(A commentary on John 21:15-25)

In the first part of this chapter, seven of the Lord's disciples had come home to Galilee. They had gone fishing, seen Jesus on the shore, followed his instructions to fish on the right side of the boat, dragged a net loaded with 153 fish to shore, and... as the second half of the chapter begins, they have just finished breaking their fast with Him. Now they are relaxing.

Jesus says to Peter,"Do you love me?" and Peter, perhaps a little startled at the question, thinking that the answer is obvious, answers "yes", and Jesus responds, "Feed my lambs". Twice more this sequence is repeated, but with some changes. Then, after this unusual conversation, the Lord tells them all a little parable about being young and later being old. Then the Lord tells Peter to follow him, and Peter, apparently jealous, asks what John is supposed to do. The Lord mildly rebukes Peter’s jealousy by saying, "If this man tarry until I come what is that to you?", but then He tells John also to follow him.

Finally, the gospel of John, and indeed the collection of all four gospels, closes with an explanation by John that he is the writer of this gospel.

So now, let’s look more closely at the conversation, the parable, and the outbreak of jealousy.

Only two of the seven disciples, Peter and John, are mentioned in this part of the story. Peter represents faith, or truth, but truth about spiritual things that we really believe are from God. John represents good, or love to the neighbor. The former resides in the understanding part of the mind and the latter in the will part of the mind.

In telling Peter to feed His sheep, the Lord is saying that to follow Him means to preach the truths that all the disciples now know about the Lord, His coming, and about how a life should be led, in order to be a follower of the Lord in a new church. In the conversation the Lord is direct and probing. "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?" I think Peter is being asked whether he loves the Lord, Jesus, more than he loves his fellow Galilean friends, though it’s ambiguous, it could mean "do you love me more than these other six do?’ When Peter answers the first time he says "Lord thou knowest that I love thee."

With this first of the three probing questions, the Lord answers "Feed my lambs," while after that the response is "Feed my sheep." Sheep and lambs both represent people who are in a love of doing good, but while sheep means those who love to do good for the sake of the neighbor, lambs mean those who do good for the sake of the Lord. The first is spiritual good, and the second is higher, and is called celestial good. But people who wish to do good at first don’t know what is good; they need to learn that from the Word and be taught. This is why Peter is told to "feed them", which is to say that truth must indicate how good is to be done. In order to do things that are good, the will's wanting to, and the understanding's knowing how to go about it, must be conjoined. For a successful Christian life, or on a larger scale, a Christian church, 'Peter' and 'John' must work in harmony.

Then comes the parable. "When you were young you got yourself ready and did what you wanted on your own. But when you become old, you have to reach out for help and another shall carry you where you don’t want to go."

This doesn’t seem to fit in here, but of course it does, and in two ways. The first way is given in the Biblical text; it is about the Lord’s death, that all the prophecies were leading Him to His crucifixion, as is mentioned. The second way is a lesson for all of us. When we are young, confident, and strong, we feel that we can do what we want and don’t need any help. Temptations to do evil we ourselves can deal with. But when we grow wiser we realize that all our strength comes from the lord, and if we continue to depend only on ourselves, the temptations from the hells will be too strong and we will be led into doing what the hells want for us, not what we want. We must learn at the start to follow the Lord and depend on Him. This he says at the end of the parable, where it seems not to fit until we understand the parable. "And when He had spoken this He saith unto (them), follow Me." That’s what we need to do also.

Peter is happy to do this preaching of the truth and maybe feels that he has been singled out, but he also realizes that John also loves the Lord and is loved in return. So he asks "And what is this man supposed to do?" It seems that the needed harmony is not yet present, and that Peter is jealous of the bond, and probably hopes to be assured that he is number one... but that doesn’t happen. Peter is simply told that it doesn’t matter; he needs to do the job he has been given.

I’m reminded of the story of Jacob and Esau, in Genesis 25, where Esau is the firstborn and will inherit the birthright and blessing from Isaac, as his due. Jacob by craft devised by his mother deceives Isaac and steals what is Esau’s. Then he runs off to Padan-Aram and stays there with his uncle and becomes rich. It is only on his return journey that he wrestles with the angel and has his name changed to Israel, that he again meets Esau. The change of name means that now that Jacob is rich with truth from the Word, now with the friendly meeting with Esau, also rich, that the two twins can in parable, be merged into one personage, called Israel, meaning the joining of good and truth in the mind.

Esau means something similar to John, they both represent goodness or true charity. Jacob means something similar to Peter, they both represent truth learned from the Word. Any seeming enmity between them as to which is more important can make them both useless, and in a person who is becoming angelic (as everyone should be aiming for), there is no enmity. Truth enables good, and good inspires truth in order to get something done. Although we can think and speak of them separately, they are (perfectly in the Lord and less so in angels) conjoined into a oneness so as to be seen as married. The marriage of the Lord's Divine good and Divine truth is the origin of all creation. Yes, all creation.

This marriage of good and truth, and the need for both to work in our lives, in balance and harmony, is a core New Christian concept.

In the Gospels, there is just one more story that takes place after this one. In it, the rest of the disciples join the seven mentioned here to hear the Lord’s last commands.

10109. 'And they shall eat those things containing what has been expiated' means the making of good their own by those who have been purified from evils and consequent falsities. This is clear from the meaning of 'eating' as making one's own, dealt with above in 10106; and from the meaning of 'what has been expiated' as that which has been purified from evils and consequent falsities, dealt with in 9506. The words 'purified from evils and consequent falsities' are used because falsities as well as truths exist with those ruled by evil, and also falsities as well as truths exist with those who are governed by good. The falsities present with those ruled by evil are falsities of evil, and the truths present with them are falsified truths, which are dead. But the falsities present with those governed by good are accepted as truths, for those falsities are tempered by the good and put to good and useful purposes, and the truths present with them are the truths of good, which are alive. Regarding both kinds of falsity and truth, see what has been shown in 2243, 2408, 2863, 4736, 4822, 6359, 7272, 7437, 7574, 7577, 8051, 8137, 8138, 8149, 8298, 8311, 8318 (end), 9258, 9298.

[2] Since 'eating the holy things containing what has been expiated' means the making of good their own by those who have been purified from evils and consequent falsities, anyone unclean was strictly forbidden to eat of those things; for uncleanness means defilement by evils and consequent falsities. For the situation is that as long as a person is steeped in evils and consequent falsities good cannot by any means be made his own. This is because evil comes up from hell and good comes down from heaven, and where hell is heaven cannot be, since they are diametrically opposed to each other. Therefore to make a place for heaven - that is, for good from heaven - hell, that is, evil from hell, must be removed. From this it may be seen that good cannot by any means be made a person's own as long as he is ruled by evil. By making good his own the implanting of good in the will should be understood, for good cannot be said to have been made a person's own until it becomes part of his will. A person's will is the actual person, and his understanding also, to the extent that it derives from the will. For what is part of the will forms part of the person's love and consequently his life, since what a person wills he loves and calls good, and also when it is done by him it is felt to be such. The situation is different with those things which are part of the understanding but not at the same time part of the will. It should also be recognized that when a person is said to make good his own, no more should be understood than his ability to receive good from the Lord, an ability he is endowed with through regeneration. Consequently good as it exists with a person is not that person's; rather it is the Lord's with him. And he is maintained in it to the extent that he allows himself to be withheld from evils. The impossibility for good to become a person's own, that is, for it to be transmitted to him, as long as he is ruled by evil was the reason for the prohibition which prevented one who was unclean from eating the flesh and the bread of a sacrifice; for that eating represented making good one's own, as stated above.

[3] Those who were unclean were forbidden on pain of death to eat from holy offerings, as is clear in Moses,

Everyone who is clean shall eat flesh. The soul who eats the flesh of sacrifices while uncleanness is on him shall be cut off from his people. The soul who touches anything unclean - the uncleanness of a human being or an unclean beast or any unclean creeping thing whatever - and eats of the flesh of the eucharistic sacrifice shall be cut off from [his] people. Leviticus 7:19-21.

All those outward kinds of uncleanness represented inward kinds, which are a person's evils; and they are evils present in his will, having been made his own by the life he actually leads.

[4] This matter is described further elsewhere in Moses,

Any man of the seed of Aaron who is a leper or suffers a discharge shall not eat of the holy things until he has been made clean. Whoever has touched anything made unclean by a corpse ¹ , [or any] man who has had an emission of semen ² , or [any] man who has touched any creeping thing by which he is defiled, or [has touched] a person by whom any one is defiled, as to all his uncleanness - the soul who has touched that thing shall be unclean until evening and not eat of the holy things. But when he has washed his flesh with water, and the sun has gone down, he shall be clean; and afterwards he shall eat of the holy things, because it is his bread. No outsider shall eat what is holy; a stranger staying with a priest, or a hired servant, shall not eat what is holy. If the priest buys a soul - a buying with his silver - [that soul] may eat of it, and one who is born in his house; these shall eat of his bread. When a priest's daughter has married a man, an outsider, she shall not eat of the heave offering of holy things. But if the priest's daughter has been made a widow or divorced and has no seed, and has indeed returned to her father's house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father's bread. Leviticus 22:1-16.

All these rules, it is plainly evident, serve to mean more internal considerations, that is, they imply the transmission of holy things to those in a receptive state of mind, who then make those things their own. The rule that no outsider could eat the holy things meant, not those who do not acknowledge the Lord within the Church, thus not those with whom none of the Church's truth and good exists. The rule that no stranger or hired servant could eat them meant, neither those with whom natural good exists devoid of the good of faith, nor those who do good for the sake of reward. The rule that those bought with silver and those born in the house could eat them meant, those who have been converted, and those with whom the Church's truth and good exists as the result of faith and love. The rule that a priest's daughter married to a man who was an outsider could not eat them meant that the good which had not been wedded to the Church's truths [but to something other] could not make the holy things of the Church its own. The rule however that a widow or a divorcee who had no seed could eat them meant that good can be made one's own after the removal of things which do not belong to the Church, provided that no notions have been hatched or born out of that union that have become an integral part of one's faith. The fact that such considerations are meant is evident from the internal sense of these specific rules.

[5] But hereditary evils do not prevent anyone from making good his own. This consideration too is described in Moses,

No man of the seed of Aaron in whom there is a blemish shall approach to offer the bread of God - no man who is blind, lame, mutilated, or [has a limb] too long; none who has a broken foot or hand, is a hunchback, is bruised, has a defect in his eye, has scabs, has warts, or has a crushed testicle. He shall not approach to offer the bread of his God; but he shall eat the bread of God from among the most holy and the holy things. Leviticus 21:17-23.

These defects, as has been stated, serve to mean hereditary evils, some specific evil being meant by each particular defect. The reason why these men should not offer bread or approach the altar as priests was that if they did so the people would catch sight of those imperfections or ills, and in what was caught sight of some representation would take shape, none of which would happen if those defects remained hidden. For although a priest, Levite, or the people were unclean inwardly, they were nevertheless called clean and also thought to be sanctified, provided that outwardly they were washed and looked clean.

Footnotes: