Restoration of Peter

THE RESTORATION OF PETER

(John 21)

The author picked up his pen, dipped it into the ink and finally wrote "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and through believing you may have life in his name". (John 20.30).

With that final full stop at the end of chapter 20 the author of St. John's Gospel puts down his pen, and when the ink has dried, closed the book. Thus he completed the writing of the fourth gospel.

However, if you look at St. John's Gospel today you will find there is an additional chapter to the gospel, namely chapter 21.

All scholars are agreed that this chapter is from the pen of another writer. It is different in style and language with no few than 28 Greek words being found in its 25 verses which are not found elsewhere in the fourth gospel.

Yet it must have been added very early on, insofar as there is only one early manuscript which omits it.

It is generally thought that the original gospel was written between 100 and 120 A.D. which means that the appendix (chapter 21) was obviously written after that date.

But why was it thought necessary by some anonymous author to write an appendix to an already completed gospel, and for that writer also to conclude with the words: "but there are also many other things that Jesus did: if every one of them were to be written down, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (John 21.25).

Perhaps the clue to the reason why the anonymous author thought it appropriate to add his own appendix to the already completed gospel is to be found in some of the "things that Jesus did" which he has recorded in the appendix. If we can find a common theme this may suggest the reason for its compilation and inclusion.

So what are the "things that Jesus did" which are recorded in chapter 21?

First there is the story about the disciples by the Sea of Tiberius and Simon Peter announcing that he was going to go fishing. The other disciples joined him but they caught nothing. At daybreak a person appears on the beach and asks whether they have caught any fish. Upon hearing their negative response, the stranger suggests that they put out their net to the right of the boat. There they discover such a haul that they were unable to haul it into the boat.

The beloved disciple then suggests that the stranger on the seashore must be the risen Jesus. On hearing this, the impetuous Simon Peter puts some clothes on and jumps into the sea and runs towards Jesus, leaving the others to haul the net behind their boat.

Secondly there is the story of the breakfast on the seashore with the risen Christ. Jesus already had a charcoal fire burning with some fish on it but he asked for some more. We are told again that it was the impetuous Peter who dashes back to the boat to get the fish.

Thirdly there is the story about Peter's love for Jesus. After breakfast, Jesus asks Simon Peter three times whether he loves him and three times Peter assures Jesus that he does love him and each time he is given a commission from Jesus. Jesus goes on to indicate the kind of death Peter can expect as a consequence of following him.

Finally Peter wants to know what is going to happen to "the beloved disciple" but is told very politely to mind his own business.

I would therefore suggest that the central character of the fishing trip, the breakfast on the seashore and the after breakfast conversation is Peter concluding with the prediction concerning the manner of his death. If we take these stories as being historically true we are left with a problem insofar as Peter was already dead by the time John came to write his Gospel, let alone when the anonymous author wrote his appendix to that Gospel. The author would already know the kind of death that Peter had encountered. And so we must conclude that he is writing his appendix in hindsight.

Judging from other New Testament writings Peter became quite a prominent leader in the early church. He was a person who was widely known and respected and played a major role in its overall development.

And yet, as far as St. John's Gospel is concerned, Peter finishes up as a weak person who denied Jesus. It is only the inclusion of the appendix which helps to explain how Peter became such a strong and powerful character in the early church.

Thus the appendix is primarily concerned about the restoration of Peter and how he came to be such a powerful leader and, if our knowledge of Peter had stopped at chapter 20, it would be incomplete and we would be poorer for it.

There is no doubt that the threefold affirmation of Peter's loyalty is artificially contrived by the editor to correspond with the earlier threefold denial of Jesus. Hence some scholars would suggest that we should not read too much into the three questions and their replies but rather see them as the same questions and replies used three times, even though two different Greek words are used for the word "love" which is lost in the English translation.

Whilst this may be so, I believe we lose something of the full significance of the story which marked the turning point in Peter's life.

Jesus first asks, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" Jesus uses the Greek word agapao for love. Agapao is a unique word found only in the Christian vocabulary and seeks to describe that relationship of deep commitment that Christians have towards one another, based upon God's deep commitment to us, which nothing can ever sever.

So Jesus asks Simon, the name he first had when he called him, to compare his agapao with that of the other disciples: "Do you love me more than these?". After all, had not Simon Peter proudly boasted at the last supper that "even though all become deserters, I will not".

Deep down Simon knows that his love for Jesus has been proved to have been no better than the other disciples. In fact it has been proved to be a good deal worse, save for that of Judas. So he evades the question by refusing to compare his love with that of the other disciples and by refusing to use the word agapao. Rather he chooses to use the word phileo, a word from the secular vocabulary which describes the sort of love that exists between two friends. It is a word of a lesser commitment.

Jesus sees through the evasiveness of Simon. So he asks him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me". This time he leaves aside any comparison with the other disciples. In other words Jesus says "Very well. It is perhaps quite understandable that you should not want to claim any precedence in love and loyalty. So forget about the others. This time, think simply of your own relationship with me. Do you love me?"

Again, Jesus uses the word agapao for love. Simon cannot deny his love for Jesus, but neither can he affirm his love for Jesus. So again he evades the question by using the word phileo which describes that lesser commitment.

Jesus, fully aware of what Simon is doing, decides to tighten the screw a little bit further to encourage him to face reality and to be honest with himself. So he asks, "Do you love me?" and uses not the word agapao this time, but the word phileo which Simon has chosen to use. In other words, he seeks to meet him on his own ground.

This is too much for Simon. Jesus has found his Achilles heel. Simon is only too well aware of his threefold denial before the serving maid on the night of the arrest of Jesus and so replies in anger: "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you".

Thus Simon is finally broken. He is finally brought face to face with his real self. He is enabled to face up to his human weakness.

But this is not the end of Simon. Jesus does not turn his back upon him but rather accepts him and continues to give him a job to do. Mindful of his human weakness which he has now acknowledged and owned, Jesus is able to use him. So he says: "Feed my sheep".

So these three questions bring about the restoration of Simon, whom he called some years earlier from fishing and he is once again referred to as Peter - Peter the rock upon which Jesus will build his church in the future.

I would therefore suggest that St. John's Gospel and my life would be that much poorer without this appendix which includes the story of the restoration of Peter, because it gives me hope in my discipleship.

I am only too well aware of the number of times I have failed in my love towards Jesus. It has not always been that deeply committed love – agapao - but rather a fickle kind of love - a phileo – a love which blows hot and cold depending upon the circumstances and my inward disposition at the time.

Sometimes I am positively enthusiastic in my love for Jesus. Sometimes I am merely lukewarm in my love for Jesus. And sometimes, my love is freezing cold.

But the good news is that, provided I am prepared to be honest with God and with myself, and provided I am prepared to acknowledge my frequent failure in discipleship, I am able to receive his forgiveness and start again.

It is not a question of God being willing to forgive me. It is much more a question of me being willing to receive God's forgiveness which is always on offer. Whilst I refuse to acknowledge my failure, I will see no need for forgiveness, and therefore be unable to receive it. Once I have faced the truth about myself, as did Simon Peter, then I am open to receive God's forgiveness since nothing else can restore me to life in Christ.

So I repeat, I am grateful to the anonymous author of the appendix to St. John's Gospel for including this story about the restoration of Peter, because it gives me hope as I struggle to demonstrate my love for Jesus in my daily life.