John 21:1-25 - My Thoughts

Today we’re going to be discussing the mysterious 21^st Chapter of John’s Gospel. I had originally been thinking of referring to it as the “controversial” 21^st Chapter of John’s Gospel, but I decided that was too dramatic. There’s nothing controversial about it. Nobody questions that it’s a part of John’s Gospel; no one argues that it shouldn’t be a part of the canon. So it’s not “controversial” but it is “mysterious.” The mystery centres around its very existence. I alluded to this at the end of my comments last week. Why is there a Chapter 21? John’s Gospel ended very logically at the end of Chapter 20 when the author summed up the purpose of his Gospel and more or less left the story at “I can’t possibly tell you everything, so I might as well stop now.” And then we get the addendum – the 21^st Chapter.

 

The first thing I’d suggest is that it is very clearly a later addition. This wasn’t simply an afterthought on John’s part. Surely, if it had been that, then the extra material would have been put in before the last couple of verses of Chapter 20, which could then still have functioned as the end of the story. (And, no, they didn’t have word processors back then that would have made that simple, but it could have been done.) The rather awkward pasting of Chapter 21 right at the end suggests that the Gospel has already been in circulation long enough that you couldn’t add something INTO the text; you could only add something TO the text. So Chapter 21 is tacked on after the close of the Gospel, functioning something like an epilogue. That, however, doesn’t really address why Chapter 21 was added. We have to look at the content of Chapter 21 to begin to address that.

 

I keep coming back to the date of the Gospel – because it’s really important. John’s Gospel is written either in the late 1^st or early 2^nd century, with Chapter 21 being added at least a little bit later than that. The focus of Chapter 21 is Peter. There are two stories, both of which centre around either the actions or the words of Peter. I broached this last week and have to bring it up again. By the time John’s Gospel was written, the church had begun to develop a structure and a hierarchy – a hierarchy which placed the Bishop of Rome at the top. When John’s Gospel was written the leading figure in the church of Rome was a man named Clement. There is a letter still in existence from Clement, who writes to the church at Corinth and claims to be writing on behalf of the Roman church. He doesn’t identify himself as the Bishop of Rome, but he seems to be exercising that role, and he proceeds to give instructions to the Corinthian Christians. This is really the first evidence we have of the existence of an office that would come to be known as the papacy (and remember that even today the Pope is formally the Bishop of Rome.) But how does Clement claim authority? Or, how does the church justify placing universal authority in the Bishop of Rome? They do so by linking the office to Peter, who is traditionally seen as the leader of the apostles. The early church (and the Roman Catholic Church today) claims Peter as the first Bishop of Rome; the first Pope. There’s no evidence that Peter himself ever claimed such an office, but the church gives that office to him and then claims that all future Bishops of Rome are essentially “descended” from him (spiritually.) But the primacy of Peter was always controversial. We know from Galatians (written decades before John’s Gospel) that Paul got involved in an ongoing conflict with Peter, and in discussing the Mary Magdalene story I mentioned that John’s Gospel almost seems to take a shot at Peter – he and John arrived at the empty tomb together. John is said to have “believed” but Peter’s response was much less definite. It’s possible that John was a part of the group that rejected Peter’s primacy among the apostles, and therefore any primacy for his “successors.” As that became the dominant position of the church, having John’s Gospel end with Chapter 20 was perhaps a bit embarrassing, and so Chapter 21 was possibly added to “pump up” the portrayal of Peter. Was it added by the same author? Had John had a change of heart? Or did someone else write this and simply add it to the Gospel? We don’t know. We do know that it was felt necessary to add two “Peter” stories apparently to make Peter more of a hero. So we need to look at the stories.

 

The first is the story of what’s usually called “The Miraculous Catch of Fish.” We don’t know how much time has passed at this point since the resurrection. In Acts, Luke suggests that Jesus’ resurrection appearances took place over a period of 40 days and were followed by Jesus’ ascension into heaven. So we’re somewhere between the day of resurrection and the 40^th day. We can’t really be precise. My sense is that it’s been a while (perhaps it’s safe to say that it’s closer to Day 40 than to Day 1.) The passage only tells us that this is Jesus’ third appearance to “the disciples.” Clearly the author is only referring to the appearances to the disciples as a group. So Jesus’ appearance to Mary Magdalene isn’t counted because it wasn’t to the group and the story of Cleopas on the Road to Emmaus isn’t counted – and isn’t mentioned in John’s Gospel anyway. So the three appearances are Jesus’ first appearance to the group at which Thomas was absent, Jesus’ second appearance to the group with Thomas present, and now this appearance. As this first story begins, the disciples are gathered by the Sea of Tiberias. The Sea of Tiberias is better known as the Sea of Galilee. It was a traditional fishing area. Some of the disciples were from the region around Galilee and many of them were fishermen so this is a familiar setting for them. They’ve left Jerusalem, with all its dangers, and returned to a place where they felt safer. I almost get a sense of frustration or disappointment from the words of Peter: “I’m going fishing.” It’s almost as if he’s saying “I’m tired of waiting. Let’s get back to normal.” And the others say “we’ll go with you.” They don’t feel they can wait any more, they’re tired of doing nothing and they just want to get back to something familiar. So they go fishing, and it’s in this familiar activity that they encounter Jesus once again. Once more, this is a story where Jesus is not recognized – although in fairness, the disciples are in a boat about 100 yards offshore the story says and perhaps they were too far away to see him clearly. But they’re frustrated because they aren’t catching fish, and it’s interesting that they take advice in this situation from someone they don’t recognize. Maybe this is a nod to the inherent authority of Jesus – his words alone carry power. But they respond to his suggestion and they take in this huge haul of fish when before they hadn’t been able to catch anything. It was this miracle that opened the eyes of Peter. “It is the Lord!” Peter cried and he climbed out of the boat and went to shore – the first to react, as he often is, with the others following.

 

The Gospel notes that the disciples caught 153 fish. That’s a curious number – curious mostly because it’s of no real significance in and of itself. Some numbers have great symbolic importance in the Bible, but “153” doesn’t. It’s one of those little details I’ve talked about before that, to me, give an added sense of authenticity to a story. Why say “153” unless the disciples actually caught exactly153 fish? It seems to point to an event such as this actually having happened. The net wasn’t torn – which seems to be presented as evidence of a miracle, as well (apparently it should have been torn – otherwise, again, why say it?) And here, as in the story of Cleopas on the Road to Emmaus, it’s in the sharing of a meal that Jesus is recognized by the other disciples. After Jesus invites them to eat, verse 12 says “none of the disciples dared ask him ‘who are you?’ They knew it was the Lord.” There’s a sense of embarrassment, here – and note the reversal: Peter recognized Jesus first; the others needed extra convincing. Suddenly, Peter is at the head of the group. That’s important.

 

The second story focusses on an exchange between Jesus and Peter. It is one of the most confusing passages of the Bible. Three times Jesus asks Peter if Peter loves him and three times Peter says “yes.” Why does Jesus belabor the point? I personally don’t think Jesus had an inferiority complex and needed to have his ego stroked. In fact, this passage is one where knowing a little bit of Greek helps. In ancient Greek there were four words that meant love: agape, filia, storge and eros. They each refer to a different kind of love. Eros is romantic love, storge is the love you feel for family, filia refers more to friendship, and agape is self-sacrificing love. If you read this passage in Greek, you understand better what’s happening. In the first two questions, Jesus asks Peter “do you have agape for me?” (Or, “will you die for me?”) And Peter responds “I have filia for you.” (Or, “you’re a good friend.”) But he does not make the commitment Jesus asks for. This is actually a kind of disagreement between Peter and Jesus which doesn’t come out clearly in English because we have only one word for love. Jesus is challenging Peter to a deeper love, and Peter is refusing to make the commitment. The surprise comes with the third question: Jesus changes the question, and uses “filia.” (So, “are you sure you’re really my friend?”) and this is why verse 17 tells us that “Peter was hurt” (and, possibly, embarrassed.) His refusal to make the level of commitment Jesus asked for caused Jesus to question the level of commitment he actually offered.

 

JOHN 21:1-25

In essence Jesus surrendered on this point, but he continued to tell Peter to take care of his “sheep” (presumably, his followers.) So, again, Peter is now placed at the forefront. Jesus was the “good shepherd” – now Peter is the shepherd, and Jesus even offers a vision of what will happen to Peter. “When you were younger” (perhaps even in that moment) Peter did what he wanted to do and only went as far as he was willing to go. Eventually, though, that would end. Peter would be led “where you do not want to go.” As the Gospel notes, that’s a foreshadowing of Peter’s death – the traditional belief is that Peter himself was crucified in about the year AD67 – long before the Gospel of John was written, so we shouldn’t think that the author was predicting the future; he was really reporting the past, but in a way that made a point about the present and the future. Jesus challenged Peter to “follow me.” And in the end, Peter would – and in the end, regardless of their disagreement, Peter would display agape for Jesus; he would die for Jesus.

 

The passage ends with the report of the “rumour” about John. John had apparently followed Peter as he and Jesus had this discussion, and Peter seems a bit irritated – “what about him?” It seems that somehow a rumour had arisen that Jesus would return before John died. Perhaps at the time Chapter 21 was written, John was very old and close to death and Jesus still hadn’t returned, which was raising questions, as it often did (remember my comments last week about “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”) Jesus’ reply is basically “none of that is any of your business” and the author affirms that Jesus never said he would return before John’s death. So the final point again seems to be clearing up confusion about why Jesus hadn’t returned.

 

Perhaps trying to make a link with Chapter 20, the end of Chapter 21 is very similar – the author notes that Jesus did a lot of other things that it’s just not possible for him to write down. But fundamentally, I think Chapter 21 is about Peter rather than Jesus, and it’s about trying to defend the growing authority of the leader of the church of Rome over the rest of the Christian community.