Yes, click here to read or print this free Bible study on the beloved disciple
 
Amazon Reader lets you search inside The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved on Amazon.com
 
Or view The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved on Google Books

 

This is true. There's no verse that justifies teaching that John was the beloved disciple.

 

The closest any verse comes is Jn. 21:2 which says, "There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the [sons] of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.". Here we see that "the sons of Zebedee" are said to be present at this event and Jn. 21:7 also lets us know that the unnamed beloved disciple was one of those men who present at this event. However in Jn. 21:2 we also see that two of the disciples are unnamed, which we know was consistent with the author's practice concerning himself. In fact, when it is examined carefully, this passage actually suggests that John was not the one whom "Jesus loved"! [See pg. 97-98]

 

The Bible does mention three occasions where Peter James and John were involved in certain events that did not include the rest of the disciples – the Mount of Transfiguration, the raising of the daughter of Jairus and Jesus’ prayers in the garden of Gethsemane. However this certainly cannot single out John as the one “Jesus loved”. Since both Peter and James also participated in these events there is no basis for concluding that these three occasions in scripture were intended to indicate that John had a unique relationship with Jesus that set him alone apart from all of the disciples. Furthermore his being taken aside these three times cannot be said to qualify John and only John for the unique title, "the disciple whom Jesus loved". [See pg. 45-46]

 

None of God’s inspired writers ever used the term ‘inner circle’ to refer to a select subset of disciples. However the Bible does indicate that Jesus did have a select group among his followers but it calls them “the twelve” – “…he called [unto him] his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles” (Lu. 6:13). So we know that Jesus specifically chose out twelve from among those that followed him and yet what is often overlooked is the fact that throughout his ministry Jesus always had additional disciples with him besides just “the twelve”.

 

In Acts we read about those who were with Jesus besides “the twelve”, “…these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us”. The “us” in the foregoing verses refers to “the eleven” remaining apostles who recognize that from this group “must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.” The point to note here is that the Bible makes it abundantly clear that Jesus had others besides “the twelve” that accompanied him for the duration of his entire ministry and that a select group of these disciples were named apostles.

 

Those who seek to defend the man-made tradition that John was the one “Jesus loved” would have us go beyond what scripture actually says when they suggest that the three events where Jesus brought aside Peter, James and John justifies their teaching that this unnamed “other disciple” was John. This is not only a false inference but it would require us to ignore the evidence in scripture which proves this “other disciple” cannot be John.

 

God's Word is not in error because it never said that John wrote this Gospel. Like the chapter and verse numbers, the title of this Gospel, was not the work of the inspired author of this Gospel. These things later came to be included, but they were not part of the original text written by the author. Besides all of this, God's Word has always contained the evidence needed to correctly identify this author. This misidentification was not a mistake in the scriptures, but rather it was a misinterpretation or erroneous assumption on the part of those who later read something into the text that isn't there. [See pg. 19-20]

 

Don't allow statements such as this to go unchallenged. Such unfounded claims are often used to brush aside a question without actually providing a scriptural answer. Note that if this claim were true, then it would be easy to produce at least one such verse - so ask them to do so. If someone says that there are lots of verses that prove that the beloved disciple was John, then it should be a fairly simple task for them to quote just one of the many verses that they claim teaches this idea and when they are unable to do so, then what does that tell you about this claim?

 

It is written, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." (Gal 5:9) So while some might like to suggest that certain mistakes, errors or unscriptural traditions (like the John idea) are really inconsequential, the Bible seems to indicate otherwise. Following this logic, someone might ask what difference could "one jot or one tittle" make? To most it might appear reasonable to suggest that minor details such as these couldn't matter much, but Jesus said, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Mt. 5:18). Here Jesus referred specifically to "the law", however the idea of respect for the details in God's Word is also communicated in many other verses. [See the Preface on page 4 for some of these. Also see pages 21-25 for more on the issue of truth.]

As a matter of fact, several passages in the Bible indicate that faithfulness to the truth includes being faithful to the truth when one encounters some question that might appear to be a small matter or secondary issue. Consider the words of Jesus in Lu. 16:10 which says, "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much..." along with the ideas expressed in:

• Lu. 16:12 - And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?
• Lu. 19:17 - ...he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little...
• Mt. 25:21 - His lord said unto him, Well done, [thou] good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
• Mt. 25:23 - His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

More important, once someone has been made aware that there isn't a single verse to justify teaching that John was the beloved disciple, the situation changes. After this, the key question is no longer, Who was the disciple whom Jesus loved? Rather, at this point, the real question becomes, Is it honoring to God to imply that the Bible says something, that it does not say?

When one becomes aware that there is no verse of scripture that justify teaching a certain idea, is it okay for someone to continue to present that idea as Biblical so long as they consider the matter to be a secondary issue? At this point the problem is not so much the identity of the "other disciple", but a willingness to present an idea as if it was scriptural, when the opposite is known to be true.

What teacher will stand-up and say, There is no verse to justify teaching that John was the beloved disciple, but I'm going to teach it anyway because I'm trusting in non-Biblical quotations on this matter that are attributed to men in the second and third century? That would at least be honest, but it would certainly not be honest to imply the John idea is Biblical after one has been made aware that there is no verse that justifies teaching this idea.

Just because one labels an issue as secondary, doesn't mean that one can then take artistic license with God's Word. It is NEVER right to say or imply that God's Word says or teaches something when that is untrue. Labeling an idea as secondary or non-essential is not a justification for ignoring the truth and it is certainly not a good reason to be promoting unscriptural ideas as if they are scriptural.

Furthermore, you'll find that those who want to avoid having to respond to the fact that the John idea has no Biblical foundation will raise the what difference does it make objection as a means to change the subject. But while some may find it momentarily convenient to brush aside this matter as minor point or a secondary issue, recognize that a rhetorical question is a far cry from citing a verse and providing a Biblical response. Since you now know that there's not even a single verse that would justify teaching the John idea, you'll have to weigh that fact as you to decide whether or not you are willing to accept the notion that perpetuating this unscriptural idea is harmless

Finally, remember that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction… " (2 Tim 3:16). Therefore, it would seem wise to acknowledge the Biblical evidence regarding "the other disciple, whom Jesus loved" and to let it correct us on this issue. Those who want to dismiss this correction as unimportant or unworthy of our attention will be hard pressed to cite a verse that would suggest one should turn a blind eye to the truth.

 

Some try to suggest this by asserting that the Gospel of John is similar in style to the letters of John. But are they really similar? Who says so? And if so, what does this tell us?

Consider three key points on the style issue: the significance of the issue, the subjective nature of determining similar writing styles and the possibility of a circular argument.

How significant is the style issue? The most important evidence is always the plain text of the scripture. If the words of the text indicate one thing and some expert's assessment of the style seems to suggest a contrary conclusion, then we have to decide which evidence is more reliable. If the actual words in the text provide sufficient revelation to answer a question, then no one's opinion on writing style can be a valid reason to hold a position contrary to the one revealed by the text. Furthermore, while we do see the Biblical writers teaching from and quoting the words of scripture, I know of no verse where they appeal to writing style as a basis for their teaching.

As concerning the subjective nature of determining similar styles, realize that style as it is used here is not something that can be readily demonstrated. Surely we see different styles of writing in the Bible: personal letters, historical records, apocalyptic prophecy, etc. However, recognizing the variety of literature contained in the Bible is vastly different than saying that the author of a particular book of the Bible can be identified with certainty simply by comparing elements of style between various books. (Some actually claim [wrongly] that the style in the Book of Isaiah proves that book had two different authors!)

Now let's consider this argument relative to the disciple whom Jesus loved. Some claim that the style of the Gospel of John is so similar to the style of John's other writings that they must have been written by the same author. Although this might sound persuasive, if this were true, then one should produce the evidence that could prove this to be the case, rather than just saying that this is so. On the other hand, if one simply takes someone's word for it that these works have similar styles, then this claim of similarity is merely the opinion of others. Similar is a very subjective criterion but if it can be shown to your satisfaction that similar styles exist, then you'll have to decide how to reconcile this argument with the other Biblical evidence.

Finally, consider the letters of 1st John, 2nd John and 3rd John. It would be wise to exercise caution if one's style argument is based on these letters, especially since no author is named in these letters and since you will find some disagreement among the scholars as to who actually wrote these letters. One would need to prove authorship of these letters, before using their style to prove the identity of another unnamed author. You may also be surprised to learn that commentaries will often claim similar style as a way to 'show' that John was the author of these letters. They claim to know for certain that John wrote the Gospel of John and, therefore, they say that similar style proves that John also wrote these three letters. However, one cannot then subsequently go back the other way and claim that the similar style of these letters shows that John was the beloved disciple who wrote the fourth Gospel, because that is circular reasoning.

 

This is a different question than the one the book raises about John, who was present at the Mt. of Transfiguration and the prayers of Jesus at the Garden of Gethsemane. In that case the question is, if John wrote a Gospel about the life and ministry of Jesus, why would John have left out these important events since he was present and did have personal, eyewitness testimony that he could have provided. Unlike the question of an author leaving out information that we would expect him to have included, this question deals with an author including information that he would not have witnessed directly.

In the Bible, we're reading the writings of those who were inspired by God as they wrote. However, a large part of what we read is NOT written from the perspective of the author being an eyewitness. The creation account of Genesis 1, the account of Noah's ark, the Gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus, the account of Jesus in the temple at 12-years-old, and the account of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness would be just a few examples. Surely, God WAS an eyewitness to everything, but few would suggest that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit automatically make all of the Bible's words eyewitness testimony.

When an investigator writes a book on a crime or an honest journalist writes a news report, the author will interview eyewitnesses along with others that can shed light on the facts surrounding the subject of their work. If the writer was an eyewitness to something that was relevant to the subject, then the work would probably include the author's own testimony. But facts that are reported by the author that come from other trustworthy sources are no less credible than the author's own testimony -- assuming that the other witnesses and sources that are interviewed have been equally as honest and equally as accurate as the author. So, as long as the author faithfully reported an accurate account of the events, his record would still be trustworthy, even if it described events or conversations that he had not witnessed personally.

Take the death of Lazarus, for example. To assume that Lazarus could know nothing of what happened regarding Jesus' conversation with Mary and Martha or other facts about the miracle that raised him from the dead, because he was dead AT THAT TIME is simply wrong. While he didn't know it WHILE he was dead, it runs counter to common sense to expect that he would never ask, never be told, or never LEARN anything about what occurred during the period that he was in the tomb. His sisters Mary and Martha, his "friend" Jesus, the other disciples and the other people who were there would certainly have been willing to talk to Lazarus about what happened and what was said while he was dead and before he walked out of the tomb.

This is similar to what we know regarding the events recorded when the three disciples are asleep in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the Mount of Transfiguration. When one is sleeping, then by definition that person cannot be an eyewitness. However, we still trust the record of things that occurred and words that were said WHILE the disciples were asleep. Thus, one cannot suggest that a Biblical author needed to be an eyewitness to every event and every word that is included in his written testimony, because that would discount most of the Bible -- along with most of the words ever written by historians, reporters, criminal investigators and other humans.

The Bible study on the beloved disciple in The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved seeks to provide sufficient evidence to prove beyond-a-reasonable-doubt (our highest legal standard) that John could not have been the writer of the fourth Gospel. Those who want to cling to the tradition that John was the author have to rely on EVERYTHING BUT THE BIBLE in order to support their position. The biblical evidence proves otherwise, as anyone who actually reads the book will know -- because the book pulls together the scriptural evidence that (A) shows this person CANNOT be John and (B) reveals that the TOTALITY of the all of the facts together points to only one man. And this book makes its case by relying on both the eyewitness testimony in scripture and the other facts reported in the scripture (non-eyewitness testimony) as being equally valid.

 

This may sound like a good rule-of-thumb but it presents several problems.

First note that even if this were an appropriate standard this rule would not present any problem to the conclusions outlined in the book. Although "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was not an Apostle, clearly he was connected with the apostles -- evidence his presence at the Last Supper, at the tomb on the morning of Jesus' resurrection and his participation in the events of John 21. While this "other disciple" was not one of "the twelve" he was certainly beloved by Jesus and a friend of the Apostles. [See pg. 76-83.]

Second, since there is no verse of scripture that states this rule, then we should recognize that such a rule is the creation of men. Even if it was created with the best of intentions, that doesn't make this rule either inspired or infallible.

Finally consider the Book of Hebrews, for example. Most teachers and scholars will readily admit that it is not clear who the author of this book was, though they will also usually say that they believe the author was probably Paul. But if we do not know for certain who the author of Hebrews was, then we cannot know for certain that the author would fall under this rule. If Hebrews can't pass this test, then no one should try to suggest that this rule is valid grounds to challenge the identity of "the disciple whom Jesus loved".

 

First off please notice that in The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved you are not once asked to trust ANY evidence that you cannot examine for yourself by confirming the facts in context in your own Bible. EVERY argument that is presented in The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved is based on the facts that are preserved in the Biblical record and clearly discernable from the plain reading of the scriptural text.

In response to this question it would certainly be fair to ask what non-Bible evidence is this supposed argument based on? Secondly, are you able to check out this supposed evidence for yourself or are you simply being told to take someone else's word for it that such evidence even exists?

There are many problems with such references to non-Bible evidence that supposedly exists and that supposedly would justify teaching the John idea as if this idea was both true and Biblically sound. However, for a reason I will explain below, I will deal with just a few of these problems here.

Problem #1 - If you've read The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved, then you know the biggest problem with any sources that would suggest that John was "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is that this suggestion is necessarily false, because it would make the Bible in conflict with itself. Since John cannot possibly be this unnamed "other disciple", then any source that suggests other wise is in error.

If the Bible presents sufficient evidence to prove that an idea is not true, then one can never allow any amount of non-Bible writings (the so-called external evidence) to trump that. Unless one wishes to assert that a particular non-Bible source is on par with inspired scripture, then we need to recognize that no amount of uninspired, fallible, non-Bible writings or hearsay can override the truth revealed by the facts that have been preserved for us in the Biblical record.

Problem # 2 - Such references to non-Bible evidence on this question are cited in order to convince one to accept that the John is true and Biblically certain -- so certain, in fact, that it's even okay to add John's name to the scriptures (as was done when the title The Gospel of John was added to the work of God's anonymous author). But why would one accept second-hand, uninspired, fallible, non-Bible statements as the certain proof that would reveal true identity of this anonymous Bible author?

When it comes to Biblical questions, it is best to look to the Bible for the answer. So when the only way someone can get you to accept their idea is to get you looking at anything BUT the Bible, be leery. And note this, today there isn't a single verse that would justify teaching the John idea and that is a fact that hasn't changed. This means that anyone in the early church who put forth the John theory would be in the same boat as those who teach this idea today, they would have NO Biblical justification for it.

Problem # 3 - Some defenders of the John tradition don't feel they need a Biblical justification for teaching this idea, because they believe the supposed external evidence that shows this is what some in the early church believed. But there are several problems with this early church rationale.

First, let's assume for the moment that it could be proven without a doubt that some or even many in the early church did believe that the Apostle John was the unnamed beloved disciple. Would the fact that this belief existed in the early church make this idea true? If so, then this same logic would mean that any idea that could be attributed to the early church would have to be correct. But ask yourself, is this what we see in the Bible? Or do we see errors in the early church?

In fact we see the letters of Paul correcting mistakes that he'd become aware of and one can't get much earlier than that. But if you want earlier, check out the false rumor that was spread abroad about the unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" (Jn 21:23).

The New Testament doesn't hide the fact that that the early church was not perfect, from the racial discrimination charge in Acts 6 to the descriptions of the churches in the Book of Revelation. The point is that the record of the New Testament itself let's us know that we can't assume that an idea is true merely because it is attributed to the early church.

Problem # 4 - The quality of this non-Bible evidence isn't what it's cracked up to be. If you take the time to examine the non-Bible sources that the defenders of the John tradition claim to have, you'll learn that they are not only relying on hearsay but they will also routinely imply that they have evidence that actually doesn't exist. This so-called evidence amounts to statements attributed to some early church leaders' in the second and third century. (Really no so early after all, huh?)

These men had no more scriptural evidence on this question than we have today but their speculation became adopted by others because they were leaders in the church. Those who followed them relied on the ideas of these men, without searching the scriptures daily to see "whether those things were so" and thus we have the John tradition today.

Even worse however is when men today resort to false implications as a way to justify teaching the John tradition. Here I'm specifically referring to a name that you'll see if you take the time to investigate the so-called external evidence -- i.e. NON-BIBLE sources -- that the defenders of this tradition claim to have. Routinely you'll find the name Polycarp cited as part of the non-Bible evidence that supposedly justifies teaching the John idea. However, what you won't find is anyone actually quoting anything that Polycarp ever said or wrote on this question. Yet his name is almost always used as a justification for the John tradition because it is said that Polycarp knew John personally.

But how would it matter if Polycarp knew John or not, since there is not a single solitary statement that is attributed to Polycarp as regards the identity of the "disciple whom Jesus loved"? Here is where the bait and switch comes in. The bait is Polycarp's name, which is thrown in to make the argument sound credible, since we're told he knew John. The switch is in what comes next in this supposed chain of non-Bible evidence -- and it's not a statement of Polycarp! Instead you'll find a statement attributed to somebody else, somebody who we're told once met Polycarp. But why bring up Polycarp's name if there is no evidence that he ever weighed in on this issue? Because Polycarp's name is used to imply that an unbroken chain of external evidence leads back to the Apostle John himself, which is not true. While those putting forth Polycarp's name are not likely to be perpetrating an intentional act of deception, the advancement of this argument is, nevertheless, misguided.

Are we to assume that Polycarp was in 100% total agreement with everything that someone else might say simply because they are said to have met at one point? If not, then we have no way of knowing which points Polycarp might agree with and which he might not. Since there is no evidence to suggest that Polycarp ever condoned the idea that John was "the other disciple, whom Jesus loved" to use his name to imply that he approved this idea is extremely disingenuous, to say the least.

Lastly, remember that early church leaders were just as fallible as men today. So if you want to rely on their assumptions about the actual identity of the beloved disciple that's up to you, but it's better to trust scriptural evidence over non-Bible hearsay any day. There are more problems with the non-Bible sources upon which the John tradition rests but those who are determined to cling to these sources as a way to defend teaching that John was the beloved disciple will no doubt continue to promote the John idea in spite of the Biblical evidence to the contrary. Further debunking of such non-Bible sources isn't likely to dilute the allegiance of some to the John tradition but hopefully the Biblical evidence will open the eyes of many.

 

If one studies the question of the fourth gospel authorship they will soon discover that the idea that Mary Magdalene was the unnamed writer of the fourth gospel has attracted somewhat of a following. However a brief Bible study on Mary Magdalene is sufficient to disprove this idea on three counts. Click here for this Bible study on Mary Magdalene

 

Dan Brown's book The Da Vinci Code has done a lot to promote the idea that the beloved disciple was Mary Magdalene and that therefore the she was the author of the fourth gospel. While many books were written to refute The Da Vinci Code these books actually made the same basic error that Dan Brown did. To see how the Da Vinci critics err by not relying on the Bible click here for a Bible-only take on The Da Vinci Code debate