Public Restoration of Peter (John 21:15-25)

One of the passing comments that can be made about this passage is that rumours were found in the early church, which means that there are some bad habits that appear in every age. The one that is mentioned here is the rumour that John would not die, but would live until Jesus would return. Now, at the time of writing his Gospel, John was an old man and soon to die. He believed it was important that the source of this rumour be correctly explained, which he does at the end of this chapter. 

Another passing comment that can be made from this incident is that we are not to be over-interested in the Lord’s purpose for another of his servants. Peter responded to information about his own future by asking what would happen to John (v. 21). In reply, Jesus basically told Peter it was none of his business. What was Peter’s business was the necessity of him following Jesus as closely as he could. 

We know that the risen Jesus had already appeared to Peter in a private way. That personal appearance took place on the day of Jesus’ resurrection; of course, Jesus has appeared to Peter on at least two more occasions: first on the evening of that resurrection day and then a week later, with both meetings being gatherings of the apostles. It is evident that on that resurrection day Peter had been personally forgiven his terrible denial of Jesus in the high priest’s house, which raises the question as to the point of this further restoration here. I think the answer is that Jesus knew it was necessary for Peter to have a public restoration as a leader as well as a private one as a disciple.  

As just stated, the background to this incident is the denial of Jesus by Peter when he denied his Master three times. Jesus had predicted the denial but had also stated that Peter would be restored, and restored in such a manner as to be able to strengthen his brothers. On that occasion, there was a charcoal fire as well as the three denials. The presence of a charcoal fire here in the incident described in John 21 would have spoken strongly to Peter. 

Jesus and his disciples seem to have gone for a walk after the meal. In verse 20, John is describing as walking behind Jesus and Peter as they are speaking, which of course was how disciples literally followed their teacher. It may be that it was customary for a teacher to instruct one disciple as they walked along, with other disciples listening in to the conversation. Matthew Henry comments that Jesus waited until breakfast was over before he began to speak because he did not want to spoil Peter’s enjoyment of the meal! 

The probing of Peter 

The probing begins with Jesus asking Peter a question: ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?’ The first feature that we notice is the name that Jesus uses here when he addresses his disciple as Simon. Of course, Jesus often spoke to him by this name. So its usage here may not mean anything unusual. Nevertheless those who suggest that Jesus is highlighting Simon’s failure to act like an apostle (Peter was the name connected to his apostleship) may have a point. Calling him Simon a few moments before restoring him publicly to his office must have been noticed by Peter himself. 

Second, what did Jesus mean by ‘these’? The problem is that the Greek term can be translated two ways because both the masculine and neuter renderings are spelt the same. If it is neuter, it can be translated as ‘these things’, which would mean that Jesus was asking Peter if he loved him more than he loved his calling as a fisherman, with the things in question being the boat, the net and the sea. If this is the correct translation, it suggests that Jesus discerned that Peter was more at ease when he was among familiar situations. These things can be tests for many disciples and many a person has put them before believing in Jesus. Yet such a meaning is unlikely here because seven disciples had gone fishing and the other six are not questioned by Jesus about their actions. 

If the term is masculine, it can be translated as ‘these people’, which would mean that Jesus was referring to Peter’s earlier boast that his love was more reliable than the devotion of the other disciples (Matt. 26:33). Peter had been adamant that, whatever they might fail to do, he would remain faithful. He had learned through his own sad experience that he was as fickle, if not more fickle, than them. I suspect that this is what Jesus meant by ‘things’. So Peter was asked if his love for Jesus was greater than the love the other disciples had for Jesus. 

In any case, Jesus’ question concerns the nature of Peter’s love. It has often been noted that Jesus, in the first two questions, uses the term agapeo whereas Peter uses the term phileo; in his third question, Jesus also uses phileo. Some have suggested that these different terms point to various levels of love being required by Jesus. They say that agapeo means sacrificial love and phileo means brotherly love or the love that takes pleasure in the object of one’s love. Therefore they interpret the passage as saying that Jesus first asks Peter if he has sacrificial love, then Peter responds by saying he has brotherly love, and eventually Jesus lowers his demand by asking if Peter does have brotherly love towards his Master. 

There is very little basis for this suggestion. First, it is likely that Jesus was not speaking Greek, so the use of two different words is probably John’s method of translation of what Jesus and Peter originally said; he is using synonyms to bring variety to his translation. Second, it is also the case that both words would include the meaning of the other word and would be understood in this way. Third, both terms are used to describe the love that the Father has for the Son (agapeo in John 3:35 and phileo in John 5:20), and it would be wrong to suggest that the Father’s love for his Son was stronger in John 3:35 than it was in John 5:20. Fourth, agapeo is used to describe the wrong kind of love that Demas had for the present age (2 Tim. 4:10), which would be a surprising usage if it signified superior love. Fifth, John uses both words when describing himself as the disciple who Jesus loved; in John 20:2 he uses phileo and in John 19:26 he uses agapeo. Sixth, if agapeo was too strong a word, Peter would not have affirmed that he truly loved Jesus; instead he would be minimizing his love. What Jesus is asking is whether or not Peter’s love is real. 

Love is the defining mark of a Christian. It is not our experiences, it is not our knowledge, it is not our dedication, because all these things can be had without love, as Paul makes very clear in 1 Corinthians 13. The difference between Peter and Judas, from a human perspective, was the presence of love in Peter’s heart and the absence of it in the heart of Judas. 

It is worth observing what Jesus did not ask. For example, he did not ask Peter about how his repentance was getting on. Nor did he ask Peter about his use of his gifts in the service of Christ. He did not ask Peter how many hours he spent each day in prayer. There are many aspects of a disciple’s life that could have been mentioned. Why did Jesus focus on Peter’s love? There are two reasons at least: (1) love is the greatest blessing; (2) the other details would be covered by spiritual love. 

The penitence of Peter 

At the third question, Peter was grieved because it immediately reminded him of his three denials. As we look at Peter’s response, we can deduce several important aspects.  

First, he no longer based his assessment of a situation on his own knowledge. Instead he referred to Christ’s knowledge of him. Perhaps in the days since the resurrection he had come to know just how much Jesus knew about him. Maybe it was the similarities between his current situation and the features of the room where he denied the Saviour. Whatever it was, he now bowed to Jesus’ knowledge, which Peter knew could not be mistaken. 

Second, Peter’s love was a chastened love. He had known the dark night of the soul when all his hopes had been dashed, when his sense of blessing had gone. His sin had caused him to lose his sense of divine favour 

Third, Peter’s love was a repentant one. He had gone out and wept bitterly for his sin. Before the throne of grace he had poured out his heart. His regrets, his self-denunciation, his shame, would have been stressed. But he discovered that his God was merciful, that he does not deal with us the way our sins deserve. ‘The great thing Christ eyes in penitents is their eyeing him in their repentance’ (Matthew Henry). 

Fourth, Peter’s love was now a dependent one. Gone was his old self-confidence and bravado. Instead he is now meek and humble, listening to his Saviour without interrupting, as he had been prone to do.  

The purpose for Peter 

Jesus mentions a twofold purpose for his servant Peter. The first describes his calling as an apostle and the second details his calling to be a martyr.  

As an apostle, Peter was to perform two tasks. First, he was to provide appropriate food for Christ’s people (the term bosko, used in verses 15 and 21, indicates this) and he was to guide and protect them (the term poimaino, used in verse 16, indicates this) from spiritual dangers.  

As a martyr, Jesus indicated that Peter would suffer an unusual death: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go’ (v. 18). This description is regarded as a description of crucifixion, and church tradition indicates that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome. He refers to his upcoming death in 2 Peter 1:14: ‘since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me.’  

Christian service is other-people centred. Jesus told Peter to feed the lambs as well as the sheep in his flock. Peter was no longer to be out for himself, imagining a great place in Christ’s kingdom. The spiritual needs of others were to be his concern. This is the message of the Parable that Jesus told about the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25. 

Christian service is costly. In Peter’s case, it would involve all his energy and eventually cost him his life. Jesus requires this of all his people; he demands their lives. They are to leave the consequences and repercussions of Christian service to him. This does not mean that the Christian life is unrewarding. But the benefits can be out of this world. 

Christian service requires love not perfection. There is a temptation that faces some people, which is that they will do nothing until they are good at it. The usual outcome of that attitude is that nothing gets done. Jesus indicates that what is required is love for one’s fellow believers. But he also indicates that Christian service demands love for Christ as its dynamic.  

Application 

Firstly, we can say that Peter is an object lesson for his fellow Christians. Christians, as was Peter, are not made perfect when they are converted. Even on this occasion he revealed sinful traits when he asked about John’s future. None of us know what kind of sins we may do. If someone had met Peter on his first meeting with Jesus that he would deny his Master, he would have been appalled. We don’t know what sins we may commit if given the circumstances.  

Secondly, how do we react when we fall into sin? Obviously, there should be a sense of shame and regret. The biggest dangers when we fall into sin are despair on the one hand and self-righteousness on the other. Despair can make us conclude that we have been sidelined and self-righteousness can cause us to respond by determining to do better the next time in our own strength. Neither of these responses is appropriate. When we sin, our faith in Jesus does not die, our love to Jesus does not die. We believed in Jesus for the first time because we were sinners needing forgiveness; we continue to trust in Jesus because we are sinners needing forgiveness. We loved Jesus in the past because he provided salvation; we love Jesus in the present because he provides salvation. Our love for him is marked by repentance. 

Thirdly, service for God does not depend on our past state of heart but on our present state of soul. Peter had known great privileges and, while they were important, they were not the crucial factor. Jesus did not say to him, ‘Do you recall the time when I gave you a great catch of fish?’, nor did he say to him, ‘Do you recall the time I took you up the Mount of Transfiguration?’ These memories would have caused Peter great sorrow because he had sinned against great privileges. All he was asked was whether or not he loved the Saviour.