus had bidden them meet him on a certain mountain (where the sermon on the mount was proclaimed?), but — according to John’s record – some of the disciples first went back to their fishing and had to be called again to more vital privilege and activity.

Those on whom the hills have laid their awe-inspiring fascination find no difficulty in appreciating their Lord’s love of mountains. What more suitable places for prayer (Mark 3:13,14), for the instruction of the called-out disciples (Matthew 5:1), or for manifestation of heavenly glory (Matthew 17:1; 28:16)?

The disciples rallied in hundreds to the appointed spot. (One popular modern novelist describes the early church as a kind of secret society. This early part of the forty days, when word was being secretly passed on where to see the risen Jesus, is the only time when that concept has any degree of accuracy). By no means all of them believed that which had been told them by the now fully convinced apostles. “There shall ye see him … there shall ye see me” had been the emphatic words concerning this meeting in Galilee, but Matthew in honesty was constrained to record: “When they (the apostles) saw him, they worshipped him: but some (of the multitude of believers) doubted.” Perhaps they doubted as they saw Jesus approaching from a distance, and were only fully convinced when he came near and spoke to them.

Evidence – and unbelief

It is useful here to review the efforts that were made to bring conviction to the disciples:

Appearances of angels

An empty tomb

A message brought by the women

The Emmaus experience

“Handle me”

The eating of food

The exposition of Holy Scripture

Renewed miracles

And now this appearance to a great crowd of disciples. The Good Shepherd giving special care to his flock (Is. 40:11; Ez. 34:11,12,16; John 10:3,4). Thus through all the gospel records of the Lord’s resurrection appearances there runs this amazing theme of unbelief. Not at any time was it true that the disciples were thirsting to be comforted with the news that their Leader had never died or, being dead, had come to life again. But rather, at every manifestation, there was the same stolid matter-of-fact incredulity. In a few emphatic verses Mark’s record brings out this stubborn reluctance to believe:

a.	“And they (the disciples), when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her (Mary Magdalene), believed not” (16:11).
b.	“And they (the two from Emmaus) went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them” (16:13).
c.	“Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen” (16:14).

All the more marvellous is the striking contrast in the ensuing verses that to such followers should be entrusted the responsibility of a gospel of justification by faith, based on a beliefthat a crucified Saviour was risen from the dead:

d.	“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;”
e.	“but he that believeth not shall be damned” (16:16).
f.	“And these signs shall follow them that believe (16:17).

The emphasis is exactly that of John’s gospel (20:25-31).

It is unlikely that this Galilee meeting was the occasion of the great commission to become preachers of the gospel. That came later when the apostles were back in Jerusalem. At this time, the Lord was content to establish in their minds the great fact of his new status in the Father’s purpose: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” The days of his human weakness were past. Now those who acknowledged him as Lord were called upon to “honour the Son as they honour the Father.” No wonder that as the truth concerning him dawned upon them they worshipped him. Wandering preacher, scoffed at and derided, no longer! He was now the Lord of Glory, with angels and archangels at his bidding.

Yet how could he say: “All power is given unto me … in earth”?7rie words are not true yet, nor have they been. There is need here to recognize the Hebraism in the expression. Very often the word “given” is used in Hebrew in the sense of “appointed,” and in places this usage carries over into the New Testament (e.g. Matthew 19:11; John 5:22,27; Acts 7:8; 13:20,21). “Above five hundred brethren at once” (1 Corinthians 15:6) saw Jesus that day and had their doubts or disbelief laid to rest. Twenty years later it was still possible for Paul to assert with confidence that “the greater part (of this cloud of witnesses) remain unto this present,” many of them doubtless known to him personally.

These were Christ’s family, his true brethren, the New Creation of whom he was “the first begotten from the dead.” But it is doubtful whether there were any of his own kin in that great company—those who had grown up with him in the humble home at Nazareth and who, because they had known him in that easy intimate fashion, could not bring themselves to think of him in any other way. Yet among these children of Mary and Joseph was one quite outstanding character, James, the eldest, whose reputation among the Jewish nation for devout and holy living became considerable in later years. To him the Lord manifested himself specially (1 Corinthians 15:7). Most likely this took place during this last Galilee ministry. Thenceforward James was accorded a leading place among the apostles in Jerusalem.

It is difficult to believe that at some time during the forty days Jesus did not appear to his own mother, even though she was almost certainly among those who had seen him in Jerusalem. The Roman church would be glad to point to some mention of a special manifestation to Mary, but on this (if it happened) the record is altogether silent. Only the briefest of phrases (Acts 1:14) implies the conversion of the entire family to acceptance of their elder brother as the Lord of Glory.

Education, enlightenment

Much of that forty days was taken up with the systematic instruction of the eleven. “Speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God,” the Lord filled out their understanding of his coming again and also of their own responsibilities in the leadership of his Church. All this, for certain, was solidly based on a unique unfolding of the message of the Scriptures. This was a Bible School before which all other Bible Schools pale into insignificance. Those modernists, who decry the Biblical insight of the apostles and who speak in a superior fashion about their “mistaken” expectations regarding a literal Second Coming and a literal Kingdom of Christ on earth, have given little consideration (if they believe it) to the tremendous educative influence which Jesus was now able to exercise on minds no longer blinded by mistaken pre-conceived ideas concerning him. Within a few weeks these “unlearned and ignorant men” became the world’s finest Biblical scholars, able to interpret with clear insight and accuracy of detail many a Messianic Scripture which hitherto had been shrouded in uncertainty. It may be taken as almost certain that many a New Testament exposition of an unusual or even dubious character (as the twentieth-century mind deems it) was first imparted to the disciples during this period. “These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures” (Luke 24:44,45).

A man needs more than the printed page of Holy Scripture to make him wise unto salvation. He needs a mind opened to give heed to the heavenly message (Acts 16:14). He needs eyes opened to behold wondrous things out of God’s law (Psalm 119:18). He needs Christ “opening his mind” (RV) that he might understand the Scriptures. And when this blessed process takes place, with what gladness and wonder does he, like a new-born babe, open his eyes in a new and greater world of truth and assurance.

So it was now with the apostles: “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved the Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations” ((Luke 24:46,47).

Here seven items in the first principles of Christ were specifically educed by him from the Scriptures, and expanded for their better understanding:

He is the Christ, the promised Messiah.
He had to suffer and die.
He rose again.
This happened on the third day.
The word concerning him must be received with repentance.
Thus, through Baptism and Breaking of Bread, there is remission of sins.
This is a catholic gospel, available to men of all nations.

How many readers of these words, believing these first principles, could establish them from the Old Testament Scriptures which Christ now unfolded to the minds of his apostles?

NOTES: Luke 24:45-48.

45.	That they might understand the Scriptures. Yet there are those who maintain that a man needs a Bible and nothing else! (B.S. 14.01). But here were men with a Bible who needed that their understanding be “opened”. The key word here means ‘putting two and two together!’ Could this passage be the equivalent of Jn. 20:22?
46.	Suffering and glory; v.26; Acts 3:13; 17:3; 23:6; 26:23; 1 Cor. 15:3,4; 1 Pet. 1:11.
47.	Among all nations – OT witness to this is copious; e.g. Gen. 22:18; Ps. 22:27; Is. 49:6,22; Hos. 2:23; Mic. 4:2; Mal. 1:11. These are only samples. How ever did the rabbis fail to get the message?
	Beginning at Jerusalem: Is. 2:3. This phrase really belongs to v.48.
48.	Ye are witnesses: Acts 1:8,22_; 2:32; 3:15; 4:20,33; 5:32; 10:39; 13:31; 1 Pet. 5:1; 2 Pet. 1:16; Jl. 2:28.
	This verse (and v.46: rise) echoes Zeph. 3:8 LXX: but what a different emphasis there!

246. “Of Whom Speaketh the Prophet This?”

In the light of this part of the resurrection story it is pertinent to consider whether the following words were written regarding Daniel or concerning Christ:

Daniel 6

v. 3.	An excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm.
v. 4.	Then the presidents and princes sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find none occasion nor fault; forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him.
v. 10.	He kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God.
v. 14.	Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him: and he laboured till the going down of the sun to deliver him.
v. l 6.	They brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions.
v. 17.	And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that there might be no change of purpose concerning Daniel.
v. 22.	My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lion’s mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt. Also “a vision” of angels (Lk. 24:23) = Dan. 9:21_; 10:1,7,8,16 only.
v. 23.	So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no manner of hurt was found upon him, because he believed in his God.
v. 24.	And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions, them, and their children, and their wives.
v. 26.	I make a decree, that in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: for he is the living God and steadfast for ever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be unto the end.
v. 27.	He delivereth and rescueth, and he worketh signs and wonders in heaven and in earth.
v.28.	So this Daniel prospered.