Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - John 21:1 - 21:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
THE APPENDIX (CHAPTER 21)
The Fourth Gospel was plainly intended to end with 20:31. Anything following this is of the nature of an anticlimax. No copy, however, of the Gospel, so far as we know, was ever issued without the addition of c. 21, which is quoted by Tertullian (Scorp. 15) and is treated by Origen in his Commentary as on a par with cc. 1-20. It is probable that the Appendix was added as an afterthought, before the Gospel was published, and various opinions have been held as to its authorship, purpose, and source.
We have first to ask if c. 21 is by the same hand as cc. 1-20. The only evidence by which such a question can be determined is the evidence of vocabulary and style; and it is hardly possible within the brief compass of twenty-five verses to collect sufficient data. δκυν(v. 6) does not occur in cc. 1-20, nor does πάεν(v. 3) in the sense of catching fish; but then there is no fishing anecdote in the body of the Gospel. Similarly no stress can be laid on unusual words such as ποφγο (v. 5), or ἐεδτς(v. 7). τλᾶ and ἐεάεν(v. 12) do not appear elsewhere in Jn., and this must be noted, for they might very naturally have been used. So too in v. 4 we find πωα while πω is the form adopted in 18:28, 20:1. In 1:42 we have Σμνὁυὸ Ἰάο, while at 21:15 we have the shorter ΣμνἸάο. But against these differences may be set remarkable agreements in style between cc. 1-20 and c. 21. The use of ἀὴ ἀή at v. 18; the evangelistic comment at v. 23; the verbal correspondence between v. 19 and 12:33, are among the more obvious. Such similarities might possibly be due to conscious imitation of the mannerisms of Jn. by the author of the Appendix, but there are others, more subtle, which can hardly be thus explained. ἀόin v. 8 is used exactly as at 11:18; ὁοω in v. 13 just as at 6:11; σν(v. 3) is rare in Jn., but it is found 12:2, 18:1; μνο (v. 4) is thoroughly Johannine (cf. 12:42); and so is ὡ ον(v. 9; see on 4:40).1
The view taken in this commentary is that the author of c. 21 is the person whom we designate as Jn. But, whereas throughout cc. 1-20 Jn. is accustomed to reproduce the reminiscences of John the son of Zebedee, often in the form in which the aged disciple dictated them, this cannot be affirmed with confidence of the earlier part of c. 21, although it is true of vv. 15-22.
The correspondence between 21:1-13 and Luk_5:10-11 are so close that they demand investigation; and it is necessary also to take account of the Synoptic parallels to the Lucan passage. The story of the Call of Peter and Andrew, and also of James and John (Mar_1:16f., Mat_4:18f., Luk_5:1f.) is not given by Jn., who reports instead an earlier incident, when these four disciples were attracted to Jesus for the first time (1:35f.). The Lucan narrative differs from that of Mk., Mt. in significant particulars:
(a) Lk. does not tell explicitly of any call of the fishermen, as Mk., Mt. do; while he ends his story by saying that the four left all and followed Jesus (Luk_5:11), sc. that James and John followed as well as Peter and Andrew. Cf. Joh_21:19, Joh_21:20 where John (who has not been invited to do so) follows as well as Peter, to whom alone the call “Follow me” is addressed.
(b) In Mk., Mt. the promise, “I will make you fishers of men,” is explicitly given to Peter and Andrew, while the story suggests that it was intended for James and John as well. But in Lk. it is confined to Peter alone: “Fear not, from henceforth thou shalt catch men.” This is in remarkable correspondence with the giving of the commission, Pasce oues meas, to Peter alone, in Joh_21:17.
(c) Lk. interpolates the incident, which Mk., Mt. do not report, of Peter’s allegiance having been stimulated by a great catch of fish which he regarded as due to supernatural knowledge on the part of Jesus. So too in Joh_21 it is Peter who is specially moved by the great success of the fishing due, again, to the direction of Jesus, and he alone plunges into the water to greet Jesus before the others (cf. at this point the story, peculiar to Mat_14:28-31, of Peter walking on the waters).
(d) That the vocabulary of Joh_21 should recall that of Luk_5 is not in itself remarkable, for in stories relating to successful catches by fishermen the same words would naturally occur; e.g. ἐβίεν“to embark” (Luk_5:3, Joh_21:3), ἀοανι “to disembark” (Luk_5:2, Joh_21:9), δκυν(Luk_5:4, Joh_21:6). But the correspondence is not only one of vocabulary. In Luk_5:5 the fishermen say δ ὅη νκὸ κπάατςοδνἐάοε: cf. Joh_21:3 ἐ ἐεν τ νκὶἐίσνοδν In both cases, it is by the direction of Jesus that they cast the net into deeper water (Luk_5:4, Joh_21:6, where see note); and in both cases they make a great catch. In Luk_5:6 the nets were beginning to break (δεήστ), but they did not actually break, for the fishermen managed to secure them full of fish; so in Joh_21:11 it is noted that the nets were not broken. That this should be mentioned shows that there was danger of them breaking, as in Luk_5:6.
These correspondences between the stories in Luk_5 and Joh_21 of a great draught of fishes are so close that they cannot reasonably be accounted for on the hypothesis that they represent distinct traditions of two distinct incidents. Accordingly, two alternative explanations offer themselves.
(1) The author of Joh_21 may have taken his story directly from Luk_5, putting it in a different context (Wellhausen, Pfleiderer). Pfleiderer1 regards Luk_5:4-11 as itself only an “allegorical” narrative, and if this were the aspect under which it was viewed by Jn., his transference of the Lucan passage from one point to another would hardly call for comment. But that Lk. intended his story of the miraculous draught of fishes to be taken as an account of an incident that actually happened is not doubtful; nor is there any reason for thinking that Jn. understood it differently. Jn., however, corrects Synoptic narratives sometimes;2 and it is conceivable that he has deliberately retold this Lucan story, and ascribed it, not to the early days of our Lord’s ministry, but to the period after His Resurrection.
(2) A more probable explanation, however, is that Luk_5:1-11 and Joh_21 are derived, in part, from the same source, viz., a Galilæ tradition (see on 20:1) about the Lord’s appearance to Peter after His Resurrection, and the restoration of Peter to his apostolic office.
(a) First, as to Luk_5. We have seen that Mk. (followed by Mt.) tells that when Peter, Andrew, James, and John abandoned their fishing and followed Jesus, He promised two of them (if not all four) that He would make them “fishers of men.” Lk. seems to have confused this promise with the commission afterwards given to Peter to feed the sheep of Christ; and accordingly in his account of the call of the disciples he has interpolated the tradition of a miraculous draught of fishes followed by a special charge to Peter. In Lk., the promise “henceforth thou shalt catch men” is for Peter alone.
Further, the words which Lk. ascribes to Peter, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man,” (Luk_5:8) are not adequately explained by saying that Peter was moved to confess his sinfulness because of an extraordinary take of fish. But if such words were spoken when he met his Master for the first time after he had denied Him, they are very appropriate. This sentence in Lk.’s narrative suggests of itself that the narrative belongs to the period after Jesus had risen.
(b) Next, in Joh_21 there are indications that the story was originally current as a tradition, not of the third appearance of the risen Jesus to the disciples, but of His first manifestation of Himself after His Resurrection.
It is difficult to understand how disciples who already had twice conversed with the Risen Christ (20:19, 26) should fail to recognise Him when He presented Himself by the lake-side (but see note on 21:4). That they should have gone back to their fishing after the extraordinary communication to them recorded in 20:22, 23 is strange enough (Chrysostom can only suggest that they had gone back to Galilee through fear of the Jews); but it would be stranger still if they were not sensitive, after such an experience, to every slightest indication of the presence of Jesus.
Again, the story, as narrated, suggests that this was the first occasion on which Peter met and conversed with Jesus since the night when he denied Him. Vv. 15-19 relate how he was questioned by his Master, and finally reinstated, with a new and great charge, in his apostolic office. Is it likely that the person who first wrote down this story believed that Peter had seen the Risen Lord at least twice before, and had, along with his companions, been already granted the gift of the Holy Spirit and a commission to forgive sins? The inference that 21:15-19 must not be taken as posterior to 20:23 is difficult to evade.
It must not be overlooked, in this connexion, that the genuineness of πλνin 21:1 is doubtful. Different MSS. place πλνat different points in this verse (see note in loc.), and one uncial, at least, omits it altogether. It is probable that the adverb πλνin v. 1 and the whole of v. 14 (τῦοἤητίο ἐαεώηκλ have been added by Jn. to his source to bring the tradition of an appearance in Galilee into harmony with those which he has already described at Jerusalem. V. 14 is obviously a parenthesis, for the narrative runs smoothly and consecutively from v. 13 to v. 15.
These considerations lead to the conclusion that Luk_5:1-11 and Joh_21 both go back to a current story that the first manifestation of the Risen Jesus to Peter (at any rate) was by the Sea of Galilee. According to Mar_16:7 (followed by Mat_28:7), the disciples had been told that Jesus would meet them in Galilee, and Mat_28:16 states that He actually did so (see on 20:1, 21:1). Another instance of the survival of such a tradition is provided by the Gospel of Peter (second century), the extant fragment ending as follows: “It was the last day of unleavened bread, and many went forth, returning to their homes, as the feast was ended. But we, the Twelve (see on 20:24) disciples of the Lord, wept and were grieved; and each one, grieving for that which was come to pass, departed to his home. But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother, took our nets and went away to the sea, and there was with us Levi the son of Alphæ whom the Lord ..” That is to say, Pseudo-Peter makes the apostles remain at Jerusalem until the Passover Feast was over, but makes no mention of any appearances of the Risen Lord to them there. Instead, he represents them as returning to their homes, the Galilæ fishermen going back to the Sea of Galilee. When the fragment ends, it seems as if an incident like that of Joh_21:1-14 was being led up to.
Harnack holds1 that this tradition, the source of Joh_21:1-13 as of Luk_5:1-11, was narrated in the Lost Conclusion of Mark. It may be so—the evidence is insufficient for certainty; but it seems more probable that Mat_28:16f. gives us part of what was in the original Marcan narrative.
However that may be, we have reached the conclusion that Joh_21 and Luk_5 point back to a common source, viz. a Galilæ tradition about the Risen Lord. The question then arises, why did Jn. add c. 21 to the already completed Gospel?
(1) It has been suggested that c. 21 was added as a kind of postscript, because it was thought important that the rehabilitation of Peter should be placed on record. Of this there is no account in the Synoptists or in Jn. cc. 1-20. His denial is narrated in detail by all the evangelists, but his forgiveness and restoration to apostolic leadership is assumed without any explanation. That at some moment after the Resurrection he regained his old position of leader is manifest from the narrative of Acts. How were the other apostles reassured as to his stability? The beautiful story of 21:15-19 is the only explanation that has been preserved, whatever be its source; and it is easy to realise that the Church at the end of the first century would be anxious to have it placed on record, more especially after Peter’s career had been ended by a martyr’s death. The statement in v. 24 that the story was certified by the Beloved Disciple, i.e. in our view by John the son of Zebedee, who at the time of its being added to the Fourth Gospel was the only living person who could bear witness to its truth, is in no way improbable. How Peter came to be restored to his apostolic office would not seem to the first generation of Christians to be a question of sufficient importance for inclusion in a Gospel, but when the second generation began to look back it was recognised as of peculiar interest.
(2) But the principal motive for the addition of c. 21 was, no doubt, that misapprehensions as to the meaning of some words of Jesus might be removed.
The enigmatical promise (Mar_9:1 and parallels) that there were some among the disciples of Jesus who would not die until “the kingdom of God came with power” must have made a profound impression (see on 1:51). Maran Atha was the watchword of apostolic Christianity (1Co_16:22), and at first it was expected that the Parousia (cf. 14:3 and 1Jn_2:28) would come soon. Paul at one time thought that some of his contemporaries would live to see it (1Th_4:15, 1Co_15:51). By the time that the Fourth Gospel was written, the hope of the speedy return of Christ was dying out; but it was still believed by some that the Lord had promised (either in the words preserved in 21:22, or in similar words such as Mar_9:1) that it would come to pass before all the apostles died. Accordingly, when the last survivor, John the son of Zebedee, was manifestly approaching the end of his course, there must have been some at least who were disconcerted. It was probably to reassure them that the story of the promise made by Jesus to John was added to the Gospel which was based on his reminiscences, and attention directed to its exact phrasing. Vv. 21-23 may have been written down after the death of John; but it seems more probable that the true account of this incident was gathered from his lips during the last days of his long life.
The Appendix, then, embodies a tradition that was current as to an appearance of the Risen Christ in Galilee, which is also used (but misplaced) by Lk. In c. 21, it appears in a version for some deatils of which the authority of the Beloved Disciple is expressly claimed (v. 24); but it would seem that it has been edited (vv. 1, 14) by Jn. so as to bring it into harmony with c. 20. The Gospel proper contained only such incidents and sayings of Jesus as would serve the special purpose of the writer (20:30, 31); but before it was issued to the Christian community it was thought desirable to add an Appendix embodying traditions about Peter and John of which incorrect versions were current.
For vv. 24, 25, see notes in loc.
An Appearance of the Risen Christ by the Sea of Galilee (21:1-14)
21.1. μτ τῦα This introductory phrase does not connote strict sequence.1 It is used by Jn. to introduce a fresh section of his narrative, and hardly means more than “another time.”
ἐαέωε ἑυό. For φνρω(cf. v. 14) and its use in Jn., see on 1:31. It is the verb used in the Appendix to Mk. (16:12, 14) of the manifestations of the Risen Jesus to the two at Emmaus, and to the Eleven. He was not visible continuously between His Resurrection and final Departure.
ὁἸσῦ. BC om. ὁ but ins. אΓ (see on 1:29, 50).
τῖ μθτῖ. Not to the Eleven, but to some of them only. ο μθτίmight stand for “disciples” in the wider sense (see on 2:2), but that is not probable at this point, as we shall see.
ἐὶτςθλση τςΤβράο, “by the Sea of Tiberias.” For this description of the Sea of Galilee, see on 6:1. According to the Marcan tradition (Mar_16:7, Mat_28:7), Jesus was to manifest Himself in Galilee (cf. Mat_28:16). Of any appearances there, the Gospels of Lk. and Jn. tell nothing, but in this Appendix to the Fourth Gospel one such manifestation is described in detail, implying (as the story is told by Jn.) that, after the three appearances at Jerusalem described in c. 20, some of the Eleven (at least) returned to Galilee, where Jesus met them. But see note above, p. 656.
πλν(a favourite Johannine word, cf. 1:35) is placed before ἑυό by א and before ἐαέωε by D. It is omitted by some cursives.
ἐαέωε δ οτς This brusque constr. does not appear again in exactly this form in Jn.; but cf. 4:6, ἐαέεοοτςἐὶτ πγ.
2. According to Pseudo-Peter (see p. 691 above), the disciples remained in Jerusalem until the end of the Passover Feast, when some returned to their homes in Galilee. This falls in with c. 21.
Peter and the sons of Zebedee were fishermen, who took up their work in partnership, as they had been accustomed to do (Mar_1:16). ἦα ὁο, “they were together, ” and with them were Nathanael and also Thomas. The words ἄλιἐ τνμθτνατῦδοsuggest that all seven who were present were of the Twelve, for ο μθτὶατῦgenerally represents the Twelve in the Fourth Gospel. ο μθτί(without ατῦ in vv. 4, 12 stands for the seven who have been already mentioned. See for this usage on 2:2.
Nonnus, in his paraphrase of Jn., like Pseudo-Peter, says that Andrew was present on this occasion, and he may have been one of the two innominati; it would be natural that he would, as formerly, accompany Peter in his fishing. Pseudo-Peter represents “Levi the son of Alphæ” as one of the company, and it is possible that this is a true tradition and that he was the second unnamed disciple, although we should hardly expect that a former tax-gatherer (Mar_2:14) would be of use in a fishing-boat. If we had to guess at the second innominatus, the name of Philip would naturally suggest itself. He was of Bethsaida, as were Peter and Andrew (1:44); and in the lists of the apostles he always appears among the first five, with Peter, Andrew, and the sons of Zebedee (Mar_3:18, Mat_10:2, Luk_6:14, Act_1:13). He is also associated with Peter, Andrew, and John, and with Nathanael in 1:37-46. The seven disciples present on the occasion now to be described would then be the seven most prominent in the Fourth Gospel and the seven who are named first in Act_1:13. But the evidence as to the two innominati is not sufficient for certainty.
ΣμνΠτο. See on 18:15 for the full name being used at the beginning of a new section, as is the habit of Jn.
ΘμςὁλγμνςΔδμς So he is described 11:16, where see note; cf. 20:24.
κὶΝθνὴ ὁἀὸΚν τςΓλ There is no reason for supposing (with Schmiedel) that this description is made up from a comparison of 1:45 and 2:1, or that it does not represent a genuine tradition as to Nathanael’s home. See on 1:45.
ο τῦΖβδίυ Zebedee’s name is not mentioned elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel. “The sons of Zebedee,” their names not being stated, is a phrase occurring Mat_20:20, Mat_26:37, Mat_27:56.
3. λγιατῖ ΣμνΠτο. He characteristically takes the lead, saying, “I am off to fish.” For ὑάω see on 7:33. The verb ἁιύι occurs in the Greek Bible only once elsewhere, at Jer_16:16.
To repeat the full name ΣμνΠτο is not in accordance with Jn.’s habit (see on 18:15); cf. vv. 7, 11, 15.
κὶἡεςσνσί σνis not a favourite Johannine word, occurring only twice in Jn. (see on 12:2, 18:1).
ἐῆθν “they went out,” not necessarily from the same house, but from the place where they were all gathered.
ἐέηα εςτ ποο. For this phrase, see on 6:17. The rec. has ἀέηα. Probably τ ποο was the large boat which they were accustomed to use as they went about the lake with Jesus (see on 6:1).
The rec. adds εθς but om. אΔ.
ἐ ἐεν τ νκὶἐίσνοδν This recalls Luk_5:5; the night is the best time for fishing, and yet they caught nothing. πάενis used several times by Jn. (see on 7:30) of “arresting” or “taking” Jesus; but to use it of the catching of fish, as here and at v. 10, is curious. Cf. Son_2:15, Rev_19:20.
4. πωα δ ἤηγνμνς “when dawn was now breaking,” and the light not yet good. Jn. never has πωαin the body of the Gospel, while πω occurs 18:28, 20:1 (see also on 1:41). Mt. has πωα(Mat_27:1).
For γνμνς(ABC*LΘ the rec. has γνμνς(אΓΘ
ἔτ Ἰσῦ ἐὶτναγαό. ἐίis read by אΘ(cf. Mat_13:2, Mat_13:48, Act_21:5 ἐὶτναγαό); but BCNW have ες(cf. Act_27:40 εςτναγαό “towards the beach”). Perhaps εςhas come in here through assimilation to ἔτ εςτ μσν(20:19, 26, where see note).
μνο is a Johannine word; see on 12:42.
For ᾔεσνfollowed by the historic present ἐτν see on 1:39. That disciples, who had so recently seen the Risen Lord twice, according to the Johannine tradition (20:19, 26), should not recognise Him, even after He had spoken to them, might, perhaps, be accounted for by their distance from the shore and the dimness of the early morning light. Again, the failure of the two disciples at Emmaus to identify Him at first (Luk_24:31); and the failure of Mary Magdalene to recognise Him when she saw Him (20:14 οκᾔε ὅιἸσῦ ἐτν words identical with those used here) may be taken as showing that the Risen Lord was not recognisable, unless He chose “to manifest Himself.” The latter may be the true explanation.1 But the present instance of the disciples’ failure to recognise Him is perplexing, for (according to Jn.) they had already seen Him; even if we do not lay stress on the Marcan tradition according to which they had been told that they might expect to see Him in Galilee.
5. λγι…Ἰσῦ. The rec. inserts ὁbefore Ἰς with A2CDLNΘ but om. א
πιί is not put into the mouth of Jesus in any other Gospel passage, when He is addressing His disciples. It is a colloquial form of address, as we might say “My boys,” or “lads,” if calling to a knot of strangers of a lower social class. πιίνis thus used in Aristophanes (Nub. 137, Ran. 33). The use of πιί in 1Jn_2:13, 1Jn_2:18 is different.
Jesus says τκί to the disciples at 13:33, but to have employed a tender term of this kind would at once have betrayed His identity by the lake-side.
μ τ ποφγο ἔεε i.e. “have you caught any fish?” Wetstein (approved by Field) quotes a scholium on Aristoph. Clouds, 731, viz. ἔεςτ; schol. χρέτςτ ·ἔεςτ τ τνἀρυῶ λξιχώεο ·τῖ γρἁιῦι ἤὀνθγετῖ οτ φσν ἔεςτ; That is to say, ἔεςτ is the phrase in which a bystander would say to a fisherman or fowler, “Have you had any sport?” ποφγο, lit. a “relish,” something to season food, is a Hellenistic word like όο or ὀάινfor “fish,” which was the relish in common use. See on v. 10 below. ποφγο is not found elsewhere in the Greek Bible.
The form of the question, beginning with μ, suggests that a negative answer is expected (see on 6:67),1 so that we may render “Boys, you have not had any catch, have you?” And, accordingly, they answered, “No.” See on 4:29.
6. Then Jesus, perhaps having noticed from the shore that a shoal of fish was gathering at the farther side of the boat, calls to the fishermen, “Cast your net towards the right of the boat, and you will have a take.”
εςτ δξαμρ τῦποο is a cumbrous phrase for which no linguistic parallel seems to be forthcoming. In Luk_5:4 the advice of Jesus was similar, although expressed differently, viz. to let down the nets in deeper water. As the story is told, it would seem that Peter jumped into the water on the side of the boat nearest the land, being unimpeded by the net which now was on the other (the right) side, farther from the shore.2
δκυνdoes not occur again in Jn., and is the word used Luk_5:2, Luk_5:4, Luk_5:5; but nothing can be inferred from this, as it is the common word for a fishing-net.
After ερστ, א and several Latin texts mostly of the Irish school (e.g., ardmach, dim., stowe, corp., and Rawl. 1673) interpolate Luk_5:5, “but they said, Master, we toiled all night and took nothing; but at Thy word we will let down the net.” This interpolation shows that the similarity between the two narratives of a great draught of fishes in Lk. and Jn. had been observed long before the dawn of modern criticism.
κὶοκτ ατ ἑκσιἴχο. The rec. has ἴχσνbut the more vivid ἴχο is read by א For the verb ἑκενsee on 6:44. ἰχενis not found in the body of the Gospel.
ἀὸτῦπήοςτνἰθω. For the same constr cf. 2Ch_5:6 of the animals that “could not be numbered for multitude,” ο ο λγσήοτιἀὸτῦπήος Nothing is said here of the breaking of the net, which Simon and Andrew feared in the parallel story (Luk_5:6).
The Sea of Galilee still swarms with fish;1 and it is noteworthy that this great catch is not described as a σμῖν nor is it suggested that it was miraculous.
7. We have identified the Beloved Disciple with John the son of Zebedee (see on 13:23, and Introd., pp. xxxv ff.). This identification agrees well with the statement of v. 2 that the sons of Zebedee were present on this occasion; although v. 2 does not by itself prove this, for the Beloved Disciple might be one of the two innominati.
The Beloved Disciple is the first to recognise Jesus, while Peter is the first to act on the knowledge that the stranger on the beach is He. This is entirely congruous with all that the Gospels tell of the two men, the one a spiritual genius, the other an eager, impulsive, warm-hearted leader.
ὁκρό ἐτν See on 4:1.
ΣμνονΠτο. See on v. 3.
Peter, while working the boat and the nets, was γμο, i.e. he was naked except for a waist-cloth; but before leaping into the water, he threw on his upper garment, and fastened it with a belt. ἐεδτςis not found elsewhere in the N.T., but cf. 1Sa_18:4 where Jonathan presents David with his ἐεδτςas a personal gift. Meyer says that the Talmud takes over the word in the form אודא using it to describe a labourer’s frock.
The verb δεώαοsignifies that Peter tucked the garment up into his girdle before he waded ashore in the shallow water (cf. 13:4).
Syr. sin. adds, after the words “he cast himself into the sea,” the gloss “and came swimming.” The paraphrase of Nonnus also speaks of Peter swimming; and this may be intended by the Greek, but in fact the ἐεδτςor long garment which Peter put on would only have been an impediment if he had to swim ashore.1
Nothing is said of any conversation between Peter and the Risen Jesus at this point of the story (cf. contra, Luk_5:8).
8. The other disciples wished to get to shore as soon as they could, and to bring their catch with them; but the big fishing boat (τ ποο, v. 3) could not come closer in the shallow water, so they came (there were only six of them) in the dinghy (τ ποάιν cf. 6:22 and the note there), the distance being only about 100 yards.
ἀὸπχνδαοίν “200 cubits off.” For this constr. of ἀόsee on 11:18. πχω is contracted into πχνas in Eze_40:7, Eze_41:21, Rev_21:17, etc.
σρνε τ δκυνκλ “towing the net full of fishes,” i.e. having attached the ropes of the net to the dinghy. σρι does not occur again in Jn.; it is used, as here, of dragging towards one a net full of fish by Plutarch, de sollertia animalium c. 26.
9. ἀέηα, “they disembarked.” ἀοανι does not occur again in Jn.; and it is noteworthy that the only other place in the Greek Bible where it is found in the sense of “disembark” is Luk_5:2 (cf. Abbott, Diat. 1763).
For ἀθαιν see on 18:18. The Vulg. rendering of ἀθαινκιέη is prunas positas; but some O.L. texts have carbones positos, while others (a b c ff2r) have carbones incensos, as if they read ἀθαινκιμνν It is possible that this is the original reading, for κιμννwould readily be corrupted into κιέη, more expecially as ἐιεμννfollows in the next line.
ὡ ονἀέηα. ὡ ονis thoroughly Johannine; see on 4:40.
ὀάιν We have had the word ὀάι already at 6:9, where it probably means “dried fish” (see note in loc.). But here the ὀάι (v. 10) are the fresh fish which had just been caught, and in v. 11 the net is said to have been full “of great fishes.” In fact, despite the derivation of the word, ὀάινcame to mean “a fish” or “fish” vaguely, whether fresh caught or dried; just as πντ ὄο τςθλση in Num_11:22 means “all the fish of the sea.” See on v. 5.
The ὀάινwhich was cooking on the fire was not one of the fish which had just been caught; for it is only after the disciples see it that the net is drawn ashore. It was provided, along with the bread, by Jesus. Some have thought that the singular forms ὀάιν ἄτν are significant; and that there is here an allusion to a sacramental meal—one fish, one loaf. But neither ὀάινnor ἄτνnecessarily signify one fish or one loaf only; both may be taken generally as “fish,” “bread.” See further, on v. 13.
The story of Luk_24:42, where the disciples give Jesus a piece of broiled fish (ἰθο ὀτῦμρς presents some likeness to the present passage, but there the Risen Jesus asks for food (cf. 21:5) and eats it. Jn. does not say that He ate anything, but only that He presided at the meal by the lake-side.
10. Ἐέκτ ἀὸτνὀ. κλ “bring of the fish which you caught just now.” Prima facie, the story suggests that the fish on the fire was for the breakfast of Jesus Himself, and that He now invites the fishermen to bring some of the fish that they had caught, to cook them, and join Him at His meal. But this is not said directly.
For πάεν see on v. 3. For νν “just now,” cf. 11:8.
11. ἀέηονΣ Π “So Peter,” in obedience to the authoritative direction of Jesus, “went aboard” the dinghy, or little boat. Peter is always foremost in action.
κὶελυε τ δκυνκλ “and drew the net to land,” which was easier to do than to haul it over the gunwale into the dinghy.
μσὸ ἰθω μγλνκλ Cf. Luk_5:6 ἰθω πῆο πλ. Unlike the story in Lk., where the net was breaking (δεργυοτ δκυν it is noted here as remarkable, οκἐχσητ δκυν
The simplest explanation of the number of fish, 153, being recorded, is that (as fishermen are wont to do, because the catch has to be divided into shares) the fish were counted, and their great number remembered as a notable thing. But commentators, both ancient and modern, have not been content tent with this, and have sought for a symbolic meaning in the number 153, which they (in modern times at least) assume was invented in order to suggest something esoteric. See Introd., p. lxxxvii.
12. Jesus calls to the disciples, Δῦεἀιτστ, “Come and break your fast” (cf. for the constr. δῦε ἴεεκλ 4:29). ἄιτνwas the morning meal (Mat_22:4, Luk_11:38, Luk_14:12); the verb ἀιτνoccurs again in N.T. only at Luk_11:37 Nothing is said of the cooking of any of the fish that had been caught, but the command of v. 10 suggests that it was thus that the disciples’ breakfast was provided.
οδὶ ἐόμ κλ The intimate familiarity of the old days had passed; they knew that it was Jesus who was speaking to them, but they did not dare to question Him as to His identity (cf. 4:27). Chrysostom says that they sat down for the meal in silence and trepidation, which may be implied.
οδὶ …τνμθτν For this constr., without ἐ before the gen. plural, as usual in Jn. (see on 1:40, 7:19), cf. 13:28. On μθτί see 2:2.
εδτςὅιὁκρό ἐτν It was not as at the Emmaus supper, where He was not recognised until He blessed and broke the bread (Luk_24:30); here He was recognised before the meal began.
τλᾶ and ἐεάενdo not occur in the body of the Gospel. For ἐεάεν “to cross-examine,” cf. Mat_2:8, Ecclus. 11:7; it is a natural word to use in this context.
13. ἔχτιhas been thought to imply that Jesus was standing at a distance from the lighted fire, and that He came to it only when the disciples were gathered for their breakfast. But ἔχτιgoes with λμάε which follows (cf. ἔχτι…κὶλγι 12:22), and hardly needs explanation, or a reference to 20:26.
The rec. ον(NΘ after ἔχτιis om. by א
λμάε τνἄτνκὶδδσνατῖ. Syr. sin. and D insert εχρσήα before δδσν this being evidently introduced from 6:11, to the language of which v. 13 is closely similar. No eucharistic meal is implied at 6:11 (see note in loc.), and there is here even less suggestion of such a thing. τνἄτνand τ ὄάινdo not indicate one loaf and one fish (see on v. 9); indeed the command “bring of the fish which you caught” (v. 10) implies that several fish had been prepared for the disciples` breakfast. That Jesus “took” and “gave” them bread and fish, as before (cf. Mar_6:41, Mar_8:6, Mat_14:19, Mat_15:36, Luk_9:16), means only that He presided at the meal, as His custom had always been.
With τ ὀάινὁοω, cf. ὁοω κὶἐ τνὀαίν(6:11).
14. With the constr. τῦοἤητίο, cf. τῦοπλνδύεο σμῖν(4:54), and see 2:11. In both these passages (2:11, 4:54), Jn. implies a correction of Mk.’s narrative, and it is probable that here too a correction of the Galilæ tradition as to the appearance by the lake-side is intended. Jesus did not first manifest Himself to the apostles in Galilee (Mat_28:16); He manifested Himself to them twice at Jerusalem (20:19, 26), and not until after that (τίο) did He show Himself in Galilee. V. 14 seems to be an addition made by Jn. to his source.
ἐαεώηἸσῦ. Cf. v. 1 and see on 1:31.
After μθτῖ the rec. has ατῦ but om. א
ἐεθὶ ἐ νκῶ. Cf. 2:22, 12:9, 17. ἀατνιwas the verb used 20:9.
The Restoration of Peter to His Apostolic Office (vv. 15-17)
15. ὅεονἠίτσν when the breakfast was over. Jn. is fond of these notes of time. See on 1:29.
ΣμνἸάο. This is the better reading (א as against ΣμνἸν of the rec. text; and so also at vv. 16, 17.
Note that we have here ΣμνἸάο three times, instead of Σμνὁυὸ Ἰάο, as at 1:42.
Jesus addresses him by the personal name by which he was generally known, “Simon, son of John,” as He was accustomed to do. See on 1:42 for the designation Peter, which, it is to be observed, Jesus only uses once (Luk_22:34) in addressing the apostle. Cf. Mat_16:17, Luk_22:31.
Peter had thrice denied His Master, and the solemn questioning of him, in the company of his fellow-disciples, as the prelude to his restoration to the Master’s favour and the renewal of His confidence, was fittingly repeated thrice. As Augustine has it, he was questioned “donec trina voce amoris, solueret trinam uocem negationis.”1 The questioning has reference to one thing only, and that is Peter’s love for Jesus. He is not asked to renew his confession of faith (probably that had never quite left him, his Master having prayed that it should not fail, Luk_22:32), nor is he asked if he is sure that he will be more courageous in the future than in the past. The Lord does not remind him in words of his failure when the great test came. If he loves, that is enough. This is the one essential condition of the apostolic office and ministry.
Attention has often been directed to the use of the two verbs ἀαᾶ and φλῖ in these verses; Jesus asking ἀαᾷ μ twice, Peter answering φλ σ, and on the third occasion of His query, Jesus changing the verb and saying φλῖ μ, taking up Peter’s own word. This distinction of verbs is not treated as significant by the ancient commentators, Syriac, Greek, or Latin (Ambrose in Lc. x. 176 being perhaps an exception); and, when the delight of Origen, e.g., in playing on words is remembered, this is sufficient to show that the patristic expositors did not venture sharply to differentiate ἀαᾶ from φλῖ. But in modern times, the exegesis of the passage has largely turned on the idea that whereas Peter will say φλ σ, he does not presume to claim that he can say ἀαῶσ, ἀαᾶ being the more lofty word.1 It is necessary, then, to examine the usage of ἀαᾶ and φλῖ more closely.
Additional Note on φλῖ and ἀαᾶ
Of these two words it may be said that φλῖ is the more comprehensive, and includes every degree and kind of love or liking, while ἀαᾶ is the more dignified and restrained. But even so vague a distinction cannot be pressed very far. Both verbs are used in classical Greek to express sexual love (cf. Lucian, Ver Hist. ii. 25, and Aristotle, Topica, i. 15 [106, b 2]).2 So, in like manner, in the LXX sexual love is indicated by ἀάη ἀαᾶ, at 2Sa_13:4, Son_2:5, Son_7:6 etc., and by φλαat Ecclus. 9:8, Pro_7:18 (in which latter passage Aquila and Theodotion give ἀάη In Xenophon (Memorabilia, 11. vii. § 9 and 12), φλῖ and ἀαᾶ are used interchangeably, both indicating in turn affection (not sexual) and esteem. Cf. Æ Var. Hist. ix. 4, where it is said of a man’s relations with his brothers, πν σόρ ἀαήα ατὺ κὶὐʼατνφλθὶ ἐ τ μρι
An analysis of the passages in which φλῖ and ἀαᾶ occur in Jn. shows that they are practically synonyms in the Fourth Gospel.
Both verbs are used of God’s love for man: ἀαᾶ at 3:16 (where see note) 14:23, 17:23, 1Jn_4:10, 1Jn_4:19, etc., but φλῖ at 16:27 (cf. Rev_3:19).
Both verbs are used of the Father’s love for the Son: ἀαᾶ at 3:35, 10:17, 15:9, 17:23, 24, 26 (cf. ὁυό μυὁἀαηό, Mar_9:7), but φλῖ at 5:20.
Both verbs are used of Jesus’ love for men: ἀαᾶ at 11:5, 13:1, 23, 34, 14:21, 15:9, 19:26, 21:7, 20, but φλῖ at 11:3, 36, 20:2. The last reference is specially noteworthy, as at 20:2 the beloved disciple is described as he ὃ ἐίε ὁἸσῦ, while we generally have ὃ ἠάα(13:23, 19:26).
Both verbs are used of the love of men for other men: ἀαᾶ at 13:34, 15:12, 17, 1Jn_2:10, 1Jn_2:3:10, 1Jn_2:14, 1Jn_2:23, 1Jn_2:4:7, 1Jn_2:20, but φλῖ at 15:19. The noun ἀάηis used for the love of men for each other at 13:35, 15:13, 1Jn_4:7; but the word that came to be specially appropriated to the brotherly love of Christian for Christian was not ἀάηbut φλδλί (see on 13:34, and cf. Tit_3:15).
Both verbs are used of the love of men for Jesus: ἀαᾶ at 8:42, 14:15, 21, 23, 24, 28, 21:15, 16, but φλῖ at 16:27, 21:15, 16, 17 (cf. Mat_10:37, 1Co_16:22).
The love of men for God is generally described in the LXX by ἀαᾶ (Exo_20:6) or ἀάη(Wisd. 3:9); but in Pro_8:17 we have φλῖ (ἐὼτὺ ἐὲφλῦτςἀαῶ In this sense we have ἀάηat 5:42, 1Jn_2:5, 1Jn_2:15, 1Jn_2:3:17, and ἀαᾶ at 1Jn_4:19, 1Jn_4:20, 1Jn_4:21, 1Jn_4:5:2 (not in the Gospel).
The love of Jesus for the Father is mentioned only once in the N.T., viz. at 14:31 (where see note), and there the verb is ἀαᾶ.
Having regard to these facts, it would be precarious to lay stress on the change of ἀαᾷ in vv. 15 and 16 to φλῖ in v. 17. And a closer examination gives further reason for treating them as synonymous here.
First, it is clear that the author uses them as synonymous. Jn. purports to give a translation in Greek of Aramaic words spoken by Jesus. He makes Jesus say ἀαᾷ μ in vv. 15, 16, and φλῖ μ in v. 17; but by prefixing τ τίο to φλῖ μ in the latter passage (cf. δύεο in v. 16), h