The Beloved Disciple: His Name, His Story, His Thought: Two Studies from the Gospel of John

by Vernard Eller

124 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1987

About the author

Vernard Marion Eller was an American author, Christian pacifist and minister in the Church of the Brethren.

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT THAT LAZARUS IS THE ‘BELOVED DISCIPLE’ IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL

Vernard Eller (1927-2007) was a Christian pacifist and minister in the Church of the Brethren; he taught philosophy and religion at the University of La Verne for 34 years.

He wrote in the Preface of this 1987 book, “There is no way the matter could have been kept secret, yet very few people know that the Gospel we call ‘of John’ neither names not gives any action to the ‘John’ whom the Gospel is presumably ‘of.’ The one and only verse coming anywhere close is verse 2 of chapter 21. It lists the seven followers of Jesus who were present at his resurrection-appearance on the seashore, and includes ‘the sons of Zebedee.’

“No one named ‘John’ is to be found (excepting ‘John the Baptist,’ of course)---yet the Gospel is quite explicit about just who is the source of its information (and in that sense the ‘author’ of the work). It is ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved,’ whom we will hereafter refer to as ‘the Beloved Disciple.’ And it is this person who now is to be the subject of our study as we set out to discover his name, his story, and his thought. In order to keep us from jumping to conclusions before we have seen any evidence, I will always call him ‘the Beloved Disciple’ (never ‘John’) and always call his Gospel ‘The Fourth Gospel’ (never ‘the Gospel of John')… The intent and purpose of this book is… to conduct a STUDY which… can afford us much good biblical education…

“This book consists of two separate studies---the first dealing more with the Beloved Disciple’s identity and personal history, the second more with his theology… a point I try most strongly to make is this: it simply will not do to try to read the New Testament as though it presents FOUR Gospels that pretty well parallel and support each other---each telling what is essentially the same story in essentially the same way, each complementing and filling in the others to produce what can be taken as ONE gospel account. That ‘confluencing’ of the streams will work fairly well with the first THREE Gospels (the Synoptics), but making the Fourth Gospel flow in the same channel can be done only at great violence to the Gospel itself. It clearly was never meant to be so treated. If we are to make sense of it at all, we must deal with it as a self-contained entity in its own right.” (Pg. vii-x)

He notes that “the Fourth Gospel says that Peter was from Bethsaida, and the Synoptics say he was from Capernaum. Pious imagination takes care of the gap (a matter of less than 5 miles) by explaining that Peter, at some point, MOVED from Bethsaida to Capernaum. Of course, there is no textual evidence for that solution, yet there is a sort of mind that just HAS to have the matter settled, whereas the scholarly mind prefers to let the textual facts stand as they are, to accept the incongruity of the Fourth Gospel’s saying ‘Bethsaida’ where the Synoptics say ‘Capernaum.’ … However, if we START from the premise that, in order for the Scriptures to be ‘Scripture,’ it must be taken as certain that all the pieces from all four Gospels WILL indeed fit together into one factual puzzle picture history of Jesus… then it is probably inevitable that, in our efforts to force that picture, we will fall into ‘fudging.’ And this is precisely why the ‘scholars’ ask us to consider the possibility that we may be misunderstanding and misusing the Gospel evidences in even WANTING to jigsaw-puzzle them in such a way.” (Pg. 3-4)

He states, “The most notable finding of this study will be how different the Fourth Gospel is from the Synoptics… we can begin by noting that the Fourth Gospel’s explicit acknowledgment of a special disciple-group known as ‘the twelve’ is confined essentially to a single passage (6:66-71), which very passage also pointedly uses the term ‘disciples’ to apply to more than just ‘the twelve.’ … The Fourth Gospel uses the term ‘the twelve’ one other time---in 20:24. There, after introducing Thomas into the action … it identifies Thomas as ‘one of the twelve.’” (Pg. 23-24)

He argues, “The Fourth Gospel give us nine different ‘Peter scenes’ … [But] only one of the ‘Peter scenes’ comes out of Jesus’ GALILEAN ministry, the Fourth Gospel being very strongly oriented toward JERUSALEM… It cannot be said that the Fourth Gospel is out to put Peter down, though it is apparent that the effort is being made to establish the Beloved Disciple as having every bit as much claim to prominence as Peter.” (Pg. 26-27)

He lists ‘the differences between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel’: “(1) The Fourth Gospel uses quite different material and orders events quite differently (until the Passion account). (2) Jesus speaks in long, well-ordered discourses. (3) Jesus talks mostly about himself. (4) Jesus is frequently in Jerusalem (and his career lasts at least three years). (5) The Fourth Gospel has a weak futurist orientation---i.e., ‘realized eschatology.’ (6) Salvation is focused on the ‘whatever point in time’ experience of faith in Jesus. (7) Salvation is portrayed as divine communication between God and man. (8) The Fourth Gospel was written later, toward A.D. 100. (9) The viewpoint of the Fourth Gospel is unique to the Johannine literature. (10) The Fourth Gospel expresses a minor view growing out of heterodox, intellectualistic Judaism.” (Pg. 36-37)

He asks, “Does our analysis enable us to say anything about who the Beloved Disciple was or how his book came to be written?… although the Beloved Disciple is claimed as the ‘Source’ of the book, it does not necessarily (nor even likely) mean that he is its actual WRITER… If the WRITER was a close colleague and follower of the SOURCE, it is quite understandable that he would refer to his master by using the honorific title ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved.’ If, however, the Writer was the same person as the Source (was himself the Beloved Disciple), it is hard to believe that he would be so presumptuous as to write a document identifying HIMSELF, against all others, as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved.’” (Pg. 43-44)

He states, “there is only one person who comes close to qualifying as the Beloved Disciple. Either the Beloved Disciple is LAZARUS---or else we don’t have a ghost of a clue as to who he is…. ‘Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany’ (11:1). And when his sisters decide to inform Jesus, the message they send is, ‘Lord, he WHOM YOU LOVE is ill’ (v. 3)… And it is only these two people (or one person), Lazarus and the Beloved Disciple, regarding whom the Writer ever uses this language… But if you perchance missed the significance of verse 3, the Writer will run it past you several more times. ‘Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus (v. 5). … ‘Jesus wept’ (v. 35). “So the Jews said, ‘See how he loved him.’… in the Fourth Gospel, Lazarus is the only named disciple of whom it is also said that Jesus loved him, we have set up the hypothesis that Lazarus is indeed the Beloved Disciple.” (Pg. 53-54)

He points out, “identifying the author of the Fourth Gospel as Lazarus has the effect of blunting a serious charge against and removing a great embarrassment to the Fourth Gospel… scholars have noted this Gospel’s frequent (and almost incessant) use of the phrase ‘the Jews’---and that delivered quite often in a most negative, accusatory, and even condemnatory way. Those who have WANTED to accuse the New Testament of anti-Semitism have focused upon the Fourth Gospel, and those who have tried to defend the New Testament against the charge have almost always had to make an exception of the Fourth Gospel.” (Pg. 57-58)

He asserts, “it is only with chapter 11… that LAZARUS is introduced to play what … is a most crucial and significant role. Though named only in this single, two-chapter passage, Lazarus is not simply a passing character… He has the featured role … in the account of Jesus raising him. He then is named as present at the supper where his sister Mary anoints Jesus for burial… With this, in the middle of chapter 12, all mention of Lazarus ceases… Chapter 13 opens with the Last Supper in the upper room---and here, for the very first time… lying on the breast of Jesus, is the BELOVED DISCIPLE. And from this point on he appears in almost every major scene to the end of the book. There is no overlap or (perhaps) any explicit link between Lazarus and the Beloved Disciple, yet these two figures together effectively cover, give continuity to, and tie together the entire Jerusalem/Passion Week half of the Gospel.” (Pg, 65)

He suggests, “But consider those named in the whole of Gospel tradition: would there be any reason for a ‘saying’ about ‘not dying’ to attach itself to any of them except Lazarus? Only he is both the disciple about whom it is explicitly said that Jesus loved him and the one whose very existence was owed to Jesus' miraculous communication of a special quality of life people might easily assume could have no end…. Does this not imply that, by the time of the writing of this Gospel (the writing of at least this last, added chapter) Lazarus actually had died? And would not the Writer then need to assure people that he nevertheless was ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’? … what sense would verses 23-24 make if that disciple were actually John (or, for that matter, anyone other than the singular Lazarus)?” (Pg. 72)

This is one of the best books making the ‘Lazarus is the Beloved Disciple’ argument, and will be of great interest to anyone studying this issue.

[Fred Kohn · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found out about this book by reading L. Michael Hall's book on the fourth gospel. In that book, Dr. Hall claims that Lazarus of Bethany, the Beloved Disciple, and not the Apostle John, wrote the Fourth Gospel. Vernard Eller's thesis is only slightly different. Eller believes an unknown person wrote the gospel but that Lazarus was the source behind it. Hall quotes Eller in his book *Over My Dead Body!* "Either the Beloved Disciple is *Lazarus*—or else we don’t have a ghost of a clue as to is."

Hall borrows some ideas from Eller, such as the idea that the author of the Fourth Gospel—whoever they were—was an upper-class, well educated, Jerusalemite. However Hall disagrees with Eller's opinion that the second disciple of John the Baptist who follows Jesus in John 1.35-42 was Lazarus. Instead, Hall believes that Lazarus did not become a disciple until after he was raised. Hall points out that the phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved" does not appear until after Lazarus was raised.

Eller begins his first of two studies by saying he is going the way of Sherlock Holmes. By this he means that rather than consulting scholars, he is going to blaze a new trail. I think he does a pretty good job. He starts by noting that there are discrepancies between the Gospels. He has invented the term "pious imagination," by which he means inventing something to explain a discrepancy. He gives as an example the fact that the Fourth Gospel says Peter was from Bethsaida and the Synoptics say he was from Capernaum. Maybe Peter lived in Capernaum and then moved to Bethsaida? Eller rejects all such facile explanations. Maybe, says Eller, the Gospel writers didn’t conceive of themselves as writing history in the fashion we moderns have come to expect? This, I think, is a very good point.

Eller gives a parallel account of the Gospels, paying particular attention to how the disciples are described. He notes that in the calling of the Galilean disciples, Luke does not mention Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter. His hypothesis that Luke, like the author of the Fourth Gospel knows that Andrew was called in Judea, not in Galilee.

An important theme that Eller emphasizes throughout his first study is the distinction between historical eschatology, which he defines as where is human history headed; and divine communication, which is how God, from the heavenly sphere, can communicate his divine beatitude to human individuals in the sphere of the earthly, finite, and sinful. Eller doesn’t discount historical eschatology, but he does downplay it with respect to divine communication). An example he gives is in John 11 when Mary references the historical resurrection at the end of time (historical eschatology) and Jesus's pointing to himself as the resurrection (divine communication).

In his book, Hall cites many reasons why John of Zebedee cannot have authored the Fourth Gospel. Eller mentions a few more that I thought were of interest that Hall does not mention. Pointing to the apparent idealogical tension between the writer of the Fourth Gospel and the writers of Matthew and Mark, Eller notes that if John wrote the Fourth Gospel this tension would be *within* the Galilean community rather than *between* rival communities. Eller's argument that if the author was John of Zebedee it is hard to know how he would have inside knowledge of Nicodemus, is less persuasive. We know that the conversation in John 3 couldn’t have happened as recorded because it hinges on a pun that only exists in Greek. Eller also suggests that John 12.20-22, which mentions Greeks, may mean that the author want to suggest that the Jerusalem tradition (represented by the author of the Fourth Gospel) is more open to outsiders than the Galilean tradition (represented by John of Zebedee).

Eller states at the beginning of the book that it consisted of two studies that were too long to be articles, but too short to be books. So he combined them together to get one book-length text. I liked the first study a lot better than the second one. The second one, I think, was directed more at committed Christians, which I am not. The premise of the second study is that the theology of the New Testament prohibits not just sacramentalism but mystery religion in general. When I was a Christian, I was more attracted to the mystical side of religion than religion in its literalist form, so this premise grated on me a bit, but Eller might be right. When the N.T. uses the word "mystery," it is not in the sense of something hard to understand, but rather as something which was hidden that has now been revealed. So, Eller declares that the gospel is a revealer of mystery, a breaker of mystery.

When it comes to sacraments, Eller quotes Karl Barth as saying "There is only one sacrament," and that sacrament is Jesus himself. Eller spends quite a bit of time discussing Jesus's statement that he is the bread of life and that it is necessary to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Here, Eller sees not a reference to the Eucharist but instead believes that Jesus is declaring that Jesus wants his followers to meditate on his words. "If I have condescended to come to you as FLESH, then you had better have yourselves ready to CHEW." According to Eller, Strong's Concordance says that the Greek word [presumably φάγῃ] may have reference to the sound of *crunching* and might be translated "gnaw" or "chew" and that the Concordant Literal New Testament translates "masticate." It was in looking up the Strong's reference that I realized that the Strong's concordances you find online or in the back of your N.T. concordances are greatly abbreviated versions of the unabridged Strong's.

Eller notes that the Fourth Gospel omits the reference to the Eucharist during the last meal that Jesus had with his disciples. As a true believer, Eller thinks that this meal was a Passover meal and that the Eucharist as recounted in the Synoptics did occur, as well as the foot washing. But as I was reviewing this passage I noticed something interesting. When Judas leaves, the other disciples supposed that he was going to buy something for the feast. This would make no sense if they were in the middle of the feast, but would make a lot of sense if the feast were the next day.

I read a digital version of this book on the Internet Archive. It’s great that you can get so many great books for free in this way, but charts do not reproduce well in this format. This made me wonder how much a print version would cost? There are many available on Abebooks but they cost more than I would want to spend on a book that is free on the internet.