The Joys of John

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

John 21

Here we are at the final chapter of John's Gospel. Many scholars believe it to be an addition to the original manuscript.

Jesus appears to the disciples who are fishing. They catch nothing until Jesus tells them to let down their nets on the other side of the boat. They comply with this instruction and pull in 153 fish!

The disciples don't recognize Jesus immediately but they share a breakfast of bread and broiled fish.

Jesus asks Peter if he loves Him and tells Peter to feed His sheep as evidence of this love.

Jesus prophecies the death of Peter but indicates He wants the beloved disciple to live until He returns.
Actually used this passage last Sunday (but ended after the threefold question, didn't include the words about being takne where he did not want to go).

Because I think each appearance story tells us some thing different (as well as something similar to others) about the Resurrection story here is someof what I saw here:
  • Easter happens in a variety of places
  • Sometimes, no matter ho much you want to go back to what was normal GOd won't let you
  • Easter is revealed in signs and actions and food as well as in words -- in this case Jesus was only recognized with the catch of fish, not when they saw the figure on the shore
  • Jesus consistently reveals abundance where we might see scarcity (as he has done elsewhere in John's Gospel at Cana and the feeding of the multitudes)
  • ENcountering the Risen Christ and professing our love for Christ requires us to care for each other. ANd our lives will never be the same again -- in fact the end of the chapter suggests that our lives will not be our own again.
I also noted that Luke uses an almost identical story about a miraculous catch of fish in Luke 5:1-11, at the beginning of the calling of the disciples. I suspect it is in fact the same story that was a part of the tradition but placed in a different point in the narrative. BOth times it reveals something about Jesus, and both times in context is related to calling people to follow The Way of Jesus.

If anybody is looking to kill 20 minutes here is the sermon:
 
I have read discussion about the ending before but forget if it was here. Basically, the last few verses seem to suggest that the writer of John was the "disciple whom Jesus loved" discussed in the preceding verses. Interesting take since it puts the author of the latest canonical Gospel at the scene of a post-Resurrection event.
Given that John was written down in the last 20 years of the 1st Century (or at least that is generally assumed to be the case) it seems unlikely that the John who is in the stories is the final author/redactor. He may have been a key part of the community where these stories were passed around and eventually written down. Also there is a suspicion that there is more than one author of the Gospel, at least where chapter 21 is concerned but I had a prof once suggest that multiple authorship may show up in other parts of the Gospel as well. Of course in the ancient world it was not uncommon for someone to assign authorship to someone else, particularly a person of high esteem (see the pseudo=Pauline letters as an example)
 
153 is a multiple of 3 and has some interesting properties we looked at a few years ago.

This might be neither here nor there.:rolleyes:
THere is a tradition that there were 153 known species of fish in the ancient world and so that is where the author was pointing. It is an oddly specific number
 
THere is a tradition that there were 153 known species of fish in the ancient world and so that is where the author was pointing. It is an oddly specific number
Most people would only know fish local to them. So fishermen on the Sea of Galilee would really only know the ones in it. And 153 seems high for what is basically a large-ish lake. Perhaps the Mediterranean basin as a whole but, again, most fishers would only know species local to them. Some odd species found only around Spain and the Balearic Islands wouldn't be known to a fisherman from Galilee. So I suspect it means something more/else.
 
There are also a few theories about the numerical values of certain Hebrew letters. This seems like a more feasible explanation to me than numbers of known species of fish.

There's an appeal to the multiple of three idea. But why this particular number, I wonder?

Some (all?) of the mathematical quirks of 153 are shared with other multiples of 9. Was it @Mendalla who drew our attention to this in a previous discussion?
 
Here is a similar story from Luke. It is set at the beginning of Jesus's ministry.

Luke 5:1-6

The stories are so much alike one commentator suggests the tale must come from the oral tradition.
 
My last minister liked the theory that Mary Magdalene was the disciple Jesus loved.
There are scholars that believe Lazarus was the beloved disciple and the author of John and amongst others use John 11; John 11:5-6; John 11:35 and John 11:34 as evidence.
The beloved disciple is first mentioned in John 13 after Lazarus is raised in John 11.
John would have been illiterate and did not know Greek, let alone writing a gospel..possibly could have used someone who could?
 
Who do we want the beloved disciple to be? This may tell us something about ourselves and our faith.
 
Who do we want the beloved disciple to be? This may tell us something about ourselves and our faith.
Personally i want the beloved disciple to be who he/she really was, but there are no definite answers...thus the speculation.
 
Lots to Spiritually unpack in this Chapter

So this is opst resurrection ---where Jesus walks the earth for 40 days

The disciples after Jesus death ---go back to their livelihood of fishing ----Jesus just shows up walking along the shore at the right time and know that the Disciples are having no luck with their catch ----

This is so cool here cause for believer --Christ always shows up at the right time in the believers life to help straighten things out and bring a Blessing into the person's life -----

They don't recognize Jesus in His Glory suit yet

He tells them to cast their net on the right side -----what is the Spiritual significance the right side ----


Topical Encyclopedia
In biblical literature, the right side holds considerable symbolic significance, often representing strength, favor, and authority.

They do as told by Jesus and they get a big catch -----a much Loved Disciple tells Peter that it is the Lord ----

The count of the fish was 153 ----Spiritual meaning for 153


Symbolizing abundance, 153 can even represent an overflow blessing from God. The Bible states the disciples marveled at the fact that their net held together even though it contained so many large fish (John 21:11)!


We see Jesus asking Perter 3 times if he Agapes Him ---this Love is an unconditional love that has no barriers --Peter says --yes 3 times to this unconditional love

The number 3 is used to symbolize completeness ----Peter denied Jesus 3 times and Jesus was addressing Peter's three fold denial of Him before His Crucifixion ----Jesus asked 3 times to bring Peter to Repentance and Restoration for his denial --- so Jesus could restore Perter back into a leadership role for His ministry -----Jesus tells Peter to tend to His Sheep

AI

Peter's three denials of Jesus were significant for several reasons: they highlight human frailty and the potential for even the most devoted to falter under pressure, they demonstrate Jesus's prophetic accuracy, and they set the stage for Peter's later repentance and restored leadership within the early Church. The three denials, escalating in intensity, emphasize the depth of Peter's denial and the weight of the moment.

Jesus and the disciples eat together ----Jesus tells Peter he will Glorify God by dying on a cross --by Following Him -Just like Jesus Glorified His Father by dying on the Cross ----

I say ----That must have put a Chill down Peter's back -----I would think ------

This Chapter in my view------- teaches believers that when they are obedient to the Word blessings come forward ---it teaches that when things are amiss in believers lives Christ is there to help us through -it teaches that when believers screw up there is forgiveness and restoration ----and it teaches that as believers the focus should always be on God and not on what other believers are doing or not doing -----
 
Just listened to your sermon @GordW

Yes the risen Christ appeared to the disciples when they had returned home from Jerusalem and were working their trade again. Not sure how I missed the significance of this point!
 
Thanks everybody for a good discussion about John's Gospel. I am thinking I will return to the Book of Glory for Lent next year.

I didn't have any particular focus for Lent this year. I was reading Paul's letters at that point and posting about them. Last year I zeroed in on the Sermon on the Plain (Luke) and took a very slow approach to it.

Snoopy is ready for a break once again. Who knows how long the break will last? :)

Thanks again for all your posts.
 
Thank you paradox3 for your great feat of going through the book of John ---no easy task --

Really appreciate all your hard work in doing a great job in doing these reviews ----I really enjoy them and I really appreciate that I can participate in them ---

Thank you so much for all your steadfast work in presenting these reviews -----So enjoyable :angel:
 

GordW

Just listened to your Sermon ---you mentioned the the Pope is the inheritor from Peter
I know the Catholic Church believes that Perter was the first Pope ----have no idea where they got that from but it is certainly never mentioned in Scripture ----you would think that God would have that if one of His Disciples were the first Pope that it would have been important enough to put in His Scriptures ---

There is no Biblical evidence That I know of ----that Peter was ever involved in the papacy ------it is just another dreamed up False piece of Doctrine that the Catholic Church like to dreamed up and Falsely present to its Church -----

Read all for yourselves --I just posted this part

Was Saint Peter the first pope?​

Roman Catholicism teaches that Peter’s apostolic authority was passed on to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. The teaching that all subsequent bishops of Rome, or popes, inherited Peter’s apostolic authority is referred to as “apostolic succession.”

The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and subsequent popes were and are infallible when speaking ex cathedra, that is, when making formal pronouncements from their position and authority as pope.

This supposed infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error.
The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter and cites this as evidence that it is the true church.

Was Peter the first pope? The answer is “no.” Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles, and the New Testament does not demonstrate that he held primacy. Nowhere in Peter’s writings does he claim any special role, authority, or power over the body of Christ. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter or any other apostle state that his apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the apostle Peter was often the spokesman for the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts 1—10). However, these truths in no way support the idea that Peter was the first pope, that he was a “father” to all believers, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter was not a pontiff, but he does point us to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).


I say -----Big Red Flag Here for these statements ---

The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and subsequent popes were and are infallible
This supposed infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error.


The Catholic Church Is delusional in my view ---The Pope hid and allowed all their Paedophilia Priests to preach and abuse children ----and they are Infallible -----guiding the Church without error and trying to link Peter into their Delusion and sex crimes :ROFLMAO:

They took a Piece of scripture and twisted it and Misinterpreted it and made it say what they wanted it to say ----which is done way to often in today's world by Ministers ans Priests ----


I say -----Many use Matthew 16:18-19 as their source ----

7 Big Reasons Why Peter Was Never the “Bishop” of Rome, and the Pope the “Vicar” of Christ​

Contrary to the claim of the Roman Catholic Church, Matthew 16:18-19 does not teach that Peter was the first bishop (pope) of Rome. Seven arguments against this claim are given.

The Roman Catholic Church claims that the first Bishop of Rome was the Apostle Peter himself.
They base this on Jesus’ promise, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matt 16:18), and “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt 16:19).

But did Jesus really mean to say that he will build his church on the shoulders of Peter, and that he will give Peter the keys to heaven? Here are 7 reasons why this is pure nonsense:

1. There is absolutely nothing said in the New Testament that Peter was ever in the first-century church in Rome. The Roman church bases this claim solely on their so-called traditions. Peter’s audience in his first sermon in Acts 2 were Jews from all over the Roman empire, including those from Rome (Acts 2:10). Those Romans who believed then went back to their homes and started the church there. In fact, Peter was in Jerusalem from that Pentecost Sunday in A.D. 30 or 33 until he left Jerusalem about 44 A.D., more than 10 years later."All church history dates are estimates from the ESV Study Bible."

Moreover, in Paul’s letter to the church in Rome about 57 A.D.—27 years (!) after the first believers went back home to Rome — he never mentioned that he or Peter had been there. And in all his greetings in his letter to the Romans, Paul did not mention the name of Peter even once. If Peter was the pastor there at that time, Paul would have surely greeted him first.

2. When Jesus addressed Peter, he was addressing him as the “spokesman” of the Twelve. Peter, being the most outspoken and impulsive among the Twelve, was always at the forefront of their conversations with Jesus. We know this when in verse 19, Jesus says to him, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” But two chapters later, Jesus repeats the same declaration verbatim, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt 18:18). And to whom was he talking to in Matthew 18? Obviously, he was talking to all the disciples, not only to Peter, because the “you” here is in plural form.

3. The “keys” are not given to Peter, but to all the apostles and all ministers who preach the true gospel. Jesus says, “I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture” (John 10:9). Later, he also says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). In his address to the church in Philadelphia, Christ says he “has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens” (Rev 3:7). Because the Philadelphians were faithful to his word, Christ promised, “Behold, I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut”(Rev 3:8). And to all the ungodly, Christ has the keys to cast into Death and Hades (Rev 1:18).

If Jesus is the door to heaven, the key that opens and closes this door is the preaching of the true gospel, through which the one who hears and believes is saved, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17). Because “[the gospel] is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom 1:16). Therefore, he is giving the “keys” to his apostles and thereafter, to the pastors and elders of his universal church.

4. The New Testament record tells us that Peter was not exalted above any of the other apostles. Immediately after this conversation, Jesus foretold his death, but Peter rashly vowed that this will never happen under his watch. Jesus then rebuked him very harshly, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me” (verse 23). In fact, the impulsive apostle was not true to his word, when in fear for his life, he denied Jesus three times. At the Jerusalem Council, Peter spoke about his work with the Gentiles, but it was not him, not even Paul, who presided over the great council; it was James (Acts 15:7, 13). And years after Peter witnessed to Gentiles (Acts 10), he refused to eat with Gentiles, and Paul rebuked him (Gal 2:11-15). Christ’s church was not built on the foundation of Peter, not even the Twelve. “The church’s one Foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord.”

5. Christ is the only Head of the Church (Ephesians 1:22-23; 5:23; Colossians 1:18).
The church is under the rule and care of its one Mediator, Jesus Christ, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5). Since he ascended into heaven, Christ is present with his Church by his Word and Sacrament through his ministers and the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

6. Since Christ is the only Head of the Church, no man can ever be his “Vicar” on earth. And there are no other Apostles who followed after Peter and the other eleven Apostles. From the day of Pentecost, all the apostles started building the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20). Paul says that no other foundation except for Christ was laid by the apostles. Once this foundation has been laid, there is no more foundation work to be done — the work of the apostles is accomplished (1Cor 3:10-11). Therefore, there are no more Apostles after the first Twelve. In fact, all other people, except the Twelve, are disqualified to be Apostles, since the requirement is that he must have been an eyewitness of the risen Lord (Acts 1:22). Is there any Pope who had been an eyewitness of the risen Christ?

7. Therefore, the foundational rock that Jesus was talking about was Peter’s confession.
Everyone who confesses Jesus in his work as Christ the Savior and in his identity as the Son of God, the second Person of the Triune God, would be saved. And everyone who comes to this saving faith will be living stones that will form the church (1 Pet 2:4-5). All others who deny this will not be admitted into heaven, but a key will open to them the gates of hell into which they will thrown.

AI
The claim that Saint Peter was the first Pope is a central belief of the Roman Catholic Church. However, the claim is not universally accepted, and there's no definitive biblical or historical evidence to support it
 
I know the Catholic Church believes that Perter was the first Pope ----have no idea where they got that from but it is certainly never mentioned in Scripture ----you would think that God would have that if one of His Disciples were the first Pope that it would have been important enough to put in His Scriptures ---

There is no Biblical evidence That I know of ----that Peter was ever involved in the papacy ------it is just another dreamed up False piece of Doctrine that the Catholic Church like to dreamed up and Falsely present to its Church -----
As far as I can tell you would say there is no Biblical basis for the Papacy at all (which one could argue). Of course Scriptrue does not mention an office that did not exist when those books were written down. Respect for my fellow Christians means I can respect the tradition that goes back centuries even if there is a lack of hard historical evidence to support it (as is true for much of the earliest Christian church.
 
Jesus did say to Peter that he was the rock on which the church would be built.
This again is a perfect example of people taking Scripture out of Context and twisting it to suit what they themselves THINK ---out of Non Spiritual understanding of what it is Really saying and OR Twisting the Scripture to suit their on theological agenda ------

No ------ Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter if you read the context and Peter means a small pebble rock ----Jesus was not saying that He would build His Church on a pebble rock ------

Jesus is the Boulder Rock that the Church is built on ------

There are to different Greek words for Rock -----

Petros
---which means Peter ---and Petra a boulder ------


Lexicon
Petros: Peter
Definition: Peter
4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros ("small stone")

Lexicon
petra: Rock, large stone, cliff
(pétra) is a "solid or native rock, rising up through the earth" (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.

The Rock on which Christ Church is built is Petra ---not Petros -----


Matthew 16
18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

If you click on ROCK here it is PERTA as seen below ---Not Petros

a rock, large stone:

c. metaphorically, a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul: Matthew 16:18
This is Jesus here ------a man Like a Rock --Petra


AI

The statement "Jesus is the cornerstone of the church" is a fundamental belief in Christianity. It signifies that Jesus is the foundation upon which the church is built, both literally and spiritually.
 
Thanks for providing another explanation for Matthew 16:18 @unsafe. I knew there was an alternate explanation but I couldn't remember what it was.
 
Here's the link to a previous discussion about Matthew 16:13-20

It was a BPoTW selection hosted by yours truly. I called the thread Upon this Rock.

 
Back
Top