Unless you have been living by yourself on a deserted island in the South Pacific, you no doubt know what it is like to experience a broken relationship. And you also no doubt know the tension that exists within that relationship. It is a palpable tension or awkwardness that persists until and unless reconciliation is secured and the offending party has been restored. That is one reason why I find the context leading up to John 21 so intriguing. Jesus has appeared to His disciples twice since His resurrection. He has already dealt with the unbelief of Thomas, but He has yet to do anything about Peter’s threefold denial. Twice Jesus and Peter are together in the same room, and twice Jesus says and does nothing about Peter’s failure. The silence is deafening. Peter was the proverbial “elephant in the room” for both these meetings, and Jesus apparently does nothing to secure reconciliation and restore the offending party. At some point after these two meetings, Peter decides to go fishing. We don’t know for sure why — it’s possible that he was simply looking to pass the time until Pentecost and could find no better way to do so. But I think the context points in a different direction. John 21 is the first time that we see Peter fishing since he was originally called by Jesus to be a disciple. This fact, together with the context of the broken relationship between Jesus and Peter and the lack of reconciliation in Christ’s first two appearances, suggest that Peter may well have given up and was now returning to what he had been doing before Jesus called him. Most certainly, Peter’s failure was still front and center in his own mind and experience. Perhaps Jesus’ silence during those two meetings was more than Peter could handle. I can imagine Peter’s thinking going something like this: “Why would Jesus choose to deal with Thomas and yet not deal with me? Thomas wasn’t even there for our first meeting with Jesus. And yet Jesus still dedicates the entire next meeting to dealing with Thomas’ doubts and addressing his needs. But I was there on both occasions, and Jesus said nothing to me.” For all these reasons, Peter’s decision to go fishing looks to me like he is giving up, allowing his failure to get the better of him. Perhaps you might be where Peter was in John 21, ready to pack it in and quit. Maybe you feel this way because you have failed, maybe repeatedly or even publicly (as had Peter). And Satan has used the opportunity to come alongside you and kick you while you are down. Or maybe Jesus has been silent in your experience, seemingly giving His attention to others (the Thomases of the world, for instance) and passing you by. If you find yourself in any of these situations today, remember that you are not in uncharted waters. Peter was there long before anyone else, and that ought to encourage those enduring similar circumstances. But let us do more than simply remember Peter’s example; let us focus on what Jesus is doing with Peter in John 21, because this is where the real encouragement can be found. Specifically, there are three things to be encouraged by: the preparation Jesus allows, the conviction Jesus brings, and the restoration Jesus offers.
The Preparation Jesus Allows
As I indicated previously, I find it fascinating that John makes no mention of Jesus saying anything to Peter during their first two meetings. The silence really is deafening. Why would Jesus choose not to deal with Peter right away? Why would He wait until the third meeting with him, especially when He chooses to deal with Thomas at the very first opportunity that He can? I realize that for some people, Jesus’ silence with Peter might appear unloving. Why would Jesus let someone He cares about squirm like that? Why would He put off what He could have done the first time He saw Peter?For some people, Jesus’ silence with Peter might appear unloving.Admittedly, the text doesn’t answer these questions. But I think we can formulate a likely answer based upon what Scripture tells us about the nature and character of God. We know, for instance, that God is not cruel or mean- spirited, but rather perfectly loving, and that means that He always has our best interests in mind. As the late RTS professor Dr. Knox Chamblin used to say, God is always as drastic as necessary but as gentle as possible. He might “cause grief ” in the lives of His people; but He always does so with “compassion” in mind, because He is always doing what is best for us (Lamentations 3:31-33; Romans 8:28). Thus it seems likely that Jesus waited until the third meeting to deal with Peter because the timing was not right until that occasion. Maybe the unbelief in Peter’s heart had not yet come to the surface, and so Peter was not yet ready to receive restoration. Whatever the case, we know that the silent treatment must have been what Peter needed most at the time. Otherwise Jesus would never have given it; He would have done something different. Jesus was clearly preparing Peter for what would follow.
