A Soico-rhetorical critique of John 21:1-25wihtin the context of John’s depiction of Jesus’ leadership

John the apostle, in John 21:1-25, depicts an eye witness account of an interaction between Jesus and his disciples after his resurrection. I will provide an analysis of this pericope through utilizing socio-rhetorical criticism to compare and contrast Jesus leadership style with a current leadership model. “Socio-rhetorical is a set of integrated strategies that would move coherently through inner literary and rhetorical features of the text into a social and cultural interpretation of its discourse in the context of the Mediterranean world.” (Robbins, p.3, 1996) I will define the role of the leader as agent of change and guiding based on the dynamics of John’s description of the leadership of Jesus, and finally I will compare and contrast this Johannine perspective on leadership with current social theories and models of leadership.
A socio-rhetorical analysis of John 21:1-25 contextualizing the Johannie discourse
Repetitive-progressive and pattern in John 21:1-25
15 (a) “Simon, son of John,
do you love Me more than these?”
He said to Him,
“Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.”
He *said to him,
“Tend (V)My lambs.”
16 (b) He *said to him again a second time,
“Simon, son of John,
do you love Me?”
He *said to Him,
“Yes, Lord; You know that I [i]love You.”
He *said to him,
“Shepherd My sheep.”
17 (c) He *said to him the third time,
“Simon, son of John, do you love Me?”
Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you [k]love Me?”
And he said to Him,
“Lord, You know all things;
You know that I love You.”
Jesus said to him,
“Tend My sheep.
In John 21: 15 – 17, there is a repetitive-progressive texture based on the question and answer sequence between Jesus and Peter. Vs. 15 establishes the pattern that is carried through until the conclusion of vs. 17: there is a slight variance in the pattern shown in verse 17 where the author adds the commentary stating that “Peter was grieved…”In vs. 15. Jesus starts the sequence with a question directed toward his subject Peter. This question is repeated throughout the dialogue, and it marks the beginning of each subsection of the repetitive-progressive texture discourse.
The phrase “Simon, son of John” in this repetitive-progressive texture introduces each question, which is followed by the progressive question “do you love Me…” in section (a) there is a contrast with fish, yet there is no contrast in (b) or (c). The phrase “He said to Him” occurs in all three units question answer sequence, but concludes with “Jesus said to Him.” It is utilized by both participants in the discourse, yet the repetitive-progressive texture pattern shows development in Jesus’ interchange (b) with the addition of the phrase “where again a second time” and in (c) with the addition of the phrase “the third time.” Peter’s response also contextualizes the repetitive-progressive texture in (a), (b), and (c): each response utilizes the repetition of the sentence “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.”
There is a slight variation in (c) with the additional comments of “all things.” Also, Peter’s response of “Yes” is eliminated from the discourse, which concludes his responses. Jesus’ response to Peter response both concludes each section and also concludes the pericope for the repetitive-progressive texture: This portion shows the most variance within this section. Each sentence starts with a verb and concludes with a continuity of the term lamb or sheep: (a) “Tend My lambs.” (b) “Shepherd My sheep.” (c)“Tend My sheep.
Opening Middle Closing and pattern in John 21:1-25
(a) 21: 1 – 14 This section opening texture opens and concludes with the past tense form of the verb “showed.” (a) is introduced by the author’s commentary, then proceeds to interject that Peter’s statement, “I am going fishing” led to the disciples making a similar decision to go. There is a contrast between the disciples’ failure to catch any fish which was during the night and lasted the entire evening with Jesus’ instructions that resulted in them catching fish during the day and an immediate catch. Furthermore, Peter is singled out after “the disciple whom Jesus loved” recognized Jesus he returns to land by boat; however, Peter who is unclothed dives into the water and swims to shore. This section concludes with commentary from the author regarding Jesus “showing” himself again.
(b) 21: 15 – 19 This middle texture section has the repetitive-progressive texture discourse between Jesus and Peter. This section is introduced as after the disciples had finished breakfast, Jesus directs a series of questions to Simon Peter, which are all answered to in the affirmative. It is critically depicted as repetitive-progressive texture, and it concludes with Jesus’ restoration of Peter and prophecy of how Peter would die.
(c) 21: 20 – 25 This closing texture section opens and concludes with the definite article, noun, and pronoun combination of “the disciple who.” The concluding section is a continuation of a discourse between Jesus and Peter with the “beloved disciple” as its subject. It addresses a misconception about the “beloved disciple” and it concludes with an argument for the authority of the book.
Narrational-texture and pattern in John 21:1-25
This narrative pulls the reader into the “bedroom” of a humbling chastisement of a father to his wayward son. This narrative interchanges between commentary and narration until it concludes with a major declarative statement.
Argumentative-texture and pattern in John 21:1-25
Vs. 22 (b) If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? The underlining premise is two-fold (1) that Jesus is in control of his disciples’ lives. And, (2) that Peter should only concern himself with his own life and not the life of John.
Vs. 23 (c) if I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? The implicit premise is similar to sentence in (b). Jesus is the one who determines how and when his disciples die, and that Peter should not worry about how the disciple whom he loved should die, but he should only concern himself with his own life.
Vs. 25 (b) If they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. The implied statement is three-fold (1) all of Jesus’ actions were not written down, (2) Jesus preformed a great many miraculous acts while on earth, and (3) the book of John was compiled with a specific intent based on the discrimination of the author.
Sensory-Aesthetic texture and pattern in John 21:1-25
The text reveals the heart of God for those whom have fallen into sin and hope to be restored. The overarching theme of the text is one of restoration with a minor emphasis on the sovereignty of God. A sense of despair and alienation purvey the text, as hopelessness seemly reigns and we stray from our relationship with God. However, we feel the gentle tug at our hearts as he frankly yet lovingly draws us back to himself. Guilt and shame make up this spiral that is driven by pride. The temptation to seek our own way is prevalent for the believer; moreover, this temptation is magnified even more as we wrestle with the conviction of our sin.
Yet, he is there. Revealing himself to us in a new way, and through the process we are forced to make a choice: humble ourselves, confess our faults, face reality, and wholly trust in him; or to do it our own way. He is sovereign! He makes no mistakes: he has chosen us for a task greater than ourselves. He has done the impossible many times, and now the God of the impossible has another miracle for us—Restoration!


The role of the leader as agent of change and guiding based on the dynamics of John’s description of the leadership of Jesus.
In summarizing the nature of Jesus’ leadership dynamics as an agent of change and guiding, we see several themes highlighted throughout the text of John 21: 1- 25. The sense of resignation and failure seem to pervade the text with the needs of restoration and recommitment needed to be addressed by Jesus as leader. The disciple’s disposition is juxtaposed with Jesus’ who in preparedness and confidence addresses the needs of his followers in love and compassion. Moreover, Jesus instills into the disciples a clear sense of purpose that also addresses the level of motivation needed to obtain the goals. This was accomplished through a one-on-one interaction with Jesus and particularly Peter. Moreover, Jesus discourse directly addressed ethical issues and specific goals that fulfilled God’s vision for their lives.
A comparison and contrast the Johannine perspective on leadership with transformational leadership
I will compare and contrast the Johannine perspective on leadership with the transformational leadership model. Yukl (2010) states, “transforming leadership appeals to the moral values of followers in an attempt to raise their consciousness about ethical issues and to mobilize their energy and resources to reform institutions.” Jesus’ interaction with Peter depicts him challenging Peter’s moral values raising his consciousness about his level of commitment to God’s call for his life.
If we utilize the philosophical base that anything opposed to God’s will is evil, adhering to God’s call for your life is moral. Yukl (2010) suggests that transactional leadership motivate followers by appealing to their self-interest. We don’t see Jesus appealing to self-interest in order to motivate his followers to vs. 19d “follow me.” What we do see is that he appeals to their moral consciences in order to motivate them to obedience.
Personal views on the role of Christian leadership with regards to cultural and social norms and beliefs
My personal view on the role of Christian leadership is based upon obedience to God. It is a concept that focuses on simply obeying God regardless of the consequences of your action. Personal freedom or quality of life is not necessarily a periphery of obedience to God. Yet, achieving one’s goal must be achieved through ethical means with the interest of those being led in mind.
This model of leadership is the antithesis to current cultural values, which could add a great deal of problems because in order for this model to work there must be a great majority of ones followers modeling similar values. With the high values we have on materialism and personal fame, it is difficult to assume this method of leadership will be well received with in this culture. Also, with the various anti-corruption laws we have in the United States it would be difficult for most Americans to see the need for moral integrity within leadership.
I am specifically referring to the moral foundation that a Christian leadership model would offer. Furthermore, I would argue that the model may lack the appeal it needs to draw in secular counterparts in the Global community. Davis’ et al., (2003) argues that cultural dynamics such as “power distance” and “corruption tolerance” accept a more domineering type of leadership, and a humble leader within this culture maybe perceived as weak.
John the apostle, in John 21:1-25, depicts an eye witness account of an interaction between Jesus and his disciples after his resurrection. I provided an analysis of this pericope through utilizing socio-rhetorical criticism to compare and contrast Jesus’ leadership style with a current leadership model. I defined the role of the leader as agent of change and guiding based on the dynamics of John’s description of the leadership of Jesus, and finally I compared and contrasted this Johannine perspective on leadership with current social theories and models of leadership.


References
Davis, J. H., & Ruhe, J. A. (2003). Perceptions of country corruption: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4), 275-288. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Vernon K. Robbins (1996) The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society and Ideology, London: Routledge.