John, The Apostle. John the Apostle was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman on the Lake of Galilee, and of Salome, and brother of James, also an apostle. Peter and James and John come within the innermost circle of their Lord’s friends; but to John belongs the distinction of being the disciple whom Jesus loved. He hardly sustains the popular notion, fostered by the received types of Christian art, of a nature gentle, yielding, feminine. The name Boanerges, Mar 3:17, implies a vehemence, zeal, intensity, which gave to those who had it the might of Sons of Thunder. See James.
The three are with our Lord when none else are, in the chamber of death, Mar 5:37, in the glory of the transfiguration, Mat 17:1, when he forewarns them, of the destruction of the Holy City, Mar 13:3, in the agony of Gethsemane. When the betrayal is accomplished, Peter and John follow afar off. Joh 18:15.
The personal acquaintance which existed between John and Caiaphas, enables him to gain access to the council chamber, praetorium of the Roman procurator. Joh 18:16; Joh 18:19; Joh 18:28. Thence, he follows to the place of crucifixion, and the Teacher leaves to him, the duty of becoming a son to the mother, who is left desolate. Joh 19:26-27.
It is to Peter and John that Mary Magdalene first runs, with the tidings of the emptied sepulchre, Joh 20:2, they are the first to go together, to see what the strange words meant, John running on most eagerly to the rock-tomb; Peter, the least restrained by awe, the first to enter in and look. Joh 20:4-6. For at least eight days, they continue in Jerusalem. Joh 20:26. Later, on the Sea of Galilee, John is the first to recognize, in the dim form seen in the morning twilight, the presence of his risen Lord; Peter, the first to plunge into the water, and swim toward the shore, where he stood calling to them. Joh 21:7.
The last words of John’s Gospel reveal to us, the deep affection which united the two friends. The history of the Acts shows the same union. They are together at the ascension on the Day of Pentecost. Together, they enter the Temple as worshippers, Act 3:1, and protest against the threats of the Sanhedrin. Act 4:13. The persecution which was pushed on, by Saul of Tarsus did not drive John from his post. Act 8:1.
Fifteen years after St. Paul’s first visit, he was still at Jerusalem, and helped to take part in the settlement of the great controversy, between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians. Act 15:6. His subsequent history, we know only by tradition. There can be no doubt that he removed from Jerusalem, and settled at Ephesus, though at what time is uncertain.
Tradition goes on to relate that, in the persecution under Domitian, he is taken to Rome, and there, by his boldness, though not by death, gains the crown of martyrdom. The boiling oil into which he is thrown has no power to hurt him. He is then sent to labor in the mines, and Patmos is the place of his exile.
The accession of Nerva frees him from danger, and he returns to Ephesus. Heresies continue to show themselves, but he meets them with the strongest possible protest. The very time of his death lies within the region of conjecture, rather than of history, and the dates that have been assigned for it, range from A.D. 89 to A.D. 120.
Younger than his brother James; being named after him in Matthew and Mark, the earlier Gospels; but Luke (Luk 9:28; Act 1:13, the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus manuscripts), writing when John had gained so much greater prominence in the church, ranks him in the order of church esteem, not that of nature. Youngest of the twelve, probably of Bethsaida upon the sea of Galilee (Joh 1:44; Luk 5:10), the town of their partners Simon and Andrew. Caspari (Chronicles and Geogr., Introd. to Life of Christ) accounts for John’s brief notice of Christ’s Galilean ministry and fuller notices of His ministry in Judaea thus: Jewish tradition alleges that all Israelites dwelling in the Holy Land were entitled to fish in the sea of Gennesaret a month before each Passover, and to use the fish for the many guests received at the feast in Jerusalem. John used to stay in Galilee only during that month. However, no hint of this occurs in our Gospels. Zebedee his father owned a fishing vessel, and had "hired servants" (Mar 1:20).
Salome his mother ministered to the Lord "of her substance" (Luk 8:3), and was one of the women who came with Him in His last journey from Galilee to Jerusalem (Luk 23:55; Luk 24:1; Mar 16:1), and after His death bought spices to anoint His body. John’s acquaintance with the high priest (Joh 18:15) had been in early life, for it is not likely it would commence after he had become disciple of the despised Galilean. Hence, probably arose his knowledge of the history of Nicodemus which he alone records. John had a house of his own to which he took the Virgin mother, by our Lord’s dying charge (Joh 19:27). The name, meaning "the favor of God", had become a favorite one in the age where there was a general expectation of Messiah, and members of the high priestly families bore it (Act 4:6). These hints all intimate that John belonged to the respectable classes, and though called by the council "unlearned and ignorant" he was not probably without education, though untrained in their rabbinical lore (Act 4:13).
Zebedee’s readiness to give up his son at Jesus’ call speaks well for his religious disposition. Salome went further, and positively ministered to Jesus. Even her ambitious request that her two sons, James and John, might sit on either side of our Lord in His coming kingdom shows that she was heartily looking for that kingdom. Such a mother would store her son’s memory with the precious promises of Old Testament. The book of Revelation in its temple imagery shows the deep impression which the altar, the incense, the priestly robes, and the liturgy had made on him. John’s first acquaintance with the Lord was when John Baptist pointed his two disciples Andrew and John to the Lamb of God. John followed Jesus to His place of sojourn. John probably accompanied Him on His homeward journey to Galilee from Jordan (John 1), and then to Jerusalem (John 2-3), again through Samaria to Galilee (4), and again to Jerusalem (5), for he describes as an eye witness. Resuming his fishing occupation he received his call to permanent discipleship after the miraculous draught of fish (Luk 5:10; Mat 4:18-22).
In the selection of the twelve subsequently the two sons of Jonas and Zebedee’s two sons stand foremost. Peter, James, and J. form the inner-most circle. They alone witnessed the raising of Jairus’ daughter, Jesus’ transfiguration, His agony in Gethsemane, and with the addition of Andrew heard His answer to their private inquiry as to when, and with what premonitory sign, His prediction of the overthrow of the temple should be fulfilled (Mar 13:3-4). Grotius designates Peter as the lover of Christ, John the lover of Jesus. John as a "son of thunder" (Mar 3:17) was not the soft and feminine character that he is often portrayed, but full of intense, burning zeal, ready to drink the Lord’s bitter cup and to be baptized with His fiery baptism (Isa 58:1; Jer 23:29; Mat 20:22; Luk 12:49-50), impatient of anyone in separation from Jesus’ company, and eager for fiery vengeance on the Samaritans who would not receive Him (Luk 9:49; Luk 9:53-54).
Nor was this characteristic restricted to his as yet undisciplined state; it appears in his holy denunciations long afterward (1Jn 2:18-22; 2Jn 1:7-11; 3Jn 1:9-10). Through his mother John gained his knowledge of the love of Mary Magdalene to the Lord, which he so vividly depicts (John 20). The full narrative of Lazarus’ restoration to life (John 11) shows that he was an eye witness, and probably was intimate with the sisters of Bethany. He and Peter followed Jesus when apprehended, while the rest fled (Joh 18:15), even as they had both together been sent to prepare the Passover (Luk 22:8) the evening before, and as it was to John reclining in Jesus’ bosom (compare Son 8:3; Son 8:6) that Peter at the supper made eager signs to get him to ask our Lord who should be the traitor (Joh 13:24). While Peter remained in the porch John was in the council chamber (Joh 18:16-28). John, the Virgin Mary, and Mary Magdalene accompanied the Saviour to Calvary, and to him Jesus committed as to a brother the care of His sorrowing mother.
Peter and John were in the same abode the ensuing sabbath, and to them Mary Magdalene first runs with the tidings of the tomb being empty. Ardent love lent wings to John’s feet, so that he reached the tomb first; but reverent awe restrained him from entering. Peter more impulsive was first to enter (Joh 20:4-6). For at least eight days they stayed at Jerusalem (Joh 20:26). Then they appear in Galilee (John 21) again associated in their former occupation on the sea of Galilee. As yet they were uncertain whether the Lord’s will was that they should continue their apostolic ministrations or not; and in the interval their livelihood probably necessitated their resuming their fishing occupation, which moreover would allay their mental agitation at that time of suspense. John with deeper spiritual intuition was first to recognize Jesus in the morning twilight, Peter first in plunging into the water to reach Him (Joh 21:7). Peter’s bosom friendship for John suggested the question, after learning his own future, "Lord, and what shall this man do?" (Joh 21:21).
In that undesigned coincidence which confirms historic truth, the Book of Acts (Act 3:1; Act 4:13; Act 8:14) represents the two associated as in the Gospels; together they enter the temple and meet the impotent man at the Beautiful gate; together they witness before the council; together they confirm in the faith, and instrumentally impart the Holy Spirit by laying hands on, the deacon Philip’s converts in Samaria, the very place where John once would have called down fire to consume the Samaritans. So complete was the triumph of grace over him! At Stephen’s death he and the other apostles alone stayed at. Jerusalem when all the rest were scattered. At Paul’s second visit there John (esteemed then with James and Peter a "pillar") gave him the right hand of fellowship, that he should go to the pagan and they to the circumcision (Gal 2:9). John took part in the first council there concerning circumcision of the Gentiles (Act 15:6). No sermon of his is recorded, Peter is always the spokesman.
Contemplation and communion with God purified the fire of his character, and gave him that serene repose which appears in his writings, which all belong to the later portion of his life. He is not mentioned as married in 1Co 9:5, where, had he been so, it would probably have been stated. Under Domitian (about A.D. 95) John was banished to Patmos (Rev 1:9; Rev 1:11). "I John ... your companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle ... Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ." The seven churches of western Asia were under his special care. In the Acts, epistles to Ephesians, and Timothy, recording Paul’s ministry in connection with Ephesus, no mention occurs of John being there. Again John does not appear in Jerusalem when Paul finally visited it A.D. 60. Probably he left Jerusalem long before settling at Ephesus, and only moved there after Paul’s martyrdom, A.D. 66. Paul had foreseen the rise of Gnostic heresy in the Ephesian region.
"Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" (Act 20:30; compare 1Ti 1:6-7; 1Ti 1:19-20; 1Ti 4:1-7; 2Ti 1:13; 2Ti 1:15; 2Ti 2:16-18; 2Ti 2:3; Tit 1:9; Tit 1:16). These heresies, as yet in seminal form, John in his Gospel and epistles counteracts (John 1; 1Jn 4:1; 1Jn 2:18-22; 2Jn 1:7; 2Jn 1:9-11; 3Jn 1:9-10). His tone is meditative and serene, as contrasted with Paul’s logical and at the same time ardent style, His sharp reproof of Diotrephes accords with the story of his zeal against error, reported as from Polycarp, that entering the public baths of Ephesus he heard that Cerinthus was there; instantly he left the building lest it should fall while that enemy of the truth was within. In John’s view there is no neutrality between Christ and antichrist. Clement of Alexandria (
Returning some time afterward John said to the bishop: "restore the pledge which I and the Saviour entrusted to you before the congregation." The bishop with tears replied: "he is dead ... dead to God ... a robber!" John replied, "to what a keeper I have entrusted my brother’s soul!" John hastened to the robber’s fortress. The sentinels brought him before their captain. The latter fled from him: "why do you flee from me, your father, an unarmed old man? You have yet a hope of life. I will yet give an account to Christ of you. If need be, I will gladly die for you." John never left him until he had rescued him from sin and restored him to Christ. Jerome records as to his characteristic love, that when John, being too feeble through age to walk to the Christian assemblies, was carried there by young men, his only address was: "little children, love one another." When asked why he kept repeating the same words he replied, "because this is the Lord’s command, and enough is done when this is done."
John’s thought and feelings became so identified with his Lord’s that his style reflects exactly that of Jesus’ deeper and especially spiritual discourses, which he alone records. He lives in the unseen, spiritual, rather than in the active world, His, designation, "’ the divine," expresses his insight into the glory of the eternal Word, the Only Begotten of the Father, made flesh, in opposition to mystical and docetic gnosticism which denied the reality of that manifestation and of Christ’s body. The high soaring eagle, gazing at the sun with unflinching eye, is the one of the four seraphim which represents John Irenaeus, Polycarp’s disciple (Adv. Haer. 2:39, Eusebius 3:23), states that John settled at Ephesus and lived to the time of Trajan. Tertullian’s story of his being cast into boiling oil at Rome and coming forth unhurt is improbable; none else records it; the punishment was one unheard of at Rome.
John the Apostle. The son of Zebedee and Salome, of Bethsaida. His father was able to have "hired servants" and bis mother was one of the women who aided in Jesus’ support, Luk 8:3, and took spices to embalm his body. Mar 16:1. He is regarded as the youngest of the twelve apostles, but had been a disciple of John the Baptist, who pointed out Jesus as the Lamb of God to him. Joh 1:35-37. John is noted as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," and as one of the three chosen to witness the restoration of Jairus’ daughter, the transfiguration, and the agony in the garden. At the last supper he reclined on Jesus’ bosom, and to his care Jesus on the cross committed his mother. He with Peter on the resurrection morn ran to the empty tomb of Jesus, and "he saw and believed." When with some others he was fishing on the Sea of Galilee, he was the first to recognize the Lord standing on the shore. After the ascension, he and James and Peter were the leading apostles, Gal 2:9, of the infant church, and guided its counsels. He was banished for a time to the isle of Patmos. Tradition represents him as closing his career at Ephesus. He was naturally bold and severe. Our Lord called him a "son of thunder," but he became amiable though firm and fearless.
John, Gospel of. The fourth Gospel is ascribed to John, and was probably composed, or at least put in its present shape, at Ephesus, between a.d. 70 and 95. The particular design of it is expressed by the author to be that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, we might have life through his name. Joh 20:31. Hence the subjects and discourses of this book have special relation to our Lord’s character and offices, and are evidently intended to prove his nature, authority, and doctrines as divine. The gospel contains: A. The prologue, 1:1-18; B. The history, 1:19 to chap. 21. 1. The preparation for Jesus’ public ministry, (a) by Joh 1:19-36; (b) by the choice of disciples. 1:37-51. 2. The public labors of Jesus in doctrine and miracle, chaps. 2-12. 3. Jesus in the private circle of his disciples. Chaps. 13-17. 4. The history of the passion and resurrection or public glorification of the Lord. Chaps. 18-21. "The Gospel of John is," says Schaff, "the gospel of gospels. It is the most remarkable as well as most important literary production ever composed.... It is a marvel even in the marvellous Book of books. It is the most spiritual and ideal of gospels. It brings us, as it were, into the immediate presence of Jesus. It gives us the clearest view of his incarnate divinity and his perfect humanity."
John, the Epistles of, are three in number. They were written in Ephesus, between a.d. 80 and 95, or possibly later. The first has always been attributed to John, though his name is neither prefixed nor subscribed. It is a kind of practical application of the gospel. It is addressed to Christians. The second epistle is addressed to the "elect lady and her children." The elect lady is supposed to have been some honorable woman distinguished for piety, and well known in the churches as a disciple of Christ. Some, however, have thought some particular church and its members might be denoted. Those who adopt the latter opinion apply the term to the church at Jerusalem, and the term "elect sister," 2Jn 1:13, to the church at Ephesus. The third epistle, which is addressed to Gaius, or Caius, a private individual, and is commendatory of his piety, was written about the same time with the others.
Son of Zebedee, and brother of James. James and John were fishermen, but when the Lord called them, they forsook all and followed Him. The Lord surnamed them BOANERGES, ’sons of thunder.’
John, Peter, and James were the three selected to be with the Lord on the mount of transfiguration, and in the garden of Gethsemane. In the Acts of the Apostles John was with Peter when the lame man was healed, and they were both cast into prison. They boldly declared that they could not but speak the things they had seen and heard. John was associated with Peter in visiting the Samaritans, who had received the word preached by Philip, and through the laying on of their hands the Holy Spirit was given. Acts 8.
John was one of the apostles at Jerusalem who, when Paul went thither, gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that they should go to the heathen. Gal 2:9. He was afterwards banished to the Isle of Patmos, probably under the emperor Nero or Domitian; it is not known with certainty which, nor at what date. There he had the visions recorded in the Revelation. He also wrote the Gospel and the three Epistles bearing his name, which are generally judged to have been written after the other Gospels and Epistles.
John in his gospel calls himself ’the disciple whom Jesus loved;’ at the last Passover he leaned upon the bosom of Jesus, and to his care did the Lord when on the cross commend His mother.
JOHN (THE APOSTLE).—As the Gospels are but memorabilia of Jesus, giving relatively but meagre accounts of His life and works, it is to be expected that they can afford us only glimpses of the Apostles. Such is the case; and, while a few more references are made to Peter, James, and John than to the others, we have no such material as allows any more than a fragmentary account of any one. Tradition has, in the case of each Apostle, added to the Scripture narrative a story of subsequent activity and fate. For convenience of reference, therefore, to all that is known of John we may group the materials under the following heads: (1) those found in the Scriptures; (2) those given us by tradition. To the account thus obtained we shall add a brief delineation of his character.
i. The Testimony of Scripture.—Preliminary to giving the facts in their chronological order, it is well to call attention to the almost universal identification of the unnamed disciple of the Fourth Gospel with John.* [Note: Delff ha with considerable force advanced and defended the theory that ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ was not the Apostle John, but a younger disciple, who shared all the privileges of the Twelve, but who was a native of Jerusalem and a member of the higher aristocracy. While this theory explains satisfactorily some of the facts given in the Gospels, it is beset with grave difficulties.]
John is first introduced to us as a disciple of John the Baptist (Joh 1:35). How long he had been with this stern preacher of the desert we do not know, but the time was one of preparation for the higher discipleship soon to follow. After the Temptation Jesus returned to the Jordan. Then and there John first met Jesus, and, with Andrew, showed such deep interest in Him that He invited them to go with Him to His abode. So critical was the hour when they went—four o’clock in the afternoon—that it was remembered long years after (Joh 1:36-40). John’s home was in Galilee (probably at Bethsaida), where his father, Zebedee, a man apparently of means (Mar 1:20), was busy as a fisherman on the Lake. His mother was Salome (cf. Mat 27:56 with Mar 15:40). On the next day after his first meeting with Jesus, John accompanied Him to Galileé, and was present at the marriage feast at Cana (Joh 2:1-11). From Cana they went to Capernaum, in order, perhaps, to make ready for going up to Jerusalem to the Passover. At this first Passover Jesus cleansed the Temple, and also ‘did signs’ which awakened popular interest. Here also He conversed with Nicodemus (Joh 2:13 to Joh 3:21). The capital had not shown itself ready for the work He wished to do, so Jesus withdrew into the country of Judaea and summoned the people to the baptism of repentance, just as the Baptist himself was doing. John was with Him all through this sojourn of over seven months in Judaea, and doubtless assisted in the administering of the baptismal rite, for Jesus did not Himself baptize (Joh 4:2). At the end of this period Jesus returned by way of Samaria to Galilee. On the way occurred the incident of the Samaritan woman, so fully depicted for us in the Fourth Gospel (Joh 4:1-42). Once more the Master came to Cana, and while there cured the nobleman’s son (Joh 4:46-54). For a brief time John seems now to have been at home, and to have engaged in his customary business of fishing; but the Baptist’s imprisonment was the signal to Jesus for more vigorous work, and He appeared at the Lake-side to call to be His permanent escort the men who had already acknowledged Him and given Him some service (Mar 1:16-20, Mat 4:18-22, Luk 5:1-11). John now entered upon that second stage of discipleship which was to prepare him for his life-work. The record of events which shows Jesus performing miracles and preaching in the towns and villages of Galilee is the record of John’s training (see Mar 1:21 to Mar 2:22). When, some time afterwards, John was chosen to the Apostolate (Mar 3:13-19 a, Mat 10:2-4, Luk 6:12-19), it was but to confirm him in the position he had already occupied, and to make more definite his mission. At this time Jesus called him and his brother Boanerges, that is, ‘sons of thunder’ (Mar 3:17). See Boanerges.
As from this time onwards the most of John’s experiences were common to all the Apostles, it is necessary to mark only those which were in any way exceptional for him. They are sufficient to show that he was among the most prominent of the little band, and that he was especially close in friendship to the Master. With Peter and James he saw the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mar 5:37, Luk 8:51). These three were with Jesus upon the Mount of Transfiguration (Mar 9:2, Mat 17:1, Luk 9:28). It was John who ‘answered and said, Master we saw one casting out devils in thy name: and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us’ (Mar 9:38, Luk 9:49). It was he and James who wished to call down fire upon an inhospitable Samaritan village (Luk 9:54). His mistaken ambition for high place at the side of his Master is recorded in Mar 10:37, Mat 20:21. He took part in the questioning about the time for the fulfilment of the solemn prophecies concerning Jerusalem (Mar 13:3). He and Peter were sent to make ready the Passover (Luk 22:8). At the supper itself he reclined ‘in Jesus’ bosom’ (see art. Bosom), and asked Him who it was that was to be the betrayer (Joh 13:23-25). In the garden of Gethsemane he was, with Peter and James, near his Master (Mar 14:33, Mat 26:37). Panic-stricken, he fled with all the other disciples at the time of the arrest (Mat 26:56), but soon recovered himself, and followed the procession to the palace of the high priest (Joh 18:15). Being known to the high priest, he was admitted to the court of the palace, and secured entrance for Peter (v. 16). Faithful now to the last, he stood near the cross, and there received the commission to care for the mother of Jesus (Joh 19:26-27). On the morning of the resurrection Mary Magdalene tells him and Peter of the empty grave, and they hasten together to the spot (Joh 20:2-3). In the account of the appearance of the risen Lord in Galilee (Joh 21:2-7) the ‘sons of Zebedee’ have special mention, and again in the closing scene and words of the Fourth Gospel the impression that he should not die before the Lord’s coming is corrected, and the truthfulness of his witness as given in this Gospel confirmed (Joh 21:20-24).
Outside of the Gospels there are but few references to him in the NT. In the Acts he appears twice in the company of Peter. As they were going together, at the hour of prayer, to the Temple, they met a man, lame from birth, at the Beautiful Gate, and cured him. The deed caused great excitement, and a large crowd gathered around them in Solomon’s porch. While they were speaking to the people the authorities came, and ‘being sore troubled because they taught the people,’ arrested them, and on the following day brought them before the Sanhedrin (Act 4:3). Later, he and Peter were sent to Samaria to those who had received the word of God under Philip’s ministry, and ‘they prayed for these that they might receive the Holy Ghost’ (Act 8:14; Act 8:16). About a.d. 50 we find John in Jerusalem, for at that time Paul meets him there and consults with him regarding his work among the Gentiles (Gal 2:1-9). He was at this time one of the pillars of the Church. The only other mention of him in the NT is in Rev 1:4; Rev 1:9
ii. The testimony of tradition
1. Regarding John’s residence in Ephesus.—From the time of his meeting with Paul in Jerusalem until his activity in later life at Ephesus, we have no certain knowledge of the Apostle. Nicephorus (Historia Ecclesiastica ii. 2) tells us that Mary lived with John in Jerusalem for eleven years after the death of the Lord. There is nothing unlikely in this story, unless it be, as Godet suggests, that ‘his own home’ (Joh 19:27) was in Galilee rather than in the capital, in which case there would be an explanation of the Apostle’s absence at the time of Paul’s first visit to the city (Gal 1:18-19). It is but conjecture, however, which fixes the date of his final departure from Jerusalem, though we know that he was not there when Paul came for the last time (Act 21:18 ff.), and that the signs of the impending destruction of the city caused all the Christians to retire to Pella, e. 68 a.d. (Eus. Historia Ecclesiastica iii. 5. 3). It is of more moment to inquire why he should go to Ephesus, and in answer two reasons may be given: (a) the importance of this city as a centre for missionary activity; and (b) the necessity of carrying on and developing the work of Paul. In the latter part of the 1st cent. ‘the Church’s centre of gravity was no longer at Jerusalem; it was not yet at Rome; it was at Ephesus’ (Thiersch, quoted by Godet, Com. on John, vol. i. p. 45). Not only within the borders of this city had Christianity made a marked impression, but all about were cities in which the Church had been established. The seven letters in the Apocalypse enable us to see what ceaseless vigilance and intelligent care were needed to protect these Churches from error in doctrine, and to keep them faithful in life. No louder call for Apostolic service could be given than this part of the world was then giving, and, as far as tradition is concerned, there can be little doubt that John responded to this call. Just at this point, however, criticism, in the interest of its discussions regarding the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, has taken its stand, and tried to make it appear that tradition is untrustworthy. The Ephesian residence of John is therefore a critical matter, and as such must be given somewhat extended attention. The main witnesses for the common tradition are Irenaeus, Polycrates (Bishop of Ephesus), and Clement of Alexandria.
(a) Irenaeus bears repeated testimony to the Apostle’s presence in Asia, and says explicitly:
‘Afterwards’ (i.e. after the first three) ‘John the disciple of the Lord, who also lay on His breast, likewise published a Gospel while dwelling at Ephesus’ (adv. Haer. iii. 1). Polycarp was not only instructed by the Apostles, and had intercourse with many who had seen Christ, but he was also installed by the Apostles as Bishop in Asia in the Church at Smyrna. ‘We also saw him (Polycarp) in our earliest youth, for he lived very long, and left this life at a great age, having suffered a glorious and brilliant martyrdom, and having always taught what he had learned from the Apostles.’ Also the Church at Ephesus, founded by Paul, and with which John lived till Trajan’s time (98–117), ‘is a truthful witness to the tradition of the Apostles’ (ib. iii. 3, 4). In a letter to Florinus, a part of which has been preserved by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica v. 20), Irenaeus tells of his vivid recollections of Polycarp. The way of the venerable martyr’s life, his bodily form, the discourses he gave to the people, and the account which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the rest who had seen the Lord, were clearer to him (Irenaeus) in memory than many recent experiences. Again, when Victor the Bishop of Rome excommunicated the Quartodeciman Churches, Irenaeus wrote admonishing the Bishop, and, in the course of what he had to say, referred to the difference between Anicetus and Polycarp over the Paschal question, in these words: ‘Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord and the other Apostles with whom he had associated’ (Eus. Historia Ecclesiastica v. 24).
The value of all this testimony is enhanced when one marks the overlapping of lives which is here evident. Polycarp suffered martyrdom in the year a.d. 155 at the age of 86. He was born, therefore, in the year 69. If John lived until Trajan’s time, it were easily possible for the two to have associated with each other. Irenaeus while a boy (12–18 years of age) listened with peculiar and observant attentiveness to Polycarp. These three names cover over a century. They link together in such a manner the experiences of personal associations and reverent memories that the evidence for John’s presence in Ephesus seems well-nigh conclusive. Its cogency, however, is supposed to be greatly weakened by two important considerations: (a) the silence among older writers regarding the Ephesian residence, and (b) the possible confusion, on the part of Irenaeus, of John the Apostle with John the Presbyter. At first sight the silence of Polycarp and Ignatius is surprising, but it is not beyond explanation. Polycarp’s letter is to the Philippian Church, and calls for no reference to John. The absence of all mention of the Apostle in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians is not so easy to account for, but an argument from silence is precarious when one considers how sparingly he brings in even the name of Paul. It is apparently the similarity of their fortunes which leads him to speak of this Apostle at all, for just as Paul had sent for the elders of the Ephesian Church to meet him at Miletus on his way to imprisonment in Rome, so Ignatius at Smyrna received a delegation from Ephesus (Ephes. 12). This would exclude any reference to John; and in view of all other evidence, it can be as certainly affirmed, as it can be denied, that the general reference in the previous section covers the name of John. This reference is, ‘May I be found in the lot of the Christians of Ephesus, who have always been of the same mind with the Apostles through the power of Jesus Christ’ (Ephes. 11). When, moreover, one takes into account the scantiness of the remains of this early period, the probable growth of John’s reputation during the 2nd century, and the prevalence in the Ignatian Epistles themselves of a Johannine type of teaching (see von der Goltz’s ‘Ignatius von Antiochien als Christ und Theolog’ in TU [Note: U Texte und Untersuehungen.] , Bd. xii. [1894]), the argument from silence loses much of its force. The other consideration urged against the testimony of Irenaeus is really a seconding of the correction made by Eusebius of the declaration of Irenaeus that ‘Papias was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp’ (adv. Haer. v. 33. 4).* [Note: This objection is urged by Keim, Harnack, Holtzmanu, and other modern critics in their discussion of the authorship of John’s Gospel.] The words of Eusebius are found in his History, iii. 39. After quoting the above words from Irenaeus, he says, ‘But Papias himself by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy Apostles’; and then he goes on to infer that it was the Presbyter John who was meant in the statement of Irenaeus. This brings us to the examination of the witness of Papias in its bearing upon the whole question. In his preface to his Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord he says:
‘But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that speak the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith and springing from the truth itself. If, then, anyone came who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders—what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice’ (Eus. Historia Ecclesiastica iii. 39).
A just interpretation of these words must allow for a distinction between the Apostle John and the Presbyter John, but the inference based on the tense of the verb in the sentence, ‘What things Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say,’—that Papias was actually a hearer of the Presbyter,—is very questionable. Much discussion has been given to the import of this latter part of Papias’ preface. A thoroughly satisfactory understanding is, however, that which makes these words we have just quoted refer not to the spoken witness, but to the written testimony of Aristion and the Presbyter John.* [Note: See Drummond, The Character and authorship of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 199–204.] In his search for enlightenment Papias inquired after the unwritten sayings of all referred to except Aristion and John the Presbyter. In their case his inquiry was concerning their written sayings about which there might be some doubt. ‘The books,’ bearing possibly such titles as ‘Narratives of Aristion,’ or ‘Traditions of the Presbyter John,’ needed confirmation by competent witnesses. Papias had not the same confidence in them as in oral reports. Points which confirm this understanding are (1) the hesitation of Eusebius about his own inference that Papias was an actual hearer of John the Presbyter [‘at least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in writing’ (Historia Ecclesiastica iii. 39)]; (2) the suggested antitheses in the phrases ‘his own writing’ and ‘unwritten tradition,’ which are found in the accounts of the sources of Papias later on in the same section (Historia Ecclesiastica iii. 39: ‘The same author has communicated also other things that came to him as from unwritten tradition’; ‘but he also commits to his own writing other narratives of the sayings of the Lord of the aforesaid Aristion and traditions of the Presbyter John’). ‘His own writing’ suggests somebody else’s writing; the ‘unwritten tradition’ suggests written tradition. If this interpretation of the words of Papias be true, then it affords no evidence that Papias was a hearer of the Presbyter John. Indeed, it does not require us to think that he was living at the time the words of Papias were written, or that he was even ever in Ephesus at all. The only support we have for this last supposition is Dionysius of Alexandria, who in the interests of the authorship of the Apocalypse by some other John than the Apostle cites the tradition that ‘there are two monuments in Ephesus, each bearing the name of John.’
We come hack now to Irenaeus. The statement which he makes regarding the relationship of Papias to the Apostle John and to Polycarp is not derived from the preface of Papias (see above), and if there is no possible confusion in the two Johns, we need only ask what value the positive statement of Irenaeus really has. Recall for a moment his reference to Polycarp. If these words are true, and there is no reason to doubt them, then it was no mere passing acquaintance which Irenaeus had with Polycarp. He had carefully observed him, and attentively listened to his discourses. Can it be possible that he understood him, whenever he spoke of John, to be referring to John the Presbyter, and was Polycarp himself talking of his intercourse with John the Presbyter? Such confusion as this on the part of men so intimately related is quite improbable. Certainly it is equally improbable that, at the early time of Polycarp, John the Presbyter should have become such a figure in Ephesus that Polycarp could speak of him exactly as if he were John the Apostle. There is therefore no sufficient reason for doubting the testimony of Irenaeus.
(b) In turning to the witness of Polycrates, it is well to note that he was Bishop of Ephesus, had seven relatives who were bishops, and was at the time of his letter to Victor, Bishop of Rome, an old enough man to have been living at the time of Polycarp. He was therefore in a position to know fully whereof he wrote. This fact of the continuity of experiences as lying behind these several testimonies needs repeated emphasis. In his letter to Victor (see Eus. Historia Ecclesiastica v. 24) he is writing upon the Quartodeciman question, and citing his authorities for the observance of the ‘fourteenth day of the Passover according to the Gospel.’ Among these he places ‘John, who was both a witness and a teacher who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and being a priest wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus.’
The reference to one ‘who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord’ seems to point unmistakably to the Apostle, but two statements of Polycrates seem to some to run counter to this: (1) That he was a priest and wore the sacerdotal plate (
(c) It is in connexion with the story of the young convert who subsequently became a robber that Clement of Alexandria speaks of John’s residence in Asia. The value of this testimony lies in the fact that Clement, in gathering memoranda to be ‘stored up against old age as a remedy against forgetfulness,’ had collected traditions handed down ‘from the holy Apostles Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father.’ As Drummond says of this witness, ‘It seems probable that we have here a distinct line of tradition which affords independent confirmation of the statements of Irenaeus and Polycrates.’ The clearness, positiveness, and fulness of the witness of these three, taken together with the personal relations involved, affords adequate basis for the general belief of the Church that in the latter part of his life John made his home in Ephesus.
2. Regarding John’s banishment to Patmos.—The discussion of the deliverances of tradition in regard to John’s exile in Patmos is vitally connected with the authorship of the Apocalypse (see art. ‘John, Gospel of,’ in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ii. 707 ff.). The references to this fact are quite numerous in the Fathers, and begin with Clement of Alexandria (a.d. 190). Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome all speak of it, but do not agree as to the time of it. Epiphanius (Haer. 12) assigns it to the reign of Claudius, while Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Jerome place it in the reign of Domitian. Internal evidence from the Apocalypse itself favours an early time, while tradition is explicit about the later date. All testimonies to the exile are probably based upon the statement found in Rev 1:9, and this gives no real foundation for any banishment at all. If John was in Patmos, it may be that he went thither, as Weiss supposes, to find a religious retreat, or, as others think, to avoid persecution.
3. Regarding John’s death.—In accord with the statement of Irenaeus that ‘John remained among them (the disciples) in Asia up to the time of Trajan’ (adv. Haer. ii. 22), it has been generally believed that the Apostle lived to a ripe old age, and died quietly at Ephesus. Of late this opinion has been earnestly disputed, on the basis of a statement found in the Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolos (9th cent.), which reads, ‘Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, declares in the second book of the Oracles of the Lord that John was put to death by the Jews.’ This testimony has been confirmed by the de Boor Fragment, which expressly says that Papias tells in his second book of the death of James and John at the hands of the Jews. Of course, if John the Apostle died in this way, there is nothing left but to take some other John as the John of Ephesus; and all the testimony of Irenaeus, Polycrates, and Clement of Alexandria has a confusion of names underlying it; also the John of the Apostolic council (Gal 2:9) was not the son of Zebedee. All this is by no means likely. Various attempts have been made to account for the record of Georgius—such as Lightfoot’s supposition of a lacuna, which was later filled in as we now have it (see Essay on Supernatural Religion, p. 211 ff.); or Zahn’s (Forsch. vi. 147–151) of an interpolation, and that Papias was really referring to the Baptist; but the more probable explanation is that the statement arose from a desire to find a fulfilment of Mar 10:38-39, and a mistaken interpretation of the word
iii. The character of John.—It is commonly thought that John was of a gentle, contemplative nature, and almost effeminate in character. Contemplative he was, and the Gospel is but an expression of his profound meditation upon the character and work of his Master; but a moment’s reflexion upon some of the scenes of the Gospels (see Mat 20:20-24, Luk 9:49; Luk 9:54), in correspondence with which are some of the legends regarding his later life, will show that this Apostle was, at least in earlier life, impetuous, intolerant, and ambitious. Doubtless he was effectively moulded by the Spirit of Christ during his long discipleship, but he was always stern and uncompromising in his hatred of evil and in his defence of truth. He loved with a strong, passionate devotion, and he hated all wrong and untruth as only one can who understands as profoundly as he did the significance of his Lord and His teaching. Because of his profound understanding, he writes as one who has an immediate perception of truth. He does not reason as does Paul. He saw ‘the King in his beauty,’ or, to use his own words, ‘the glory of the only-begotten of the Father’ (Joh 1:14). His strength and devotion made him courageous; his affection and sympathy made him tender and abundantly helpful. His was the finest type of strong manhood made beautiful by spiritual purity.
Literature.—Among the more recent works which discuss the Ephesian residence of John, we would call attention to the following: James Drummond, The Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel; V. H. Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents; W. Sanday, The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel; A. C. McGiffert, The Apostolic Age; Encyc. Bibl. art. ‘John, Son of Zebedee’; Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible , art. ‘John, the Apostle’; Harnack, Chronol. der Altehrist. Lit. bis Eusebius, pp. 320–340, 656–680; Keim, Gesch. Jesu von Nazara, English translation i. pp. 211–232.
James S. Riggs.
JOHN THE APOSTLE.—The materials for a life of St. John may be divided into three parts: (1) The specific information given in the canonical Scriptures; (2) early and well-attested tradition concerning him; (3) later traditions of a legendary character, which cannot be accepted as history, but which possess an interest and significance of their own. But when all the evidence on the subject is gathered, it is impossible to give more than a bare outline of what was in all probability a long life and an unspeakably important ministry. The present article must he taken in conjunction with those that follow, in view of the controversies which have arisen concerning the authorship of the ‘Johannine’ writings.
1. The Scripture data.—John was a son of Zebedee, a master-fisherman in good position, plying his craft in one of the towns on the Lake of Galilee, possibly Bethsaida. It is probable that his mother was Salome, one of the women who ‘ministered’ to Christ in Galilee (Mar 15:41), a sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. This may be inferred from a comparison of Mat 27:56 and Mar 15:40; Mar 16:1 with Joh 19:25.
The last passage is best understood as naming four women who stood by the Cross of Jesus—His mother, His mother’s sister Salome, Mary wife of Clopas who was also mother of James and Joses, and Mary Magdalene. The interpretation which would find only three persons in the list, and identify Mary ‘of Clopas’ with the sister of Jesus’ mother, is open to the objection that two sisters would have the same name, and it involves other serious difficulties.
In Joh 1:40 two disciples are mentioned as having heard the testimony of John the Baptist to Jesus and having accompanied the new Teacher to His home. One of these was Andrew, and it has been surmised that the other was John himself. If this was so, the incident must be understood as constituting the very beginning of John’s discipleship.
In Mat 4:18-22, Mar 1:16-20 an account is given in almost the same words of the call of four fishermen to follow Jesus. Two of these were John and his elder brother James, who were with their father in a boat on the Lake of Galilee, mending their nets. In Luk 5:1-11 a different account of the call is given. Nothing is said of Andrew; Peter is the principal figure in the scene of the miraculous draught of fishes, while James and John are mentioned only incidentally as ‘partners with Simon.’ Directly or indirectly, however, we are told that to John, whilst engaged in his craft, the summons was given to leave his occupation and become a ‘fisher of men.’ The call was immediately obeyed, and constitutes an intermediate link between the initial stage of discipleship and the appointment to be one of twelve ‘apostles.’ In the lists of the Twelve (Mat 10:2, Mar 3:14, Luk 6:13), John is always named as one of the first four, and in the course of Christ’s ministry he was one of an inner circle of three, who were honoured with special marks of confidence. These alone were permitted to be present on three occasions—the raising of Jairus’ daughter, narrated in Mar 5:37, Luk 8:51; the Transfiguration, described in three accounts (Mat 17:1, Mar 9:2, Luk 9:28): and the Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, mentioned by two of the Synoptists (Mat 26:37 and Mar 14:33). On one or perhaps two occasions Andrew was associated with these three—possibly at the healing of Peter’s wife’s mother (Mar 1:29), and certainly at the interview described in Mar 13:3, when Jesus sat on the Mount of Olives and was ‘asked privately’ concerning His prophecy of the overthrow of the Temple.
On two notable occasions the brothers James and John were associated together. They appear to have been alike in natural temperament. It is in this light that the statement of Mar 3:17 is generally understood—‘he surnamed them Boanerges, which ‘is Sons of thunder.’ Some uncertainty attaches to the derivation of the word, and the note added by the Evangelist is not perfectly clear. But no better explanation has been given than that the title was bestowed, perhaps by anticipation, in allusion to the zeal and vehemence of character which both the Apostles markedly exhibited on the occasions when they appear together. In Luk 9:54 they are represented as desirous to call down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritan village which had refused hospitality to their Master. In Mar 10:35 they come to Christ with an eager request that to them might be allotted the two highest places in His Kingdom, and they profess their complete readiness to share with Him whatever suffering or trying experiences He may be called to pass through. According to Mat 20:20, their mother accompanied them and made the request, but Mat 20:24 shows that indignation was roused ‘concerning the two brethren,’ and that the desire and petition were really their own. Once in the Gospels John is described as associated with Peter, the two being sent by Christ to make ready the Passover (Luk 22:8). Once he figures by himself alone, as making inquiry concerning a man who cast out demons in the name of Jesus, though he did not belong to the company of the disciples (Mar 9:38, Luk 9:49). As an indication of character this is to be understood as evincing zealous, but mistaken, loyalty. Christ’s reply was, ‘Forbid him not’; evidently John was disposed to manifest on this occasion the fiery intolerant zeal which he and his brother together displayed in Samaria. Though the words ‘ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of’ do not form part of the best-attested text in Luk 9:1-62, they doubtless describe the kind of rebuke with which on both occasions the Master found it necessary to check the eagerness of a disciple who loved his Master well, but not wisely.
In the early part of the Acts, John is associated by name with Peter on three occasions. One was the healing of the lame man by the Temple gate (Act 3:4). The next was their appearance before the Sanhedrin in ch. 4, when they were found to be men untrained in Rabbinical knowledge, mere private persons with no official standing, and were also recognized by some present as having been personal followers of Jesus, and seen in His immediate company. In Act 8:15 we read that the two were sent by their brother-Apostles to Samaria, after Philip had exercised his evangelistic ministry there. Many had been admitted into the Church by baptism, and the two Apostles completed the reception by prayer and the laying on of hands, ‘that they might receive the Holy Spirit.’ These typical instances show that at the outset of the history of the Church Peter and John came together to the front and were recognized as co-leaders, though they were very different in personal character, and Peter appears always to have been the spokesman. This note of personal leadership is confirmed by the incidental reference of Paul in Gal 2:9, where James (not the son of Zebedee), Cephas, and John are ‘reputed to be pillars’ in the Church at Jerusalem.
Our knowledge of John’s history and character is largely increased, and the interest in his personality is greatly deepened, if he is identified with ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved,’ the author of the Fourth Gospel, and the John of the Apocalypse. Both these points are strongly contested in modern times, though the identification is supported by an early, wide-spread, and steadily maintained tradition. An examination of these questions will be found on pp. 479, 483, 797b; but here it may be pointed out what additional light is shed on John’s life and character if his authorship of the Fourth Gospel is admitted. In Joh 13:23 the disciple whom Jesus loved is spoken of as ‘reclining in Jesus’ bosom’ at the Last Supper. The phrase implies that on the chief couch at the meal, holding three persons, Jesus was in the middle and John on His right hand, thus being brought more directly face to face with the Master than Peter, who occupied the left-hand place. This explains the expression of Joh 13:25 ‘he, leaning back, as he was, on Jesus’ breast’; as well as Peter’s ‘beckoning’ mentioned in Joh 13:24. John has been also identified with the ‘other disciple’ mentioned in Joh 18:15-16 as known to the high priest and having a right of entrance into the court, which was denied to Peter. Again, the disciple whom Jesus loved is described in Joh 19:26 as standing by the cross of Jesus with His mother, as receiving the sacred charge implied by the words,’ Woman, behold thy son!’ and ‘Behold thy mother!’ and as thenceforth providing a home for one who was of his near kindred. In Joh 20:3 he accompanies Peter to the tomb of Jesus; and while he reached the sepulchre first, Peter was the first to enter in, but John was apparently the first to ‘believe.’ In ch. 21 the two sons of Zebedee are among the group of seven disciples to whom our Lord appeared at the Sea of Tiberias, and again the disciple whom Jesus loved and Peter are distinguished: the one as the first to discern the risen Lord upon the shore, the other as the first to plunge into the water to go to Him. The Gospel closes with an account of Peter’s inquiry concerning the future of his friend and companion on so many occasions; and in Joh 19:35 as well as in Joh 21:24 it is noted that the disciple ‘who wrote these things’ bore witness of that which he himself had seen, and that his witness is true.
It is only necessary to add that the John mentioned in Rev 1:4; Rev 1:9 as writing to the Seven Churches in Asia from the island of Patmos was identified by early tradition with the son of Zebedee. If this be correct, much additional light is cast upon the later life of the Apostle John (see Revelation [Book of]).
2. Early tradition.—Outside the NT only vague tradition enables us to fill up the gap left by Christ’s answer to Peter’s question, ‘Lord, and what shall this man do?’ We may gather that he spent several years in Jerusalem. After an indefinite interval he is understood to have settled in Ephesus. Eusebius states (HE iii. 18, 20) that during the persecution of Domitian ‘the apostle and evangelist John’ was banished to Patmos, and that on the accession of Nerva (a.d. 96) he returned from the island and took up his abode in Ephesus, according to ‘an ancient Christian tradition’ (lit. ‘the word of the ancients among us’). Tertullian mentions a miraculous deliverance from a cauldron of boiling oil to which John had been condemned during a persecution in Rome, presumably under Domitian. Eusebius further states that John was living in Asia and governing the churches there as late as the reign of Trajan. He bases this assertion upon the evidence of Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria. The former says that ‘all the elders associated with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia bear witness,’ and that he remained in Ephesus until the time of Trajan. Clement recites at length the well-known touching incident concerning St. John and the young disciple who fell into evil ways and became the chief of a band of robbers, as having occurred when ‘after the tyrant’s death he returned from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus.’ Tertullian confirms the tradition of a residence in Ephesus by quoting the evidence of the Church of Smyrna that their bishop Polycarp was appointed by John (de Pr. Hær. 32). Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus towards the end of the 2nd cent., in a letter to Victor, bishop of Rome, speaks of one among the ‘great lights’ in Asia—‘John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate,’ as having fallen asleep at Ephesus. The Muratorian Fragment, which dates about a.d. 180, records an account of the origin of the Fourth Gospel, to the effect that John wrote it in obedience to a special revelation made to himself and Andrew. This story is somewhat mythical in character and is not elsewhere confirmed, but it proves the early prevalence of the belief in the Apostolic origin of the Gospel. Irenæus states that the Gospel was written specially to confute unbelievers like Cerinthus, and tells, on the authority of those who had heard it from Polycarp, the familiar story that St. John refused to remain under the same roof with the arch-heretic, lest the building should fall down upon him. Ephesus is said to have been the scene of this incident. All traditions agree that he lived to a great age, and it is Jerome (in Gal 6:10) who tells of his being carried into the church when unable to walk or preach, and simply repeating the words, ‘Little children, love one another.’ Christ’s enigmatical answer to Peter, ‘If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?’ led, as Joh 21:23 indicates, to the belief that John would not die, but would be translated.
Still, in spite of the record, the legend lingered long in the Church, and is mentioned by Augustine, that though apparently dead, the beloved Apostle was only asleep, and that the dust upon his tomb rose and fell with his breathing. The poet Browning, in his Death in the Desert, adopts the ancient tradition concerning the Apostle’s great age and lingering death, and imagines him recalled from a deep trance and the very borderland of the grave to deliver a last inspired message.
The universal belief of the early Church that St. John maintained a prolonged ministry in Ephesus has never been challenged till recent years. The arguments adduced against it, though quite inadequate to set aside positive evidence, have been accepted by critics of weight, and at least deserve mention. The chief fact of importance urged is the silence of writers who might well be expected to make some reference to it. Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians, and Ignatius in writing to the Ephesians, refer to Paul and his writings, but not to John or his ministry. Clement of Rome, writing about 93–95 concerning the Apostles and their successors, makes no reference to John as an eminent survivor, but speaks of the Apostolic age as if completely past. If John did labour in Asia for a generation, and was living in the reign of Trajan, it is not unnatural to expect that fuller reference to the fact would be found in the writings of the sub-Apostolic Fathers. But the reply is twofold. First, the argument from silence is always precarious. The literature of the early years of the 2nd cent. is very scanty, and little is known of the circumstances under which the fragmentary documents were written or of the precise objects of the writers. The silence of the Acts of the Apostles in the 1st cent., and of Eusebius in the 4th, is in many respects quite as remarkable as their speech and much more inexplicable. It is quite impossible for the most acute critic in the 20th cent. to reproduce the conditions of an obscure period, and to understand precisely why some subjects of little importance to us are discussed in its literature and others of apparently greater significance ignored.
It is the weight of positive evidence, however, on which the tradition really rests. Irenæus, in a letter to Florinus preserved for us by Eusebius, describes how as a boy he had listened to ‘the blessed Polycarp,’ and had heard ‘the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord.’ And lest his memory should he discredited, he tells his correspondent that he remembers the events of that early time more clearly than those of recent years; ‘for what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it.’ It is incredible that a writer brought so near to the very person of John, and having heard his words through only one intermediary, should have been entirely in error concerning his ministry in Asia. Polycrates, again, a bishop of the city in which St. John had long resided and laboured, wrote of his ministry there after an interval not longer than that which separates our own time from (say) the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832 or the battle of Waterloo. His testimony obviously is not that of himself alone, it must represent that of the whole Ephesian Church; and what Irenæus remembered as a boy others of the same generation must have remembered according to their opportunities of knowledge. The explicit testimony of three writers like Polycrates, Irenæus, and Clement of Alexandria carries with it the implicit testimony of a whole generation of Christians extending over a very wide geographic area. The silence of others notwithstanding, it is hardly credible that these should have been mistaken on a matter of so much importance. The theory that confusion had arisen between John the Apostle and a certain ‘John the Elder’ is discussed in a subsequent article (see p. 483), but it would seem impossible that a mistake on such a subject could be made in the minds of those who were divided from the events themselves by so narrow an interval as that of two, or at most three, generations.
3. Later traditions.—It is only, however, as regards the main facts of history that the testimony of the 2nd cent. may be thus confidently relied on. Stories of doubtful authenticity would gather round an honoured name in a far shorter period than seventy or eighty years. Some of these legends may well be true, others probably contain an element of truth, whilst others are the result of mistake or the product of pious imagination. They are valuable chiefly as showing the directions in which tradition travelled, and we need not draw on any of the interesting myths of later days in order to form a judgment on the person and character of John the Apostle, especially if he was in addition, as the Church has so long believed, St. John the Evangelist.
A near kinsman of Jesus, a youth in his early disciple ship, eager and vehement in his affection and at first full of ill-instructed ambitions and still undisciplined zeal, John the son of Zebedee was regarded by his Master with a peculiar personal tenderness, and was fashioned by that transforming affection into an Apostle of exceptional insight and spiritual power. Only the disciple whom Jesus loved could become the Apostle of love. Only a minute and delicate personal knowledge of Him who was Son of Man and Son of God, combined with a sensitive and ardent natural temperament and the spiritual maturity attained by long experience and patient brooding meditation on what he had seen and heard long before, could have produced such a picture of the Saviour of the world as is presented in the Fourth Gospel. The very silence of John the Apostle in the narratives of the Gospels and the Acts is significant. He moved in the innermost circle of the disciples, yet seldom opened his lips. His recorded utterances could all he compressed into a few lines. Yet he ardently loved and was beloved by his Master, and after He was gone it was given to the beloved disciple to ‘tarry’ rather than to speak, or toil, or suffer, so that at the last he might write that which should move a world and live in the hearts of untold generations. The most Christ-like of the Apostles has left this legacy to the Church—that without him it could not have adequately known its Lord.
W. T. Davison.
Sources of the Life of John:
The sources for the life of the apostle John are of various kinds, and of different degrees of trustworthiness. There are the references in the Synoptic Gospels, which may be used simply and easily without any preliminary critical inquiry into their worth as sources; for these Gospels contain the common tradition of the early church, and for the present purpose may be accepted as trustworthy. Further, there are the statements in Acts and in Galatians, which we may use without discussion as a source for the life of John. There is next the universal tradition of the 2nd century, which we may use, if we can show that the John of Ephesus, who bulks so largely in the Christian literature of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, is identical with the son of Zebedee. Further, on the supposition that the son of Zebedee is the author of the Johannine writings of the New Testament, there is another source of unequaled value for the estimate of the life and character of the son of Zebedee in these writings. Finally, there is the considerable volume of tradition which gathered around the name of John of Ephesus, of which, picturesque and interesting though the traditions be, only sparing use can be made.
I. Witness of the New Testament.
Addressing ourselves first to the Synoptic Gospels, to Acts and to Galatians, we ask, What, from these sources, can we know of the apostle John? A glance only need be taken at the Johannine writings, more fully discussed elsewhere in relation to their author.
1. The Synoptic Gospels:
That John was one of the two sons of Zebedee, that he became one of the disciples of Jesus, that at His call he forsook all and followed Jesus, and was thereafter continuously with Jesus to the end, are facts familiar to every reader of the Synoptic Gospels. The call was given to John and to his brother James at the Sea of Galilee, while in a boat with their father Zebedee, “mending their nets” (Mat 4:21, Mat 4:22, and parallel passages). “Come ye after me,” said Jesus, “and I will make you to become fishers of men” (Mar 1:17; on the earlier call in Judea, Joh 1:35 ff, see below). That Zebedee was a man of considerable wealth may be inferred from the fact that he had “hired servants” with him (Mar 1:20), and that his wife was one of those women who ministered of their substance to Jesus and His disciples (Mat 27:55, Mat 27:56). Comparison of the latter passage with Mar 15:40, Mar 15:41 identifies the wife of Zebedee, John’s mother, with Salome, and it seems a fair inference from Joh 19:25, though all do not accept it, that Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Salome, the wife of Zebedee, were sisters. On this view, James and John were cousins of Jesus, and were also related to the family of John the Baptist. The name of John appears in all the lists of the apostles given in the Synoptic Gospels (Mat 10:2 and parallels). While his name appears rarely in a position by itself, he is still one of the most prominent of the disciples. With Peter and James he is present at the raising of the daughter of Jairus (Mar 5:37; Luk 8:51 ff). These three were also present at the transfiguration (Mt 17; Mk 9; Lk 9). They were nearest to the Lord at the agony of Gethsemane. In all these cases nothing characteristic of John is to be noted. He is simply present as one of the three, and therefore one of the most intimate of the disciples. But there is something characteristic in an incident recorded by Luke (Luk 9:54), in which James and John are represented as wishing to call down fire on a Sam village, which had refused them hospitality. From this can be inferred something of the earnestness, zeal, and enthusiasm of the brothers, and of their high sense of what was due to their Master. Peter, James, John, and Andrew are the four who asked Jesus about the prophecies He had uttered: “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things are all about to be accomplished?” (Mar 13:4). Then there is the request of their mother as to the place she desired for her sons in the coming kingdom (Mar 10:35 ff). To Peter and John was entrusted the task of preparation for the keeping of the Passover (Luk 22:8). Once John stands alone, and asks what we may consider a characteristic question: “Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followed not us” (Mar 9:38; Luk 9:49). From these notices we see that John was in the front rank of the disciples, and we see also that he was so far conscious of the position he held, and of the intimate connection he had with the Master. We note further that John was a young man of fiery zeal, and of a tendency toward intolerance and exclusiveness. The zeal and the intolerance are in evidence in the desire to call down fire upon the Samaritan village, and the tendency toward exclusiveness is manifested in the request of his mother as to the place her sons were to occupy in the kingdom. They desire to have the highest positions. These tendencies were not encouraged by Jesus. They were rebuked by Him once and again, but the tendencies reveal the men. In harmony with these notices of character and temperament is the name given to the brothers by Jesus, “Boanerges,” “Sons of thunder” (Mar 3:17), which, whatever else may be meant by it, means strength, unexpectedness, and zeal approaching to methods of violence.
2. Acts and Galatians:
John is found in company with Peter in the opening scenes in Acts. He is with Peter while the man at the gate was healed (Act 3:1 ff). He is with Peter on the mission to Samaria (Act 8:14 ff). He is with Peter and James, the Lord’s brother, at the interview with Paul recorded in Gal 2, and the three are described by Paul as the pillar apostles (Gal 2:9). This interview is of importance because it proves that John had survived his brother James, whose death is recorded in Acts 12; at all events that John and James were not killed by the Jews at the same time, as some now contend that they were. This contention is considered below.
3. The Johannine Writings: Gospel and Revelation:
Much is to be learned of the apostle John from the Fourth Gospel, assuming the Gospel to have been written by him. We learn from it that he was a disciple of John the Baptist (Joh 1:35), that he was one of the first six disciples called by Jesus in His early ministry in Judea (Joh 1:37-51), and that he was present at all the scenes which he describes in the Gospel. We find later that he had a home in Jerusalem, and was acquainted with many there. To that home he took Mary, the mother of Jesus, whom the dying Saviour entrusted to his care (Joh 19:26, Joh 19:27). Much more also we learn of him and of his history, for the Gospel is a spiritual biography, a record of the growth of faith on the part of the writer, and of the way in which his eyes were opened to see the glory of the Lord, until faith seems to have become vision. He was in the inner circle of the disciples, indeed, nearest of all to Jesus, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Joh 13:23; Joh 19:26; Joh 20:2; Joh 21:7, Joh 21:20), and, because of that love, became the apostle of love (see, further, JOHN, GOSPEL OF; JOHN, EPISTLES OF; JOHANNINE THEOLOGY).
The Book of Revelation, likewise traditionally ascribed to John, bears important witness to the apostle’s banishment in later life to the isle of Patmos in the Aegean (Joh 1:9). There he received the visions recorded in the book. The banishment probably took place in the reign of Domitian (see REVELATION), with whose practice it was entirely in consonance (on the severity of such exile, compare Sir W.M. Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia, chapter viii). The testimony is of high importance in its bearing on the disputed question of John’s residence in Asia, a point now to be discussed.
II. Alleged Early Martyrdom of John: Criticism of Evidence.
1. Recent Denial of John’s Residence in Ephesus:
The consentient testimony of the church of the 2nd century is that the later years of John were spent at Ephesus, where he wrote his Gospel, and gathered round him many disciples (see the evidence drawn out in detail in Godet, Commentary on Gospel of John, 43 ff; compare also Lightfoot, “The School of Ephesus,” in Essays on the Work Entitled “Supernatural Religion”). Before, however, we can use the traditions connected with this residence at Ephesus, it is needful to inquire into the statement alleged to be made by Papias that John, the son of Zebedee, was killed by the Jews at an early date. It is plain, that, if this statement is correct, the apostle could not be the author of the Johannine writings in the New Testament, universally dated near the end of the 1st century.
2. Grounds of Denial:
The evidence for the statement that John was early killed by the Jews is thus summed up by Dr. Moffatt: “The evidence for the early martyrdom of John the son of Zebedee is, in fact, threefold: (a) a prophecy of Jesus preserved in Mar 10:39 = Mat 20:23, (b) the witness of Papias, and (c) the calendars of the church” (Intro to Lit. of New Testament, 602). Our limits do not admit of an exhaustive examination of this so-called evidence, but, happily, an exhaustive examination is not needed.
(a) The first head proceeds on an assumption which is not warranted, namely, that a prophecy of Jesus would not be allowed to stand, if it were not evidently fulfilled. In the present instance, a literal fulfillment of the prophecy (“The cup that I drink ye shall drink,” etc.) is out of the question, for there is no hint that either James or John was crucified. We must therefore fall back on the primary meaning of martyrdom, and recognize a fulfillment of the prophecy in the sufferings John endured and the testimony he bore for the Master’s sake (thus Origen, etc.).
(b) Dr. Moffatt lays great stress on what he calls the testimony of Papias. But the alleged testimony of Papias is not found in any early authority, and then occurs in writers not of any great value from the point of view of critical investigation. It is found in a passage of Georgius Hamartolus (9th century), and is held to be corroborated by a fragment of an epitome (7th or 8th century) of the Chronicle of Philip Sidetes (5th century), a thoroughly untrustworthy writer. The passage from Georgius may be seen in convenient form in Lightfoot’s Apostolic Fathers, 513-19. It tells that John survived to the time of Nerva, quotes a saying of Papias that he was killed by the Jews, states that this was in fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus above referred to, and goes on to say, “So the learned Origen affirms in his interpretation of Matthew’s Gospel, that John was martyred, declaring that he had learnt the last from the successors of the apostles” (Lightfoot, op. cit., 531). Fortunately, the statement of Origen can be tested, and it by no means, as Moffatt admits (op. cit., 604), bears out the meaning attached to it. Origen is of opinion that the prophecy of Jesus was sufficiently fulfilled by the fact of John’s banishment to Patmos and his sufferings there. This, according to him, is what tradition taught and what the prophecy meant. From the whole statement of Georgius, which expressly declares that John survived till the time of Nerva, nothing can be inferred in support of the so-called quotation from Papias. It is to be remembered that the writings of Papias were known to Irenaeus and to Eusebius, and it is inconceivable that, if such a statement was to be found in these, they would have ignored it, and have given currency to a statement contradictory to it. No stress, therefore, can be laid on the alleged quotation. We do not know its context, nor is there anything in the literature of the first 3 centuries corroborative of it. In the citation in the epitome of Philip, Papias is made to speak of “John the divine” (
(c) As regards the 3rd line of evidence instanced by Dr. Moffatt - church calendars, in which James and John are commemorated together as martyrs - it is even more worthless than the other two. On the nature and origin of these martyrologies, Dr. J. Drummond may be quoted: “They were constructed in process of time out of local calendars. At some period in the 2nd half of the 5th century, a martyrology was formed by welding together a number of provincial calendars, Roman, Italian, Spanish, and Gallic, into what was in effect a general martyrology of Western Europe. At Nicomedia, about the year 350, a similar eastern martyrology was formed out of the local calendars, and this was translated with curtailments into Syriac at Edessa about the year 400. It is a copy of this, made in 411, which is now in the British Museum” (Inquiry into Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 232). If this is a true account of the rise and origin of martyrologies we need not be surprised that Sir W. M. Ramsay speaks as follows: “That James and John, who were not slain at the same time, should be commemorated together, is the flimsiest conceivable evidence that John was killed early in Jerusalem. The bracketing together of the memory of apostles who had some historical connection in life, but none in death, must be regarded as the worst side, historically speaking, of the martyrologies” (The First Christian Century, 49, note).
III. The Ephesian Traditions.
1. John the Apostle, and John the Presbyter:
Thus the early traditions of the churches are available for the life of John the son of Zebedee. But there still remain many blank spaces in that life. After the reference to the pillar apostles in Gal, silence falls on the life of John, and we know nothing of his life and activity until we read of his banishment to Patmos, and meet with those references to the old man at Ephesus, which occur in the Christian literature of the 2nd century. One point of interest relates to the (genuine) quotation from Papias, preserved by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39), regarding a “Presbyter John,” a disciple of the Lord, who was one of his living authorities. Were there two Johns at Ephesus? Or was there only one? Or, if there was only one, was he John the Evangelist, or only John the Presbyter? Here there is every possible variety of opinion. Many hold that there were two, and many that there was only one. Many who hold that there was only one, hold that the one was John the son of Zebedee; others hold, with equal assurance, that he was a distinct person. Obviously, it is impossible to discuss the question adequately here. After due consideration, we lean to the conclusion that there was only one John at Ephesus, and he the son of Zebedee. For the proof of this, impossible within our limits, we refer to the learned argument of John Chapman, in his work John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel (1911).
2. Characteristic Traditions:
Into the traditions which cluster round John in Ephesus it is not necessary to enter in detail (compare Godet, op. cit., 57 ff). According to the tradition universally accepted in the church, John survived till the time of Trajan (98 AD). Striking and characteristic things are told of him in harmony with the touches we find in the Synoptic Gospels. The story of his rushing forth from the bath when Cerinthus, the heretic, entered it (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., iii. 3, 4) recalls the characteristics of him whom Jesus called “son of thunder.” The same tone of exclusiveness, modified by larger experience, is found in the 1st Epistle, which so frequently and so decisively discriminates between those who believe in Jesus and those who do not.
IV. The Character of John.
The general character of this great apostle is already sufficiently apparent. While we recall the illustrative facts found in the Synoptics, that James and John were the two who wished to call down fire from heaven on the inhospitable village, that John was one of those who desired one of the chief places in the kingdom, that he it was who forbade the man to cast out demons in the name of Jesus because he followed not with them, we do not forget that on each of these occasions he was corrected and rebuked by the Master, and he was not the kind of man who could not profit by the rebuke of Jesus. So that vehemence of disposition was held in check, and, while still in existence, was under control, and allowed to have vent only on occasions when it was permissible, and even necessary. So in his writings, and in the reflections in the Gospel, we note the vehemence displayed, but now directed only against those who refused to believe in, and to acknowledge, Jesus.
“A quiet and thoughtful temperament is by no means inconsistent with a certain vehemence, when, on occasions, the pent-up fire flashes forth; indeed, the very violence of feeling may help to foster an habitual quietude, lest word or deed should betray too deep an emotion. Then it is not without significance that, in the three narratives which are cited from the Gospels to prove the overbearing temper of John, we are expressly told that Jesus corrected him. Are we to suppose that these rebukes made no impression? Is it not more likely that they sank deep into his heart, and that the agony of beholding his Master’s crucifixion made them ineffaceable? Then, if not before, began that long development which changed the youthful son of thunder into the aged apostle of love” (Drummond, op. cit, 410, 411).
But love itself has its side of vehemence, and the intensity of love toward a person or a cause may be measured by the intensity of aversion and of hatred toward their contradictories. There are many reflections in the Gospel and in the Epistles which display this energy of hatred toward the work of the devil, and toward those dispositions which are under the influence of the father of lies. We simply notice these, for they prove that the fervent youth who was devoted to his Master carried with him to the end the same disposition which was characteristic of him from the beginning.
Literature.
In addition to books mentioned in article, see the list of works appended to article on JOHN, GOSPEL OF.
- Brother of James and son of Zebedee, a fisherman. According to John’s Gospel (19:26-27), it was probably John who took Mary, the mother of Jesus as his adopted mother. He preached in Jerusalem, and later, as bishop of Ephesus, south of Izmir in western Turkey, worked among the churches of Asia Minor. During the reigns of either Emperor Nero (AD54-68) or Domitian (AD81-96), he was banished to the nearby island of Patmos, now one of the Greek islands in the Aegean Sea. He was subsequently freed and died a natural death at Ephesus c AD100. After decades of debate, many scholars accept that the apostle John wrote the Book of Revelation, perhaps as early as c AD68-70, and that he either wrote or provided the material and theology for John’s Gospel and the three Letters of John.
Various names have been used of John the apostle. Many of the people of his time referred to him as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’, perhaps because of his special relationship with Jesus (Joh 13:23; Joh 19:26-27). But Jesus himself often referred to John and his older brother James as ‘sons of thunder’, perhaps because they were sometimes impatient and over-zealous (Mar 3:17; Mar 10:35-40; Luk 9:49-56). John was one of the most highly respected leaders in the early church, and later generations knew him as ‘the elder’ (2Jn 1:1; 3Jn 1:1). (For his writings see JOHN, GOSPEL OF; JOHN, LETTERS OF.) He has traditionally been regarded as the writer of the book of Revelation (Rev 1:1; Rev 1:9; Rev 22:8; see REVELATION, BOOK OF).
In the time of Jesus
John’s father was a fisherman named Zebedee (Mat 4:21). His mother, Salome, appears to have been the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus (Mat 27:56; Mar 15:40; Joh 19:25-27). The family lived in a town on the shores of Lake Galilee, where James and John worked as fishermen in partnership with another pair of brothers, Peter and Andrew (Mat 4:18-21; Luk 5:10).
Most likely all four men had responded to John the Baptist’s preaching. They became disciples of the Baptist and were part of that minority of true believers who looked expectantly for the promised Saviour. John was probably one of the two disciples (the other was Andrew) whom the Baptist first directed to Jesus Christ (Joh 1:35-40). Soon both pairs of brothers had become followers of Jesus (Mat 4:22), and later all four were included in Jesus’ group of twelve apostles (Mat 10:2). Peter, James and John developed into an inner circle of disciples who were particularly close to Jesus (Mar 5:37; Mar 9:2; Mar 14:33).
As the ministry of Jesus progressed, Peter became increasingly more prominent. James and John, with their mother, tried to outdo Peter by going to Jesus and asking him to give the top two positions in his kingdom to them. They received no such guarantee from Jesus; only a rebuke for their selfish ambition and a promise of persecution ahead (Mat 20:20-28). By the time Jesus’ ministry had come to an end, Peter and John were clearly the two leading apostles (Luk 22:8; Joh 19:26-27; Joh 20:2-9; Joh 21:20).
In the early church
After Jesus’ return to his Father, Peter and John provided the main leadership for the Jerusalem Christians. Their boldness amid persecution was an example to all (Act 1:13; Act 3:1-4; Act 3:11; Act 4:13-20; Act 5:40). They were the first Christian leaders to show publicly that God accepted non-Jewish converts into the church equally with Jewish converts (Act 8:14-17). John’s willingness to preach in Samaritan villages was in marked contrast to his hostility to Samaritans a few years earlier (Act 8:25; cf. Luk 9:52-56). With James the Lord’s brother they formed a representative group who expressed the Jerusalem church’s fellowship in the mission of Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles (Gal 2:9).
The Bible contains little information about John’s later activities, though there are early records outside the Bible that refer to him. According to these, John lived to a very old age (as Jesus had foretold; Joh 21:20-23) and spent most of his later years in Ephesus. From there he wrote his Gospel and the three letters that bear his name. It seems also that he was imprisoned on Patmos, an island off the coast from Ephesus, from where the book of Revelation was written (Rev 1:9).
The apostle known as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”; author of the fourth Gospel, three epistles, and probably Revelation.
The apostle John has a high reputation among Christian people, and his influence has been felt throughout the centuries. Despite this, he is a surprisingly shadowy figure. When he appears in the pages of the NT, it is almost always in company with Peter or James, and if there is speaking to be done, it is usually his companion Peter who does it; thus, there is not a great deal on which to base a biography.
John’s father’s name was Zebedee, and John had a brother called James (Mt 4:21). Among the women at the cross, Matthew names Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and “the mother of Zebedee’s children” (27:56). Mark names the two Marys and adds Salome (Mk 15:40). This indicates that Salome may be the name of John’s mother. If Matthew and Mark are naming the same women as does John, then Salome was Jesus’ “mother’s sister” (Jn 19:25). This would make John a cousin of Jesus. We cannot be certain of this, for there were many women there (Mt 27:55) and there is no way of being sure that Matthew, Mark, and John all name the same three. Many accept the identification, but we can scarcely say more.
John was among those whom Jesus called by the Sea of Galilee (Mt 4:21–22; Mk 1:19–20). This makes him one of the first disciples. It is also possible that he was the unnamed companion of Andrew when that apostle first followed Jesus (Jn 1:35–37). John was important in the little group around Jesus since he was one of three who were especially close to the Master. These disciples were selected to be with Jesus on many great occasions. John, along with his brother James and Peter, was present at the Transfiguration (Mt 17:1–2; Mk 9:2; Lk 9:28–29). Jesus also took just these three into the house of Jairus when he brought that man’s daughter back to life (Mk 5:37; Lk 8:51). Before Jesus’ arrest, it was this trio that he took to pray with him in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:37; Mk 14:33). Though the three were admonished for sleeping instead of watching in prayer, we must not overlook the fact that in that time of great difficulty, when Jesus faced the prospect of death on a cross, it was to these three that he looked for support.
There are other occasions when John is mentioned in the Gospels. Luke tells us of John’s surprise when the miraculous catch of fish took place (Lk 5:9–10). This is especially noteworthy since John was a fisherman. Toward the close of Jesus’ ministry, we find John coming to Jesus with Peter, James, and Andrew to ask when the end would come and what would be the sign when all things come to their climax (Mk 13:3–4). And on the last evening, Jesus sent Peter and John to prepare the Passover meal (Lk 22:8).
Passages like these show that John was highly esteemed among the apostles and that he stood especially close to Jesus. But there are indications that at first John was far from appreciating what Jesus stood for. When Mark gives his list of the Twelve, he tells us that Jesus gave to James and John the name “Boanerges,” which means “sons of thunder” (Mk 3:17). Some in the early church understood this name as a compliment, thinking it meant that James’s and John’s witness to Jesus would be as strong as thunder. But most see it as pointing to their tempestuousness of character. We see this, for example, when John encounters a man who was casting out demons in Jesus’ name. John instructs him not to, “for he isn’t one of our group” (Mk 9:38; Lk 9:49).
Mark also tells us of an occasion when the sons of Zebedee asked Jesus for the two chief places in his kingdom, one to be on his right and the other on his left (Mk 10:35–40). Matthew adds the point that the words were spoken by the men’s mother, but he leaves us no doubt that James and John were in on it (Mt 20:20–22). Jesus proceeded to ask them whether they could drink the cup he would drink and be baptized with the baptism he would receive. (Clearly, these are metaphors for the suffering Jesus would in due course undergo.) James and John affirmed that they could, and Jesus assured them that they would indeed do this. However, he gave them no assurance about their places in the Father’s kingdom. (But it is plain that James and John would suffer for Christ.) At that time they also failed to understand the loving spirit that moved their Master and was required of them as well.
Another incident that shows the same tempestuous spirit is one involving Samaritan villagers who refused to receive the little band as they traveled. When James and John heard of it, they asked Jesus whether he wanted them to call down fire from heaven to consume the villagers (Lk 9:54). They were clearly at variance with Jesus, and indeed he rebuked them. But we should not miss the zeal they displayed for their Lord, nor their conviction that if they did call down fire it would come. They were sure that God would not fail to answer the prayer of those who asked for vengeance on the opponents of Jesus. There is zeal here and faith, though also a spirit of lovelessness.
The synoptic Gospels thus show us John as a zealous and loyal follower of Jesus. He is not depicted as gentle and considerate. At this time, he knew little of the love that should characterize a follower of Jesus, but he did have faith and a passionate conviction that God would prosper Jesus and those who served him.
John is not mentioned by name in the fourth Gospel, but there are passages that speak about “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). We are not told who this was, but the evidence seems to indicate that it was the apostle John. For example, there is an account of a fishing trip in chapter 21, with a listing of those who went fishing. It includes Peter, who must be ruled out as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” because he is often mentioned along with the beloved disciple. Thomas and Nathanael were there, but there seems to be no reason for seeing either as a likely candidate. Two unnamed men and the sons of Zebedee make up the remainder of the party. James is excluded as being the author because of his early death—around AD 44 (Acts 12:2). This leaves us with John or one of the unnamed men. John is favored by the fact that the beloved disciple is linked with Peter on a number of occasions (Jn 13:23–24; 20:2; 21:7). We know from the other Gospels that Peter and John (together with James) were especially close (see also Acts 3; 8:14; Gal 2:9). Of course, one of the unnamed disciples may have been the beloved disciple, but we have no reason to assume this. Further, such a supposition faces the problem of the omission of the name of John the apostle throughout the entire fourth Gospel. If John wrote this book, we can understand his not mentioning himself. But if it was written by someone else, why would that person omit all mention of a man as prominent in the apostolic band as the other Gospels show John to have been? In addition, if John is the author, it would explain why John the Baptist is called simply “John.”
It is argued that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is not the kind of title a man would naturally use of himself, but it must be said also that it is not the kind of title a man would naturally use of someone else, either. And it may be that John uses it in a modest fashion—partly because he did not want to draw attention to himself by using his name, and partly because he wanted to emphasize the truth that it was the fact that Jesus loved him that made him what he was.
If this identification may be accepted, we learn more about the apostle. We should not, of course, read the words “the disciple whom Jesus loved” as though they meant that Jesus did not love the other disciples. He loved them all. But as applied to John, they mean that he was indeed beloved, probably also that he recognized that he owed all he had and all he was to that love. That he was specially close to Jesus is indicated by the fact that he leaned on Jesus’ breast at the Last Supper (Jn 13:23). It also tells us something of his relationship to the Master that he was at the cross when Christ was crucified and that it was to him that Jesus gave the charge to look after his mother (19:26–27). One would have expected that Jesus would have selected one of his family for this responsibility. But his brothers did not believe in him, whereas both John and Mary did. This event certainly shows that a close relationship existed between Jesus and the disciple he loved.
On the first Easter morning, John raced with Peter to the tomb when Mary Magdalene told them it was empty. He won the race but stood outside the tomb until Peter came. Peter, the leader of men, went right in, and John followed. We read that he “saw and believed” (Jn 20:8). Then in chapter 21 we read of the beloved disciple fishing with the others. Significantly, it was he who recognized that it was Jesus who stood on the shore and told them where to cast the net (21:7).
There is not much to add to this picture when we turn to Acts. At the beginning, John’s name occurs in a list of the Twelve (Acts 1:13); and later, when we are told of James’s death, it is noted that he was John’s brother (12:2). In every other reference to John, he is in the company of Peter. These two were the instruments God used in bringing healing to a lame man (ch 3). At that time, they were going to the temple at the hour of prayer. This says something about their habits of devotion. Prayer at the ninth hour apparently refers to the Jewish service of prayer that was held at the same time as the evening offering (i.e., at about three o’clock in the afternoon). Evidently, Peter and John were continuing the devotional habits of pious Jews with an interest in the temple and all its doings. On another occasion, these two were arrested and jailed on account of their preaching about Jesus’ resurrection (4:1–3). They were brought before the council, where Peter spoke for them. The council saw that these two men were “uneducated, common men” (v 13). This means that they had never had the normal rabbinic education. By the standards of the council, they were uneducated. The council forbade them to speak about Jesus, but the apostles’ reply displays John’s typical boldness: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge; for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (vv 19–20, rsv).
John was associated with Peter again when the gospel was first preached in Samaria. Philip was the evangelist to the Samaritans, but the apostles in Jerusalem decided to send Peter and John to Samaria when they heard how the people had accepted the gospel message. “As soon as they arrived, they began praying for these new Christians to receive the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:15, tlb), a revealing illustration of apostolic priorities. In due course, they laid their hands on the new believers and they received the Holy Spirit (8:17). John is not specifically mentioned, but he no doubt was included in “the apostles” who were arrested and jailed because of the jealousy of prominent Jews (5:17–18). But that imprisonment did not last long, for an angel released them at night, so that they resumed their preaching in the early morning (v 21). John is mentioned by name in Galatians 2:9, where he is joined with Peter and James and the three are called “the pillars of the church.”
This appears to be the extent of the NT’s record of the apostle John. Clearly he was an important figure in the little band of early Christians. On almost every occasion when he comes before us in the record, he is in the company of someone else and normally the speaking is done by his companion, not by John. But we may justly conclude that he stood very close to Jesus. Perhaps he had entered into the mind of Jesus more than any of the others. The best evidence of this is the Gospel of John. Clearly the man who wrote this had great spiritual insight. John may have been more the thinker than a man of action and leader of men.
We have seen that there is good reason to think that the fourth Gospel was written by the apostle John. The epistles of John probably came from him also (though, as they stand, they are anonymous). All the Johannine writings probably emanated from the province of Asia. The heretics alluded to in 1 John resemble the Cerinthians (followers of the heretic Cerinthus), who were in Asia Minor at the end of the first century, and tradition connects the author of 1 John with Ephesus. It is certain that the same person wrote all three letters, and reasonably certain that this author also wrote the Gospel of John; the Gospel and the letters certainly represent the same mind at work in different situations.
An author named John wrote the book of Revelation (Rv 1:1), though it is not clear whether this is the apostle or another John. Tradition has identified the John of Revelation (see Rv 1:1, 9; 22:8) with John the apostle, the author of the Gospel of John and the three letters of John. This view was held by Justin Martyr as early as 140. The main objection to this view is that the original Greek is unlike that of the other Johannine writings, showing scant respect for the rules of the language. Some have suggested that a different John wrote Revelation, others that John’s disciples wrote the Gospel and letters and that John himself wrote Revelation. But it is still plausible that the apostle John (or one of his close disciples) wrote the Gospel and the letters.
Assuming John the apostle wrote Revelation, he was exiled to Patmos (Rv 1:9). But the date of this is uncertain. Some probably unreliable evidence from the late fifth century suggests that John was martyred at about the same time as his brother James (c. 44; see also Acts 12:2). Jesus’ prophecy in Mk 10:39 need not imply that both met with a simultaneous and violent end. Much stronger is the tradition reflected by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus (c. 190), that John died a natural death in Ephesus, and by Irenaeus (c. 175–195) that John lingered on in Ephesus until the time of the emperor Trajan (ruled c. 97–117).
Aquifer Open Bible Dictionary © 2026 Mission Mutual, an adaptation of the Tyndale Open Bible Dictionary © 2023 Tyndale House Publishers. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.