(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, signifies that He has been rejected, and yet eternal life is from Him. This is evident from the signification of being "dead," as being, in reference to the Lord, to have been rejected (of which see above, n. 83; also from the signification of "being alive," as being that eternal life is from Him (of which also above, n. 84. The Lord is said to have been rejected when He is not approached and worshiped; and also when He is approached and worshiped in respect to His Human only, and not at the same time in respect to the Divine; therefore He is rejected at the present time within the church by those who do not approach and worship Him, but pray to the Father to have compassion for the sake of the Son, when yet neither man nor angel can ever approach the Father and worship Him immediately; for the Divine is invisible, and with it no one can be conjoined by faith and love; since what is invisible does not come into the idea of thought, nor, consequently, into the affection of the will; and what does not fall into the idea of thought does not fall within the faith; for the things that are to be of faith must be thought of. So also what does not enter into the affection of the will does not enter into love, for what is to be of the love must affect man's will, for all the love that man has resides in the will (See The Doctrine of the New Jerusalem 28-35).

[2] But the Divine Human of the Lord does come into the idea of the thought and thus into faith, and from that into the affection of the will, that is, into love. From this it is clear that there is no conjunction with the Father except from the Lord, and in the Lord. This the Lord Himself teaches with the utmost clearness in the Evangelists, as 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 (John 1:18).

In the same:

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

In Matthew:

No one knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whom the Son willeth to reveal Him (Matthew 11:27).

In John:

I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but through Me (John 14:6).

In the same :

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 (John 14:7-11).

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

I am the vine, ye are the branches; apart from Me ye can do nothing (John 15:5).

[3] From this it can be seen that the Lord has been rejected by those within the church who approach the Father immediately and pray to Him to have compassion for the sake of the Son; for these cannot do otherwise than think of the Lord's Human as they think of the human of another man, thus they cannot think at the same time of His Divine as being in the Human, still less of His Divine as conjoined with His Human as the soul is conjoined with the body, according to the doctrine received throughout the universal Christian world (See above, n. 10, 26). Who is there in the Christian world, acknowledging the Divinity of the Lord, that is willing to be one who would place the Lord's Divine outside of His Human? When yet to think of the Human only, and not at the same time of His Divine in the Human, is to view the two as separated, which is not to view the Lord, nor the two as one person; and yet the doctrine received throughout Christendom is, that the Divine and the Human of the Lord are not two persons but a single person.

[4] It is true that men of the church at this day, when they speak from the doctrine of the church think of the Divine of the Lord in His Human; but when they think and speak by themselves aside from doctrine, it is altogether otherwise. But be it known, that man is in one state when he is thinking and speaking from doctrine, and in another when he is thinking and speaking aside from doctrine. When man is thinking and speaking from doctrine, his thought and speech are from the memory of his natural man; but when he is thinking and speaking aside from doctrine, his thought and speech are from his spirit; for to think and speak from the spirit, is to think and speak from the interiors of one's mind, from which is his real faith. Moreover, man's state after death becomes such as were the thought and speech of his spirit by himself aside from doctrine, and not such as they were from doctrine, if the latter was not one with the former.

[5] Man does not know that he has two states in respect to faith and love; one when in doctrine and another aside from doctrine; but that the state of his faith and love aside from doctrine is what saves him, and not the state of his speech respecting faith and love from doctrine, unless the latter state makes one with the former. Yet to think and speak from doctrine respecting faith and love is to speak from the natural man and its memory, as is evident merely from this, that the evil, when with others, can think and speak thus equally with the good. For the same reason also evil preachers equally with good, or preachers that have no faith equally with those that have faith, can preach the Gospel, and, to appearance, with similar zeal and affection. This is because the man, as has been said, then thinks and speaks from his natural man and its memory. But to think from one's spirit is not to think from the natural man and its memory, but from the spiritual man, and from its faith and affection. Merely from this it is clear that man has two states, and that it is the latter state, not the former, that saves him; for man after death is a spirit; therefore such as he was in the world in respect to his spirit, such he remains after his departure out of the world.

[6] Moreover, it has been given me to know from much experience that the man of the church has these two states. For after death, man can be let into either state, and is also actually let into both. Many of these, when they have been let into the former state, have spoken like Christians, and from such speech have been believed by others to be Christians; but as soon as they were remitted into the latter state, which was the real state of their spirit, they spoke like devilish spirits, and altogether in opposition to what they had spoken before (See the work onHeaven and Hell 491-498, 499-511).

[7] From this it can be seen how the statement is to be understood that the Lord has been at this day rejected by those within the church; namely, that although it is held from doctrine that the Divine of the Lord must be acknowledged and believed in the same degree 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, and neither of them greater or less, before or after the other" (See the Creed of Athanasius); yet they do not approach and worship the Lord and His Divine, but the Divine of the Father; this they do when they pray to the Father to have mercy for the sake of the Son; and when they say this they do not think at all of the Divine of the Lord, but they think of His Human as separated from the Divine, thus of His Human as similar to the human of any other man; and then they also think not of one God, but of two, or three. To think in this way of the Lord is to reject Him; for by not thinking of His Divine at the same time that they think of His Human, by the separation they thrust out the Divine. Yet these are not two, but one person, and make one as soul and body do.

[8] I once spoke with spirits who when they lived in the world were of the popish religion, and I asked whether in the world they ever thought about the Divine of the Lord? They said that they thought about it whenever they saw from doctrine, and that they then acknowledged His Divine to be equal with the Divine of the Father, but that apart from doctrine, they thought of His Human only, and not of His Divine. They were asked why they say that the power which His Human had was given to it by the Father and not by Himself, since they acknowledged His Divine to be equal with that of the Father? At this they turned away, making no answer. But it was said to them, that it was because they transferred to themselves all His Divine power, and that they could not have done this unless they had separated the Divine from the Human. That with them the Lord has been rejected, everyone may conclude from this, that they worship the pope instead of the Lord, and that they no longer attribute any power to the Lord.

[9] I will here also mention a great scandal heard from the pope called Benedict XIV. He openly declared that when he lived in the world he believed that the Lord had no power, because He had transferred it all to Peter, and after him to his successors; adding his belief that their saints have more power than the Lord, because they hold it from God the Father, while the Lord resigned it all and gave it to the popes; yet that He is still to be worshiped, because otherwise the pope is not worshiped with sanctity. But because this pope even after death claimed the Divine for himself, after a few days he was cast into hell.