Luke refers to a man who came to Jesus, asking how he might inherit eternal life (Luke 18:18). Only Luke mentions that he was a ruler (G758), while Matthew says he was a young man (Matthew 21:20, 22). All three Synoptics tell us he was very rich (Matthew 19:22; Mark 10:22; Luke 18:23), but Mark adds that Jesus loved him (Mark 10:21). So, he is a rich, young ruler, whom Jesus loved.
The Bible mentions several people who were rulers (G758). Jairus, whose daughter Jesus raised from the dead, was a ruler (G758) of a synagogue in Galilee (Luke 8:41), but Nicodemus was also called a ruler of the Jews (John 3:1), probably meaning a member of the Sanhedrin (cf. John 7:50).[1] Nicodemus was one who helped bury Jesus. The other person was Joseph of Arimathaea (John 19:38-40). Joseph was a rich man (Matthew 27:57) and a member of the Sanhedrin, i.e. a ruler of the Jews. Both Mark and Luke tell us that Joseph was a member of the Council, the high court that ruled over Jewish matters (Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50). Luke adds that he did not consent with the Council that condemned Jesus to die, showing that he was, indeed, a member of the Sanhedrin.
Joseph of Arimathaea was a rich ruler of the Jews, but do we have any proof that he might be the rich young ruler who came to Jesus in Luke 18:18, and the person Mark tells us Jesus loved (Mark 10:21)? None of these matters can be set in stone, but, if all the pertinent Scriptures are taken together, we are able to come up with possibilities, even probabilities. The fact that Joseph is a rich ruler makes it ‘possible’ for him to be the same rich ruler who came to Jesus in Luke 18:18. In other words he is a candidate, just as Lazarus is a candidate, and that could make them the same person. What might turn these possibilities into a probabilities?
In a previous study[2] I had shown that Barnabas of the book of Acts was actually Joseph, whom the Apostles named Barnabas, because of his generosity and encouragement (cf. Acts 4:36). Barnabas / Joseph is also the brother of Mary, the mother of Mark (Colossians 4:10; cf. Acts 12:12), but who is this Mary? Luke refers to her in Acts as though we should know her. Peter immediately went to her home in Jerusalem, knowing he would find brethren there upon whom he could rely to tell James, the Lord’s brother, of his whereabouts (cf. Acts 12:12, 16-17). Again, if we use only the scriptures for her identification, this Mary can be no one other than Mary Magdalene, who is also Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus.[3] If this is true, the Lazarus of the Gospel of John is the Joseph or Barnabas of Acts! Mary Magdalene = Mary, Lazarus’ sister = Mary, Barnabas’ sister. Since Barnabas’ real name is Joseph (Acts 4:36), the name, Lazarus, must be a code name used in the Gospel of John to hide Joseph’s / Barnabas’ identity from those who sought his life (cf. John 12:10-11).
We know that Joseph / Barnabas was rich (Acts 4:36). We also know that he had to have been a man of influence, because of those who mourned his death (i.e. Lazarus’s death – John 11:19). Note that the phrase “many of the Jews” who came to comfort the family were actually ‘many of the Jewish authorities’ at Jerusalem, which implies Lazarus / Barnabas (Joseph) may have been a member of the Sanhedrin. This logic creates the possibility that Barnabas / Joseph (Acts 4:36) is actually the ruler, Joseph of Arimathaea, and in making this connection, we create the possibility that Barnabas was also the rich young ruler of Luke 18:18, whom Jesus loved (Mark 10:21).
Luke 18:27 implies that the rich young ruler not only ‘could’ be saved, but ‘would’ be saved, because why would Jesus even mention this in connection with this man, unless he intended to do something about the incident? It is one thing to say all things are possible with God, and it is quite another to show that the thing pointed out, which was so difficult (Luke 18:24), was, indeed, possible with God. The fact that Mark points out that Jesus loved the rich young ruler indicates that Jesus intended to love this man into the Kingdom of God, showing how God both begins and brings to pass his work of salvation in one individual (cf. Philippians 1:6).
Whatever Jesus did in Lazarus’ life, other than raise him from the dead, it was well known that he loved him (John 11:5, 36). Moreover, Lazarus is the only male disciple in the Gospel of John who can be specifically singled out as the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 11:5; 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). So, it is implied by loving Lazarus, Jesus was working in his life. In light of this conclusion, how can we simply read the fact that the rich young ruler was loved by Jesus, but at the same time discount any implication that this indicates Jesus worked in his life too? One doesn’t simply love a person and have nothing to do with him. That’s not love. Yet, Lazarus is the only male disciple specifically identified by saying Jesus loved him.
Consider, the fact that the rich young ruler had problems with following Jesus, because of his love for wealth (Luke 18:22-24). Joseph of Arimathaea had problems with following Jesus, because of his position among the rulers of the Jews (John 19:38), so he visited Jesus secretly. If these men are the same man and can be identified as Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead, what change could we expect in Lazarus’ love for Jesus? All of a sudden Joseph goes public and identifies himself with Jesus (Mark 15:43), asking Pilate for Jesus’ body. In Acts we find Barnabas giving away his wealth, the very thing that hindered the rich young ruler in the Synoptic Gospels. Jesus loved Lazarus, put his own life in jeopardy for Lazarus, and the love of Jesus mastered Lazarus’ problem of wealth and honorable position among the Jews, and he came to full repentance to become the one we know as Barnabas in Luke’s book of Acts.
_______________________________________
[1] John 7:50 – “Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,).” The phrase being one of them should not be part of the parenthesis. Nicodemus was one of THEM, i.e. one of the rulers (cf. John 7:48), as also Moffatt, Weymouth, the New English Translation and the Contemporary English Version also testify.
[2] See Barnabas, Whom Jesus Loved
[3] See my previous studies: Mary, the Mother of Mark; Who is the Unnamed Woman of Luke 7 and Mary Magdalene.
Smoodock's Blog 
8 responses to “Identifying the Rich Young Ruler”
Greetings Patricia, I didn’t know you had to leave your fellowship. Was it your choice or were you asked to leave? I know from experience that it is a bit stressful. I am a Sunday school teacher at my fellowship, and my class knows where I stand on these things. I don’t always bring things up and for the most part avoid doing so, unless absolutely necessary to make the point. I don’t feel the need to change anyone, although that would be comfortable in the flesh. I simply trust God will bring us all into the unity of doctrine according to his wisdom. I pray about not making folks uneasy, and I almost quit teaching, because I thought I was being too pushy, but after speaking with my class, they didn’t see me coming on that way. So, I stayed.
Thank you for such a nice comment about our differences. I puts me very much at ease, but I don’t wish to take advantage of this, because the flesh is sly, and I usually end up hurting folks when I’m not careful not only with what I say but how I say it. Well, that said, here’s my reply to your previous comment.
Concerning John Eleazar’s identity, if the “Beloved Disciple” is not the Apostle John, as presumed by the early church fathers, why do you insist on calling him ‘John’? Do you have a scriptural authority for clinging to this identity?
Concerning the fact that John 20:8 says “…he BELIEVED”. What did he believe? All we are told is that Mary told the two disciples that “They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulcher, and we know not where they have laid him.” (John 20:2). So, did he “believe” Mary’s story that someone removed Jesus’ body, or did he “believe” something else? If he “believed” something else, what was that, and what scriptural reference could you submit to support your point of view?
Concerning the appeal to John’s / Lazarus’ truthfulness, that we could be assured of the truth only if he was in the state of resurrected perfection of eternal life – What is the difference between the truth stated by one of the New Testament writers and a **saint** from heaven? Jesus sent out his disciples with a message and he held those who disbelieved accountable. This means he expected folks to believe the fishermen and tax collectors, the zealots and the Pharisees that he sent out with his message. Paul tells the Galatians: “…though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). If we cannot believe the folks whom Jesus had chosen to deliver his message, (and he didn’t place any difference between any of them—that is ‘this one is more believable that that one’ etc. – if we cannot believe these men without their having perfect resurrected bodies, then what shall we do with Jesus’ words in Mark 16:16, where he holds folks accountable for how they treat the Gospel message?
Concerning my assertion that the Beloved Disciple was raised to ‘natural life,’ I have offered the scripture where the beloved disciple denies Jesus ever said he (the beloved disciple) wouldn’t die (John 21:23). Why would he do that, if he actually could die? Certainly some believed he could die (John 12:10-11). Wouldn’t he be placing doubt in the hearts and minds of his readers, thereby ‘tempting’ them to disbelieve that he would live eternally, from the time Jesus resurrected him?
Concerning the records of Tertullian and Jerome that John was unsuccessfully boiled in oil by Nero’s order to the proconsul of Ephesus, first of all, from what I understand, he was supposed to have been boiled in oil in Rome, not Ephesus, and under Domitian, not Nero. However, in an earlier record Tertullian admits that John later died. Notice both records:
Neither Tertullian nor Jerome knew John. They lived long after John died, so neither is submitting his own witness. Moreover, there is also a record an ‘aged’ John in the testimony of the church fathers. If John had a perfect body, how did it age? Many of the early church fathers told some fantastic stories, some cannot be proved. I believe the Bible, not men, no matter how beloved and used of God they might have been in their day. If it isn’t in the Bible, I’ll use it if it can be proved, but I’ll hold it suspect, if it cannot be proved with other reports of the same events. I have absolutely no reason to believe Tertullian’s story.
You said:
Patricia, in the excerpt above you do a lot of “jumping through hoops” to prove your doctrine. The plain truth is that Paul claims that “this day” (Psalm 2:7-8) was the day of Jesus’ resurrection (Romans 1:4). So, Jesus was the ‘begotten’ Son of God (first born from the dead) from the day of his resurrection.
I know that I haven’t said anything like this in any of my most recent posts. I don’t remember saying it in any of my studies years ago either, but I can’t rule that out. If I did, I was mistaken, and my understanding has changed on this issue. But, as I said, I don’t remember ever having this belief. Jesus became the first born from the dead on the day of his resurrection. This is how I understand the scriptures concerning this idea.
This reply is already three pages in my word document. So, I’ll end it here. I do have other points I could mention, but this is more than enough for now. Lord bless you Patricia.
Hi Eddie,
Answering your Sept. 25 comments…and apologies in advance for the length of this…
You couldn’t possibly weary me with a long post – used to work in a library, just for the sheer joy of surrounding myself with printed words. The church membership thing? It was my choice to part company, because “God hath called us to peace”, and my self-restriction on discussing Preterist issues openly (out of deference to my husband’s standing) had become too burdensome for my peace of mind. Remember Jeremiah’s distress at trying to refrain from voicing God’s truth in Jer. 20:9? I, too, became “weary of forbearing”, and I could not remain a member any longer.
In your case, Eddie, you must have more patience than I. After about 3 years among them of holding to Preterist beliefs, I still saw no available outlet for any depth of scriptural discussion with anyone. Leadership was pleasant about it, but rather incurious and satisfied to remain in their comfort zone without looking into the issues. No acrimony on either side during a 3 hour visit with the head pastor before I withdrew my membership. Even went back later to attend a Revelation study series at the church. My pointed questions in open discussion were allowed, as well as one-on-one discussion with the co-pastor afterward. But for some reason, the co-pastor (who had led this same study several times before) halted the series before he was done, telling the class that he needed to wait until he was more certain of his position before continuing. Hmmm. Interesting.
I’m glad you have been able to maintain a comfortable balance in your situation, Eddie. It must be helpful for your class to see that Preterism has a calm, approachable face that doesn’t have to isolate itself from others of differing views. That’s also why I choose to post on various websites across the entire eschatological spectrum, since keeping the peace for my husband’s health’s sake has limited any in-person fellowship for me. The man could get disturbed enough to have a heart attack if I’m not careful. He is a firm believer in fervently correcting anything he believes to be gospel error.
About John Eleazar’s identity? I am following the information given by Pastor David Curtis on his Berean Bible Church website. The transcript of his sermon dated 01/10/16 on the “Gospel of John – Authorship” included a quote from a Willis Barnstone from “The Other Bible, the Secret Gospel of Mark”, p. 342 as follows: “In a letter that Clement wrote to Theodore, he stated that there was more testimony attached to Mark than was presently available. Within this original Gospel was a discussion of the young man, John Eleazar (Eleazar being the Hebrew of the Greek Lazarus), who after Yeshua raised him from the tomb, went to the Garden of Gethsemane clothed in a fine white linen garment cast over his naked body.” This, I believe, is where the identity of John Eleazar as Lazarus is initiated. From his website, it appears that Pastor Curtis has held to a Lazarus = John position ever since 2007, and has revisited the subject since then on various sermons. Currently he holds that John Eleazar / Lazarus wrote not only the Gospel of John, but the 3 Epistles and Revelation as well. There are similarities between all of these that lead me to the same conclusion as Pastor Curtis, unless someone can give me some solid evidence to the contrary.
About the fact that John 20:8 says “…he BELIEVED”? The parallel account in Luke 24 tells us exactly what the beloved disciple believed when he saw the abandoned grave linens lying in the tomb. He believed what the women had just told to all the eleven, “and to ALL THE REST” (which included the beloved disciple in Luke 24:9-10). The women had just repeated the message given by the two men at the sepulcher: that Christ was risen: that He had fulfilled His own prophecy given to the 12 earlier in Luke 18:31-34 of being delivered to sinful men, crucified and raised from the dead on the 3rd day. The APOSTLES “believed not” this message from the 2 men, passed on by the women. After this, it was THEN (Luke 24:12) that Peter arose and ran to the tomb (with the beloved disciple, as John 20:3-8 tells us).
Once the beloved disciple saw those abandoned grave clothes lying, THEN it says “he believed”. In other words, he believed the complete message the 2 men at the tomb gave to the women to pass on to the disciples. The other eleven disciples still did NOT believe, even later that same day at evening when Christ was bodily standing in front of them. Luke 24:41 tells us that they “yet believed NOT for joy, and wondered” until Jesus “opened their understanding”. The beloved disciple was not one of this unbelieving group of eleven original disciples, as you have taken pains to prove, Eddie, in your posts about Barnabas / Lazarus. Jesus only rebuked the original eleven for their “unbelief and hardness of heart” in Mark 16:14 – and the beloved disciple was not one of these eleven.
About John’s / Lazarus’ trusted truthfulness as a perfected saint? You are correct that the truthfulness of the gospel has a stand-alone reliability that we should believe, regardless of the messenger. It is also true that we are responsible to exercise a true Berean caution of “trust, but verify” when it comes to scripture messages given to us – even were it an “angel from heaven”, as you have brought up from Galatians 1:8. Paul was using the impossible conditions of a HYPERBOLE there to make a point. Paul was not claiming there that an angel from heaven would actually attempt to preach another gospel to anyone. Neither could the perfected, resurrected Lazarus in a state of incorruptible righteousness practice this deception.
Christ used the same type of hyperbole in Matthew 24:24 when He said that deception would be so convincing that IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, even the “very elect” would be deceived in those last days before AD 70. Those “elect” He spoke of were the ones under the altar in Rev. 6:9-11, and also in Luke 18:7 – the “elect” that God resurrected (by giving every one of them a white robe of perfected righteousness) and later avenged those “elect” speedily in AD 70. Lazarus was in the same righteous status as these “very elect” who were resurrected – it was not possible for him to be deceived, nor to deceive anyone else himself, either. This I believe, is the reason for the trust that Peter displayed for Lazarus the beloved disciple at the Last Supper when Peter prompted him to ask the Savior about the identity of the betrayer. It is also the reason for the editor of John’s Gospel to give his closing affirmations of John’s veracity in John 21:24, as well as John’s / Lazarus’ own bold claim of personal truthfulness in III John 12.
About the John 21:22-23 text on Jesus’ intentions for the beloved disciple to remain until He came, but not specifically saying that John would avoid dying? We can’t form an assumed truth from a un-stated sentence (that the beloved disciple would surely die again later). All that the beloved disciple was saying was that Jesus spoke no words either one way or another about John dying or not dying. The exact recorded words of Christ were what John was interested in passing on – without a single word added or subtracted. He wanted to be a precise “court reporter”, with a word-for-word transcription of what Christ said.
It’s almost as if John / Lazarus had to become his own “witness protection” program, so as to avoid becoming a sensational distraction to the gospel message that they were commissioned to deliver. How many times did Barnabas / Lazarus deliberately take the back seat and remain as unobtrusive as possible when working with others, such as Paul? I sense some real humility in Barnabas / Lazarus for wanting to keep the spotlight on the risen Christ instead of on his own resurrected self. As you have noticed yourself, Eddie, Barnabas tended to let Paul be the main spokesman, such as in the judgment of Elymas in Acts 13. Therefore, I believe John / Lazarus / Barnabas down-played Christ’s remarks in John 20:22 so that the focus of the disciples’ ministry would remain on Christ and His message rather than having them envy Lazarus in his resurrected state for his inability to die or be injured by persecution.
About the Tertullian and Jerome account of the attempt to kill John by boiling him in oil? There is the circumstantial evidence of III John 12 that would seem to support that the episode actually occurred. But just like yourself, Eddie, I don’t lean on the extra-biblical to do the job of scripture’s testimony. Tertullian’s accuracy I take with a grain of salt, as with all the church fathers. He may have thought that it was an “ungrounded expectation that he (the beloved disciple) would remain alive until the coming of the Lord”, but Christ Himself definitely spoke through Paul about those who would be “alive” and “remain” until the coming of the Lord (I Thess. 4:15,17). The resurrected John / Lazarus was included as one of these “alive” ones who “remained” on earth in a resurrected state until Christ took all resurrected saints back with Him to heaven in AD 70. (No presumed mass translation of living saints was ever predicted in scripture – not in I Thess. 4, nor in I Cor. 15:51-52.)
The III John verse 12 circumstantial evidence where Tertullian’s miraculous story might very well fit in would go as follows: Demetrius in that verse I take to be the same as the former idol-worshipping instigator of the Ephesian riot of AD 59 against Paul and the other church leaders in Acts 19:24 (including Gaius, to whom III John was written around AD 65). Yet in III John verse12, John gave this same Demetrius his highest recommendation, acknowledging that all men, and the truth itself had given a good report about this man. The only thing that could have convinced this dedicated idol-worshipper to do a complete 180 degree turnaround so soon would be something so miraculously compeling that he could not deny the power of Paul’s Savior.
If John / Lazarus / Barnabas was doing ministry in the Ephesian church as a leader, and if Acts 19:38 shows that Demetrius probably brought a legal case against the Ephesian church leader John (since Paul, Demetrius’ prime target had immediately left Ephesus in Acts 20:1), then the Ephesian proconsul would have had the legal authorization through Nero to make a judgment against John, (the attempted boiling-in-oil incident). If Demetrius had “impleaded” a lawsuit against John, he would have witnessed the attempted execution – and survival – of John / Lazarus. Rather dramatic evangelistic methods, but necessary to turn Demetrius into a fervent believer that was worthy of John’s accolades in III John verse 12.
Here is the record in the original Foxe’s Book of Martyrs from the 1583 edition before it was withdrawn from later editions: “The first Booke conteyning the X first persecutions, of the Primitive Churche. In this persecution John the Apostle and Evangelist was exiled by the sayd Domitianus” (Domitius Nero, according to the title page of the Syriac Peshitta) “into Pathmos. Of who divers and sundry memorable actes, be reported in sundry Chronicles. As first how he was put in a vessell of boiling oil, by the Proconsul of Ephesus. The Legend and Perionius say, it was done at Rome.” (material in parentheses mine)
There is room to argue for or against this miraculous account and its details, so I only bring it up because it does seem to fit into the Acts 19 chronology and the III John 12 verse. If Tertullian thought that John underwent death, perhaps he was confusing John Eleazar / Lazarus with his sister’s son, John Mark – also a church leader (which was probably the “presbyter John” that Papias mentions in addition to James and John, sons of Zebedee in that portion of his work quoted by Eusebius).
And about the church fathers’ record of an “aged” John, and the question of how a resurrected, perfect body could “age”? (I presume you are referring to Clement’s story of John as an old man and the young bandit?) You probably will not agree with this point, (and I think I’ve read one of your posts that denies this idea), but any resurrected saint, just like Christ our example, can appear in a “different form” – a “hetera morphe”. This, by the way, was absolutely essential for Christ, because on resurrection morning, the ascending Christ could not legally be installed as our high priest if He had any physical blemishes. Otherwise, He would have been disqualified to serve as our high priest according to the antitype of OT law. He offered Himself “WITHOUT SPOT” to God (Heb. 9:14). Once that blemish-free offering was accepted by God, Christ then returned to earth and could assume another appearance that day which had crucifixion wound holes, in order to convince the disciples that it truly was Himself. The two disciples on the road to Emmaus saw yet “another form” of appearance (Mark 16:12) – unrecognizable to them as the risen Christ. So, the resurrected Lazarus could also adopt any aged appearance at his own optional discretion, if necessary, to blend in unobtrusively with those serving in the church during those last days before Christ’s AD 70 return.
There is also a sermon transcript on Pastor Curtis’ website bereanbiblechurch.org, where a Richard Nemec delivered a message on this theme of the “Resurrection Body of Christ” on 11/2/97 that covered some of this same view that I have brought up above.
About the definition of the “First-begotten”? You’re right, Eddie, that I jump through a lot of hoops to prove my position. Just so long as they are all the RIGHT hoops, that shouldn’t pose a problem. I’ve no argument with the way you phrase things on this. It’s true what you wrote: “Jesus became the firstborn from the dead on the day of his resurrection”. It was ALSO included on that very same day, that morning after His Saturday evening resurrection, that Jesus ASCENDED to His Father for the first time in His glorified, resurrected body to apply His blood sacrifice on heaven’s mercy seat as our high priest. That’s my point; that it took that final step of ascension to give Christ the title of the “First-begotten”, when He was actually IN GOD’S PRESENCE in that resurrected form on “THIS DAY”, as Psalms 2:7 put it. In the soon-coming resurrection of AD 70, this was what the saints expected for themselves also; to “STAND BEFORE the Son of Man” in their bodily-resurrected forms (Luke 21:36) and to be presented “faultless BEFORE THE PRESENCE of His glory with exceeding joy” (Jude 24). All of the benefits provided for the saints’ salvation completely realized.
Apologies, Eddie, if I have assumed an agreement from one of your posts that you think Dan. 7:13-14 is speaking about Christ’s ascension on resurrection day. I should have noted the place where I read this on your blog so that you could do a retraction there if you wished to, but I’ve forgotten which post it was. My bad.
Okay, I’ve gone waaay over on too much content here (overload is my usual Achilles’ heel), but thank you for the exchange of your thoughts, Eddie. Writing is a therapeutic outlet for me, but you can still invite me to back off of your turf at any time if you think it best. Just do like Dr. Gentry does on his website and don’t post my ramblings, and I will take the hint.
Blessings on your blog…
Greetings Patricia,
Thank you for your comment. You stamina needs to be commended. Lord bless you.
I don’t know that I have more patience than you or anyone else for that matter. However, I have learned that it is not my responsibility to change anyone’s belief about what the Bible says. I’ll state my case, and let the Holy Spirit do the rest. I thought about ending our discussion last night, but this morning I have to wonder how much fellowship you get, if you don’t go to church. Even negative remarks about what you believe could be something desired, just so you could consider the stronghold you’ve built up and repair any damage done in the discussion. Most folks don’t like to admit they are in error. I know I don’t, so I allow them the same freedom I claim for myself, and most discussions have had with others have ended by this time.
I have admitted error in the past, but it comes with a lot of inner pain, but a love for the truth permits me to endure the pain and go on from there.
Concerning John Eleazar and the Secret Gospel of Mark, it is my understanding that the “Secret Gospel of Mark” is an Agnostic gospel. I would be very careful what evidence I would take from it in order to support the truth. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but I am say extreme caution should be used. I don’t see how one could draw evidence from it to prove who the writer of the fourth Gospel is. The witness coming from the church fathers is that it was written by the Apostle John. As much as I don’t like taking a lot of testimony from them, I would choose their word over the writer of the Secret Gospel of Mark. No offense intended here, but be careful what you build using ‘evidence’ from there.
Concerning John 20:8 and what the beloved disciple believed, your chronology contradicts the fourth Gospel. There Mary Magdalene ran to the two disciples (Peter, and Joseph/Lazarus) who were staying in Jerusalem and told them someone **stole** the body of Jesus. Even Mary at this point didn’t believe Jesus had been resurrected. The beloved disciple believed **something**, but only the women who fled the tomb (prior to the Mary’s return with the two disciples), having the revelation from the angels that Jesus was alive, knew that Jesus rose from the dead. If the beloved disciple really believed Jesus rose from the dead, why didn’t he offer his support to the women who testified of the truth? Not one word of his **belief** in the resurrection appears in any of the Gospel narratives, not even after Mary’s later arrival to say she actually saw the resurrected Jesus. Many Christians believe just as you do, that the beloved disciple really did believe in Jesus’ resurrection before any of the other men, but the scriptures simply do not support such an understanding.
Concerning John 21:22-23 and the beloved disciple using hyperbole, hyperbole is exaggeration, and he doesn’t exaggerate here. He simply states what the Lord said, then he comments on it. His comment, not the Lord’s statement is in question. Why would he tell his readers that many believed the beloved disciple wouldn’t die, but the Lord didn’t actually say he wouldn’t die? You said: “We can’t form an assumed truth from a un-stated sentence…” Aren’t you assuming truth from an un-stated sentence? Where does it actually say the beloved disciple would never die and/or that he couldn’t be deceived? The implication of John 21:22-23 is that the beloved disciple would die, because Jesus didn’t say what other folks believed about the beloved disciple. In other words, other folks were wrong to believe such a thing. After all, Jesus didn’t say that!
Concerning the beloved disciple having to be ‘his own “witness protection” program,’ you are making a lot of assumptions in that paragraph to support your theory. You tell the story and afterwards cause the scripture to agree. When you first mentioned these saints who were resurrected with perfect bodies (in earlier comments), you said they were gifts to the Church, why would God want to hide that gift or why would Paul for that matter? If the resurrected saint is really God’s gift, by all means put the gift out there in plain view for all to see. Let the “Gift” run point for the Gospel effort, after all, he can’t be killed. Let folks see the power of God up front. Forgive me, Patricia, but I’m getting awfully close here to describing a magician’s sideshow (viz. Tertullian’s boiling in oil incident). But, IF the beloved disciple couldn’t be killed, he would have the responsibility of being the stronger protecting the weaker brethren by taking the risks himself, similar to a parents protection for his or her children. Such a thing was never done according to Acts. The stronger in the faith (Paul, Barnabas, Silas etc.) took the heat for the new believers, but this was spiritual strength, not physical (superman type) power like you describe.
Concerning your taking “Tertullian’s accuracy… with a grain of salt,” yet you completely believe his story about John being boiled in oil, and that without any additional support. Moreover, in order to lend credence to Tertullian’s magical account, you use 3John and Acts 19 to make Luke’s Demetrius the same person as John’s Demetrius, when there is absolutely nothing to connect the two, except that they have the same name. Lots of people had the same names; three sets of the Apostles – 6 out of 12 – had the same names. You seem to be stating your doctrine, and then interpreting scripture according to it. Patricia, I don’t think that is wise.
Concerning my reference to Clement’s story of John as an old man and the young bandit, you used Mark 16:12 to say that John was in a different “form” (hetera morphe). Again, you are simply stating your doctrine is fact, and afterwards you interpret scripture according to it. However, it doesn’t work here. Strong’s number for “morphe” is (G3444) and below is what I claimed in a recent post in Luke’s Gospel:
The “form” (G3444) has more to do with one’s expression or posture. I have found that, if I meet a member of my church away from church, when that person isn’t wearing his “church clothes” etc., he looks different. Sometimes I wonder, if it is really who I think it may be. Folks have said the same about me when they meet me away from church. Think about it! We see one another every week, but almost don’t recognize one another outside that environment. Jesus’ resurrection was completely unexpected. The Apostles’ whole worldview had to change because of what occurred. They were taught a false doctrine by the Pharisees and priests. False doctrine is a strong delusion. It holds the heart and mind captive, and it is difficult for such a one to consider another point of view. Such was the case with the two disciples going to Emmaus. Do you remember how they recognized Jesus? It was in the breaking of the bread. That is when they saw his nail-pierced hands!
Concerning Christ’s glorified body, he couldn’t have had his “glorified” body when he ascended at the time of the Wave Sheaf offering. In his glorified body/form he is God in every sense of the word, and is able to be **with** us individually and collectively at the same time. He couldn’t do that while in the body he possessed on earth during the days of his public ministry. He could be only in one place at any given moment, and he was subject to time etc. just as we are. Not so, in his glorified form. While he appeared to Mary, he couldn’t have been with the two on their way to Emmaus. When he was with them, he couldn’t have appeared to the eleven in the Upper Room. All these things were done in the same body he had during his public ministry. In heaven Christ is not so confined. Consider what he told the disciples the night before he died. If he stayed with them the “other Comforter” wouldn’t come. Why? Because he was with them at the table and wasn’t glorified yet, and he wouldn’t be as long as he ministered to them in that body. Jesus told them, if he went away he would come again to them (John 14:18-20), because our hope of glory is Christ **in** us (Colossians 1:27).
Concerning Daniel 7:13-14 and how I interpreted it, no apology is necessary. I’ll simply try to find where that was and make a note there in that post that this is not what I believe today. As far as our discussion is concerned, there is nothing in your replies that would cause me not to post them. I did that to one or two other people, but I advised them not to continue doing what they were doing before I did it. Then, I told them after I refused to post their entire post that I wouldn’t continue in our discussion. If I don’t wish to discuss this further with you, I’ll tell you. I owe you that for the time you put into your replies. As I said above, I considered not replying to all of your comment, because it doesn’t seem like either of us intends to budge on what we believe about the beloved disciple, the 144000 and the resurrected saints etc. However, I don’t mind continuing further for the sake of your fellowship with believers. In my opinion, you need that fellowship whether or not you agree with the brethren on all matters. You will agree on the things you are willing to die for. I hope you would not be willing to die over this doctrine. I certainly wouldn’t, but I hope I would be willing to die to express my belief in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. There is a difference, and I hope you see that. Lord bless you, Patricia.