The apostle that Jesus loved

[Zazzy]

Why was the apostle John called the one that Jesus loved? Did he have more faith than the others?

[acceptedintheBeloved]

The apostle that Jesus loved

Why was the apostle John called the one that Jesus loved? Did he have more faith than the others?

Actually, the Bible never names just who "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was. There are some studies which have shown (via scripture) that it likely was NOT John, but another disciple of His (not one of the twelve)... and I tend to agree with the reasoning.

In fact, it was awhile back [July 2009, I see] that I was involved in a thread, here on RR, explaining some of the details of this. I can try to find it (but it has been quite awhile). It's really quite interesting, though...


ETA: Ah, I found it! But, it doesn't look like the quoted parts show up as such (for instance, where I am quoting another poster, the quotes do not show up), so it may be a bit difficult to wade through it, in order to make proper sense of the thread. (Challenging! ) The thread starts out asking the identity of another person (the young man who fled naked in Mark 14:51-52), but gets into the question of the identity of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (who also was the author of the Book we know as "the Book of John" as well as the three epistles by the same name).


Oops... found a better link (which does show the quotes properly):

"Who's the nude dude?"

http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?1008...the-nude-dude&

(Ignore my mistakes toward the end of the thread, which I eventually corrected. )

[randall]

Could it be because John was the one who took care of Jesus's mother after his crucifixion. The bible seems to relay these differant and equally special relationships that our Lord had with all his disciples. It seems if there was a disciple that Jesus was maybe humanly closer to, therefore loved more, I can't imagine anyone else but the apostle John.

[acceptedintheBeloved]

Could it be because John was the one who took care of Jesus's mother after his crucifixion. The bible seems to relay these differant and equally special relationships that our Lord had with all his disciples. It seems if there was a disciple that Jesus was maybe humanly closer to, therefore loved more, I can't imagine anyone else but the apostle John.

Keep in mind that the disciple who took over the care of Jesus' mother was not specifically named in the text.
(More info at the link I posted, above... )

[randall]

Your right, he is not mentioned like I always thought. Now my curiousity is up, maybe the person whom our Lord was closest to was not the most prominent in the bible.

[Hootmon]

Why was the apostle John called the one that Jesus loved? Did he have more faith than the others?

More humility more likely. Jesus loved all of them.

[acceptedintheBeloved]

Your right, he is not mentioned like I always thought. Now my curiousity is up, maybe the person whom our Lord was closest to was not the most prominent in the bible.

Good way of putting it.

[Wally]

From : www.gotquestions.org

Question: "Who was the disciple whom Jesus loved?"

Answer: The Gospel of John is the only Gospel which mentions “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” John 13:23 tells us, "One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to Him." John 19:26 declares, "When Jesus saw His mother there, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, 'Dear woman, here is your son.'" John 21:7 describes, “Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, ‘It is the Lord!’” This disciple is never specifically identified, but the identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved is clear. The disciple whom Jesus loved is John, the son of Zebedee and brother of James.

First, only the Gospel of John mentions the "disciple whom Jesus loved." Secondly, John 21:2 lets us know who was fishing with Peter "Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together..." The Apostle John was a son of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21). Thirdly, there were three disciples whom were especially close to Jesus: Peter, James, and John (Matthew 17:1; Mark 5:37; 14:33; Luke 8:51). The 'disciple whom Jesus loved" could not be Peter, as Peter asks Jesus a question in regards to this disciple (John 21:20-21). That leaves us with James or John. Jesus made a statement about the possible "longevity" of the life of the disciple whom He loved in John 21:22. James was the first of the apostles to die (Acts 12:2). While Jesus did not promise the disciple whom He loved long life, it would be highly unusual for Jesus to say, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?" if the disciple whom He loved was going to be the first disciple to die.

Church history tells us that the Apostle John lived into the 90's A.D. and was the last surviving apostle. Early church tradition was unanimous in identifying John as the disciple whom Jesus loved. It seems that John had a closer relationship with Jesus than any of the other disciples. Jesus and John were essentially “best friends.” Jesus entrusted John with the care of His mother, gave John the vision of the transfiguration, allowed John to witness His most amazing miracles, and later gave John the Book of Revelation.




John 20:1-3 New King James Version (NKJV)

1 Now the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. 2 Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.”
3 Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb.


"James and John" appear in the other 3 gospels. Not John.
Likely this is because he was writing his own story. (Matthew does include himself - Matthew the tax collector- in his narrative) In John though, John the baptist is mentioned many times, but not John the disciple.

To be someone so close to Jesus, to be referred as the one He loved, this person is so "important", its simply so obvious we should not have to ask.


Reminds me of Ester, God is not mentioned, but it is obvious He is there.

[acceptedintheBeloved]

Wally, the link I posted covers some of those issues, as well as (for instance) how "that other disciple" (assumed to be John, according to tradition), when he arrived first at the tomb (John 20:8-9), "saw, and believed" (note, this is not said of Peter, who was also present), yet later, when Jesus appeared unto the 11 (including John), as they sat eating (not including Judas), He "upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen." (Mark 16:14).

It doesn't quite jive, if "that other disciple" who arrived first at the tomb, saw, and believed, was John (the same guy as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" who remained unnamed throughout these various episodes).

I admit this isn't one of the best arguments, there are better ones in the thread at the link I posted above (and more points which I didn't get to)... IMO.

Just some thoughts (the link I provided goes into much greater detail... and is simply a possibility to consider).

[Wally]

John 20:8-9 may be semantics as John saw and Believed the report of the women - Jesus was gone, for the next verse says they did not remember Scripture.


Interesting ideas on this person. I guess I simply read John as a self narrative. The details throughout this Gospel are recorded more as an eyewitness, not a 2nd-3rd party, like when the writer describes what he saw in the tomb. As the writer is John, then the other disciple would be John.

[acceptedintheBeloved]

John 20:8-9 may be semantics as John saw and Believed the report of the women - Jesus was gone, for the next verse says they did not remember Scripture.

I see what you are saying.
However, the "unnamed disciple" saw and believed, at that time. But it doesn't give his identity.
There are other reasons (discussed in the thread at link) why it may not have been John.

[acceptedintheBeloved]

Interesting ideas on this person. I guess I simply read John as a self narrative. The details throughout this Gospel are recorded more as an eyewitness, not a 2nd-3rd party, like when the writer describes what he saw in the tomb. As the writer is John, then the other disciple would be John.

I do believe the (unnamed) writer of the book we know as the Book of John, if not John, was still indeed an eyewitness, and a disciple (though not one of the twelve).


(John 21:2, 7 are two more verses [see context] which hint toward the possibility of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" not being John, as more fully explained at the link... only four pages long... not too long to read. )

[Kliska]

I've read a lot about this, and my uncle studied it as well. Now, first, the obvious disclaimer; Just because something is "traditional" doesn't make it true, however, logic dictates that the evidence behind something is stronger if history backs something up. So far I've never found and early account that the gospel of John wasn't written by John, but by Lazarus (for example). Even when examined secularly for evidence, it seems that history points to John.

accepted; have you ever come across anything recorded as early as the other witnesses that John did indeed author the gospel, that states Lazarus wrote it?

As for loving a certain disciple more...well, Jesus was human too, and we all have certain people that we do tend to have more affection for even though we love others too. Jesus, as Jesus, got to associate with his friends at that time as a human walking the earth.

[acceptedintheBeloved]

I've read a lot about this, and my uncle studied it as well. Now, first, the obvious disclaimer; Just because something is "traditional" doesn't make it true, however, logic dictates that the evidence behind something is stronger if history backs something up. So far I've never found and early account that the gospel of John wasn't written by John, but by Lazarus (for example). Even when examined secularly for evidence, it seems that history points to John.

accepted; have you ever come across anything recorded as early as the other witnesses that John did indeed author the gospel, that states Lazarus wrote it?

As for loving a certain disciple more...well, Jesus was human too, and we all have certain people that we do tend to have more affection for even though we love others too. Jesus, as Jesus, got to associate with his friends at that time as a human walking the earth.

No, but as I understand it, the one who is normally attributed to have stated that it was John (Polycarp, if I recall rightly) never has it in any of his writings that it was John.

On the other hand, there seem to be several places in scripture that would indicate otherwise (meaning, that it wasn't John), and only one named person (man), whom the Bible actually DOES say "Jesus loved" (specifically).

But these are two separate investigations (i.e. that he remained nameless, AND who else it may have been, if not John).

My main point in this present discussion, is merely to point out how the Bible doesn't clearly name "the disciple whom Jesus loved" as being John (definitively).

[Kliska]

No, but as I understand it, the one who is normally attributed to have stated that it was John (Polycarp, if I recall rightly) never has it in any of his writings that it was John.

On the other hand, there seem to be several places in scripture that would indicate otherwise (meaning, that it wasn't John), and only one named person (man), whom the Bible actually DOES say "Jesus loved" (specifically).

But these are two separate investigations (i.e. that he remained nameless, AND who else it may have been, if not John).

My main point in this present discussion, is merely to point out how the Bible doesn't clearly name "the disciple whom Jesus loved" as being John (definitively).

Right, I've got all that, but when we look at evidence that would help discern who it was, we do need to look even at history and what is recorded, esp. by those closer to the events than us. Tradition, in this case, history, is on the side of John. I've read others give a good defense of it being John, hence if I can see evidence of that in scripture AND history points to John, rather than seeing evidence in scripture that it was someone else (I can see hints here and that it may be), AND there is no historical evidence that someone else wrote it...logically I'll have to stick with John unless there is new evidence either in or outside the Bible that is found.

[acceptedintheBeloved]

Right, I've got all that, but when we look at evidence that would help discern who it was, we do need to look even at history and what is recorded, esp. by those closer to the events than us. Tradition, in this case, history, is on the side of John. I've read others give a good defense of it being John, hence if I can see evidence of that in scripture AND history points to John, rather than seeing evidence in scripture that it was someone else (I can see hints here and that it may be), AND there is no historical evidence that someone else wrote it...logically I'll have to stick with John unless there is new evidence either in or outside the Bible that is found.

May I inquire as to what the historical evidence is for the author being John, for, as I stated before, I was under the impression that it was not anywhere written in Polycarp's writings, to whom this idea is usually attributed (but was, in fact, merely hearsay, with no evidence). Thanks!



ETA: I stated this in the thread at link, but thought I would share it here, too. While I know we mustn't endeavor to establish "doctrine" via a study of the "types," it remains a fascinating study, IN LIGHT OF WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW OF "DOCTRINE," to study the "types" shown in this "unnamed disciple" and what it may point to, during Israel's future tribulation period. (Lazarus is a "type" of the future believing remnant of Israel... and "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was the only one, at the Last Supper, to whom the identity of the betrayer was revealed. There is much, much more... )

Just an added thought.

[Kliska]

May I inquire as to what the historical evidence is for the author being John, for, as I stated before, I was under the impression that it was not anywhere written in Polycarp's writings, to whom this idea is usually attributed (but was, in fact, merely hearsay, with no evidence). Thanks!

Notice I never said that we have found Polycarp's own writing on it, but we have early writing that point to John, we have absolutely none to point to Lazarus, plus that side has church tradition behind it (not all church tradition is wrong, just as it is not all right), and the early churches would have known who wrote it. Eusebius, Iranaeus, Theophilos, and there may be others, I don't have it all off the top of my head. Also, the burden would be on those arguing that it was Lazarus, because the assumption would then be that God couldn't keep His word accurately identified over time. Again, the external evidence rests not just on one source, but also the fact there is a lack of any other contenders recorded closer to the time the gospel of John was written saying Lazarus wrote it.

Again, logic dictates I currently accept that John wrote it.

[acceptedintheBeloved]

Notice I never said that we have found Polycarp's own writing on it, but we have early writing that point to John, we have absolutely none to point to Lazarus, plus that side has church tradition behind it (not all church tradition is wrong, just as it is not all right), and the early churches would have known who wrote it. Eusebius, Iranaeus, Theophilos, and there may be others, I don't have it all off the top of my head. Also, the burden would be on those arguing that it was Lazarus, because the assumption would then be that God couldn't keep His word accurately identified over time. Again, the external evidence rests not just on one source, but also the fact there is a lack of any other contenders recorded closer to the time the gospel of John was written saying Lazarus wrote it.

Again, logic dictates I currently accept that John wrote it.

I guess all I would say to that is, that, for some reason, the writer of the book wanted to remain obscure... and, IMO, I think he was pretty successful.

[Kliska]

I guess all I would say to that is, that, for some reason, the writer of the book wanted to remain obscure... and, IMO, I think he was pretty successful.

Well, that feeds into it a bit. Meaning, the earliest churches accepted the gospel, it HAD to be written by someone the Christian community at large all accepted as an appropriate author. More than likely it was from someone they were familiar with. It is interesting to entertain other options, but currently, I still see it sliding John's way.

[acceptedintheBeloved]

Well, that feeds into it a bit. Meaning, the earliest churches accepted the gospel, it HAD to be written by someone the Christian community at large all accepted as an appropriate author. More than likely it was from someone they were familiar with. It is interesting to entertain other options, but currently, I still see it sliding John's way.

I agree with you, for the most part, but it's just that I see no reason to rule out Lazarus (for the reason you state above... gotta admit that Lazarus's personal testimony was pretty outstanding, not to mention the number of actual witnesses of it - John 12:9-10, 11). And I think, according to the biblical evidence alone (if that's all we had to go by), that there is a stronger case for Lazarus than John.


ETA: If I recall rightly, the proponent of this "Lazarus" idea suggests that perhaps he (that is, Lazarus) was the unnamed "one of the two which heard John [the Baptist] speak, and followed Him" (the other one, being named in the text, was Andrew) in John 1:35-41 (and this would tie into the "personal witness" aspect of this whole idea). The two went to where Jesus was staying, and stayed with Him that day. This may have been when the unique familial/love relationship between them (Jesus and Lazarus) began, which is nowhere else explained (that is, before we see Jesus at their home [Mary, Martha, Lazarus] in Bethany, in John 12, after Lazarus was raised [John 11:3, 5 - "he whom Thou lovest is sick"], and just before His own death).
Just some thoughts...