Who Was The Disciple That Jesus Loved?

It is a name in which John hides himself. He is very wary of mentioning John. He speaks of “another disciple,” and “that other disciple,” and then of “that disciple whom Jesus loved.” These are the names by which he would travel through his own Gospel “incognito.” We find him out, however, for the disguise is too thin, but still he intends to conceal himself behind his Savior; he wears his Master’s love as a veil, though it turns out to be a veil of light. He might have called himself if he had chosen, “that disciple who beheld visions of God,” but he prefers to speak of love rather than of prophecy. In the early Church we find writings concerning him, in which he is named, “that disciple who leaned on Jesus’ bosom,” and this he mentions in our text. He might have been called “that disciple who wrote one of the Gospels,” or “that disciple who knew more of the very heart of Christ than any other”; but he gives the preference to love. He is not that disciple who did anything, but who received love from Jesus; and he is not that disciple who loved Jesus, but “whom Jesus loved.” We know the man and his communications, and we hear him say, “We have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love, and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.”

Spurgeon, C. H., & Cook, C. T. (2000). Men and Women of the New Testament (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Pulpit Legends; Bible Sermon Series. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.
 
calvin said:
Really, I'm thinking that there are a few points for interpretative discipline that should not be ignored here.
Assuming that all five works were penned by the same person, we are confronted with three very different document types.
One is Gospel narrative, three are pastoral Epistles and lastly, one is Apocalyptic.
Gospel narrative would hardly be written as a letter or apocalypse. Nor would pastoral letters be written as either of the other forms. Same thing about apocalypse.
There is even some conjecture that the John of Revelation was some other different person than the John who wrote the Gospel. But either way, it is not surprising that there would be differing writing styles in evidence.
Next, there is the needful discipline of applying the principle of Two or Three Witnesses.
John's gospel seems to be the only place where we find reference to this disciple who Jesus loved.
Repeating something over and over does not establish fact. We need the testimony of others to support the claim......we don't have it!
We only have John's belief that there was that one special disciple.

It is probably a bit dangerous to take the obvious line that John was referring to himself and used that particular phrase out of a sense of false modesty.
I think for one to do so, would speak of a pride and arrogance that we would not expect from a post Pentecost disciple.

Since the matter is only raised in John's gospel, is without supporting testimony and is not crucial to salvation, it is really not something to go to war over.
Click to expand...

Good perspective Calvin and of course your conclusion IS very true. This is an excercise in seeing truth in the Word that we may overlook or accept based on heresay. I am not a scholar but I have read scholars who say that the Epsitles of John and the Gospel of John are not presumed to be written by the same person. Yes Revelation is Apocalyptic in nature but does have linkes to the Epistles of John in his fatherly style. In any event the OP was to encourage "outside the box" thinking, which I like to pursue. Nothing in this thread is in any way going to effect the salvation message, and I hope nobody's actual salvation.
 
joshhuntnm said:
It is a name in which John hides himself. He is very wary of mentioning John. He speaks of “another disciple,” and “that other disciple,” and then of “that disciple whom Jesus loved.” These are the names by which he would travel through his own Gospel “incognito.” We find him out, however, for the disguise is too thin, but still he intends to conceal himself behind his Savior; he wears his Master’s love as a veil, though it turns out to be a veil of light. He might have called himself if he had chosen, “that disciple who beheld visions of God,” but he prefers to speak of love rather than of prophecy. In the early Church we find writings concerning him, in which he is named, “that disciple who leaned on Jesus’ bosom,” and this he mentions in our text. He might have been called “that disciple who wrote one of the Gospels,” or “that disciple who knew more of the very heart of Christ than any other”; but he gives the preference to love. He is not that disciple who did anything, but who received love from Jesus; and he is not that disciple who loved Jesus, but “whom Jesus loved.” We know the man and his communications, and we hear him say, “We have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love, and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.”

Spurgeon, C. H., & Cook, C. T. (2000). Men and Women of the New Testament (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Pulpit Legends; Bible Sermon Series. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.
Click to expand...

Yes Josh, as this relates to the John of 1 John, your citation is fine. However I was asking about the John or author of the Gospel of John. In this case the citation would be erroneous as to the identity of the author.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top