THE BELOVED DISCIPLE: CRITIQUE OF "THE DISCIPLE WHOM JESUS LOVED" BY JIM PHILLIPS

Many proposals over the years have been made regarding the identity of the anonymous “Beloved Disciple” who appears in John's Gospel (such as in 19:26). The following comments on this subject were prompted by the appearance of a recent self-published book by Jim Phillips entitled The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved. Phillips proposes that Lazarus is being referred to by this term.

This is by no means the first time that Lazarus has been proposed. Other candidates, besides the Apostle John himself, are John Mark and the rich young ruler mentioned in Mark 10:21. This last candidate is strictly speculation, but he was mentioned as one whom Jesus loved. By the way, this flatly contradicts Jim Phillips' statement that Lazarus is the only person mentioned as being loved by Jesus (let alone Mary and Martha in the same Mark passage).

Phillips lightly dismisses without discussion the common suggestion that John the author does not mention his own name in his gospel out of modesty. But then that leaves open the question of why John's Gospel is the only one that does not mention the Apostle John at all. After all, he appears by name three times in Matthew, ten times in Mark and seven times in Luke. Similarly, John's brother James appears three times in Matthew, nine times in Mark, five times in Luke, and not once in John's Gospel.

Then Phillips makes the point that John's Gospel is the only one to mention Lazarus (unless we count the possible allusion to him in Jesus' parable found in Luke). That is true. Lazarus is mentioned by name no less than eleven times in John 11-12. But that makes it even harder to explain why after that point in John's account, Lazarus would suddenly become known anonymously as the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Then Phillips makes the rather unsubstantiated identification of “another disciple” in John 18:15-16 as being the same as “that other disciple whom Jesus loved.” In the first place, the Beloved Disciple is not the only disciple called simply “other” or “another,” as we can see by John 21:2 where two disciples are identified that way. Secondly, the “other disciple” in John 18 was obviously well connected with the high priest – of which we have no evidence in Lazarus' case. However, we do know that the Apostle John and his brother James did have priestly connections through his family relationship with Mary, Jesus' mother. Actually, it is almost unthinkable that Lazarus would talk his friend the high priest into admitting him and Peter since John 12:10 states that the chief priests had planned to put Lazarus to death.

But how then can we explain Acts 4:13, in which the high priest and others supposedly do not recognize Peter and John? In the first place, it doesn't say that at all. It only states that (a) they recognized them as followers of Jesus and (b) were amazed at the boldness and erudition that they now possessed (compared to their former personalities well known by the priests?). Another possibility, of course, is that the “other” disciple of John 18 was someone obviously well connected such as Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus. The other disciple in this particular case may have even been John Mark, whose cousin Barnabas was a Levite (Colossians 4:10; Acts 4:36). There are actually ancient references to John Mark being a priest himself. (Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John, xcvi)

As far as Jesus handing his mother over to the Beloved Disciple while on the cross, it is far more likely that he would do so for John, Mary's own nephew, than he would for a good friend only.

Phillips makes the assertion that Jesus came to the Last Supper with the Twelve and left with them, but that probably there were a number of other disciples coming and going during the dinner itself. Therefore, Lazarus could have been the Beloved Disciple leaning on Jesus' breast during the supper. He conveniently ignores Matthew's account of the event which strongly suggests that only the Twelve were with Jesus as he ate (see Matthew 26:20-22). Actually, if one wishes to propose another person who would have the nerve to not only join the Twelve in the middle of the meal but also to lie down right next to Jesus, John Mark would be a better candidate since there is a strong early consensus that the Last Supper was actually held in his mother's house and that he was the young man who followed them to the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:51-52).

Phillips suggests from a consideration of Acts 1:21-22 that more than the eleven apostles had to have been present in the Garden when Jesus was arrested (and thus were probably at the Last Supper also) and “taken from us.” However, that passage actually says that the candidates for Judas' replacement “went in and out among us from the baptism of John to the time he was taken up from us.” This is even clarified in Acts 1:1:1-2, which uses almost identical language: “from the beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven.” So Acts 1:21-22 simply states that the candidate for Judas' replacement should have seen the resurrected Christ, and according to I Corinthians 15:6 that was witnessed by over 500 people. Thus, those verses have nothing to say regarding who was present at the arrest, and thus presumably at the Last Supper.

Finally, Phillips practically skims over the final verses in John's Gospel. According to John 21:24, it is the Beloved Disciple who wrote the Gospel. Is Phillips proposing that Lazarus was, in fact, the author of the book? If so, then he is flying in the face of all church traditions going back to the first century AD. Even those who are not sure that we should identify the author with the Apostle John, are almost unanimous in stating that the author's name was John. Some associate him with John the Elder (an early figure in church history) and others even posit John Mark. The latter would admittedly be a little strange since John Mark already has a gospel to his name, written in a completely different style.

My biggest problem with Phillips' presentation is its overall tone. He criticizes people who listen to the dictates of man rather than reading the Bible for themselves. But most of the widely accepted evangelical interpretations of the Bible have been well thought out and not only have a long church tradition behind them but also meet the exacting requirements of scholarly study. Phillips' own approach, however, is to tout it as a spectacular new insight rather than the old and generally rejected idea he is recycling. He asks us to go back to the Bible but when one does, his arguments are seen to be unproved at best and purposeful scripture-twisting at worst.