John 21:22,23

“ Jesus says to him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is it to thee? Follow thou me! 23. The report spread abroad, therefore, among the brethren that this disciple should not die; but Jesus did not say to him that he should not die, but, If I will that he tarry till I come. ”

This question of Peter, although springing from an affectionate feeling, had something indiscreet in it; this the Lord makes him feel by the words: What is it to thee? The coming of the Lord, in the fourth Gospel (ch. 14-16), denotes His coming in the Spirit, from the day of Pentecost. This meaning is not applicable here, since Peter, as well as John, was present at that event. In the passage John 14:3, the expression “the coming” of Jesus includes, in addition to His return in the Spirit, the death of the apostles. This application has been attempted here, in the sense that Jesus would predict for John a gentle and natural death at the end of a long apostolic career, in contrast with the martyrdom of Peter. This, or nearly this, is the view of Grotius, Olshausen, Weitzel and Ewald. But could the Lord mean to say that He returns only for those of His followers who die by a natural death, and not for those who perish by a violent death? This would be a strange, even an absurd idea, and one which is contradicted by the story of the death of Stephen. As the coming of the Lord denotes in the Synoptics and with John himself (1Jn 2:28; 1Jn 3:2) the glorious return of Jesus at the end of the present economy, Meyer, Reuss, Weiss and others apply this sense here: “If I will that he tarry till my Parousia. ” It was thus that the contemporaries of John interpreted this saying, until the time of his death; for it is only thus that we can understand the inference, which they drew from it, that he would not die that is, that he would belong to that company of believers who, being alive at the moment of the Parousia, will not be raised, but translated (1 Corinthians 15:51).

This explanation was so much the more natural at that period, since there was a belief in the nearness of the Parousia. It continued even after the death of John, in the form of the popular legend, according to which John was said to have laid himself down in his grave and to be sleeping there until the return of Christ, or in that of the Greek legend, according to which John was said to have been raised immediately after his death, and was to reappear with the two witnesses of the Apocalypse in order to sustain the Church in its last struggle against Antichrist. But, setting aside these legends, if this view is accepted, it must be resolutely maintained, with Weiss, that Jesus shared the error of His contemporaries in relation to the nearness of His return, which would absolutely contradict the Synoptic documents (see my Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, Vol. II., pp. 325, 336), or fall back, with Meyer, upon the hypothetical form of Jesus' words: If I will, which is no less inadmissible, for Jesus could not have presented as possible (on the condition of His good pleasure) a thing which was impossible.

He promised, according to others (Lange, Luthardt, etc.), the preservation of John's life until the great judgment in the fall of Jerusalem, which may indeed be called the first act of the Coming of Christ; comp. Matthew 10:23: “I say to you that you shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come;” and Matthew 26:64: “ Henceforth you shall see the Son of man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven. ” Peter did not see this great manifestation of the glorified Christ, but John survived it. Yes, objects Weiss, but far too long for this explanation. But the length of time that John still lived after this event is of little consequence. For the until has nothing exclusive in it. Of all these proposed views, this would seem to us the least improbable. The attempt has also been made to apply this saying to the Apocalyptic vision, which Jesus here promised to John (Bengel, Hengstenberg); or a proof has been sought in it in favor of the necessity of the apostleship even till the end of time (Thiersch); Schelling (comp. Bonnet) saw in it the promise of the Johannean period, which, succeeding that of Peter (the middle ages) and that of Paul (the Reformation), would close the earthly development of the Church.

I have already before this observed that, as the primitive epoch of humanity had its Enoch and the theocratic epoch its Elijah, the Christian epoch might well have also its leader freed from death. And I have asked whether John might not in a mysterious way accompany the progress of the Church on earth, as in the scene of the draught of fishes he accompanied to the shore the boat which was suddenly abandoned by Peter. One raises such a question evidently only when one is not completely satisfied with any of the solutions which more naturally present themselves.

From this point is discovered to us the unity of ch. 21. The foundation of the whole scene is the miraculous draught of fishes, which typifies the future of the Christian ministry, in general. On this foundation the two special narratives stand forth, having relation to the part and destiny of the two principal apostles Peter, who will leave the boat of the Church suddenly by the violent death of martyrdom, and John, who will accompany it even to the shore.

After this saying relative to John, Jesus again invites Peter to follow Him in order to receive His orders, and to resume, from that moment, the active service of the ministry and of the direction of the apostolate, which had been temporarily interrupted. The σύ, thou, which Jesus makes prominent here (comp. the difference in John 21:19), contrasts Peter with John: “ Thou do thou think of what I command thee, and leave to God His own secrets.” The Alexandrian authorities place the μοι, me, before the verb, which would give it a special emphasis: “Occupy thyself with me and with no other!” This seems to me forced. The author, without indicating in John 21:23 the meaning of the saying of Jesus, which perhaps he does not himself know, contents himself with correcting the misapprehension which was connected with it.

The last words: what is it to thee? are not indispensable, and it is possible that the reading of the Sinaitic MS., which omits them, is the true one. The present οὐκ ἀποθνήσκει, he does not die, is that of the idea. We feel that the author reproduces this λόγος, this saying, just as it was repeated in the Church at the very moment when he was writing.

To whom are we to ascribe the redaction of this supplement? The stamp of the Johannean style and manner is so impressed upon it from one end to the other, that there are only two alternatives: either a man living in habitual association with the apostle drew up this narrative, after having often heard it from his lips, or John himself drew it up. Between these two suppositions, the choice is of little consequence. In favor of the second may be alleged: 1. The last place assigned to the two sons of Zebedee among the apostles named in John 21:1; John 2. The very delicate way in which the finest shades of the conversation between Jesus and Peter are given. For the former may be urged: 1. The use of some terms which are not found again in the writings of John 2. The relation between John 21:23 and John 21:24, which easily leads us to regard him who wrote John 21:23 as one of those who say: We know, in John 21:24; perhaps, also, as the one who speaks in the first person singular in John 21:25.

Baur and a part of his school have seen in the redaction and addition of this appendix a manoeuvre designed to exalt John, the apostle of Asia Minor, above Peter, the patron of the Church of Rome. But it is precisely Peter who is made prominent in this story (comp. John 21:1; John 21:11; John 21:15-17; John 21:19; John 21:22). So Koestlin and Volkmar have made a complete turn, and claimed that, contrary to the intention of the whole Gospel, this chapter is a Roman addition designed to make Peter prominent, whom the author of the fourth Gospel had constantly tried to depreciate. Reuss expresses himself more circumspectly: the author desired to re-establish the consideration for Peter, compromised by his denial.

The first two suppositions counterbalance each other. The third would suit rather the end which Jesus proposed to Himself in the scene itself, than the design which presided over its redaction.