|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Third Resurrection Story of John
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Jesus Appears to Seven Disciples (John 21)
21 After these things Jesus showed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias; and he showed himself in this way. 2 Gathered there together were Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples. 3 Simon Peter said to them, "I am going fishing." They said to him, "We will go with you." They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.
4 Just after daybreak, Jesus stood on the beach; but the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5 Jesus said to them, "Children, you have no fish, have you?" They answered him, "No." 6 He said to them, "Cast the net to the right side of the boat, and you will find some." So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in because there were so many fish. 7 That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on some clothes, for he was naked, and jumped into the sea. 8 But the other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full of fish, for they were not far from the land, only about a hundred yards off.
9 When they had gone ashore, they saw a charcoal fire there, with fish on it, and bread. 10 Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish that you have just caught." 11 So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, a hundred fifty-three of them; and though there were so many, the net was not torn. 12 Jesus said to them, >Come and have breakfast." Now none of the disciples dared to ask him, "Who are you?" because they knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14 This was now the third time that Jesus appeared to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.
Jesus and Peter
15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 A second time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. 18 Very truly, I tell you, when you were younger, you used to fasten your own belt and to go wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go." 19 (He said this to indicate the kind of death by which he would glorify God.) After this he said to him, "Follow me."
Jesus and the Beloved Disciple
20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said "'Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?" 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about him?" 22 Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" 23 So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?"
24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
Some interesting questions to next week's Gospel lesson
1) Why did John add these stories to the end of the book, when he had already concluded the book in John 20: 31-32?
2. Why did the disciples decide to go fishing in the middle of the night?
3. Why did Jesus tell the disciples to throw the net on the right side of the boat. (Greek part of story a little different than English part here: instead of Jesus asking "Children, did you catch any fish? as written in English. the better translation would be "So, you didn't catch any fish, children?"
4. Why, when the disciples realized it was Jesus, did Peter first put on his clothes and then swim to shore?
5. Why did Jesus tell the disciples to bring more fish to the fire for breakfast, when he already had fish on the fire (and where did he get those fish?)
5. Why does John specifically mention there were 153 very large fish in the net?
An interesting observation
The English translations miss the exchange between Jesus and Peter
After they had finished breakfast, Jesus asks Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love (agape) me more than these?'
Peter answered him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I am fond (fileo) of you."
Jesus says to Peter, "Feed my lambs."
A second time Jesus asks Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, doe you love (agape) me>"
Peter again answers, "Yes, Lord, you know that I am fond (fileo) of you."
Jesus says: "Tend (or Shepherd) my sheep>"
A third time Jesus asks, "Simon Peter, are you fond (fileo) of me?
Peter, feeling hurt, replies ¿Lord, you know everything; you know that I am fond (fileo) of you.¿
Jesus said to him, ¿Feed my sheep...'
Note how two times Jesus uses the term "agape"
Peter can only say he is fond (fileo) of Jesus
Jesus then says "Are you fond of me?" As if to catch Peter at what he is saying--or is it because Jesus decides something is better than nothing?
Also note
Jesus says 1) Feed my lambs; 2) Shepherd my sheep; 3) Feed my sheep.
Lots of questions. Loaded story. Question, I am really wondering about: why the 153 fish?
[ 08. April 2013, 01:54: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I think Peter was in one of those over-zealous moods that come with the great relief of being forgiven the unforgivable--so when he realizes it's Jesus there, he can't wait even 5 10 minutes to get to him by boat, but makes himself as presentable as possible (i.e. not stripped for work) and dives overboard. Doesn't want to waste a minute. Similarly when Jesus says "you (plural) bring some of those fish you've just caught," Peter takes it upon himself to do the job singlehandedly--and doesn't just bring them, he COUNTS them. There's something of the eager-to-please puppy, almost, here.
for what it's worth, I'm told by the Vietnamese fisherman that night time is the best to go fishing.
[ 08. April 2013, 03:19: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I have NEVER understood, or heard a plausible explanation of, the uses of agape/fileo in that conversation between Jesus and Peter. It seems like it has to be important, that different verbs are used, but it makes no sense to me.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I have NEVER understood, or heard a plausible explanation of, the uses of agape/fileo in that conversation between Jesus and Peter. It seems like it has to be important, that different verbs are used, but it makes no sense to me.
Most commentators dismiss it as John playing with words. I think it's important.
I read it like this. After his betrayal of Jesus, Peter - basically a man with some integrity - realises he can't say he loves Jesus. Jesus first tests this - has Peter got over all that overblown enthusiasm he used to have? He gives Peter the experience of the pain and discomfort of confession and repentance. And then he does what Jesus characteristically does: he takes the final step, so as to meet Peter on Peter's own terms. "Okay Peter, I get it: you can't say 'love'. I can go with 'like'. As long as you really mean it."
I think it's actually a very profound story about the experience of reconciliation. I think it has a parallel with the story of the Prodigal Son, in which the father doesn't wait for the son to come knocking on the door for forgiveness, but runs out to meet him.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
I've heard people suggest more recently that the differences between agape and philio (and even eros) are over-egged. Which is interesting, because, it's often pointed out in Christian circles as an important distinction.
The suggestion was that that because the words are pretty interchangeable, it's just a mechanism to avoid repetition, and there's nothing special about the choice of word at in the different sentences.
I'm not sure how convincing that is - the word choice does seem strange at first - and I'm no expert in Greek, but there you go.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
for what it's worth, I'm told by the Vietnamese fisherman that night time is the best to go fishing.
In George Macdonald's novels, the Scottish fishermen always go out at night.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
On the offhand chance that John was attempting to relate an actual conversation: he would have been translating from Aramaic into Greek. The agape/fileo distinction is in Greek; is there a parallel pair of words in Aramaic?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
We had a discussion about the agape/fileo distinction in this passage a few years ago, which might be of interest. Link here.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
The bit about the fish on the fire is interesting. I'm sure there's no one meaning to anything here. Perhaps one of the many appropriate readings would be that while God provides for us (the fish already on the fire and the bread Jesus also seems to have - himself, one would guess), God also receives, uses, blesses, perhaps even in a highly qualified sense "needs," what we also bring to the table.
My qualified sense of "need" is a chosen need. God doesn't need anything, of course. It's the chosen need of love. As a parallel, when we love someone, we feel we need them, but the (harsh) truth is we could get along without them. It's a chosen dependence that becomes very real. God may "need" things from us in a relative way - relative to God's plan, God's desires, God's love, God's purposes for creation, whatever.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Another thing I wondered about is whether there is some fit with missions here. I mean, the fishing metaphor gets used all over the gospels that way--maybe this is an acted out parable in some sense? Because clearly God catches a few people with very little help from the church (I'm one), but it seems that the majority come in through the nets of the Christian church. Of course I wouldn't want to press this too far given what happens to the fish in the end!
I would like to know where he picked up the bread and the makings for the fire. A charcoal fire, they say... I wonder does that mean a regular fire that has burned down to charcoal level, or do they mean one kindled with pre-prepared charcoal (not the stuff for the BBQ, silly, the kind that came before that)
[ 09. April 2013, 03:09: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
1) Why did John add these stories to the end of the book, when he had already concluded the book in John 20: 31-32?
I think that this is the right question to ask, because I think the answer explains what these stories are really about.
I have always been told that these stories are Jesus' advice about the work that He is sending the disciples out to do. They are about the establishment and future of Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
2. Why did the disciples decide to go fishing in the middle of the night?
It's about fishing because Jesus told them that He would make them "fishers of men" (Mark 1:17).
It's the middle of the night because the world was in a dark state, spiritually speaking. It is the same reason as why the shepherds were watching over their flocks by night. Shepherds and fishermen are both metaphors for pastors and evangelists.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
3. Why did Jesus tell the disciples to throw the net on the right side of the boat.
Throughout the Bible the right side is the good side. Jesus is to be at the right hand of God.
So the meaning is simply that the disciples are to teach what is good, or to teach it with love, and they will catch more people.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
5. Why does John specifically mention there were 153 very large fish in the net?....
Lots of questions. Loaded story. Question, I am really wondering about: why the 153 fish?
The number stands for the end of one era and the beginning of the next. Jesus had brought about the end of the Jewish era and the start of Christianity.
One hundred fifty is the number of days that the waters of the flood prevailed on the earth at the end of the era before Noah and his family repopulated the earth:
quote:
Genesis 7:24 And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.
Genesis 8:3 And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.
The number stands for the end of one thing and the beginning of a new one. The "three" at the end is a holy number meaning completeness.
The fish themselves stood for both the people who would make up the church and truths that the disciples would teach, by which the people would be "caught."
This is the way that this story has always been interpreted to me.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
1) Why did John add these stories to the end of the book, when he had already concluded the book in John 20: 31-32?
From a brain-dead litgeral reading (always the best place to start, ![[Biased]](wink.gif) its a good idea to work out what the text actually says before trying to work out what you think it ought to have said) "John" didn't.
The last words of the chapter "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" imply that the person writing the book is not the disciple who witnessed these things, but someone else writing or compiling that disciple's testimony. So maybe he got to the end of one source than added some extra stories on to show who the author was. Either way, if "John" is the person whose witness we have just been reading, the last chapter is not his, but someone else telling us that John';s witness is true.
I'm not claiming that this is what actually happened, but I am saying that this is what the book seems to claim happened - there is a story of Jesus attributed to "the disciple that Jesus loved" that ends at the end of chapter 21, and a sort of appendix about that disciple added on at the end by someone else - who we are presumably meant to think of as a copier or editor or compiler or redactor or possibly even scribe of the mai body of the text.
The first 18 verses of Chapter 1 also obviously feel like some sort of prologue in a different hand. I think the Fourth Gospel presents itself to us as one continuous narrative attributed to John (or someone very like him) with a short bit added on at the begining and end. (Which makes it probably the simplest of all four Gospels in that respect, except maybe for Mark)
As I said I'm not saying that is how it came to be written - who could possibly discover that with no external standard of comparison as we have for the Synoptics? - but I think I cam saying that that is what it looks like and perhaps how the final editor intends us to read it. (And the final editor may well have been the original editor as well, how could we possibly know either way?)
[ 09. April 2013, 15:09: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
Sermon
2nd Sunday after Easter. (Main Eucharist)
It's a beautiful still evening on the lake of Galilee. A warm and gentle breeze ripples the water as the setting sun turns it into shimmering molten gold.
There in the distant west is the snow-capped top of mount Carmel, thirty miles away by the Great Sea. Across the lake, just fifteen miles away was where Jesus grew up, Nazareth. Seven men struggle to drag their fishing boat down the shingle of the beach.
“Hard work now with only the seven of us here tonight. Thomas, Nathaniel, James and John, Andrew, Mathew and me, Galileans all of us. Still the others never really understood what it is about us and fishing, huh landlubbers. 'It's the quiet I think, that’s what I like most. So quiet, just the lap, lap, lap of water on wood. Out there, in the dark, just me and me mates, and the nets.
Me and me mates, how can I look em in the eye ever again, Oh I've noticed! They don't look me straight in the eyes now, ever since that night. They’ll never trust me again as a leader, why should they? I can't blame them. It’ll be getting colder as it gets dark. No fire to warm myself on out there though. Just as well I’d have to say, I’ll never forget that night, ever. Oh why couldn't I help him when he really needed me? And I'd promised him, swore I'd never leave him to die alone. ‘Course I know He forgives me. That was always his way, came to me specially, before the other men, just to show me He forgave me and he was alive again. But I can't forgive myself, and I can't expect the others to accept me either.
So now I just make suggestions. I don't give orders anymore, that way there's less risk of em not being carried out by those who don’t think much of me as a leader.' 'Funny thing though, no catch tonight either, sunrise already and nothing, doesn't happen that often here. Now last time that happened . . . I remember that, how could anyone forget, 'fishers of men He said'.. Couldn't happen that way again though.'
' OK lads, shall we, haul em in, we've got nothin’ to show for tonight’s work but we'll catch even less in broad daylight, we might as well head in now.
The Second Reading Today was from Chapter 21 of Johns Gospel. It comes as a postscript to the Gospel itself and some scholars even think it was added on later. The last two verses of chapter 20 being much more like the author’s actual ending.
'Now Jesus did many other signs which are not written in this book; But these are written that you might have life in His name'.
However if it were added later it must have been added before the gospel was ever copied because there are no copies of Johns Gospel with this chapter missing. It seems likely that this chapter was added by some of Johns devoted followers who thought it important that his memory of this incident be included. I'm just glad that we have it because it is one of my favourite stories. Peter was well known as a prominent leader of the early church. By the time John's Gospel was written and circulated both Peter and Paul had almost certainly already been martyred under the persecution of Nero about the year 63, some 35 years after this meeting on the beach,
I think it most likely that Peter and his Galilean fishing friends went fishing to help them cope with their feelings after the events of Passover. Betrayal, denial, trial, execution, resurrection, rumours, reappearances, fear, joy, what a roller coaster ride of new experiences. Youngsters of today would say ‘It’s doin’ me ead in, I’m off out.’ No wonder Peter came up with the idea of a fishing trip in familiar surroundings. A very sensible way to come to terms with what had happened to them. What’s more, hadn’t Jesus said he would go before them to Galilee.
But recreation, a good rest, doesn’t stop those nagging little voices inside does it? When we feel guilty about the things we have done or said or not done or not said it can make us feel rotten to the bones and’ there is no health in us’. And what could be done. On his own, of course Peter could do nothing. It was his guilt. The fact that the other disciples were also guilty was no help to him. He had sworn never to forsake Jesus even if the others did, and they had ALL said the same. ‘They would never let him down’. No Peter’s problem could only be dealt with by Jesus himself. And Isn’t that true of every one of us?
Imagine the feeling of excitement therefore when, as Peter and the others struggle with a net full of unexpected fish, he suddenly realises it’s happening again. He hears someone say ‘It’s the Lord.’ Pausing only to make himself decent, he forgets the catch, the boat, his friends, and goes overboard for Jesus.
I have to say, if ever there was a cue in a sermon for an appeal to those who have not yet turned to Christ, then this is it. Being a Christian starts by taking the plunge, letting go and launching out to the only person in earth or heaven who can lift your burden, lighten your heart and ease your concience. Jesus. Don’t let anything hold you back, not your career, not your money, not even your friends, let them follow later, like the other disciples, to come in the boat dragging the net full of fish. They’ll get there OK, just you make sure you’re on the beach with Jesus. Then like Peter you can go back to help them haul the net ashore if you like, and the net won’t break and all will be saved.
Some of you must have heard many a sermon on the number of fish 153 of them. There are so many possible theories why 153 that they can’t possibly all be right. One does intrigue me though. If you add up all the numbers between one and seventeen, what do you get? The answer is not that you get bored. What you get is – you guessed it, 153. Why seventeen? Well 10 and seven were very special numbers back then. Ten commandments, seven days of creation ( if you include God’s day off ). Seven represented completion, perfection. It is finished, There are no further appearances of Jesus in John’s Gospel, the work of leadership on earth is handed over to Peter and the others, and then to us. Enough said.
I’m not going to talk much about the catch of fish either, other than to point out like many others, that success depends on taking advice from Jesus, rather than our own headstrong ideas. The success of all evangelism depends entirely on how much we listen to Jesus. He says where and He says when, and He says how, otherwise we are wasting our time and possibly even doing harm.
But that;s not my message today!
My message is about breakfast.
When Peter and the others arrived where Jesus was they found breakfast already being cooked. Jesus asked them to add their fish to the meal and they sat around chatting while theirs cooked. But starters was cooked and caught by Jesus. And their catch was really his too. There’s a lesson here for us. How ever clever or talented we might think we are, all things come first from Jesus. He uses what we offer of ourselves but our spiritual nourishment comes first from Him.
This leads to what I think is the real point of this story. John 21: v15 says. When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter .’Simon son of John.‘
When they had finished breakfast’.
Peter knew that there was unfinished business between him and Jesus. No doubt we all feel that way from time to time, we often let Jesus down. If we say we have no sin we make him a liar and the truth is not in us. But notice this. Jesus does not exclude Peter from the fellowship breakfast until things are put right between them. He offers hospitality to ALL of them without exception, then and only then, after breakfast, when Peter feels loved, accepted and fully included does Jesus deal with Peters problem.
WE all know how it goes. When a friend or relative has let you down or failed you, or let their standards slip, are you ever tempted to exclude them, drop them from your social calendar, not invite them to the wedding, anniversary, funeral. NOT Jesus. That is not his way. Breakfast first, business later.
Notice also the way Jesus addresses Peter. Simon son of John, NOT Peter the rock now but Simon the child, son of John. Jesus sees inside us that well. All the pain, all the insecurity, all the fear of failure. He knows Peter as he really is. Not the rock man that he wants to be, just Simon the son of John. And Jesus loves him.
Notice, Jesus does not say ‘ Are you sorry Peter’? ‘Do you apologise’? ‘Do you repent’?
No. Jesus says Do you love me, more than these’? ‘ Do you love me’. ‘Do you love me’?
Peter does not say ‘ Much more than them Lord, they might fail you I never will ‘. No, not this time.
Peter now knows himself better. He says ‘ Yes Lord, you know I’m your friend.’ And that’s as far as he is going. No boasting, just an honest answer. In the original Greek, the word for love Peter uses here, just means friendship.
Peter is lovingly restored by Jesus to his former position among the others. The questions are asked and answered for his friends to see and hear. He is publicly re-instated and knows himself to be forgiven and they know too. Furthermore he is given responsibility for Jesus’ most precious possession, paid for in blood and bought with a price. “ Feed my lambs “, “ Tend my sheep”, ”Feed my sheep” What a lesson in loving, caring, compassionate, leadership from our Lord. If only there were more like him in the church ! - in the world !
And Finally, what will it cost Peter, this new shepherd life? He would Glorify God by his death. Previously Jesus had said “Where I go you cannot follow”. But He now says “Follow me”. Now through the power of the Holy Spirit Peter is able to follow, even to the death. And Jesus still says to countless generations of disciples. “ Follow me.”
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
A point I missed entirely (until yesterday) was the setting. When the disciples come ashore they find Jesus has a charcoal fire going. There are only two places where this word is used. The first time is in John, as well, when Peter is warming himself at a charcoal fire. There Peter had denied him three times. Consequently, it is at this charcoal fire Jesus gives Peter the opportunity to testify of his love for Jesus.
But three times Peter can only admit he considers himself a friend of Jesus.
Maybe it has to do with Peter's continuing feelings of guilt for denying Jesus in the first place. Maybe it also is an indication of no matter how deeply we may feel about Jesus on this side of eternity we can not reach full love.
Still Jesus accepts Peter--and us--and charges us to feed his sheep. Jesus is still willing to use such imperfect vessels to feed the sheep around us.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I think that last point about the charcoal is really cute. But I also think that the idea of this scene being one of Jesus' reinstatement of Peter is pure wishful thinking. Peter is intransigent, truculent, throughout the whole conversation. The semantic argument based on agape/phillio is a red herring. It's just Jesus trying to get through to his deaf disciple, who far from accepting both his guilt and Jesus' forgiveness, is intent on revenge. We don't know who the "these" are that Jesus refers to because we come into the conversation half way through. But it really doesn't take much imagination to realise that Jesus' question is a response, not and initial remark.
To answer some of your questions, (1) Why include it? Know way of knowing, but possibly at the insistence of disciples who, although not eye-witnesses themselves, had documentary evidence from those who were (possibly attested in the text itself - "this is the disci-ple who saw these things" - and dictated to someone who could write.
(2) Why fishing? It was what they did. Very therapeutic. They were close to despair. They had abandoned/betrayed/denied their lord and master, and he had been killed.
(3) Why on the right - possibly symbolic. Or maybe Jesus had a better view from where he was. Odd how sometimes you can be right on top of something and miss it altogether....
4) Why dress? Modesty? Hard to argue with somebody when you're bollock naked.
(5) 153? God knows.
Which English translations miss out the conversation with Peter? I missed something there.
Shippies following The Gospel of John, a verse at a time: have no fear. If we ever get this far, I will try with all my might to be a good listener andf keep my troublesome secular gob shut.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CuppaT
Shipmate
# 10523
|
Posted
Most people when they were going swimming in the olden days would strip off their clothes! But Peter felt a need to clothe himself before meeting God. Even when we get to Heaven things like this will be changed from the way they started. We began in nakedness, and then in sin clothed ourselves out of modesty. But in Heaven will we be returned to our pure naked selves? By no means! We will be clothed with Righteousness. Jesus wore clothes shining whiter than any had seen. Peter had the right instincts.
One of the church fathers, or some early writer that I read once, and I cannot remember who, said that around the first century the number of known countries was 153. He did not expound on the evangelizing fish/sea, boat/church theme too much but left it as completely understood as natural. I, on the other hand, was astounded at the implications.
--------------------
Stand at the brink of the abyss of despair, and when you see that you cannot bear it any longer, draw back a little and have a cup of tea.
~Elder Sophrony
Posts: 919 | From: the edge of the Ozarks | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
pimple: quote:
The semantic argument based on agape/phillio is a red herring. It's just Jesus trying to get through to his deaf disciple, who far from accepting both his guilt and Jesus' forgiveness, is intent on revenge.
Revenge? Huh?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Revenge? Huh?
I wondered the same thing. Is it because of what Peter says about John "what about this man?"?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I heard that 153 was the amount of known species of fish at that time, and so it represents the disciples ultimately 'fishing' the whole of humanity.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Revenge? Huh?
I wondered the same thing. Is it because of what Peter says about John "what about this man?"?
yes, partly. But also because when Jesus asks "Do you love me more than these?" - It sounds to me like he means "more than these people you are complaining about? - who, given Peter's outburst when he sees the BD, reasonably includes him. This is of course conjecture and in a proper piece of exegesis utterly untenable.
But sometimes I "hear" things, and when I put them to a probability test, I'm obliged to think "Yes, maybe". Then Of course I convince myself that I'm quite right. Thing is, if you read the bible without reading between the lines, it's all cold porridge, isn't it?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Sorry for the double post, but this is crucial to my harebrained revenge theory. Why would Jesus say "What's it to you, If I want him to go on living?" if Peter had not indicated that he would like it otherwise? You don't deny a non-existent question.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Why would Jesus say "What's it to you, If I want him to go on living?" if Peter had not indicated that he would like it otherwise? You don't deny a non-existent question.
I agree. I read something very similar into it. Peter looks down on John, or is jealous of him.
In New Church theology this is explained as having to do with Peter and John's identities. Peter stands for faith and John stands for charity. Everything mentioned about these two reflects aspects of these identities.
Peter is the outspoken leader because faith takes the lead in our religious life. Faith is the rock on which the church is founded. But faith can also be superficial and inconstant, as Peter is. And faith can see itself as more important than love - thinking it is better to be right than to be loving. So Peter has this feeling towards John, and Jesus reproaches him for it.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I don't see it as revenge. Peter has just been told he's going to die a mysterious but horrible death, and he naturally wonders what Jesus has in store for the rest of the disciples-- of whom John is the handiest example, being only a step or two away. There might also have been some mild jealousy involved, as John is the one disciple who came closest to not totally screwing up at the crucifixion. So Peter naturally wants to know what horrors (if any) Jesus has in store for him.
And Jesus, just as naturally, rebukes a train of thought that is at best busybody anf at worst jealous. "What is that to you? Even if (taking the extreme "unfair" example) I want him never to die at all, let alone as a martyr, that would still be none of your business. Get on with your own job and follow me."
[ 19. April 2013, 22:21: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
I don't think "revenge" is accurate either. I do see evidence of some jealousy or other negativity, but it is mild.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't see it as revenge. Peter has just been told he's going to die a mysterious but horrible death, and he naturally wonders what Jesus has in store for the rest of the disciples-- of whom John is the handiest example, being only a step or two away. There might also have been some mild jealousy involved, as John is the one disciple who came closest to not totally screwing up at the crucifixion. So Peter naturally wants to know what horrors (if any) Jesus has in store for him.
And Jesus, just as naturally, rebukes a train of thought that is at best busybody anf at worst jealous. "What is that to you? Even if (taking the extreme "unfair" example) I want him never to die at all, let alone as a martyr, that would still be none of your business. Get on with your own job and follow me."
Yes, this is how I read it too. It always makes me think of Aslan telling Lucy she's not allowed to know what happens to other people, or what would have happened, only to concern herself with what does happen to her.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't see it as revenge. Peter has just been told he's going to die a mysterious but horrible death, and he naturally wonders what Jesus has in store for the rest of the disciples-- of whom John is the handiest example, being only a step or two away. There might also have been some mild jealousy involved, as John is the one disciple who came closest to not totally screwing up at the crucifixion. So Peter naturally wants to know what horrors (if any) Jesus has in store for him.
And Jesus, just as naturally, rebukes a train of thought that is at best busybody anf at worst jealous. "What is that to you? Even if (taking the extreme "unfair" example) I want him never to die at all, let alone as a martyr, that would still be none of your business. Get on with your own job and follow me."
That Peter has been told that he is about to die a mysterious but horrible death is John's gloss on the words of Jesus. It makes sense to christians with the benefit of hindsight, but how on earth could Peter have made the interpretation John suggests, then? I don't think Peter's outburst has anything to do with any foreknowledge of his death.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Well, I dunno; John knew Peter well, went on knowing him well for years, and also overheard the conversation itself, which he might be condensing here. Possibly something else Jesus said during that walk clarified it beyond a doubt. Possibly Peter told John later that this was how he understood it. Heck, even the immediate retort of Jesus "if I want this man to live..." would be enough to set my mind running on death, if it hadn't been already! And Jesus' words have the same ominous ring to them that the predictions of his own death had had previously, IMHO...
I'm sorry, I just don't see anything to suggest that Peter was intensely hostile toward John at any time. After all, they were both in the inner circle of three, we have no reports of any quarrels between them either during Jesus' ministry or during the early church years, and Peter did ask John at the last supper to do him a favor and ask Jesus confidentially the question he couldn't ask himself due to his position at the table. That looks like a friendship to me.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Since the final writer of John (or the redactor) was finishing the book of John after Peter's death, no doubt the writer included Peter's death at the conclusion of the book.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
1) Why did John add these stories to the end of the book, when he had already concluded the book in John 20: 31-32?
Where, exactly, does John say that John 20:31-32 is the conclusion?
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
2. Why did the disciples decide to go fishing in the middle of the night?
Probably because all fishermen fished in the middle of the night.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
3. Why did Jesus tell the disciples to throw the net on the right side of the boat. (Greek part of story a little different than English part here: instead of Jesus asking "Children, did you catch any fish? as written in English. the better translation would be "So, you didn't catch any fish, children?"
Probably to point back to the first calling of Peter, cf. Luke 5:1-11, esp. v.4.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
4. Why, when the disciples realized it was Jesus, did Peter first put on his clothes and then swim to shore?
Maybe he was naked. AFAIK, fishermen swimmed under boats, checking the nets. Being naked would probably be a good thing, since I doubt they had bathing shorts or speedos back then.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
5. Why did Jesus tell the disciples to bring more fish to the fire for breakfast, when he already had fish on the fire (and where did he get those fish?)
(1) He probably didn’t have enough fish. (2) He had probably fished his fish himself.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
5. Why does John specifically mention there were 153 very large fish in the net?
AFAIK, according to some ancient commentators, 153 was the number of known species of fish at the time, suggesting that the disciples should convert the whole world as ‘fishers of men.’
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
An interesting observation
The English translations miss the exchange between Jesus and Peter
After they had finished breakfast, Jesus asks Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love (agape) me more than these?'
Peter answered him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I am fond (fileo) of you."
Jesus says to Peter, "Feed my lambs."
A second time Jesus asks Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, doe you love (agape) me>"
Peter again answers, "Yes, Lord, you know that I am fond (fileo) of you."
Jesus says: "Tend (or Shepherd) my sheep>"
A third time Jesus asks, "Simon Peter, are you fond (fileo) of me?
Peter, feeling hurt, replies ¿Lord, you know everything; you know that I am fond (fileo) of you.¿
Jesus said to him, ¿Feed my sheep...'
Note how two times Jesus uses the term "agape"
Peter can only say he is fond (fileo) of Jesus
Jesus then says "Are you fond of me?" As if to catch Peter at what he is saying--or is it because Jesus decides something is better than nothing?
You shouldn’t read to much into the supposed difference between agape and fileo. It is very doubtful that there was a significant difference between the two in Koiné greek. In a footnote to John 15:15 (note 31), the Net Bible says:
quote:
Is there a significant difference in meaning between the two words for love used in the passage, ἀγαπάω and φιλέω (agapaw and filew)? Aside from Origen, who saw a distinction in the meaning of the two words, most of the Greek Fathers like Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, saw no real difference of meaning. Neither did Augustine nor the translators of the Itala (Old Latin). This was also the view of the Reformation Greek scholars Erasmus and Grotius. The suggestion that a distinction in meaning should be seen comes primarily from a number of British scholars of the 19th century, especially Trench, Westcott, and Plummer. It has been picked up by others such as Spicq, Lenski, and Hendriksen. But most modern scholars decline to see a real difference in the meaning of the two words in this context, among them Bernard, Moffatt, Bonsirven, Bultmann, Barrett, Brown, Morris, Haenchen, and Beasley-Murray. There are three significant reasons for seeing no real difference in the meaning of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in these verses: (1) the author has a habit of introducing slight stylistic variations in repeated material without any significant difference in meaning (compare, for example, 3:3 with 3:5, and 7:34 with 13:33). An examination of the uses of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in the Fourth Gospel seems to indicate a general interchangeability between the two. Both terms are used of God’s love for man (3:16, 16:27); of the Father’s love for the Son (3:35, 5:20); of Jesus’ love for men (11:5, 11:3); of the love of men for men (13:34, 15:19); and of the love of men for Jesus (8:42, 16:27). (2) If (as seems probable) the original conversation took place in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew), there would not have been any difference expressed because both Aramaic and Hebrew have only one basic word for love. In the LXX both ἀγαπάω and φιλέω are used to translate the same Hebrew word for love, although ἀγαπάω is more frequent. It is significant that in the Syriac version of the NT only one verb is used to translate vv. 15-17 (Syriac is very similar linguistically to Palestinian Aramaic). (3) Peter’s answers to the questions asked with ἀγαπάω are ‘yes’ even though he answers using the verb φιλέω. If he is being asked to love Jesus on a higher or more spiritual level his answers give no indication of this, and one would be forced to say (in order to maintain a consistent distinction between the two verbs) that Jesus finally concedes defeat and accepts only the lower form of love which is all that Peter is capable of offering. Thus it seems best to regard the interchange between ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in these verses as a minor stylistic variation of the author, consistent with his use of minor variations in repeated material elsewhere, and not indicative of any real difference in meaning. Thus no attempt has been made to distinguish between the two Greek words in the translation.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Whoa, jumping to a ton of conclusions there.
Pot. Kettle. Black. We don't know for sure who the final redactor of the fourth gospel was. We don't know for sure who the Beloved Disciple was.
We have lots of -well, some - pretty stories, that are taken by some people at face value as
undeniable
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
All right, all right! Knowing your take on John and the Beloved Disciple, LC, that was unnecessarily harsh. Don't go away!
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said "'Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?" 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about him?" 22 Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" 23 So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?"
I frequently use this part of the passage as a biblical starting point for explaining how prone christians are to believe exotic and miraculous stories without checking first-hand with the source, and how much easier it is for us to attempt to live our faith by proxy based on such exotic stories instead of following Jesus on our own (usually much les exotic) path.
[ 08. May 2013, 06:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
That's very interesting. Can you enlarge on it a bit, Eutychus?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Hmm, well, it goes something like this:
Jesus is busy with Peter doing his reinstatement thing. Peter, understandably, gets all hot and bothered by this (as perhaps by the rather uncomfortable bit that prophesies his untimely death) and tries to shift the subject.
"What about him [John] then?"
Jesus, in that offhand way he sometimes has, says to Peter "[ok I've just prophesied your untimely death], who knows whether John might not live till my second coming [it's all so random from a human point of view]. The main thing between us is that you follow me."
The other 9 are hanging around at a distance and pick up Jesus' throwaway phrase. Of course they're much more into exciting supernatural outcomes than being crucified upside down, and Jesus' hypothetical hyperbole quickly gets turned into a "prophetic word" that John won't die till Christ's return. John takes the opportunity of writing the gospel to attempt to set the record straight.
So I use this as a hook on which to hang teaching about how we can be tempted to structure our faith around second-hand stories of the exotic which, more often than not, turn out not to be all we had believed (very often because, as here, we hear them through a third party - a "friend of a friend"), in preference to getting on with following Jesus ourselves. One hopes that for most of us this will not involve being crucified upside down, but again for most of us, it's very likely to be less exotic than not dying before the Lord returns.
I think a lot of the christian appetite for unverified rumours comes from our innate tendency to find it more pleasurable to contemplate others' supposed exciting supernatural lives than get on with the mundane reality of our own. And even that, as here, our fear of our own death has something to do with that.
Does that make any more sense?
[ 09. May 2013, 20:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Yes, thank you.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
Sorry for the delay in responding, I only recently looked into this then thought I would search on here to see if anyone had asked about the 153 fish ... there is a lot to say, here is a summary:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
3. Why did Jesus tell the disciples to throw the net on the right side of the boat.
The casting net "is held by the left hand, and the net is gathered up in the right hand, and is cast with a broad sweep of that arm over shallow water near the shore wherever a shoal of fish is observed to be." Manners And Customs of Bible Lands.
So, the net would normally be cast over the left side. Casting to the right means weaker natural strength in casting and pulling in.
"Right": he right side or (feminine) hand (as that which usually takes), root word: to receive, accept.
Zech. 4:6: "Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts."
The lesson is they still caught nothing because even the best efforts of professional fishers cannot save souls. You need to let God show you.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
5. Why did Jesus tell the disciples to bring more fish to the fire for breakfast, when he already had fish on the fire (and where did he get those fish?)
It's prophetic of the in-gathering of the sons of God when Jesus appears at the start of a new day.
After feeding the disciples Jesus talks to Peter about feeding his sheep, so the testimony of saints – what “caught” us feeds his people.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
5. Why does John specifically mention there were 153 very large fish in the net?
The fact that they bothered to count the fish shows they saw it was significant. From above it shows the in-gathering of the over-comers (great fish) since that was Jesus original commission (Luke 5:4-11), the manifestation of the sons of God!
Old societies were not backward with numbers, in fact they were more in tune than most people today, we have become lazy, computers do it for most of us. Babylonians, Egyptians & Romans all looked at numerology, meaning from numbers.
God sent angel Palmoni, "wonderful numberer" to help Daniel's understanding (Dan. 8:13)
100 and 50 and 3 alludes to to Gentile fullness - 10 toes on the image Daniel saw, Israel’s fullness (50: jubilee) and spiritual fullness (3).
153 is also the gematria of various Old Testament phrases: "sons of God", "I am the Lord thy God ", "the Passover", "he is faithful".
The first word equal to 153 is "find".
153 is the smallest number which can be expressed as the sum of cubes of its digits.
It is also 12sqd + 3sqd
The sum of it's digits is 9 = 3sq., the sum of it's factors is 81 = 9sq
"I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife ... And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. " (Revelation 21:9, 16)
153 is a triangular no, 17 factorial. So is it's reverse, 351. During the days of Noah, God vanquished rebellious mankind by the flood which He began on the 17th day of 2nd month. The ark came to rest on the 17th day of the 7th month.
It seems to me that Jesus was killed on 14th day of Nisan but resurrected 3 days later on the 17th (Lev. 23:5 In the 14th day of the first month at even is the Lord's passover)
153 is also the sum of factorials 1-5 – the first 5 triangular numbers
etc. ! More in Bullinger's Number in Scripture. Maths fans may like this.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Note how two times Jesus uses the term "agape" Peter can only say he is fond (fileo) of Jesus ...
At that time Peter hadn't received the Spirit and so didn't have the love of God (agape), only his love for God - Romans 5:5, Acts 2:4.
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
1) Why did John add these stories to the end of the book, when he had already concluded the book in John 20: 31-32?
I'm not convinced that the verses at the end of chapter 20 are a conclusion to the book. I think they are a conclusion to the particular narratives which are about verifying the resurrection, and relate specifically to the story of Thomas and the statement Jesus makes to Thomas about faith. quote:
2. Why did the disciples decide to go fishing in the middle of the night?
Night fishing was normal practice quote:
3. Why did Jesus tell the disciples to throw the net on the right side of the boat. (Greek part of story a little different than English part here: instead of Jesus asking "Children, did you catch any fish? as written in English. the better translation would be "So, you didn't catch any fish, children?
What has been said above. Also that was where he saw the fish. I'm not inclined to see the catch as miraculous as a catch, though the presence of a shoal of fish in an area which had been barren through the night might be, I suppose. You're right that the Greek question expects the answer 'no'. quote:
4. Why, when the disciples realized it was Jesus, did Peter first put on his clothes and then swim to shore?
Because working in the boat he was butt naked, as the saying goes. Even if he felt OK about meeting Jesus in that state he would still want to get dressed once he had come ashore. My guess is that they weren't far out, and in any event we should avoid imagining something like the classic Sunday school or stained glass window illustration of robed men. These people were appropriately dressed for the kind of work they were doing. quote:
5. Why did Jesus tell the disciples to bring more fish to the fire for breakfast, when he already had fish on the fire (and where did he get those fish?)
Including Jesus there were eight people for breakfast, I doubt he had that much cooking, and in any case they might want seconds. Basically he's indicating his intention to stay and eat with them. quote:
5. Why does John specifically mention there were 153 very large fish in the net?
IMO, a number of the details in this story are there because the appearance of Jesus made this whole occasion so memorable that they fixed random details in the disciples' minds. (E.g. I remember the office window sill in my Dad's office, which I leaned over to watch Winston Churchill's funeral procession (1965 - I was nearly six y.o.), and that the guardsmen were wearing their field grey greatcoats so I couldn't see the scarlet jackets of their uniforms. These details don't mean anything, but I usually mention them when I tell the story, because they are part of the memory*.) Counting the fish would be normal practice, remembering the number is due to the amazing-ness of the event. quote:
agape/fileo
I like the idea that Jesus is lowering the bar for Peter, but commentators I respect suggest that is an over-reading - so, reluctantly, I tend not to go for that explanation. quote:
Also note
Jesus says 1) Feed my lambs; 2) Shepherd my sheep; 3) Feed my sheep.
I've never thought that this signified anything particular, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. I don't think anything rides on it.
(*Note to self: danger of becoming prosy bore!)
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I heard that 153 was the amount of known species of fish at that time, and so it represents the disciples ultimately 'fishing' the whole of humanity.
The source for that is the 153 species enumerated by Oppian of Corycus in a poem of his. The problem is that the poem post dates (mid 2nd century) the likely date of composition of John. So for this to the case, either Oppian was referencing some other unknown work, or the numerical reference was inserted into John much later than it's original composition.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I just like the fact that Jesus fixed them breakfast. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
