Aaron Hann
How does the church assess and view her leaders? How do shepherds evaluate themselves, and how do the sheep likewise evaluate their shepherds? These questions—and who gets to ask and answer them—have been highly contested throughout history (e.g., the Protestant Reformation), and they continue to be controversial today. As noted by Hywel George in his article “The Apostles in John’s Gospel,” these issues are integral to the unique themes and emphases of the Gospel of John.1
Noting the differences between the apostles in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, George argues that John’s portrait is more positive compared to the Synoptics’ “warts and all” depiction. This comparison “suggests a subtle aspect of John’s agenda when writing his Gospel later than his brothers . . . . This may have been a considered corrective move by John in order to address pressing issues of authority in the fledgling Christian community.” George suggests one possible corrective move: “This objective may have extended to the correction of the broader intolerable attitude in corners of the church which was begrudging of the apostles.” In other words, “Christians should think rightly of the apostles” and “highly esteem and heed the apostles as ambassadors of Christ.” After drawing out the differences between John and the Synoptics, George notes a few problematic details for his claim: “Included in John’s Gospel are Peter’s denial, Peter’s strike against Malchus, and James and John’s angling for thrones. Strangely omitted is Peter’s weeping contrition and the designation of Peter as ‘the rock.’”
This essay takes those problematic details as a starting point to show the need for a more careful and complex assessment of the apostles in the Gospel of John. In this author’s estimation, these details are not “outweighed” by the other positive features. Instead, they signal the need for circumspect and attentive reading as we seek to think rightly about shepherds of the flock. But the author does agree with and appreciate George’s observation about John’s “subtle agenda” related to “pressing issues of authority in the fledgling Christian community.”
Following John’s subtle and complex portrayal of Peter will help us understand that agenda and the issues of authority. Consequently, this essay looks at John’s characterization of Peter, focusing on the comparisons between Peter and Judas. John’s use of character comparison is well-attested in commentaries. According to Michael Martin, this literary strategy follows the ancient rhetorical device of synkrisis, which simply means “comparison.”2 Tom Thatcher, agreeing with Martin, notes that “the Fourth Gospel uses comparison as a key technique of characterization.”3 In ancient rhetoric, synkrisis could take “three forms: a comparison to the greater, to the lesser, or to show equality. Such comparisons were used to ‘amplify’ . . . a person’s good qualities or intensify their bad ones, as well as to prove, clarify, and vivify the narration.”4 As we will see, John repeatedly shows Peter alongside Judas with the result that Peter’s negative qualities are highlighted.
Overview
First, what is the basic raw data for John’s depiction of Peter? His name—variably Peter, Simon, and Simon Peter—is mentioned thirty-eight times in the Gospel of John, and he is present in six chapters/narratives:
- Scene 1 – 1:40–42
- Scene 2 – 6:67–69
- Scene 3 – 13:6–11, 23–26, 36–38
- Scene 4 – 18:10–11, 15–18, 25–27
- Scene 5 – 20:2–10
- Scene 6 – 21:2–9, 15–23
To mine this data, we could take each passage and focus on what it shows about Peter. Given the early renaming of Peter as Cephas/Petros (i.e., “rock”), compared to the delayed explanation of the name in Matthew 16, one might see Peter beginning with a more positive assessment. He goes on a journey through John’s narrative, with some confusion (ch. 13) and errors (ch. 18), but he comes back again into a positive status in chapters 20–21.
The problem with this simpler approach is it misses the more subtle ways in which John presents his characters. To help us see more of the complex realism of Peter in John, this essay will focus on John’s use of synkrisis and character comparison, or juxtaposition. There are many of these juxtaposed pairs in John. Some of the more obvious are Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman (chs. 3–4); Mary of Bethany and Judas (ch. 12); Peter and the Beloved Disciple (chs. 13, 18, 20, 21); and Jesus and Pilate (chs. 18–19). One pair that is relatively less mentioned in commentaries is Peter and Judas. It is worth noting that, from the very beginning of John’s Gospel, Peter always appears alongside one or more other characters. But in order to keep this essay concise, only those scenes that compare Peter and Judas will be examined (Scenes 2, 3, and 4). Obviously, a comprehensive assessment of Peter in the Gospel of John—and the apostles he represents—would require considering all of the material.
Scene 2
The scene in 6:66–71 is John’s version of the Petrine profession of faith in Matt 16:13–20. When Jesus asks if “the twelve” want to go away, Peter answers for them, “Lord, to whom will we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God” (6:67–69). On this section, George writes, “The unique discourse in John 6 provides occasion for John to point out that, while many disciples fell away offended, the apostles remained faithful to Jesus, though his teaching was hard (6:66–69).” However, what is neglected here is the intriguing juxtaposition of Peter with Judas. This is the first time they are paired together. The comparison is curious and strange at this stage in John’s presentation. Whereas the Matthean Jesus responds to Peter with blessing and affirmation—“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah”—the Jesus of John is strangely ambivalent: “Jesus replied to them, ‘Didn’t I choose you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil.’ He was referring to Judas, Simon Iscariot’s son, one of the Twelve, because he was going to betray him” (6:70–71). However commendable we find Peter’s words—as indeed they are—we must follow John’s presentation and not allow other New Testament texts, like Matthew 16, to iron out the confusing wrinkles. John will do that himself as we follow this thread into chapters 13 and 18.
Scene 3
John 13 develops the Peter-Judas comparison in greater detail. Broadly speaking, the scene moves through alternating pairs:
- Jesus and Judas (13:1–3)
- Jesus and the disciples (3–5)
- Jesus and Peter (6–11, with allusion to Judas),
- Jesus teaching the disciples (12–20)
- Jesus, Judas (“the betrayer”), Peter, and the Beloved Disciple (21–25)
- Jesus and Judas (26–30)
- Jesus teaching the disciples (31–35)
- Jesus and Peter (36–38)
As this rough outline shows, the narrative contains multiple alternations between Jesus/Peter and Jesus/Judas. This recurring pair, continued from chapter 6, suggests intention, subtle as it may be. “The two characters—Judas and Peter—are in some way related. Judas (‘a devil’) was first presented in the shadow of Peter’s climactic recognition of Jesus (6:68–71). Now it is Judas (with the devil) who is mentioned initially and Peter, not at all as clear-sighted as earlier, is partly in his shadow (vv. 2–9).”5
The comparison between Peter and Judas includes subtle irony. Whereas Judas obeys Jesus’ command (vv. 27, 30), “ironically, Peter, unlike Judas, was not willing to receive a command from Jesus (v. 36).”6 Summarizing this comparison, Brodie writes that Peter in 13:24 “is placed right at the center of the subdivision which makes repeated references to the beloved and to the betrayer. In previous texts he appeared in some form of proximity to Judas (6:68–71; 13:2, 6). At this point, in v. 24, he beckons to the beloved—and he asks about the betrayer. He is not himself the beloved or the betrayer, yet in his own way he will be involved both in betraying and in loving. Now, at the supper, the two ways lie open.”7
Scene 4
The scene of Jesus’ arrest brings John’s juxtaposed characterization of Peter and Judas to a climax. At first glance, we might not see any negative association between Judas and Peter. If there is a comparison, it might appear positive: Judas leads the forces who arrest Jesus (18:3), while Peter tries to stop that arrest (18:10). But as George acknowledges, Peter’s action is (potentially) problematic for a general positive assessment. Jesus explicitly rebukes Peter (18:11), so at best Peter is well-intended but misguided. However, John’s narration is more indirect and subversive.
Peter and Judas are the only disciples named in 18:1–11. A close inspection shows John making allusive connections between both characters and prior mentions of the devil. In v. 5, Judas is mentioned again, even though readers already know his presence from vv. 2 and 3. The repetition places emphasis on “his Satanic role which brings out the nature of those who are with him.”8 Recalling the close association between Judas and the devil mentioned in 6:70–71, 13:2, and 13:27, the narration that “they stepped back and fell to the ground” echoes Genesis 3:14, where the Satanic serpent is cursed to crawl upon the ground.
The only other time John mentions the devil/Satan is 8:44: “You [“the Jews”] are of your father the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies.” That the devil “does not stand in the truth” reinforces the symbolic language of the serpent falling to the ground. Strikingly, this description of the murderously deceitful devil also applies to Peter’s actions in chapter 18: he commits an act of attempted murder (18:10), and he lies three times about being Jesus’ disciple (18:17, 25, 27). Peter’s sword “stands in literary continuity not with Jesus but with the final focal detail in the description of the assembled forces of darkness—their ‘weapons’ (v 3). In other words, their weapons-focused darkness finds expression in his use of the sword . . . . [H]is darkness of mind is cast in the context of the Satanic darkness of Judas (13:2, 21–38). Here too he shows shades of Judas.”9
One might object that John doesn’t make those connections himself. But as many scholars observe, John intended his Gospel to be read again and again, with deeper layers of meaning coming to the surface with each reading. These deeper layers are subtle indeed, but once raised, they are difficult to assess as mere coincidence.
Summary of Peter vis-à-vis Judas
We do not have space to consider the remaining scenes which contribute to Peter’s overall characterization.10 By focusing on just the evidence gathered from John 6, 13, and 18, one sees that Peter, as spokesman for the twelve apostles, is far from the positive “rock” readers might expect from his first appearance (cf. John 1:40–41). Peter and Judas repeatedly appear side by side, and by the eve of the cross the attentive reader must ask, Who is really like the devil? Judas, as he was explicitly described in his first mention (6:70–71)? Or Peter, to whose profession of faith Jesus replied, “Yet one of you is a devil”? Judas, into whom Satan entered? Or Peter, who would deny and disobey Jesus’ command and example (ch. 13)? Judas, who fell to the ground like Satan in Eden? Or Peter, who lied and attempted murder like Satan in Eden? Peter may have been on the other side of the confrontational lines between Jesus and the forces of the ruler of the world, but he used the same methods. Indeed, Jesus’ statement about this-worldly, fighting servants (hypēretēs) in 18:36 applies both to the officers (hypēretēs) of the Jews (cf. 7:32; 18:3, 12, 22), as well as to Peter.
Conclusion
Much more could be said to draw out the full picture of the apostles in the Gospel of John. One final note that should not go overlooked is that John never actually calls them apostles. While George notes that “too much can be made of what John decides to leave out of his Gospel,” he is also aware that John’s omissions can be significant. This lack of apostolic designation is one of those significant omissions.11 If John was dealing with “pressing issues of authority in the fledgling Christian community,” those issues may very well have been caused by those with authority (shepherds) rather than those under authority (sheep). Like the Good Shepherd, John’s concern is more for the protection of the sheep than the shepherds. A brief reflection on John 10 and 13 brings this into focus.
Early readers of John 10 would naturally wonder about the nature and identity of their leaders: are they thieves, robbers, strangers, hired hands, wolves, or good shepherds (10:1–17)? Given the clear description of Judas as a thief (12:6; cf. 10:1, 8, 10), John invites his audience to read the narrative about the betrayer in chapter 13 in light of the Good Shepherd discourse. Peter “motioned” to the Beloved Disciple to ask for the identity of the betrayer (13:24), and the Beloved Disciple’s question—“Lord, who is it?”—is the same as asking, “Who is the thief you spoke of who ‘comes only to steal and kill and destroy’?” (10:10). The detail that the Beloved Disciple was “reclining at Jesus’ breast” (13:23; cf. 1:18) implies that only he heard and understood Jesus’ response and action in 13:26 which identified Judas as the betrayer. This is confirmed by 13:28ff, where none of the disciples knew why Jesus said to Judas, “What you’re doing, do quickly” (13:27). So, the Beloved Disciple’s question—“Lord, who is it?”—goes unanswered for the rest of the disciples.12
As with many questions in John, Who is the betrayer? is not just for the story’s characters but even more so for the story’s readers. While John’s audience knew the story answer, it is likely that they also knew the tension from lacking a clear answer to that question in their own community (cf. 3 John 9–10).What Douglas Estes writes of Jesus’ questions in John applies to the questions of other characters as well, including John 13:25: “Like both Plato and the Talmud, John recognizes truth is more attainable through dialogue (questioning) than didactics (assertions). Questions, more so than assertions, have greater capacity to jar readers away from their presuppositions.”13 Unfortunately, history and —for too many—experience have made clear that Christians cannot always trust and presuppose that those chosen to feed the sheep are true shepherds.
This is not meant to imply that Peter was not or did not become a true shepherd, as shown by John 21. Put differently, while Peter finally obtained the character of a good shepherd (21:15–19), John’s careful narration shows that even Peter, “the rock” of the early church, was dangerously close to becoming a Judas. As George puts it, John wanted his audience to think rightly of leaders. But thinking rightly—answering the question Who is the betrayer?—may in fact be harder to answer than most disciples would like to admit.
Perhaps the Synoptics provide the counterpart to that question, and the path to Peter’s restoration. According to both Mark and Matthew, when Jesus predicted that one of the twelve would betray him, they were “distressed” and said, “Surely not I?” (Mark 14:19; Matt 26:22). As phrased, the question expects a negative answer and displays a lack of self-awareness. Luke doesn’t record the question, but he reports that the twelve “began to argue among themselves which of them it could be who was going to do it” (Luke 22:23). While “argue” (syzēteō) can have a more neutral sense of “discuss” (cf. Luke 24:15), the following “dispute” about “which of them was to be regarded as the greatest” (Luke 22:24) shows a similar lack of humility and sincere self-examination.
However, the disciples’ question—“Surely not I?”—can be asked in honest humility: “Is it I?” Interestingly, the word for the disciples being “distressed” in Mark 14:19 and Matt 26:22, lypeō, is only used two times by John: in 16:20, of the disciples becoming “sorrowful” at Jesus’ departure, and in 21:17, when Peter “was grieved” that Jesus asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” Whether or not John uses intertexts or traditions from the Synoptics is debatable,14 but 21:17 is a suggestive connection. Whereas the apostles were initially distressed in their lack of awareness—that is, their lack of accurate self-knowledge about their capacity for betraying Jesus—Peter was later distressed precisely because of his accurate knowledge of self. He knew, and he knew that Jesus knew, what was in his heart: sincere, faithful devotion. But perhaps he would have arrived at that sincerity and true self-knowledge sooner had he asked Is it I, Lord? with genuine humility.
That is a question that shepherds should be asking, and sheep should be looking for shepherds who ask that question.
Aaron Hann is a counselor who focuses on spiritual abuse and helping those who have been hurt by churches and religious organizations. He has a master’s degree in counseling from Covenant Theological Seminary and a bachelor’s in Bible and Pastoral Studies from Moody Bible Institute. Aaron’s primary research interest is Johannine studies and how the Gospel of John speaks to the problem of religious trauma and pastoral formation. Writing on these and other topics can be found at his Substack. Aaron and his wife Kristen live in Kansas City with their two children.
Image: Grégoire Guérard, Capture of Jesus Christ
- See esp. John 10 and John 21.[↩]
- See Michael Martin, Judas and the Rhetoric of Comparison in the Fourth Gospel (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010).[↩]
- T. Thatcher, review of M.W. Martin, Judas and the Rhetoric of Comparison in the Fourth Gospel, RBL 13 (2011), 387, quoted in Adam Kubiś, “Rhetorical Syncrisis in the Johannine Presentation of Jesus and Peter,” The Biblical Annals 7/4 (2017), 492.[↩]
- Alicia Myers, “Characterizing Jesus: A Rhetorical Analysis on the Fourth Gospel’s Use of Scripture in its Presentation of Jesus,” PhD dissertation (Baylor University, 2010), 65–66.[↩]
- Thomas Brodie, The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 445.[↩]
- Tom Thatcher, “Jesus, Judas, and Peter: Character by Contrast in the Fourth Gospel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (October–December 1996), 443.[↩]
- Brodie, The Gospel According to John, 453.[↩]
- Brodie, The Gospel According to John, 526.[↩]
- Brodie, The Gospel According to John, 527.[↩]
- A comprehensive assessment may result in something similar to Charles Ridlehover’s study “The Matthean Peter: Peter as Archetype and Antitype of the Sermon on the Mount,” JETS 64.4 (2021), who likewise argues for a more complex picture, “that Peter is the archetype and antitype of a Sermon on the Mount disciple. That is, Peter models the Matthean Sermon both positively and negatively” (730).[↩]
- See Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: a Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1987), 115: “It is significant that John uses the term ‘disciples’ (seventy-eight times) much more frequently than ‘the twelve’ (four times) or ‘the apostles’ (never; cf. 13:16). ‘Disciples’ more easily includes believing readers . . . .” On the one occurrence of “apostle,” Raymond Brown writes, “The one use of apostolos (13:16) reflects on the function of being sent as a messenger, applicable to any disciple.” Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John, ed. Francis J. Moloney (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 228.[↩]
- The question is repeated more explicitly in John 21:20: “So Peter turned around and saw the disciple Jesus loved following them, the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and asked, ‘Lord, who is the one that’s going to betray you?’” That this question is repeated with reference to Peter supports the ongoing relevance of the comparison between Peter and Judas.[↩]
- Douglas Charles Estes, The Questions of Jesus in John: Logic, Rhetoric and Persuasive Discourse (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 167.[↩]
- See Martinus de Boers, John 1–6: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (New York: T&T Clark, 2025), 187.[↩]