CHAPTER 7 - TYING UP SOME LOOSE ENDS
& THE CONCLUSION

So Far (The Jury Summation)

This Bible study presented evidence in two cases. In the first it was shown that the Apostle John wasn’t “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (the author of the fourth Gospel). In the second facts were cited that indicate this unnamed beloved disciple was Lazarus. Now, let’s review the evidence that's been presented so far. Pause to pray and ask God to use His Word to lead you to the truth. [The supporting verses are not noted here as they were given when these points were discussed.]

The evidence shows that the Apostle John was not the “other disciple” because:

• The other three Gospel writers conspicuously treat these two very differently. They include John, but overtly omit the “other disciple”. This suggests they were two different people.
  


• “The disciple whom Jesus loved” wrote his Gospel with the deliberate intent of remaining anonymous, yet the evidence indicates that the Apostle John did not attempt to hide his identity. In the Book of Revelation we see that the Apostle John was willing to openly identify himself, because he did so several times.
  


• “The disciple whom Jesus loved” enjoyed a one-of-a-kind bond with Jesus. This cannot be said of John, since not even his role in the ‘inner circle’ suggests that John enjoyed a relationship that was equivalent to this.
  


• These two behaved differently on the evening Jesus was arrested. John let Jesus down by falling asleep three times at Gethsemane. But the “other disciple” went into the palace of the high priest with Jesus and we only see him leave when Jesus dismissed him – at a time well into the next day.
  


• The idea that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was John is based on the mistaken assumption that this author had to be one of “the twelve”. Paintings of “the twelve” alone with Jesus at his last Passover help promote this notion. However, details in the Bible actually indicate that they were not alone (including the fact that they were guests in someone’s home when this event occurred). Besides this, note the phrase “other disciple”. “Other” suggests that the author was not one of “the twelve”, but rather, that he was one of the additional disciples that were continually with Jesus.
  


• If “the disciple whom Jesus loved” joined Jesus and “the twelve” after the supper, then this person could not be John. Yet this is just what is indicated by the author’s own record of events at that Passover – which skips the ‘Lord’s table’ and opens with 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 the high priest was not acquainted with John and he didn’t learn that John was an associate of Jesus until after Pentecost.
  


• The author’s aim of anonymity argues against this being John, because the author’s record of the fishing trip cites “the sons of Zebedee” while leaving two “other” disciples unnamed when “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is said to be present. This cite would seem to run counter to the author’s effort to conceal his identity if this author had in fact been John.

The evidence indicates that Lazarus was the “other disciple” because:

• They had the identical relationship with Jesus. Jesus loved “the disciple whom Jesus loved” and Jesus loved Lazarus. Moreover, Lazarus is unique in this regard. Only one man named in the Gospels is specifically singled out as being “loved” by Jesus (the key relationship), and that man was Lazarus.
  


• The other three Gospel writers treat these two alike. They don’t tell us that Lazarus was a friend of Jesus or that Lazarus had supper with Jesus or even that Lazarus was raised from the dead! Likewise, they do not mention “the disciple whom Jesus loved” and they ignore the important role that this individual played in the life of Jesus.
  


• The anonymous author treats Lazarus and himself in a parallel manner in his Gospel. Lazarus suddenly appears late in the text and he is only referred to a few times. Soon thereafter “the disciple whom Jesus loved” also suddenly appears in the text and he too, is only referred to a few times.
  


• They never appear in the text at the same time. The last reference to Lazarus occurs just prior to the introduction of “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. The author ceases all mention of Lazarus in the text, and it is only at that point that the author begins to refer to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”.
  


• The suddenly famous one disappears and then the suddenly anonymous one appears. The author tells us about the public craving for Lazarus that springs up (but subsequently he never again mentions Lazarus). It is only after his report of this that the author begins to use a series of anonymous phrases to refer to himself – the “other disciple”, “one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved”, etc.
  


• The experiences of Lazarus would produce the response we see in “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. After Jesus exhibited his love for Lazarus by raising him from the dead, Lazarus was different from other human beings. And he would certainly be a different person than the man that he had been prior to this miracle. Both the relationship of the “other disciple” to Jesus and the behavior of this unnamed disciple/author befit what we’d expect from a raised-from-the-dead Lazarus.
  


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


• When confronted with the “linen” evidence, the “other disciple” becomes the first to believe in Jesus’ resurrection. This reaction befits Lazarus – the one person in scripture most likely to be profoundly moved by the sight of the “linen clothes” and the “napkin” (since he had been wearing similar items at the time that he was raised from the dead).
  


• The rest of the disciples’ mistaken belief that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” wouldn’t die points to Lazarus. This false rumor, along with the manner in which the author handles this error, suggests that the disciples jumped to this conclusion because of something that they already knew about this person. [Jesus had given him a reprieve from death.]
  


• The “other disciple” was anonymous and Lazarus had a motive to become anonymous. The Jews came to see Lazarus after he was raised. Surely he knew the focus belonged on Jesus and not himself. Likewise, the author’s stated goal was to lead people to believe in Jesus and yet he took the effort to hide his own identity, so he must have felt that this helped him to achieve this objective.
  


• When Jesus mentioned Peter’s death, Peter turned from Jesus to “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. Peter’s response indicates that his mind associated “the disciple whom Jesus loved” with this subject. In the same way, Lazarus would be associated with this topic by all those who were acquainted with him.
  


• The “other disciple” was known to be an associate of Jesus and he was known to the high priest, both of which are true of Lazarus. He was a known associate of Jesus – it was because Jesus raised him from the dead that the public wanted to see Lazarus. Moreover, we realize that Lazarus was known to the “chief priests” and Pharisees, for they had received eyewitness testimony of this miracle and they were also plotting to kill Lazarus (because of the public’s response to him).
  
  

The First Disciple?

The Bible does contain other information that relates to the facts that you have been considering. The decision that you have reached based on the evidence presented so far probably won’t be altered by the information in these supplemental passages. The prior evidence should have been sufficient to support the conclusions that have been put forward.

Still, these additional passages are worthy of consideration, for they may be able to shed added light on this “other disciple” we’ve been studying. For example, let’s take a look at the recruitment of the first disciple of Jesus. In the first chapter of the Gospel attributed to John, we meet John the Baptist and read his good report regarding Jesus and learn about the subsequent progress of Jesus’ ministry. John the Baptist bears witness that Jesus is the Son of God in John 1:29-34 and, when Jesus returned on the next day, two of the disciples of John the Baptist heard him call Jesus “the Lamb of God” and “they followed Jesus” (Jn. 1:35-37).

John 1:38-39 states that these two disciples went with Jesus and, “abode with him that day”. These two were the very first individuals that the scripture says, “followed Jesus”. Now, be careful to pay close attention to what the next two verses say (and more important what they do not say).

John 1:40-41 reads, “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 Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ”. In the subsequent verses we read that Andrew brought his brother Simon to meet Jesus and that the following day Jesus found Philip (Jn. 1:42-43).

Furthermore, we know that those three – Andrew, Peter and Philip – became loyal disciples and they were selected to be among “the twelve” (Mt. 10:2-3, Mk. 3:16-18, & Lu. 6:14). But haven’t we forgotten someone? Did you notice that there is one person who seems to vanish from the scene?

What happened to that other unnamed disciple of John the Baptist that was abiding with Jesus in John 1:39? One could say that both Andrew and this other individual were the first disciples to follow Jesus. Andrew’s name is recorded and Andrew gets mentioned in all of the Gospels. Yet the other individual (who had an equal right to be called the first disciple) is never named. Moreover, he is never referred to at all outside of John 1:35-39. Did he simply disappear? Was he of no importance? Or is there another possibility?

Another Possibility

The other possibility is that this unidentified ex-disciple of John the Baptist was the unnamed author of the Gospel that mentions him. The only Gospel to mention the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” is also the only Gospel to mention this other unnamed follower of Jesus. Is it more likely that this author might keep himself unnamed in the beginning of his Gospel also or that one of the first two followers of Jesus amounted to nothing that merited any further mention in scripture?

Earlier we concluded that the bond between Jesus and “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was not the kind of thing that would just appear out of thin air. The clear indication is that this relationship was ongoing. It existed for sometime prior to the last Passover, where “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was first mentioned (Jn. 13:23). Is it conceivable that the unnamed “other disciple” was with Jesus from the very earliest days? Yes. But is there any other scripture that might help establish this? Yes.

Remember that in Acts 1:21-22 Peter refers to “men which have compained 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”. Can we know for certain that Peter is definitely speaking about that other person who was with his brother Andrew on that first day that they followed Jesus? No. Is it probable that this unnamed other person was one of those that Peter was referring to in Acts 1:21-22? That is for you to decide.

There isn’t sufficient evidence to prove that the anonymous author of this Gospel was the same one who (along with Andrew) left John the Baptist to follow Jesus on that day. However, this possibility is worth considering. It would of course, explain the origin of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” prior to Jesus’ last Passover supper. Moreover, if “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was Lazarus, then this early involvement with Jesus would help explain the origin of their special relationship and the reason that Jesus called Lazarus his “friend” (Jn.11:11).

Furthermore this suggests another question: If this unnamed early disciple was Lazarus, then why didn’t Jesus pick him to be one of “the twelve”? We may never know the answer to this, but we do know that “the twelve” were picked because they were the ones that God wanted to have picked – for Jesus said, “I do always those things that please him (the Father)” (Jn. 8:29). Beyond this the Bible doesn’t seem to offer any rationale as to why Jesus selected “the twelve” men that he ultimately chose.

Mark’s Mystery Man

There may also be a unique link to Lazarus in the Gospel of Mark. Mark 14:43-53 reports about the night that Jesus was betrayed and in Mark 14:50 we read “And they all forsook him, and fled”. You’d think that after the disciples fled there wouldn’t be anyone left but Jesus himself. What is extremely curious, however, is what follows immediately after this verse. Mark calls attention to the fact that at that point in time, one person 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”. This is something that was not mentioned in the other Gospels. Still, since it is part of the Gospel of Mark, God must have wanted us to have this information. So let’s think carefully about the questions raised by these two verses.

One question is: why would this unnamed “young man” remain with Jesus after the rest of the disciples had fled? [If this person was Lazarus, then we know why he might have remained.] But this “young man” then fled too. So how was his behavior any different from the others who “forsook” Jesus in Mark 14:50? The motive for his behavior is different.

Notice that Mark 14:51 takes the time to explain the details of the way that this “young man” was clothed – with only a linen cloth covering his nakedness. Also, note that Mark 14:52 says he fled away naked. ‘So what’, you ask? When the others “forsook” Jesus “and fled”, the clear implication is that they did so out of fear for their own safety. Yet it seems that Mark may be indicating that it was not fear, but shame or embarrassment that caused this “young man” to subsequently “flee”.

Mark 14:51 says that they, “laid hold on” this “young man”. But then in Mark 14:52 we read that, “he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked”. Could it be that the Gospel of Mark is telling us that this simple “linen cloth” was stripped from the “young man” as he was seized?

Though we are told that he fled also, the actions of this “young man” are set apart from the rest of the disciples that “forsook” Jesus that night. Is it possible that the fear of death couldn’t motivate Lazarus, but that suddenly being stripped might cause him flee out of embarrassment? Even after Lazarus was raised from the dead, he was still a human being, subject to the influence of emotions. [If this was Lazarus, then after quickly getting something else to wear he returned as Peter did and followed Jesus.] Now we need to see if any evidence exists to suggest that this “young man” might have been Lazarus.

A Fashion Statement?

Besides the fact that this unnamed “young man” was the last follower of Jesus to flee from Gethsemane that fateful night, the Gospel of Mark calls attention to this “young man’s” attire! Twice we see references to the “linen cloth” that this “young man” was wearing (Mk. 14:51 & 52). And both these verses indicate that this was the only thing covering his otherwise “naked” body. Why would the Gospel of Mark bother to mention these details? (Possibly because it is in these details that we can find the clue to the identity of this unnamed “young man”.)

Earlier in this document we discussed the significance of “linen” clothes. Remember that our English word “linen” was used to translate several different Greek words, but that two of these always refer to the cloth covering a corpse – with this passage in Mark 14:51-52 being the only exception!

Why would this “young man” have chosen to wear a material that is otherwise associated only with dead people (in the scriptures)?

Is it possible that this unnamed “young man” was indicating that he’d already been dead or that he didn’t fear death? More importantly, could this have been a way of expressing the fact that he was a changed man – that reckoned himself dead to sin, but alive unto God (as Paul later encouraged others to do in Romans 6:11)?

Whatever the explanation, there is a link between this unidentified “young man” and Lazarus (the unidentified “disciple whom Jesus loved”). This link can be seen when one closely examines the “linen” evidence that the scriptures contain.

Enough Evidence?

Is this enough evidence to suggest that Lazarus was the “young man” of Mark 14:51-52? Each one of you will decide that for yourselves, since you are the jury considering this matter. However, the ‘case for Lazarus’ doesn’t depend on the identity of the “young man” of Mark 14.

The fact that the night Jesus was arrested an unidentified “young man” dressed in “linen” was the last person to leave him is not going to be enough to prove anything for certain. This is true even though the Greek word for “linen” in Mark 14 was used only in relation to Jesus’ dead body every other time that it was used (Mt. 27:59, Mk. 15:46 [twice] & Lu. 23:53).

Still, given the curious statements of Mark 14 and the truth that this “young man” is highlighted as the last person to leave Jesus at Gethsemane, this discernible link to Lazarus is worth thinking about.

Once again, however, please remember that the evidence previously presented herein regarding both Lazarus and John is intended to stand on its own. Each of these supplemental passages is being discussed simply in an attempt to tie up these few loose ends.

More Than Just A Story?

A passage in the Gospel of Luke has some unique parallels between the story that is told there and the facts that are reported by the anonymous author in his Gospel. As we compare Luke 16:19-31 to John 11:1-12:10, keep this in mind – although Jesus did use stories to teach, we also are told that Jesus was a prophet! (Mk. 6:4, Acts 3:22-26)

In the story that Jesus told in Luke 16, he referred to two characters, a man named “Lazarus” who died (Lu. 16:20 & 22) and a “rich man” who also died (Lu. 16:19 & 22). The “rich man” found himself “being in torments” (Lu. 16:23) and he then made a series of requests. To start with he sought relief and, oddly enough, in his appeal he includes the petition “send Lazarus…” (Lu. 16:24). The “rich man” is then informed why this could not happen (Lu. 16:25-26). Following this the “rich man” makes another appeal involving “Lazarus” – “send him [Lazarus] to my father’s house: for I have five brethren; that he [Lazarus] may testify unto them” (Lu. 16:27-28).

Notice what Jesus did here with this story. The dead “rich man” is asking if someone named “Lazarus” could return from the dead to “testify” unto his “brethren”, who were still alive.

Jesus also underscores the fact that this was precisely what the “rich man” was requesting. When the “rich man” is told that his brethren “have Moses and the prophets” (Lu. 16:29) he protested, because he thought that sending Lazarus back from the dead would elicit a better response – “if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent” (Lu. 16:30).

Sadly, 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” (Lu. 16:31). Jesus ended the story here.

Now try to imagine the effect that this story would have had on those who actually heard Jesus teach it (especially his disciples). The day that the disciples heard Jesus speak these words, it’s likely that they thought that this story was no different than his other teaching stories. But what do you suppose those disciples were thinking when they later saw part of this story actually come true – when Jesus called a man named Lazarus back from the dead?

Who Was Jesus Speaking About?

Some will try to take the ‘moral of the story’ and apply it to the situation of the “chief priests” and Pharisees, who refused to embrace the resurrection of Jesus. While this might appear to be ‘a good fit’, let’s take a closer look at this.

To begin with, note the contrast between the way Jesus ended the story (“if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead” – Lu. 16:31) and the resurrection of Jesus (which has been ‘persuading’ people for the last 2000 years).

Moreover, consider this fact; in the scriptures the resurrected Jesus didn’t appear to unbelievers! After the resurrection every recorded appearance of Jesus was to those that believed or would believe. He did not appear before the priests or Pharisees to “testify” unto them.

These facts seem to hinder a comparison between the resurrected Jesus and the person who was requested by the “rich man” in Luke 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” (Lu. 16:29)].

This Luke 16 passage has frequently been related to Jesus’ resurrection, his witnesses in the New Testament and ‘the good news of gospel.’ But before we search for a deeper meaning in this story, consider the possibility that, in Luke 16:19-31, Jesus was articulating a prophecy. [Jesus’ delay and words in John 11:4, 6-7 & 14-15 would support this.]

The account of Luke 16 has several parallels to the raising of Lazarus. Lazarus died (Jn. 11:1-36), was later raised from the dead (Jn. 11:36-46). Plus, although there are no words of Lazarus recorded in the Bible, it is likely that he would “testify” about Jesus to those with whom he spoke.

Moreover, Lazarus became a living testimony to the power of God. And “many of the Jews”, who witnessed the raising of Lazarus, believed on Jesus (Jn. 11:45). [Also see: Jn. 12:9-11 and Jn. 12:17-18.] But, similar to the response that Jesus described in Luke 16, the Jewish leaders were not ‘persuaded’ – even though eyewitnesses to the raising of Lazarus “went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done” (Jn. 11:46). Instead of repenting, the “chief priests” and Pharisees plotted to kill Jesus (Jn. 11:47-53). The “chief priests” also sought to kill Lazarus (Jn. 12:10). Given this, do you think the reaction described by Jesus in Luke 16:31 was a prophecy of this response? As with the other supplemental passages, it’s up to you to ponder this food for thought. Now, however, we will 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 bought the idea that John was the author of the Gospel that bears his name because:

• This is what we were told;
• This is what it’s ‘always’ been called;
• This is what ‘all’ the Bible ‘scholars’ teach;
• The ‘title’ of this Gospel is printed in our Bible;
• etc.

These might seem like separate arguments at first glance, but the same assumption underlies all of them. They all boil down to the same mistake – trusting someone else’s judgement. These ‘reasons’ don’t require us to search the scriptures; rather they rely on someone else to have already done this job.

But what if others now and in the past have done the same? Who is left to search the scriptures? The ‘scholars?’ Isn’t it normal for them to rely on the work of ‘scholars’ who went before them (like judges citing on past rulings)? What happens if successive generations tended to rely on the work of those who have preceded them? Furthermore, what happens if an error gets introduced into this sequence early on? If an error went unchallenged long enough, it would eventually become accepted as truth and correcting this error would become more difficult as time went on because its ‘historical acceptance’ would become a rationale for assuming that this idea must be true.

Clearing up a long accepted misconception is a big challenge, but the Bible is up to it. The origin of the erroneous ‘John’ theory really doesn’t matter. What does matter is that we show allegiance to the record of scripture that God has preserved – and the truth it reveals. There was never any Biblical support for the ‘John’ theory, as you now know. The fact that this error has fooled so many should be a wake up call to us all. Let this discovery inspire you to search the scriptures more diligently in the future. Instead of thinking that you have to accept the decrees of others on Biblical matters, or that some expert’s judgement is necessarily better than your own, trust the judgement that God gave to you and be open to the truth that you find in His Word.

This study presented reasoning that relies on the Bible only. On the other hand, those who seek to defend the ‘John’ idea are forced to use arguments that ultimately rest on everything but the Bible. (But this isn’t clear until you focus on this issue.)

The very arguments used by those who seek to defend the ‘John’ idea actually reveal that there’s no Biblical support for it. To justify this idea they cite ‘historical tradition’ or supposed quotes of the ‘early church fathers’, but they don’t offer a single verse of scripture to support this idea. The primary source is always the best evidence and the primary source in this case is God’s Word. Furthermore, no amount of extra-biblical opinion can ever be sufficient to ‘trump’ a truth that is revealed by the Bible.

If we look to somebody else to tell us what the Bible says, then we are depending on others to search the scriptures for us. But if we do this, aren’t we likely to adopt their mistakes and any errors that they’ve been taught? Assuming that we can rely on others to already have the truth favors tradition, not investigation. Worse yet, unless the ones on whom we’re relying can be counted on to never be wrong, we have no guarantee that we are getting the truth. This mindset also tends to use circular logic: i.e. ‘We know John wrote it, because it’s his Gospel’ and ‘It’s called The Gospel of “John”, because John wrote it’ (even though no such claim appears in the text).

Others fall prey to thinking that ‘John must have written The Gospel of “John”, because this is what everyone else thinks’. This still relies on others to have the truth, but it also presumes that large numbers of people cannot be wrong concurrently. However, even when ‘all the scholars believe’ and ‘everybody knows’ that something is ‘true’, we may have to look elsewhere in order to find out what is really true and the idea of ‘monkey-to-man’ evolution that is so prevalent today is just one example of this.

Why have the vast majority of ‘scholars’ and books misidentified the author of this Gospel? How could this have been accepted by so many, for so long? Besides the reasons discussed above, there is another possibility that we should consider. It may be that God is opening the eyes of people to this truth in order to humble us and draw us into a deeper reliance on His Word. And, at the very least, this omission is proof that man has not already discovered all of the truth that the Bible contains.

Where Do You Go From Here?

Some will just dismiss this issue and discount the scriptural evidence cited herein. Still others who were unconvinced will continue to face two daunting questions: (1) If the ‘John’ theory is true, why doesn’t a single verse support this idea; and (2) why doesn’t a single verse oppose the idea that Lazarus was the “other disciple”? Lastly, there will be those who were persuaded by the facts presented herein and it is to this group that these final thoughts are directed.

When we discover evidence that indicates we may be mistaken on a matter, what should we do? You now know that the evidence contained in the Bible is sufficient to prove that the Apostle John was not the author of the Gospel that is attributed to him. You also know that there is a substantial amount of Biblical evidence to support the conclusion that the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” was Lazarus, of Bethany. What is unique about this insight is that it can be seen after almost 2000 years and, like a watermark of truth, it provides an inspiring argument for the reliability of the Bible that we have today.

Despite the passage of time, it is still true: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…” (2 Tim. 3:16). The truth has been preserved in the scriptures and we should not be afraid to let the Holy Spirit lead us into truth.

Is the information in this study as important as the fact that Jesus is the Son of God or the fact that he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven? Obviously not! But it is important because it makes us realize that the Bible still has things to teach us – our knowledge of God’s Word can increase. It also highlights the importance of the details that God has preserved for us in His Word, which can help us to correct past misconceptions. Ideally, this will inspire you to explore the scriptures with a new zeal.

Furthermore, it’s likely that your future studies will begin to exhibit one new trait. You should find that you are less willing to just accept someone’s teaching without question. Instead, you’ll probably be more inclined to “search the scriptures” – which will enable you to confirm whether or not the things that you’ve been taught are actually correct. Most important, take the time to ask God how you can use this new information to glorify Him and help others. Be encouraged as you continue to study the Bible and let the Holy Spirit guide you to the truth. Seek the truth “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (Derived from 1 Cor. 2:13).

What Difference Does It Make?

This truth ought to make a difference in your personal Bible study by increasing your appreciation for God’s Word and your sensitivity to the details that He has preserved for us therein. But there is no way to tell what benefits will follow from this for any given individual or for the body of Christ as a whole. Thus, ‘what difference does it make’ is actually a question that only God can answer. However, you can use this insight to make a difference in the lives of others. By sharing your knowledge of the Biblical evidence on this issue you can encourage others to look into this matter, so that they too might learn to rely more on God’s Word and less on the teachings of men.

On the other hand, there is a subtle danger if ‘what difference does it make’ is simply intended as a rhetorical question that is meant to brush aside the whole issue. The danger lies in the implication that knowing the truth on this issue has no value – which may be meant as a justification for perpetuating the ‘John’ teaching (i.e. It’s okay, because it’s harmless). If the ‘John’ idea is believed or taught in ignorance that’s one thing, but what about after one is exposed to the truth? Should any teacher imply that an idea is Biblically true, if they know there isn’t one verse in the Bible that they can cite in support of that idea?

A Biblically based inquiry is not a threat to the truth, but the unguarded intake of information can be hazardous. As shown herein, we cannot afford to be careless about learning or uncritical about the things we see, hear or read. We need to test these things against the Word of God. In Acts 17:11 and other verses, the Bible indicates that it is our responsibility to verify the truth of what we are taught. But if we discover that we have been taught something that is unscriptural, what should we do then? It may be that our obligation is to speak the truth in love.

However, when it comes to the ‘John’ theory, you’ll find that tradition is sometimes treasured more than truth. Even though all of the scriptural evidence is in your corner, exposing this error will not be an easy task. This idea has been accepted for so long, that some won’t even consider the possibility that this theory could be wrong, while others may act as if any challenge to the ‘John’ theory is impossible or inconsequential. You know that it is not impossible for this type of error to be made, but is it really true that teaching some errors may be inconsequential? Or might it be that overlooking the question of errors on ‘minor issues’ could lead to other problems?

Adding to God’s Word is condemned by most Bible teachers – yet, to some degree, this happens each time the name ‘John’ is added to the reading of a passage about “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. It’s easy to slip and add our ideas on a matter to the plain reading of God’s Word when we are seeking to clarify one point or another, but this is a habit that all students of the Word should seek to guard against. This is not meant as a condemnation of those who are communicators of God’s Word. Surely they have a responsibility to be as Biblically accurate as they can possibly be, but they can sometimes be fooled just like the rest of us. None of us is always right, so we should remain open to new ideas and respond to the truth when God places it in our path.

When a question of Biblical accuracy is being raised, which do you think is the more appropriate response: (A) ‘What difference does it make’, or (B) ‘Show me the proof’? Certainly, the first remark isn’t meant to imply that truth doesn’t matter on Biblical issues. But, this sort of reply can be used to dismiss this uncomfortable subject without actually having to cite scripture (i.e., if it ‘makes no difference’, then there is no need to give much thought to the matter). Sadly, this treats the truth somewhat nonchalantly, which could end up pouring cold water on a Bible student’s flame of curiosity. On the other hand, the later response tackles the issue head on and implies a willingness to learn. Be that as it may, realize that convincing others of this truth is not as important as encouraging them to search the Bible on this issue, because the real value in this discovery is its ability to spark a renewed interest in God’s Word.

“For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required” (Lu. 12:48). The Bible is a gift that is worthy of our time and deliberate thought (like the Bereans of Acts 17:11). Hebrews 11:6 tells us that God “is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him”. And Jesus tells his disciples, “seek, and ye shall find” (Lu. 11:9, also see Mt. 7:7). Thus, time spent in the pursuit of the truth is time well spent.

Moreover, note that knowledge is not the goal. What you’ve learned herein isn’t just an interesting Biblical oddity. Although it’s been overlooked by so many for so long, the beauty of this insight is that the Bible has always pointed to the truth! Still, let us remember that even the disciples didn’t realize some things were contained in the scriptures until God revealed those things to them [as in Luke 24:45, “Then opened he (Jesus) their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures”]. Might God act similarly today, opening our understanding to things that we had previously overlooked?

Even in our day, God can still reveal truth through the Bible, as this study proves. However, bear in mind that the learning of truth is not an end in itself. 2 Peter 1:5-7 says, “add to... knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity”. Similarly Paul wrote, “though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing”. (1 Cor. 13:2) Thank God for the knowledge, but then press on to glorify Him through your life.

If your eyes have been opened to a truth that most others have missed, then the question you’re left with is, ‘if so many could be wrong about this, what else could they be wrong about?’

Read the Bible with care to make sure that it actually says what you have been told that it says. Enjoy God’s instruction and love the truth.

Thank you.

---

Proverbs 25:2, Ecc. 3:1

Thanks be to God

Find this book and other bible study resources at TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com. Review copies, interviews , speaking requests or other inquiries call: (708) 450-8255 or (770) 842-6370. Send correspondence to: TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com, PO Box 83, La Grange, IL 60525

Until the next book in this Bible-only series try www.TruthHunt.com, a place for those who search the scriptures.

Here's a question that you can use when you begin a discussion of this issue with your pastor, teacher or Bible study. We're told to "search the scriptures", but what should we do if when we do this, we discover that there’s not a single verse to justify a tradition or teaching that we've previously been taught? Or you might ask, if one has been taught a belief or tradition and they later learn that the facts recorded in the Bible don’t support that idea, what should they do? The best questions request scriptural guidance rather than opinion. Questions such as, "What do you think about…" or "Why do some people teach…" don’t require a Biblical response. Instead, it is better to formulate a question that requests a Biblical answer such as, "What verse would support the idea that..." or "Can you help me find a passage of scripture that would shed some light on…"

Jesus said, "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much" (Lu. 16:10), which suggests being faithful to the truth is important even if so-called ‘minor’ issues are involved. When seeking Biblical truth, remember that The Bible is the primary source (as opposed to quoting non-Biblical sources, ideas and opinions). The Bible is the best evidence against those ideas that are promoted as Biblical, which actually are not. In Luke 12:48 Jesus said, "... unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required..." and those of us who are blessed with access to God’s Word and the ability to read it have good reason to take Jesus’ words to heart!