Man Jesus Loved. Theodore W. Jr. Jennings
Читать онлайн книгу.
to identify Thomas with the beloved. Some evidence even seems to count against such an identification. After the beloved sees the empty tomb (with Peter) and is said to “believe,” Jesus appears to the other disciples except Thomas. The latter then refuses to believe the accounts of the others of the appearance of the risen Lord without seeing for himself the wounds of the cross. Subsequently Jesus does appear to him with the others and exposes his wounds to Thomas’s inspection.
Reconciling the belief of the beloved with the subsequent unbelief of Thomas (20:25) is difficult even if not completely impossible. After all, the object of belief is somewhat different. In the first case, the belief addresses the emptiness of the tomb. In the second, the belief has to do with the appearance of the risen Jesus to the disciples. Some early traditions maintained that Jesus has been raised but that this resurrection is “enthronement in the heaven.” Thus the empty tomb does not in itself lead to resurrection appearances. But the difficulty with this attempted reconciliation is that what Thomas believes is expressed as the recognition of Jesus as “my Lord and my God.” Thus, what is focused by Thomas’s confession is not that there are “appearances” but that Jesus is Lord and God—precisely the conclusion that would be reached on the basis of the empty tomb, if that had been combined with an enthronement view.
Thus that the author(s) of this text supposed that Thomas was the beloved disciple appears virtually impossible. Despite indications of a strong attachment to Jesus on the part of Thomas and the intriguing designation of him as “twin,” the text makes his identification with the beloved very difficult, if not impossible. In this connection, remember that the designation of the beloved disciple does not emphasize his attachment to Jesus but Jesus’ attachment to him. That is, the evidence of 11:16 concerning Thomas’s attachment to Jesus does nothing to establish the converse: Jesus’ preferential attachment to the beloved disciple.
The next disciple mentioned in the fishing party is Nathaniel. Can a case be made for his identification with the beloved disciple? In his favor, we may mention the following:
1 Nathaniel is singled out by Jesus for special remark when he is recruited in 1:44–51. He is called “an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile”(47). He was known to Jesus before Philip called him (48). He acclaims Jesus as Son of God and King of Israel (48). And Jesus tells him that he will see “heaven opened and the angels ascending and descending on the son of man” (51).
2 Together with Philip, Nathaniel occupies the place that the other Gospels give to the sons of Zebedee, that is, as the second pair that Jesus recruited.
3 Nathaniel is mentioned only in the Gospel of John. Identification of the author of a text is sometimes made on flimsier grounds, as for example the identification of Matthew as the author of the first Gospel because of the use of this name in place of Levi or the identification of Luke as the author of the third Gospel because he is among those included in the “we” of certain passages of Acts.
Despite these hints, no reason is available for identifying the beloved disciple with Nathaniel. To be sure, Jesus is represented as having special regard for Nathaniel’s character, as a man without guile. But this fact alone does not argue for the identification of the beloved with him since no stress is placed in the Gospel on the character of the beloved.
Of the disciples named as members of the fishing party, no strong candidates emerge for identification with the beloved disciple. Peter is ruled out. Thomas is unlikely. Nathaniel has no strong claim. The sons of Zebedee (whether James or John) have no case at all. But two unnamed disciples are in the party. Besides those we have considered, are there other candidates from John’s narrative who could be one of these unnamed disciples and thus be a candidate for identification as the disciple Jesus loved? In fact, three additional possibilities are available: Judas not Iscariot, Philip, and Lazarus.
In order to be complete we should mention the Judas who is always identified as “not Iscariot” and to whom tradition ascribes the short letter of Jude. As we have seen, he is recalled as having been present at Jesus’ final discourse (14:22), and he asks the final question in the series: “How will you reveal yourself to us and not to the world?” This scene presents his only appearance in the Gospel of John.13
Philip is mentioned as being recruited by Jesus immediately following Andrew and Peter (1:43–48). He is the link to the recruitment of Nathaniel.
Philip also appears in the discussion about how to feed the multitude. He remarks that “200 denarii wouldn’t be enough,” to which Andrew responds by bringing the lad with loaves and fishes (6:5–7).
Philip also is connected with Andrew in that he approaches the latter with news of the inquiry of the Greeks (12:21–22).
Finally, Philip is one of Jesus’ dialogue partners in the last meal (along with Peter, Judas [not Iscariot], and Thomas) where we have previously encountered the beloved disciple. In the dialogue he asks, “Lord, show us the Father and we will be satisfied” (14:8).
Although Philip is mentioned several times, nothing in all of this suggests him as a candidate for identification with the beloved disciple.
Lazarus
That then leaves Lazarus. What makes Lazarus an intriguing possibility is that he is singled out as loved by Jesus. Let us see how this happens.
We are first told that the sisters, Mary and Martha, send a message to Jesus to inform him of Lazarus’s illness: “Lord, the one you love is ill” (11:3). After the report of Lazarus’s illness in chapter 11 we are told, “Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister [Mary] and Lazarus” (11:5). When Jesus finally arrives on the scene, Lazarus is dead. He is confronted by the grief and protest of Mary and the weeping protest of the Judeans. In the face of this grief we are told that “he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled.” As he is led to the tomb we are told, “Jesus wept. So the Judeans said: ‘See how he loved him!’ ” (11:35–36).
Here we have an account of Jesus being deeply moved. The narrative leaves open whether Jesus is more troubled by the death of his friend or the grief of those who mourn, or the protest against his tardy arrival—a tardiness that has led both to the death and the grief. The crowd in any case supposes that the weeping is an indication of Jesus’ love for Lazarus.
Lazarus appears again in the narrative only in the following chapter when Jesus has a meal in Bethany with Lazarus, Mary, and Martha (12:1–2, 9–11). Here we learn that “the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death as well, since it was on account of him that many of the Jews were deserting and were believing in Jesus” (12:10–11).14
How are we to evaluate this evidence? Supporting the identification of Lazarus with the beloved is that Jesus in both cases is said to love them. This fact in itself seems to give Lazarus some claim. But is it a strong one? In the first case, the sisters say that Jesus loves Lazarus, but the opening of the story suggests that the sisters are better known than Lazarus. The next time Lazarus is said to be loved by Jesus is as the last member of a group of three siblings. The final time is because Jesus weeps as he goes to Lazarus’s gravesite. When Lazarus next appears, nothing is made of his relation to Jesus, save as one who has been raised from the dead.
Another piece of indirect evidence is available, however. From the end of the Gospel we know that the “brothers” supposed that the disciple Jesus loved would not die (21:23). This supposition would have another explanation if the beloved were Lazarus who had already died. If Lazarus’s resuscitation were the beginning of the resurrection of the dead, then no reason would exist for him to taste death again.
Clearly then Jesus has some emotional attachment to Lazarus and to his sisters. Indeed the attachment of Jesus to the sisters serves (together with Luke 10:38–42) as the basis for the speculation that Jesus was bonded with one or both of them. This view, which has been enshrined in some Mormon speculation, has a rather slender textual basis. But recalling it here is instructive in order to see how much stronger a case can be made for Jesus’ attachment to Lazarus, even if he