Bullinger remarks how emphatically Thomas says, " My Lord and MY God," showing the reality of his faith.
Rollock says, " If we compare Thomas with the other Apostles, we shall see that as he surpassed them all in unbelief, so he surpassed them far in believing and confessing the Lord." But he adds, " Jesus praises not Thomas for his faith, because he tied his faith to his senses. He calls him not blessed for it, but pronounces them blessed who believe without seeing."
Whether, after all, Thomas did actually touch our Lord's wounds, as he was told to do, is an open question, which we have no means of deciding. "There is certainly, as Augustine observes, no proof that he did, and his exclamation reads as if it was sudden and immediate, and not the result of examination and deliberation. May we not well believe that the discovery of our Lord's perfect acquaintance ^with every word that he had said on the previous Sunday, combined with the evidence of his own eyes that he saw before him a material body, and not a spirit, would be enough to convince him? The question is an open one, and every reader must form his own opinion about it. We are neither told that Thomas did touch our Lord, nor yet that he did not. Certainly our Lord says in the next verse, " Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed."
29. — [Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, etc.'] This verse contains a grave and solemn rebuke to Thomas, and a warning to all who are disposed to demand an excessive amount of evidence before ihej believe. The first part of our Lord's words would be translated more literally, " Because tliou hast seen Me, Tliomas, thou hast believed." The whole sentence may be thus paraphrased and expounded. " Thomas, thou hast at last believed my resurrection, because thou hast seen Me with thine own eyes, and touclied Me with thine own hands. It is well. But it would have been far better if thou hadst believed a week ago, on the testimony of thy ten brethren, and not waited to see Me. Remember from henceforth, that in my kingdom they are more blessed and honorable who believe on good testimony, without seeing, than those who insist first on seeing, before they believe."
The sentence " Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed," would be rendered literally, " Blessed are those persons not having seen and having believed," — consisting, as it does, of two participles connected with " blessed." The idea that our Lord had in view any particular person, such as Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, and, generally, the Old Testament saints, appears to me utterly untenable. I believe our Lord had in view no individual case, but only laid down a great general principle which Thomas had forgotten, as a lesson to him and the whole Church in every age. The construction of the Greek language allows us to regard the past tense as a present, in such a sentence as this. (See Jelf's Greek Grammar, 401, 403; and Farrar's Greek Syntax, 130.)
Gregory well says, " The incredulity of Thomas has done us more good than the faith of Mary." He means that if Thomas had never doubted, we should not have had such full proof that Christ rose from the dead.
The principle contained in the sentence before us, is one of vast importance in every age, and specially in our own. In a day of scepticism, free inquiry and rationalism, so-called, when hundreds are continually railing against creeds, and dogmatism, and priestcraft, the sentence deserves close attention and consideration. Nothing is more common now-a-days than to hear people say, that they " decline to believe tilings above their reason, that they cannot believe what they cannot entirely understand in religion, that they must see everything clearly before they can believe." Such talk as this sounds very fine, and is very taking with young persons and superficially educated people, because it supplies a convenient reason for neglecting vital religion altogether. But it is a style of talking which shows a mind either proud, or foolish, or inconsistent.
In matters of science, what sensible man does not know that we must begin by believing much which we do not understand, taking many positions on trust, and accepting many things on the testimony of others? Even in the most exact science the scholar must begin with axioms and postulates. Faith and trust in our teachers is the very first condition of acquiring knowledge. He that begins his studies by saying " I
Bhall not believe anything which I do not see clearly demon etrated from the very lirst," will make very little progress.
In the daily business of life, what sensible man does not know that we take many important steps on no other ground than the testimony of others V Parents send sons to Australia, New Zealand, China, and India, without ever having seen these countries, in faith that the report about them is dependable and true. Probability, in fact, is the only guide of most parts of our life.
In the face of such facts as these, where is the common sense of saying, as many rationalists and sceptics now do, that in such a mysterious matter as the concern of our souls, we ought to believe nothing that we do not see, and ought to receive nothing as true which will not admit of mathematical demon Btration? — Christianity does not at all refuse to appeal to our intellects, and does not require of us a blind, unreasoning faith. But Christianity does ask us to begin by believing many things that are above our reason, and promises that, so beginning, we shall have more light and see all things clearly. — The wouldbe wise man of modern times says, "1 dislike any religion which contains any mystery. 1 must first see, and then I will believe." Christianity replies, "You cannot avoid mystery, unless you go out of the world. You are only asked to do with religion what you are always doing with science. You must first believe and then you will see." — The cry of the modern sceptic is, '* If 1 could see I would believe." The answer of the Christian ought to be, " If you would only believe, and humbly ask for Divine teaching, you would soon see."
The plain truth is that modern freethinkers are like the Jews, who were always demanding some visible sign that our Lord was the Messiah, and pretended that they would believ^e if they only saw it. Just in the same way there are hundreds of people in this latter age of the world, who tell us they can believe nothing which is above their reason, and that they want stronger evidences of the truth of the doctrine and fact of Christianity than probability. Like Thomas they must first see before they believe. — But what an extraordinary fact it is that the very men who say all this, are continually acting all their lives on no better evidence than probability! They are continually doing things on no other ground than the report of others, and their own belief that this report is probably true. The very principle on which they are incessantly acting, in the affairs of their bodies, their families, and their money, is the principle on which they refuse to act in the affairs of their souls 1 In the things of this world they believe all sorts of things which they have not seen, and only know to be proba ble, and act on their belief. In the things of the eternal world they say they can believe nothing which they do not see, and refuse the argument of probability altogether. Never, in fact, was there anything so unreasonable and inconsistent as ration alism, so called 1 No wonder that our Lord laid down, for the benefit of Thomas and the whole Church, that mighty principle, •* Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed,"
The remarks of Richard Cecil, on the subject before us, are so apposite, that I make no apology for quoting them. They will be found in his " Original Thoughts." (Vol. i., p. 440— 442.)
" When a man doubts, after proper evidence, 3od calls it folly. When we complain and want more evidence, the fault is in us and not in God's dispensations. A humble spirit will accept a glimmering light, and not refuse to walk because it has not the noonday sun. Incredulity, as to divine truth, has its root in pride and self-sufficiency, and is accompanied by much rashness and ignorance. It presumes to understand and comprehend everything that is proposed to it. The incredulous man calls for demonstration. The feeble creature, who cannot explain the nature of his own formation, would have things made out as plain as that ' two and two make four.' The true believer receives the truths of the Bible as he receives the kingdom of heaven, — with the simplicity of a little child."—
— " Let us beware of the danger of following our own im aginations. A man may make one demand after another, till, at last, nothing will satisfy him; and the next step is, that, when he will not be content with what God shows him, ho shall be left in darkness and perplexity. — Consider the nature of believing; it is not like believing that two and two make four. Do not men believe on probability in other things? God has given all the evidence that man requires or needs; and if in a right mind, we shall thank God for the dispensation of light we have, willing to walk by faith and not by sight. If we do not get on in this way, we shall not get on at all. Divine justice punishes incredulity by credulity; by giving up the unbelieving to the dominion and bondage of strong delusions. When men get into a high mind and an unbelieving spirit, and reject the truth, God punishes them by letting them ' believe a lie.' Let us take heed how we say, like Thomas, we will not walk at all without such light as we think proper."
The opinion expressed by Dean Stanley, following Dr. Arnold (in Smith's " Bible Dictionary," Article " Thomas "), that Thomas is a remarkable example of " free inquiry combined with fervent belief," is one which I only mention in order to express my dissent f lom it. — I see nothing like " free inquiry " in this Apostle. I read of no question he asked of his brethren. I see no trace of any willingness to investigate, sift, weigh, and consider the testimony which they bore. I discover no readiness to go to the grave, to examine the linen clothes, to talk with Mary Magdalene, to question the two disciples who journeyed to Emmaus, All this would have been " free inquiry." But I see nothing of the kind. I only see a dull, obstinate, desponding declaration that, whatever his ten friends may say, he will not believe till he sees. This cannot surely deserve the name of " free inquiry! " — As to the " fervent belief" of Thomas, no doubt, at last, when his most compassionate Saviour almost forced conviction on him, in pity for his dulness, and made unbelief quite impossible, he made a most beautiful confession of faith. But it was a confession, we must remember, that came out only at the last moment, and was extracted, as it were, by a miracle of kindness. Above all, beautiful as it was, it did not prevent his gracious Master speaking words of grave and solemn rebuke. Beyond doubt, Thomas lay down that night a pardoned and forgiven man, — a man raised from faithlessness to strong faith. But we must not forget that he was not praised and commended, though raised, convinced, and pardoned. If words mean anything, he had received a reproof, and one that I doubt not he felt deeply. To me therefore it appears that, to represent him as an example of " free inquiry combined with fervent belief," is an entire mistake, and a misapprehension both of his character and of the whole drift of the remarkable narrative of this passage.
If, as I believe, St. Mark's remarkable words apply to this appearance of our Lord for the special benefit of Thomas, it is impossible to regard our Lord's language to Thomas in any other sense than that of rebuke. St. Mark says, " He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen." (Mark xvi. 14.) Most commentators certainly take this view. Chrysostom says that Thomas received a " sharp rebuke." '
80, 31. — [And many other signs, etc.] The two last verses in this chapter contain one of those parenthetical comments, or glosses, which are so peculiar to the Gospel of St. John. It must be admitted that they seem to break the thread of the narrative, and come in with a rather startling effect. We need not, therefore, wonder that the right meaning of the two verses has long been a subject of dispute.
(a) Some think, as Calvin, Ecolampadius, Brentius, Poole, Bollock, Lampe, Hengstenberg, Pearce, and Alford, that St, John refers to the whole history of Christ's ministry, and is comparing his own Gospel with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They would paraphrase the two verses in the following way: — " Jesus did many other miracles during His ministry, under the eyes of His disciples, which are not recorded in this Gospel of mine, though they are recorded in the other three. But those few which are recorded in this, my Gospel, are recorded in order that you who read it may be convinced that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ of God, and that believing on Him you may have eternal life through His name."— It is a heavy obj ection to this interpretation, that the two verses, on this view, appear to come in rather abruptly, and without much connection with what goes either before or after. In short, it is not very easy to explain why they come in here at all. — Moreover, it is not very easy to see the drift of the expression, " signs in presence of His disciples," considering that many of our Lord's greatest miracles were worked before people who were not disciples at all. — Furthermore, it is not very clear what St. John can mean by saying " other" signs. That word " other" seems to point to miracles just performed, yet there was no special miracle performed at this particular, beyond, of course, our Lord's miraculous appearances.
(6) Others, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Rupertus, Beza, Bullinger, Calovius, Musculus, Gerhard, Ferus, Toletus, Maldonatus, Henry, Tholuck, Scott, Bloomfield, and Olshausen, think that St. John writes these two verses with a special reference to the wDndrous signs and evidences which the Lord had just given to the disciples of His own resurrection from the dead. They would paraphrase the two verses in this way: — " Many other wondrous proofs did the Lord give to the Apostles of His • own resurrection, which are not written down in this (iospel, though they are written in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But the three appearances which I have narrated, are written down in order to convince you that Jesus is the true Messiah, the Christ of God, and that, believing this firmly, you may have eternal life through faith in His name." — According to this view the two verses refer to nothing but this twentieth chapter, and are a parenthetical comment on it. It is as though John would say, " Do not suppose that these three appearances of Christ are the only wondrous signs and proofs of His resurrection. There are others which you will iind recorded in the other three Gospels. But I have related these three in order to confirm your faith, and to show you that in believing on a risen Saviour you are resting on solid ground."
Of the two views I prefer the second one, as involving the fewest diflBculties. It is more probable, considering John's peculiar style of writing, to suppose that he makes a short parenthetical remark about a single chapter, than to suppose that he makes it about the whole of his Gospel. Above all this second view gets over the hnavy objection that, after bringing his whole Gospel to a conclusion by a general remark on the whole of it as compared to the other three Gospels, St. John seems to begin again in the twenty-first chapter, and to write a postscript or appendix. — In short the common theory, that these two verses apply to the whole Gospel, makes St. John finish his history, lay down his pen, complete his work, and then suddenly take up his pen again, and add the twenty-first chapter as a kind of after-thought. To say the least, this is an undignified, not to say rather irreverent, view of the composition of an inspired writer! — The other theory, or the theory which strictly confines the application of the two concluding yerses of the twentieth chapter to the matter contained in that chapter, viz., the signs which our Lord gave of His resurrection, is entirely in keeping with St. John's style of writing liis Gospel. He simply remarks parenthetically that there are other proofs of Christ's resurrection, which are to be found in the other Gospels, and that he has only written down such accounts as he was guided by the Spirit to consider most calculated to stablish the faith of his readers.
I frankly confess that the passage appears to come in abruptly under any view, and I cannot expect that all will adopt the explanation which I have advocated. If the Gospel of St. John had ended with this twentieth chapter, I might perhaps have acquiesced in the theory that the two verses were meant to form a brief concluding remark about the whole of the Evangelist's work; and a brief admission of the fact that he passed over many miracles recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But I cannot acquiesce in the theory, when I see that St. John goes on to write the twenty-first chapter. The existence of that chapter alone satisfies me that, in the two verses before us, St. John is only speaking of the signs of Christ's resurrection, which he has supplied, and is admitting that there are others in the other Gospels. As a rule, moreover, when I find a parenthetical comment or gloss in St. John's Gospel, I prefer to apply it to the immediate subject of which he is speaking. It is the habit of this Evangelist to turn aside for a moment, and make a short explanatory remark; and then to take up the thread again, and go on with his history. Of this habit, I think the two verses before us are an example. When the Holy Ghost plenarily inspired the writer of any Book of Scripture, both as to his faith and his words, He did not prevent him writing in his own peculiar style.
Whatever view we may take of the matter in dispute about these two verses, there are things in them which are abundantly clear and ought never to be forgotten. For one thing, St. John generously recognizes the existence of other books beside his own, and disclaims the idea of his own Gospel being the only one which Christians ought to read. Happy is that author who can humbly say, " My book does not contain everything about the subject it handles. There are other books about it. Read them." — For another thing, we should note the grand end and object for which this and all the books of the New Testament were written. They were written to glorify Christ, to make us believe on Him as the only Saviour of sinners, and to lead us to eternal life through faith in His name.
It is interesting to remember that ecclesiastical historians assign to Thomas the honor of being the Apostle who first preached the Gospel in India; and they also say that he there suffered martyrdom. A society of Christians in MalaT^ar is
Baid to be still known by bis name. Unbappily, tbe truth of all this is very doubtful, and rests on a very sandy foundation.
1 After these things Jesus she-wed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself.
2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.
3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say uuto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing.
4 But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.
5 Then Jesus saith unto them. Children, have ye any meat? they answered him, No.
6 And he said unto them. Cast the 1^ on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.
7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, iLis the Lord. Now when Simon Peter
heard that it was the Lord, he girt Ms fisher's coat unto Mm (for he was naked), and did cast himself into the sea.
8 And the other disciples came in a little ship (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits); dragging the net with fishes.
9 As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread.
10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught.
11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.
12 Jesus saith unto them, CpDoe ajid dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him. Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.
13 Jesus then cometh, andtaketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise.
14 This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.
The appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ after His resurrection, described in these verses, is a deeply interesting portion of the Gospel history. The circumstances attending it have always been regarded as liiglily allegorical and figurative, in every age of the Church. It may, however, be justly doubted whether commentators and interpreters have not gone too far in this direction. It is quite possible to spiritualize and filter away the narratives of the Gospels, until we completely lose eight of the plain meaning of words. In the present case we shall find it wise to confine ourselves to the great, simple lessons, which the passage undoubtedly contains.
We should observe, for one thing, in these verses, the poverty of the first disciples of Christ. We find them working with their own hands, in order to supply their temporal wants, and working at one of the humblest of callings, — the calling of a fisherman. Silver and gold they had none, lands and revenues they had none, and therefore they were not ashamed to return to the business to which they had, most of them, been trained. Striking is the fact, that some of the seven here named were fishing, when our Lord first called them to be Apostles, and again fishing, when He appeared to them almost the last time. We need not doubt that to the minds of Peter, James, and John, the coincidence would come home with peculiar power.
The poverty of the Apostles goes far to prove the divine origin of Christianity. These very men who toiled all night in a boat, dragging about a cold wet net, and taking nothing, — these very men who found it necessary to work hard in order that they might eat, — these very men were some of the first founders of the mighty Church of Christ, which has now overspread one-third of the globe. These were they who went forth from an obscure corner of the earth, and turned the world upside down. These were the unlearned and ignorant men, who boldly confronted the subtle systems of ancient philosophy, and silenced its advocates by the preaching of the cross. These were the men who at Ephesus, and Athens, and Rome, emptied the heathen temples of their worshippers, and turned away multitudes to a new and better faith. He that can explain these facts, except by admitting that Christianity came down from God, must be a strangely incredulous man. Reason and common sense lead us to only one conclu-
Bion in the matter. Nothing can account for the rise and progress of Christianity but the direct interposition of God.
We should observe, for another thing, in these verses, tlie different characters of different disciples of Christ, Once more, on this deeply interesting occasion, we see Peter and John side by side in the same boat, and once more, as at the sepulchre, we see these two good men behaving in different ways. When Jesus stood on the shore, in the dim twilight of the morning,.John was the first to perceive who it was, and to say, " It is the Lord; " but Peter was the first to spring into the water, and to struggle to get close to his Master. In a word, John was the first to see; but Peter was the first to act. John's gentle loving spirit was quickest to discern; but Peter's fiery, impulsive nature was quickest to stir and move. And yet both were believers, both were truehearted disciples, both loved the Lord in life, and were faithful to Him unto death. But their natural temperaments were not the -same.
Let us never forget the practical lesson before us. As long as we live, let us diligently use it in forming our estimate of believers. Let us not condemn others as graceless and unconverted, because they do not see the path of duty from our stand-point, or feel things exactly as we feel them. " There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit." (1 Cor. xii. 4.) The gifts of God's children are not bestowed precisely in the same measure and degree. Some have more of one gift, and some have more of another. Some have gifts which shine more in public, and some which shine more in private. Some are more bright in a passive life, and some are more bright in an active one. Yet each and all the members of God's family, in their own way and in their own season, bring glory to God. Martha was " careful and troubled about much serving," when Mary " sat at the feet of Jesus and heard His word." Yet there came a day at Bethany, when Mary was crushed and prostrated by overmuch sorrow, and Martha's faith shone more brightly than her sister's. (Luke x. 39, 40; John xi. 20 — 28.) Nevertheless both were loved by our Lord. The one thing needful is to have the grace of the Spirit, and to love Christ. Let us love all of whom this can be said, though they may not see with our eyes in everything. The Church of Christ needs servants of all kinds, and instruments of every sort; penknives as well as swords, axes as well as hammers, chisels as well as saws, Marthas as well as Marys, Peters as well as Johns. Let our ruling maxim be this, " Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.'* (Ephes. vi. 24.)
"VVe should observe, lastly, in these verses, the abundant evidence which Scripture supplies of our Lord Jesus Christ''s resurrection. Here, as in other places, we find an unanswerable proof that our Lord rose again with a real material body, and a proof seen by seven grown-up men with their own eyes, at one and the same time. We see Him sitting, talking, eating, drinking, on the shore of the lake of Galilee, and to all appearance for a considerable time. The morning sun of spring shines down on the little party. They are alone by the well-known Galilean lake, far away from the crowd and noise of Jerusalem. In the midst sits the Master, with the nail-prints in His hands, — the very Master whom they had all followed for three years, and one of them, at least, had seen hanging on the cross. They could not be deceived. Will any one pretend to say that stronger proof could be given that Jesus rose from the dead? Can any one imagine better evidence of a fact? That Peter was convinced and satisfied we know. He says himself to Cornelius, We did " eat and drink with Him after He rose from the dead." (Acts x. 41.) Those who in modern times say they are not convinced, may as well say that they are determined not to believe any evidence at all.
Let us all thank God that we have such a cloud of witnesses to prove that our Lord rose again. The resurrection of Christ is the grand proof of Christ's divine mission. He told the Jews they need not believe He was the Messiah, if He did not rise again the third day. — The resurrection of Christ is the top-stone of the work of redemption. It proved that He finished the work He came to do, and, as our Substitute, had overcome the grave. — The resurrection of Christ is a miracle that no infidel can explain away. Men may carp and cavil at Balaam's ass, and Jonah in the whale's belly, if they please, but till they can prove that Christ did not rise again we need not be moved. — Above all, the resurrection of Christ is the pledge of our own. As the grave could not detain the Head, so it shall not detain the members. Well may we say with Peter, " Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (1 Peter i. 3.)
The last chapter of St. John's Gospel requires a few preliminary observations. Certain very objectionable theories have been propounded about it. {a) Some, as Grotius, maintain that the chapter was not written by John at all, that his Gospel ended with the last verse of the twentieth chapter, and that the twenty-first chapter is the work of another writer, perhaps one John, an Ephesian presbyter! (p) Others do not go so far as this, and yet maintain that the chapter must be regarded as a postscript or appendix to the Gospel, and was probably added, as an afterthought, by St. John himself, some years after the rest of the Gospel. The chief ground on which these theories are bailt is the passage with which the twentieth chapter ends. Men tell us that the two concluding verses of that chapter were evidently intended to finish and wind up John's narrative, and that the twenty-first chapter comes in awkwardly and abruptly.
From all these theories I entirely dissent, and repudiate them altogether. I see no proof whatever that the two last verses of the twentieth chapter were intended to be a winding up of the whole Gospel. To me they appear to be a characteristic comment of the Evangelist, such as he often makes, on the account he has given in the chapter of our Lord's appearances to the disciples after His resurrection, and nothing more. To me it appears perfectly natural that he should go on writing, and give a further account of our Lord's most instructive appearance at the sea of Galilee; and I see in the narrative no abruptness or awkward fitting whatever. On the contrary, I see a peculiar beauty in the selection of the matter which the twenty-first chapter contains. It seems to me a most fitting conclusion to the whole narrative of the Gospel, to tell us our Lord's last sayings about two such Apostles as Peter and John. — Concerning Peter, it should be remembered that none of the Apostles had professed so much, and yet fallen so sadly as he had. John takes care to tell us how graciously and emphatically Jesus restores him to his commission, and specially bids him feed His Church, and foretells his end. — Concerning John, it should be remembered that he had been peculiarly mentioned, as the disciple whom Jesus loved. He meekly tells us that the only prediction about himself, if it can be called one, was that his future end was left in obscurity by his Lord. And thus he concludes his Gospel. If any one thinks that such a chapter comes in awkwardly, and is not a fitting conclusion to John's narrative after the twentieth chapter, I cannot agree with him.
Of evidence, whether external or internal, that the theories I have referred to deserve consideration, there is a conspicuous absence. There is not the slightest proof that any trustworthy ancient writer ever regarded the last chapter of St, John's Gospel, as less genuine and less inspired than the rest of the book. There is nothing in the language or style of the chapter, to create any suspicion that any other person than John composed it. Those who wish to see this subject fully investigated, are advised to study Wordsworth's Appendix to St. John's Gospel, in his Commentary.
When I add to this statement the fact that, in every age, the ■wisest and holiest commentators have seen in this chapter several singularly deep and interesting types of the history and position of Christ's Church in the world, I think I shall have said enough to satisfy many readers, that they may approach the last chapter of St. John's Gospel with as much reverence, and as much reasonable expectation of getting benefit from it as any other chapter in the book.
1,— [After these things.] This expression is indefinite. It only means that the appearance of our Lord, about to be described in this chapter, took place " after" His appearance on the eighth day following His resurrection. The time therefore, in the verse before us, is some day between the eighth and the fortieth day, when He ascended up into heaven. But what precise day we cannot tell. One thing at any rate we may be sure of. It was not the Sabbath day, or else the disciples would not have gone fishing. Even on the day following the crucifixion, Christ's disciples " rested according to the commandment." (Luke xxiii. 56.)
[Jesus showed Himself again...disciples.] A deep question naturally rises out of the expression before us. Where was our Lord on the days when He did not " manifest or show Himself" to His disciples? It is evident that He was not with them always, and that He only visited them at intervals. Where was He then in the mean time? — Not in heaven, we may be sure, because He had not yet ascended. But where was He on earth? I speak of course of His human nature. As God, He is everywhere. But where was He, as a man? This is a mysterious matter, and one about which it is useless to speculate. Enough for us to know that our Lord was visible, or invisible, and appeared suddenly in one place or another place, and assumed one form or another form, at His own will, after a manner that we cannot understand. But it is quite plain that, when we read the words in Acts, " being seen of them forty days " (Acts i. o), we must not suppose them to mean that our Lord was seen every day. It only means that during forty days He was seen at intervals. Each appearance, we doubt not, had its own special purpose and intention.
Chrysostom remarks, " It is clear from the words ' showed Himself,' that Christ was not seen (after His resurrection) unless He condescended, because His body was henceforth incorruptible, and of unmixed purity."
[At the Sea of Tiberias.] Concerning this remarkable piece of water, sometimes called the Lake of Gennesaret, and sometimes the Sea of Galilee, I have already said something in my note on John vi. 1. (Vol. 1, " Expository Thoughts on John," p. 329.) It is a fresh-water lake, through which the river Jordan runs, twelve and a half miles long and six and three-quarters broad, and remarkable in a geological point of view, as being six hundred and fifty-five feet below the level of the Mediterranean Sea.* In a theological point of view it must always be most interesting to a Christian, because some of our Lord's mightiest miracles were wrought on it, or close to it.
* I give the above measurements from Tristram's " Topography of the Holy Land," as I believe they are more trustworthy than those which I gave in the first volume of this work.
Here our Lord walked on tlie waters, and came to the disciples toiling in rowing. Here He stilled tlie wind and waves with a word. Here He granted to four of His Apostles a miraculous draught of fishes. Here He provided payment of the tribatemoney, out of the mouth of a fish which He commanded Peter to catch. On the banks of this lake He fed a multitude with a few loaves and fishes. On a high ground overhanging this lake He cast out the legion of devils, and allowed them to drive 2,000 swine into the sea. In the towns upon this lake, Choraziu, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, He did some of His mightiest works. Sitting in a boat on this lake. He delivered the parable of the Sower. In short, of all the districts in which our Lord preached and wrought miracles, there was none which saw and heard so much as the district round " the Sea of Tiberias."
Can we doubt, when we remember all this, that our Lord had a deep purpose and meaning, in appearing to His disciples at the Sea of Tiberias? Can we doubt that He meant to remind them of all they had seen in former days of his wisdom, love, and power, by the side of these well-known waters? He knew well the influence which scenery and places exercise over the mind of man. He wouJd recall to the memory of His disciples all that they had witnessed in the early days of His ministry. Above all He would stir the hearts of Peter and James and John, by saying some of His last things to them, at the very place where He had first called them to leave their boats and nets, to follow Him, and to become fishers of men. Where He had begun with them, there He would have one of His last interviews with them, before leaving the world.
The exact spot where our Lord appeared at the Sea of Tiberias, is of course unknown. But when we remember that Bethsaida, at the north end of the lake, was " the city of Andrew and Peter," (John i. 44), we may safely conjecture that the scene of this chapter was somewhere near Bethsaida. The boat In which Peter went fishing would most probably either be his own boat, or the property of some relative or friend in his native city.
{And on this wise shewed He Himself. '\ This is a somewhat curious sentence. It does not, I think, only mean " The manner of His appearance was as follows." I suspect that it was inserted emphatically, in order to direct our special attention to all the little details of the occurrence, and to remind us that even the minutest parts of it have a deep spiritual meaning.
2.—{^There were together Simon Peter, etcl This verse contains the names of the seven witnesses, before whom the remarkable appearance of Christ, about to be described, took place. Seven, we may remember, is the number of perfection, and the evidence of seven witnesses was regarded as the most complete evidence that could be given. Two of the seven, we shall ob- serve, are not named, and we are left entirely to conjecture who these two were. Most commentators think they must have been Andrew and Philip, — Andrew because he was Peter's brother, and Philip because he was an inhabitant of Bethsaida, on the lake. But we really do not know, and it is useless to guess.
Why these seven alone, out of the eleven, were here, we are not told. But we need not doubt there was good reason. All the company of the Apostles, we may believe, went into Galilee when the passover feast was over, according to our Lord's command, and probably very soon after His appearance for the benefit of Thomas. But where Matthew, Simon, James the less, and Jude, were, on the present occasion, we do not know.
It is worth noting that this is the only place in St. John's Gospel, where he mentions the name of his own father, Zebedee.
Why these seven disciples in particular were together, is worth inquiry. The presence of Simon Peter, as he lived in Galilee, and had a special message from our Lord that He was going into Galilee, we can understand. Thomas, once convinced that Jesus had risen, would very likely take care to stick close to Peter and John. Nathanael lived at Cana in Galilee, and was probably Bartholomew. Augustine, however, doubts this. The two sons of Zebedee were Simon's partners, and are always found together with him on great occasions.
The message of our Lord about Galilee, we must remember, was, " Tell my brethren that they go into Galilee: there shall they see Me." (Matt, xxviii. 10.) These were our Lord's own words. — The angel also said to the women, " He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see Him." (Matt, xxviii. 7.) We might reasonably expect to find the Apostles in Galilee after this.
On Thomas being one of the party, Henry remarks, " Thomas
is named next to Peter, as if he now kept closer to the meetings of the Apostles than ever. It is well if losses by our neglect make us more careful afterwards not to let opportunities slip."
3. — \^8imoji Peter saith unto them, etc.] Some worthy commentators have presumed to find fault with Peter for going a fishing. They say that he showed a disposition to return to the world, and to follow his worldly calling once more. From this view I entirely dissent. I see no harm whatever in Peter's conduct on this occasion. He and his companions were poor men, and must needs work in order to provide for their subsistence. There was nothing wrong in the act of fishing, and it was only natural to take up the business with which they were most familiar. The great business of going out as our Lord's messengers, to preach the Gospel, was not to begin until His ascension, and in the interval it was better to follow an honest calling than to be idle. Neither in Peter's proposal, nor in tlie simple frank consent of his companions, can I detect a jot of proof that anything wrong was done. Idleness does Christians far more injury than work. Among tbe Jews every man, whatever his rank or position might be, was required to learn a worldly calling.
Chrysostom remarks, " Since neither Christ was with them continually, nor was the Spirit yet given, nor they at that time entrusted with anything, having nothing to do, they went after their trade."
Augustine observes, " The Apostles were not forbidden to seek their necessary subsistence by the exercise of their craft, a lawful and permitted one, if at any time they had no other
means of subsistence." He also remarks that they were no more to blame than St. Paul was, when he wrought with his own hands as a tent-maker, (xlcts xviii. 3.)
Calvin remarks, " Peter had not yet been enjoined to appear in public, for the discharge of his oifice of teaching, but had only been reminded of his future calling (John xx, 21 — 23), that he and others might understand that they had not in vain been chosen from the beginning. Meanwhile, they were to do what they were accustomed to do, and what belonged to men in private life."
Ferus remarks that a lawful business is not sinful. If Matthew had gone back to a publican's life it would have been a very different thing from Peter going to fish.
Stier remarks that this going to fish was only carrying out our Lord's words. " But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." (Luke xxii. 36.)
The expression " a boat " should have been translated " the boat." Does not the use of the article show that this was that well-known boat, which our Lord and His disciples had always used, when they went on the lake?
In the fact that " they caught nothing that night," there is nothing that would surprise a fisherman. Of all callings by which men earn their living none is more uncertain than that of a fisherman. (Luke v. 4.) " Night " is the time when most fish are caught, as all who are familiar with fishing know. That there was probably a deep typical meaning in all this, I shall hope to show when I reach the end of the passage. I think it better to reserve all remarks upon that point, until I can present them to the reader in one continuous form.— For the present, both here and throughout the passage, I shall simply comment on the facts as facts.
Burgon remarks, " One thing is certain, and the circumstance is full of interest. It must have been their necessities which sent forth the Apostles on this lowly errand of fishing. And yet these were they on whom the Church was to be built 1 These seven were among the names written on the twelve foundations of the heavenly Jerusalem."
Burgon also thinks that the words " went forth," point to the Apostles sitting together indoors, in the evening, and very likely on a Sabbath evening.
4. — [But when the morning...come.'] This probably means " When the day began to break, so that an object at a little distance could be seen." As soon as there was enough light, through the grey dawn, the party in the boat saw the figure of a person on the shore. There is little or no twilight in countries so far south as Palestine. Night goes, and day follows, much more suddenly than with us.
[Jesus stood on the shore^ This reads like a sudden and instantaneous appearance, like that which took place when our Lord appeared the first time in the midst of the disciples. Just in the same manner, it seems to me, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, Jesus appeared standing on the shore of the lake. The risen body of our Lord, we must remember, appeared or disappeared, — was present or absent, according to His will, in a moment of time.
Grotius remarks that our Lord never went on the sea after His resurrection. (Comp. Eev. xxi. 1.) " There was no more Bea."
[But the disciples knew not...was Jesus.'] The disciples did not recognize our Lord, in my opinion, because He appeared in another form, just as He appeared to the two who were journeying to Enimaus. I reject entirely the idea that the dim light of the early morning was the reason why they did not know Him. It is evident to me that our Lord's risen body did not, on any occasion, after He rose again, for some mysterious reason, look exactly like the body He had before His crucifixion. It - — was the same, and yet not the same, if I may so speak. Will it not be so with our own bodies when we rise again at the last day? We shall be the same, and yet not the same.
It is noteworthy that the Greek words here used, were exactly those that were used about Mary Magdalene, when she thought the gardener spoke to he*", and " knew not that it was Jesus." (John xx. 14.)
5. — [Then Jesus saith unto them, etc.] We cannot suppose for a moment, that our Lord did not know whether the disciples had any meat, when He asked the question of this verse. It is clear to me that He asked it in order to raise attention in the minds of the disciples, and to put them at ease in conversing with them. He appeared as a stranger, who was graciously pleased to say something familiar and friendly. Does it not remind us of the way in which He began conversation with the woman of Samaria, and broke the ice, as it were, between Him and her? ** Give Me to drink," He said. (John iv. 7.) Nothing sets people so much at ease, when they meet as strangers, as courteous inquiries about the simple matters of daily life.
The word " meat " is a striking example of the change which comes over the meaning of English words in the course of time. It means literally " anything eatable." — Two centuries ago the word " meat " was a translation which no Englishman would misunderstand. Now, unfortunately, it is a word confined entirely to " flesh." No translation can ever be perfect. All require occasional reverent revision.
The context seems to me to show that our Lord's inquiry was specially meant to apply to the success of the disciples in fishing. " Have ye caught anything that can be eaten? " The disciples evidently took it in this sense.
It is worth noticing that our Lord must have spoken in a very loud voice, when He addressed His disciples in this verse. We are distinctly told that the boat was two hundred cubits, at least one hundred yards, from land, in the eighth verse, and there is nothing to show that the disciples put out further into the lake, when our Lord told them to cast in their net again. I mention this, because some, as Gerhard, Henry, and Besser, think that there was something curt, rough, and rather abrupt in the answer of the disciples. But they seem to forget that a conversation carried on over a hundred yards of water, could only be carried on in very brief and abrupt phrases.
The word " children " in this verse, rendered " sirs " in the margin, is to my mind rightly rendered in the text. It is a familiar, friendly mode of address, like our English " boys " or " lads," not necessarily implying great youth in the persons addressed.
— [And He said... cast...rigJit side... find.] Our Lord now goes a step further in order to discover Himself to His disciples. He gives a command or counsel to cast their net, which they had apparently hauled into the boat, once more into the water, and upon the right side of the ship. Such advice, and such a promise of success from a stranger, could hardly fail to strike the disciples. Would it not raise in the quick mind of John a suspicion, that this was no common stranger who spoke? Would not he and Peter both remember a former occasion, when they '• toiled all the night and took nothing," and yet, at the command of their Master, had let down their nets again with marvellous success? I think they would.
To me it seems highly probable that the disciples had finished their night's work, had hauled up their net into the boat, and were rowing toward home, tired of their profitless toil, when our Lord appeared and spoke to them.
{They cast, therefore, and now...fishes^ In the fact that the disciples found a multitude of fishes in their net the momenc they acted on our Lord's advice, there is, in one point of view, nothing extraordinary. Many fish swim in shoals, and it is quite a matter of common experience among fishermen, that one boat may take nothing, while a few yards off another boat has an immense haul. The miracle consisted in the perfect knowledge that our Lord possessed, as to where the fish were, and on which side of the boat to cast the net. This alone proved that He was omniscient.
Whether it is likely that seven tired fishermen, after working all night, and hauling up their net and stowing it away, ■would stop on their way home at the advice of a stranger, and cast in their net once more in broad daylight, is a point which admits of question. My own impression is that a secret power and influence went with our Lord's words, and, without knowing wliy, the seven disciples felt irresistibly constrained to do what the mysterious stranger advised.
7. — {Therefore that disciple...the Lord.] The first to recognize Jesus was the disciple who first believed the resurrection, — the beloved disciple John, who as usual does not give his own name. With characteristic quickness and sensitiveness, he at once felt convinced that the mysterious stranger must be his beloved Master. Love is always keen-sighted. It suddenly flashed across his mind that the advice given by the stranger, and the result of following the advice, had been precisely the same three years before. The stranger must surely know what happened then, and must have been present! The stranger must be the Lord Himself! Thoughts such as these most probably passed through his mind far quicker than we can describe them; and at once he said to his friend Peter, who was most likely the leading man in the boat, " It is the Lord."
RoUock thinks it was the wonderful draught of fishes that made John know it was the Lord. "He saw in it not only miraculous power, but wonderful bountif ulness and liberality," just like His Divine Master.
[1^020 when Simon Peter heard, etc.] The conduct of the Apostle Peter, here described, is eminently characteristic of the man. It is just what might have been expected from the disciple who went out of the ship to walk on the water on a former occasion, and drew his sword, and began to smite, when our Lord was surrounded by His enemies. Fervent, warm-hearted, impulsive, impetuous, affectionate, thinking nothing of consequences, acting on the spur of present feeling, he at once plunges into the?ea, when he hears that his Lord is on the shore, and struggles to get close to Him. Whatever we may think of his hasty behavior, we must all admire his love. Zeal for Christ deserves respect, even when it leads a man into hasty action. Enthusiasm, even when it runs to seed, is better than indifference.
We should note how Peter rushed into action, the very moment that he " heard " the words, " It is the Lord," He did not wait to see, like Thomas on another occasion, hut was satisfied with a word from his brother Jolin, A single spark is enough to kindle tinder, and a single word is enough to stir a heart, when its affections are deeply concerned.
The Greek word which is rendered " fisher's coat," is only found here in the New Testament. Theophylact says it was the upper garment of a Syrian fisherman. The context seems to show that it was a sort of garment which a fisherman laid aside when in the very act of handling his nets.
When we read that Peter was " naked," I see no reason why we should suppose that he was entirely without clothes. I think the meaning is, that he was comparatively naked, having laid aside all his looser garments, as a fisherman in that hot climate naturally would, in order to be able to handle wet nets and fish with greater convenience. And when we read that he girt around him his fisher's coat, I think it simply means that he took up the loose outward garment that he wore when he went on the lake to fish, and girded it tightly round his waist before jumping into the sea.
When we read that Peter " cast himself into the sea," I see no reason for supposing that he swam to land. In order to Bwim, it is not likely that he would put on more clothes! — I rather think that the water where he and his companions were was shallow, and that he waded to land. He knew that his large fishing-boat drew too much water to get near shore, and he was too impatient to wait for the slow process of launching the little boat, and coming ashore in it. I cannot doubt, as he jumped into the water, that he remembered going out of the same ship on a former occasion, and walking on the water " to go to Jesus."
It is only fair to say that Chrysostom thinks that Peter swam. On the other hand Brentius, Gerhard, and Archbishop Whately (see Bengel's " Gnomon," English translation), think that he walked on the water, in a miraculous manner, as on the former occasion!
8. — [And the other disciples came, etc.] Here we see, placed in strong contrast with Peter's action, the way in which the six remaining Apostles came to land. They came in the boat (" a little ship " is a defective translation), which means the skiff or punt which most large fishing vessels have with them. The
• water was evidently too shallow for the large fishing vessel to get near shore. And they came slowly, Ave may be sure, because, for two hundred cubits, or one hundred yards, they had to drag behind their little boat a net full of fish. How heavy a drag such a net makes on a little boat's progress through the "water, those only know who have had exj^erience.
It is noteworthy that we are not told that Peter got to shore at all sooner than his brethren. This point is, singularlyenough, passed over in silence. But wading through deep water is slow work, and the fact that Peter put his coat on before plunging into the sea, is, to my own mind, strong indirect proof that he did not swim, but wade.
It is noteworthy that Peter forgot fish, and net, and boat, and everything else, in his anxiety to reach Christ. It was like the Samaritan woman who " left her waterpot." (John iv. 28.)
9. — [As soon then...fire...coals...fish... bread.] I cannot doubt that this verse records a miracle. Our blessed Lord made preparation for the bodily wants of His wearied disciples, and mercifully " furnished a table for them in the wilderness." (Ps. Ixxviii. 19.) The burning tire, the fish lying on it, the bread, were all the creation of Him who had but to will a thing and it was done. Ever thoughtful, ever compassionate, our Lord thought good at this appearing, to show His poor toiling disciples that He cared for their bodies as well as their souls, and remembered that they were men. Who can tell but this miracle took place near the very spot where He had formerly fed five thousand men with a little bread and fish? I cannot doubt that the bread and fish thus miraculously created would remind the Apostles of " loaves and fishes " multiplied. Once more they saw the same miraculous food, bread and fish, provided by the same Almighty power of their Lord.
The Greek word rendered " fire of coals," is only found in two places in the New Testament, here and in the account of the scene in the High Priest's hall at our blessed Lord's examination before Annas. (John xviii. 18.) It was a " fire of coals " at which the servants of the High Priest warmed themselves, and before which the Apostle Peter denied his Lord. Some think that our Lord had a special object in view by having a " fire of coals " in this place, and that was to remind Peter of his fall. But perhaps the idea is far-fetched.
Stier argues strongly, but needlessly in my judgment, that this provision of bread and fish was made by the angels. In any case it was a miracle, and an act of creation.
Quesnel observes, " Here are miracles upon miracles. The same power which filled the net with fishes in the midst of the eea, created others upon land, to show His disciples that it was not from want of power to give them fish that Christ asked for Bome, and ordered them to fish for them."
10. — [Jesus saith unto them, Bring, etc.] In this verse our Lord calls on the disciples to bring proof that, in casting the net at His command, they had not labored in vain. It was the second Baying that He spoke, we must remember, on this occasion. The first saying was, " Cast the net on the right side, and ye shall find." The second saying was, " Bring up the fish which ye have now caught," with a strong emphasis on the word "now." I believe our Lord's object was to show the disciples that the secret of success was to work at His command, and to act with implicit obedience to His word. It is as though He said, " Draw up the net; and see for yourselves how profitable it is to do what I tell you." Fish for food they did not want now, for that was provided for them. Proof of the power of Christ's blessing, and the importance of working under Him was the lesson to be taught, and as they drew up the net they would learn it.
11. — [Simon Peter went up, etc.] I see no reason for supposing, in this verse, that Peter alone drew up the net. I think it reasonable to suppose that he is named as leader of the party, and captain of the boat. But I believe that all the others helped him. The " going up " must mean that Peter went on board the little boat.
Once more we see two miracles recorded in this verse. One miracle was the singularly large catch of fish which the net contained, a quantity evidently exceeding what was generally taken at one haul. The other miracle was the singular fact, that, in spite of this large quantity of fish, the net was " not broken." Miracle on miracle passed under the eyes of the astonished disciples. — Can we doubt that their minds recalled the miraculous draught of fishes on a former occasion, when " their net brake," and our Lord's words, " Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men; " and also his original saying, " Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men? " And can we doubt that some of them remembered the parable of the kingdom of Heaven being like to " a net cast into the sea," and finally drawn to shore? (Luke v. 10. Matt. iv. 19; xiii. 47.)
Concerning the number one hundred and fifty-three, we know nothing, and it is useless to speculate. Some have thought that it refers to the languages, and some to the tribes or nations of the world, — each, it is alleged, about one hundred and fifty in number. But this is only guess-work. Yet it is worth remembering, that the strangers whom Solomon em ployed in building the first temple were precisely one hundred and fifty -three thousand and six hundred. Let the remark be taken for what it is worth. (2 Chron. ii. 17.)
Pearce calls attention to a remark of Jerome, that Oppian, a Greek poet of Cilicia, in the second century, who wrote on fish ing, " has given an account of the number of fishes known to him in his time, being exactly one hundred and fifty-three." This, at any rate, is curious.
Scott makes the remark, that " this draught of fishes might be sold for a considerable sum of money, which the Apostles would have need of, on their return to Jerusalem before the day of Pentecost." There may be something in the idea.
12. — [Jesus sait7i...Come and dine.] Tlie object of this gracious invitation seems to me to have been two-fold. It was meant partly to show our Lord's tender compassion for the weary bodies of His disciples. Though risen, He knew and felt for their wants, and would supply food for them when hungry and fatigued. It was meant partly to show that, though risen from the dead, with a glorified body. He would be on the same loving terms of familiarity and kindness as before with His disciples. They need not be frightened at Him. He had not forgotten them. He did not mean to keep them at a distance. He was still one who would eat and drink with them, as a man eateth and drinketh with his friends. It is written, " I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with Me." (Rev. iii. 20.) An old divine says, " Christ loveth to deal familiarly with men."
The Greek word rendered " dine," does not necessarily mean a mid-day meal. Parkhurst shows, on the contrary, from Xenophon, that it may mean a morning repast. As things are in England now, the translation is a peculiarly unfortunate one. Two or three centuries ago, when people dined at eleven o'clock, the unfitness of it would not have been so remarkable. The meaning evidently is, " Come and partake of a morning meal."
[And none...durst ask...the Lord.] These words describe the Btate of mind in which the disciples were at this moment. They all felt convinced and satisfied that the Person before them was the Lord. They felt no doubt; and no one was the least disposed to say, " Who art thou?" Nevertheless they all felt awed and solemnized by His presence. A deep sense of the mysterious nature of their Lord, in consequence of His resurrection, filled their minds with an indefinable sensation of mingled embarrassment, reverence, and fear. Surely we can all understand this! Even when Joseph spoke lovingly to his brethren, and revealed himself to them, they were " troubled at his presence." (Gen. xlv. 3.) To sit, and eat, and drink, in the company with one who had risen from the dead, and appeared and disappeared after a supernatural manner, was no light thing. Who can wonder that they felt awed?
Chrysostom says, " Seeing that His form was altered, and full of awfulness, they were amazed, and desired to ask something concerning it. But fear, and their knowledge that He was not some other but the same, checked the inquiry; and they only ate what He, with greater exertion of power than before, created for them. For here Jesus no more looked up to heaven, nor performed those human acts, showing that those also which He did formerly were done by way of conde- Bcension."
13. — [Jesus then cometh and taketh bread, etc.] This verse ae- Bcribes what took place at this meal, or as our Bible calls it, this dinner. Our Lord came forward, aa the host and enter- tainer of tlie seven astonislied disciples, and gave tliem bread and fisli, as He had doubtless often done on former occasions, and perliaps at the same place. He doubtless meant to give the disciples one more plain proof that He had risen from the dead. Alone by the Sea of Galilee, in the open air, far from the fear of interruption, in broad daylight, He eats and drinks at a social meal. Could these seven men ever doubt from that day, if they had doubted before, that Jesus rose from the dead? He meant, furthermore, to encourage them to continue looking to Him, as they had done before, as a loving, familiar, sympathizing friend. Though risen, He would have them see practical proof that He could be touched with the feeling of their infirmities, and cared for their bodies as well as their souls. He meant, not least, to remind them of His great miracle of feeding the multitude with a few loaves and fishes. He would freshen their memory of that wondrous miracle, and show them that He would continue doing for them what He had formerly done for those who followed Him in the wilderness.
Chrysostom here remarks, that we are not directly told that Jesus ate with the disciples, but that it is probable from Luke's words in Acts i. 4, that He did. " How," he remarks, " it is
not ours to say. These things came to pass in too strange a manner. His nature did not even need food. It was an act of condescension in proof of the resurrection." (See Gen.
14. — {^This is noio the third time, etc.] In this verse St. John winds up the wonderful story he has just told, by one of his peculiar parenthetical comments. Concerning the meaning of the expression " third time," there has been, in my judgment, much needless dispute. No doubt it is perfectly true that this was not literally the third time that our Lord was seen by any one after His resurrection. On the contrary, we know of at least six different appearances before this one: viz. (1) to Mary Magdalene, (2) to Joanna and other women, (o) to Simon Peter, (4) to two disciples going to Emmaus, (5) to ten Apostles together, (6) to the eleven, for the special benefit of Thomas. — But it is no less true that this is strictly and literally the third time that Jesus appeared to any number of the disciples gathered together. — And it is also the thi?'d day, as Augustine remarks, that our Lord was pleased to appear at all. The first five appearances were all on the very same day when He rose from the dead. The sixth was a week afterwards, when He appeared to rebuke the unbelief of Thomas. And the appearance recorded in this chapter, though the seventh in number, took place on the third day only, that any one on earth saw Him after He rose.
The question now remains to be considered. Has the narrative contained in these fourteen verses any deep spiritual and allegorical meaning? Were we intended to read the passage Bimply as a description of one of our Lord's appearances aftei
His resurrection, and an account of one of His miracles? Or is the narrative a typical one? Is the passage intended to convey, under figures and symbols, great prophetical truths concerning the work of the ministry, and the history of the Church in every age, until the Lord comes? The question is a serious one, and demands serious consideration.
(a) On the one hand, there is undeniable danger in the habit of seeking spiritual and allegorical meanings in the plain historical facts of God's Word. We may go so far in this direction, that, like Origen, and too often Augustine, we may lose Bight of the primary simple meaning of Scripture, and turn the Bible into a mere book of riddles, which is useless to any common man, and useful only to those who have very fertile and fanciful imaginations. In fact, if we are always extracting figurative meanings out of Scripture, we may destroy the usefulness of the Book altogether. There must be some limit to the system of figurative interpretation. As a rule, I shrink intuitively from putting any sense on God's Word, which is not the obvious and plain sense of its language. Hooker's words are weighty and wise: " When a literal construction of a text will stand, that which is furthest from the letter is commonly the worst."
(&) On the other hand, it is impossible to deny that all Christ's miracles were meant, more or less, to teach great spir itual truths, under allegories and figures; and the passage be fore us is a miracle. In addition to this, we must remember that the occasion of the miracle before us was a peculiarly solemn one, — that the Apostles needed certain great truths to be impressed on their attention with peculiar force, by facts as well as by words, — and that, on the eve of His ascension into heaven, our Lord would be exceedingly likely to remind them of their duty, and their position as ministers, by things under their eyes as well as by instruction in their ears. Finally let us try to put ourselves in the position of the seven Apostles on the occasion before us, and try to imagine what they thought and felt about the incidents of this remarkable morning. It is very hard to imagine that they saw nothing but a simple miracle in all that happened. I cannot think so. — I think their hearts must have burned within them, and old spiritual truths, which they had heard before, must have revived in their minds with fresh power, and been written on their souls as with the point of a diamond, never to be effaced.
On the whole, then, I cannot avoid the conclusion, that the familiar verses before us probably contain, under symbolical facts, great spiritual truths. I think we are fairly justified in regarding the passage as a great parable, or vision, or allegory^ intended to convey to the Church of Christ lessons for all time. And I am strengthened in this conclusion by the remarkable fact, that almost all commentators, of every school and in every age, have taken this view of the passage. Even Grotius, cold and rationalistic as his tone of exposition too frequently is, puts a figurative sense on several circumstances of the passage. Other expositors, of a more figurative and imaginative turn of mind, go into heights and depths, where I cannot pretend to follow them. I shall content myself with pointing out the more obvious spiritual lessons which I think the passage waa probably meant to convey.
{a) I think that Christ's remarkable appearance to the disciples, when they were in the act of fishing, was meant to remind them and the whole Church of the primary duty of ministers. They were doing work which was strikingly emblematic of their calling. They were to be " fishers of men."
(&) I think the want of success in catching fish which the disciples had, until the Lord appeared, was meant to teach that without Christ's presence and blessing ministers can do nothing.
(c) I think the marvellous success which attended the cast of the net, when Christ gave the command, was meant to teach that, when Christ is pleased to give success to ministers, nothing can prevent souls being brought into the Gospel net, converted and saved.
(d) I think the drawing of the net to shore at last, was meant to remind the disciples and all ministers, of what will happen when the Lord comes again. The work of the Church will be completed, and the reckoning of results will take place.
(e) I think the dinner prepared and provided for the disciples, when the net was drawn to the shore, was meant to remind ministers that there will be the great " marriage supper of the Lamb " at last, when Christ Himself shall welcome His faithful servants and ministers, and " come forth and serve them." (Luke xii. 37.)
(/) T think, besides this, that the respective positions of the disciples and Christ, when they first saw Him, may possible/ be intended to represent the respective positions of Christ and His people during this dispensation. They were on the water of the sea. He was looking at them from the land. Just so Christ is In heaven looking at us, and we are voyaging over the troublous waters of this world.
(g) Finally, I think that our Lord's sudden appearing on shore, when the morning broke, may possibly represent our Lord's second advent. " The night is far spent, and the day is at hand." When the morning dawns, Christ will appear.
With these conjectures I leave the passage. They may not commend themselves to some readers. I only say that they appear to me to deserve consideration and reflection.
15 So wlien they had dined, Je- 8U8 saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, ]o vest thou me more than these? He saith unto him. Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I
love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee, my sheep.
These verses describe a remarkable conversation "between our Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostle Peter. To the careful Bible reader, who remembers the Apostle's thrice-repeated denial of Christ, the passage cannot fail to be a deeply interesting portion of Scripture. Well would it be for the Church, if all " after-dinner " conversations among Christians were as useful and edifying as this.
We should notice first, in these verses, Chrisfs question to JPeter: " Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? " — Three times we find the same inquiry made. It seems most probable that this three-fold repetition was meant to remind the Apostle of his own thrice-repeated denial. Once we find a remarkable addition to the inquiry: " Lovest thou Me more than these? " It is a reasonable supposition that those three words " more than these," were meant to remind Peter of his over-confident assertion: " Though all men deny Thee, yet will not I." — It is just as if our Lord would say, " Wilt thou now exalt thyself above others? Hast thou yet learned thine own weakness? "
" Lovest thou Me " may seem at first sight a simple question. In one sense it is so. Even a child can understand love, and can say whether he loves another or not. Yet "Lovest thou Me" is, in reality, a very Bearching question. We may know much, and do much, and profess much, and taljj much, and work much, and give much, and go through much, and make much show in our religion, and yet be dead before God, from want of love, and at last go down to the pit. Do we love Christ? That is the great question. Without this there- is no vitality about our Christianity. We are no better than painted wax figures, lifeless stuffed beasts in a museum, sounding brass and tinkling cymbals. There is no life where there is no love.
Let us take heed that there is some feeling in our religion. Knowledge, orthodoxy, correct views, regular use of forms, a respectable moral life, — all these do not make up a true Christian. There must be some personal feeling towards Christ. Feeling alone, no doubt, is a poor useless thing, and may be here to-day and gone to-morrow. But the entire absence of feeling is a very bad symptom, and speaks ill for the state of a man's soul. The men and women to whom St. Paul wrote his Epistles had feelings, and were not ashamed of them. There was One in heaven whom they loved, and that One was Jesus the Son of God. Let us strive to be like them, and to have some real feeling in our Christianity, if we hope to share their reward.
We should notice, secondly, in these verses, Peter's ansicer to Chrisfs question. Three times we find the / Apostle saying, "Thou knowest that I love Thee." Once we are told that he said, " Thou knowest all things." Once we have the touching remark made, that he was " grieved to be asked the third time." We need not doubt that our Lord, like a skilful physician, stirred up this grief intentionally. He intended to prick the Apostle's conscience, and to teach him a solemn lesson. If it was grievous to the disciple to be questioned, how much more grievous must it have been to the Master to be denied I
The answer that the humbled Apostle gave, is the one account that the true servant of Christ in every age can give of his religion. Such an one may be weak, and fearful, and ignorant, and unstable, and failing in many things, but at any rate he is real and sincere. Ask him whether he is converted, whether he is a believer, whether he has grace, whether he is justified, whether he is sanctified, whether he is elect, whether he is a child of God, — ask him any one of these questions and he may perhaps reply that he really does not know! — But ask him whether he loves Christ, and he will reply, " I do." He may add that he does not love Him as much as he ought to do; but he will not say that he does not love Him at all. The rule will be found true with very few exceptions. Wherever there is true grace, there will be a consciousness of love towards Christ.
^^ What, after all, is the great secret of loving Christ? It is an inward sense of having received from Him pardon and forgiveness of sins. Those love much who feel much forgiven. He that has come to Christ with his sins, and tasted the blessedness of free and full absolution, he is the man whose heart will be full of love towards his Saviour. The more we realize that Christ has suffered for us, and paid our debt to God, and that we are washed and justified through His blood, the more we shall love Him for having loved us, and given Himself for us. Our knowledge of doctrines may be defective. Our ability to defend our views in argument may be small. But we cannot be prevented feeling. And our feeling will be like that of the Apostle Peter: " Thou, Lord, who knowest all things. Thou knowest my heart; and Thou knowest that I love Thee."
We should notice, lastly, in these verses, GhrisVs command to Peter. Three times we find Him saying,
" Feed " my flock: once, " Feed my lambs; " and twice my " sheep." Can we doubt for a moment that this thrice-repeated charge was full of deep meaning? It was meant to commission Peter once more to do the work of an Apostle, notwithstanding his recent fall. But this was only a small part of the meaning. It was meant to teach Peter and the whole Church the mighty lesson, that usefulness to others is the grand test of love, and working for Christ the great proof of really loving Christ. It is not loud talk and high profession; it is not even impetuous, spasmodic zeal, and readiness to draw the sword and fight, — it is. steady, patient, laborious effort to do good to Christ's sheep scattered throughout this sinful world, which is the best evidence of being a true-hearted disciple. This is the real secret of Christian greatness. It is written in another place, " Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister." (Matt. xx. 26 — 28.)
Forever let the parting charge of our blessed Master abide in our consciences, and come up in the practice of our daily lives. It is not for nothing we may be sure, that we find these things recorded for our learning, just before He left the world. Let us aim at a loving, doing, useful, hard-working, unselfish, kind, unpretentious religion. Let it be our daily desire to think of others, care for others, do good to others, and to lessen the sorrow, and increase the joy of this sinful world. This is to realize the great principle which our Lord's command to Peter was intended to teach. So living, and so laboring to order our ways, we shall find it abundantly true, that *' it is more blessed to give than to receive." (Acts XX. 35.)