John

Yodas_Prodigy

Well-known member
23 Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?”

There has been misunderstanding regarding this passage. There are those who believe John is still alive on Earth awaiting Christ's return. We all know that John did eventually die. So, what did Jesus mean by this comment?

Well, this goes back to the idea of what does Jesus mean by "come"? Jesus through John uses the word "come" 11 times in the first three chapters of Revelation. Some examples:

1:4 John, to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne,
2:5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.
2:16 Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.
2:25 But hold fast what you have till I come.
3:1 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.

And the Olivet Discourse:

Matth 23:36 Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
Matth 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.

Jesus made it clear that John would be alive until he "come". “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?” John is believed to have lived in to his 90's.

What did Jesus mean by "come"? I think it means 70 AD. This is when the Old Covenant was completely wiped away, Israel was judged, and Christ was glorified as Lord from His Throne in Heaven...

Just because the word "come" is used in a passage regarding Jesus doesn't mean His Physical return... Yes, I believe in Physical return of Christ... Just not related to the Olivet Discourse...

Before you jump into the pool of debate, deal with the opening verse 23
 

BlessedAnomaly

Well-known member
Dealing with verse 23: instead of looking at "come," perhaps you should look at "If I will that...." Did he? No, and scripture is obtuse to make it clear that Jesus did not say John would not die; Jesus said "IF I will that...." In other words, it is not up to Peter to question things, it's Peter's place to follow Christ.
 

Yodas_Prodigy

Well-known member
Dealing with verse 23: instead of looking at "come," perhaps you should look at "If I will that...." Did he? No, and scripture is obtuse to make it clear that Jesus did not say John would not die; Jesus said "IF I will that...." In other words, it is not up to Peter to question things, it's Peter's place to follow Christ.

Yes, Jesus said, "If I will..." I knew you would key in on that... So predictable... Here is your problem... You did not thoroughly consider why Peter even asked... "But Lord, what about this man?” What planted the question in Peter's mind? Why did Jesus choose those words? Jesus did not use "what if" statements... He made his Yes, yes and his no, no... Jesus let them know that John would be the only one alive when he would "come"... Pretty much, he told Peter, if I will, it's none of your business...

Here, let me use the definition of if to help you out...

Here, the Greek is a conditional conjunction...
“[Despite the possibility that] I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?”

Jesus told Peter that the possibility of John being alive when he comes is none of his concern...
 

BlessedAnomaly

Well-known member
Yes, Jesus said, "If I will..." I knew you would key in on that... So predictable... Here is your problem... You did not thoroughly consider why Peter even asked... "But Lord, what about this man?” What planted the question in Peter's mind?
You asked we stay in verse 23. I did. But *I* have a problem.

Peter. When Jesus was taken away by the Roman soldiers, Peter denied him 3 times. Here Jesus asks Peter if he [Peter] loves him [Jesus] ... 3 times. Once for each of the denials. Many translators title verse 15 along the lines of "Jesus Restores Peter." After the denial, watching Jesus die on the cross, waiting 3 days (not knowing that he will see Jesus again - he thinks Jesus is dead) ... he is heart torn for his denial. Scripture tells us that he wept bitterly.

We see no interaction between Peter and Jesus until now in John's Gospel. Peter is heart torn seeing his Savior. And now Jesus, after breakfast, picks him out and asks him 3 TIMES if he loves him [Jesus]. Peter is exacerbated that Jesus should ask 3 times. "Lord, You know all things;" (interesting statement, since Jesus is in the flesh before them); "You know that I love You."

And Jesus follows this with "Follow Me."

Why? Why did he pick on Peter and no other disciple. So Peter tries to deflect (you know all about deflection, so you should relate :ROFLMAO: ). He looks back and sees John and spurts: "Well, what about him?"

To which Jesus basically says: Worry about yourself. Even "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?"

He's not saying that John will live to see Jesus return. He's answering Peter's frustration about the three times asked question regarding his love.

Why did Jesus choose those words?
Because Peter was throwing John into his face. Peter was frustrated to be called out. Three times - once for each denial.

Jesus did not use "what if" statements... He made his Yes, yes and his no, no...
Channeling your best Pete from N.H.

Jesus let them know that John would be the only one alive when he would "come"... Pretty much, he told Peter, if I will, it's none of your business...
Definitely told Peter it was none of his business, but did not make a declaration about John's life. He simply said whatever I do is not of your concern. You. Follow. Me.

Here, let me use the definition of if to help you out...

Here, the Greek is a conditional conjunction...
“[Despite the possibility that] I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?”
You are stretching to great lengths to defend your Preterism. There are far better arguments, though.

Jesus told Peter that the possibility of John being alive when he comes is none of his concern...
Jesus said Even if I keep him alive, what concern is that of yours. He was NOT making a definite statement. If he intended to do that, why not simply say: "John will remain till I come, but that has nothing to do with you." Greek is a fairly precise language. Jesus said "If I will that." If.
 

BlessedAnomaly

Well-known member
Here, the Greek is a conditional conjunction...
“[Despite the possibility that] I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?”
Ok, to your specifics.

The conditional participle certainly is important here. In context this word can mean "if" or "except."

The important part is "I will" (will as in 'my will be done,' of course). This is a verb in the subjunctive mood. A subjunctive mood expresses ONLY possibility and potentiality. It is an action that may occur in the future, but this mood does not tell us IF it will occur.

Because of the subjunctive mood, Jesus is simply asking a "what-if" question.
 

Yodas_Prodigy

Well-known member
Ok, to your specifics.

The conditional participle certainly is important here. In context this word can mean "if" or "except."

The important part is "I will" (will as in 'my will be done,' of course). This is a verb in the subjunctive mood. A subjunctive mood expresses ONLY possibility and potentiality. It is an action that may occur in the future, but this mood does not tell us IF it will occur.

Because of the subjunctive mood, Jesus is simply asking a "what-if" question.

Thomas Newton
“‘The coming of Christ’ is also the same period with the destruction of Jerusalem, as may appear from several places in the Gospels, and particularly from these two passages; ‘There are some standing here,’ saith our blessed Lord, ‘who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom,’ Matt xvi. 28, that is, evidently, there are some standing here who shall live, not till they end of the world, to the coming of Christ to judge mankind, but till the destruction of Jerusalem, to the coming of Christ in judgment upon the Jews. In another place, John xxi.22, speaking to Peter concerning John, he saith, ‘If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?’ what is that to thee, if I will that he live till the destruction of Jerusalem? as in truth he did, and long. ‘The coming of Christ,’ and ‘the conclusion of the age,’ being therefore only different expressions to denote the same period with the destruction of Jerusalem, the purpose of the question plainly is, when shall the destruction of Jerusalem be, and what shall be the signs of it?’” (Newton, p. 374)

“Till I come: that is, till I come to destroy the city and nation of the Jews.” (John Lightfoot, vol. 3, p. 451).

Ellicott’s Commentary
“Of the four, St. John alone, so far as we know, survived the destruction of Jerusalem.” (vol. 3, p. 150).

Sir Thomas Browne (1646)
“Againe, they were mistaken in the Emphaticall apprehension, placing the consideration upon the words, If I will, whereas it properly lay in these, when I come: which had they apprehended as some have since, that is, not for his ultimate and last returne, but his comming in judgement and destruction upon the Jewes; or such a comming as it might be said, that that generation should not passe before it was fulfilled: they needed not, much lesse need we suppose such diuturnity; for after the death of Peter, John lived to behold the same fulfilled by Vespasian:7 nor had he then his Nunc dimittis, or went out like unto Simeon;8 but old in accomplisht obscurities, and having seen the expire of Daniels prediction, as some conceive, he accomplished his Revelation.” (Pseudodoxia Epidemica VII:x)

:)
 

BlessedAnomaly

Well-known member
Thomas Newton
“‘The coming of Christ’ is also the same period with the destruction of Jerusalem, as may appear from several places in the Gospels, and particularly from these two passages; ‘There are some standing here,’ saith our blessed Lord, ‘who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom,’ Matt xvi. 28, that is, evidently, there are some standing here who shall live, not till they end of the world, to the coming of Christ to judge mankind, but till the destruction of Jerusalem, to the coming of Christ in judgment upon the Jews. In another place, John xxi.22, speaking to Peter concerning John, he saith, ‘If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?’ what is that to thee, if I will that he live till the destruction of Jerusalem? as in truth he did, and long. ‘The coming of Christ,’ and ‘the conclusion of the age,’ being therefore only different expressions to denote the same period with the destruction of Jerusalem, the purpose of the question plainly is, when shall the destruction of Jerusalem be, and what shall be the signs of it?’” (Newton, p. 374)
So as Ted once asked you, unanswered I might add: How many comings of Christ shall there be? Newton is a good one for you, though.

“Till I come: that is, till I come to destroy the city and nation of the Jews.” (John Lightfoot, vol. 3, p. 451).
Lightfoot...closest thing to a Preterist of his day. Eschatologically, he taught that Rev 20:1-2 ... the "angel that comes down from heaven to bind the devil for a thousand years" was Pope Calixtus (sic), Pope Innocent III and Constantine." He teaches that the "Jews were rejected and the Gentiles replaced them" (i.e.: antisemitism). Does the Preterist have agreement with Lightfoot's eschatology? Not that we have to agree with the entirety of any commentators work, but this seems like we have a case of a broken clock being right twice a day -- at least as it agrees with Preterism.

Ellicott’s Commentary
“Of the four, St. John alone, so far as we know, survived the destruction of Jerusalem.” (vol. 3, p. 150).
Which proves what?

If you're going to quote Ellicott, why not something that cuts Preterism to it's knees:

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If. . . .—The mistake of the brethren arose from their not attending to the force of the conditional particle. They took as a statement what had been said as a supposition, and understood it in the then current belief that the Second Advent would come in their own generation. (Comp. 1Corinthians 15:51-52; 1Thessalonians 4:17.)​

Instead of just searching for what seems to fit your presuppositions, why not understand who the speaker is and what they believe and teach.

And on and on....

Do I need to go and dig up two or three more commentaries that disagree with you? Quoting these proves nothing, especially when you quote one whose author disagrees wholeheartedly with you.
 
Last edited:

Yodas_Prodigy

Well-known member
So as Ted once asked you, unanswered I might add: How many comings of Christ shall there be? Newton is a good one for you, though.


Lightfoot...closest thing to a Preterist of his day. Eschatologically, he taught that Rev 20:1-2 ... the "angel that comes down from heaven to bind the devil for a thousand years" was Pope Calixtus (sic), Pope Innocent III and Constantine." He teaches that the "Jews were rejected and the Gentiles replaced them" (i.e.: antisemitism). Does the Preterist have agreement with Lightfoot's eschatology? Not that we have to agree with the entirety of any commentators work, but this seems like we have a case of a broken clock being right twice a day -- at least as it agrees with Preterism.


Which proves what?

If you're going to quote Ellicott, why not something that cuts Preterism to it's knees:

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If. . . .—The mistake of the brethren arose from their not attending to the force of the conditional particle. They took as a statement what had been said as a supposition, and understood it in the then current belief that the Second Advent would come in their own generation. (Comp. 1Corinthians 15:51-52; 1Thessalonians 4:17.)​

Instead of just searching for what seems to fit your presuppositions, why not understand who the speaker is and what they believe and teach.

And on and on....

Do I need to go and dig up two or three more commentaries that disagree with you? Quoting these proves nothing, especially when you quote one whose author disagrees wholeheartedly with you.

LOL's...
 

Yodas_Prodigy

Well-known member
Once again, your points shredded and this is the best you have in response. Very telling.

I had a Beagle. He was a great dog. We used to buy him great doggie toys. He would shred them up in a day. He didn't take the time to play with them. He did not know the value of the toy nor the energy involved in choosing that toy. He just shredded them. So we decided to purchase toys that were less expensive and just kept him busy shredding. We eventually stopped buying him toys...

This is the process that I am using with you in our Preterist and Calvinist Discussions... I used to spend a lot of time wanting to give you my best responses... Now, I just throw you a cheap toy response and let you shred it... Eventually, I will stop responding...
 

BlessedAnomaly

Well-known member
I had a Beagle. He was a great dog. We used to buy him great doggie toys. He would shred them up in a day. He didn't take the time to play with them. He did not know the value of the toy nor the energy involved in choosing that toy. He just shredded them. So we decided to purchase toys that were less expensive and just kept him busy shredding. We eventually stopped buying him toys...

This is the process that I am using with you in our Preterist and Calvinist Discussions... I used to spend a lot of time wanting to give you my best responses... Now, I just throw you a cheap toy response and let you shred it... Eventually, I will stop responding...
:ROFLMAO: My son's girlfriend buys a product called Bark Box. Once a month....toys and treats. One of the dogs is a large dog (she thinks he's a healer). This dog does the same. Gets a new toy and just wants to rip it to shreds.

But he has a reason. He is trying to tear it open to get to the squeaker. That little noisy thing that is noisy just to annoy.

I'm the squeaker. I'm sure you'll agree. 😂
 
Top