If I will that he tarry till I come?

[ScottA]

Regarding the timing of the return of Christ:

John chapter 21, verse 22 is one of the verses that make Jesus' return seem to be future, and even as a mass, one-time event. However, if you look at the original wording the scriptures do not support that idea:

John 21:22​

"Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me."​

John was talking with Jesus and asking who would betray Him. Peter overhearing, asked, "Lord, and what shall this man do?" It is merely assumed that Peter is referring to John, however, that was not who John's question was about--he was asking about the man who would betray Jesus. Answering, Jesus said to Peter verse 21: "Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me."

Without assuming, Peter very well may have been jealously referring to John--but the topic and context was who would betray Jesus. But that is not the answer Jesus gave. Meaning, He didn't name anyone, but directed His answer to His return, alluding to the time, saying "If I will that he tarry till I come..." The key word here is "terry" or "menō" #G3306 defined in different places as: abide (61x), remain (16x), dwell (15x), continue (11x), tarry (9x), endure (3x).

Many translations define "meno" as "remain"...which again, this or any of the other possible translations or uses of the original word, could seem to refer to Jesus returning in the future. Well, go figure, Jesus was in fact saying those words before He was even crucified! So, yes, future is correct. But it should not be assumed to be distant future, when Jesus Himself said He was coming "soon", "quickly", and that during John's lifetime when he was writing the book of Revelation, Jesus said, "Behold, I stand [present tense] at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come..." Present tense, not future.

To get a better picture at the actual timing, Paul speaking of the Lords return gives us another clue in 1 Thessalonians 4:15, saying "For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive [present tense] and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep." The key word here being "remain" in many translations. Except the word used here is "perileipō", meaning "to leave over", or "to remain over, to survive."

The difference is, Paul is referring to "we" who aren't dead yet, but "are alive", and so was Jesus: "Behold, I stand [present tense] at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come..." Both are present tense, not future.

But what was Jesus talking about? He was talking about Him returning in the glory of the Father, by coming "in to" us...which describes the born again of the spirit of God experience of living people. The "remaining" that Paul elaborated upon then, refers to what we are to be doing during that unique experience of having Christ in us while we are still alive and remain in this world, before we die like some many generations before Pentecost when Jesus became firstfruits of all who are born of the Spirit. Meaning, we don't wait upon the Lord, but wait and endure until the end in service.

Unfortunately, many do not teach it that way...even though that is how it is written.

Oh, and yes, who Peter was actually referring to--is a good question!...even if Jesus didn't offer that, but answered with something we can be sure is more meaningful.

 

[Lambano]

John was talking with Jesus and asking who would betray Him.

Say what? The betrayal question happened during the Last Supper (John 13). The "You follow me" vignette happened post Resurrection (John 21).

I don't know if that affects your overall thesis or not.

 

[Jay Ross]

@ScottA

For clarification here is John 21 to help you correct your post.

Jesus Appears to Seven Disciples

1 After this Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias, and he revealed himself in this way. 2 Simon Peter, Thomas (called the Twin), Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples were together. 3 Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.” They said to him, “We will go with you.” They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.

4 Just as day was breaking, Jesus stood on the shore; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5 Jesus said to them, “Children, do you have any fish?” They answered him, “No.” 6 He said to them, “Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in, because of the quantity of fish. 7 That disciple whom Jesus loved therefore said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he was stripped for work, and threw himself into the sea. 8 The other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full of fish, for they were not far from the land, but about a hundred yards off.

9 When they got out on land, they saw a charcoal fire in place, with fish laid out on it, and bread. 10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish that you have just caught.” 11 So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, 153 of them. And although there were so many, the net was not torn. 12 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” Now none of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and so with the fish. 14 This was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.

Jesus and Peter

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” 19 (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”

Jesus and the Beloved Apostle

20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remains until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” 23 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?”
24This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
25 Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

You have confused when this story actual took place.

 

[MostlyConfused]

Say what? The betrayal question happened during the Last Supper (John 13). The "You follow me" vignette happened post Resurrection (John 21).

I don't know if that affects your overall thesis or not.

I had a too long reply typed out to that effect when I was told I couldn’t post until I accepted cookies, which I then spent a good portion of the morning trying to figure out how to comply with but failed miserably at! But you said it in much fewer words than my rambling did!

 

[MostlyConfused]

A Previous conversation is being used as an identifier of a person CURRENTLY being discussed. Peter did not ask Jesus that question. John had previously asked it. I can see how it could be confusing, and especially with the odd way that John had of referring to himself as not an ego or an “I, John” but rather as only important in relation to Jesus.

 

[ScottA]

Say what? The betrayal question happened during the Last Supper (John 13). The "You follow me" vignette happened post Resurrection (John 21).

I don't know if that affects your overall thesis or not.

John 21
20 Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21 Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?”

22 Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.”

 

[IndianaRob]

Regarding the timing of the return of Christ:

John chapter 21, verse 22 is one of the verses that make Jesus' return seem to be future, and even as a mass, one-time event. However, if you look at the original wording the scriptures do not support that idea:

John 21:22​

"Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me."​

John was talking with Jesus and asking who would betray Him. Peter overhearing, asked, "Lord, and what shall this man do?" It is merely assumed that Peter is referring to John, however, that was not who John's question was about--he was asking about the man who would betray Jesus. Answering, Jesus said to Peter verse 21: "Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me."

Without assuming, Peter very well may have been jealously referring to John--but the topic and context was who would betray Jesus. But that is not the answer Jesus gave. Meaning, He didn't name anyone, but directed His answer to His return, alluding to the time, saying "If I will that he tarry till I come..." The key word here is "terry" or "menō" #G3306 defined in different places as: abide (61x), remain (16x), dwell (15x), continue (11x), tarry (9x), endure (3x).

Many translations define "meno" as "remain"...which again, this or any of the other possible translations or uses of the original word, could seem to refer to Jesus returning in the future. Well, go figure, Jesus was in fact saying those words before He was even crucified! So, yes, future is correct. But it should not be assumed to be distant future, when Jesus Himself said He was coming "soon", "quickly", and that during John's lifetime when he was writing the book of Revelation, Jesus said, "Behold, I stand [present tense] at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come..." Present tense, not future.

To get a better picture at the actual timing, Paul speaking of the Lords return gives us another clue in 1 Thessalonians 4:15, saying "For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive [present tense] and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep." The key word here being "remain" in many translations. Except the word used here is "perileipō", meaning "to leave over", or "to remain over, to survive."

The difference is, Paul is referring to "we" who aren't dead yet, but "are alive", and so was Jesus: "Behold, I stand [present tense] at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come..." Both are present tense, not future.

But what was Jesus talking about? He was talking about Him returning in the glory of the Father, by coming "in to" us...which describes the born again of the spirit of God experience of living people. The "remaining" that Paul elaborated upon then, refers to what we are to be doing during that unique experience of having Christ in us while we are still alive and remain in this world, before we die like some many generations before Pentecost when Jesus became firstfruits of all who are born of the Spirit. Meaning, we don't wait upon the Lord, but wait and endure until the end in service.

Unfortunately, many do not teach it that way...even though that is how it is written.

Oh, and yes, who Peter was actually referring to--is a good question!...even if Jesus didn't offer that, but answered with something we can be sure is more meaningful.

I somewhat agree with you on the "coming" part, but I think 1 Thessalonians 4:15 is about our being caught up to be with the Lord at our own deaths.

When Jesus said "if I will that he tarry till I come," I think that's what he meant. But I'd also agree with you that salvation is a coming of Jesus. That's one a lot of people conflate into "the second coming" without realizing they're two different things.

 

[ScottA]

@ScottA

For clarification here is John 21 to help you correct your post.

Jesus Appears to Seven Disciples

1 After this Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias, and he revealed himself in this way. 2 Simon Peter, Thomas (called the Twin), Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples were together. 3 Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.” They said to him, “We will go with you.” They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.

4 Just as day was breaking, Jesus stood on the shore; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5 Jesus said to them, “Children, do you have any fish?” They answered him, “No.” 6 He said to them, “Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in, because of the quantity of fish. 7 That disciple whom Jesus loved therefore said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he was stripped for work, and threw himself into the sea. 8 The other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full of fish, for they were not far from the land, but about a hundred yards off.

9 When they got out on land, they saw a charcoal fire in place, with fish laid out on it, and bread. 10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish that you have just caught.” 11 So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, 153 of them. And although there were so many, the net was not torn. 12 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” Now none of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and so with the fish. 14 This was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.

Jesus and Peter

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” 19 (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”

Jesus and the Beloved Apostle

20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remains until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” 23 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?”
24This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
25 Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

You have confused when this story actual took place.

I was not saying the time that Peter asked Jesus "What about this man?" or "You follow me." was here, there, or anywhere--it was John who vignetted it in chapter 21 where it is stated.

I was referring to the timing of Jesus' return--His second coming, based on the language used that can be take in different ways.

So, no, you have not corrected me, but I have corrected the wrong interpretation of the modern text now being believed incorrectly.

 

[ScottA]

I somewhat agree with you on the "coming" part, but I think 1 Thessalonians 4:15 is about our being caught up to be with the Lord at our own deaths.

When Jesus said "if I will that he tarry till I come," I think that's what he meant. But I'd also agree with you that salvation is a coming of Jesus. That's one a lot of people conflate into "the second coming" without realizing they're two different things.

Hi Rob,

1 Thessalonians 4:15 refers to (says) when "we who are alive and remain."

I was pointing out that both Jesus and Paul were referring to the same time...but that Paul frames his witness in a time the saved "remain" "alive." The point is that, Paul's witness is a correction of the common belief and error of assuming that "terry" means we all have to wait until we die.

Which is Paul correcting really, rather than me, although it would appear that correction is still needed.

 

[MostlyConfused]

Okay, I’m trying here. I am taxing the full wattage of my brain power and, admittedly, it’s only 30 watts. But I still think you are turning something used IN the current conversation as the topic OF the current conversation when it is NOT the topic of the current conversation but is used as an identifier descriptor OF the person being talked about in the current conversation.
Admittedly, you could be viewing it with a higher wattage than I am and seeing something I simply cannot. But if so, it appears that the dimmer bulbs are ALL confused about this. I will also admit that I don’t often use my brain in this manner much any more and so I may be rusty, incapable of, or just not inclined to want to go back to using it that way. I’m voting for just not inclined and ducking out before I frustrate you into knots! And now I’m thinking that will sound arrogant, as if I’m trying to say the topic is dumb but be assured I am not saying that at all. Consider my name - I chose it for a reason!!

 

[ScottA]

Okay, I’m trying here. I am taxing the full wattage of my brain power and, admittedly, it’s only 30 watts. But I still think you are turning something used IN the current conversation as the topic OF the current conversation when it is NOT the topic of the current conversation but is used as an identifier descriptor OF the person being talked about in the current conversation.
Admittedly, you could be viewing it with a higher wattage than I am and seeing something I simply cannot. But if so, it appears that the dimmer bulbs are ALL confused about this. I will also admit that I don’t often use my brain in this manner much any more and so I may be rusty, incapable of, or just not inclined to want to go back to using it that way. I’m voting for just not inclined and ducking out before I frustrate you into knots! And now I’m thinking that will sound arrogant, as if I’m trying to say the topic is dumb but be assured I am not saying that at all. Consider my name - I chose it for a reason!!

That's logical, limited, but logical.

In a "precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little there a little" narrative it should be understood that we even be expected to connect the dots, even if things seem unrelated. Now I don't mean without biblical cause, but with; and if with, who is to say? Here is an example, Christ being the best example:

Psalm 22:1​

"My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?​

Matthew 27:46​

“My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”​

Was David right to cry out to God of what at the time was his own suffering?
Was Jesus right to come along a thousand years and claim the same words and relative to His own suffering?

Yes, on both accounts. First, because David was moved by God by the anointing upon his live to speak the words as perfectly applicable to his own set of current circumstances engineered by God, to later also be perfectly applicable to Christ. But which is greater--the first or the last use of those same words?

Paul did much the same thing when he seemed to pluck the words regarding the Law out of the Law, seemingly for his own personal use to justify and give authority to his three trips to the Corinthians, saying, "This will be the third time I am coming to you. “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.” Which was greater--the Law which could not save, or the gospel which Paul gave witness to with authority?

So, if logic were the rule, neither of those is legitimate? But it's not. On the contrary, each had a biblical cause. Then, the question is, who is to say? God is.

 

[Jay Ross]

I was not saying the time that Peter asked Jesus "What about this man?" or "You follow me." was here, there, or anywhere--it was John who vignetted it in chapter 21 where it is stated.

I was referring to the timing of Jesus' return--His second coming, based on the language used that can be take in different ways.

So, no, you have not corrected me, but I have corrected the wrong interpretation of the modern text now being believed incorrectly.

I had to look up the meaning of the word "vignetted" which you had flamboyantly used in your response.

Vignetted is the past tense and past participle of vignette. It describes something that has been visually or textually styled to have edges or borders that fade gradually into obscurity, often drawing focus entirely to the central subject.​

For me Christ's statement to Peter can simply be expressed as, "Peter, what this man's future is, is no business of yours, but mine. You should just focus on following me."

Your statement that this verse was focusing on when Christ would return, is a misdirection on your part, to say the least.

 

[ScottA]

I had to look up the meaning of the word "vignetted" which you had flamboyantly used in your response.

Vignetted is the past tense and past participle of vignette. It describes something that has been visually or textually styled to have edges or borders that fade gradually into obscurity, often drawing focus entirely to the central subject.​

For me Christ's statement to Peter can simply be expressed as, "Peter, what this man's future is, is no business of yours, but mine. You should just focus on following me."

Your statement that this verse was focusing on when Christ would return, is a misdirection on your part, to say the least.

No, not a misdirect, but a redirect. Jesus had died and rose from the dead and was giving signs and referring to things to come, and then He ascended and was expected to "soon" return. In that overall message of chapters was information not yet fully realized--even who Jesus was when He came among them.

And Jesus is among us now also, and yet many need to be reminded of what He actually said, rather than what has been interpreted and taught to the contrary.

 

[Jay Ross]

yet many need to be reminded of what He actually said, rather than what has been interpreted and taught to the contrary

So true ScottA, but do you even understand your own words let alone Christ's

 

[Ziggy]

I do have a question please.
who is this John?

Act 4:6
And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.

Thankyou
Hugs

 

[ScottA]

So true ScottA, but do you even understand your own words let alone Christ's

I do. Not all the nuances or even traditions regarding the languages per se, but I do understand the spiritual.