John's Epilogue for Peter's Sake (Jn 21)

As one considers some literary works, they may recall a time when at the end of the book they felt as if not all the loose ends were tied up. They may have desired to read a little more about a certain interaction, or how a particular situation ended up working out. There are times when the primary purpose of the book is accomplished and then at the very end, an epilogue is offered to bring some resolution to secondary issues.

John’s final chapter feels a little like that – like an epilogue. You could read to the end of John’s gospel and wonder, “but what about Peter?” Jesus likely interacted with Peter when he appeared to the ten disciples in the upper room, but John did not say anything about the interaction. John’s last mention of Peter is rough – three denials! Was there any type of restoration between Jesus and Peter? As a reader, you likely plead with John, “Please, don’t leave me hanging!”

It is a bit anachronistic to conclude that John wrote chapter 21 as an epilogue to appease our curious minds. Nevertheless, set aside divine inspiration, John had accomplished his purpose in the book. John did not need to add this interaction between Jesus and the disciples and specifically, Peter. All the other gospel authors chose to exclude this interaction. John could have followed their lead. Then again, maybe their exclusion was impetus for John to include the interaction. We cannot be certain as to John’s reason, but we are blessed to have John share this interaction.[1]

Throughout this chapter, Jesus interacts with all the disciples and then, for a moment, Jesus interacts with just Peter. In so doing, John outlines for us four characteristics of a committed disciple of Jesus. (1) We must depend entirely on the power of Christ. (2) We must be motivated by a singularly focused love for Christ. (3) We must be willing to sacrifice for Christ. (4) Finally, we must avoid comparing Christ’s work in us with his work in others.

Purpose statement. As Jesus extends us forgiveness and reconciliation, we ought to be motivated to committed discipleship.

Depend Entirely

We must be dependent on the power of Christ (21:1-14).

Disciples go fishing. Likely, most of us infer little from this fishing trip, other than John setting the stage for Jesus’ eventual interaction with Peter. Yet, the disciples and their lone fishing trip have been fodder for harsh criticism. Hoskyns writes, “The scene is one of complete apostasy.”[2] Brown described the scene as “aimless activity undertaken in desperation.”[3] James Montgomery Boice accuses Peter of being “impatient as usual” and unable to wait patiently “for the Lord’s further appearances to him and the other disciples.”[4] A.W. Pink believes the disciples to be “serving in the energy of the flesh” and that Peter’s action “illustrates self-will.”[5]

Nothing within the text, however, requires such a negative view. True, Jesus had informed them he would go ahead of them to Galilee (Mk 14:28; 16:7) and commanded them to go to a specific mountain (Matt 28:16). Jesus, however, had not yet shown up to the mountain. Potentially, the disciples “continued their ordinary work, waiting calmly for the sign which should determine their future.”[6]

There is not a hint of “aimlessness” or “desperation” in the text. That a one-time fisherman should tell his friends one evening, “I’m going fishing,” does not imply, “I’m finished with preaching the kingdom of God, and I’m going back to my old job.” Even though Jesus be crucified and risen from the dead, the disciples must still eat! A night on the lake, when fish are best caught, is an obvious recourse for such men.[7]

So then, you may conclude the disciples, tired of waiting, abandoned what Jesus desired for them. If so, you may conclude without Christ we are prone to wander aimlessly and fail in anything we do. It is only when we are in the middle of His will that we will find success. We must follow His direction and we will then and only then find success in our responsibilities. However, if you conclude the disciples did nothing wrong, an acknowledgement of the disciples going fishing simply offers a backdrop for the rest of the chapter.[8]

One important point remains true regardless the interpretation you choose. We will never succeed in any venture unless Christ empowers us to do so. Without him, we can accomplish nothing of eternal value.

[Additional footnotes explaining a couple additional discussions drawn from the text: (1) The disciples do not recognize Jesus[9] and the specific number “153”[10] ]

Focus Singularly

We must be motivated by singularly focused love for Christ (21:15-17).

Do you love me more than these? Jesus begins this interaction with Peter by asking him, “do you love me more than these?” (Jn 21:15). (1) Possibly Jesus asked Peter if he loved the other disciples more than he loved Jesus, however, this question fits the rest of the gospel least of the three possibilities. (2) As a second alternative, Jesus asks Peter if he loves fishing (or the fishing gear) more than he loves Jesus. Likely this interpretation would flow along well with a negative view of fishing in this passage. However, in concluding that neither John nor Jesus intend to communicate anything negative about the disciples fishing, the third option is most likely. (3) Most likely, Jesus asks Peter if Peter loved him more than the other disciples loved him. This third option correlates best with Peter’s previous declaration in chapter 13.[11] Peter has consistently made bold declarations. At the last Passover, in the upper room, Peter nearly reprimands Jesus when Jesus begins to wash Peter’s feet (Jn 13:8). Just a few moments later, Peter boldly declares, “Lord, why can I not follow you now? I will lay down my life for you” (Jn 13:37). According to Matthew, shortly later, after Jesus tells his disciples about his impending death, Peter says, “though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away…even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!” (Matt 26:33-35).

Peter’s bold declarations made for an even more dramatic fall from pride. Likely, Peter not only personally needed a moment of restoration with Jesus, but for Peter to lead among the disciples once again, Jesus needed to restore Peter to his position of leadership.

Any significance between agapao and phileo? Lost within the English translations, lies an ages long discussion between interpreters as to the significance between the two variant words in this text translated, “love.” The first two times Jesus asks Peter if he loves him, the apostle John writes, “Σίμων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων (Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these).” Each time, Peter responds by admitting, “κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε (Lord, you know that I love you).” The third time, either Jesus purposefully changed his word choice or John chose to use a different word. The third time Jesus said, “Σίμων Ἰωάννου, φιλεῖς με (Simon, son of John, do you love me).” According to John, Jesus used the same word for love that Peter had been using all along.

The question is not whether John used different words but whether these different word choices matter or signify anything. I have argued, accompanied by many others, agapao and phileo carry some differences in meaning. At times, authors may use the words interchangeably, but different context and varied lexicons acknowledge nuances within the two words. Agape has often been understood as a stronger form for the word ‘love.’ I have personally argued that agape references a form of love that is a decision to sacrifice oneself for the benefit of others regardless their treatment, the circumstances, or your particular feelings. However, philos references a love characterized by affection and emotion as one would have for a family member.

Many authors argue that John (or Jesus) did not intend to communicate varied nuance with the different Greek terms. Carson offers seven reasons for rejecting any distinction.[12] Beasley-Murray as well rejects any distinction and concludes, “Lofty as this sounds, it does not take seriously the habit of the author of this chapter to use synonyms….It is difficult to believe that the author intended any distinction of meaning in these varied verbs.” Beasley-Murray goes on to add, “with this almost all exegetes concur.”[13]

Let me offer a few of the evidence the terms are used synonymously. (1) New Testament authors, including John, appear to use the two terms synonymously. For instance, John discusses the love of God the Father for Jesus. In one case John writes, “πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν (the Father loves the son)” (Jn 5:20), whereas in chapter three, John writes, “ὁ πατὴρ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν υἱόν (the Father loves the son)” (Jn 3:35). (2) Secondly, the Septuagint (LXX) translators appear to use the terms interchangeably. Translators worded Proverbs 8:17 as “ἐγὼ τοὺς ἐμὲ φιλοῦντας ἀγαπῶ (I love those who love me).” (3) In Genesis, Moses uses both terms as he describes Jacob’s love for Joseph. Once again, the LXX translators write, “Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἠγάπα τὸν Ἰωσὴφ παρὰ πάντας τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτοῦ…ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι αὐτὸν ἐφίλει ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ἐκ πάντων τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ (Jacob loved Joseph more than any other of his sons…but when his brothers saw that their father loved him more)” (Gen 37:3–4). (4) Inversely, Paul employs agape in describing Demas’ love for this present world (2 Tim 4:10). This example does seem to indicate that agape does not always refer to a better or more lofty love, although it may still refer to a sacrificial or intense love. Demas was willing to sacrifice everything for the delights of this present world.

I find myself in a minority,[14] for I believe John took no creative license in his unfolding this narrative between Jesus and Peter, and that Jesus purposefully chose the words we find in the Greek text. (1) We do not need to conclude John uses these two terms synonymously just because they are used that way in other passages or because John often employs synonyms. (2) While authors often use the terms synonymously, slight nuances are acknowledged,[15] even though one form may not be inherently better than the other. (3) The LXX usage of these words does not carry the same weight as inspired texts. The LXX uses different Greek words for love, in Proverbs, however, the Hebrew words for love in Proverbs 8:17 are the same word. Just because the LXX uses Greek words synonymously does not mean John used the same terms synonymously.

John’s use of synonyms throughout his gospel and other authors’ usage of these varied terms ought to result in caution and avoidance of any overly dramatic interpretation based on word choice. However, the context and the inherent, although slight, nuances in the two terms do offer some color to an otherwise monochromatic dialogue.

The broader context, specifically two important interactions, provide some interpretive signals for this threefold questioning: (1) Peter’s bold declarations of commitment and sacrifice amid threat of death and (2) Peter’s threefold denial of Jesus. Let me offer an interpretive summary.

Jesus: Hey Peter. Do you love me more than these other disciples love me. You remember, don’t you? You said you would remain true even if everyone else left me. Do you still want to make such a bold claim?

Peter: (humbled by his threefold denial). Lord, I’m not willing to make such a bold claim any longer. You know my heart. You know I have a great deal of affection for you.

Jesus: Hey Peter. Do you really love me? Would you be willing to sacrifice everything for me?

Peter: (more intensely feeling the weight of this interaction, with a little exasperation and slumped shoulders) Lord, you know me. You know I love you.

Jesus: (Desiring to restore Peter and lift an enormous weight of shame from Peter) Peter, do you love me with a great deal of affection?

Peter: (with no pride left, a bit of annoyance at the incessant questions, and a now very fresh recollection of his three fold denial, Peter admits) Lord, I’m unwilling to make any bold declarations of sacrificial and unwavering loyalty and love. You know everything and you know my heart. You know I love you.

Sacrifice Ultimately

We must be willing to sacrifice for Christ (21:15-19). You likely noticed, in my interpretive summary, I omitted Jesus’ responses “tend my sheep” and “feed my lambs.” Let’s consider these statements of Jesus along with Peter’s following response in verses 20-23.

We are to sacrifice ourselves for others. Having established Peter’s love, Jesus directs Peter to care for His sheep. In verse fifteen Jesus responds to Peter’s admission to love with “feed my lambs,” whereas in verse sixteen, Jesus says, “tend my sheep” and in verse 17 with “feed my sheep.” In his commentary, Colin Kruse seems to offer a subtle difference between the phrases. Kruse writes, of verse fifteen, “he was to provide spiritual nourishment for new believers”[16] for verse sixteen, Kruse considers Jesus’ commission to imply “pastoral care of believers generally.”[17]

While I personally like the nuance Kruse’ embraces, unlike the discussion about agapao and phileo, I do not think John (or Jesus) intend to communicate specific variances. With that said, tending is a broader term that would include feeding. Similarly, sheep is a broader term that would include lambs. Regardless potential nuance, the purpose remains clear. Peter’s love for Jesus should result in his love and care for Jesus’ people. Peter should willingly sacrifice himself to serve other believers.

Neither the verb “tend” nor the noun “lambs” have been used up to now in John’s Gospel, but it is clear that the same “flock” is in view as in chapter 10, for the “lambs” are Jesus’ “lambs.”[18]

Jesus expects much of his followers. Jesus calls us to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of others. Our passion and devotion for Christ reveals itself out in our passionate and loving care of His people.

We are to sacrifice ourselves for him. Following this threefold restoration and commission, Jesus unfolds for Peter the manner of his death. John writes, “Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go” (Jn 21:18).

Eventually, Peter would make the ultimate sacrifice for Christ. Peter would be crucified for his belief and love for Jesus and Jesus’ people. Tertullian would later write, “Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the cross” (Tertullian, Scorpiace 15.3.).[19] Clement also wrote of Peter’s death. “There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one nor two but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory” (I Clement 5:4).[20]

Avoid Comparison

We must not compare Christ work in us with His work in others (21:20-23).

As the interaction continues, John unfold that he had followed Peter and Jesus. Peter turns and sees John following close behind. Naturally, like anyone of us would, after being told he was going to die, Peter blurted out, “Yea! What about John? Is he going to die too?” Jesus responds to Peter, “That’s not for you to worry about. He may live until I return. That’s not your concern.”

John did not live until the return of Christ – obviously. The text even points to that reality. Regardless, John’s death was irrelevant to Peter’s interaction with Jesus. Peter needed to be focused on following Christ, not on anything else.

The reality? God works differently in each of us. He has different plans for each of us. We should not be concerned with how God works in the life of another believer. What matters is how is he is going to work in your life. We must accept His divine will and plan for each of us.

[1] There are many people who believe that John 21 is a late emendation. Primarily, these individuals believe that a follower of John wrote this chapter following the death of John. This study proceeds under the assumption that John is the author of this chapter.

[2] Edwyn Clement Hoskyns and Francis Noel Davey, The Fourth Gospel (London: Faber and Faber, 1967), 552.

[3] Beasley-Murray, John, 36:399. [Quoting Brown’s commentary, 2:1096]

[4] James Montgomery Boice, The Gospel of John: Triumph Through Tragedy (John 18-21), Logos, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2005), 1625. Boice does go on to admit, “Some commentaries suggest that Peter was being disobedient to the Lord in proposing this fishing trip, because, so the argument goes, he had been instructed only to return to Galilee and wait there for Jesus. I do not think it is necessary to say this. Whatever else he was doing, Peter was in Galilee and he was waiting, though obviously filling in the time by fishing. No, the point of the story is not disobedience. It is rather to teach us what happens when we try to accomplish spiritual things by our own strength and at our own direction.”

[5] Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 1119.

[6] Westcott and Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, 300.

[7] Beasley-Murray, John, 36:399.

[8] Carson, in his commentary on John (669-670) does offer a thought worthy of our consideration, even though his conclusions seem to demand far too much speculation. “It is impossible to imagine any of this taking place in Acts, after Pentecost. There is a certain eagerness for the risen Jesus, still strangely halting as the reality of Jesus’ resurrection is still sinking in. But most emphatically this is not the portrait of believers who have received the promised Paraclete. There is neither the joy nor the assurance, not to mention the sense of mission and the spirit of unity, that characterize the church when freshly endowed with the promised Spirit.”

[9] Disciples do not recognize Jesus. Various authors draw attention to the fact that the disciples did not recognize Jesus. Some conclude that the disciples did not recognize Jesus because he had not divinely revealed himself to them. While truly, Christ must reveal himself for no man truly sees without Christ removing the blinders. This is not likely John’s point.

The disciples were out in the lake, maybe not far, but nonetheless out in the lake. They probably were not expecting Jesus to show up at the lake, so he would not likely have been their first guess. John informs us that they had been out all night, so the sky may likely have been still darkened. Also, they were probably a little tired and not very alert. As soon as John recognizes the stranger as “The Lord,” Peter immediately goes to Him.

To draw a conclusion about men’s depravity and the darkness of men’s hearts seems a bit of a stretch.

[10] Beasley-Murray, John, 36:401; Kruse, John, 384; Michaels, The Gospel of John, 1036–37.

Beasley-Murray. Few statements in the Fourth Gospel have teased the minds of its readers so much as that in v 11, namely, that the fish caught in the disciples’ net numbered 153. It could, of course, be simply an exact reminiscence, a genuine fisherman’s story—153 great fish, and the net unbroken! Almost certainly, however, the writer intended some further significance to be seen in the number, as with all the signs performed in the ministry of Jesus and in the record of the meal in vv 9, 12, 13.

Kruse. The evangelist’s reference to the number of fish was probably not meant to be symbolic, as some have suggested, but rather to emphasize the miraculous nature of the catch—there was a large number of fish (153), they were large fish, and even so the net was not torn.

Michaels. Once the net is on land, we learn that it is “full of 153 great fish,” a number which ordinary readers take at face value—the disciples must have counted their catch!—yet one which continues to baffle and fascinate scholars. The number is remarkable both because it is very large…and because it is so specific without being a round number…or an obviously symbolic one… It is not an approximation…nor an estimate…but an exact figure. [Michaels goes on to offer a fairly exhaustive overview of the various opinions.]

[11] Carson, The Gospel According to John, 675–76; Beasley-Murray, John, 36:405.

Carson. Could be interpreted three ways: (1) ‘Do you love me more than you love these disciples?’ But this question does not cohere with any theme in the book. (2) ‘Do you love me more than you love this fishing gear?’ That is possible; the boat and the nets have been mentioned, and doubtless other gear was lying around. But in John 1 Peter is not called from his fishing, and the fishing of 21:3 has fewer negative overtones than some suppose. In any case all seven disciples went fishing: why then focus on Peter? (3) ‘Do you love me more than these other disciples do?’ (which of course assumes they are still present). This makes sense. Peter has always been able to advance the strongest personal boast.

Beasley-Murray. The question, “Do you love me more than these?”, in the context must surely mean, “… more than your fellow disciples do?” (rather than, “more than you love them,” or “more than you love your fishing equipment”). It is not that Jesus would distinguish the depth of Peter’s love from that of the others, but that Peter had brashly asserted his loyalty to Jesus as more steadfast than theirs

[12] Carson, The Gospel According to John, 676–77. “Commonly it is argued that agapaō is the stronger form of ‘to love’…This accounts for the distinction the niv maintains between ‘truly love’ and ‘love’. This will not do, for at least the following reasons: (1) We have already seen that the two verbs are used interchangeably in this Gospel….(2) No reliable distinction can be based on the lxx. For instance, Jacob’s preferential love for Joseph is expressed with both verbs (Gn. 37:3, 4)….(3) Convincing evidence has been advanced that the verb agapaō was coming into prominence throughout Greek literature from about the fourth century BC onward, as one of the standard verbs for ‘to love’….(4) Even in the New Testament, agapaō is not always distinguished by a good object: Demas regrettably ‘loved’ the present age (2 Tim. 4:10)….(5) Nor does it help to argue, with Hendriksen (2. 494–500), that because the total range of meaning of each verb is not the same as that of the other (e.g. agapaō never means ‘to kiss’), therefore there is necessarily some distinction to be made here….(6) Amongst those who insist a distinction between the two verbs is to be maintained in each verse, there is no agreement….(7) By now it has become clear that the Evangelist constantly uses minor variations for stylistic reasons of his own (cf. Morris, SFG, pp. 293–319).”

[13] Beasley-Murray, John, 36:394.

[14] Beasley-Murray, 36:394; Westcott and Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, 303.

[Beasley-Murray disagrees but offers two authors who do conclude variation in the terms.J Marsh asserted that whereas Bernard proved the point of rough synonymity, that does not prove that the words are used synonymously in this passage (Saint John, 672). Spicq also insisted that the distinction should be maintained here: “The subject is not a private conversation or a moral lesson given to a disciple, but the establishment of Peter at the head of the Church, his primacy; and the Saviour claims from him not an affection of a friend but the religious love of ἀγάπη, which constitutes the life itself of his Church” (ἈΓΑΠΗ, 3:233).

Westcott. He adopts the word which St Peter had used. Just as the idea of comparison was given up before, so now the idea of the loftiest love is given up. It is as if the Lord would test the truth of the feeling which St Peter claimed.

[15] Friberg, Friberg, and Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 30, 399. (Agapao) love, especially of love as based on evaluation and choice, a matter of will and action (Friberg, 30)…(phileo) love, as devotion based in the emotions, often distinguished from ἀγαπάω (love), which is devotion based in the will like, feel affection for (Friberg, 399).

[16] Kruse, John, 385.

[17] Kruse, 386.

[18] Michaels, The Gospel of John, 1044.

[19] Tertullian, “Scorpiace,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 648.

[20] Joseph Barber Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers (London: Macmillan and Co., 1891), 59.