John 21:20-23

[Frankenfurter]

Why does John end with this little quote about John to Peter: “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” I’ve never really understood this little exchange. What’s this about?

Here’s the passage:

20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”
22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

 

[NotWorthy]

John did indeed remain alive until Jesus’ return… His return in judgment on the Jews; what we know as the destruction of the Temple.

But, more to your point, John’s extended life was not due to John’s “greater grace” or anything John did, it was simply the “Will of God”. I think Jesus was showing that “goodness DOES NOT equal long life”.

 

[hazcompat]

Jesus told Peter that he (Peter) had to follow Him (Jesus), and whatever Our Lords will for John might be was not Peters’ concern.

peace

 

[stevekehl]

I believe the lesson here is that we are not to compare ourselves to each other. Who has a nicer car, bigger house, fancier vacation, most expensive wedding, more chiselled abs, etc., etc… God’s plan of me is God’s plan for me, hard to swallow sometimes but God has called us to obedience, not prosperity.

 

[abucs]

Hi Frankenfurter.

If we look closely at John’s Gospel it looks like it ends at chapter 20 and chapter 21 is an addendum.

I think chapter 21 was added by a follower of John’s just after John’s death.

This would explain the need to clear up the local belief (and confusion) amongst some that Jesus would return before John died.

Regards.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Hi Frankenfurter.

If we look closely at John’s Gospel it looks like it ends at chapter 20 and chapter 21 is an addendum.

I think chapter 21 was added by a follower of John’s just after John’s death.

This would explain the need to clear up the local belief (and confusion) amongst some that Jesus would return before John died.

Regards.

Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 22. Jesus saith: so I will have him remain,[3] &c. That is, in case I will have him remain; or, as it is in the Greek, if I will have him remain, what is that to thee? It is thy duty, and thy concern, to follow me. (Witham) — When Christ told St. Peter to follow him, he meant, that he should go like himself to the death of the cross; but when he says of St. John, So I will have him to remain till I come, he insinuates that his beloved disciple should not undergo a violent death; but remain in the world, till he should visit him by death, and conduct him to glory. It may likewise be understood of the Revelations, in which our Saviour manifested himself in his glory to this his beloved disciple. [Apocalypse i. 13.] In the Greek, it is, if I will have him to remain; and this is the true reading, according to Estius, and Jansenius, bishop of Ghent, authorized by many Latin copies. Others refer these words of Christ to his coming to destroy Jerusalem: an epoch which St. John survived.

Ver. 24. This is that disciple, &c. Some conjecture, that these words were added by the Church of Ephesus. But the ancient Fathers, St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril, St. Augustine, expound them as they do the rest, without any such remark. Nor is it unusual for a person to write in this manner of himself, as of a third person. It is what St. John hath done of himself, chap. xix. ver. 35. (Witham) — Some conjecture, that these words were added by the Church of Ephesus, to point out St. John to be the real author of this history, and to record their own assent to this his testimony. But the ancient Fathers give no such comment. Nor is it unusual for a person to write of himself, as of a third person. It is what St. John hath done before.

 

[Frankenfurter]

OK, so then it might be that St. John, to whom Jesus is referring, might not be the author of the Gospel of John.

And it makes sense then that St. John died, but Jesus had not returned in the way that some had expected as abucs says. So the author (a different John whom we don’t know perhaps) just cleared up what Jesus had actually said. Like, hey, he didn’t say that he wouldn’t die before Jesus came back, but all Jesus said was that if Jesus didn’t want him to die, then that’s no business of yours.

It seems to me like a random thing to end the Gospel with, so the notion that these verses were added later does ring true. I never thought of it that way.

And if the author really is St. John, just talking about himself in the third person, nothing changes. The message is the same.

 

[NotWorthy]

OK, so then it might be that St. John, to whom Jesus is referring, might not be the author of the Gospel of John.

If you claim that, then you are denying about 1800 years of teaching. If I recall correctly, the first major disagreement over the authorship of John is only the last 150 years or so.

I don’t buy it.

And it makes sense then that St. John died, but Jesus had not returned in the way that some had expected as abucs says. So the author (a different John whom we don’t know perhaps) just cleared up what Jesus had actually said. Like, hey, he didn’t say that he wouldn’t die before Jesus came back, but all Jesus said was that if Jesus didn’t want him to die, then that’s no business of yours.

It seems to me like a random thing to end the Gospel with, so the notion that these verses were added later does ring true. I never thought of it that way.

And if the author really is St. John, just talking about himself in the third person, nothing changes. The message is the same.

I think the main reason that John 21 is considered to be by a different author is that:
a) John’s Gospel seems to have a definite ending at the end of chapter 20.
b) the style of writing is considerably different from the previous 20 chapters.

 

[abucs]

If we accept there is a different author for chapter 21 then it makes sense that it was added at the time of John’s death which strongly fits in with John writing the first 20 chapters.

I had never thought of the possibility of John writing in the third party to clear up the confusion. This might also be possible but i personally suspect the former.

Good luck.

 

[NotWorthy]

If we accept there is a different author for chapter 21 then it makes sense that it was added at the time of John’s death which strongly fits in with John writing the first 20 chapters.

I had never thought of the possibility of John writing in the third party to clear up the confusion. This might also be possible but i personally suspect the former.

Good luck.

I’m not sure why it had to be “added at the time of John’s death”, but I do agree that the author of John 21 would have been a devoted follower of the Apostle and had heard John himself preach this chapter 100’s of times. Very similar to the way Mark heard Peter preach his Gospel 100’s of times and used these homilies as the source of his Gospel.