(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.

114. Who was dead and is alive. That this signifies that He is rejected, and yet that eternal life is from Him, is evident from the signification of being dead, when said of the Lord, as denoting to be rejected (concerning which see above, n. 83), and from the signification of being alive, as denoting that eternal life is from Him in (concerning which see also above, n. 84). The Lord is said to be rejected when He is not approached and worshipped, and also when He is approached and worshipped only as to His Human, and not at the same time as to the Divine. At this day therefore He is rejected by those within the church who do not approach and worship Him, but pray to the Father to have compassion on them for the sake of the Son, although no man, or angel, can ever approach the Father, and worship Him directly, the Divine being invisible, with which no one can be conjoined in faith and love. For that which is invisible cannot come into the thought, nor, consequently, into the affection of the will; and what does not come into the thought, does not enter into the faith, for what pertains to faith must be an object of thought. So also what does not enter into the affection of the will, does not enter into the love, for the things which pertain to the love must affect a man's will, as all a man's love resides in the will (see The Doctrine of the New Jerusalem 28-35). But the Divine Human of the Lord can be thought of and enter into the faith, and thence into the affection of the will, or into the love.

[2] It is therefore evident, that there can be no conjunction with the Father unless from the Lord, and in the Lord. This the Lord Himself teaches very clearly in the Evangelists.

In John:

"No one hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath brought him forth to view" (1:18).

Again:

"Ye have neither heard the Father's voice at any time, nor seen his shape" (5:37).

In Matthew:

"Neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him" (11:27).

In John:

I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me" (14:6).

Again:

"If ye know me, ye know my Father also; he that seeth me seeth the Father"; (Philip) "believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me" (14:7-11);

and that the Father and the Lord are one (10:30, 38).

Again:

"I am the vine, ye are the branches; without me ye can do nothing" (15:5).

[3] It is therefore evident, that the Lord is rejected by those within the church who approach the Father directly, and pray to Him to have compassion for the sake of the Son; for these cannot but think of the Human of the Lord, as of the human of another man, thus they cannot think of His Divine in the Human, and still less of His Divine united with His Human as the soul is conjoined with the body, according to the doctrine universally received in the Christian world (see above, n. 10 and 26).

Who is there in the Christian world, that acknowledges the Divine of the Lord that desires by this acknowledgment to separate His Divine from His Human? Nevertheless, to think of the Human alone, and not at the same time of the Divine in the Human, is to regard them as separate, which is not to think of the Lord, or of both as one person, although the doctrine received in the Christian world is, that the Divine and Human of the Lord make not two persons but one person.

[4] Those who constitute the church at this day do, indeed, think of the Divine of the Lord in His Human, when they speak from the doctrine of the church; but it is quite otherwise when they think and speak within themselves apart from doctrine. But let it be known, that a man is in one state when he thinks and speaks from doctrine, and another when he thinks and speaks apart from it. When a man thinks and speaks from doctrine, he thinks and speaks from the memory of his natural man; but when he thinks and speaks unfettered by doctrine, his thought and speech are then from his spirit. For to think and speak from the spirit, is to think and speak from the interiors of one's mind, therefore, what he then speaks is his real faith. The state of a man also after death is such as were the thought and speech of his spirit within himself unfettered by doctrine, and not such as were his thought and speech from doctrine, if the latter has not become one with the former.

[5] Man has two states as to faith and love, one while he is in doctrine, and another when he is unfettered by it, but the state of his faith and love apart from doctrine saves him, and not the state of his speech concerning faith and love derived from doctrine, unless the latter has become one with the former. Man does not know this, although to think and speak from doctrine concerning faith and love, is to speak from the natural man and its memory, is evident from this circumstance alone, that both the evil and the good can think and speak in this way when they are with others. And it is for this reason that evil equally with good prelates, or prelates who have no faith equally with those who have faith, can preach the gospel, to all appearance with a similar zeal and affection. The reason is, that, in such case, a man, as stated, thinks and speaks from his natural man and its memory; but to think from the spirit is not to think from the natural man and its memory, but from the spiritual man, and from the faith and affection of this man. From this alone it is evident, that there are two states pertaining to man, and that the former state just referred to does not save him, but the latter. For after death a man is a spirit, therefore such as he was in the world as to his spirit, such does he remain after his departure out of the world.

[6] Moreover, that there are two states pertaining to the man of the church, it has been granted me to know from much experience; for after death a man can be brought into either state, and also is actually brought into both; many, when they have been brought into the former state, have spoken like Christians, and from their speech were believed by others to be Christians, but as soon as they were brought back into the latter state, the state of their own spirit, they then spoke like diabolical spirits, and in complete opposition to what they had spoken before (see the work Heaven and hell, n. 491-498, and n. 499-511).

[7] From these considerations it also is evident how it is to be understood that the Lord is repudiated at this day by those who are within the church, that is, that from doctrine indeed the Divine of the Lord must be acknowledged and believed equally as the Divine of the Father; for the doctrine of the church teaches, that, "as is the Father, so also is the Son, uncreate, infinite, eternal, omnipotent, God, Lord, neither of them greater or less, before or after the other" (see the creed of Athanasius). Notwithstanding this, however, they do not approach and worship the Lord as Divine, but they worship the Divine of the Father, as is the case when they pray to the Father that He may have compassion on them for the sake of the Son. When they use these words, they do not in the least think of the Divine of the Lord, but of His Human separate from the Divine, thus of His Human as similar to that of another man. They then think not of one God, but of two, or three. To think in this way of the Lord, is to repudiate Him; for not to think of His Divine in conjunction with His Human, which nevertheless are not two persons but one person, and make a one as soul and body, is by separation to exclude the Divine.

[8] I have occasionally talked with spirits who, whilst they lived in the world, were of the Popish religion, and I inquired whether they ever thought in the world concerning the Lord's Divine? They said that they had thought on the subject as often as they were in doctrine with insight, and that then they acknowledged His Divine to be equal with that of the Father, but apart from doctrine, they thought of His Human alone, and not of His Divine. They were asked why they say that the power, which belonged to the Human of the Lord, was given Him by the Father, and not by Himself, since they acknowledged His Divine to be equal to that of the Father? They then turned away, without answering; but they were told that the reason was, that they arrogated to themselves all His Divine power; which they could not have done, unless they had separated the Divine from the Human. That the Lord is repudiated by them, every one may conclude from this circumstance, that they worship the Pope as the Lord, and that they no longer ascribe any power to the Lord.

[9] I will here relate a great scandal uttered by the Pope who was called Benedict XIV. He declared openly that he believed, when he lived in the world, that the Lord had no power, because He had transferred it all to Peter, and thence to his successors; adding that he believed that the Romish saints have more power than the Lord, because they retain it from God the Father, but that the Lord abdicated it entirely, and conferred it on the Popes; but that still He must be worshipped, because without such worship the Pope would not be worshipped with sanctity. But this Pope, because he arrogated to himself what was Divine, even after death, was, after some days, cast into hell.