The words of Jesus in John 8:21–24 toll like a warning bell: “I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come.” His listeners, unsettled, ask, “Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, ‘Where I go, you cannot come’?” Jesus presses further: “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”

On the surface, these lines seem to divide humanity into two camps, with an almost judicial severity: those who “believe” and live, and those who do not and “die in their sins.” Centuries of preaching and translation have reinforced that reading, presenting Jesus as a kind of cosmic magistrate rendering a verdict. Yet, as is so often true in John, what feels simple is not.

When we peel back the English and return to the Greek, the words take on new shape. They become less the pronouncement of a judge and more the diagnosis of a healer—less a sentence, and more an unveiling of what estrangement from God looks like if it runs its course.

The hinge of the passage is the repeated phrase “you will die in your sins” (ἀποθανεῖσθε ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν). Nearly every major English Bible translates it exactly this way, but the key term, ἁμαρτία, is much more supple than the single English word “sin” allows. In classical and Hellenistic usage, ἁμαρτία referred to missing the mark—an archer’s errant arrow, a miscalculation in judgment, a step off the path¹.

When the early church adopted the word, it did not lose that sense; it simply layered on theological freight. What English inherited, via Latin and later translators, was the heaviest of those layers: “sin” as juridical guilt, a state demanding punishment.

This matters, because “you will die in your sins” heard in English sounds like a decree. But “you will die in your estrangement”—which the Greek easily supports—carries a different weight. It sounds more like a diagnosis: the tragic outcome of persisting in alienation.

It is the difference between hearing a judge say, “You are condemned to death,” and a doctor saying, “This illness will kill you if you do not accept the cure.” The warning is not softened, but its tone is altered.

Another deceptively simple phrase complicates the picture further: ἐγώ εἰμι. In English, nearly every translation expands it to “I am he,” because English expects a predicate. But in Greek Jesus simply says, “I am.”

Sometimes, as in John 8:58 (“Before Abraham was, I am”), the echo of Exodus 3:14 is thunderous—Jesus’ words sound like a direct claim to the divine name. Here, the resonance is subtler. It may still suggest divinity, but it also functions as a continuation of the immediately preceding statement, “I am from above.” Grammatically, the “I am” flows from that earlier declaration—I am [the one who is from above]—so the sentence is not entirely predicate-less. Yet John seems to leave it deliberately open, allowing the words to hover with more meaning than grammar alone supplies: “I am…” what? The Messiah? The revealer? The one you must discover? All of those possibilities hang in the silence, making the phrase both contextually anchored and theologically unbounded.

These phrases—ἁμαρτία and ἐγώ εἰμι—are small in appearance, but they have shaped centuries of theology and devotion. When Jerome translated ἁμαρτίαι as peccata for the Latin Vulgate, he set Western Christianity on a largely juridical path: sin as guilt, guilt as something to be satisfied or punished².

Early English translators like Wycliffe and Tyndale followed the same track. By the time of the King James Bible, “you will die in your sins” had calcified into the English-speaking imagination as the language of final condemnation³.

By gathering these translation issues into one frame—rather than circling back to them repeatedly—we can see what centuries of piecemeal reading obscured. John’s Gospel almost always speaks on two levels at once, holding judgment and invitation in tension.

But the juridical reading became dominant, and the invitational note grew faint. The refrain “you will die in your sins,” repeated across commentaries and sermons, hardened into a flat verdict. The Greek text, however, still holds the possibility of another tone—one that warns sharply, but as a healer warns, not merely as a judge pronounces.

The tension between judgment and invitation was not a discovery of modern scholarship; the earliest Christian interpreters already felt it. Augustine, in his Tractates on the Gospel of John, returned to this passage again and again.

He did not blunt its severity—“to die in your sins,” he wrote, meant to die unreconciled to God—but he insisted its purpose was merciful. “Christ terrifies,” Augustine said, “that He might not punish.”⁴ The sting of the phrase was real, but so was its grace: the very warning was an act of compassion, meant to jolt hearers awake before the danger became irreversible.

Chrysostom, preaching in Antioch in the late fourth century, heard the same double register. In his Homilies on the Gospel of John, he acknowledged the harshness of Jesus’ words but saw them as a kind of verbal shaking. “He alarms them,” Chrysostom wrote, “not to destroy, but to rouse them.”⁵

Origen, the great third-century Alexandrian, read the passage differently still. For him, to “die in your sins” was not only about the afterlife but about a kind of spiritual death here and now—the soul’s failure to awaken to its source.⁶ If Jesus warns, Origen thought, it is to invite: an admonition for the soul to seek the one who says “I am.”

The Middle Ages inherited these readings but refracted them through new theological lenses. As doctrines of penance and satisfaction developed, commentators leaned into the legal imagery already embedded in Western thought.

Thomas Aquinas, commenting on John 8, wrote of “dying in one’s sins” as dying under the weight of guilt that penance had not removed.⁷ His tone, however, was not only forensic. Aquinas frames Jesus’ warning as both threat and remedy: the illness is mortal, yes, but the physician stands ready with the cure.

The Reformers complicated the picture further. Luther read the line through his great dialectic of law and gospel: the law thunders “you will die in your sins,” but the gospel announces grace for sinners who hear and repent.⁸ He did not soften the warning—if anything, he made it sharper—but he set it alongside the promise of mercy.

Calvin, writing a generation later, treated the phrase with clinical precision. To “die in your sins,” he wrote, is simply to die unreconciled, cut off from the source of life.⁹ But even Calvin, whose language can feel more austere than Luther’s, reads the line as diagnosis more than sentence: Christ names the estrangement so that it can be healed.

These voices—patristic, medieval, and Reformation—share an awareness of what modern readers sometimes miss. “You will die in your sins” was never only a verdict; it was also a plea.

Augustine, Chrysostom, and Aquinas heard the harshness and refused to pretend it wasn’t there. But they also heard the longing underneath: a warning meant not to crush, but to summon.

Luther and Calvin, centuries later, heard the same thing in their own idioms. The Christ who warns, they understood, is the same Christ who offers himself as the way out of the condition he names.

Modern scholarship has returned to John 8:21–24 with a different set of tools—and, often, fewer inherited assumptions. Twentieth- and twenty-first-century interpreters like Raymond Brown, C.K. Barrett, and Marianne Meye Thompson have emphasized what they call Johannine irony: Jesus’ words nearly always operate on two levels at once¹⁰.

His hearers misinterpret him at the surface level, while the reader is invited to perceive the deeper truth. In this passage, the crowd hears a cryptic threat—“Will he kill himself?”—but John’s audience sees the misunderstanding and grasps the larger meaning.

This insight reframes the entire scene. John 8 is not only a record of what Jesus said; it is staged as a drama of confusion and revelation.

Jesus’ words are sharp enough to wound if misunderstood, but layered enough to heal when understood aright. Scholars like Gail O’Day and Francis Moloney point out that this is John’s characteristic move: misunderstanding becomes the gateway to understanding¹¹.

The Samaritan woman thinks of literal water before discovering living water; Nicodemus puzzles over a literal second birth before glimpsing a spiritual one. Here, the confusion over Jesus’ departure (“Where I go, you cannot come”) leads the reader to ask a deeper question: what does it mean to be “from above” or “from below”?

Linguists have made their own contributions, focusing on how translation choices shaped the way Jesus “sounds” in English. The juridical rendering of ἁμαρτία as “sin,” they argue, was never wrong—but it became so dominant that it crowded out other meanings¹².

In Greek, ἁμαρτία can imply estrangement or error as easily as guilt. By recovering those shades, modern interpreters give us a Jesus who is no less demanding, but differently demanding: not merely pronouncing guilt but naming alienation, and offering a way out of it.

Taken together, these insights do not soften John 8:21–24—they deepen it. The warning is real: to remain “from below,” to cling to estrangement, will end in death.

But the tone shifts from a cold verdict to something closer to a diagnosis. Jesus’ words are still stark, but they read more like the warning of a physician: “This will kill you if you will not let me heal you.”

For devout Christians, this layered reading changes everything. Augustine’s ancient line still holds—“He terrifies, that He might not punish”—but it takes on new richness¹³.

The terror and the mercy coexist. The Christ who says, “you will die in your sins,” is the same Christ who came precisely so that estrangement could end.

The devotional tradition has always sensed this double register, even when translation obscured it. There is the fearful note: the reality that estrangement left unhealed is fatal.

And there is the hopeful one: the healer is already here, speaking. Read this way, John 8:21–24 is not a gavel strike from the bench—it is the voice of the one who says “I am,” leaving the sentence open so that we might fill it with faith, discovery, and, finally, life.

Notes

¹ Liddell & Scott, Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), entry on ἁμαρτία.
² David Daniell, The Bible in English (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 162–165.
³ Francis Moloney, The Gospel of John (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998), 272.
⁴ Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 43 (c. 418 CE).
⁵ John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 53.
⁶ Origen, Commentary on John, Book 19.
⁷ Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Lecture 7 on John 8.
⁸ Martin Luther, Lectures on John (1528), WA 46:127–31.
⁹ John Calvin, Commentary on John (Geneva, 1553).
¹⁰ C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (London: SPCK, 1978), 341–345.
¹¹ Gail R. O’Day, “The Gospel of John,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 824–829.
¹² George R. Beasley-Murray, John (WBC; Waco: Word, 1987), 141.
¹³ Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 43.

Addendum: “Where I Am Going, You Cannot Come”

The words “Where I am going, you cannot come” (John 8:21) form more than a cryptic aside; they have carried layers of meaning for centuries of interpreters. Patristic voices like Chrysostom heard the cross in them, the singular journey only Jesus could undertake: “He speaks of His death, and that none of them would lay down his life as He did,” Chrysostom preached, making clear that the “going” referred not to escape but to sacrifice.¹ Augustine agreed, but with his own nuance—Jesus’ “going” was not mere death but the act of passing into the Father’s presence by way of a death freely embraced.²

Others saw more than the cross alone. Origen, whose mystical imagination shaped much of the early Johannine tradition, read the line as the Redeemer’s arc of return: Christ, “sent from the Father,” must go back to Him—and only after completing that passage could anyone else follow.³ For Origen, this was not only about objective redemption but about the subjective grace that would flow from it. Those “from below” cannot go where He goes because they lack the capacity—until grace opens the way.

The thread continues in later theology. Athanasius argued that only the Logos, being “from above,” could enter death without being consumed by it, emptying Himself fully and in that emptying breaking death’s grip.⁴ This line of thought implies that complete self-sacrifice is not simply difficult for ordinary humanity; it is structurally beyond reach for those “from below.” What Jesus embodies is an otherworldly kind of surrender, one only possible for one “empowered from above.”

The Reformers echoed this, though in different idioms. Luther, in his lectures on John, framed Jesus’ “going” as a death “not like our deaths, but a death by which death itself is slain,” grounding its saving power in its uniqueness.⁵ Calvin, too, stressed that this departure was “singular,” because “no mortal, being sinful, could go by that road.”⁶

Taken together, these strands suggest an implicit threefold meaning. First, “Where I am going” points to the cross itself. Second, it signals the salvific function of the Redeemer, the channel of grace that makes the way accessible to others. And third, it quietly implies that the kind of self-emptying Jesus models—the absolute gift of Himself—is not only historically unique but metaphysically so, the act of one “from above,” beyond the unaided reach of those “from below.”

Notes for Addendum

¹ John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 53, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 14 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 184–186.
² Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 43 (c. 418 CE), in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 7 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 251–253.
³ Origen, Commentary on John, Book 19, in Origen: Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 13–32, trans. Ronald Heine (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1993), 236–239.
⁴ Athanasius, On the Incarnation, §20–25, in St. Athanasius: On the Incarnation, trans. and ed. A Religious of C.S.M.V. (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1993), 58–63.
⁵ Martin Luther, Lectures on John (1528), WA 46:127–31.
⁶ John Calvin, Commentary on John (Geneva, 1553), 302–304.

om tat sat