성경 주석서

CHAPTER 21

John 21:3. Instead of ἐνέβησαν, Elz. has ἀνέβησαν, against decisive testimony.

After πλοῖον, Elz. Griesb. Secholz have: εὐθύς, which is condemned by decisive testimony.

John 21:4. γενομ.] Tisch.: γινομ., which is to be preferred, since to the witnesses C.* E. L., A. B. with γεινομ. are to be added; though with the copyists γενομ. was more current.

εἰς] Lachm. Tisch.: ἐπί. The Codd. are very much divided; ἐπί came to be more readily added as a gloss than εἰς. Comp. Matthew 13:2; Matthew 13:48; Acts 21:5.

John 21:6. ἴσχυσαν] Tisch.: ἴσχυον, according to preponderant testimonies. The aorist form was involuntarily suggested from the surrounding context (ἔβαλον, ἑλκῦσαι).

John 21:11. ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς] Lachm. Tisch.: εἰς τὴν γῆν, according to A. B. C. L. א., etc. Nevertheless, the Recepta is to be retained. ʼΕπὶ τὴν γ. (so D. Curss.) was written as a gloss in some instances,—in others, after John 21:9, εἰς τ. γ. was written.

In John 21:15-17, as in John 1:43, instead of Ἰωνᾶ, we are to read: Ἰωάννου.

John 21:17. πρόβατα] A. B. C.: προβάτια. Rightly adopted by Tisch. The Recepta is a repetition from John 21:16. Tisch. has, indeed, even already in John 21:16, προβάτια, but only according to B. C., so that the testimony of A. appears first for John 21:17.

John 21:22. Read with Lachm. Tisch., μοι ἀκολούθει.

John 21:25 is wanting in א., is explained in Scholia as an addition, aud has in detail the variations ἅ (Lachm. Tisch.) instead of ὅσα; Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς (D.), in one Cod. of It. with the addition: quae non scripta in hoc libro; οὐδʼ (Laehm. Tisch.) instead of οὐδέ; χωρήσειν (Tisch. according to B. C. א.** Or.); at the conclusion ἀμήν (Elz.).

Chap. John 20:30-31, bears so obviously the stamp of a formal conclusion worthy of an apostle, while chap. 21, moreover, begins in a manner so completely unexpected, that this chap, can appear only as a supplement. The question is, however,[273] whether this supplement proceeds from John or not. This question first became a subject of investigation from the time of Grotius, who saw in the chapter a supplement of the Ephesian church, composed after the apostle’s death by the bishop (perhaps by John the Presbyter). Since all witnesses contain the chapter, a judgment can only be pronounced from internal grounds. These, however, decide only against John 21:25, which contains an exaggeration so surprising, unapostolical, and in such absolute contradiction to the Johannean simplicity, intelligence, and delicacy, that it is impossible that it can have proceeded from the pen of the apostle, but must appear probably as a later, although very ancient, form of conclusion, an apocryphal and inharmonious echo of John 20:30. The omission[274] of John 21:25 in א*, and its suspicious character in the Scholia, rests upon a correct critical feeling. On such feeling, however, also rests the fact that this omission and suspicion have not likewise affected John 21:24, which throughout contains nothing that John could not have written, but rather forms a worthy conclusion to the entire supplement of chap. 21, and does not by οἴδαμεν betray the work of a strange hand (see the exegetical notes). The grounds, moreover, brought forward against the authenticity of John 21:1-23 are untenable. For (1) it by no means follows from John 21:23, that at the time of the composition the apostle was already dead (Weizsäcker, Keim, and others), since the speech there mentioned required the correct historical explanation precisely for the eventuality of his death, which was still future. Comp. Ewald, Jahrb. III. p. 172. (2) The advent of Christ, mentioned in John 21:22-23, is without any reason declared to be non-Johannean. See on John 14:3. Just as little is (3) the self-designation, John 21:20, un-Johannean; it corresponds rather just as well to the importance which the recollection, therein expressed, of the never-to-be-forgotten moment must have had for John, in and of itself, as also to the connection into which it is interwoven. See on John 21:20. Further, (4) the individual expressions[275] which are designated as non-Johannean (as e.g. John 21:3, ἔρχεσθαι σύν instead of ἀκολουθεῖν; John 21:4, πρωΐας γινομ. instead of πρωΐ; John 21:12, τολμᾶν and ἐξετάζειν; John 21:18, φέρειν instead of ἄγΕΙΝ) are, taken together, phenomena so unessential, nay, having for the most part in the sense of the context so natural a foundation, that they, especially in consideration of the later time of the composition of the supplement, do not leave at all any serious difficulty behind them, and are far outweighed by the otherwise completely Johannean stamp, which the composition bears in itself, in the language, in the mode of presentation, and in the individual features which betray the eye-witness (how entirely different is the section concerning the adulteress!). For, in particular, (5) the alleged want of Johannean clearness and demonstrativeness is removed partly by correct exposition, partly in the question as to the genuineness, rendered ineffective by the fact that John, even in the earlier part of the Gospel, does not always narrate with equal clearness and demonstrativeness. (6) It is not correct to say that with the spurious conclusion the entire chapter also falls to the ground,[276] since the non-Johannean conclusion may have been added to the Johannean chapter, especially as, on the assumption to be made of the genuineness of John 21:24, the appendix itself did not proceed without a conclusion from the hand of the apostle. In accordance with all that has been advanced, the view is justified, that John by way of authentic historical explanation of the legend in John 21:23, some time after finishing his Gospel, which he had closed with John 20:31, wrote chap. John 21:1-24,[277] as a complement of the book, and that this appendix, simply because its Johannean origin was immediately certain and recognised, already at a very early period, whilst the Gospel had not yet issued forth from the narrower circle of its first readers (Einl. sec. 5), had become an inseparable part of the Gospel; but that simply owing to the fact that now the entire book was without a principal conclusion, the apocryphal conclusion, John 21:25, exaggerating the original conclusion, John 20:31, came to be added. This addition of John 21:25 must have been made at a very early date, because only a few isolated traces of the spuriousness of John 21:25 have been preserved, which, however, by the evidence of א.* go back to a very ancient time; while, on the other hand, in reference to John 21:1-24, not the faintest echo of a critical tradition is found which would have testified against the genuineness. Tisch. also designates only John 21:25 as spurious.

The apostolic origin of the chapter was controverted, amid the setting forth of very different theories, especially its derivation from the author of the Gospel, after Grotius, by Clericus, Hammond, Semler, Paulus, Gurlitt (Lection. im N. T. Spec. III., Hamb. 1805), Bertholdt, Seyffarth (Beitr. zur Specialcharakt. der Joh. Schriften, Lpz. 1823, p. 271 ff.), Lücke, Schott, De Wette, Credner, Wieseler (Diss. 1839: John the Presbyter wrote the chap, after the death of the apostle), Schweizer, Bleek, Schwegler, Zeller, Baur (because it is not in keeping with the main idea of the whole), Kostlin, Keim, Scholten, and several others; Brückner has doubts. In opposition to Baur’s school, according to which it is said to be designed, along with the entire chap., for the purpose of exalting the apostle of Asia Minor over Peter, see especially Bleek.

The Johannean origin, or at least the derivation from the writer of the Gospel, is defended, but in such a way that recently John 21:24-25 have been for the most part rejected by Calovius, Rich. Simon, Mill, Wetstein, Lampe, Michaelis, Krause (Diss. Viteb. 1793), Beck (Lips. 1795), Eichhorn, Kuinoel, Hug, Wegscheider (Einl. in d. Ev. Joh.), Handschke (de αὐθεντίᾳ c. 21 ev. Joh. e sola orat. indole dijud., Lips. 1818), Erdmann (Bemerk. üb. Joh., Rostock 1821), Weber (authentia … argumentor. intern. usu vindic., Hal. 1823), Guerike, Redding (Disput. Groning. 1833), Frommann, Tholuck, Olshausen, Klee, Maier, B. Crusius (not decidedly),[278] in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 601 ff., Luthardt, Lange, Laurillard (Disp. L. B. 1853), Ebrard (on Olshausen), Hengstenberg, Godet, Hoelemann, Schleiermacher (at least in respect of the contents). According to Ewald (l.c., comp. also Jahrb. X. p. 87), a friend of the apostle (probably a presbyter at Ephesus), of whose hand, probably also of whose art, John availed himself in the composition of the Gospel, wrote the appendix for himself alone at a later date, without desiring in the slightest degree to conceal that it was by a different individual. In his Johann. Schriften, I. p. 54 ff., Ewald ascribes the composition to the same circle of friends, in which the Gospel may have remained perhaps for ten years before its publication; that the apostle himself, however, permitted the publication with this appendix (inclusive also of John 21:24-25) before his death. Similarly Baeumlein.

Very superficially and peremptorily does Hengstenberg designate the entire view that chap. 21 is a supplement, as leading to a view of the accidental nature of the authorship, which is unworthy of the apostle, and in conflict with the character of the Gospel. Hilgenfeld assigns the chap., with inclusion of John 21:24-25, to the evangelist, who, however, was not the apostle. Comp. also Bretschneider, p. 182.

[273] See generally Hoelemann, der Epilog des Evang. Joh., in his Bibelstudien, II. p. 61 ff.

[274] According to the usual statement, ver. 25 should also be wanting in Cod. 63. This, however, Tisch. (Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verf. p. 127, ed. 4) declares to be an error. On ver. 25 in א. Tisch. passes this judgment: the copyist of this Cod. did not find the verse in his copy, and therefore did not add it; but the words are supplied, “ab eo qui eadem aetate totum librum recensebat ac passim ex alio exemplari corrigebat atque augebat,” Cod. א. ed. Lips. p. LIX.

[275] For a minute discussion of the peculiarities of language in chap. 21, and their variation from the Gospel, see in Tiele, Annotatio in locos nonnull. ev. Joh. ad vindicand. huj. ev. authent., Amst. 1853, p. 115 ff. In answer to Scholten, who believes he has found most linguistie deviations, see Hilgenfeld in his ZeitsChr. 1868, p. 441 ff.

[276] Much more correct would it be to say: the chap. partially betrays, in so striking a manner, the Johannean delicacy and originality (pre-eminently vv. 15–17), that the whole stands along with it as a production of the apostle.

[277] Vv. 1–14 hardly have an object unknown to us (Brückner), since they are in simple objective historical connection with what follows.

[278] He, as also Lange, Hengstenberg, Hoelemann, ascribes also vv. 24, 25 to the apostle, in opposition to which Luthardt regards 24, 25 as a testimony added from the Ephesian church.

John 21:1-2. Μετὰ ταῦτα] Referring, in conformity with the nature of a supplement, to the last narrative before the conclusion in John 20:30-31.

ἐφανέρωσεν ἑαυτόν] Comp. the passive expression, Mark 16:12; Mark 16:14; it is, however, precisely the reflexive expression which is Johannean, see John 7:4. It presupposes a state of concealment, from which He now again (πάλιν points back to John 21:14, to the two preceding appearances, John 20:19; John 20:26) came forth and made Himself manifest to His disciples, brought Himself into view,—not a spiritual existence (De Wette), not “a sphere of invisibility, in which He moves by Himself” (Luthardt, comp. Tholuck), but rather a wonderfully altered existence, no longer belonging to ordinary intercourse, brought nearer to a state of glorification, yet still material, διὰ τὸ λοιπὸν ἄφθαρτον εἶναι τὸ σῶμα καὶ ἀκήρατον, Chrysostom.

ἐπὶ τῆς θαλ.] on the lake, because the shore is over the lake. Comp. on Matthew 14:25; Xen. Anab. iv. 3. 28: ἐπὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ, and passages from Herodotus in Schweighäuser’s Lex. p. 245. It belongs to ἐφαν.

ἐφανέρωσε δὲ οὕτως] sc. ἑαυτόν, not, as Hengstenberg imports from John 2:11, τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ. Further, an iteration of this kind, in simple, continuous narration, is not elsewhere found in John. But he may here have purposely written in so diffuse a manner as a set-off to the distortions of actual fact in tradition (comp. John 21:23).

Of the seven disciples, John 21:2, the last two remain unnamed. Hence they are probably (John 6:60, John 7:3, John 8:31, John 18:19) to be deemed disciples in the wider sense, with which John 21:1 does not conflict (in answer to Hengstenberg, who conjectures Andrew and Philip), since the two unnamed are simply subordinate persons. That of the disciples in the narrower sense the sons of Zebedee are mentioned last, is in harmony with the composition of the narrative by John himself. All the less is any deeper or emblematic significance to be sought as lying behind the succession of the names, or even behind the number seven. Another composer would probably have placed the sons of Zebedee immediately after Peter.

ὁ ἀπὸ Κανᾶ τ. Γαλ.] added, without any special design, in this supplement of late composition. According to Hengstenberg, the representative of the first miracle (chap. 2) could not but be indicated, which is pure invention.

οἱ τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου] does not occur elsewhere in John; but, at the same time, it is only here that the occasion presents itself to him to mention in a series of names himself[279] and his brother along with others.

On the tradition which Luke sets forth, which is altogether irreconcilable with Galilean appearances of the Risen One, useless upon arbitrary harmonistic presuppositions (such as even Luthardt entertains), see on Luke 24:50. Acts 1:4 does not, however, necessarily presuppose, in reference to the appearances, that none took place in Galilee. Matthew, on the other hand, excludes the appearances which took place before the disciples at Jerusalem, which are related by John 20. See on Matthew 28:10. Harmonistic expedients also in Hengstenberg and Godet.

[279] Hence Nathanael cannot be John (Späth): comp. on John 1:46.

John 21:3-4. Ἐρχόμ. κ. ἡμεῖς σὺν σοί] John has not employed ἀκολουθεῖν, nor said ἄγωμεν κ. ἡμεῖς (John 11:16), because he has thought just what was said.

The circumstantiality is not un-Johannean (Lücke), but comp. e.g. John 1:39-40, John 9:1-12. In particular, moreover, the ὑπάγω ἁλιεύειν is only the simple language of familiar association, in which neither a “brusque tone,” nor “an internal impulse, a presentiment” (Godet), is to be recognised. The disciples desire again to pursue their earthly employments, “quod privatos homines decebat,” Calvin.

ἐξῆλθον] from the place indicated in John 21:2, probably Capernaum, out to the lake, John 21:1.

By night the fishing was productive. Comp. on Luke 5:5; Aristot. H. A. viii. 19. But they caught nothing. How entirely different was it afterwards, when they cast out at the bidding of the Lord!

ἔστη] Expressing the sudden appearance. Comp. John 20:19; John 20:26.

εἰς τ. αἰγ.] Comp. John 20:19; John 20:26.

οὐ μέντοι, κ.τ.λ.] To be explained from the entirely altered condition and appearance of the Risen One. Chrysostom, assigns the reason to the will of Jesus: οὐκ εὐθέως ἑαυτὸν δείκνυσιν, comp. also Luthardt and Hengstenberg, of which John, however, gives no indication. Comp. rather on John 20:14.

John 21:5-6. Παιδία] Not un-Johannean (1 John 2:14; 1 John 2:18), although in John 13:33 τεκνία is used.

μή τι προσφάγ. ἔχετε] The emphasis lies, as frequently, on the concluding word: you are not, I suppose, (already) in possession of something to eat? The question presupposes the opinion of the questioner, that they had probably as yet taken nothing, as well as the thought that in the opposite case He need not step in. That, however, He designates fishes exactly by προσφάγιον, is grounded on the fact that He intends to take a breakfast with the disciples on the fishes, after which He inquires. On προσφάγ. itself, which is, like the Attic ὄψον, used especially of fishes (comp. προσφάγημα, Moeris, p. 204. 24; προσόψημα, Athen. iv. p. 162 C, vii. p. 276 E), see Sturz, Dial. Al. p. 191; Fischer, de vitiis, Lex. p. 697 f.

The disciples simply answer: no; they have therefore taken Him for an entire stranger, who perhaps wishes to buy fishes for breakfast. The παιδία, intended by Jesus in the sense of fatherly love, they may have regarded, in the mouth of the unknown, as a friendly designation of the state of service (Nonnus: παῖδες ἁλὸς δρηστῆρες; Euth. Zigabenus: τοὺς ἐργατικούς). Comp. on John 6:6.

εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ μ.] They had the net then in the lake, on quite another side of the boat.

οὐκέτι] no more, as previously, when it was empty and light. Observe the pictorial imperf. ἴσχυον (see the critical notes).

ἑλκῦσαι] draw, draw up the submerged net. On the other hand, σύροντες, John 21:8 : tugging, dragging forth. See Tittmann, Synon. p. 57 f.

ἀπό] on account of. See Bernhardy, p. 224.

To regard the above fruitless toils (on the left, it is thought), and this abundant take on the right, as a figure of the apostolic activity, in relation first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles (Grotius, Weitzel, Hengstenberg, Godet, Hilgenfeld, and several others), is too special, and not even conformable to history (Galatians 2:9; Acts 22:20, et al., comp. Luthardt), without prejudice, moreover, to the symbolism of the draught of fishes in itself; see note after John 21:14.

John 21:7. Πάλιν τὰ ἰδιώματα τῶν οἰκείων ἐπιδείκνυνται τρόπων οἱ μαθηταὶ Πέτρος καὶ Ἰωάννης. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ θερμότερος, ὁ δὲ ὑψηλότερος ἦν· καὶ ὁ μὲν ὀξύτερος ἦν, ὁ δὲ διορατικώτερος. Διὰ τοῦτο ὁ μὲν Ἰωάννης πρῶτως ἐπέγνω τὸν Ἰησοῦν· ὁ δὲ Πέτρος πρῶτος ἦλθε πρὸς αὐτόν, Chrysostom. Comp. John 20:3 ff.

τὸν ἐπενδύτην διεζώσατο] He had laid aside the ἐπενδύτης, and was in so far naked, which, however, does not prevent his having on the shirt, χιτωνίσκος, according to the well-known usage of γυμνός,[280] nudus, and עַרוּם (see Perizonius, ad Ael. V. H. vi. 11; Cuper. Obss. i. 7, p. 39, Interpp. zu Jes. xxx. 2; Grotius in loc). In order, however, not to appear unbecomingly in his mere shirt before Jesus, he girded around him the ἐπενδύτης, i.e. he drew it on, so that he gathered it together by means of a girdle on his body. Hengstenberg says incorrectly: he had the ἘΠΕΝΔΎΤ. on, and only girded himself in the same (accus. of closer definition), in order to be able to swim the better. The middle with accus. of a garment always denotes to gird oneself therewith (Lucian, Somm. 6, de conscrib. hist. 3). Comp. περιζώννυσθαι, Revelation 1:13. The ἐπενδύτης is not equivalent to χιτών (Fischer, Kuinoel, Bretschneider), but an overwrap, an overcoat. Any garment drawn over may be so called (see the LXX. in Schleusner, Thes. II. p. 436; Soph, fragm. in Pollux, vii. 45; Dind. 391, comp. ἘΠΈΝΔΥΜΑ in Plut. Alex. 32); it was, however, according to Nonnus and Theophylact, in the case of fishermen, and according to the Talmud, which has even appropriated to itself the word אטונדתא, in the case of workmen generally, a linen article of clothing (possibly a short frock or blouse) which, according to the Talmud, was worn, provided with pockets, over the shirt (according to Theophylact, also over other articles of clothing). See especially Drusius in loc. According to Euth. Zigabenus, it reached to the knees, and was without sleeves.

γυμνός] He had, in point of fact, no other clothing on except the mere shirt (comp. Dem. 583. 21 : γυμνὸν ἐν τῷ χιτωνίσκῳ); for precisely διὰ τὴν γύμνωσιν (Theodoret, Heracleus) he quickly put on the ἐπενδύτης, which had been laid aside during his work.

He reached the land swimming, not walking on the water (Grotius and several others), which is an imported addition. The ἔβαλεν ἑαυτόν graphically represents the rapid self-decision.

[280] This also in opposition to Godet, according to whom Peter was quite naked. This would have been disgraceful even amongst barbarians. See Krüger on Thuc. i. 6. 4.

John 21:8-9. Τῷ πλοιαρ.] in the little boat, on board of which they remained; local dative. Comp. Herod. v. 99: ἀπικέατο εἴκοσι νηυσί. See generally Becker, Homer. Blätter, p. 208 f.

The γάρ in the parenthesis states the reason why they did not quit the vessel; they could in this way also quickly enough reach the shore, which was very near (200 cubits = ½ stadium 300 feet, see Wurm, de ponder, etc., p. 195; Hermann, Privatalterth. § 46. 7).

On the form τηχῶν instead of the Attic πηχέων, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 245 f. On ἀπό, see on John 11:18.

τὸ δίκτυον τῶν ἰχθ.] the net, which was filled with the fishes (John 21:6). Comp. on this genit., Nägelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 31, ed. 3.

John 21:6. βλέπουσιν, κ.τ.λ.] John relates simply what they saw on landing, namely, a fire of coals lying there, and food lying thereon (i.e. a mess of fish, see on John 7:9; the singul. not of a single fish, as Beza, Hengstenberg, Godet, and others think, but collectively, as also ἄρτον, comp. Polyb. xxxiv. 8. 6 : τὸ θαλάττιον ὄψον), and bread. That this preparation for the breakfast to be given was made by Jesus, would be understood by the reader as matter of course (see John 21:12-13). But how He brought together the materials, and who kindled the fire, cannot be determined; He might, before He called to the disciples, have Himself, or by other hands, made the preparations. Hence the narrative yields no miracle (bringing forth out of nothing, thought Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Grotius, Calovius, Maldonatus, and several others; but Nicephorus, Jansen, Luthardt: the angels had provided Him therewith; finally, Hengstenberg, Godet: without more precise definition of the marvellous How), nor even the appearance of such (Lücke). But wherefore did Jesus make this preparation? Because the disciples were to eat with Him the early meal, with which He designed to connect so significant a transaction as that related in John 21:15 ff.; He willed to be the giver of the meal. Much that is irrelevant in the older expositors. According to Luthardt, the design is to depict how Jesus, without requiring their aid, knows how to feed the disciples from His own resources. But to what purpose any such further representation, since He had long ago miraculously fed thousands before the eyes of the disciples?

John 21:10-11. ʼΕνέγκατε, κ.τ.λ.] for the completion, conformably to their needs, of the dish of fish already found upon the fire of coals. That the eating of Jesus and of the disciples was no material, but a spiritual one (the enjoyment which Jesus has from the activity of His apostles), is a fiction of Hengstenberg’s.

According to John 21:11, Peter alone draws the full net to land, which, of course, since it hung on the vessel, which lay on the shore, was easier than to draw it up out of the water into the boat, John 21:6. According to Hengstenberg, he is, indeed, named only as being the chief person, because he was the middle point of the spiritual fishing. The statement of the number of the fishes is as little an apocryphal trait as the statement of the number of those who were miraculously fed, John 6:10, and all the less, since it is not a round number which is named. The μεγάλων heightens the miraculous effect.

καὶ τοσούτων ὄντων, κ.τ.λ.] Regarded by John as incomprehensible, and as effected by Christ; by Strauss, as manifestly legendary, as well as the number of the fishes, which, however, might, notwithstanding, be to the minds of the disciples, in relation to this miraculous experience, important enough, and sufficiently so not to be forgotten. On the allegorical interpretations of the number 153, see note after John 21:14.

John 21:12-13. Ἄριστον is, as little as in Matthew 22:4, Luke 11:38, the principal meal, which, in spite of John 21:4, Hengstenberg suggests in the interest of allegorical interpretation, but breakfast.

ἐτόλμα] dared, presumed. Although, that is, it had been possible for them, in respect of the external appearance, to doubt whether He was the Lord, they were nevertheless convinced of His identity, and hence dared not to ask Him: Who art thou? Reverential awe (comp. already John 4:27), in presence of the marvellous appearance of the Risen One, deprived them of the courage to do so. According to Augustine, Beda, Jansen, and several others, they dared not doubt, which however, is not expressed. Chrysostom aptly remarks: οὐκέτι γὰρ τὴν αὐτὴν παῤῥησίαν εἶχον· … τὴν δὲ μορφὴν ἀλλοιοτέραν ὁρῶντες καὶ πολλῆς ἐκπλήξεως γέμουσαν, σφόδρα ἦσαν καταπεπληγμένοι, καὶ ἐβούλοντο τι περὶ αὐτῆς ἐρωτᾶν· ἀλλὰ τὸ δέος καὶ τὸ εἰδέναι αὐτοὺς, ὅτι οὐχ ἕτερός τις ἦν, ἀλλʼ αὐτὸς, ἐπεῖχον τὴν ἐρώτησιν.

ἐξετάσαι] to explore (Matthew 2:8; Matthew 10:11; Sir 11:7; Sir 13:11, frequently in the classics), sciscitari; strong expression from the point of view from which the respectful timidity of the disciples regarded the daring nature of the question.

εἰδότες] Constructio κατὰ σύνεσιν. See Kühner, II. § 419a; Krüger, § 58. 4. 5.

John 21:13. ἔρχεται] The δεῦτε, John 21:12, has summoned the disciples to the place of the meal where the fire of coals was; Jesus Himself, who had therefore stood at some distance therefrom, now steps forward, in order to distribute the breakfast.

τὸν ἄρτον] points back to John 21:9, but τὸ ὀψάριον to John 21:9-10 : the bread lying there, etc. Both are again collective. It is not merely one loaf and one fish which Jesus distributes, as Hengstenberg, for the purpose of symbolically interpreting it of a heavenly reward of toil, assumes; see John 21:10.

A thanksgiving before the δίδωσιν is not related, not as though Jesus omitted τὰ ἀνθρώπινα (Euth. Zigabenus); nor as though He did not desire positively to offer Himself to their recognition (Lange, in opposition to John 21:12); nor, again, as though the meal was to be a silent[281] one (Luthardt, who adds: “for such is the table fellowship of Jesus and His own in the present aeon”); nor, again, because the meal represented future blessings (Hengstenberg),—but because here it is not a question of any proper meal, as in Luke 24:20, but rather only of a breakfast, of a morning meal, partaken of only while standing (there is no mention, moreover, of a lying down), which also was not to have, like that early meal of Paul, Acts 27:35, a character of solemnity. It was not this breakfast in itself, which Christ prepared for the disciples, but that which preceded (the draught of fishes) and succeeded (John 21:15 ff.), which was the object for which the Risen One here appeared.

[281] That the meal passed generally in entire silence, as also Hengstenberg suggests, as little appears from the text as that Jesus did not Himself partake of it (Hengstenberg). In favour of a symbolical interpretation of details, a dismal and extravagant character is given to the incident. But the text breaks off with the distribution of the bread and of the mess of fish, and it says nothing of the progress of the breakfast.