Jesus said unto him,
If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to you? you follow me.
All Commentaries on John 21:22 Go To John 21
Cornelius a Lapide
AD 1637
Jesus saith unto him, So I will him to tarry till I come, what to thee? There is a threefold reading here. The first, the Greek, and from it the Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic versions, If I will him to tarry. The second Isaiah , S. Jerome"s (lib2 , cent. Jovin) and others, If so. The third is the Latin, and especially the Roman, codices, So I will him to tarry. This is the reading of S. Augustine, Bede, Rupert, the Gloss, S. Thomas, Lyra, and others. George Trapezuntius endeavours, although a Greek, to defend this reading by many arguments. Cardinal Bessarion refutes him, and defends the first reading. It is in favour of the first reading that the Latin si is easily changed into sic. But the Greek ε̉ὰν, could not easily be transformed into οϋτως. Again, the first reading gives a plain sense: thus, "If I will that John should remain in life, and not be crucified as I will thee to be, what is it to thee? Follow Me, and leave John to My care." For Christ wishes only to repress Peter"s curiosity, that, intent upon himself alone, he should leave the care of John to Christ. So S. Cyril, &c.
The arguments in favour of the third reading are, 1. That the Roman edition, corrected by order of the Pope, as well as many MSS. and Latin interpreters, have it2. That according to it Christ gives more satisfaction to Peter"s question3. That from it the disciples would more readily take up the opinion about John , that he was not to die4. Because Trapezuntius, who was an excellent Greek scholar, shows that the Greek particle ε̉ὰν and the Latin si have this force, that joined with the indicative mood they way be taken affirmatively, but with the subjunctive mood, hypothetically. For it is one thing to say, if I love thee, I do not injure thee: but another to say, if I loved thee, I will not injure thee. In the first proposition love is affirmed: in the second not, but the matter is put doubtfully. Since therefore the Evangelist here uses the indicative mood, the proposition is affirmative. Moreover, says Trapezuntius, the Fathers in this place translated sic, Song of Solomon , instead of Sirach , if, lest persons but slenderly acquainted with the Greek and Latin tongues should misunderstand the meaning of Sirach , because of its double force. The Latin Sirach , if, therefore, both here and in some other places, is affirmative, not doubtful. Thus Virgil (Æn. vi.) says, If the fates call (vocant) thee, that Isaiah , when the fates call thee. And in the same book, If Orpheus could (potuit) call back the manes of his wife, he affirms that he could.
Observe from the words, So I will him to tarry till I come, many have thought that John is not dead, but will come with Elias and Enoch to contend with Antichrist. Indeed the angel seems to assert this in the Apocalypse, saying to John , "Thou must prophesy again before the Gentiles." ( Revelation 10:2.) So thought Hippolytus (Tract. de Consummat. Sculi), Dorotheus, and Metaphrastes (Life of S. John), Damascene (Orat. de Trans.). The latter supports his opinion by Luke ix27: "There be some standing here which shall not taste of death until they see the kingdom of God." Song of Solomon , too, S. Ambrose understands the passage (lib. vii. in Luc.) Theophylact, Salmeron, and Barradi are all inclined to take the same view.
Others, again, whom S. Augustine refutes, think that S. John is alive within the tomb, because the earth above his sepulchre is said to quiver; and think that this is occasioned by S. John"s breathing.
But I say it is far more like the truth, and to myself a matter of certainty, that S. John died a natural death.
This is the general tradition of the Fathers, as Irenus, Tertullian, Eusebius, SS. Jerome, Augustine and Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, Bede and others. From whom Baronius gathers that S. John died A.D101 , in the ninth year of Pope Clement, the second year of Trajan"s reign, sixty-eight from Christ"s crucifixion, and of his age the ninety-third. I say he died at Ephesus, and was buried near that city, and was succeeded in the bishopric of Ephesus by Onesimus, the disciple of S. Paul. The tradition of the Church which celebrates the Feast of S. John as departed this life, and as now reigning with Christ in heaven, confirms this. For this is the lot of none except after death.
Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc. lib. i. c26) describes the way in which S. John died. "John the Evangelist, an old man and full of days, laid himself down in his tomb." And in his first book on the glory of the Martyrs he says, "John went down alive into the tomb, and commanded it to be covered with earth. Now from his sepulchre there is an abundant supply of manna like fine meal, from which the blessed relics are carried all over the world, and afford healing to the sick." Peter Damian says in his second Sermon on S. John , "Who is there whom the marvellous strangeness of this happy migration does not move? Who does not wonder at the glory of this most happy consummation? For he who lived marvellously died also marvellously. And forasmuch as he did not lead the common life of men, he passed not hence by a common death. For as histories relate, he ordered a square chamber to be constructed in the church, and by and by descended into it. Then stretching forth his hands, he remained a long while in prayer, and so passed to eternity. In a short space so great a light shone upon him from heaven, that no one could bear to look at it. After that the chamber was found to contain only manna, which, as is said, it continues to produce abundantly until this very day. For so it seemed good that the disciple who was so dear to the Author of life should depart out of this world, and that he should be a stranger to the pangs of death who had been a stranger to the corruption of the flesh."
Nicephorus adds that the body of S. John , like that of the Blessed Virgin, was not found in his sepulchre, but that it rose again, and was raised by Christ to heaven. S. Ambrose makes mention of this opinion (Ser20. in PS. cxviii.) S. Thomas also, and B. Peter Damian held this as a pious opinion. Nevertheless it has no sure foundation either in Scripture, or in the tradition of the Ancients. Indeed it is opposed to the fact that in the Council of Ephesus the relics of the martyrs, and especially of S. John , were ordered to be collected. And Pope Celestine, in his epistle to the Council of Ephesus, says, "Before all things ye ought especially to consider, and again and again call to mind (these things), you, to whom John the Apostle preached, whose relics present with you ye honour."
If then the relics of S. John were at Ephesus, he cannot yet have risen again, unless any one should maintain that they were the relics, not of his body, but of his clothes, his books, &c, or possibly of his hair and beard. Be this as it may, it is not possible at the present time to find any other relics of the body of S. John.
You will ask, how is it that S. John is called by the Fathers and the Church a martyr, if he died a natural death? I reply, with S. Jerome, that S. John was a martyr because he was thrown into a caldron of boiling oil at Rome before the Latin Gate by the Emperor Domitian on account of his preaching Christ, as Tertullian testifies (de Prscrip. c36). The most ancient testimony of the Roman Church confirms this. In memory thereof a church has been erected on the site, and the Church has appointed a yearly commemoration of the same on the6th of May. For although S. John did not then die, but came out of the caldron unhurt, yet because he willingly offered himself to such a cruel death for the sake of Christ, and because that boiling oil would naturally and necessarily have produced death, unless he had been miraculously preserved unhurt, therefore S. John was truly a martyr, and is rightly called a martyr.
Moreover, this present passage, as well as S. Luke 9:27, and Revelation 10:11, as I there show, do not favour a contrary opinion. For the meaning Isaiah , (1.) "I wish thee, 0 Peter, to follow Me by the cross, but John I will to remain so (sic), i.e, without the cross, or a violent death, until I come, that having died by a natural death I should take him to Myself in heaven." So S. Augustine, Bede, &c.
(2.) It may mean, "I will John to abide in life until I come to the public destruction of Jerusalem. Until I come, by means of Titus and the Romans , to avenge the death of Myself as Messiah by the destruction of the whole Jewish nation. For S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles were put to death before the destruction of Jerusalem. S. John alone of the Apostles survived it. So those two brethren, James and John , were the beginning and the end of the Apostolic martyrdoms. So Theophylact and others. Some add with Theophylact that S. John remained in Judea until its destruction, and that it was that which was meant by Christ.
Christ willed S. John to survive for so long a time for four reasons. The first was that John might be a foundation and pillar of the Church against the already nascent heretics, and that he might testify to all that the words and deeds of Christ which were written by the other Evangelists, as well as by himself in this Gospel, are most true, yea, that he saw them with his eyes, and heard them with his ears2d. That this his longevity might stand in the place of martyrdom, for John greatly desired to die, that he might enjoy Christ, saying as he did at the end of the Apocalypse, Come, Lord Jesus3d. That when the destruction of Judea was at hand he might warn the Christians to depart out of it4th. That he might testify to all that the destruction of the Jews was caused by their having put Christ to death, and that it had been foretold by Christ, and that he might by this strengthen believers in the faith of Christ and convert the unbelieving Jews.
Lastly, whether you read if, or Song of Solomon , the meaning will be the same if si be understood. Wherefore some read si sic (if so), as if Christ said, "Granted that I wish John to remain, what is it to thee?"
Moreover, S. Csarius, the brother of S. Gregory Nazianzen, (Dial5), gives this fresh interpretation, "I wish John to remain here by the sea of Galilee," but this seems too literal and frigid.
Anagogically, the contemplative and beatific and triumphant life in heaven is here represented in St. John , and the active and militant life on earth in S. Peter. Listen to S. Augustine (Tract124) "Why did the Lord love John the most when Peter loved the Lord the most? By so much I understand he is better who most loves Christ, but he is happier whom Christ most loves. I think then that two modes of life are here signified, one which is in faith by the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship; and therefore it is said to him, Follow Me, by imitation, viz, in bearing temporal ills. But the other life, which is in hope, by S. John , concerning whom it is said, So I will him to tarry till I come, when, that Isaiah , I am about to give him everlasting blessings. Let perfect action follow Me, being made strong by the example of my Passion: but let contemplation remain in an inchoate condition, i.e, let it look for perfection when I come."
Both are more briefly stated in the Gloss: "That one should love most is for mercy to be made manifest, and justice hidden. Here two modes of life are commended to the Church. For the government of the storm-tossed Church the keys are given, for binding and loosing sins. For the sake of that quiet rest upon the bosom of Jesus a man lies down where he may drink of truth. And because John is a virgin, he is a
