Section VI

the third appearance of Christ in the circle of the apostles. the first revelation in Galilee

(Joh 21:1-25)

With the second revelation of our Lord in the circle of the apostles at Jerusalem, they had all become certain of His resurrection. They could now return to Galilee. The Lord designed to show Himself here to all His disciples as His brethren. But for this they had to wait for some time. Then He first showed Himself to a small select circle. By the Sea of Galilee He met first His most intimate friends. And He showed Himself in a way which was so significant, that John could recognize in it the type of all His future rule over His people; and this induced him to give a lengthened account of the transaction, and to make it the conclusion of his gospel.

There are evidently three different parts in this revelation. In the first, He shows Himself to all the disciples assembled here, giving them a blessed conclusion to their former means of living, and preparing for them a festive meal; in the second, he restores Peter to the apostolate; and, finally, in the third, He gives Peter and John a glance into their future, and portrays the future of His Church, as typified by their future life. Seven of His disciples were here: Simon Peter, Thomas called Didymus, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, James the Elder and John, the two sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples, who belonged, perhaps, to the wider circle of disciples, and therefore are not named.¹ They were, in all probability, in the former home of Peter and the sons of Zebedee by the sea-side, had entered into their former domestic relations, and were busied setting them in order, and making arrangements for breaking them up as required by the approaching separation. Then Peter suddenly declares his intention of putting to sea to fish, and the others join him in this proposal.

Thus they put to sea as they had been used to do. They seem to be again treading their old accustomed paths, after an interval in which they had passed through strange and wondrous experiences. They set out from the hearth which had formerly entertained them; the fishing-boat and nets are undoubtedly their own; and, of course, they make for what they think the best fishing-ground. They go at the old accustomed time too, pushing off from the shore in the evening, as skilled fishermen do.²

It had now been very possible, that the outward quiet and peace of former days, the pleasantness and repose of life in a village and amid the seclusion of the sea, the solemnity of nature, and the air of home by which they were surrounded, should awaken a melancholy remembrance in their souls. But they felt a new desire of home, even longing for their Lord, which allowed the old no longer to arise within them. Besides, from their experience, their former home enjoyments were for them no longer surrounded by an air of fascination. They had once more to experience as great a disappointment in their labours as ever they had done; so that it seemed as if they had lost their skill as fishermen: the whole night they caught nothing.

In the morning twilight after that anxious night, they saw Jesus standing on the shore, but knew not that it was He. The man, whose form they dimly saw through the grey twilight, called to them, saying, ‘Children,³ have ye any meat?’ They answered Him, No. The voice then cried, ‘Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find.’ This instruction may have possibly awakened the remembrance of a former and similar experience (Luk 5:5), so that they could not refuse obedience to this mysterious man. They cast the net, and soon felt that they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes. After this experience, John scarcely needed to cast another glance of his eagle eye; then he said to Peter. It is the Lord. And with what wondrous quickness was Peter’s character then displayed in its peculiarity! As soon as he heard that it was the Lord, he girt on his upper coat (for he was naked, had only his under-clothing on), and cast himself into the sea. Thus the strong and fervent disciple swam in haste to meet the Lord, while the others came afterwards in the ship (and they soon arrived, for they were only about two hundred cubits from the shore), dragging the net with the fishes. When they stepped on shore, they must have seen that preparations for the morning meal were already arranged. They saw a fire of coals, and fish laid thereon, and bread.

Whence came these preparations? These coals, this fire; these fishes, this bread? Even the glorified Redeemer does not work without means in things of this world. And so He must have procured them mediately in some way. And how easy was this for Him by this sea, where the hearts of thousands of fishermen warmed at the sound of His name! But what is wonderful in this matter lies in the risen Saviour’s kindling a fire, and preparing a morning meal of this world’s food for His disciples. On the preceding occasion they entertained Him with food of this world; He will now entertain them. This circumstance presents the Lord exercising an act of omnipotence, showing His power to rule in matters of this world, and displaying the greatest familiarity in His intercourse with His disciples in combination with the spiritual majesty of His providential care for them. And this makes His very appearance this time so eminently wonderful, that the exegete may be tempted to find here something that looks like ‘a very extraordinary miracle.’ When the disciples had stepped on shore, Jesus said to them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught. Peter went on board, drew the net to land, full of great fishes. They were counted, and found to amount to a hundred and fifty-three. The critic is astonished that the Evangelist kept count of the number. This statement must, he thinks, be fabulous (Strauss, i. 567). But the critic may well be asked, Do you not recognize here the characteristic mark of a narrator who must have been at one time a fisherman? As an old sportsman hardly forgets the number of the branches on the antlers of the stag he has last killed; as an old soldier remembers exactly the circumstances of the last battle in which he was engaged; so John, the former fisherman, noted carefully, and never forgot again, the number of fishes caught in the last miraculous draught of fishes. He thinks it well worth the trouble to write down the number, because the swarm of large fishes is vividly present to his mind, and because he has retained the definite indication of the great and miraculous favour conferred upon them at the close of their career as fishermen. The circumstance also, that the net did not break with this great draught of fishes, seemed to him worthy of remark. This could not be exactly miraculous, but it was wonderful: as one of the features of the prosperity and success which the Lord conferred upon them, it pertained to the aggregate of that morning, full of blessing, produced by Christ’s drawing near to them after such an anxious night. Sufficient provision, then, was made for the meal of which they were to partake. Next followed our Lord’s invitation: Come and dine. And they sat down and ate with Him familiarly, as in former days when dwelling with Him by the shore of that same sea. Still a peculiar and mysterious spirit shed its influence over this assembly. Something supernatural must have shone forth from Jesus, distinguishing His present from His former appearance. Hence the Evangelist can make the observation, ‘None of the disciples durst ask Him, Who art Thou?’ This implies something strange and mysterious—a majesty in Christ, which filled His disciples with reverential awe, and repressed every expression of familiarity on their part. And yet they did not feel themselves estranged from the Lord by this peculiarity in His being. They knew with perfect certainty that it was He, and in this certainty they were perfectly joyful: they knew, says John, that it was the Lord. Jesus then came, broke the bread, and gave it to them; and fish likewise. As in former days, He exercised among them them the office of father of the family; an act kindly reminding them of the past, and full of promise for the future. This was the third time, says John, ‘that Jesus showed Himself to His disciples, after that He was risen from the dead.’ Manifestly the apostle reckons here only the appearances of our Lord in the circle of the apostles, to this circle as a whole, or as represented by a considerable number of its members. By this observation he interposes a pause between what follows and the fact last mentioned, which pause we cannot and must not overlook.

After they had dined, the Lord turned to Peter—the disciple who had fallen and been raised up again—with the question, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me more than these love Me? Peter answered, Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love thee! Jesus replied, Feed my lambs. Peter seemed now to be fully restored to his calling. The Lord had, by His question, not only humbled, but also proved him. He had questioned his love, and at the same time reprovingly alluded to his former presumption, with which he had affirmed that he really loved Him more than the others did, declaring, Although all men shall be offended because of Thee, yet will I never be offended. But Peter bent in silence under the humiliation; he stood the test well, simply appealing to the fact that Jesus well knew that he loved Him, without entering upon the collateral question, Whether he loved Him more than the others. He chose an expression, moreover, which presented His love rather in the character of hearty affection than of enduring devotedness. Then the Lord again committed to him the charge of feeding His lambs.

But how surprised Peter must have been when Jesus asked him the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? This went further than the former question, Lovest thou Me more than these? He now asks simply and solely, Lovest thou Me? Hast thou love for Me? is now the question. And this He asked in solemn tone, with the same appellation, Simon, son of Jonas. The disciple must now have felt that our Lord by this significant repetition withheld the name of Peter from him, and designated him as the son of Jonas, as him who had shown himself to be a weak and sinful child of man, flesh born of the flesh, but not a child of His Spirit. However much uneasiness this second question may have caused him, yet he could again appeal with confidence to Christ’s knowledge: Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee. Jesus then a second time invested him with the same charge, using the stronger expression, Feed My sheep. The first time He committed to Him the care of His lambs; the second, He appointed him to be the shepherd and leader of His sheep,—not only for their nourishment and support, but also for leading the flock—not only for guiding the babes and sucklings, but also those of riper age.

Peter’s restoration now seemed complete when Jesus once more reiterated the question, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me?⁴ He now questions the disciple’s love even in the more modest form in which Peter had assured Him of it, as if He had meant to ask, Dost thou really hold Me to be precious as thou sayest? Then was Peter grieved. Well did he understand that the thrice-repeated question had a very serious import. Jesus doubtless meant to remind him of his thrice-repeated denial and falling from his love, of the loss of his apostolic office and prerogative, and the weakness of his heart, from which had proceeded this great transgression of his life. But as the disciple had bitterly repented of his fall, and deeply humbled himself under Christ’s words of reproof, so he was now certain of his sentiments towards the Lord, and could with an asseveration appeal confidently to His divine knowledge of the heart: Lord, Thou knowest all things, Thou knowest that I love Thee. Jesus could not refuse this appeal to His knowledge of the heart, and said comfortingly to him, Feed my sheep.

How tenderly did He thus pronounce judgment on Peter’s former life; and yet with a spiritual power which must have penetrated to the very heart of the disciple! These questions expressed the greatest tenderness, and yet, at the same time, all the awful majesty of Christ’s divine severity. How deeply moved must Peter have been by the thrice-repeated appellation, the question three times put with a lowering of the demand at each time, and doubtless by the very pauses which intervened! But as much must he have been comforted by the threefold restoration to his office.

The confidential disciples of Jesus needed this treatment. It was necessary for them to see how Christ humbled the disciple at his fall, and again received him after he gave proof of faith. Peter himself needed it yet more. Not until now had he again a free conscience, and confidence of the renewal of his apostolic vocation.

He doubtless regarded this act of our Lord, by which He again received him into the circle of the apostles, as an infinite favour, without its occurring to his mind that Jesus designed to invest him, above the other apostles, with special legal prerogatives to be legally inherited by successors.⁵

Peter’s restoration shows us the main matter in Christian life, especially in the vocation of ministers of the Gospel. Lovest thou Me? Such is the first, second, and third question. Love to Jesus is the very soul of the office of His messengers, the fundamental condition of their worth and blessing.

By this restoration of Peter the Lord re-established, or rather founded, the power of the circle of the disciples. So long as Jesus had not formally restored this man, who formed the strongest link in the apostolic chain, and served as the rallying point for the whole band, all the disciples could not but be paralyzed and weakened by the uncertainty concerning his call. The new assurance, again, which he received, restored the former connection, and renewed the feeling of power in the whole circle of the apostles. Nay, the complete reconciliation of this apostle formed the conclusion of the reconciliation of the others also. In their inward state of mind they had fallen as Peter fell, and so now they had inwardly to share the judgment on him, but they thereby became partakers of his new confidence.

And now begins the last mysterious act in our Lord’s dealing at this time with His disciples. He first opens to Peter a view into his future, and that with a reference to his past. ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst 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 Evangelist explains to us the meaning of these mysterious words: ‘This spake He, signifying by what death he should glorify God.’

When Jesus speaks here of Peter in his youth, He refers doubtless to the strong self-reliance with which he formerly went his way. He then girded himself, formed his resolutions according to the voice of his own feelings, and went whither he would, the way of his own will and choice. True, he did not always act thus, or he would never have become a disciple of Jesus. But he was originally accustomed to act thus, according to his old nature, as Simon the son of Jonas; and so he acted again, when, in his denial of Christ, he fled from the path of His sufferings. When Jesus tells him as a contrast to this fact, that he would become old and stretch forth his hands, it is, from the connection, a promise that self-will shall die in him. This is declared with the greatest force in the expression, that he would stretch forth his hands. This cannot contain an allusion to his death by crucifixion, for it is added, ‘Another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.’ The stretching forth of his hands upon the cross is first expressed by the words, ‘He shall carry thee whither thou wouldest not.’ According to the exposition hinted at,⁶ the idea that Peter would die the death of a martyr would have been twice expressed; on the contrary, the previous idea, that in future he would no longer walk in self-will, but in surrender to God, would not have been expressed at all. But the Lord must have expressed this idea, and He did express it by the words, ‘Thou shalt stretch forth thy hands.’ As an old man is dead to the world in a natural sense, so shall Peter be dead in a spiritual sense. And as a decrepit old man who needs help, must stretch forth his hands to let himself be clothed, girded, and led, so shall Peter hereafter stand free from sinful self-reliance in the spirit of most decided and devoted surrender to his Lord. And then the Lord will gird him, determine his will, decide his destiny, and lead him whither he would not—to an issue which the will of his old life had most formally gainsaid (Mat 16:22), from which even yet his expectation recoils, and from which his nature would possibly recoil to the end-his nature, we say, but not his spirit. The words of our Lord evidently contain a hidden prophecy respecting Peter’s martyr-death. But when the Evangelist was writing down these words, that prophecy had already passed into fulfilment. Peter, by his death on the cross at Rome, had glorified God. By this expression the death of martyrs was usually denoted.⁷

After the Lord had in these words told Peter how his life would end, He said to him, ‘Follow Me.’ After the disclosure made, that saying, ‘Follow Me,’ must have filled the disciple with a peculiar awe and dread. It was as if Jesus had now called him with the voice of a spirit, saying, ‘Come with Me, follow Me into My new home beyond the grave.’ Peter had rightly felt the dread summons of death in Christ’s voice. But he did not yet at once understand that Jesus was calling him to follow Him cheerfully, at a future time, through the death of the cross. He rather thought that Jesus designed to make him even now, in some lonely place, familiar with the terrors of the transition into the world beyond the grave. For, with the words, ‘Follow Me,’ our Lord seems to have moved away from the circle of the disciples. We learn by implication from John, how He walked away, how Peter went after Him, and how also John himself rose up to follow Him. Peter must have really thought that he ought now to follow the Lord to be initiated into the awful mystery of the transition into the world beyond the grave. With this idea he followed Christ, without knowing what stood before him, and thereby expiated, in so far as his outward walk was concerned, his former attempt to turn our Lord from His course. But it seemed strange to see John also following, and he asked, ‘Lord, and what shall this man do?’ He supposed that John’s following was a mistake. He therefore wished to know what was appointed for this disciple. His wish arose certainly from no feeling of jealousy, nor from any conscious desire of receiving a definite explanation regarding John’s future, but from compassion, which perhaps would spare John a grave experience, such as he thought was designed for himself alone.

But John may here with propriety remind us, in his gentle manner, that it was he who leaned on Jesus’ breast at the last supper, and said, ‘Lord, who is he that betrayeth Thee?’ He understood our Lord’s word to Peter better than Peter himself, and knew well that it did not refer to outward and instantaneous following of Christ.

Our Lord’s reply to Peter confirmed this view: ‘If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou Me.’ He said this evidently in strictest connection with the first command, ‘Follow Me.’ Thus what He said concerning John serves to explain what He had said regarding Peter, inasmuch as it delineated the future of John, exhibiting it in distinct contrast to that of Peter. Jesus pronounced His decision regarding John conditionally indeed, yet assuredly not with the intention of making it appear as uncertain, but to make the inquiring disciple feel that he must not let himself be deceived concerning the cross at the end of his life, by the different manner in which John might depart, but that he must leave Him, the Lord, alone to decide upon the pilgrimage of himself and his fellow-disciple.

So we may understand our Lord’s saying concerning the future of John thus: ‘I will that he tarry till I come!’ That is, he shall not follow Me in the same sense as thou, by the way of death on the cross, but shall remain on earth till I come Myself to take him home (by natural death).

This also explains what He had said regarding the future of Peter: he shall follow the Lord in his life, and especially at its close; he shall glorify Him by dying a martyr’s death, and for this he shall henceforth hold himself in readiness. Our Lord’s expression regarding John was doubtless kept dark intentionally; for the two disciples should know their future course, not in sharp historic definiteness, but in the form of presentiment, in the twilight of an obscure prophecy growing gradually clearer. Our Lord’s saying regarding John might therefore be misunderstood afterwards among believers. The expression, ‘Until I come,’ was referred to His return to raise the dead; and the inference was drawn, that John was not to die, that he was to live on earth until Christ’s return. And so this saying went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. The Evangelist found himself obliged to repeat in his Gospel the correction which he had doubtless given orally often enough, remarking, ‘Yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die, but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?’ Even the Evangelist himself gives no explanation of Christ’s mysterious saying, but, enlightened by humility, he rejects the untenable interpretation which had spread among the disciples, that Christ’s saying might retain its full value.⁸

It is very characteristic that John concludes his Gospel with a word well fitted to dispel from our minds vain-glorious myths regarding his own person, and to exhibit himself simply in the glory which the light of Christ’s word gives him. It is certainly himself who concluded his account with the words: ‘This is the disciple who testifieth of these things, and wrote these things.’ The supplement may have been added by a member of the presbytery of the Ephesian church,⁹ namely, the word: ‘And we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.’¹⁰

This conclusion of the Gospel points distinctly to the infinite ideal which is contained in all the manifestations of the life of Jesus. This symbolical character presents itself in every part of the Gospel, but comes out most clearly at its close. This has been long understood, and hence an allegorical signification has been specially attributed to the last chapter.¹¹ And however one-sided the old view is, which attributes an allegorical sense to these communications, yet we must allow that it is a presentiment of the fact, that the Evangelist imparts to us here individual facts of Gospel history which symbolize Christ’s whole future government of His Church.

We have here a view of the way in which Christ glorified continues to act towards His Church, as she is represented by the seven disciples. His Church wrestles with the troubles of this world upon the sea of life; but she bears in her heart His word, His life, and the remembrance of Him as her morning star, and the Lord stands on the shore of heaven and casts a helping glance at her. In the morning twilight, after the privations of the toilsome night of earth, she sees Him standing there, and hears His morning salutation. At His word she casts out the net, and gains the richest blessing not only in temporal things, but much more in those that are spiritual. And now she recognizes Him and exerts all her powers to meet Him. As soon as she lands on His shore, she finds that He has prepared already the wondrous meal of an eternal refreshment for her. And the best and brightest feature of that reunion with the Lord is, that He has no occasion to employ special means to make them recognize Him, and they do not need to ask, Who art Thou? The living intercourse of believers with Christ in the new world is thus assumed to be a continuation of their intercourse with Him here. And this reveals the beautiful truth, that Christ in His exaltation was never separated by a great gulf from His saints in their state on earth. Fundamentally both regions were one; in their inmost life, believers were always united with the Lord. But there lies a special glorification of their life in this, that they are to augment, by their draught of fishes here, the banquet of eternal bliss which He has prepared for them.

We have next unfolded to view the two most essential characteristics of Christ’s administration of the Church on earth, as shown in Peter and John as contrasted types of the Church. We see how Peter, as representative of the rulers of the visible Church, was again restored to his office. The leaders of the visible Church have to endure a great contest with the flesh and blood of their natural descent. The Lord must thrice put to them the question, ‘Lovest thou Me?’ ever reminding them of their great unfaithfulness and triple fall, and they must thrice give Him the assurance that they love Him. He always presses them more and more closely with His searching and reproving question which apparently doubts their love. He first commits to them only the charge of caring for the young of the flock;¹² next, that of tending those of riper years;¹³ and finally, He confides in their ability to feed even those of riper years with the nourishment of His Spirit according to their need.¹⁴ We see here three grades of ecclesiastical rule clearly distinguished. First, the missionary labour of Christ’s servants among young and growing Christians; then, their pædagogic-political guidance of the Church grown to a state of manhood; and finally, the work of their mature life, when they are able to offer the true spiritual nourishment to Christians arrived at manhood. The more the Church becomes visible the more she is inclined, under the influence of a refined lust of the world, to forsake the path of Christ’s sufferings in order to enter upon that of outward dominion. She girds herself in her youthful feelings, and walks whither she will. She forsakes the paths of the Spirit of Christ, and wanders astray in the ways of worldly ambition and power. But Christ’s Spirit still keeps her under discipline. The Church grows old, her best servants begin to renounce the world and to devote themselves to the Lord, willing to endure suffering. The first blossoms of this willingness appear in the early Christian martyrs; its full ripeness is shown towards the close of the world’s course in a Church of true confessors of Christ, who overcome the world through great sufferings. But the general and main characteristic of the visible Church is, that she follows the Lord on the outward way and to the outward death of the cross. And this is one form of Christ’s administration of the Church by the presence of His Spirit in her.

But there is a Johannean type of the Church distinctly different from this Petrine type. It represents the Church in her quiet depth, in eagle-like soaring above the world, in her spiritual calmness and angel-like concealment as she passes in the silence of her inner life through the deepest sufferings of Christ, and as she withdraws herself from the outward persecutions of the rude world, not by unfaithfulness and fleeing from suffering, but through the heavenly delicacy of her nature. The disciple whom Jesus loved lucidly exhibits to us this type of the Church in his patriarchal life on earth, prolonged without suffering to a great age, until the Lord comes, so that it is said of him, ‘He shall not die.’ The deep inner essence of the Church, considered on her human side, is just this Johannean Christian spirit, which the eye of the world does not discover while it passes spirit-like through its streets—which the thunder-bolts of the world do not approach, because it is sunk in holy quiet and concealment in contemplation of the Lord. How strikingly does tradition set forth the power and prevalence of this spirit when it relates, that John caused a grave to be dug for himself during his lifetime; was laid in it apparently deceased; but his death was only a slumber, for the earth which covered him was gently moved by his breathing!¹⁵ In reality, the old world is moved continually by the breath of the Johannean Christian spirit, which appears to lie in the grave only because it works in the concealed depth of all noble and elect Christian hearts, and waits for the coming of the Lord while secretly preparing the way for Him. This symbolic power which lies in the patriarchal life and death of John has, notwithstanding his own explanation, preserved the saying of the brethren, that that disciple continues to live.

We are not told how the Lord dealt further with the two disciples who followed Him away from all others. But it is very probable that it was through them that He appointed the meeting in which He designed to greet and take leave of the whole body of Galilean disciples.

───♦───

Notes

1. According to Strauss (601), the handling of Christ’s body, ‘which John says took place at the appearance after eight days, and the eating of broiled fish which John has at the still later appearance in Galilee,’ have been misplaced by Luke among the occurrences at His appearance in Jerusalem, on the day of the resurrection. As if the touching of Christ’s body (which, besides, does not appear to have been done by Thomas at the time referred to) and the eating of the broiled fish could not have occurred more than once! Moreover, Strauss supposes that the fifth appearance, which Paul mentions 1Co 15:7, is identical with the third, which John mentions. That supposition is entirely groundless; he thinks fit, however, to hold to it without further proof, and then argues against the identity of the fourth (he should have said third) appearance mentioned by Paul—that, namely, to the five hundred disciples—with that in Galilee mentioned by Matthew. He says, ‘Jesus and the Twelve must thus have gone to Galilee and met upon the mountain after those first manifestations at Jerusalem, then returned again to Jerusalem, where Jesus showed Himself to Thomas, then back again to Galilee, where He appeared at the side of the lake, and finally returned to Jerusalem for the ascension.’ ‘Very well imagined,’ observes Hug, ‘to introduce complete confusion into the course of the events.’ This piece of ‘natural magic’ is certainly one of Strauss’s theatrical performances in this way; of which, however, many more might be collected. A special example of these masterpieces of magical celerity, is his showing that the narrative of the occurrence at the Sea of Tiberias is a secondary conglomerate from Peter’s walking on the sea and his miraculous draught of fishes.

2. It may be inferred that the appearance of Jesus to the seven disciples preceded His showing Himself to the wider circle of Galilean disciples, because the latter presupposes an earlier manifestation in Galilee. For it is said in Mat 28:16, that the believers had assembled on a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. Now, since no such definite instruction was contained in the intimations given to the women in Judea, it must be assumed that the Lord first commissioned the apostles in Galilee to assemble the disciples on a certain mountain. And as there is no mention of a third revelation of Jesus in Galilee, we may presume that Jesus gave this commission to the two apostles, who accompanied Him for a little after He took leave of the seven. Moreover the revelation by the sea tells by its tone that it is a new and unexpected manifestation of Christ, after a lengthened interruption of intercourse. But we must specially observe that John could not call this manifestation by the sea the third, if the manifestation to the wider circle of the disciples in Galilee preceded it (see Ebrard, 463). For Joh 21:14 reckons only the appearances of Jesus to a company of disciples, omitting His appearances to individuals. As to the relation of this appearance of Jesus to those mentioned 1 Cor. 15, Paul evidently blends the second and third appearance of Jesus to the apostles with the first.

3. The reason why I assume that the words, Joh 21:24, οὗτος ἐστιν, &c., down to καὶ ὁ γράψας ταῦτα, should be ascribed to the Evangelist himself, lies in the fact already referred to, that the Evangelist always concludes a section of his Gospel by a retrospect or a general testimony. The greater number of these retrospects have been given already. It is worthy of remark, that even the prologue concludes in the same way, Joh 1:16-18.

4. On the relation of Joh 21:1-25 to the whole of his Gospel, and especially on its genuineness, see vol. i. p. 169. Comp. Tholuck, 420; Credner’s Einleitung in’s neue Testament, I. i. 232.

1) See Lücke, ii. 806.

2) See Lücke, ii. 807.

3) Παιδία. 'Criticism' has thought that among others this is a suspicious mark for the genuineness of this chapter, that Jesus did not say τέκνια, as elsewhere in John. But this is not taking into account that Jesus speaks here as one unknown to His disciples, and therefore cannot speak to them in the language of familiarity. The labourers were addressed with the expression Παιδία. See Lücke, ii. 807.

4) The first two times He asks him, ἀγαπᾷς με (the first time with the addition of πλεῖον τούτων); the third time, φιλεῖς με;—[The distinction between these two words is fully discussed and applied to this passage by Tittmann, Synonyms of the New Test. i. 90 (Clark s Tr.), and by Trench, Synonyms of N. T., 5th Ed., p. 48.—ED.]

5) As latterly Sepp has with great parade laboured to show again, iii. 672.

6) See Lücke, ii. 817, doubtful; more distinctly, Tholuck, 425

7) See Lücke, ii. 818.

8) How can any one call this verbal quibbling (as A. Schweizer, 57), if we hold that verbal quibbling consists in attaching incompatible meanings to different expressions, while the thoughts of these different expressions are the same! John restores here the real thought of Christ, which is very essentially different from the supposed thought attributed to Him by the brethren.

9) See Tholuck, p. 45

10) The writer of these lines distinguishes between himself (οἶμαι) and the others who know (οἴδαμεν), and in whose name he speaks. But what he says of the fulness of the manifestations of Jesus, and of the books which might be written concerning them, is not so wonderful as has been thought. A scholar of John's knew the facts of the life of Jesus not merely according to their outside: he knew their inward richness, he knew that every single fact in its ideality embraced the whole world. Hence he could express the conviction, that a detailed exhibition of the life of Jesus would necessitate a multitude of writings which the world could not contain; in other words, it would be impossible. We may find in these words the presentiment expressed, that in the course of centuries the mass of christological writings would really swell to a world of books.

11) See Lücke, ii. 812; Olshausen, iv. 307.

12) Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου.

13) Ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατά μου.

14) Βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά μου.

15) See Tholuck, 427.