Chapter XXI.

Chapter XXI.1-14.Appearance of Jesus to the disciples at the Sea of Galilee; the miraculous draught of fish, after which St. John first recognises Jesus, and St. Peter leaps from the boat into the water to come to Him. The breakfast miraculously prepared for the disciples by Jesus.15-17.Peter's triple confession of his love for his master; he is constituted by Jesus visible head of the whole Church.18-19.Jesus predicts the manner of Peter's death, as St. John explains.20-23.He reproves Peter's curiosity regarding the end in store for St. John.24-25.The conclusion.The authenticity of this last chapter of our Gospel has been questioned (seeIntrod. v.), and it has been contended that the chapter was not written by St. John, but by some disciple or disciples of his after his death. Even among those who admit its authenticity, some have held that it was not written at the same time as the rest of the Gospel, but at a later period, and added on as an appendix.138Both those who deny the authenticity of the chapter, and those who hold it to be an authenticappendix, written at a later date, argue from the last two verses of chapter xx., which, they say, prove that St. John intended to conclude at that point. In addition to this, those who deny the authenticity, contend that the style of this chapter is so different from that of the rest of the Gospel as to compel the belief that both cannot possibly be the work of the same hand.We may begin by remarking that no Catholic is free to doubt theinspirationof the chapter, so that whoever wrote it must[pg 373]have been inspired. This follows from the decree of Trent, which defined theentire booksof the Vulgate with all theirparts(and this is certainly a part, not merely a“particula”of this Gospel) to be canonical Scripture. See above on iv.3,4.Hence, the only questions remaining are: (a) whether St. John orsome other inspired writerwrote the chapter; and (b) in case St. John wrote it, whether he wrote it at the same time as the rest of the Gospel, or later, and as an appendix.With Catholic commentators generally, we hold that the chapter was written by St. John and at the same time as the rest of the Gospel. For, since it is read in all the MSS., and quoted by all the fathers, the natural inference is that it stood in the Gospel from the beginning. Against this unanimous testimony of tradition, the arguments for any other view have no weight. For, as to the argument drawn from the last two verses of chapter xx., we have already, with Mald., Tol., and Cornely, given the most probable explanation of those verses, from which it appears that they were not intended as a conclusion of the whole Gospel, but only of that portion of it which deals with the proofs of His Divinity afforded by Christ to the Apostles during His risen life.139As to the argument from the difference of style, we confidently deny that any such difference exists. Kuinoel, no mean judge on such a point, and certainly not a prejudiced witness, says:“Omnino probari nequit, scribendi genus, in hoc capite, si clausulam140ejus exceperis, diversum esse a scribendi genere, quod in reliquo Evangelio deprehenditur.”1. Postea manifestavit se iterum Iesus discipulis ad mare Tiberiadis. Manifestavit autem sic:1. After this Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias. And he shewedhimselfafter this manner.1.After this.How many days after Low Sunday (xx. 26) the events now to be recorded occurred, we cannot determine. In the meantime, at all events, the disciples had left Jerusalem and gone to Galilee (Mat. xxviii. 16), in obedience to the express desire of their Divine Master (Mat. xxviii. 7; Mark xvi. 7).The sea of Tiberias.See above onvi. i.[pg 374]2. Erant simul Simon Petrus, et Thomas, qui dicitur Didymus, et Nathanael, qui erat a Cana Galilaeae, et filii Zebedaei, et alii ex discipulis eius duo.2. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas who is called Didymus, and Nathanael who was of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples.2.Nathanaelis most probably the same with Bartholomew, the Apostle. See above oni. 45.And two others of his disciples.Who they were we cannot tell. Had“the sons of Zebedee”not been already named, it would be quite in the style of our Evangelist to refer to his brother James and himself in this way.3. Dicit eis Simon Petrus: Vado piscari, Dicunt ei: Venimus et nos tecum. Et exierunt, et ascenderunt in navim: et illa nocte nihil prendiderunt.3. Simon Peter saith to them: I go a fishing. They say to him: We also come with thee. And they went forth and entered into the ship, and that night they caught nothing.3. As they had not yet begun to preach the Gospel, and thus to have a right to support from the faithful, they had to provide themselves with the necessaries of life, and so they“go a fishing.”And they went forthfrom the house where they were,and entered into the ship(τὸ πλοῖον), which was there, lent or hired for their use;and that night they caught nothing, God having so arranged, no doubt, in order to make the miracle of the following morning more remarkable.4. Mane autem facto stetit Iesus in littore: non tamen cognoverunt discipuli quia Iesus est.4. But when the morning was come, Jesus stood on the shore: yet the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.4.But when the morning was come.The better supported Greek reading (γινομένης not γενομένης) gives the meaning:“When the morning was breaking.”But even if this be the correct reading, and the morning was only breaking, still this fact by itself may not be the whole reason why the disciples failed to recognise Jesus. Even when they had come close to him (verse 12), they knew it was He, rather because of what had happened than from the testimony[pg 375]of their eyes. Comp. Luke xxiv. 16.5. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Pueri numquid pulmentarium habetis? Responderunt ei: Non.5. Jesus therefore said to them: Children, have you any meat? They answered him: No.5. Jesus called to them from the shore:“Have you any meat?”The Revised Version renders:“Have you aught to eat?”The Hellenistic Greek word (προσφάγιον), which is here used, meant primarily something that was eaten as relish with other food, but it came to mean food generally, and so the meaning here probably is:“have you anything to eat?”See Lidd. and Scott,sub voce.6. Dicit eis: mittite in dexteram navigii rete: et invenietis. Miserunt ergo: et iam non valebant illud trahere prae multitudine piscium.6. He saith to them: Cast the net on the right side of the ship; and you shall find. They cast therefore: and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.6.On the right side of the ship.Jesus directed them to the particular spot (which John, who was present, is careful to record), in order that they might not look upon the draught as a mere accident. Why they so readily obeyed one unknown to them, we cannot say with certainty. Perhaps the minds of some of them reverted to another occasion, in many respects similar to this (Luke v. 4-10), when, after a night of fruitless toil, their Master, then with them in His mortal flesh, blessed their labours with a miraculous draught of fish in the morning. And though they did not nowknowit was He that spoke to them, yet we cannot help thinking, especially when we remember how they were now come to Galilee in expectation of His appearance to them, that some of them must havesuspectedthat perhaps it was He who now called to them from the shore.To draw it,i.e., into the boat. In verse 11 we are told that they“drew”it to land. It will be noticed that a different word is used in verse 8 of dragging the net after the boat.7. Dixit ergo discipulus ille quem diligebat Iesus, Petro: Dominus est. Simon Petrus cum audisset quia Dominus est, tunica succinxit se (erat enim nudus) et misit se in mare.7. That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved, said to Peter: It is the Lord. Simon Peter, when he heard that it was the Lord, girt his coat about him (for he was naked) and cast himself into the sea.7. The beloved disciple infers from the miraculous draught that it is the Lord who stands upon the shore.[pg 376]Simon Peter(add“therefore,”οὖν)when he heard that it was the Lord, girt his coat about him (for he was naked). The virgin disciple was the first to recognise his master, but Peter as usual was the leader in action. The“coat”was some garment usuallyworn over another(ἐπενδύτην), perhaps an outer and looser tunic, which Peter had laid aside while fishing. As he was about to swim to his Master, and foresaw that his garments should necessarily be wet, he probably thought it decorous to have some other garment on him besides the tight-fitting inner tunic. We suppose therefore that he was already clothed in the inner tunic. He girded himself in order that the garment might not impede him when swimming. The Greek word, which, in our Version, is rendered“naked,”is used not only of those who are entirely naked, but also of those who are sparingly clad. See Matt. xxv. 36; Acts xix. 16; 1 Kings xix. 24.8. Alii autem discipuli navigio venerunt (non enim longe erant a terra, sed quasi cubitis ducentis), trahentes rete piscium.8. But the other disciples came in the ship (for they were not far from the land, but as it were two hundred cubits) dragging the net with fishes.8.In the ship.Rather:“in the boat”(τῷ πλοιαρίω). It may be that the reference is to a small boat that was attached to the larger vessel (τὸ πλοῖον) mentioned in verse 3. As the cubit was eighteen inches, the distance of the boat from the shore was 100 yards.9. Ut ergo descenderunt in terram, viderunt prunas positas, et piscem superpositum, et panem.9. As soon then as they came to land, they saw hot coals lying, and a fish laid thereon, and bread.9.They saw hot coals lying.In the circumstances, the natural view is that the fire, as well as the fish and bread, was provided miraculously. Doubtless one of Christ's objects in preparing this repast was to prove to His disciples that He could and would provide for the temporal as well as the spiritual necessities of His followers.[pg 377]10. Dicit eis Iesus: Afferte de piscibus, quos prendidistis nunc.10. Jesus saith to them: Bring hither of the fishes which you have now caught.10. There are various views as to why He said this. Some say because He wished them to cook some of the fish, as what was on the fire was not enough for all. But, especially on account of the next verse, we believe Christ's object was to give the disciples an occasion of seeing at once the size and number of the fishes, that so they might be the more impressed with the greatness of the miracle.11. Ascendit Simon Petrus, et traxit rete in terrain, plenum magnis piscibus centum quinquaginta tribus. Et cum tanti essent, non est scissum rete.11. Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred fifty-three. And although there were so many, the net was not broken.11.Simon Peter went up.Peter wentaboard, and drew the net to land. The fact that the net was not broken is evidently mentioned as something extraordinary. If this great draught was intended, as doubtless it was (see Matthew iv. 19; Luke v. 10:“From henceforth thou shalt catch men”), to symbolize the success which was to attend the labours of the Apostles in drawing men into the Church, we may note how fitting it was that Peter led the way in going to fish (verse 3), and landed the net, and brought the fish to his Master on this occasion. For it was he who first preached to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, converting about three thousand (Acts ii. 14-41), and he, too, who opened the Church to the Gentiles (Acts x. 1-48).12. Dicit eis Iesus: Venite, prendete. Et nemo audebat discumbentium interrogare eum: Tu quis es? scientes quia Dominus est.12. Jesus saith to them: Come, and dine. And none of them who were at meat, durst ask him: Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.12.Come, and dine(ἀριστήσατε). Theprimarymeaning of the Greek word used, has reference to breakfast, and since it was early morning (verse 4), that is the meaning here.And none of them that were at meat durst ask him.The best supported Greek reading has:“And noneof the disciplesdurst ask him.”The words that follow in this verse seem to imply that Christ's appearance on this occasion was not that which was familiar to the disciples;[pg 378]yet that because of the miracles they were convinced that it was He. Some, as Kuinoel, think that ἐτόλμα (durst) is redundant.13. Et venit Iesus, et accipit panem, et dat eis, et piscem similiter.13. And Jesus cometh and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish in like manner.13. Their risen Master is not merely their host, but He condescends also to be their servant. Whether He Himself ate with them, as on another occasion (Luke xxiv. 43), we are not told.And taketh bread(τὸν ἄρτον). The article points back to the bread mentioned in verse 9, which Christ Himself had provided. So, too, in the case of the fish (τὸ ὀψάριον).14. Hoc iam tertio manifestatus est Iesus discipulis suis, cum resurrexisset a mortuis.14. This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after he was risen from the dead.14.This is now the third time, &c. It was not His third appearance absolutely, for our Evangelist himself has already recorded three before this: that to Magdalen (xx. 14-18), that to the ten Apostles on Easter Sunday (xx. 19-23), and that to the eleven on Low Sunday (xx. 26). The meaning, then, appears to be, that this was the third appearance to anyconsiderable numberof the disciples.Some, as Patrizzi, suppose this appearance at the sea of Galilee to have been absolutely the seventh, after the resurrection, mentioned in the Gospels. Others make it the eighth, and suppose the one upon the mountain of Galilee (Matt. xxviii. 16) to have been the seventh. We rather incline to the view that it was the seventh; and, perhaps, at this seventh appearance Jesus named to the Apostles the mountain on which His eighth appearance would take place (Matt. xxviii. 16). For the other appearances of the Lord during the forty days of His risen life, see Mark xvi. 14-20; Acts i. 4-9; 1 Cor. xv. 5-7.15. Cum ergo prandissent, dicit Simoni Petro Iesus: Simon Ioannis, diligis me plus his? Dicit ei: Etiam Domine, tu scis quia amote. Dicit ei: Pasce agnos meos.15. When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simonsonof John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.15.When, therefore.When they had breakfasted, and were, therefore, free from distractions, so that they could attend to what was said, Jesus addressed Peter.Simon, son of John(see above oni. 42). It was certainly not without a reason that Jesus here addressed Peter by his former name of Simon.[pg 379]Though the Apostle's name had been already changed into Peter (Mark iii. 10), still he had not yet begun to be what that new name indicated, therockor foundation of the Church, its Pope and supreme head on earth. Our Lord was now about to confer that dignity upon him, and the mention of his former name, now that he was accustomed to the name of Peter, was calculated to remind him of the change of name, and still more of thepromisedauthority and pre-eminence (Matt. xvi. 17, 19), which that change implied.More than these.It is supremely ridiculous to suppose, as some Protestants have done, that Christ merely meant to ask, if Peter loved Him more than he lovedthese fish. Surely that would be but a poor proof of his love for his Master! It is equally improbable, though not quite so absurd, to suppose that Christ meant: Lovest thou Me more than thou lovest these companions of thine? For Peter knew and believed Jesus to be God (Matt. xvi. 16), had declared before now his readiness to die with Him (Luke xxii. 33), and on this very morning had proved the intensity of his love for his Master by leaping from the boat and quitting the Apostles to come to Him. Surely, then, it is wholly improbable that Christ merely meant to ask if Peter loved Him more than he loved his fellow-Apostles.The meaning, then, plainly is: lovest thou Me more than these love Me? Peter replies, humbly avoiding any comparison between his own love and that of his companions, and appealing to Jesus, whom he knew to be the Searcher of Hearts, in confirmation of the love that he avows:Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. It is worthy of note that the word which Peter uses to express his love, is not that which Christ had just used in His question. Christ had asked: Lovest thou (ἀγαπᾷς) Me? Peter replies: Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love (φιλῶ) Thee. Many commentators think the distinction is not to be pressed, but we cannot believe that Peter changed the word without a reason, especially as he does so again in his second reply (verse 16), and Christ, in His third question, adopts the word that Peter insists upon using. Whatever the distinction be, it is lost in our English version; but the reader will see that an effort is made to preserve it in the[pg 380]Vulgate, which in each case renders ἀγαπάω, by“diligo,”and φιλέω by“amo.”We think that Trench properly appreciates the difference between the two words.“On occasion,”he says,“of that threefold Lovest thou Me,”which the risen Lord addresses to Peter, He asks him first, ἀγαπᾷ με. At that moment, when all the pulses in the heart of the now penitent Apostle are beating with an earnest affection towards his Lord, this word on that Lord's lips sounds too cold; not sufficiently expressing the warmth of his personal affection toward Him. Besides the question itself, which grieves and hurts Peter (verse 17), there is an additional pang in the form which the question takes, sounding as though it were intended to put him at a comparative distance from his Lord, and to keep him there; or at least as not permitting him to approach so near to Him as he fain would. He, therefore, in his answer substitutes for it the word of a morepersonallove, φιλῶ σε (verse 15). When Christ repeats the question in the same words as at the first, Peter in his reply again substitutes his φιλῶ for the ἀγαπᾷς of his Lord (verse 16). And now at length he has conquered; for when for the third time his Master puts the question to him, He does it with the word which Peter feels will alone express all that is in his heart, and instead of the twice-repeated ἀγαπαᾷς, His word is φιλεῖς, now (verse 17). (Trench,Syn. of the New Testament, pp. 48, 49).14116. Dicit ei iterum: Simon Ioannis, diligis me? Ait illi: Etiam, Domine, tu scis quia amo te. Dicit ei: Pasce agnos meos.16. He saith to him again: Simonsonof John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.16. In the second question our Lord drops the comparison between Peter's love and that of the other Apostles, and, according to the Greek text, uses different words in giving Peter his commission. Before, it was:FeedMylambs(Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου): now it is:Tend(or rule) Mysheep(ποίμανε τὰ πρόβατά μου). Among Uncial MSS., B and C read προβάτια (little sheep) here. But A, D, X, and nearly[pg 381]all others read πρόβατά; and while the Vulg. (agnos) favours the former, the Vetus Itala (oves) supports the latter. It is difficult, then, to decide between the two readings.Whether Christ intended to signify one portion of His Church by the lambs, the remaining portion by the sheep, or merely used two different terms to indicate, in each case,the whole flock, matters little as to the sense of the passage; for in either case the whole flock of Christ is committed to Peter's care.17. Dicit ei tertio: Simon Ioannis, amas me? Contristatus est Petrus, quia dixit ei tertio, Amas me? et dixit ei: Domine, tu omnia nosti: tu scis quia amo te. Dixit ei: Pasce oves meas.17. He said to him the third time: Simon son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.17. Again, a third time, Jesus puts the question, but now changing His word to the stronger word of Peter's choice. This threefold repetition of the question, provoking the threefold confession of Peter's love, was probably intended, not only to make amends for Peter's threefold denial, but also to indicate the solemn importance of the trust that was now committed to him. Peter was grieved at the repetition of the question, because it seemed as if his Lord suspected the sincerity of his love, or, perhaps, he feared that the repeated questioning foreboded another fall.He said to him: Feed my sheep.Here, too, as in the preceding verse it is doubtful whether“little sheep”or“sheep”is the true reading. In favour of the former we have here not only B and C but also A. On the other hand, the Vulgate in this verse (oves) supports the latter. The diminutive, as a term of endearment, would not be out of place in this verse or the preceding.The Vatican Council has interpreted this passage, verses 15-17, of the bestowal of the primacy on Peter—a primacy not merely of honour, but also of jurisdiction—so that no Catholic is free to interpret the passage in any sense other than this.“Docemus itaque et declaramus, Juxta Evangelii testimonia primatumjurisdictionisinuniversamDei Ecclesiamimmediateet directe beato Petro Apostolo promissum atque collatum a Christo Domino fuisse.... Atque uni[pg 382]Simoni Petro contulit Jesus post suam resurrectionem summi pastoris et rectoris jurisdictionem in totum suum ovile, dicendo: Pasce agnos meos: Pasce oves meas”(Decr. Vat., cap. 1,De Apost. Prim. Instit.) And, indeed, the passage cannot reasonably be interpreted in any other sense. For Peter alone is addressed, and his love for his master singled out for comparison with that of his companions, to show that to him individually, and not to them with him, the commission here given was entrusted.What that commission was the Vatican Council tells us in the passage already quoted, and the words of Christ prove. Peter was appointed to feed thewhole flockof Christ, to rule it as a shepherd rules his sheep. Now, the shepherd not merely feeds his sheep, but he directs and controls them, tends them, guards them from harm (see above onx. 1), and in various other ways promotes their good.“Wherefore the primacy conferred upon Peter in this metaphor is anordinary142,immediate143,universal,supreme, power toteachmen the doctrine of Christ, to furnish them with thepasturesof salvation, through the Sacraments, evangelical counsels, &c.; tomake lawsby which the sheep may be directed to the eternal pastures; toappoint subordinate pastors; tosecure that the laws be observed; topunishdisobedient sheep, and tobring back erring sheepto the fold. It is, therefore, the fullest power ofEpiscopal jurisdiction. Wherefore St. Peter himself (1 Peter ii. 25) calls Christ‘theshepherdand bishop of souls’”(Corl.).This wonderful power, then, which as visible head of the Church, and in behalf of its invisible Head Jesus Christ, Peter was to exercise through himself and his successors over all the flock of Christ, whether bishops, priests, or people, was given to him on the shore of the sea of Galilee, on the present occasion.18. Amen, amen dico tibi: cum esses iunior, cingebas te, et ambulabas ubi volebas: cum autem senueris, extendes manus tuas, et alius te cinget, et ducet quo tu non vis.18. Amen, amen, I say to thee: when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not.18. We are told by St. John in the following verse that, in the words recorded in this, Christ signified bywhat kind(ποὶῳ) of death Peter should glorify God. Why the Lord chose this particular time, immediately after he had appointed Peter supreme head of the Church, to foretell for[pg 383]the Apostle a martyr's death by crucifixion, we cannot say with certainty. Probably it was to console Peter, now grieved by the thrice-repeated question, and to assure him that, though he had denied his Lord and had just now been closely questioned as to his love, yet his final perseverance was secure.When thou wast younger, opposed here to:“When thou shalt be old,”probably includes Peter's life up to the time to which the prediction refers. It is as if Christ had said: Whilst thouartyoung; for as Kuinoel on this verse says:“Praeterita de re praesente in oraculis adhibentur.”At all events, Peter was still young in the sense of the word here, for we know from verse 7 that on this very morning he had girded himself.Thou didst gird thyself, &c. The meaning is: Throughout your life, as on this morning before you swam to Me, you gird yourself when you will to do what you will, and go where you will; but the day shall come when your hands shall no longer be free to gird yourself, but you shall stretch them forth to have them bound to the transverse beam of a cross,144and another shall gird you (with a cloth round your loins), and shall lead you away to death—to death, from which human naturenaturallyrecoils.19. Hoc autem dixit, significans qua morte clarificaturus esset Deum. Et cum hoc dixisset, dicit ei: Sequere me.19. And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me.19.And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God.When St. John wrote this, St. Peter's death had thrown light on Christ's words, if, indeed, our Evangelist did not understand their meaning at the time they were spoken. That Peter understood it, we may rest assured. According to tradition, Peter, at his own request, was crucified with his head downwards, declining, in his humility, to be crucified like his Lord.Follow me.Most of the fathers take these words to[pg 384]mean, not so much that Peter was now to walk after Jesus, as that he was to follow Him through the death of the cross to the glory of the Father. Compare xiii.36,37.20. Conversus Petrus vidit illum discipulum, quem diligebat Iesus, sequentem, qui et recubuit in coena super pectus eius, et dixit: Domine quis est qui tradet te?20. Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee?20.Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following.From these words it would appear that Christ had begun to move away and Peter to follow, as if to symbolize the higher sense in which Peter was one day to tread in His footsteps.Who also leaned.Rather,“who also leaned back”(ἀνέπεσεν). The reference is to the incident recorded inxiii. 25, not to the position John occupied at table.21. Hunc ergo cum vidisset Petrus, dixit Iesu: Domine hic autem quid?21. Him therefore when Peter had seen, he saith to Jesus: Lord, and whatshallthis mando?21. Peter, having learned what his own end was to be, was now anxious to know the end that awaited our Evangelist, who was so dear to Jesus and to himself. He therefore asked:“And what shall this man do?”or rather as the Greek has it;“And this man, what?”that is to say, what end awaits him?22. Dicit ei Iesus: Sic eum volo manere donec veniam, quid ad te? tu me sequere.22. Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? follow thou me.22.So I will, &c.“So”translates the Vulgate“sic,”which is a misprint forsi(ἐαν). Hence the true reading is: If I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? FollowthouMe. Our Lord here reproves Peter's curiosity and bids him see to himself, nor wish to know more than his Master was pleased to communicate.Follow thou me.“Thou”is emphatic. Peter's question regarding the end that awaited John; and our Lord's reply, contrasting as it does the two Apostles (“If I will havehim”... Followthou), justifies us in taking the words“Follow thou me”in reference to Peter's death by crucifixion.[pg 385]23. Exiit ergo sermo iste inter fratres quia discipulus ille non moritur. Et non dixit ei Iesus: Non moritur: sed: Sic eum volo manere donec veniam, quid ad te?23. This saying therefore went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. And Jesus did not say to him: He should not die; but, So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?23. Our Evangelist tells us here what wasnotthe meaning of the Lord's words; what their meaning was, he does not say. He merely wished to show that the words afforded no ground for the belief which prevailed among the faithful, and which his own very advanced age at the time when this Gospel was written tended to confirm, that he was not to die at all, or at least not until the day of judgment. Those who deny the authenticity of this last chapter appeal triumphantly to this verse. It was written, they say, after St. John died, when it become necessary to explain away the meaning that had been put upon our Lord's words. But, from what we have said already, the reader will have seen that there is not the slightest reason why this verse may not have been written by St. John himself.There is a difference of opinion as to what our Lord meant by the words:“If I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?”Some have taken the meaning to be: If I will have him to remain till I come for him in anaturaldeath, what is it to thee? But this is not probable; Christ comes for the martyr just as much as for him who dies a natural death.Others thus: If I will have him to remain till My coming at the destruction of Jerusalem, what is it to thee?But it is most likely that Christ's coming when spoken of absolutely, as here, refers to His coming at the day of judgment. Hence the most probable view seems to be:If I wereto will him to remain living even till the day of judgment, what were that to thee? Thus our Lord makes a purely hypothetical case, and conveys no information to Peter, thereby reproving still more his curiosity.24. Hic est discipulus ille qui testimonium perhibet de his, et scripsit haec: et scimus quia verum est testimonium eius.24. This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things: and we know that his testimony is true.25. Sunt autem et alia multa quae fecit Iesus: quae si scribantur per singula, nec ipsum arbitror mundum capere posse eos, qui scribendi sunt, libros.25. But there are also many other things which Jesus did: which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.24, 25. The authenticity of these verses has been questioned more than that of the rest of the chapter, both because it is not in St. John's manner to speak of himself in the[pg 386]plural number (as here in verse 24:“weknow”), and because of the hyperbole in verse 25. For these reasons, some Catholic writers have denied their authenticity, though no Catholic, as far as we are aware, has denied theirinspiration. Those Catholics who deny their authenticity, hold that they were probably written by the bishops of Asia Minor, at whose request St. John wrote the Gospel. SeeIntrod. iii., note. This view is not without some probability. Still, we prefer the common opinion of Catholic commentators, that the verses were written by St. John himself; for without them the conclusion of the Gospel would be extremely abrupt.As to the reasons for the opposite view, though we admit that St. John does not usually employ the first person plural, still it is not unnatural that in closing his Gospel he should wish to confirm his own testimony by an appeal to the consenting voice of his contemporaries. Besides, he does use the same form of expression in i. 14:“And we saw his glory.”See also 1 Ep. i. 3. As to the argument drawn from the alleged extravagance of the hyperbole in verse 25, it has no weight. For, there is no reason why St. John may not have used this striking hyperbole to signify the inexhaustible treasury of instruction contained in our Divine Lord's life and works, and to suggest the deep truth that a full account (“every one”) of Christ's human life would be practically infinite.“Hunc loquendi modum,”says St. Aug. on this passage,“Graeco nomine hyperbolem vocant: qui modus, sicut hoc loco, ita in nonnullis aliis divinis Literis invenitur ... et multa hujusmodi, sicutalii tropi, Scripturis S. non desunt.”

Chapter XXI.1-14.Appearance of Jesus to the disciples at the Sea of Galilee; the miraculous draught of fish, after which St. John first recognises Jesus, and St. Peter leaps from the boat into the water to come to Him. The breakfast miraculously prepared for the disciples by Jesus.15-17.Peter's triple confession of his love for his master; he is constituted by Jesus visible head of the whole Church.18-19.Jesus predicts the manner of Peter's death, as St. John explains.20-23.He reproves Peter's curiosity regarding the end in store for St. John.24-25.The conclusion.The authenticity of this last chapter of our Gospel has been questioned (seeIntrod. v.), and it has been contended that the chapter was not written by St. John, but by some disciple or disciples of his after his death. Even among those who admit its authenticity, some have held that it was not written at the same time as the rest of the Gospel, but at a later period, and added on as an appendix.138Both those who deny the authenticity of the chapter, and those who hold it to be an authenticappendix, written at a later date, argue from the last two verses of chapter xx., which, they say, prove that St. John intended to conclude at that point. In addition to this, those who deny the authenticity, contend that the style of this chapter is so different from that of the rest of the Gospel as to compel the belief that both cannot possibly be the work of the same hand.We may begin by remarking that no Catholic is free to doubt theinspirationof the chapter, so that whoever wrote it must[pg 373]have been inspired. This follows from the decree of Trent, which defined theentire booksof the Vulgate with all theirparts(and this is certainly a part, not merely a“particula”of this Gospel) to be canonical Scripture. See above on iv.3,4.Hence, the only questions remaining are: (a) whether St. John orsome other inspired writerwrote the chapter; and (b) in case St. John wrote it, whether he wrote it at the same time as the rest of the Gospel, or later, and as an appendix.With Catholic commentators generally, we hold that the chapter was written by St. John and at the same time as the rest of the Gospel. For, since it is read in all the MSS., and quoted by all the fathers, the natural inference is that it stood in the Gospel from the beginning. Against this unanimous testimony of tradition, the arguments for any other view have no weight. For, as to the argument drawn from the last two verses of chapter xx., we have already, with Mald., Tol., and Cornely, given the most probable explanation of those verses, from which it appears that they were not intended as a conclusion of the whole Gospel, but only of that portion of it which deals with the proofs of His Divinity afforded by Christ to the Apostles during His risen life.139As to the argument from the difference of style, we confidently deny that any such difference exists. Kuinoel, no mean judge on such a point, and certainly not a prejudiced witness, says:“Omnino probari nequit, scribendi genus, in hoc capite, si clausulam140ejus exceperis, diversum esse a scribendi genere, quod in reliquo Evangelio deprehenditur.”1. Postea manifestavit se iterum Iesus discipulis ad mare Tiberiadis. Manifestavit autem sic:1. After this Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias. And he shewedhimselfafter this manner.1.After this.How many days after Low Sunday (xx. 26) the events now to be recorded occurred, we cannot determine. In the meantime, at all events, the disciples had left Jerusalem and gone to Galilee (Mat. xxviii. 16), in obedience to the express desire of their Divine Master (Mat. xxviii. 7; Mark xvi. 7).The sea of Tiberias.See above onvi. i.[pg 374]2. Erant simul Simon Petrus, et Thomas, qui dicitur Didymus, et Nathanael, qui erat a Cana Galilaeae, et filii Zebedaei, et alii ex discipulis eius duo.2. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas who is called Didymus, and Nathanael who was of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples.2.Nathanaelis most probably the same with Bartholomew, the Apostle. See above oni. 45.And two others of his disciples.Who they were we cannot tell. Had“the sons of Zebedee”not been already named, it would be quite in the style of our Evangelist to refer to his brother James and himself in this way.3. Dicit eis Simon Petrus: Vado piscari, Dicunt ei: Venimus et nos tecum. Et exierunt, et ascenderunt in navim: et illa nocte nihil prendiderunt.3. Simon Peter saith to them: I go a fishing. They say to him: We also come with thee. And they went forth and entered into the ship, and that night they caught nothing.3. As they had not yet begun to preach the Gospel, and thus to have a right to support from the faithful, they had to provide themselves with the necessaries of life, and so they“go a fishing.”And they went forthfrom the house where they were,and entered into the ship(τὸ πλοῖον), which was there, lent or hired for their use;and that night they caught nothing, God having so arranged, no doubt, in order to make the miracle of the following morning more remarkable.4. Mane autem facto stetit Iesus in littore: non tamen cognoverunt discipuli quia Iesus est.4. But when the morning was come, Jesus stood on the shore: yet the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.4.But when the morning was come.The better supported Greek reading (γινομένης not γενομένης) gives the meaning:“When the morning was breaking.”But even if this be the correct reading, and the morning was only breaking, still this fact by itself may not be the whole reason why the disciples failed to recognise Jesus. Even when they had come close to him (verse 12), they knew it was He, rather because of what had happened than from the testimony[pg 375]of their eyes. Comp. Luke xxiv. 16.5. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Pueri numquid pulmentarium habetis? Responderunt ei: Non.5. Jesus therefore said to them: Children, have you any meat? They answered him: No.5. Jesus called to them from the shore:“Have you any meat?”The Revised Version renders:“Have you aught to eat?”The Hellenistic Greek word (προσφάγιον), which is here used, meant primarily something that was eaten as relish with other food, but it came to mean food generally, and so the meaning here probably is:“have you anything to eat?”See Lidd. and Scott,sub voce.6. Dicit eis: mittite in dexteram navigii rete: et invenietis. Miserunt ergo: et iam non valebant illud trahere prae multitudine piscium.6. He saith to them: Cast the net on the right side of the ship; and you shall find. They cast therefore: and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.6.On the right side of the ship.Jesus directed them to the particular spot (which John, who was present, is careful to record), in order that they might not look upon the draught as a mere accident. Why they so readily obeyed one unknown to them, we cannot say with certainty. Perhaps the minds of some of them reverted to another occasion, in many respects similar to this (Luke v. 4-10), when, after a night of fruitless toil, their Master, then with them in His mortal flesh, blessed their labours with a miraculous draught of fish in the morning. And though they did not nowknowit was He that spoke to them, yet we cannot help thinking, especially when we remember how they were now come to Galilee in expectation of His appearance to them, that some of them must havesuspectedthat perhaps it was He who now called to them from the shore.To draw it,i.e., into the boat. In verse 11 we are told that they“drew”it to land. It will be noticed that a different word is used in verse 8 of dragging the net after the boat.7. Dixit ergo discipulus ille quem diligebat Iesus, Petro: Dominus est. Simon Petrus cum audisset quia Dominus est, tunica succinxit se (erat enim nudus) et misit se in mare.7. That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved, said to Peter: It is the Lord. Simon Peter, when he heard that it was the Lord, girt his coat about him (for he was naked) and cast himself into the sea.7. The beloved disciple infers from the miraculous draught that it is the Lord who stands upon the shore.[pg 376]Simon Peter(add“therefore,”οὖν)when he heard that it was the Lord, girt his coat about him (for he was naked). The virgin disciple was the first to recognise his master, but Peter as usual was the leader in action. The“coat”was some garment usuallyworn over another(ἐπενδύτην), perhaps an outer and looser tunic, which Peter had laid aside while fishing. As he was about to swim to his Master, and foresaw that his garments should necessarily be wet, he probably thought it decorous to have some other garment on him besides the tight-fitting inner tunic. We suppose therefore that he was already clothed in the inner tunic. He girded himself in order that the garment might not impede him when swimming. The Greek word, which, in our Version, is rendered“naked,”is used not only of those who are entirely naked, but also of those who are sparingly clad. See Matt. xxv. 36; Acts xix. 16; 1 Kings xix. 24.8. Alii autem discipuli navigio venerunt (non enim longe erant a terra, sed quasi cubitis ducentis), trahentes rete piscium.8. But the other disciples came in the ship (for they were not far from the land, but as it were two hundred cubits) dragging the net with fishes.8.In the ship.Rather:“in the boat”(τῷ πλοιαρίω). It may be that the reference is to a small boat that was attached to the larger vessel (τὸ πλοῖον) mentioned in verse 3. As the cubit was eighteen inches, the distance of the boat from the shore was 100 yards.9. Ut ergo descenderunt in terram, viderunt prunas positas, et piscem superpositum, et panem.9. As soon then as they came to land, they saw hot coals lying, and a fish laid thereon, and bread.9.They saw hot coals lying.In the circumstances, the natural view is that the fire, as well as the fish and bread, was provided miraculously. Doubtless one of Christ's objects in preparing this repast was to prove to His disciples that He could and would provide for the temporal as well as the spiritual necessities of His followers.[pg 377]10. Dicit eis Iesus: Afferte de piscibus, quos prendidistis nunc.10. Jesus saith to them: Bring hither of the fishes which you have now caught.10. There are various views as to why He said this. Some say because He wished them to cook some of the fish, as what was on the fire was not enough for all. But, especially on account of the next verse, we believe Christ's object was to give the disciples an occasion of seeing at once the size and number of the fishes, that so they might be the more impressed with the greatness of the miracle.11. Ascendit Simon Petrus, et traxit rete in terrain, plenum magnis piscibus centum quinquaginta tribus. Et cum tanti essent, non est scissum rete.11. Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred fifty-three. And although there were so many, the net was not broken.11.Simon Peter went up.Peter wentaboard, and drew the net to land. The fact that the net was not broken is evidently mentioned as something extraordinary. If this great draught was intended, as doubtless it was (see Matthew iv. 19; Luke v. 10:“From henceforth thou shalt catch men”), to symbolize the success which was to attend the labours of the Apostles in drawing men into the Church, we may note how fitting it was that Peter led the way in going to fish (verse 3), and landed the net, and brought the fish to his Master on this occasion. For it was he who first preached to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, converting about three thousand (Acts ii. 14-41), and he, too, who opened the Church to the Gentiles (Acts x. 1-48).12. Dicit eis Iesus: Venite, prendete. Et nemo audebat discumbentium interrogare eum: Tu quis es? scientes quia Dominus est.12. Jesus saith to them: Come, and dine. And none of them who were at meat, durst ask him: Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.12.Come, and dine(ἀριστήσατε). Theprimarymeaning of the Greek word used, has reference to breakfast, and since it was early morning (verse 4), that is the meaning here.And none of them that were at meat durst ask him.The best supported Greek reading has:“And noneof the disciplesdurst ask him.”The words that follow in this verse seem to imply that Christ's appearance on this occasion was not that which was familiar to the disciples;[pg 378]yet that because of the miracles they were convinced that it was He. Some, as Kuinoel, think that ἐτόλμα (durst) is redundant.13. Et venit Iesus, et accipit panem, et dat eis, et piscem similiter.13. And Jesus cometh and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish in like manner.13. Their risen Master is not merely their host, but He condescends also to be their servant. Whether He Himself ate with them, as on another occasion (Luke xxiv. 43), we are not told.And taketh bread(τὸν ἄρτον). The article points back to the bread mentioned in verse 9, which Christ Himself had provided. So, too, in the case of the fish (τὸ ὀψάριον).14. Hoc iam tertio manifestatus est Iesus discipulis suis, cum resurrexisset a mortuis.14. This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after he was risen from the dead.14.This is now the third time, &c. It was not His third appearance absolutely, for our Evangelist himself has already recorded three before this: that to Magdalen (xx. 14-18), that to the ten Apostles on Easter Sunday (xx. 19-23), and that to the eleven on Low Sunday (xx. 26). The meaning, then, appears to be, that this was the third appearance to anyconsiderable numberof the disciples.Some, as Patrizzi, suppose this appearance at the sea of Galilee to have been absolutely the seventh, after the resurrection, mentioned in the Gospels. Others make it the eighth, and suppose the one upon the mountain of Galilee (Matt. xxviii. 16) to have been the seventh. We rather incline to the view that it was the seventh; and, perhaps, at this seventh appearance Jesus named to the Apostles the mountain on which His eighth appearance would take place (Matt. xxviii. 16). For the other appearances of the Lord during the forty days of His risen life, see Mark xvi. 14-20; Acts i. 4-9; 1 Cor. xv. 5-7.15. Cum ergo prandissent, dicit Simoni Petro Iesus: Simon Ioannis, diligis me plus his? Dicit ei: Etiam Domine, tu scis quia amote. Dicit ei: Pasce agnos meos.15. When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simonsonof John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.15.When, therefore.When they had breakfasted, and were, therefore, free from distractions, so that they could attend to what was said, Jesus addressed Peter.Simon, son of John(see above oni. 42). It was certainly not without a reason that Jesus here addressed Peter by his former name of Simon.[pg 379]Though the Apostle's name had been already changed into Peter (Mark iii. 10), still he had not yet begun to be what that new name indicated, therockor foundation of the Church, its Pope and supreme head on earth. Our Lord was now about to confer that dignity upon him, and the mention of his former name, now that he was accustomed to the name of Peter, was calculated to remind him of the change of name, and still more of thepromisedauthority and pre-eminence (Matt. xvi. 17, 19), which that change implied.More than these.It is supremely ridiculous to suppose, as some Protestants have done, that Christ merely meant to ask, if Peter loved Him more than he lovedthese fish. Surely that would be but a poor proof of his love for his Master! It is equally improbable, though not quite so absurd, to suppose that Christ meant: Lovest thou Me more than thou lovest these companions of thine? For Peter knew and believed Jesus to be God (Matt. xvi. 16), had declared before now his readiness to die with Him (Luke xxii. 33), and on this very morning had proved the intensity of his love for his Master by leaping from the boat and quitting the Apostles to come to Him. Surely, then, it is wholly improbable that Christ merely meant to ask if Peter loved Him more than he loved his fellow-Apostles.The meaning, then, plainly is: lovest thou Me more than these love Me? Peter replies, humbly avoiding any comparison between his own love and that of his companions, and appealing to Jesus, whom he knew to be the Searcher of Hearts, in confirmation of the love that he avows:Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. It is worthy of note that the word which Peter uses to express his love, is not that which Christ had just used in His question. Christ had asked: Lovest thou (ἀγαπᾷς) Me? Peter replies: Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love (φιλῶ) Thee. Many commentators think the distinction is not to be pressed, but we cannot believe that Peter changed the word without a reason, especially as he does so again in his second reply (verse 16), and Christ, in His third question, adopts the word that Peter insists upon using. Whatever the distinction be, it is lost in our English version; but the reader will see that an effort is made to preserve it in the[pg 380]Vulgate, which in each case renders ἀγαπάω, by“diligo,”and φιλέω by“amo.”We think that Trench properly appreciates the difference between the two words.“On occasion,”he says,“of that threefold Lovest thou Me,”which the risen Lord addresses to Peter, He asks him first, ἀγαπᾷ με. At that moment, when all the pulses in the heart of the now penitent Apostle are beating with an earnest affection towards his Lord, this word on that Lord's lips sounds too cold; not sufficiently expressing the warmth of his personal affection toward Him. Besides the question itself, which grieves and hurts Peter (verse 17), there is an additional pang in the form which the question takes, sounding as though it were intended to put him at a comparative distance from his Lord, and to keep him there; or at least as not permitting him to approach so near to Him as he fain would. He, therefore, in his answer substitutes for it the word of a morepersonallove, φιλῶ σε (verse 15). When Christ repeats the question in the same words as at the first, Peter in his reply again substitutes his φιλῶ for the ἀγαπᾷς of his Lord (verse 16). And now at length he has conquered; for when for the third time his Master puts the question to him, He does it with the word which Peter feels will alone express all that is in his heart, and instead of the twice-repeated ἀγαπαᾷς, His word is φιλεῖς, now (verse 17). (Trench,Syn. of the New Testament, pp. 48, 49).14116. Dicit ei iterum: Simon Ioannis, diligis me? Ait illi: Etiam, Domine, tu scis quia amo te. Dicit ei: Pasce agnos meos.16. He saith to him again: Simonsonof John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.16. In the second question our Lord drops the comparison between Peter's love and that of the other Apostles, and, according to the Greek text, uses different words in giving Peter his commission. Before, it was:FeedMylambs(Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου): now it is:Tend(or rule) Mysheep(ποίμανε τὰ πρόβατά μου). Among Uncial MSS., B and C read προβάτια (little sheep) here. But A, D, X, and nearly[pg 381]all others read πρόβατά; and while the Vulg. (agnos) favours the former, the Vetus Itala (oves) supports the latter. It is difficult, then, to decide between the two readings.Whether Christ intended to signify one portion of His Church by the lambs, the remaining portion by the sheep, or merely used two different terms to indicate, in each case,the whole flock, matters little as to the sense of the passage; for in either case the whole flock of Christ is committed to Peter's care.17. Dicit ei tertio: Simon Ioannis, amas me? Contristatus est Petrus, quia dixit ei tertio, Amas me? et dixit ei: Domine, tu omnia nosti: tu scis quia amo te. Dixit ei: Pasce oves meas.17. He said to him the third time: Simon son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.17. Again, a third time, Jesus puts the question, but now changing His word to the stronger word of Peter's choice. This threefold repetition of the question, provoking the threefold confession of Peter's love, was probably intended, not only to make amends for Peter's threefold denial, but also to indicate the solemn importance of the trust that was now committed to him. Peter was grieved at the repetition of the question, because it seemed as if his Lord suspected the sincerity of his love, or, perhaps, he feared that the repeated questioning foreboded another fall.He said to him: Feed my sheep.Here, too, as in the preceding verse it is doubtful whether“little sheep”or“sheep”is the true reading. In favour of the former we have here not only B and C but also A. On the other hand, the Vulgate in this verse (oves) supports the latter. The diminutive, as a term of endearment, would not be out of place in this verse or the preceding.The Vatican Council has interpreted this passage, verses 15-17, of the bestowal of the primacy on Peter—a primacy not merely of honour, but also of jurisdiction—so that no Catholic is free to interpret the passage in any sense other than this.“Docemus itaque et declaramus, Juxta Evangelii testimonia primatumjurisdictionisinuniversamDei Ecclesiamimmediateet directe beato Petro Apostolo promissum atque collatum a Christo Domino fuisse.... Atque uni[pg 382]Simoni Petro contulit Jesus post suam resurrectionem summi pastoris et rectoris jurisdictionem in totum suum ovile, dicendo: Pasce agnos meos: Pasce oves meas”(Decr. Vat., cap. 1,De Apost. Prim. Instit.) And, indeed, the passage cannot reasonably be interpreted in any other sense. For Peter alone is addressed, and his love for his master singled out for comparison with that of his companions, to show that to him individually, and not to them with him, the commission here given was entrusted.What that commission was the Vatican Council tells us in the passage already quoted, and the words of Christ prove. Peter was appointed to feed thewhole flockof Christ, to rule it as a shepherd rules his sheep. Now, the shepherd not merely feeds his sheep, but he directs and controls them, tends them, guards them from harm (see above onx. 1), and in various other ways promotes their good.“Wherefore the primacy conferred upon Peter in this metaphor is anordinary142,immediate143,universal,supreme, power toteachmen the doctrine of Christ, to furnish them with thepasturesof salvation, through the Sacraments, evangelical counsels, &c.; tomake lawsby which the sheep may be directed to the eternal pastures; toappoint subordinate pastors; tosecure that the laws be observed; topunishdisobedient sheep, and tobring back erring sheepto the fold. It is, therefore, the fullest power ofEpiscopal jurisdiction. Wherefore St. Peter himself (1 Peter ii. 25) calls Christ‘theshepherdand bishop of souls’”(Corl.).This wonderful power, then, which as visible head of the Church, and in behalf of its invisible Head Jesus Christ, Peter was to exercise through himself and his successors over all the flock of Christ, whether bishops, priests, or people, was given to him on the shore of the sea of Galilee, on the present occasion.18. Amen, amen dico tibi: cum esses iunior, cingebas te, et ambulabas ubi volebas: cum autem senueris, extendes manus tuas, et alius te cinget, et ducet quo tu non vis.18. Amen, amen, I say to thee: when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not.18. We are told by St. John in the following verse that, in the words recorded in this, Christ signified bywhat kind(ποὶῳ) of death Peter should glorify God. Why the Lord chose this particular time, immediately after he had appointed Peter supreme head of the Church, to foretell for[pg 383]the Apostle a martyr's death by crucifixion, we cannot say with certainty. Probably it was to console Peter, now grieved by the thrice-repeated question, and to assure him that, though he had denied his Lord and had just now been closely questioned as to his love, yet his final perseverance was secure.When thou wast younger, opposed here to:“When thou shalt be old,”probably includes Peter's life up to the time to which the prediction refers. It is as if Christ had said: Whilst thouartyoung; for as Kuinoel on this verse says:“Praeterita de re praesente in oraculis adhibentur.”At all events, Peter was still young in the sense of the word here, for we know from verse 7 that on this very morning he had girded himself.Thou didst gird thyself, &c. The meaning is: Throughout your life, as on this morning before you swam to Me, you gird yourself when you will to do what you will, and go where you will; but the day shall come when your hands shall no longer be free to gird yourself, but you shall stretch them forth to have them bound to the transverse beam of a cross,144and another shall gird you (with a cloth round your loins), and shall lead you away to death—to death, from which human naturenaturallyrecoils.19. Hoc autem dixit, significans qua morte clarificaturus esset Deum. Et cum hoc dixisset, dicit ei: Sequere me.19. And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me.19.And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God.When St. John wrote this, St. Peter's death had thrown light on Christ's words, if, indeed, our Evangelist did not understand their meaning at the time they were spoken. That Peter understood it, we may rest assured. According to tradition, Peter, at his own request, was crucified with his head downwards, declining, in his humility, to be crucified like his Lord.Follow me.Most of the fathers take these words to[pg 384]mean, not so much that Peter was now to walk after Jesus, as that he was to follow Him through the death of the cross to the glory of the Father. Compare xiii.36,37.20. Conversus Petrus vidit illum discipulum, quem diligebat Iesus, sequentem, qui et recubuit in coena super pectus eius, et dixit: Domine quis est qui tradet te?20. Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee?20.Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following.From these words it would appear that Christ had begun to move away and Peter to follow, as if to symbolize the higher sense in which Peter was one day to tread in His footsteps.Who also leaned.Rather,“who also leaned back”(ἀνέπεσεν). The reference is to the incident recorded inxiii. 25, not to the position John occupied at table.21. Hunc ergo cum vidisset Petrus, dixit Iesu: Domine hic autem quid?21. Him therefore when Peter had seen, he saith to Jesus: Lord, and whatshallthis mando?21. Peter, having learned what his own end was to be, was now anxious to know the end that awaited our Evangelist, who was so dear to Jesus and to himself. He therefore asked:“And what shall this man do?”or rather as the Greek has it;“And this man, what?”that is to say, what end awaits him?22. Dicit ei Iesus: Sic eum volo manere donec veniam, quid ad te? tu me sequere.22. Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? follow thou me.22.So I will, &c.“So”translates the Vulgate“sic,”which is a misprint forsi(ἐαν). Hence the true reading is: If I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? FollowthouMe. Our Lord here reproves Peter's curiosity and bids him see to himself, nor wish to know more than his Master was pleased to communicate.Follow thou me.“Thou”is emphatic. Peter's question regarding the end that awaited John; and our Lord's reply, contrasting as it does the two Apostles (“If I will havehim”... Followthou), justifies us in taking the words“Follow thou me”in reference to Peter's death by crucifixion.[pg 385]23. Exiit ergo sermo iste inter fratres quia discipulus ille non moritur. Et non dixit ei Iesus: Non moritur: sed: Sic eum volo manere donec veniam, quid ad te?23. This saying therefore went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. And Jesus did not say to him: He should not die; but, So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?23. Our Evangelist tells us here what wasnotthe meaning of the Lord's words; what their meaning was, he does not say. He merely wished to show that the words afforded no ground for the belief which prevailed among the faithful, and which his own very advanced age at the time when this Gospel was written tended to confirm, that he was not to die at all, or at least not until the day of judgment. Those who deny the authenticity of this last chapter appeal triumphantly to this verse. It was written, they say, after St. John died, when it become necessary to explain away the meaning that had been put upon our Lord's words. But, from what we have said already, the reader will have seen that there is not the slightest reason why this verse may not have been written by St. John himself.There is a difference of opinion as to what our Lord meant by the words:“If I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?”Some have taken the meaning to be: If I will have him to remain till I come for him in anaturaldeath, what is it to thee? But this is not probable; Christ comes for the martyr just as much as for him who dies a natural death.Others thus: If I will have him to remain till My coming at the destruction of Jerusalem, what is it to thee?But it is most likely that Christ's coming when spoken of absolutely, as here, refers to His coming at the day of judgment. Hence the most probable view seems to be:If I wereto will him to remain living even till the day of judgment, what were that to thee? Thus our Lord makes a purely hypothetical case, and conveys no information to Peter, thereby reproving still more his curiosity.24. Hic est discipulus ille qui testimonium perhibet de his, et scripsit haec: et scimus quia verum est testimonium eius.24. This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things: and we know that his testimony is true.25. Sunt autem et alia multa quae fecit Iesus: quae si scribantur per singula, nec ipsum arbitror mundum capere posse eos, qui scribendi sunt, libros.25. But there are also many other things which Jesus did: which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.24, 25. The authenticity of these verses has been questioned more than that of the rest of the chapter, both because it is not in St. John's manner to speak of himself in the[pg 386]plural number (as here in verse 24:“weknow”), and because of the hyperbole in verse 25. For these reasons, some Catholic writers have denied their authenticity, though no Catholic, as far as we are aware, has denied theirinspiration. Those Catholics who deny their authenticity, hold that they were probably written by the bishops of Asia Minor, at whose request St. John wrote the Gospel. SeeIntrod. iii., note. This view is not without some probability. Still, we prefer the common opinion of Catholic commentators, that the verses were written by St. John himself; for without them the conclusion of the Gospel would be extremely abrupt.As to the reasons for the opposite view, though we admit that St. John does not usually employ the first person plural, still it is not unnatural that in closing his Gospel he should wish to confirm his own testimony by an appeal to the consenting voice of his contemporaries. Besides, he does use the same form of expression in i. 14:“And we saw his glory.”See also 1 Ep. i. 3. As to the argument drawn from the alleged extravagance of the hyperbole in verse 25, it has no weight. For, there is no reason why St. John may not have used this striking hyperbole to signify the inexhaustible treasury of instruction contained in our Divine Lord's life and works, and to suggest the deep truth that a full account (“every one”) of Christ's human life would be practically infinite.“Hunc loquendi modum,”says St. Aug. on this passage,“Graeco nomine hyperbolem vocant: qui modus, sicut hoc loco, ita in nonnullis aliis divinis Literis invenitur ... et multa hujusmodi, sicutalii tropi, Scripturis S. non desunt.”

Chapter XXI.1-14.Appearance of Jesus to the disciples at the Sea of Galilee; the miraculous draught of fish, after which St. John first recognises Jesus, and St. Peter leaps from the boat into the water to come to Him. The breakfast miraculously prepared for the disciples by Jesus.15-17.Peter's triple confession of his love for his master; he is constituted by Jesus visible head of the whole Church.18-19.Jesus predicts the manner of Peter's death, as St. John explains.20-23.He reproves Peter's curiosity regarding the end in store for St. John.24-25.The conclusion.The authenticity of this last chapter of our Gospel has been questioned (seeIntrod. v.), and it has been contended that the chapter was not written by St. John, but by some disciple or disciples of his after his death. Even among those who admit its authenticity, some have held that it was not written at the same time as the rest of the Gospel, but at a later period, and added on as an appendix.138Both those who deny the authenticity of the chapter, and those who hold it to be an authenticappendix, written at a later date, argue from the last two verses of chapter xx., which, they say, prove that St. John intended to conclude at that point. In addition to this, those who deny the authenticity, contend that the style of this chapter is so different from that of the rest of the Gospel as to compel the belief that both cannot possibly be the work of the same hand.We may begin by remarking that no Catholic is free to doubt theinspirationof the chapter, so that whoever wrote it must[pg 373]have been inspired. This follows from the decree of Trent, which defined theentire booksof the Vulgate with all theirparts(and this is certainly a part, not merely a“particula”of this Gospel) to be canonical Scripture. See above on iv.3,4.Hence, the only questions remaining are: (a) whether St. John orsome other inspired writerwrote the chapter; and (b) in case St. John wrote it, whether he wrote it at the same time as the rest of the Gospel, or later, and as an appendix.With Catholic commentators generally, we hold that the chapter was written by St. John and at the same time as the rest of the Gospel. For, since it is read in all the MSS., and quoted by all the fathers, the natural inference is that it stood in the Gospel from the beginning. Against this unanimous testimony of tradition, the arguments for any other view have no weight. For, as to the argument drawn from the last two verses of chapter xx., we have already, with Mald., Tol., and Cornely, given the most probable explanation of those verses, from which it appears that they were not intended as a conclusion of the whole Gospel, but only of that portion of it which deals with the proofs of His Divinity afforded by Christ to the Apostles during His risen life.139As to the argument from the difference of style, we confidently deny that any such difference exists. Kuinoel, no mean judge on such a point, and certainly not a prejudiced witness, says:“Omnino probari nequit, scribendi genus, in hoc capite, si clausulam140ejus exceperis, diversum esse a scribendi genere, quod in reliquo Evangelio deprehenditur.”1. Postea manifestavit se iterum Iesus discipulis ad mare Tiberiadis. Manifestavit autem sic:1. After this Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias. And he shewedhimselfafter this manner.1.After this.How many days after Low Sunday (xx. 26) the events now to be recorded occurred, we cannot determine. In the meantime, at all events, the disciples had left Jerusalem and gone to Galilee (Mat. xxviii. 16), in obedience to the express desire of their Divine Master (Mat. xxviii. 7; Mark xvi. 7).The sea of Tiberias.See above onvi. i.[pg 374]2. Erant simul Simon Petrus, et Thomas, qui dicitur Didymus, et Nathanael, qui erat a Cana Galilaeae, et filii Zebedaei, et alii ex discipulis eius duo.2. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas who is called Didymus, and Nathanael who was of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples.2.Nathanaelis most probably the same with Bartholomew, the Apostle. See above oni. 45.And two others of his disciples.Who they were we cannot tell. Had“the sons of Zebedee”not been already named, it would be quite in the style of our Evangelist to refer to his brother James and himself in this way.3. Dicit eis Simon Petrus: Vado piscari, Dicunt ei: Venimus et nos tecum. Et exierunt, et ascenderunt in navim: et illa nocte nihil prendiderunt.3. Simon Peter saith to them: I go a fishing. They say to him: We also come with thee. And they went forth and entered into the ship, and that night they caught nothing.3. As they had not yet begun to preach the Gospel, and thus to have a right to support from the faithful, they had to provide themselves with the necessaries of life, and so they“go a fishing.”And they went forthfrom the house where they were,and entered into the ship(τὸ πλοῖον), which was there, lent or hired for their use;and that night they caught nothing, God having so arranged, no doubt, in order to make the miracle of the following morning more remarkable.4. Mane autem facto stetit Iesus in littore: non tamen cognoverunt discipuli quia Iesus est.4. But when the morning was come, Jesus stood on the shore: yet the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.4.But when the morning was come.The better supported Greek reading (γινομένης not γενομένης) gives the meaning:“When the morning was breaking.”But even if this be the correct reading, and the morning was only breaking, still this fact by itself may not be the whole reason why the disciples failed to recognise Jesus. Even when they had come close to him (verse 12), they knew it was He, rather because of what had happened than from the testimony[pg 375]of their eyes. Comp. Luke xxiv. 16.5. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Pueri numquid pulmentarium habetis? Responderunt ei: Non.5. Jesus therefore said to them: Children, have you any meat? They answered him: No.5. Jesus called to them from the shore:“Have you any meat?”The Revised Version renders:“Have you aught to eat?”The Hellenistic Greek word (προσφάγιον), which is here used, meant primarily something that was eaten as relish with other food, but it came to mean food generally, and so the meaning here probably is:“have you anything to eat?”See Lidd. and Scott,sub voce.6. Dicit eis: mittite in dexteram navigii rete: et invenietis. Miserunt ergo: et iam non valebant illud trahere prae multitudine piscium.6. He saith to them: Cast the net on the right side of the ship; and you shall find. They cast therefore: and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.6.On the right side of the ship.Jesus directed them to the particular spot (which John, who was present, is careful to record), in order that they might not look upon the draught as a mere accident. Why they so readily obeyed one unknown to them, we cannot say with certainty. Perhaps the minds of some of them reverted to another occasion, in many respects similar to this (Luke v. 4-10), when, after a night of fruitless toil, their Master, then with them in His mortal flesh, blessed their labours with a miraculous draught of fish in the morning. And though they did not nowknowit was He that spoke to them, yet we cannot help thinking, especially when we remember how they were now come to Galilee in expectation of His appearance to them, that some of them must havesuspectedthat perhaps it was He who now called to them from the shore.To draw it,i.e., into the boat. In verse 11 we are told that they“drew”it to land. It will be noticed that a different word is used in verse 8 of dragging the net after the boat.7. Dixit ergo discipulus ille quem diligebat Iesus, Petro: Dominus est. Simon Petrus cum audisset quia Dominus est, tunica succinxit se (erat enim nudus) et misit se in mare.7. That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved, said to Peter: It is the Lord. Simon Peter, when he heard that it was the Lord, girt his coat about him (for he was naked) and cast himself into the sea.7. The beloved disciple infers from the miraculous draught that it is the Lord who stands upon the shore.[pg 376]Simon Peter(add“therefore,”οὖν)when he heard that it was the Lord, girt his coat about him (for he was naked). The virgin disciple was the first to recognise his master, but Peter as usual was the leader in action. The“coat”was some garment usuallyworn over another(ἐπενδύτην), perhaps an outer and looser tunic, which Peter had laid aside while fishing. As he was about to swim to his Master, and foresaw that his garments should necessarily be wet, he probably thought it decorous to have some other garment on him besides the tight-fitting inner tunic. We suppose therefore that he was already clothed in the inner tunic. He girded himself in order that the garment might not impede him when swimming. The Greek word, which, in our Version, is rendered“naked,”is used not only of those who are entirely naked, but also of those who are sparingly clad. See Matt. xxv. 36; Acts xix. 16; 1 Kings xix. 24.8. Alii autem discipuli navigio venerunt (non enim longe erant a terra, sed quasi cubitis ducentis), trahentes rete piscium.8. But the other disciples came in the ship (for they were not far from the land, but as it were two hundred cubits) dragging the net with fishes.8.In the ship.Rather:“in the boat”(τῷ πλοιαρίω). It may be that the reference is to a small boat that was attached to the larger vessel (τὸ πλοῖον) mentioned in verse 3. As the cubit was eighteen inches, the distance of the boat from the shore was 100 yards.9. Ut ergo descenderunt in terram, viderunt prunas positas, et piscem superpositum, et panem.9. As soon then as they came to land, they saw hot coals lying, and a fish laid thereon, and bread.9.They saw hot coals lying.In the circumstances, the natural view is that the fire, as well as the fish and bread, was provided miraculously. Doubtless one of Christ's objects in preparing this repast was to prove to His disciples that He could and would provide for the temporal as well as the spiritual necessities of His followers.[pg 377]10. Dicit eis Iesus: Afferte de piscibus, quos prendidistis nunc.10. Jesus saith to them: Bring hither of the fishes which you have now caught.10. There are various views as to why He said this. Some say because He wished them to cook some of the fish, as what was on the fire was not enough for all. But, especially on account of the next verse, we believe Christ's object was to give the disciples an occasion of seeing at once the size and number of the fishes, that so they might be the more impressed with the greatness of the miracle.11. Ascendit Simon Petrus, et traxit rete in terrain, plenum magnis piscibus centum quinquaginta tribus. Et cum tanti essent, non est scissum rete.11. Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred fifty-three. And although there were so many, the net was not broken.11.Simon Peter went up.Peter wentaboard, and drew the net to land. The fact that the net was not broken is evidently mentioned as something extraordinary. If this great draught was intended, as doubtless it was (see Matthew iv. 19; Luke v. 10:“From henceforth thou shalt catch men”), to symbolize the success which was to attend the labours of the Apostles in drawing men into the Church, we may note how fitting it was that Peter led the way in going to fish (verse 3), and landed the net, and brought the fish to his Master on this occasion. For it was he who first preached to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, converting about three thousand (Acts ii. 14-41), and he, too, who opened the Church to the Gentiles (Acts x. 1-48).12. Dicit eis Iesus: Venite, prendete. Et nemo audebat discumbentium interrogare eum: Tu quis es? scientes quia Dominus est.12. Jesus saith to them: Come, and dine. And none of them who were at meat, durst ask him: Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.12.Come, and dine(ἀριστήσατε). Theprimarymeaning of the Greek word used, has reference to breakfast, and since it was early morning (verse 4), that is the meaning here.And none of them that were at meat durst ask him.The best supported Greek reading has:“And noneof the disciplesdurst ask him.”The words that follow in this verse seem to imply that Christ's appearance on this occasion was not that which was familiar to the disciples;[pg 378]yet that because of the miracles they were convinced that it was He. Some, as Kuinoel, think that ἐτόλμα (durst) is redundant.13. Et venit Iesus, et accipit panem, et dat eis, et piscem similiter.13. And Jesus cometh and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish in like manner.13. Their risen Master is not merely their host, but He condescends also to be their servant. Whether He Himself ate with them, as on another occasion (Luke xxiv. 43), we are not told.And taketh bread(τὸν ἄρτον). The article points back to the bread mentioned in verse 9, which Christ Himself had provided. So, too, in the case of the fish (τὸ ὀψάριον).14. Hoc iam tertio manifestatus est Iesus discipulis suis, cum resurrexisset a mortuis.14. This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after he was risen from the dead.14.This is now the third time, &c. It was not His third appearance absolutely, for our Evangelist himself has already recorded three before this: that to Magdalen (xx. 14-18), that to the ten Apostles on Easter Sunday (xx. 19-23), and that to the eleven on Low Sunday (xx. 26). The meaning, then, appears to be, that this was the third appearance to anyconsiderable numberof the disciples.Some, as Patrizzi, suppose this appearance at the sea of Galilee to have been absolutely the seventh, after the resurrection, mentioned in the Gospels. Others make it the eighth, and suppose the one upon the mountain of Galilee (Matt. xxviii. 16) to have been the seventh. We rather incline to the view that it was the seventh; and, perhaps, at this seventh appearance Jesus named to the Apostles the mountain on which His eighth appearance would take place (Matt. xxviii. 16). For the other appearances of the Lord during the forty days of His risen life, see Mark xvi. 14-20; Acts i. 4-9; 1 Cor. xv. 5-7.15. Cum ergo prandissent, dicit Simoni Petro Iesus: Simon Ioannis, diligis me plus his? Dicit ei: Etiam Domine, tu scis quia amote. Dicit ei: Pasce agnos meos.15. When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simonsonof John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.15.When, therefore.When they had breakfasted, and were, therefore, free from distractions, so that they could attend to what was said, Jesus addressed Peter.Simon, son of John(see above oni. 42). It was certainly not without a reason that Jesus here addressed Peter by his former name of Simon.[pg 379]Though the Apostle's name had been already changed into Peter (Mark iii. 10), still he had not yet begun to be what that new name indicated, therockor foundation of the Church, its Pope and supreme head on earth. Our Lord was now about to confer that dignity upon him, and the mention of his former name, now that he was accustomed to the name of Peter, was calculated to remind him of the change of name, and still more of thepromisedauthority and pre-eminence (Matt. xvi. 17, 19), which that change implied.More than these.It is supremely ridiculous to suppose, as some Protestants have done, that Christ merely meant to ask, if Peter loved Him more than he lovedthese fish. Surely that would be but a poor proof of his love for his Master! It is equally improbable, though not quite so absurd, to suppose that Christ meant: Lovest thou Me more than thou lovest these companions of thine? For Peter knew and believed Jesus to be God (Matt. xvi. 16), had declared before now his readiness to die with Him (Luke xxii. 33), and on this very morning had proved the intensity of his love for his Master by leaping from the boat and quitting the Apostles to come to Him. Surely, then, it is wholly improbable that Christ merely meant to ask if Peter loved Him more than he loved his fellow-Apostles.The meaning, then, plainly is: lovest thou Me more than these love Me? Peter replies, humbly avoiding any comparison between his own love and that of his companions, and appealing to Jesus, whom he knew to be the Searcher of Hearts, in confirmation of the love that he avows:Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. It is worthy of note that the word which Peter uses to express his love, is not that which Christ had just used in His question. Christ had asked: Lovest thou (ἀγαπᾷς) Me? Peter replies: Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love (φιλῶ) Thee. Many commentators think the distinction is not to be pressed, but we cannot believe that Peter changed the word without a reason, especially as he does so again in his second reply (verse 16), and Christ, in His third question, adopts the word that Peter insists upon using. Whatever the distinction be, it is lost in our English version; but the reader will see that an effort is made to preserve it in the[pg 380]Vulgate, which in each case renders ἀγαπάω, by“diligo,”and φιλέω by“amo.”We think that Trench properly appreciates the difference between the two words.“On occasion,”he says,“of that threefold Lovest thou Me,”which the risen Lord addresses to Peter, He asks him first, ἀγαπᾷ με. At that moment, when all the pulses in the heart of the now penitent Apostle are beating with an earnest affection towards his Lord, this word on that Lord's lips sounds too cold; not sufficiently expressing the warmth of his personal affection toward Him. Besides the question itself, which grieves and hurts Peter (verse 17), there is an additional pang in the form which the question takes, sounding as though it were intended to put him at a comparative distance from his Lord, and to keep him there; or at least as not permitting him to approach so near to Him as he fain would. He, therefore, in his answer substitutes for it the word of a morepersonallove, φιλῶ σε (verse 15). When Christ repeats the question in the same words as at the first, Peter in his reply again substitutes his φιλῶ for the ἀγαπᾷς of his Lord (verse 16). And now at length he has conquered; for when for the third time his Master puts the question to him, He does it with the word which Peter feels will alone express all that is in his heart, and instead of the twice-repeated ἀγαπαᾷς, His word is φιλεῖς, now (verse 17). (Trench,Syn. of the New Testament, pp. 48, 49).14116. Dicit ei iterum: Simon Ioannis, diligis me? Ait illi: Etiam, Domine, tu scis quia amo te. Dicit ei: Pasce agnos meos.16. He saith to him again: Simonsonof John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.16. In the second question our Lord drops the comparison between Peter's love and that of the other Apostles, and, according to the Greek text, uses different words in giving Peter his commission. Before, it was:FeedMylambs(Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου): now it is:Tend(or rule) Mysheep(ποίμανε τὰ πρόβατά μου). Among Uncial MSS., B and C read προβάτια (little sheep) here. But A, D, X, and nearly[pg 381]all others read πρόβατά; and while the Vulg. (agnos) favours the former, the Vetus Itala (oves) supports the latter. It is difficult, then, to decide between the two readings.Whether Christ intended to signify one portion of His Church by the lambs, the remaining portion by the sheep, or merely used two different terms to indicate, in each case,the whole flock, matters little as to the sense of the passage; for in either case the whole flock of Christ is committed to Peter's care.17. Dicit ei tertio: Simon Ioannis, amas me? Contristatus est Petrus, quia dixit ei tertio, Amas me? et dixit ei: Domine, tu omnia nosti: tu scis quia amo te. Dixit ei: Pasce oves meas.17. He said to him the third time: Simon son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.17. Again, a third time, Jesus puts the question, but now changing His word to the stronger word of Peter's choice. This threefold repetition of the question, provoking the threefold confession of Peter's love, was probably intended, not only to make amends for Peter's threefold denial, but also to indicate the solemn importance of the trust that was now committed to him. Peter was grieved at the repetition of the question, because it seemed as if his Lord suspected the sincerity of his love, or, perhaps, he feared that the repeated questioning foreboded another fall.He said to him: Feed my sheep.Here, too, as in the preceding verse it is doubtful whether“little sheep”or“sheep”is the true reading. In favour of the former we have here not only B and C but also A. On the other hand, the Vulgate in this verse (oves) supports the latter. The diminutive, as a term of endearment, would not be out of place in this verse or the preceding.The Vatican Council has interpreted this passage, verses 15-17, of the bestowal of the primacy on Peter—a primacy not merely of honour, but also of jurisdiction—so that no Catholic is free to interpret the passage in any sense other than this.“Docemus itaque et declaramus, Juxta Evangelii testimonia primatumjurisdictionisinuniversamDei Ecclesiamimmediateet directe beato Petro Apostolo promissum atque collatum a Christo Domino fuisse.... Atque uni[pg 382]Simoni Petro contulit Jesus post suam resurrectionem summi pastoris et rectoris jurisdictionem in totum suum ovile, dicendo: Pasce agnos meos: Pasce oves meas”(Decr. Vat., cap. 1,De Apost. Prim. Instit.) And, indeed, the passage cannot reasonably be interpreted in any other sense. For Peter alone is addressed, and his love for his master singled out for comparison with that of his companions, to show that to him individually, and not to them with him, the commission here given was entrusted.What that commission was the Vatican Council tells us in the passage already quoted, and the words of Christ prove. Peter was appointed to feed thewhole flockof Christ, to rule it as a shepherd rules his sheep. Now, the shepherd not merely feeds his sheep, but he directs and controls them, tends them, guards them from harm (see above onx. 1), and in various other ways promotes their good.“Wherefore the primacy conferred upon Peter in this metaphor is anordinary142,immediate143,universal,supreme, power toteachmen the doctrine of Christ, to furnish them with thepasturesof salvation, through the Sacraments, evangelical counsels, &c.; tomake lawsby which the sheep may be directed to the eternal pastures; toappoint subordinate pastors; tosecure that the laws be observed; topunishdisobedient sheep, and tobring back erring sheepto the fold. It is, therefore, the fullest power ofEpiscopal jurisdiction. Wherefore St. Peter himself (1 Peter ii. 25) calls Christ‘theshepherdand bishop of souls’”(Corl.).This wonderful power, then, which as visible head of the Church, and in behalf of its invisible Head Jesus Christ, Peter was to exercise through himself and his successors over all the flock of Christ, whether bishops, priests, or people, was given to him on the shore of the sea of Galilee, on the present occasion.18. Amen, amen dico tibi: cum esses iunior, cingebas te, et ambulabas ubi volebas: cum autem senueris, extendes manus tuas, et alius te cinget, et ducet quo tu non vis.18. Amen, amen, I say to thee: when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not.18. We are told by St. John in the following verse that, in the words recorded in this, Christ signified bywhat kind(ποὶῳ) of death Peter should glorify God. Why the Lord chose this particular time, immediately after he had appointed Peter supreme head of the Church, to foretell for[pg 383]the Apostle a martyr's death by crucifixion, we cannot say with certainty. Probably it was to console Peter, now grieved by the thrice-repeated question, and to assure him that, though he had denied his Lord and had just now been closely questioned as to his love, yet his final perseverance was secure.When thou wast younger, opposed here to:“When thou shalt be old,”probably includes Peter's life up to the time to which the prediction refers. It is as if Christ had said: Whilst thouartyoung; for as Kuinoel on this verse says:“Praeterita de re praesente in oraculis adhibentur.”At all events, Peter was still young in the sense of the word here, for we know from verse 7 that on this very morning he had girded himself.Thou didst gird thyself, &c. The meaning is: Throughout your life, as on this morning before you swam to Me, you gird yourself when you will to do what you will, and go where you will; but the day shall come when your hands shall no longer be free to gird yourself, but you shall stretch them forth to have them bound to the transverse beam of a cross,144and another shall gird you (with a cloth round your loins), and shall lead you away to death—to death, from which human naturenaturallyrecoils.19. Hoc autem dixit, significans qua morte clarificaturus esset Deum. Et cum hoc dixisset, dicit ei: Sequere me.19. And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me.19.And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God.When St. John wrote this, St. Peter's death had thrown light on Christ's words, if, indeed, our Evangelist did not understand their meaning at the time they were spoken. That Peter understood it, we may rest assured. According to tradition, Peter, at his own request, was crucified with his head downwards, declining, in his humility, to be crucified like his Lord.Follow me.Most of the fathers take these words to[pg 384]mean, not so much that Peter was now to walk after Jesus, as that he was to follow Him through the death of the cross to the glory of the Father. Compare xiii.36,37.20. Conversus Petrus vidit illum discipulum, quem diligebat Iesus, sequentem, qui et recubuit in coena super pectus eius, et dixit: Domine quis est qui tradet te?20. Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee?20.Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following.From these words it would appear that Christ had begun to move away and Peter to follow, as if to symbolize the higher sense in which Peter was one day to tread in His footsteps.Who also leaned.Rather,“who also leaned back”(ἀνέπεσεν). The reference is to the incident recorded inxiii. 25, not to the position John occupied at table.21. Hunc ergo cum vidisset Petrus, dixit Iesu: Domine hic autem quid?21. Him therefore when Peter had seen, he saith to Jesus: Lord, and whatshallthis mando?21. Peter, having learned what his own end was to be, was now anxious to know the end that awaited our Evangelist, who was so dear to Jesus and to himself. He therefore asked:“And what shall this man do?”or rather as the Greek has it;“And this man, what?”that is to say, what end awaits him?22. Dicit ei Iesus: Sic eum volo manere donec veniam, quid ad te? tu me sequere.22. Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? follow thou me.22.So I will, &c.“So”translates the Vulgate“sic,”which is a misprint forsi(ἐαν). Hence the true reading is: If I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? FollowthouMe. Our Lord here reproves Peter's curiosity and bids him see to himself, nor wish to know more than his Master was pleased to communicate.Follow thou me.“Thou”is emphatic. Peter's question regarding the end that awaited John; and our Lord's reply, contrasting as it does the two Apostles (“If I will havehim”... Followthou), justifies us in taking the words“Follow thou me”in reference to Peter's death by crucifixion.[pg 385]23. Exiit ergo sermo iste inter fratres quia discipulus ille non moritur. Et non dixit ei Iesus: Non moritur: sed: Sic eum volo manere donec veniam, quid ad te?23. This saying therefore went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. And Jesus did not say to him: He should not die; but, So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?23. Our Evangelist tells us here what wasnotthe meaning of the Lord's words; what their meaning was, he does not say. He merely wished to show that the words afforded no ground for the belief which prevailed among the faithful, and which his own very advanced age at the time when this Gospel was written tended to confirm, that he was not to die at all, or at least not until the day of judgment. Those who deny the authenticity of this last chapter appeal triumphantly to this verse. It was written, they say, after St. John died, when it become necessary to explain away the meaning that had been put upon our Lord's words. But, from what we have said already, the reader will have seen that there is not the slightest reason why this verse may not have been written by St. John himself.There is a difference of opinion as to what our Lord meant by the words:“If I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?”Some have taken the meaning to be: If I will have him to remain till I come for him in anaturaldeath, what is it to thee? But this is not probable; Christ comes for the martyr just as much as for him who dies a natural death.Others thus: If I will have him to remain till My coming at the destruction of Jerusalem, what is it to thee?But it is most likely that Christ's coming when spoken of absolutely, as here, refers to His coming at the day of judgment. Hence the most probable view seems to be:If I wereto will him to remain living even till the day of judgment, what were that to thee? Thus our Lord makes a purely hypothetical case, and conveys no information to Peter, thereby reproving still more his curiosity.24. Hic est discipulus ille qui testimonium perhibet de his, et scripsit haec: et scimus quia verum est testimonium eius.24. This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things: and we know that his testimony is true.25. Sunt autem et alia multa quae fecit Iesus: quae si scribantur per singula, nec ipsum arbitror mundum capere posse eos, qui scribendi sunt, libros.25. But there are also many other things which Jesus did: which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.24, 25. The authenticity of these verses has been questioned more than that of the rest of the chapter, both because it is not in St. John's manner to speak of himself in the[pg 386]plural number (as here in verse 24:“weknow”), and because of the hyperbole in verse 25. For these reasons, some Catholic writers have denied their authenticity, though no Catholic, as far as we are aware, has denied theirinspiration. Those Catholics who deny their authenticity, hold that they were probably written by the bishops of Asia Minor, at whose request St. John wrote the Gospel. SeeIntrod. iii., note. This view is not without some probability. Still, we prefer the common opinion of Catholic commentators, that the verses were written by St. John himself; for without them the conclusion of the Gospel would be extremely abrupt.As to the reasons for the opposite view, though we admit that St. John does not usually employ the first person plural, still it is not unnatural that in closing his Gospel he should wish to confirm his own testimony by an appeal to the consenting voice of his contemporaries. Besides, he does use the same form of expression in i. 14:“And we saw his glory.”See also 1 Ep. i. 3. As to the argument drawn from the alleged extravagance of the hyperbole in verse 25, it has no weight. For, there is no reason why St. John may not have used this striking hyperbole to signify the inexhaustible treasury of instruction contained in our Divine Lord's life and works, and to suggest the deep truth that a full account (“every one”) of Christ's human life would be practically infinite.“Hunc loquendi modum,”says St. Aug. on this passage,“Graeco nomine hyperbolem vocant: qui modus, sicut hoc loco, ita in nonnullis aliis divinis Literis invenitur ... et multa hujusmodi, sicutalii tropi, Scripturis S. non desunt.”

1-14.Appearance of Jesus to the disciples at the Sea of Galilee; the miraculous draught of fish, after which St. John first recognises Jesus, and St. Peter leaps from the boat into the water to come to Him. The breakfast miraculously prepared for the disciples by Jesus.15-17.Peter's triple confession of his love for his master; he is constituted by Jesus visible head of the whole Church.18-19.Jesus predicts the manner of Peter's death, as St. John explains.20-23.He reproves Peter's curiosity regarding the end in store for St. John.24-25.The conclusion.

1-14.Appearance of Jesus to the disciples at the Sea of Galilee; the miraculous draught of fish, after which St. John first recognises Jesus, and St. Peter leaps from the boat into the water to come to Him. The breakfast miraculously prepared for the disciples by Jesus.

15-17.Peter's triple confession of his love for his master; he is constituted by Jesus visible head of the whole Church.

18-19.Jesus predicts the manner of Peter's death, as St. John explains.

20-23.He reproves Peter's curiosity regarding the end in store for St. John.

24-25.The conclusion.

The authenticity of this last chapter of our Gospel has been questioned (seeIntrod. v.), and it has been contended that the chapter was not written by St. John, but by some disciple or disciples of his after his death. Even among those who admit its authenticity, some have held that it was not written at the same time as the rest of the Gospel, but at a later period, and added on as an appendix.138Both those who deny the authenticity of the chapter, and those who hold it to be an authenticappendix, written at a later date, argue from the last two verses of chapter xx., which, they say, prove that St. John intended to conclude at that point. In addition to this, those who deny the authenticity, contend that the style of this chapter is so different from that of the rest of the Gospel as to compel the belief that both cannot possibly be the work of the same hand.

We may begin by remarking that no Catholic is free to doubt theinspirationof the chapter, so that whoever wrote it must[pg 373]have been inspired. This follows from the decree of Trent, which defined theentire booksof the Vulgate with all theirparts(and this is certainly a part, not merely a“particula”of this Gospel) to be canonical Scripture. See above on iv.3,4.

Hence, the only questions remaining are: (a) whether St. John orsome other inspired writerwrote the chapter; and (b) in case St. John wrote it, whether he wrote it at the same time as the rest of the Gospel, or later, and as an appendix.

With Catholic commentators generally, we hold that the chapter was written by St. John and at the same time as the rest of the Gospel. For, since it is read in all the MSS., and quoted by all the fathers, the natural inference is that it stood in the Gospel from the beginning. Against this unanimous testimony of tradition, the arguments for any other view have no weight. For, as to the argument drawn from the last two verses of chapter xx., we have already, with Mald., Tol., and Cornely, given the most probable explanation of those verses, from which it appears that they were not intended as a conclusion of the whole Gospel, but only of that portion of it which deals with the proofs of His Divinity afforded by Christ to the Apostles during His risen life.139

As to the argument from the difference of style, we confidently deny that any such difference exists. Kuinoel, no mean judge on such a point, and certainly not a prejudiced witness, says:“Omnino probari nequit, scribendi genus, in hoc capite, si clausulam140ejus exceperis, diversum esse a scribendi genere, quod in reliquo Evangelio deprehenditur.”

1.After this.How many days after Low Sunday (xx. 26) the events now to be recorded occurred, we cannot determine. In the meantime, at all events, the disciples had left Jerusalem and gone to Galilee (Mat. xxviii. 16), in obedience to the express desire of their Divine Master (Mat. xxviii. 7; Mark xvi. 7).

The sea of Tiberias.See above onvi. i.

2.Nathanaelis most probably the same with Bartholomew, the Apostle. See above oni. 45.

And two others of his disciples.Who they were we cannot tell. Had“the sons of Zebedee”not been already named, it would be quite in the style of our Evangelist to refer to his brother James and himself in this way.

3. As they had not yet begun to preach the Gospel, and thus to have a right to support from the faithful, they had to provide themselves with the necessaries of life, and so they“go a fishing.”

And they went forthfrom the house where they were,and entered into the ship(τὸ πλοῖον), which was there, lent or hired for their use;and that night they caught nothing, God having so arranged, no doubt, in order to make the miracle of the following morning more remarkable.

4.But when the morning was come.The better supported Greek reading (γινομένης not γενομένης) gives the meaning:“When the morning was breaking.”But even if this be the correct reading, and the morning was only breaking, still this fact by itself may not be the whole reason why the disciples failed to recognise Jesus. Even when they had come close to him (verse 12), they knew it was He, rather because of what had happened than from the testimony[pg 375]of their eyes. Comp. Luke xxiv. 16.

5. Jesus called to them from the shore:“Have you any meat?”The Revised Version renders:“Have you aught to eat?”The Hellenistic Greek word (προσφάγιον), which is here used, meant primarily something that was eaten as relish with other food, but it came to mean food generally, and so the meaning here probably is:“have you anything to eat?”See Lidd. and Scott,sub voce.

6.On the right side of the ship.Jesus directed them to the particular spot (which John, who was present, is careful to record), in order that they might not look upon the draught as a mere accident. Why they so readily obeyed one unknown to them, we cannot say with certainty. Perhaps the minds of some of them reverted to another occasion, in many respects similar to this (Luke v. 4-10), when, after a night of fruitless toil, their Master, then with them in His mortal flesh, blessed their labours with a miraculous draught of fish in the morning. And though they did not nowknowit was He that spoke to them, yet we cannot help thinking, especially when we remember how they were now come to Galilee in expectation of His appearance to them, that some of them must havesuspectedthat perhaps it was He who now called to them from the shore.

To draw it,i.e., into the boat. In verse 11 we are told that they“drew”it to land. It will be noticed that a different word is used in verse 8 of dragging the net after the boat.

7. The beloved disciple infers from the miraculous draught that it is the Lord who stands upon the shore.[pg 376]Simon Peter(add“therefore,”οὖν)when he heard that it was the Lord, girt his coat about him (for he was naked). The virgin disciple was the first to recognise his master, but Peter as usual was the leader in action. The“coat”was some garment usuallyworn over another(ἐπενδύτην), perhaps an outer and looser tunic, which Peter had laid aside while fishing. As he was about to swim to his Master, and foresaw that his garments should necessarily be wet, he probably thought it decorous to have some other garment on him besides the tight-fitting inner tunic. We suppose therefore that he was already clothed in the inner tunic. He girded himself in order that the garment might not impede him when swimming. The Greek word, which, in our Version, is rendered“naked,”is used not only of those who are entirely naked, but also of those who are sparingly clad. See Matt. xxv. 36; Acts xix. 16; 1 Kings xix. 24.

8.In the ship.Rather:“in the boat”(τῷ πλοιαρίω). It may be that the reference is to a small boat that was attached to the larger vessel (τὸ πλοῖον) mentioned in verse 3. As the cubit was eighteen inches, the distance of the boat from the shore was 100 yards.

9.They saw hot coals lying.In the circumstances, the natural view is that the fire, as well as the fish and bread, was provided miraculously. Doubtless one of Christ's objects in preparing this repast was to prove to His disciples that He could and would provide for the temporal as well as the spiritual necessities of His followers.

10. There are various views as to why He said this. Some say because He wished them to cook some of the fish, as what was on the fire was not enough for all. But, especially on account of the next verse, we believe Christ's object was to give the disciples an occasion of seeing at once the size and number of the fishes, that so they might be the more impressed with the greatness of the miracle.

11.Simon Peter went up.Peter wentaboard, and drew the net to land. The fact that the net was not broken is evidently mentioned as something extraordinary. If this great draught was intended, as doubtless it was (see Matthew iv. 19; Luke v. 10:“From henceforth thou shalt catch men”), to symbolize the success which was to attend the labours of the Apostles in drawing men into the Church, we may note how fitting it was that Peter led the way in going to fish (verse 3), and landed the net, and brought the fish to his Master on this occasion. For it was he who first preached to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, converting about three thousand (Acts ii. 14-41), and he, too, who opened the Church to the Gentiles (Acts x. 1-48).

12.Come, and dine(ἀριστήσατε). Theprimarymeaning of the Greek word used, has reference to breakfast, and since it was early morning (verse 4), that is the meaning here.

And none of them that were at meat durst ask him.The best supported Greek reading has:“And noneof the disciplesdurst ask him.”The words that follow in this verse seem to imply that Christ's appearance on this occasion was not that which was familiar to the disciples;[pg 378]yet that because of the miracles they were convinced that it was He. Some, as Kuinoel, think that ἐτόλμα (durst) is redundant.

13. Their risen Master is not merely their host, but He condescends also to be their servant. Whether He Himself ate with them, as on another occasion (Luke xxiv. 43), we are not told.

And taketh bread(τὸν ἄρτον). The article points back to the bread mentioned in verse 9, which Christ Himself had provided. So, too, in the case of the fish (τὸ ὀψάριον).

14.This is now the third time, &c. It was not His third appearance absolutely, for our Evangelist himself has already recorded three before this: that to Magdalen (xx. 14-18), that to the ten Apostles on Easter Sunday (xx. 19-23), and that to the eleven on Low Sunday (xx. 26). The meaning, then, appears to be, that this was the third appearance to anyconsiderable numberof the disciples.

Some, as Patrizzi, suppose this appearance at the sea of Galilee to have been absolutely the seventh, after the resurrection, mentioned in the Gospels. Others make it the eighth, and suppose the one upon the mountain of Galilee (Matt. xxviii. 16) to have been the seventh. We rather incline to the view that it was the seventh; and, perhaps, at this seventh appearance Jesus named to the Apostles the mountain on which His eighth appearance would take place (Matt. xxviii. 16). For the other appearances of the Lord during the forty days of His risen life, see Mark xvi. 14-20; Acts i. 4-9; 1 Cor. xv. 5-7.

15.When, therefore.When they had breakfasted, and were, therefore, free from distractions, so that they could attend to what was said, Jesus addressed Peter.

Simon, son of John(see above oni. 42). It was certainly not without a reason that Jesus here addressed Peter by his former name of Simon.[pg 379]Though the Apostle's name had been already changed into Peter (Mark iii. 10), still he had not yet begun to be what that new name indicated, therockor foundation of the Church, its Pope and supreme head on earth. Our Lord was now about to confer that dignity upon him, and the mention of his former name, now that he was accustomed to the name of Peter, was calculated to remind him of the change of name, and still more of thepromisedauthority and pre-eminence (Matt. xvi. 17, 19), which that change implied.

More than these.It is supremely ridiculous to suppose, as some Protestants have done, that Christ merely meant to ask, if Peter loved Him more than he lovedthese fish. Surely that would be but a poor proof of his love for his Master! It is equally improbable, though not quite so absurd, to suppose that Christ meant: Lovest thou Me more than thou lovest these companions of thine? For Peter knew and believed Jesus to be God (Matt. xvi. 16), had declared before now his readiness to die with Him (Luke xxii. 33), and on this very morning had proved the intensity of his love for his Master by leaping from the boat and quitting the Apostles to come to Him. Surely, then, it is wholly improbable that Christ merely meant to ask if Peter loved Him more than he loved his fellow-Apostles.

The meaning, then, plainly is: lovest thou Me more than these love Me? Peter replies, humbly avoiding any comparison between his own love and that of his companions, and appealing to Jesus, whom he knew to be the Searcher of Hearts, in confirmation of the love that he avows:Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. It is worthy of note that the word which Peter uses to express his love, is not that which Christ had just used in His question. Christ had asked: Lovest thou (ἀγαπᾷς) Me? Peter replies: Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love (φιλῶ) Thee. Many commentators think the distinction is not to be pressed, but we cannot believe that Peter changed the word without a reason, especially as he does so again in his second reply (verse 16), and Christ, in His third question, adopts the word that Peter insists upon using. Whatever the distinction be, it is lost in our English version; but the reader will see that an effort is made to preserve it in the[pg 380]Vulgate, which in each case renders ἀγαπάω, by“diligo,”and φιλέω by“amo.”We think that Trench properly appreciates the difference between the two words.“On occasion,”he says,“of that threefold Lovest thou Me,”which the risen Lord addresses to Peter, He asks him first, ἀγαπᾷ με. At that moment, when all the pulses in the heart of the now penitent Apostle are beating with an earnest affection towards his Lord, this word on that Lord's lips sounds too cold; not sufficiently expressing the warmth of his personal affection toward Him. Besides the question itself, which grieves and hurts Peter (verse 17), there is an additional pang in the form which the question takes, sounding as though it were intended to put him at a comparative distance from his Lord, and to keep him there; or at least as not permitting him to approach so near to Him as he fain would. He, therefore, in his answer substitutes for it the word of a morepersonallove, φιλῶ σε (verse 15). When Christ repeats the question in the same words as at the first, Peter in his reply again substitutes his φιλῶ for the ἀγαπᾷς of his Lord (verse 16). And now at length he has conquered; for when for the third time his Master puts the question to him, He does it with the word which Peter feels will alone express all that is in his heart, and instead of the twice-repeated ἀγαπαᾷς, His word is φιλεῖς, now (verse 17). (Trench,Syn. of the New Testament, pp. 48, 49).141

16. In the second question our Lord drops the comparison between Peter's love and that of the other Apostles, and, according to the Greek text, uses different words in giving Peter his commission. Before, it was:FeedMylambs(Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου): now it is:Tend(or rule) Mysheep(ποίμανε τὰ πρόβατά μου). Among Uncial MSS., B and C read προβάτια (little sheep) here. But A, D, X, and nearly[pg 381]all others read πρόβατά; and while the Vulg. (agnos) favours the former, the Vetus Itala (oves) supports the latter. It is difficult, then, to decide between the two readings.

Whether Christ intended to signify one portion of His Church by the lambs, the remaining portion by the sheep, or merely used two different terms to indicate, in each case,the whole flock, matters little as to the sense of the passage; for in either case the whole flock of Christ is committed to Peter's care.

17. Again, a third time, Jesus puts the question, but now changing His word to the stronger word of Peter's choice. This threefold repetition of the question, provoking the threefold confession of Peter's love, was probably intended, not only to make amends for Peter's threefold denial, but also to indicate the solemn importance of the trust that was now committed to him. Peter was grieved at the repetition of the question, because it seemed as if his Lord suspected the sincerity of his love, or, perhaps, he feared that the repeated questioning foreboded another fall.

He said to him: Feed my sheep.Here, too, as in the preceding verse it is doubtful whether“little sheep”or“sheep”is the true reading. In favour of the former we have here not only B and C but also A. On the other hand, the Vulgate in this verse (oves) supports the latter. The diminutive, as a term of endearment, would not be out of place in this verse or the preceding.

The Vatican Council has interpreted this passage, verses 15-17, of the bestowal of the primacy on Peter—a primacy not merely of honour, but also of jurisdiction—so that no Catholic is free to interpret the passage in any sense other than this.“Docemus itaque et declaramus, Juxta Evangelii testimonia primatumjurisdictionisinuniversamDei Ecclesiamimmediateet directe beato Petro Apostolo promissum atque collatum a Christo Domino fuisse.... Atque uni[pg 382]Simoni Petro contulit Jesus post suam resurrectionem summi pastoris et rectoris jurisdictionem in totum suum ovile, dicendo: Pasce agnos meos: Pasce oves meas”(Decr. Vat., cap. 1,De Apost. Prim. Instit.) And, indeed, the passage cannot reasonably be interpreted in any other sense. For Peter alone is addressed, and his love for his master singled out for comparison with that of his companions, to show that to him individually, and not to them with him, the commission here given was entrusted.

What that commission was the Vatican Council tells us in the passage already quoted, and the words of Christ prove. Peter was appointed to feed thewhole flockof Christ, to rule it as a shepherd rules his sheep. Now, the shepherd not merely feeds his sheep, but he directs and controls them, tends them, guards them from harm (see above onx. 1), and in various other ways promotes their good.“Wherefore the primacy conferred upon Peter in this metaphor is anordinary142,immediate143,universal,supreme, power toteachmen the doctrine of Christ, to furnish them with thepasturesof salvation, through the Sacraments, evangelical counsels, &c.; tomake lawsby which the sheep may be directed to the eternal pastures; toappoint subordinate pastors; tosecure that the laws be observed; topunishdisobedient sheep, and tobring back erring sheepto the fold. It is, therefore, the fullest power ofEpiscopal jurisdiction. Wherefore St. Peter himself (1 Peter ii. 25) calls Christ‘theshepherdand bishop of souls’”(Corl.).

This wonderful power, then, which as visible head of the Church, and in behalf of its invisible Head Jesus Christ, Peter was to exercise through himself and his successors over all the flock of Christ, whether bishops, priests, or people, was given to him on the shore of the sea of Galilee, on the present occasion.

18. We are told by St. John in the following verse that, in the words recorded in this, Christ signified bywhat kind(ποὶῳ) of death Peter should glorify God. Why the Lord chose this particular time, immediately after he had appointed Peter supreme head of the Church, to foretell for[pg 383]the Apostle a martyr's death by crucifixion, we cannot say with certainty. Probably it was to console Peter, now grieved by the thrice-repeated question, and to assure him that, though he had denied his Lord and had just now been closely questioned as to his love, yet his final perseverance was secure.

When thou wast younger, opposed here to:“When thou shalt be old,”probably includes Peter's life up to the time to which the prediction refers. It is as if Christ had said: Whilst thouartyoung; for as Kuinoel on this verse says:“Praeterita de re praesente in oraculis adhibentur.”At all events, Peter was still young in the sense of the word here, for we know from verse 7 that on this very morning he had girded himself.Thou didst gird thyself, &c. The meaning is: Throughout your life, as on this morning before you swam to Me, you gird yourself when you will to do what you will, and go where you will; but the day shall come when your hands shall no longer be free to gird yourself, but you shall stretch them forth to have them bound to the transverse beam of a cross,144and another shall gird you (with a cloth round your loins), and shall lead you away to death—to death, from which human naturenaturallyrecoils.

19.And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God.When St. John wrote this, St. Peter's death had thrown light on Christ's words, if, indeed, our Evangelist did not understand their meaning at the time they were spoken. That Peter understood it, we may rest assured. According to tradition, Peter, at his own request, was crucified with his head downwards, declining, in his humility, to be crucified like his Lord.

Follow me.Most of the fathers take these words to[pg 384]mean, not so much that Peter was now to walk after Jesus, as that he was to follow Him through the death of the cross to the glory of the Father. Compare xiii.36,37.

20.Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following.From these words it would appear that Christ had begun to move away and Peter to follow, as if to symbolize the higher sense in which Peter was one day to tread in His footsteps.

Who also leaned.Rather,“who also leaned back”(ἀνέπεσεν). The reference is to the incident recorded inxiii. 25, not to the position John occupied at table.

21. Peter, having learned what his own end was to be, was now anxious to know the end that awaited our Evangelist, who was so dear to Jesus and to himself. He therefore asked:“And what shall this man do?”or rather as the Greek has it;“And this man, what?”that is to say, what end awaits him?

22.So I will, &c.“So”translates the Vulgate“sic,”which is a misprint forsi(ἐαν). Hence the true reading is: If I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? FollowthouMe. Our Lord here reproves Peter's curiosity and bids him see to himself, nor wish to know more than his Master was pleased to communicate.

Follow thou me.“Thou”is emphatic. Peter's question regarding the end that awaited John; and our Lord's reply, contrasting as it does the two Apostles (“If I will havehim”... Followthou), justifies us in taking the words“Follow thou me”in reference to Peter's death by crucifixion.

23. Our Evangelist tells us here what wasnotthe meaning of the Lord's words; what their meaning was, he does not say. He merely wished to show that the words afforded no ground for the belief which prevailed among the faithful, and which his own very advanced age at the time when this Gospel was written tended to confirm, that he was not to die at all, or at least not until the day of judgment. Those who deny the authenticity of this last chapter appeal triumphantly to this verse. It was written, they say, after St. John died, when it become necessary to explain away the meaning that had been put upon our Lord's words. But, from what we have said already, the reader will have seen that there is not the slightest reason why this verse may not have been written by St. John himself.

There is a difference of opinion as to what our Lord meant by the words:“If I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?”Some have taken the meaning to be: If I will have him to remain till I come for him in anaturaldeath, what is it to thee? But this is not probable; Christ comes for the martyr just as much as for him who dies a natural death.

Others thus: If I will have him to remain till My coming at the destruction of Jerusalem, what is it to thee?

But it is most likely that Christ's coming when spoken of absolutely, as here, refers to His coming at the day of judgment. Hence the most probable view seems to be:If I wereto will him to remain living even till the day of judgment, what were that to thee? Thus our Lord makes a purely hypothetical case, and conveys no information to Peter, thereby reproving still more his curiosity.

24, 25. The authenticity of these verses has been questioned more than that of the rest of the chapter, both because it is not in St. John's manner to speak of himself in the[pg 386]plural number (as here in verse 24:“weknow”), and because of the hyperbole in verse 25. For these reasons, some Catholic writers have denied their authenticity, though no Catholic, as far as we are aware, has denied theirinspiration. Those Catholics who deny their authenticity, hold that they were probably written by the bishops of Asia Minor, at whose request St. John wrote the Gospel. SeeIntrod. iii., note. This view is not without some probability. Still, we prefer the common opinion of Catholic commentators, that the verses were written by St. John himself; for without them the conclusion of the Gospel would be extremely abrupt.

As to the reasons for the opposite view, though we admit that St. John does not usually employ the first person plural, still it is not unnatural that in closing his Gospel he should wish to confirm his own testimony by an appeal to the consenting voice of his contemporaries. Besides, he does use the same form of expression in i. 14:“And we saw his glory.”See also 1 Ep. i. 3. As to the argument drawn from the alleged extravagance of the hyperbole in verse 25, it has no weight. For, there is no reason why St. John may not have used this striking hyperbole to signify the inexhaustible treasury of instruction contained in our Divine Lord's life and works, and to suggest the deep truth that a full account (“every one”) of Christ's human life would be practically infinite.“Hunc loquendi modum,”says St. Aug. on this passage,“Graeco nomine hyperbolem vocant: qui modus, sicut hoc loco, ita in nonnullis aliis divinis Literis invenitur ... et multa hujusmodi, sicutalii tropi, Scripturis S. non desunt.”

Back to IndexNext