information to Peter. Peter puts on his clothes in order to swim to the shore while the others follow with the boat, now loaded with fish.17
The scene is consistent with the picture of the beloved disciple and Peter from the preceding material. They are regularly paired and appear as companions, as was also true in the dinner scene of chapter 13 and the tomb scene of chapter 20. As in the tomb scene, Peter acts precipitously (although oddly; he puts on his clothes in order to swim, though it may be more the arrival at shore than the swimming that motivates the putting on of clothes). The beloved defers to Peter in this case—as also at the entrance to the tomb—despite the fact that the beloved is said to be the first to recognize Jesus, as he was the first to arrive at the tomb.
Here, as in all the resurrection appearance stories, something is quite odd about the recognition of Jesus. That is, Jesus is never immediately recognized either in this Gospel or in any of the others. Inferring the identity of the mysterious stranger is always necessary. In the case of this narrative, this inference has been based on the calling of a name (20:16), the demonstration of his wounds (20:20, 27), or, in this final episode, with the result of his instructions. Therefore, that the beloved as well should not recognize Jesus directly but only inferentially is not out of keeping with this feature of appearance narratives.
A long dialogue follows, or rather an interrogation of Peter by Jesus, consisting of a thrice-repeated question: “Peter, do you love me?” Each time Peter replies in the affirmative, and each time he is charged with the care and feeding of Jesus’ sheep. We subsequently consider the vocabulary of love that is used here and throughout the Gospel, but here we should notice that the question addressed to Peter concerns Peter’s love for Jesus. (The triple question may correspond to Peter’s triple negation of Jesus during the trial.) This approach contrasts with the designation of the beloved disciple, not as one who loved Jesus but as the one whom Jesus loved. In this final chapter, he is designated in this way twice (vv. 7, 20).
The dialogue between Jesus and Peter concludes with a proverb about growing old, which is reinterpreted by the narrator as foretelling the crucifixion of Peter. This death is the content of the final injunction to Peter: “Follow me.”
It is here that we again encounter the man Jesus loved:
Turning, Peter sees the disciple that Jesus loved following them, who also was the one who leaned on Jesus’ chest at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is the one betraying you?” Peter seeing this one says to Jesus, “Lord, and what of him?” Jesus says to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” The saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple is not to die. But Jesus didn’t say that he doesn’t die, but: “If I want him to stay until I come, what’s it to you?”
Compared to Peter, the beloved clearly plays a very minor role in this episode. Indeed he is utterly silent and passive save for the initial recognition of Jesus and his “hanging around” while Peter and Jesus talk.
The final appearance of the beloved recalls his first appearance in the Gospel and reminds the reader of his intimacy with Jesus, as indicated by physical proximity and affectionate stance. Thus the cycle of texts concerning the disciple Jesus loved comes to a kind of closure.
Once again we are reminded of the relationship between this disciple and Peter. The beloved disciple had told Peter of the identity of the mysterious stranger. Here Peter expresses solicitude for the beloved of Jesus. In this way we may say that Peter is, in a sense, beginning the task that Jesus had set for him: caring for those whom Jesus had cared for. In any case the close relationship between Peter and the beloved is a constant feature of these texts.
But Jesus here interdicts this care of Peter for the beloved, making it clear that though Peter is charged with responsibility for the others (the sheep) he does not have the same responsibility for the beloved (“what is that to you?”). Jesus makes himself responsible for the fate of the man he loves. Once again the beloved is distinguished from the others who are entrusted to Peter’s care. His special relationship to Jesus abides.
No commission is given to the beloved that would place him in competition with Peter, the beloved’s fate is simply Jesus’ concern.
“The brothers” thought it appropriate that the beloved, whatever might befall the rest, should remain alive until the return of Jesus—understood here as the consummation of Jesus’ mission in the reign of justice and joy on earth. The text disputes their interpretation, but for our purposes, that “the brothers” should have imagined that the beloved might very well be protected from harm so as to be the one to welcome Jesus on his return is significant.18
The story again is perfectly intelligible from the standpoint of a homoerotic interpretation of the relationship between Jesus and the beloved.
This personal relationship does not seem to be a relationship that entails any special mission or responsibility on the part of the beloved. The task of serving as Jesus’ stand-in falls to all the disciples who have been sent, just as Jesus was sent (20:21). If anyone has an “official” capacity, that disciple is Peter, who is to “tend my sheep” (21:15–17). The role of the beloved is in no way “official.” He is not “favorite pupil,” still less designated successor. The “specialness” of the relationship is entirely “personal.”
We have seen that this relationship is not a “hidden” relationship. Peter takes it for granted. The relationship is expressed by the public display of affectionate intimacy before all the disciples, and Jesus even publicly acknowledges it as he is dying. Precisely as the acknowledged object of Jesus’ erotic love does it become plausible that the beloved has the personal role of waiting for the return of Jesus.
Indeed Peter’s concern for the beloved is just the sort of thing we might expect if Jesus and the beloved were “lovers.” Peter’s much protested love for Jesus extends quite naturally to include the beloved of Jesus. In this way, Peter understandably can accept the relationship of Jesus and the beloved. The beloved is not a candidate for Peter’s official position, and Peter is not a candidate for the role of the beloved. We should notice that this situation would be different if the “beloved” were simply, in a nonerotic sense, the “favorite” of Jesus. In that case, Peter would be expected to want not only to be the leader of the disciples but also the favorite of Jesus. But if the beloved is not the “favorite” in this general sense but rather in an erotic sense, then Peter’s role is not threatened by the beloved. Peter has no need to challenge the place of the beloved but is free to accept and honor the relationship, as the text suggests that he does.
The concluding lines of the text serve to buttress the impression that the truthful witness of 19:35 is the beloved, as we supposed. Clearly the faithful witness appears to be the beloved, but this status does not confer on him any distinctive authority. Indeed he is a witness to Peter’s authority and vocation. Nothing else is claimed for him.
The unnamed editors (“we”) do, however, wish to claim that their text does in some way or other derive from the witness and even the writing of this same beloved. A community, then, apparently compiles a Gospel making use of the recollections and the testimony of the one called “the disciple Jesus loved.” That the text, then, does not seek either to further identify this figure or to place him in a position of particular authority among the disciples is all the more remarkable. He is simply the beloved of Jesus.
Conclusion
A close reading of the texts in which the beloved disciple appears supports the hypothesis that the relationship between him and Jesus may be understood as that of lovers. As it
