376 As far as we know, writes Zahn, the Gospel has never circulated without this chapter (ii., p. 484). Tatian’s “Diatessaron” used the essential parts of it down to verse 25. Some think that the closing verses proceeded from those around the Apostle, with his sanction (Zahn, p. 493).
Scarcely any German writer now follows Hengstenberg’s defense. Even Luthardt regards it as an Epilogue, although probably from John’s own hand. So Meyer and Godet. Weiss is one of those who think that it was by another hand (see note 394a). Happily, most reject the view of Baur, Strauss and Keim, that it represents a vindication of John as a rival of Peter.
Mr. Kelly, it will be seen, defends every verse of the chapter as an integral portion of the Gospel written by John himself, reprobating the idea that it is a supplement.
377 Verse 1.― “Manifested Himself.” Cf. 2:11, 7:4.
“At the sea of Tiberias.” It was so called already in the time of Josephus. Observe John’s combination of the Lucan and Matthæan different scenes of the appearances.
378 Verse 2.― “The sons of Zebedee.” The only distinct mention in the Gospel of James and John, and, of course, not by name. Zahn regards it as indication of editorship (ii., p. 485).
379 Godet suggests that these may have been Papias’s John the Elder and Aristion, whom the ancient writer speaks of as “disciples of the Lord.” Observe that there are seven disciples in the scene (see note 46). Germans are embarrassed in accounting for the number.
379a Verse 3.―Bacon: “Unconscious of the Resurrection” (H. J., October, 1907, p. 141). How, then, explain the readiness of the words of the disciple to Peter in verse 7?
380 Verses 4 ff.―There seems to be a designed comparison with Luke 5:1-91And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret, 2And saw two ships standing by the lake: but the fishermen were gone out of them, and were washing their nets. 3And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon's, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship. 4Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught. 5And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net. 6And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake. 7And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink. 8When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord. 9For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken: (Luke 5:1‑9), whilst verse 7 reminds of Matt. 14:28-3128And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. 29And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. 30But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. 31And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? (Matthew 14:28‑31), and verses 9-12 recall 6:9-11 of this Gospel.
John’s account is different from that of the incident described in Luke 5., from the very fact that they were distinct occasions. Thus in the earlier Gospel Peter says, “Depart from me,” etc., whilst here he girds his fisher’s smock about him and strikes out for the shore to go to the Lord. On the previous occasion his confession of sinfulness was superficial; experience acquired of what he is has now the rather mop ed him to be silent about it. On that first occasion the net was being rent and the fish not secured; here all is tranquilly brought to land. See, further, in Harnack, “Luke the Physician,” English translation, p. 227, where dissent is expressed from the view taken by Wellhausen in commentary on Luke.
381 Verse 7.―This verse makes it certain that the Evangelist John was intended by “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”
382 “One hundred and fifty-three.” No better explanation has ever been found for this number than Hengstenberg’s, that it was the number of nations of the world known at the time.
383 Verses 13 f―The Gnostic condemnation of animal food is here disposed of.
384 “The third time.” That is, to the Apostles as a company.
385 Verses 15-17.―Who but John could have written these verses? Cf. 13:37.
386 Verses 15 f.―Adolphe Monod: “Give me thine observances, says the God of Pharisaism; give me thy personality, says the God of Hegel; give me thy reason, says the God of Kant. It remains for the God of Jesus Christ to say, Give Me thy heart... the unmistakable feature of a genuine conversion” (from sermon on “Dieu demandant le Coeur à l’Homme,” cited by Bishop Moule in his devotional book on Jesus and the Resurrection).
The difference between ἀγαπᾷν and φιλεῖν is that “φ. is so far lower than ὰ. that it indicates less of insight and more of emotion” (Moule. D. 181, aptly comparing 1 Pet. 1:88Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: (1 Peter 1:8)). Reference may be made to Trench, Westcott, Abbott. Augustine calls attention to “My” (not “thy”).
“Feed... tend.” The difference between βόσκειν and ποιμαίνειν being one of sustenance, as compared with guidance.
389 Verse 19.―Cf. 13:36.
390 Verses 20-23.―John was still alive when these verses were written (Zahn, ii. p. 488).
Drummond, from these words, vindicates the Evangelist against the Tübingen charge (note 376) of depreciation of Peter (p. 395 f.)
332 Verse 22.―Bengel; “Peter, the foundation; John, the crown.”
333 “Come.” At death, say Augustine, Grotius, Ewald, Olshausen, etc.; at destruction of Jerusalem, Luthardt, Alford, Godet, Westcott, etc.; but De Wette, Meyer, Weiss, H. Holtzmann, Gloag and Zahn, at the “Second Coming.”
Instead of negativing Paul’s distinction of two classes, those who shall have fallen asleep and those who remain, these verses rather confirm it.
A question has been raised whether John the Apostle died a natural death, as generally supposed, or was, like his brother, martyred by Jews (cf. Matt. 20:2323And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. (Matthew 20:23); Mark 10:3838But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? (Mark 10:38) f.), as alleged in a Fragment of Philip of Side of the fifth century. See English edition of Schürer (p. 59), and a Chronicle of George the Sinner of the ninth or tenth century. Cf. Stanton, p. 167; Burkitt, p. 252. The statement of George the Sinner, which had already been given in Harnack’s “Apostolic Fathers” (p. 87 ff.), that distinguished scholar himself discredits (“Chronology,” p. 665 f.), because of the silence of Eusebius and Irenæus. Heitmüller, one of the latest writers, joins Schmiedel and others in crediting this mythology. Drummond (p. 223) had remarked, with reference to the Syrian martyrology in Burkitt (p. 254), that it does not imply that the brothers came by their deaths at the same time and place.
394a THE EPILOGUE (verse 24 (.),―Weiss and many other students of Scripture regard verses 24 and 25 as alone written after the Apostle’s death. But how could a third person, or even a company of John’s friends or followers, attest the truth of his record, whether personally acquainted with him or not? As Dr. R. G. Moulton sensibly remarks, “endorsement is of no value without names” (“The Modern Reader’s Bible,” p. 1706). Bacon’s quotation of Rom. 8:1616The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (Romans 8:16) is not in the least to the point. Cf. 19:35 and note. The difficulty, moreover, that some raise over “we know” (verse 24) is not felt by those who compare the same form of expression in chapter 1 of the First Epistle (see also 2 Cor. 1:1313For we write none other things unto you, than what ye read or acknowledge; and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end; (2 Corinthians 1:13)). Observe that there is no emphatic pronoun (ἡμει̂ς) used, which would have given color to the “critical” argument. Again, the transition from the third person we meet with in 3 John 11The elder unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth. (3 John 1) of the “elder” ―it becomes the first plural in verses 9, 12; whilst the final use of the first singular is paralleled by 1 Thess. 2:1818Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again; but Satan hindered us. (1 Thessalonians 2:18); Heb. 13:88Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (Hebrews 13:8) f. So that there is no need whatever to take “we know” of Ephesian elders or friends (as Westcott, from comparison of 19:35), or “I suppose” of an amanuensis. Even if such were necessary, the direct association by the Apostle of others with himself would be paralleled by joint-writers of Pauline epistles. One need do no more than just record the ingenious proposal of Chrysostom and Theophylact to read, instead of οἴδαμεν, οῖδα μέν, so as to preserve the first person singular.
Weizsacker (vol. iii., p. 209 ff.) and some others regard the whole of the Gospel as written after the Apostle’s death. This, it is hoped, has been sufficiently dealt with in note la on the Introduction.
395 “Contain.” See Matt. 19:1111But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. (Matthew 19:11) in the Greek. As to the Oriental hyper-holism of Scripture, reference might be made to Ryle, vol. iii.. p. 529. Amongst other passages, that writer refers to our Lord’s own language as to Capemaum, and reproduces a helpful remark of Calvin.
Tregelles upheld the verse as written by the first hand in the Sinaitic manuscript.