The call. 21:15–23

SOME SIGNS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL yield to explanatory discourses (5:6–9 with 5:19–47; 6:11–13 with 6:32–70; 9:6–7 with 9:39–10:18), and 21:1–14 follows this pattern. After Jesus provides fish for his followers, he summons their leader to continue to provide for his followers; as in Markan tradition, Jesus calls Peter to fish for people, so here he plays on Peter's fishing from a different angle. Peter's call ultimately involves following his Lord in martyrdom (21:18–19).

The beloved disciplés call was different from Peter's and might not involve martyrdom (21:21–22). Barrett helpfully suggests that Peter's role is pastoral whereas the beloved disciplés is as a witness;¹⁰⁹²⁹ in this case, the Gospel may be framed by John the Baptist (1:19–36) and the beloved disciple (21:20–24) as narrative models of witness. The shift to the beloved disciple then provides the transition for closing the Gospel on the note about that disciplés testimony (21:24–25).

Just as Jesus fed his disciples here (21:9–14), so Peter is to feed them after Jesus departs. This involves not so much physical nourishment as the bread of life (6:26–27). It is, however, noteworthy that Jesus invites Peter to feed others only after Peter has himself first eaten (21:15); just as Peter had to accept Jesus» washing before he could serve the Lord (13:8–10), he had to eat his mea1.

Brown suggests that this passage, being redactional, allows Peter a more pastoral role than elsewhere in the Gospe1.¹⁰⁹³⁰ Yet the portrait of Peter's pastoral role here is hardly incompatible with the rest of the Gospel; it can either add to it or complete it. Thus onés view on Peter's role here may depend on onés prior assumptions concerning whether the chapter is a later addition from a different hand; it cannot be used as evidence in making that decision.

It is true that Peter's calling receives little emphasis elsewhere in the Gospel; but if one does not start with the assumption that John 21 belongs to a different hand than the rest of the Gospel, this apparent difference stems from an argument based on silence. Explicit mention of Peter's special call (as opposed to merely his special prominence as an outspoken disciple or his intimacy as one of the three closest disciples) is rare in the Synoptics except for Matt 16and Luke 22:32, both of which discuss it in the same context as Peter's failure.

Peter certainly remains one of the most prominent disciples throughout the Fourth Gospel, as in the other gospels. Given the model for gospel genre found in Matthew and Luke, one most naturally expects report of a commission at the end of the Gospel (which could be and is, to a significant degree, fulfilled in 20but which could also be developed further). Even here Jesus is correcting as well as encouraging Peter (especially if the three questions recall the three denials, 13:38).¹⁰⁹³¹ The passage is consistent with, but develops, the role of Peter found earlier in the Gospe1. It also may provide a model for other church leaders (cf. 1Pet 5:1–2).

Loving Jesus demands fulfilling his commands (14:15), particularly the command to love one another as Jesus did (13:34); in Peter's case, this general call includes a specific command to care for Jesus» sheep, for whom Jesus cares. The appointed undershepherds of the old covenant scattered when they saw a wolf coming (10:12–13), but Peter was to care for the sheep as Jesus did, ultimately to the point of offering his life (21:18–19, 22), as he had once promised he would (13:36–37). As noted above, Peter is given three opportunities to affirm his love for Jesus (21:15–17)–possibly three in number to balance Peter's three denials (13:38).

Peter was «grieved» by the Lord's questions (21:17)–a strong term John elsewhere uses of the disciples» sorrow over Jesus» death (16:20). He still felt loyalty for Jesus; but Jesus demands a love that is demonstrated by obedience (14:15), which Peter's recent behavior failed to demonstrate (18:25–27). Peter is certain that he remains faithful to Jesus–despite his recent lapse in such readily promised fidelity (13:37–38)–and that Jesus must know this, for he knows «all things» (21:17; cf. 16:30; 18:4). That Jesus» knowledge has already led him to refuse to trust untrustworthy believers (2:23–25) might lead the first-time reader– and perhaps Peter–to doubt whether Peter will do any better on this commitment than he did in his first assurance that he would die for Jesus (13:37). Yet Jesus was merely testing and confirming him, for, as Jesus accurately predicted Peter's betrayal (13:38), he also predicts here that Peter will eventually die for Jesus (21:18).

Some writers have pointed to the use of both αγαπάω and φιλέω in 21:15–17, arguing that αγαπάω here refers to a deeper kind of love than φιλέω entails.¹⁰⁹³² The shift between the terms in the first two examples does seem to provide a discordant note, which might lend credence to this view if one did not approach this text in the context of the rest of the Gospel that has preceded it. Some nineteenth-century scholars wrongly even regarded άγάπη as an example of «biblical» Greek, as if it were nonexistent in secular Greek.¹⁰⁹³³ Secular Greek did not, to be sure, use it frequently, but it had already entered the LXX with reference to God's love¹⁰⁹³⁴ and appears in the Luke 6:32) and in other examples that do not fit the «divine love» paradigm (Matt 6:24; Luke 7:5; 11:43; 16:13; John 3:19; 12:43).

Rhetorically skilled writers regularly employed synonyms for the sake of rhetorical variation,¹⁰⁹³⁵ and the Fourth Gospel uses αγαπάω and φιλέω interchangeably (see analysis in the introduction, pp. 324–25). As Painter puts it, «Both Greek verbs ... are used of the Father's love for the Son, indicating that no difference of meaning can be attributed to these verbs in John.»¹⁰⁹³⁶ Bruce compares the interchangeability of other terms in the passage, such as άρνία and προβάτια, οίδα and γινώσκω, and (in our view less certainly) βόσκω and ποιμαίνω.¹⁰⁹³⁷ Talbert notes three terms for departure in 16:5–10; three more for sorrow in 16:20–22; two terms for «ear» in 18:10, 26; and two for «guarding» in 17:12.¹⁰⁹³⁸ Thus most scholars today recognize that the interchange of verbs between Jesus and Peter is not of much significance¹⁰⁹³⁹–unless one wishes to say that Peter finally brings Jesus down to Peter's level, reducing Jesus» demand for love! Because the demonstration of love remains the same the whole way through, however, it is difficult to imagine that Jesus here makes a concession to Peter's weakness.¹⁰⁹⁴⁰ Partially excepting Origen, most Greek commentators (e.g., John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria), as well as other commentators, saw no real distinction between the sense of the terms until the arguments of nineteenth-century British scholars Trench, Westcott, and Plummer.¹⁰⁹⁴¹

To love Jesus more «than these» may refer to loving him more than the fellow disciples,¹⁰⁹⁴² but probably refers to loving him more than the fish. In Mark, Jesus calls Peter to be a fisher of people; here he calls him to abandon fishing and be a shepherd. (It might also suggest that devotion to Christ must take priority over earthly food, as in the bread-of-life image in John 6; cf. Rev 12:6; 13:17.) Although the shepherd image is natural for leadership, in any case (see comment on 10:1–5), it may appear particularly appropriate in a Gospel that compares the disciples with Moses beholding God's glory (1:14–18). Whether «these» refers to fellow disciples or to the fish, Jesus» demand for greater love requires still greater love in the context of Peter's role in this Gospe1. Earlier Peter had promised to follow Jesus to the death (13:37) but loved his own life too much to give it up (cf. 12:25); one day he will have another opportunity to demonstrate his love by martyrdom (21:18–19).

Peter the fisherman of this context (21:1–14) and of his Synoptic calling (Mark 1:17) here becomes Peter the shepherd (21:15–17), a role also implied in other early Christian tradition (1Pet 5:1–2; cf. Acts 20:28; Eph 4:11). The two verbs for Peter's pastoral duties, while synonymous, in a general sense might express different nuances of his role. The term βόσκε (21:15,17) focuses on feeding the animals,¹⁰⁹⁴³ whereas ποίμοανε (21:16) includes all the duties of the shepherd.¹⁰⁹⁴⁴ «Lambs» functions as a general synonym for «sheep» here (the two terms for «love» and «tend» in the context express the writer's appreciation for variety) but may increase the measure of attention required for the animal, recalling the «little ones» of the Synoptic tradition (e.g., Matt 18:3–14).

Clearly Peter is an undershepherd, but he is to reflect Jesus» concern for his sheep more than a mere «hireling» would (10:12–13). The point of the passage has nothing to do with a supposed difference between two Greek terms for love here but everything to do with the way love for Jesus is expressed in this Gospel: obeying him (14:15,21), in this case by caring for his flock the way he does, which implies utter self-sacrifice and potentially death (10:11, 15; 21:18–19).

As a shepherd, Peter must face death (21:18–19), as his good shepherd had (10:11, 15, 17–18); as one of the sheep,¹⁰⁹⁴⁵ Peter must «follow» Jesus (21:19; 10:4–5, 27)–even to death (13:36–37).¹⁰⁹⁴⁶ Peter would not always have the vigor that he had devoted to Jesus that morning (cf. 21:7, 10–11; 1 John 2:14). Other ancient texts also present powerlessness in terms of dependence;¹⁰⁹⁴⁷ Diogenes the Cynic reportedly told a man whose servant was putting on his shoes that he would ultimately have to depend on the man to wipe his nose as well j Diogenes Laertius 6.2.44). A third-century Palestinian Amora opined that God might punish a person by withdrawing the person's control over his members so that another would have power to do that person harm (Gen. Rab. 67:3). The description of dependence here could apply simply to old age,¹⁰⁹⁴⁸ which could sometimes incline judges and observers toward mercy;¹⁰⁹⁴⁹ but the language of «stretching out the hands» probably suggests more than merely the dependence of old age. Usually it indicates the image of supplication,¹⁰⁹⁵⁰ but here it may refer to voluntarily submitting onés hands to binding, which preceded execution.¹⁰⁹⁵¹ In view of 21:19, Jesus is explaining that when Peter is old and dependent, he will suffer execution. Second Peter 1:14, probably independently of John, suggests the tradition that Jesus showed Peter that he would die. Early Christian tradition reports that Peter died by crucifixion,¹⁰⁹⁵² probably upside down,¹⁰⁹⁵³ finally «following» (21:19) Jesus fully (13:36); early Christian texts applied «stretching out onés hands» to crucifixion.¹⁰⁹⁵⁴

Many commentators thus see crucifixion implied here.¹⁰⁹⁵⁵ Whether the specific picture of crucifixion is present here or not (it probably is), Peter's martyrdom certainly follows Jesus. Jesus explained here by what sort of death Peter would glorify God (21:19), just as he had earlier explained by what sort of death (12:33, also using σημαίνων) he himself would glorify God (12:23; 13:31–33; just as Lazarus's death glorified Jesus by allowing him to raise Lazarus, 11:4). Jewish hearers might express little surprise that Jesus would predict the manner of Peter's death for him.¹⁰⁹⁵⁶ That Peter understands that Jesus refers to his death is likely; this is why he wants to know the beloved disciplés fate, but Jesus refuses to comment on that disciplés death (21:21–23). Peter had earlier volunteered to «follow» Jesus to the cross (13:37), but Peter had failed to do so (13:38); now Jesus explains to him that he will in fact be able to «follow» Jesus to the cross later, as he had told him more ambiguously before (13:36).¹⁰⁹⁵⁷

Peter's question about the beloved disciple reflects some continuing (albeit not hostile) competition between the two figures (21:21; cf. 20:4).¹⁰⁹⁵⁸ That Jesus may respond harshly («What is that to you?» 21:22; cf. 2:4) also would send a message to early Christians divided in devotion to different Christian leaders, a problem that had existed decades earlier in the urban house-churches of the East (1Cor 1:10–13; cf. the principle in Rom 14:4, 10).

In supposing that the beloved disciple would remain alive until Jesus» eschatological return, the other disciples misunderstood what Jesus was saying. In other words, even disciples were continuing to take Jesus too literally at times, just as many people had misunderstood Jesus throughout the Gospe1. Certainly, the return of which Jesus speaks cannot be the coming to which he had previously referred in 14(and 14:3), which was fulfilled in the resurrection appearances of ch. 20, especially in 20:19–23; nor may it refer to Christ's «coming» for a believer at death (cf. 13:36), unless John intends a tautology applicable to all believers.¹⁰⁹⁵⁹ Instead it must refer to an eschatological coming, as in 1 John 2:28; rare though this idea is earlier in the Gospel,¹⁰⁹⁶⁰ it is not absent (5:28–29; 6:39). John may have avoided much emphasis on future eschatology, which could have distracted from his emphasis on the coming in ch. 20, but now that this coming has taken place, he may indulge more freely in future eschatology.

Perhaps John implied in this promise a subtle double entendre, playing on the usual sense of μένω in his Gospel,¹⁰⁹⁶¹ although one would hope for more explicit clarification to that effect, since the misunderstanding appears to have already caused some problems for John's audience. Most likely, John emphasizes έάν θέλω, «if I will»; Jesus was not telling Peter that the beloved disciple would live until Jesus» return but that it was not Peter's business to know the beloved disciplés fate.¹⁰⁹⁶² This seems the most logical way to take τι προς σέ, «What is it to you?» (21:22); precisely the same question appears with the same force when Epictetus declares that another's death is not onés own business (Epictetus Diatr. 3.18.2).