John 21:23

Analysis & Commentary

Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? John provides crucial editorial correction of a widespread misunderstanding. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren (ἐξῆλθεν οὖν οὗτος ὁ λόγος εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφούς/exēlthen oun houtos ho logos eis tous adelphous)—the verb went abroad (ἐξῆλθεν/exēlthen) indicates widespread circulation. A rumor spread through early Christian communities based on misunderstanding Jesus's words.

The misinterpretation was that that disciple should not die (ὅτι ὁ μαθητὴς ἐκεῖνος οὐκ ἀποθνῄσκει/hoti ho mathētēs ekeinos ouk apothnēskei)—believers concluded John would live until Christ's return. This may have caused eschatological confusion: if John must live until the parousia, then Christ's return was expected within John's natural lifetime. As John aged, questions would arise.

John carefully corrects this: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die (οὐκ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι οὐκ ἀποθνῄσκει/ouk eipen autō ho Iēsous hoti ouk apothnēskei). Jesus made no such promise. Instead, John quotes Jesus's actual words precisely: If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? The conditional If (ἐάν/ean) was crucial—Jesus spoke hypothetically about His sovereign right, not prophetically about John's certain survival.

This correction demonstrates John's integrity as historian and theologian. He could have left the rumor uncorrected, enhancing his mystique, but instead clarifies precisely what Jesus said versus what people inferred. This models careful biblical interpretation—distinguishing what Scripture actually says from what we think it implies.

Historical Context

By the time John wrote this Gospel (likely AD 90-95), he was indeed very old, perhaps the last surviving apostle. The rumor that he wouldn't die before Christ's return had apparently circulated for decades. As John aged into his 80s or 90s, this rumor may have caused confusion or disappointment—if John can die, does that mean Christ isn't returning soon?

John's clarification served multiple purposes:

1. It corrected biblical misinterpretation, showing Jesus's words were hypothetical, not prophetic promise.
2. It prepared believers for John's eventual death—when he died, it wouldn't contradict Jesus's words.
3. It discouraged date-setting for Christ's return based on human lifespan.
4. It modeled hermeneutical integrity—handle God's Word carefully, don't claim it says more than it does.

   The phrase 'the brethren' (τοὺς ἀδελφούς/tous adelphous) shows how early Christians referred to fellow believers—family language expressing spiritual kinship.

This community had suffered together, shared resources, faced persecution—and also sometimes misunderstood Jesus's words together. John's gentle correction within the family teaches that love includes truth-telling, even when correcting cherished traditions.

Church history records that John died peacefully in Ephesus at advanced age, the only apostle not martyred. His long life produced immense fruit: this Gospel, three epistles, Revelation, decades of pastoral ministry, training of leaders like Polycarp. God's 'If I will' proved to be His will—John did 'tarry' longer than any other apostle, though not literally until the Second Coming.

Questions for Reflection

• How does this passage warn against building theology or expectations on implications rather than explicit biblical statements?
• Why is John's willingness to correct a rumor that enhanced his own reputation a model of Christian integrity and careful biblical interpretation?
• What modern Christian rumors or misinterpretations need similar careful correction by examining what Scripture actually says versus what we assume it means?