Lord, what about this man?

[look2jesus]

Lord, what about this man?

Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who had been reclining at table close to him and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”

As I was doing some casual reading the other night, I came across these verses at the end of John’s gospel, and since I had recently been in conversation concerning full preterism, it struck me that, taken at face value, these verses would present a bit of a problem to the full preterist.
We see here that Peter wants to know what’s going to happen to this man (the disciple whom Jesus loved). Basically, Jesus tells him to mind his own business but the way the brethren interpreted what Jesus said is interesting. The phrase, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”, in their minds equates to this man not having to experience death. Now, why would that be?

Jesus had previously taught His disciples, in the Olivet discourse, that this generation would not pass away until “all these things” were accomplished, so why, when Jesus said, “If it is my will that he remain until I come” would the brethren assume an apparently ridiculous stance regarding this man—that he was not going to die, when, according to the full preterist view, there shouldn’t have been anything incredible in John (if that’s who was being referred to) remaining alive until the coming of Christ—unless they understood the coming of Christ, mentioned in these verses, as something other than the coming of Christ in the 70 A.D. judgment on Jerusalem?

Thoughts, anyone?

[steve]

look2jesus,

I agree with you.

You know, it seems like I have often heard full-prets use that passage to say that John was assured of living until Jesus "comes," and that, therefore, Jesus' "coming" happened in John's lifetime.

Now even if Jesus had indeed said that John would live until Jesus "comes," this would not prove full preterism. It would only illustrate what we all acknowledge—viz., that there are more than one sense in which the Bible talks about Jesus "coming" and that this must be one of the cases where it means something nearer than the final coming at the end of the world (since we have no problem with this being the case in some passages).

But what really puzzles me is how they could read the passage and then come away saying that Jesus made such an affirmation (regardless which sense "come" is being used). The author is at pains to point out that Jesus made no such prediction! He says that a rumor circulated, claiming that Jesus had made such a prediction or promise—but that the rumor was mistaken, and that Jesus had never said such a thing. In fact, it almost seems to be the whole purpose of John 21 (which appears to be an afterthought or appendix added after the natural conclusion to the book had been given at the end of chapter 20) to address and to correct this incorrect rumor.

Now you are bringing up an interesting argument against full preterism from this very passage. If "till I come" means something within the first century, and if people mistakenly thought that Jesus had predicted this, why would it cause people to jump to the conclusion that John would never die? This would be an extreme and entirely unnecessary leap for them to make, if they believed John was promised to live until the fall of Jerusalem. As you pointed out, Jesus had already said that some of those standing there would not taste of death before this event, and no one took from it that a number of them would never die—since He also said it would happen within that generation. I think you have hit on a strong argument, look2jesus.

[look2jesus]

Hello Steve,

I find a lot of times when thinking about certain views that if I take the time to read through the New Testament, for example, I'll run across an obscure story or statement that isn't normally presented in an argument, per se, but becomes relevant to me. Thanks for your response.

l2j

[Allyn]

If John was not the author of the Gospel bearing his name then this might help explain why the disciples jumped to a conclusion that the disciple who Jesus loved would not die before Jesus came back. If, say, Lazuras was the writer of the Gospel account would this help in understanding why the rumor started? Nevertheless I don't see how it affects Full-Preterism since we believe that the second coming of Christ was in the 1st century.

[Michelle]

If John was not the author of the Gospel bearing his name then this might help explain why the disciples jumped to a conclusion that the disciple who Jesus loved would not die before Jesus came back.

The people jumped to the conclusion that the disciple whom Jesus loved was not to die, not that he would remain until Jesus came, which Jesus had already said many people would do.

If, say, Lazuras was the writer of the Gospel account would this help in understanding why the rumor started?

Um, no. Maybe other people can see your point, but I don't. Would you expound on it a little?

Nevertheless I don't see how it affects Full-Preterism since we believe that the second coming of Christ was in the 1st century.

Right. And John and Lazarus and everyone else of that generation died. Why did the rumor start that whoever the beloved disciple was would not die because Jesus said, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" Did they make the connection with the Second Coming and a resurrection which meant immortal, physical bodies?

[Michelle]

Okay, I thought about it a little more. IF the disciple who was rumored to not die was Lazarus, a man who had already been brought back from the dead once, the writer of the gospel could have been seeking to set the record straight about the nature of resurrection - that unlike calling Lazarus from the dead, the resurrection of believers is something that happens invisibly and is actually synonymous with regeneration; there is no such thing as a physical resurrection from the dead. Am I close?

If so, why then do you suppose this misunderstanding arose? Were the brethren still clueless about what Jesus had taught them, if he had, in fact, been teaching what full preterist believe? Also, how do you think this gospel ended up being attributed to John? Do you also believe the Epistles of John were also penned by Lazarus? How about Revelation?

[Allyn]

Hi Michelle

If John was not the author of the Gospel bearing his name then this might help explain why the disciples jumped to a conclusion that the disciple who Jesus loved would not die before Jesus came back.

The people jumped to the conclusion that the disciple whom Jesus loved was not to die, not that he would remain until Jesus came back, which Jesus had already said many people would do.

It would be the same result. If Jesus returned at the time of the Abomination of Desolation (AD 70) then there were some who died during that 40 year period and some who did not die by the time of the 2nd coming.

If, say, Lazuras was the writer of the Gospel account would this help in understanding why the rumor started?

Um, no. Maybe other people can see your point, but I don't. Would you expound on it a little?

If Lazuras was the writer of that gospel, as I believe, and since it was also well known that Lazuras had been raised from the dead on the fourth day (an exception to every other resurrection miracle up to that time) then it would be a perfectly natural question to ask if Lazuras was going to stay alive. Remember that the whole understanding of Jesus coming again was still a mystery to the disciples.

Nevertheless I don't see how it affects Full-Preterism since we believe that the second coming of Christ was in the 1st century.

Right. And John and Lazarus and everyone else of that generation died. Why did the rumor start that whoever the beloved disciple was would not die because Jesus said, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" Did they make the connection with the Second Coming and a resurrection which meant immortal, physical bodies?

I don't know what connection they were making except that Jesus was saying that not all of them would be alive when Jesus would come. There understanding had not been perfected until He ascended and the Holy Spirit came to open their ears to understanding.

[Allyn]

Okay, I thought about it a little more. IF the disciple who was rumored to not die was Lazarus, a man who had already been brought back from the dead once, the writer of the gospel could have been seeking to set the record straight about the nature of resurrection - that unlike calling Lazarus from the dead, the resurrection of believers is something that happens invisibly and is actually synonymous with regeneration; there is no such thing as a physical resurrection from the dead. Am I close?

The nature of the resurrection was still a big controversy among the Jews. NT Wright has a great article on how the Jews understood the resurrection and how they did not really understand it. It was not until after Jesus ascended into heave and the HS came in His place that these things were understood.

If so, why then do you suppose this misunderstanding arose? Were the brethren still clueless about what Jesus had taught them, if he had, in fact, been teaching what full preterist believe?

Yes, mostly they were still with a heart not open to understanding

Also, how do you think this gospel ended up being attributed to John?

Tradition as made John the author.

Do you also believe the Epistles of John were also penned by Lazarus? How about Revelation?

No, I think we are certain that the other Epistles attributed to John are correct and that Revelation was to John.
Rev. 1:4 John, to the seven churches which are in Asia

[Michelle]

It would be the same result. If Jesus returned at the time of the Abomination of Desolation (AD 70) then there were some who died during that 40 year period and some who did not die by the time of the 2nd coming.

Yeah, I got that, and Jesus mentioned that in the Olivet Discourse. How is that "the same result" as believing that one of Jesus' disciples would NOT die?

[Allyn]

It would be the same result. If Jesus returned at the time of the Abomination of Desolation (AD 70) then there were some who died during that 40 year period and some who did not die by the time of the 2nd coming.

Yeah, I got that, and Jesus mentioned that in the Olivet Discourse. How is that "the same result" as believing that one of Jesus' disciples would NOT die?

What I am saying that is the same result is that Jesus was speaking of His coming and in that context it was possible for some to remain alive til that day. The other disciples may have had it messed up thinking that the one who Jesus loved would never die but that is what rumors do sometimes and since they knew this man had died before that it is very possible they simply thought that he would not die again.

My responses to this is not to make an argument about who the author of the 4th gospel is but rather that it does not make full- preterism wrong.