John 21

[michelle]

I've always been curious about the last verse in John.

Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
John 21:25

If there were so many other things that Jesus did, why do we basically have a 3-peat in the first 3 gospels? Why didn't each of them write about different things so that they could cover more?

Perhaps by having the same story told by 3-4 different people is better support for them being true. Or perhaps these were the most significant stories or the others were so similar that it really didn't matter what was recorded in the gospels.

Any thoughts?

[Josh]

I guess it depends if you're looking for a God's-eye answer or a ground-level human perspective answer.

Humanly speaking, I think the writers of the later two synoptic gospels were just trying to save some time.

If you take the theory that Mark was written first, then Matthew and Luke didn't need to start from scratch- they could take the basic material from Mark and then add unique elements to suit their audience.

Or, if you assume that Matthew wrote first, then Luke would borrow from Matthew for the above stated reason, and Mark would be slimming Matthew down for a quicker read for a Gentile audience.

There's good reason to believe that the author of the book of John was aware of the Synoptic gospels when he wrote his gospel, but he steers clear of repeating them, doing I think just what you suggested- giving a fresh angle and including stories not mentioned.

Maybe from a God's-eye-perspective, even though the stories in the Synoptics are pretty identical, they are framed in very different ways. Even though the original audiences are long-gone, in some ways you could argue that each audience has always had rough parallels.

As an example, if Mark is written as a brief introduction to Christ for Gentiles, I think it still serves as a good, shorter, introduction to spiritual seekers who don't know much yet about the gospel.

If Matthew was written to a Jewish audience, I think it serves as the most convicted gospel to people who have been Christians for a long time.

If Luke was written as an apologetic to a curious but skeptical audience (or an openly hostile audience, which may be the case if Luke was written for Paul's legal defence before Nero), then I think it still is the best Gospel from an apologetics perspective.

John, of course, defies a lot of simple characterizations, but let's focus on how it spoke to an audience familiar with Greek philosophy-- I think it appeals to people drawn to philosophy today as well. Also, in it's often amazingly tender personal rememberances, it often strikes the reader in a more intimate way than many Synoptic texts. And, of course, God wants both the minds and the hearts of anyone who has ever read the Gospels- whether in the first century or the 21st.

[b]

If all the world (and then some) was covered with all of the books describing Jesus's ministry, just think how much time we would have to spend in Bible study! And so much for carrying the Bible around with you.

I just think of the 4 Gospels as being the essential facts ( with some repeats from different perspectives ), sort of the "need to know to believe and be saved" vs. "everything that happened"

[Josh]

In this chapter, Jesus takes Peter through a firm but tender process of reinstatement after his denials in chapter 18. For each of his three denials of Jesus, Peter is asked to affirm his love for Christ. It's a great example of what penitence means for us- that in many instances when we've sinned, it is important for us not merely to ask for forgiveness but allow God or others to help reinstate us-- to set us back on track with confidence, clarity, and assurance of God's love.

This isn't hard to recognize in this chapter, but here are some interesting additional details:

This reinstatement takes place around a fire, just as Peter's denial in John 18:18 happened over a fire.

Jesus' appearance to Peter here echoes Jesus' first encounter with Peter (Luke 5), which brings some amazingly real-life literary closure.

The number of fish that Peter pulls out (153) may refer to the fact that some ancient experts thought that there were 153 species of fish in the world. Remember that Jesus said he would make the disciples fishers of men. This may be a symbolic event that points to how the ministry of the Church would reach out to all the diverse tribes of mankind around the world. Also, the detail about the net not tearing might also refer to the Church being able to stay unified despite it's eventual diversity.

I believe this symbolism comes from one of the early Church fathers, but I can't remember the source. Whether or not it was intended by John, I think it's beautiful.

[Josh]

Lastly, and I love this, it's a mark of historical realism and a very personal lesson learned that Jesus' admonition here to Peter is to "feed my lambs" and that over 30 years later, Peter passes this wisdom along to his disciples:

1 Peter 5:2

Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve;

Just one of many reasons I think 1 Peter was surely written by Peter himself.

Speaking of 1 Peter, that's the next study on the Bible study agenda! See you there.

[michelle]

I find it interesting that Peter's response to Jesus asking, "do you love me?" is "Yes, Lord, you KNOW I do." Really, Peter? How would Jesus know that you loved him? When asked if you knew Him, you said no 3 times. You didn't trust Him when you were walking on water. Is that what you do when you love someone?

Now, I'm not chiding Peter, but rather trying to make a point. When people know that we love them, is it because of our words? No, it's our actions that let people know we love them. Just like Peter, it's not our words that let Jesus know that we love them, it's our actions. I say I love Jesus, but do I act like I love Jesus? I'm so much like Peter in that way. Loving words toward Jesus may come out of my mouth, but I fail every day in my actions. My sin nature drags me down everyday. I must die to myself everyday to show Jesus I love Him, because saying it is not good enough.

[Josh]

So true Michelle. And as I read your post, one thing that struck me is that though most of us say we love God, the action that would prove it, just like Peter, would be to love "the flock"-- those around us. That action, despite our feelings, would prove our love for God.

Have any of you guys heard about the phileo/ agape stuff going on in the dialogue with Peter? (different Greek words for love that play off each other in this passage)

If I get some time maybe I'll find a good source and go over it here. It's kinda interesting.

Man, I think John 21 is my favorite chapter in John, hands down.

I was just reminded that the last chapter of the Voyage of the Dawn Treader from C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia series is a direct echo of this chapter in John. Check it out, it's worth a read (or re-read)