The biblical evidence – The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

Chapter 7

The Bible Versus Tradition

The Jury Summation

This study presented two cases: the case as to why the Apostle John was not “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (the author of the fourth gospel), and the case for why this author was most likely Lazarus, both with God’s word being the only authority cited.

Below is a summary to help you weigh the evidence so you can render a verdict. (The verses were quoted earlier, so they will not be repeated here.)

The evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt John was not the “other disciple” because:

The gospel writers treated them like different people. The first three gospels totally omit the one whom “Jesus loved,” but they often refer to John by name. Conversely, all of the events where John was referred to by name in the first three gospels are missing from the book that was written by the one whom “Jesus loved.”

The one whom “Jesus loved” wrote his gospel without identifying himself by name, but there is no evidence John ever avoided using his name. In fact, John identified himself by name repeatedly in the Book of Revelation, and this difference in behavior argues against thinking the same man wrote both books.

“The disciple whom Jesus loved” enjoyed a one-of-a-kind bond with Jesus. This cannot be said of John, and the three times Jesus took John aside with Peter and James do not single John out as having this relat

On the night Jesus was arrested, John and the “other disciple” behaved differently. That night, John let Jesus down by falling asleep three t In contrast, the “other disciple” went into the palace of the high priest with Jesus, and we only see him leave the next day, when Jesus reassigned him.

The idea that the one whom “Jesus loved” was John relies on assuming this author was one of the twelve. Paintings of the twelve alone with Jesus at the supper promote this error. But the details in scripture show Jesus and the twelve were not alone at that event, such as the fact they were guests in someone’s home. Besides this, the phrase “other disciple” itself indicates he was not one of the twelve but, was one of those additional loyal disciples who had also followed Jesus. (See the Appendix for more proof of this.)

If “the disciple whom Jesus loved” joined Jesus and the twelve after the supper, then this person could not be John. Yet, this is what is indicated by the author’s record of events on that night, which skips the bread and the cup and opens up with the report of the foot washing, after which Jesus sat down “again.”

The “other disciple” was a known associate of Jesus and he was known to the high priest. But John was not known to the high priest. It was only after Pentecost that the high priest first became acquainted with John.

The author’s anonymity argues against the John idea. At the end of this author’s gospel, he listed “the sons of Zebedee,” even though he also listed two “other” disciples and referred to himself as the one whom “Jesus loved.” He referred to himself anonymously at that point, but he grouped John in with the apostles.

A preponderance of the evidence indicates the “other disciple” was Lazarus because:

They had the identical relationship with Jesus. “Jesus loved” both of them and these they were the only men who associated with Jesus during who were also singled out as being loved by Jesus [the key relationship].

The other three gospel writers treat these two alike. They do not tell us Lazarus was a friend of Jesus, had supper with Jesus, or was raised from the dead! Likewise, they never mention the one “whom Jesus loved,” and their gospels totally ignore this disciple’s role in the key events in the closing days of Jesus’ earthly ministr

This gospel author treats Lazarus and himself in a parallel manner. Lazarus suddenly appears late in the text and is only mentioned a few times. The one “whom Jesus loved” also suddenly appears late in the gospel and he too is only referenced a few times.

One seems to replace the other in the gospel. The last mention of Lazarus occurs before the first mention of the one whom “Jesus loved.” The author ceased mentioning Lazarus and only after this did he begin referring to himself as the one whom “Jesus loved.”

The suddenly famous one disappears, and then the anonymous one suddenly appears. Right after the public’s desire to see Lazarus is recounted, a transition occurs. He vanishes from the text and the term “Jesus loved” (that had only been used of Lazarus) begins to be used by the author in anonymous references to himself – “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved,” et

The experiences of Lazarus would produce the behavior exhibited by “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Jesus gave a one-of-a-kind gift to Lazarus when he raised him from the dead. After that, Lazarus was different from the rest of Jesus’ followers, and he also would have been different from the man he was prior to that mirac Jesus’ relationship with the one whom “Jesus loved” and the behavior of this “other disciple” befit what one would expect if he was the raised-from-the-dead Lazarus.

The Bible reveals both of them sat with Jesus. The last time Lazarus is seen in the Bible he is sitting with Jesus at a table. The first time the one “whom Jesus loved” is seen, he is leaning on Jesus at a table.

When confronted with the linen evidence in the tomb, the “other disciple” became the first one who believed. This reaction befits Lazarus – the one person in scripture most likely to be deeply moved by the sight of the linen clothes and the napkin (because he had been wearing similar wrappings for four days before he was raised from the dead).

The “not die” rumor about “the disciple whom Jesus loved” points to Lazarus. Lazarus was raised from the dead. Jesus said, “whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die” just prior to raising him. Knowing either fact might cause a rush to judgment about Jesus’ words, “If I will that he tarry till I come” and result in the rumor that was misconstrued from them (especially if it was known he “believed” first).

The “other disciple” was anonymous and Lazarus had a motive to become anonymous. When people came “not for Jesus’ sake only” but to “see Lazarus also,” surely Lazarus knew the focus belonged on Jesus and not on him. Likewise, the author intended to lead people to Jesus and since he concealed his identity, he apparently felt this was needed in order to achieve his object

When Peter’s death was foretold, he turned to “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” This could be because Peter associated “the disciple whom Jesus loved” with the issue of death, a topic that would undeniably be forever associated with Lazarus by everyone who knew him.

The “other disciple” was a known associate of Jesus and was known to the high priest; both fit Lazarus. He was a friend of Jesus and the apost His death led many of the Jews to mourn, with some still weeping four days later. When Lazarus was raised, the chief priests sought to kill Jesus, but thereafter many Jews “came not for Jesus sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also.” So, the chief priests conspired to kill him too, because “by reason of him many of the Jews” believed on Jesus.

The First Disciples

The evidence presented thus far should have been sufficient to achieve the goals set forth earlier. There are other items that relate to the cases we have considered, but the verdict you have already reached is not likely to be altered by the three supplemental passages we will consider now. Still, these items are worth noting, for they can help shed added light on the unnamed “other disciple.”

For example, consider what we are told about the first disciples of Jesus. The first chapter of the fourth gospel tells of a day when John the Baptist saw Jesus coming unto him. John went on to call Jesus, “the Lamb of God,” to testify the Spirit “abode upon him,” and to “bare record that this is the Son of God” (Fourth gospel 1:29-34). The next day, Jesus returned and John the Baptist once again called him, “the Lamb of God,” and then it says two of the disciples of John the Baptist, “heard him speak, and they followed Jesus” (Fourth gospel 1:35-37).

Those two went with Jesus and “abode with him that day” (Fourth gospel 1:38-39). These men were the first individuals that scripture says, “followed Jesus.” Now, be careful to pay close attention to what the next two verses say, and more importantly, what they do not say.

“One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ” (Fourth gospel 1:40-41). In the subsequent verses, Andrew brought his brother Simon to meet Jesus, and then Jesus also found Philip (Fourth gospel 1:42-43). These first three, Andrew, Peter, and Philip became loyal disciples and they all were eventually selected to be among the twelve (Mt 10:2-3, Mk 3:16-18, Lk 6:14). But who have we forgotten here? Did you notice there is one person who seems to vanish from the scene?

What happened to the other disciple of John the Baptist who abode with Jesus along with Andrew? It seems Andrew and this other, unnamed man were the first ones who followed Jesus. Andrew’s name is recorded here and he is mentioned in all the gospels. Yet, the other man who was one of those first two is not named here, and we do not find him referenced at all outside of this passage. Did he just suddenly disappear? Was he of no importance? Or is there another possibility?

Another Possibility

The unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” is the only gospel author who tells of this unidentified ex-disciple of John the Baptist who followed Jesus. So, another possibility is that this unnamed follower of Jesus eventually became the unnamed author of the only book that mentions him. Perhaps one of the first two followers of Jesus amounted to nothing and merited no further mention. But it could be the author kept the spotlight off of himself in his reporting on these first disciples.

Obviously, the bond between Jesus and the one whom “Jesus loved” did not appear out of thin air. This relationship existed for some time prior to the Last Supper (where “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was first introduced). In light of this, is it conceivable that this unnamed “other disciple” was there from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry? Yes. But can any other verses help to establish this? Yes.

In Acts 1:21-22, Peter refers to men who, “companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto the same day that he [Jesus] was taken up.” We cannot know if Peter’s words included the man who followed Jesus with Andrew, but it is possible this group included this early follower of Jesus. It is up to you to weigh this as you see fit. [Some who think John wrote the fourth gospel say this early follower was John. But John could not have met Jesus before Peter did, because scripture teaches us Jesus met Peter prior to meeting James and John.]

Clearly, there is not enough evidence to prove the anonymous author of the fourth gospel was the one who, along with Andrew, left John the Baptist to follow Jesus on that day. Nevertheless, this idea is worth considering and it would begin to explain the origin of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” prior to Jesus’ last Passover. Moreover, if this was Lazarus, then this helps to explain: (a) the origin of the relationship he had with Jesus, and (b) why he was called a friend of Jesus and the apostles.

Also, just prior to telling how Martha and Mary sent word of their ill brother to Jesus, the author had said Jesus, “went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode” (Fourth gospel 10:40). So, their appeal came when Jesus was nearby. This also means John the Baptist was near Bethany at the time those two disciples left him to begin following Jesus. (The KJV calls this area “Bethabara” (Fourth gospel 1:28) while others translate it “Bethany.” So, this early link to Lazarus’ hometown is easily missed in the KJV.)

Mark’s Mystery Man

There may also be a unique link to Lazarus in Mark 14:43-53, which tells us about the night Jesus was betrayed and arrested. In Mark 14:50 we read, “And they all forsook him, and fled.” One might think this means there was no one left to stand with Jesus. Yet, immediately after this, a curious reference calls attention to one person who still remained with Jesus – an unnamed “young man!”

Mark 14:51-52 tells us, “And there followed him [Jesus] a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: And he left the linen cloth and fled from them naked.” You will not find this detail mentioned in the other gospels. Still, it is part of inspired scripture, therefore, God wanted us to have this information. So, let us think carefully about the questions that are raised by these two verses.

One question is, why did he remain with Jesus after the rest of the disciples had fled? If he was Lazarus, then we know why he might have remained. Yet, this young man then fled too. So, how was his behavior different from that of those disciples who forsook Jesus in Mark 14:50? It appears he fled for a different reason.

Notice Mark 14:51 takes the time to tell us the details of how this young man was clothed, having only a linen cloth covering his nakedness. Then Mark 14:52 says he fled away naked. So what, you ask? When the others forsook Jesus, the implication was they did so out of fear for their own safety. However, this young man left naked, so this may suggest he fled out of shame or embarrassment. It says they “laid hold on him” (Mk 14:51).

In response to being grabbed, it is natural to try to pull away or shake free, especially if one is grabbed without warning. This is most likely how he came to be stripped, for the next words say, “And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked” (Mk 14:52). Surely startled to find himself being seized and ending up suddenly naked, it was at that moment this young man fled.

This young man fled too, yet his actions are set apart from the rest of the disciples who forsook Jesus that night. Is it possible the fear of death could not move Lazarus to flee, but the shock of unexpectedly being stripped naked might cause him to flee out of embarrassment in the heat of the moment? Even after Lazarus was raised from the dead, he was still a human being, subject to the influence of emotions. After the mob left, he either retrieved his linen cloth or got something else to wear, and then proceeded to follow Jesus, as did Peter. Now, we will look to see if any evidence exists that might connect this young man to Lazarus.

A Fashion Statement?

In telling us this unnamed young man was the last follower of Jesus to flee from Gethsemane on that night, scripture called attention to this young man’s attire. Twice we see references to the “linen cloth” he was wearing (Mk 14:51 & 52). Both verses note this was the only thing covering his otherwise “naked” body. So, why did God inspire this author to include these details? Perhaps he was led to record them because they can shed some additional light on this unnamed young man.

Earlier in this study, the significance of “linen” was discussed. Remember, our English word “linen” was used to translate several Greek words, but two of these words always refer to the cloth covering a corpse, with the only exception being found here in Mark 14:51-52.

Why would this young man wear a material that was used by the Jews to bury their dead? (Fourth gospel 19:40). Is it possible this unnamed young man was indicating he had already been dead or he did not fear death? Or could it be his way of indicating he was a new man, who reckoned himself dead to sin but alive unto God (the mindset we see encouraged by Paul in Romans 6:11)? Whatever the reason, this potential link between this unnamed young man and Lazarus (the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved”) can be seen when one takes the time to examine the “linen” evidence that has been preserved in scripture.

Enough Evidence?

An unnamed young man dressed in linen was the last one with Jesus when he was arrested, and every other time this Greek word for “linen” was used it was only in reference to Jesus’ dead body (Mt 27:59, Mk 15:46(2x), Lk 23:53). Is this enough to suggest this young man might have been Lazarus? Before you decide on this, consider one more fact.

Other than Jesus, this young man was the only person who the arresting mob sought to seize. They let the rest of the disciples go, but they “laid hold on him” (Mk 14:51). Why was he treated differently than the others who were allowed to leave unhindered? There was one man who the chief priests sought to kill besides Jesus at that point; they “consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death” (Fourth gospel 12:10). Even this is not sufficient to prove he was Lazarus. Still, given the curious statements of Mark 14 which let us know this young man was the last person to leave Jesus at Gethsemane, this potential link to Lazarus is worth thinking about. Once again, as you consider these additional items, keep in mind the evidence that was presented regarding Lazarus and John is intended to stand on its own. These supplemental items are being raised simply as a way of tying up a few loose ends.

More than a Story?

Now we will look at several parallels between a teaching in the Gospel of Luke and facts reported by the anonymous author in his gospel (Fourth gospel 11:1-12:10, Lk 16:19-31). As we do, keep one thing in mind, although Jesus did use stories to teach, scripture also indicates Jesus was a prophet (Mk 6:4, Acts 3:22-26). In Luke 16, Jesus contrasted two characters, a “rich man” and a beggar named “Lazarus,” both of whom died (Lk 16:19, 20 & 22).

The rich man found himself “in torments” (Lk 16:23) and then he proceeded to make some requests. To start with, he sought relief, and oddly enough, in his appeal he included the petition, “send Lazarus…” (Lk 16:24). After he was told why this could not happen (Lk 16:25-26), he made another appeal that again involved Lazarus. “Send him [Lazarus] to my father’s house: for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them” (Lk 16:27-28).

Jesus had the dead rich man asking if a man named Lazarus could return from the dead to testify to his brethren who were still alive. Then Jesus had the rich man kick against the response he was given. Jesus said, the rich man was told his brethren “have Moses and the prophets” (Lk 16:29). The rich man resisted this idea, for he thought sending Lazarus back from the dead would yield a different response – “if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent” (Lk 16:30). However, the rich man was informed, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead” (Lk 16:31). Jesus ended this teaching here.

Now, try to imagine the effect this teaching would have had on those who actually heard Jesus give this message. The day the disciples heard Jesus speak these words, it is likely they assumed this was no different than Jesus’ other teaching parables. But what would have went through their minds when they later saw part of this teaching come true? That is, when an individual named Lazarus rose from the dead!

Who Was Jesus Speaking About?

Some try to apply the ‘moral of the story’ to the situation of the high priest, rulers, elders, and scribes who refused to repent after the resurrection of Jesus. While this might appear to be a good fit, there is more to learn if we will take a closer look.

To begin with, let us contrast the way Jesus ended the teaching (“if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead”) and the response to the news of the resurrection of Jesus (that has persuaded many over the last 2000 years).

Moreover, consider this. In the scriptures, the resurrected Jesus did not appear to unbelievers. After the resurrection, every recorded appearance of Jesus was to people who believed or would believe! He did not appear before the chief priests, elders, and/or their council to testify unto them. This argues against comparing the risen Jesus to the person who was requested by the rich man (Lk 16:30), i.e., the one who the rich man was sure would bring about repentance in those who already had “Moses and the prophets” (Lk 16:29).

This teaching has frequently been related to Jesus’ resurrection and the good news of the gospel. But might it be better understood if we consider the possibility that in this teaching, Jesus was articulating a prophecy? [Jesus’ delay and words prior to raising Lazarus may well support this idea (cf. Fourth gospel 11:4, 6-7 & 14-15).] The teaching in Luke 16 has several parallels to the real-life Lazarus. In both cases Lazarus died. But in the teaching, we do not see him raised, we only hear the request. Also, while there are no words of Lazarus recorded in the Bible, it is certain he testified about Jesus to those with whom he spoke.

After Lazarus was raised, he became a living testimony to the power of Jesus and because of him “many of the Jews went away and believed on Jesus.” But just like the response described in Luke 16, the Jewish leaders (who had “Moses and the prophets”) were not persuaded, even though a Lazarus was sent to them from the dead!

Eyewitnesses to this miracle “went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.” Yet, instead of repenting, “the chief priests and Pharisees” plotted to kill Jesus (Fourth gospel 11:46-53). The chief priests sought to kill Lazarus also (Fourth gospel 12:10). So, was the statement of Jesus in Luke 16:31 a prophecy of this response? As with the other supplemental items, you get to chew on this food for thought. Now, let us return to the main thrust of this study to provide a wrap-up and to tackle some questions that are likely to remain.

In Conclusion

Most of us assumed John was the author of the gospel that bears his name because:

This is what we have been told
It has been called this for a long time
This is what ‘all’ the scholars seem to say
The gospel we read has this ‘title’ added to it
Etc.

These are not separate excuses because one mistaken assumption underlies them all. They all rely on a non-Bible source, i.e., trusting someone else’s judgment. These reasons do not require us to search the scriptures. Instead, they rely on someone else to have already done this job.

But, what if others now and in the past did the same thing? Who then is left to search the scriptures? The scholars? Is it not normal for scholars to rely on the work of scholars who preceded them, like judges relying on prior rulings? What happens if successive generations rely on the work of those who preceded them and what happens if an error is introduced into this sequence early on? If an error went unchallenged long enough, it might eventually become ‘accepted’ as truth and correcting it would grow more difficult as time went on, since its ‘historical acceptance’ would become a rationale for assuming it must be true!

Clearing up a long-accepted misconception is a big challenge, but the Bible is up to it. What should come out of this is we receive the correction scripture offers and benefit from the blessings that follow when we let the Bible speak for itself.

There was never any biblical support for the John idea, as you now know. Realizing this error has fooled so many for so long should be a wake-up call to us all! Let this inspire you to search the scriptures more diligently in the future. Instead of thinking we can adopt the opinions of others on biblical matters or that the judgment of expert’s is better than our own, let each of us make use of the judgment God gave to us and be open to the truth that is presented to us in God’s word.

The evidence-based Bible study method used herein relies on the Bible only. But those who promote the John idea are following the teachings of men and doing so undermines the authority of God’s word, yet this is not clear until we begin focusing on this issue. The efforts to defend the John idea actually reveal there is no biblical justification for teaching it. Take a look.

Those who promote the John tradition do not point to scripture to defend their belief. Instead, they defend it by citing this-or-that non-Bible source, i.e., an ‘early church’ personality, majority opinion, historical tradition, etc. But if the Bible justified this tradition, they would quote scripture and allow it to prove the point, rather than relying on hearsay and the opinions of men to make their case.

No amount of non-Bible consensus is ever sufficient to overcome the truth that is revealed by scripture! The primary source is always the best evidence – and on biblical matters this source is God’s word.

If we look to somebody else to read the Bible and search the scriptures for us, then we will adopt their mistakes and any errors they pass along to us. Scripture shows educated religious men sometimes believe ideas and promote traditions contrary to the word of God (Mk 7:13, Col 2:8, et al.). So, belief by men is, clearly, not a reliable indicator of whether or not an idea is true.

Yet, confidence in tradition is precisely what leads many to fall for circular reasoning: e.g., ‘We know John wrote it because it’s his gospel,’ or ‘It’s called the Gospel of John, because John wrote it’ [even though the author said nothing of the kind]. Others fall prey to error in assuming ‘John must have written this book because this is what everyone says.’ This still relies on others to have the truth, but it also falsely presumes a large number of people cannot be wrong concurrently. Yet, even if ‘everybody’ thinks an idea is true, agreement among men is not a reliable measure of truth.

Agreement with the whole counsel of God’s word is the test of truth.

Why have the vast majority of scholars and books misidentified the author of the fourth gospel? How could the truth have been missed by so many for so long? Besides the reasons noted above, it is possible God is opening eyes to this truth in this day to humble people and draw them to a deeper reliance on his word. At the very least, exposing the John error proves educated men have not already discovered all the truths that are in God’s word.

Where Do We Go from Here?

Some will ignore this issue and the Bible facts related to it. Still, they and any who promote the John tradition will continue to face one daunting question. Why is there not a single verse that justifies teaching this idea, if what they teach is biblical? Moreover, if the Bible can prove John was not the “other disciple,” does this truth not matter? In any case, some will be persuaded by the biblical evidence presented herein, and these final thoughts are directed to this group.

What should we do when scripture indicates we might be mistaken? The scriptures can prove the Apostle John was not the author of the fourth gospel. Even so, men who relied on non-Bible sources ended up attributing it to him. You have also seen there is a substantial body of biblical evidence which supports the conclusion the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” was Lazarus of Bethany.

What is unique about this insight is it can be seen after two thousand years, and like a watermark of truth, it offers a powerful argument for the reliability of the Bible we have today!

Paul wrote, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…” (2Tim 3:16), and this is still true today.

We also are told, “Blessed is that man that maketh the Lord his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies” (Ps 40:4). Knowing the true identity of the one whom “Jesus loved” is surely not necessary to have eternal life. But respect for God’s word is required – for a person cannot believe Jesus died and rose “according to the scriptures” (1Cor 15:3-4) apart from the foundation of God’s word. This is why it is dangerous to intentionally ignore the truth on topics we deem are not critical. We cannot ‘agree-to-disagree’ with truth, since truth is not a matter of opinion!

The truth on this issue is important because it shows how the Bible can teach us and it shows why we must seek the truth, “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (cf. 1Cor 2:13).

Respect for the Authority of God’s Word

Of “the Lord” who said, “them that honor me I will honor” (1Sa 2:30), we are also told, “…thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name” (Ps 138:2). So, honoring God’s word will surely yield future benefits. Nevertheless, just like those in Mark 7:13 who made the word of God of no effect by their tradition, some will cling to the John idea even though it is unbiblical, and in order to justify doing so, they will go on citing non-Bible sources that agree with them. This serves as an excuse for adding John’s name to the text, but it ultimately undermines the authority of God’s word.

If discovering that the Bible can disprove the John tradition cannot motivate people to reconsider how they determine whether or not an idea is true, then they will reap the consequences of that decision. To avoid having to respond to Bible evidence that might prove them wrong, some rush to brush aside the issue by asking, ‘What difference does it make?’ This sets a dangerous precedent.

The danger lies in acting as if we get to decide when it is okay to ignore the truth. Those who want to stick with the John idea need a reason to avoid scripture/change the subject, so they will imply, ‘It does not matter.’ However, while the truth may not matter to them, a decision to ignore the truth matters a lot! If a wrong idea is believed or taught in ignorance, this is one thing. But what about after one is exposed to the truth? Is it right to promote any idea as if it were biblical, after we come to realize we cannot cite one verse that would justify teaching that idea?

As was shown herein, testing our beliefs by the standard of God’s word can correct misconceptions we may have. So, we should be less likely to assume a teaching is true and more inclined to subject ideas to biblical scrutiny. This is just one difference this insight can make. A biblically based inquiry is not a threat to the truth. However, the unguarded intake of information can be hazardous. We cannot afford to be hasty in learning or uncritical about the things we read/hear. (Read Mark 4:14-25 to see what led Jesus to warn, “Take heed what ye hear!”) In Acts 17:11 and many other passages, God’s word lets us know it is an honorable practice for us to use scripture to verify the truth of any idea, belief, or tradition. Even so, when traditions are treasured more than truth, discussions of the biblical evidence will be discouraged by those who pay mere lip service to the authority of scripture.

The John idea has been promoted for so long that some refuse to consider the evidence and act as if questioning this tradition is ridiculous. Others assert false teaching on this issue does not matter, i.e., it is inconsequential. The evidence shows it is possible for this type of error to be made. So, why assume ‘it does not matter’ if this error continues to be taught? Might the decision to ignore scripture and go on promoting the traditions of men lead to other problems?

God’s word contains warnings against adding to scripture. Yet, this happens each time John’s name is added to a passage about the one “whom Jesus loved.” While it is easy to slip and add our ideas to the plain reading of God’s word when we are discussing biblical issues, those who love the truth must guard against this tendency. This is not meant as a condemnation of those who are communicators of God’s word. Surely, teachers have a responsibility to be as biblically accurate as they can possibly be, but they can make mistakes like the rest of us. No one will always be right. So, the wise move is always to invite biblical correction and to receive the truth thankfully when God’s word offers it to us.

When a question of biblical accuracy is raised, is the more God-honoring response, ‘What difference does it make?’ or ‘show me in scripture?’ Those who love the truth will welcome correction, while others will find an excuse to change the subject to avoid the light of scripture. Asserting it makes no difference, acts as if there is no need to pay attention to what scripture says on the topic. Sadly, many will elect to turn a blind eye to facts in the Bible that threaten to challenge one of their preferred beliefs. Conversely, the ‘show me’ response invites biblical correction.

What is at stake in this matter is respect for the authority of God’s word. For when God’s word says one thing, but a person who claims to believe in God’s word is saying something contrary, then clearly scripture is not their authority on that issue. The real test on any issue is whether or not we will receive the correction that is offered by scripture. The benefit of receiving that correction (just as in the matter of “the disciple whom Jesus loved”) is its ability to drive us to a greater reliance upon God’s word. We are told, God “is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Heb 11:6). “Diligently” lets us know mere Bible knowledge is not the goal.

What you have studied herein is not some curious item of Bible trivia. It is a serious biblical issue that confirms the reliability of scripture and the need for us to “prove all things.” Even though this has been overlooked by so many for so long, the beauty of this insight is the Bible always pointed to the truth. Remember, even the disciples missed some things in scripture until Jesus opened their eyes to those things, like we see in Luke 24:45 – “Then opened he [Jesus] their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.” Might God act similarly today and open our understanding to things we had previously overlooked?

God can still reveal truth through scripture, as this study has shown. Yet, the truth causes division, just like Jesus said he would bring (Lk 12:51). Some will unite behind the truth and others will oppose it, falling on one side or the other in response to the sword of God’s word, which is “a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb 4:12). Love rejoices in the truth (cf. 1Cor 13:6). So, if an idea we thought was true actually turns out not to be true, let us turn away from error, get back to God’s word, and speak the truth in love. While much is said about why Jesus was born or the reason he came into the world, here too, the Bible is better than hearsay and it would be wise to align our thinking with scripture on this point also (see Postscript).

When our eyes are opened to a truth we have missed, we need to ask, if we could be wrong on this, what else could we be wrong about? The answer is, anything we have not put to the test of scripture! If we missed this, it indicates a better Bible study method is needed. So, let us take seriously the counsel to “prove all things” (1Th 5:21) and heed Psalm 118:8. “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (Gal 5:9). This is why deviating from God’s word is not a minor issue, it is a perilous habit that opens people up to deception. Let us read the Bible with care to make sure it says what we thought it said. If we find an issue where scripture proves we were wrong, let us thank God for the correction and boldly stand with the truth and say, praise be to God!

“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven” (Ecc 3:1).

Read on: A Better Bible Study Method

Get the book in paperback

eBook options