More Hermeneutical Lessons from Another Walk with the Lord

A previous post explored a critical hermeneutical lesson gleaned from a conversation between the Lord and a couple of disciples who were hoofing it out of Jerusalem (astonishingly) on the very morning of his resurrection.

Another hermeneutical lesson tumbles out of a different peripatetic conversation just a few days later. John gives us a surprising glimpse into a first-century interpretational aberration among Jesus’ closest and most devoted followers. It’s instructive and even a little amusing—because it sounds strangely familiar and modern. People haven’t changed, and bad hermeneutics is nothing new.

As John records it, Peter and the Lord are walking along the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus has just assured Peter of his restoration, and reissued his call: “Follow me.”

Then Peter, turning, sees the disciple whom Jesus loved, following…. Peter, seeing him, says to Jesus, “Lord, what shall this man do?” Jesus says to him, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to you? You follow me.” ~John 21:19, 22

I have written elsewhere about John 21:15–19 as a model for how Jesus restores his flawed and fallen disciples. Tucked away in this passage of restoration, however, is also a hermeneutical case study that is easy to overlook.

Whether this ostensibly private conversation was overheard by John or the others, or whether Peter later reported the conversation to John or the others, we do not know. But somehow, word got out. One comment, in particular, grew legs and took on a life of its own. It seems ironic that it’s John himself who recounts the hermeneutical fallout of that comment—because it has to do with him. The NIV captures it nicely:

Because of this [statement], the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die.  ~ John 21:23a

The apparently pervasive belief among many of the first-century believers was that Jesus would return before John died. That, of course, was still a possibility even when John was writing this. John’s comment “supplies us with an important insight into this community. It apparently expected the imminent return of Jesus” (Gerald Borchert). It would not be the last time that followers of Jesus rightly believed in the imminence of Christ’s return, but wrongly made unfounded assumptions about the timing.

J. C. Ryle observed,

We should carefully notice in this passage how easy it is for traditions to begin; and how soon, with even the best of intentions, unfounded reports originate among religious men.

Traditions and reports, no less, founded upon incautious and inaccurate attention to the words of Jesus. Matthew Henry remarked,

Here was a tradition, an apostolical tradition, a saying that went abroad among the brethren. It was early; it was common; it was public; and yet it was false. . . . Let us learn the aptness of men [indeed, the best of men and even those ] to misinterpret the sayings of Christ.

Just as it is John who reveals the hermeneutical aberration, it is John who corrects the hermeneutical fallout. In the process, he hands us a simple but important lesson in hermeneutics.

 . . . yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” ~ John 21:23b

Jesus’ words gave rise to a widespread misconception based on a not uncommon hermeneutical error. And it’s an error John seems to feel obliged to correct. The apparently widespread theological misconception was the belief that Jesus would return before John died.

The hermeneutical error responsible for this misconception, as John points out, was overlooking one little word: “if.” Writing some 60 years after the incident took place, the aged John takes time to identify that misinterpretation, and to correct it.

Little words can be hermeneutically pivotal. Overlooking minor details can lead to major misinterpretations. An interpretation backed up by 90% of a text may be entirely unraveled by the 10% that is ignored or reshaped. 

I’ll offer two related examples. Consider Jeremiah 31. Immediately on the heels of the preamble to the new covenant (Jer 31:31–34), Yahweh (the speaker in Jer 31:27–40) confirms the covenant with an oath (Jer 31:35–36).

Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar- the LORD of hosts is his name: “If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever.”

It’s hard to imagine any clearer guarantee that national Israel—identified as the recipients of this new covenant (Jer 31:31)—would never be rejected or cut off. Interestingly, the ESV Study Bible note explains the passage this way:

God gives a fixed order to the natural creation, and it is just as impossible for the new covenant to cease as it is for the natural order to cease.

That seems a rather bold rewording of God’s oath. Yahweh did not promise that the new covenant would never cease; he promised that the seed [offspring] of Israel would never cease to exist as a nation before me forever.

But Yahweh’s not done yet. He doubles down on his oath (Jer 31:37).

Thus says the LORD: “If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be explored, then I will cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done, declares the LORD.”

Again, the ESV Study Bible note’s explanation seems to have a difficult time sticking to the words Yahweh actually speaks.

The full extent of creation is unfathomable, and it is equally unfathomable that God would cast off the Israel of this new covenant.

The insertion of one tiny word (“the Israel of this new covenant”) blasts open a hole big enough to drive an entire systematic theology through. One little fabricated word interjects the implication that it will be a different “Israel” than the Israel to whom Yahweh is addressing this covenant. The timelessness of Yahweh’s new covenant commitment is not merely to believers, but to a specific nation that He will graciously convert into a nation of believers. This is not a new commitment to Israel in timeless terms; it is a restatement of God’s originally timeless commitment to Israel as Israel, even under the Old Covenant (read Lev 26 and Deut 28–30).

John had to correct a first-century misinterpretation among many of Jesus’ own followers—a misinterpretation based on ignoring one tiny word. Surely there’s a reason the Spirit directed John to include that comment. We would be foolish not to learn from it.