I decided that for December I'd take a look at the book of John. If you ask me why, I'd have to say something about it seeming like the thing to do at the time. The reasons aren't very black and white, but at this time of year, we talk a lot about the "reason for the season" and we sing songs about silent nights.
And that's all so important. But I think that to too many people, Jesus is either the baby in a manger (although they don't pray to baby Jesus like Ricky Bobby, I hope) or he's a sacrifice on a cross (and maybe he's still there for you, but he should be so much more). So I wanted to take a look at the gospel written by the disciple "whom Jesus loved."
John, one of the inner circle, wrote his gospel close to the end of his life, many years after Christ's death and resurrection, and after the other gospels were written. So why write it? He didn't write it for a person or even to reach a group of people. John wrote it to show the world who Christ was, so that every person could know him and believe.
To John, Jesus was a man but so much more. John didn't know the baby and met Jesus as he began his ministry, traveled and worked with Jesus, saw the signs of the Messaiah, saw his death and resurrected body and he believed. And he became a leader of the church. I've mentioned before that I really identify with Peter, mainly because he messed up. A lot. But now I'm curious about John. He may turn out to be one of the perfect people...and he probably should be to be that close to Jesus, but I'd still like to know more.
And to encourage my study, I ran across these quotes.
"Martin Luther said that if we whould lose all the books of the Bible except two--John and Romans--Christianity could be saved."
"An old story suggests that an agnostic was challenged by Henry Clay Trumbell to study the Gospel of John. After emerging from his skeptical analysis, the man told Trumbell, 'The one of whom this book tells is either the Savior of the world or He ought to be.'"
Now are you curious too? Who do you say he is?
Let's take a look at it with new eyes. I want to see the Jesus that John knew.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
The Bible says what it says, nevertheless many will choose to follow those who add to the Bible ideas that it does not teach.
You said: I wanted to take a look at the gospel written by the disciple "whom Jesus loved."
"Prove all things" is a Biblical admonition that Bible students need to take seriously. There are many things that people think are Biblical that don't appear in the Bible; but if we love the truth, then when we find that something we've told or taught doesn't is not Biblical then that error needs to be rejected. Sadly there is often little willingness to submit to the word of God and to much willingness among those who claim the name 'Christian' to turn-a-blind-eye to the Biblical admonition "prove all things" when then text of scripture happens to disprove some tradition of men that they choose to follow.
For example, consider the NON-Bible source based, man-made tradition that promotes the idea that the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was John. The truth is there is not a single verse in scripture that would justify teaching the idea that John was the unnamed "other disciple whom Jesus loved" and yet most simply assume that this man-made tradition cannot be wrong and then interpret scripture to fit this idea. The facts recorded in the plain text of scripture prove that this unbiblical tradition is false but many will nonetheless continue to promote this idea even after being made aware of the Biblical evidence.
In order to sell this unbiblical idea it is claimed that John is referred to in the five passages that in fact never mention him but that rather talk only about the anonymous one whom "Jesus loved" -- but this is easily shown to be the logical fallacy called circular reasoning. This idea comes from NON-Bible sources and is imposed upon the text, when the text says nothing of the kind. In fact we see a stark contrast between the BEHAVIOR of John who repeatedly identifies himself by name in the Book of Revelation and the BEHAVIOR of the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" who went to great lengths to conceal his identity in the fourth gospel.
If one will heed Ps. 118:8 then the NON-BIBLE sources on which this man-made error is based will give way to the facts in scripture which prove that WHOEVER this anonymous author was he most certainly was not John.
It can hardly be honoring to God for one to present an idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL if they cannot cite a single verse that would justify teaching that idea -- but those who promote the unbiblical tradition that the "other disciple whom Jesus loved" was John do just that. We're told, "[It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man". Given this explicit statement (along with similar statements in scripture on this matter) it is clear that one should be leery of those who encourage people trust in NON-Bible sources and put their confidence in unbiblical man-made traditions.
To show respect for the word of God we need to heed the Biblical admonition to "prove all things" - and not simply be repeating the ideas of men but rather looking to scripture and searching the scriptures to see if what we have read or have been told can stand up to Biblical scrutiny.
Defenders of the John tradition can choose to ignore the facts stated in the plain text of scripture if they prefer to quote the words of men who quote other men who quote other men but one thing that neither they nor their NON-Bible sources cannot do is cite even a single verse that would justify this idea. No one ever has -- not those who originated this unbiblical idea and not those who still promote that idea today.
Thanks for the comment, bk. I'm convinced that most of the time, I write for myself.
And it's true, there's no signature to confirm that John wrote the gospel attributed to him...other than early church tradition. Very early church tradition.
And the fact that John, clearly an intimate of Jesus, does not appear by name in this gospel which recounts stories also seen in the other gospels.
I really do appreciate your comment. Proof is one of those issues that can cause so many to stumble because the fact is that it's difficult to prove many things that I believe. That doesn't change the fact that I know, thanks to the Holy Spirit and the understanding that I gain through that Spirit and a lifetime of study, what is true, what is important. And here's what I think is important about the gospel of John: it's written by the disciple whom Jesus loved by statement for the expressed purpose of creating a picture of Christ so that the world may know him and believe.
I just want to know Jesus as well as his inner circle...Peter, James,and John. I want to know Jesus.
20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"
22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"
24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
You wrote: it's true, there's no signature to confirm that John wrote the gospel attributed to him...
But that avoids the issue because (A) this is idea is presented to the public AS IF it was Biblical despite the fact that there is not a single verse that would justify teaching the John idea and (B) the facts in the plain text of scripture prove that this "other disciple whom Jesus loved" could not have been John.
As a reason for promoting the John idea you cited: church tradition. Very early church tradition
Yes that is what it comes down to on this issue -- the Bible vs. NON-Bible sources.
It is axiomatic that the PRIMARY source is the best evidence. The reason that hearsay from NON-Bible sources (like popularity, so-called expert opinions, early church rumors, etc.) is cited in the first place is BECAUSE THERE IS NO VERSE that would justify teaching the John idea. As with other false traditions, the belief in the idea by others is used as the justification for teaching it. But the fact that NON-Bible sources are offered up instead of scripture (as if they were a substitute for scripture) is the telltale sign.
The Bible says what it says. So no matter how many men one can find parroting the ideas of men found in NON-Bible sources the facts in scripture prove that John was not the "other disciple whom Jesus loved" (the anonymous author of the fourth gospel). The John idea comes from NON-Bible sources and the hand-me-down ideas of men but scripture says otherwise. If one has to change the subject because they cannot cite scripture, then the point is made by the very need to dodge the light of scripture.
I will merely point out one final BIBLE fact and leave it at that. LONG before those who came along in the late second and early third centuries and added John's name to the fourth gospel the Bible let us know that there was already at least one false teaching being spread about this particular unnamed disciple.
In the third to the last verse in his gospel this author reports that he was the subject of a false teaching that circulated among the brethren. So why in the world would anyone think that men who lived a hundred years later couldn't possibly teach a wrong idea about this unnamed author? Before Jesus even left the planet we see the beginning of a false teaching about the one whom "Jesus loved" being spread!
As opposed to simply accepting NON-Bible hearsay that has to be cited INSTEAD OF scripture, those who love the truth should subject EVERY idea to Biblical scrutiny in accord with the Biblical admonition to "prove all things".
BK, thanks for checking back. I really do appreciate your comments and here's my last comment on this one. I read, understand, and support your idea about not accepting something as truth just because someone, even experts, says that it is.
I just think that this is really about Jesus. If we accept that the book was divinely inspired and written by the "disciple whom Jesus loved" and I do, then whether it was written by John or not, it's going to give me a unique perspective on Jesus. And that's my goal. Clearly the writer was close to Jesus (entrusted with the care of Mary, Peter's question about his role). I'm not really studying to get to know John, or the writer of the book, but to know Jesus.
And I don't claim to be a scholar or historian, but a person honestly seeking to know more about Christ...as I did yesterday and will again tomorrow. I definitely don't want to cause others to stumble (but you and I are the only ones reading this blog I think!) so I thank you for the comments.
Post a Comment