The Disciple whom Jesus Loved

"The disciple whom Jesus loved," has traditionally been identified as John the Apostle, the author of the fourth gospel. But some modern biblical scholars have questioned the authorship of John the Apostle and suggests that he was an elder, not one of the Twelve Apostles. Therefore, it is more correct or safe to call him John the Evangelist.
Naturally, we would turn to examine "the disciple whom Jesus loved" under the microscope. In fact, it is more logical to have them separate first and see if we can find enough evidence to identify the two of them. Before we proceed, I would like to add a minor observation. Whenever John is mentioned in this gospel, it always refers to John the Baptist. The gospel according to John never name John the Evangelist directly.

Now, let us turn to "the disciple whom Jesus loved". This phrase appears five times in this gospel. It first appears in the Last Supper narrative in the fourth gospel.
Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
ἦν ἀνακείμενος εἷς ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς (John 13:23).
That this disciple was sitting or reclining so close to Jesus that he was leaning on Jesus' bosom suggests that he must be John, one of the Twelve. It is because we assume that Jesus ate the Last Supper with his Twelve Apostles only. Let's keep our mind open. There might be other diners.
According to Church Tradition, Joachim and Anna had three daughters. One married Joseph the carpenter. The other married Zebedee the fisherman and the last one married Cleopas (Luke 24:18). Therefore, Jesus and John were cousins and that partly explains why Jesus loved him so much. According to Church Tradition, among the Twelve, John was the only one who did not die a violent death.

The next time we meet him, it was already under Jesus' cross.
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Ἰησοῦς οὖν ἰδὼν τὴν μητέρα καὶ τὸν μαθητὴν παρεστῶτα ὃν ἠγάπα, λέγει τῇ μητρί, Γύναι, ἴδε ὁ υἱός σου (John 19:26).
Well, can we conclude that this must be John, the cousin of Jesus? The word on the cross suggests so. Treating the son of a sister's son as her own son is logically and emotionally reasonable enough.
Next, it was Easter morning.
Then she (Mary Magdalene) runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him."
τρέχει οὖν καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς Σίμωνα Πέτρον καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἄλλον μαθητὴν ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Ἦραν τὸν κύριον ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου καὶ οὐκ οἴδαμεν ποῦ ἔθηκαν αὐτόν (John 20:2).
This is the only time the word φιλέω is used to describe the disciple whom Jesus loved. In the other 4 times, the word ἀγαπάω is used. A lot have been written about the differences between these two types of love. Interested readers should read the first encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI, God is love.
The remaining two ἀγαπάω are found in Chapter 21 but many scholars believe that this chapter is an appendix.
Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord.
λέγει οὖν ὁ μαθητὴς ἐκεῖνος ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῷ Πέτρῳ, Ὁ κύριός ἐστιν (John 21:7a).
Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
 Ἐπιστραφεὶς ὁ Πέτρος βλέπει τὸν μαθητὴν ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀκολουθοῦντα, ὃς καὶ ἀνέπεσεν ἐν τῷ δείπνῳ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπεν, Κύριε, τίς ἐστιν ὁ παραδιδούς σε; (John 21:20)
The following verse makes this chapter an appendix.
This is the disciple (refers to John 21:20) who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true (John 21:24).
A disciple bore witness and had written the things mentioned earlier in the gospel. That makes this chapter an appendix. Curiously enough, this verse also points to a tradition that the disciple whom Jesus loved authored this gospel. So, as early as the end of the first century, Christians had generally believed that this gospel was authored by John. This appendix bears witness to such a tradition. Therefore, circumstantial evidences strongly suggest that John, one of the Twelve Apostle, the cousin of Jesus, was the "disciple whom Jesus loved" and that he penned the fourth gospel.

But there are other contenders. In particular, one of them was the Lazarus in this gospel! Today, we read of the story of his death and resurrection in John 11. Scholars quoted verse 3 in support.
Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.
ἀπέστειλαν οὖν αἱ ἀδελφαὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν λέγουσαι, Κύριε, ἴδε ὃν φιλεῖς ἀσθενεῖ (John 11:3).
Notice the use of φιλέω in this verse. It is used by a character in the narrative.
Further down, the author explains.
Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.
ἠγάπα δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν Μάρθαν καὶ τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτῆς καὶ τὸν Λάζαρον (John 11:5).
Notice the use of ἀγαπάω in this verse. It is used by the omniscient narrator.
Further down in front of the grave, Jesus wept for his friend.
Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!
ἔλεγον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, Ἴδε πῶς ἐφίλει αὐτόν (John 11:36).
Again, φιλέω is used by the characters in the story.
What conclusion can we draw? I would say, from the perspective of men, the love between Jesus and Lazarus is φιλέω. But from the perspective of the author, from that of God, it is ἀγαπάω. This is further illustrated by the three "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?" questions. In the first two times, Jesus used ἀγαπάω, but Peter answered with φιλέω. The third time, Jesus condescended himself and used φιλέω. All along, Peter answered with φιλέω (John 21:15-17).

Now, Lazarus remains a good contender. Unfortunately, Jesus treated Lazarus as a friend, not necessarily as a disciple. Hear this.
Thus he spoke, and then he said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awake him out of sleep.” (John 11:11)
Of course, a friend could also be Jesus' disciple just as John, his cousin could be. Therefore, Lazarus could still be the disciple whom Jesus loved. After all, Jesus loves us too. We too are disciples whom Jesus loves.
In the end, these biblical enigmas remain elusive. They continue to sit there to tease the scholars.

Dear Lord, Your love knows no bound. We are not capable to love You as You have loved us. But I know that loving You will sublime us, elevate and transform us. It is good for us. Amen.

Various degrees of blindness

Everybody suffers various degrees of blindness.
Blindness can be physical. Our vision is impaired to different severities and we wear eye glasses to remedy. Some are more serious and need to undergo surgery.
Sometimes, blindness can be psychological. There are cases in which the patients, whose eyes are perfectly normal and healthy and yet due to some traumatic experiences, refuse to see. These are cases of hysterical blindness. Today, in the gospel, we read of spiritual blindness. These cases are similar to hysterical blindness in that the patients refuse to see the truth. That is why Jesus passes the following judgment onto his contemporaries.
Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.”(John 9:39)

This verse puzzles me a bit because early in the gospel, John made a comment that God sent the Son not to condemn the world but to save it (John 3:17).
And in a subsequent occasion, Jesus contradicted 9:39 by saying the opposite.
If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. (John 12:47)
That is why I felt a bit uneasy when I heard that Jesus came into this world to judge it. Of course, in reading the Bible, we should always be aware of these built-in tensions. The Bible is not doctored, not harmonized. Readers have to put in efforts to maintain these apparent contradictions and  tensions. The other day when the Catholic teachers were Deuteronomy 6, Donna raised an objection against the language of the Old Testament. Not to mention the contents, the language itself is already very offensive to modern ears. She felt that the God of the Old Testament was barbaric, brutal and very much unlike God the Father portrayed by Jesus in the New Testament. She wondered why we still keep the Old Testament. An image popped up my mind. It was a beautiful green plant. Therefore, the New Testament and even the Church today is the green plant. But its roots draw nutrients from the soil, the dirt below. The Old Testament is the root of God's revelation. We have not exhausted its full meanings yet. Therefore, we cannot simply throw the Old Testament out of the window. Otherwise, the New Testament is rootless, groundless and the Church will withered. The "puzzle" we find in the gospel of John above demonstrates clearly that even in the New Testament, the readers have yet to learn to maintain the tension, to harmonize the contradictions.

Let us return to the spiritual blindness discussed in John 9 in which Jesus cured a man born blind. Traditional Jewish thinking would ascribe this blindness to the sins of the man or his parents. Blindness was God's punishment. Jesus disagreed.
Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him." (John 9:3)
Not only did Jesus rectify the wrong concepts of the Jews, he also gave a new meaning to our sufferings. Our sufferings can be meaningful in many ways. They can be sacrificial and benefit others. Here, Jesus points out that the works of God might be made manifest in those who suffer.

When we turn to the reactions of the neighbours after the cure, we see two different approaches to life. Some are more receptive to miracles. Others shut them out. Which one is a more probably explanation, that a miracle had taken place on the blind man whom they had known or that the man they were seeing was a different person who looked like the blind beggar? If you think the second explanation is more scientific and more probable, think one step more. If there had been such a man with a similar look as the beggar, why had they not seen him before? The beggar had been around for many years. Under pressure, his parents said that he was of age (at least 13 years old). He would speak for himself (John 9:21). Nay, long before the the dawn of scientific revolution, the hearts of the people had already shut God out of their equations of life.

Now, it was the Pharisees' turn. There was a division among the Pharisees. Some argued that the miracle worker could not possibly be a man from God because he did not observe the Sabbath. Others argued that no sinners could perform such a miracle. They remained legalistic. Of course, both arguments are flawed. If we accept that miracles are the works of God and that God does not have to observe the Sabbath, the first argument is down. The second argument also does not stand because God is free to choose His instruments, be it a saint or a sinner. The ability to work miracles is no proof that the worker is not a sinner. I appeal to the mercy of God to prove both sides wrong. Both parties were blind to the love of God. What was worse, they did not want to credit Jesus with the cure despite the fact that the beggar had earlier explained to his neighbours that it was Jesus who cured him (John 9:11).

The blind man was courageous in bearing witness to Jesus. For the first time in his life, he was able to see, to see the world and to see the truth. Yet, this ability to see the truth brought him persecutions as bearers of the truth always do. No wonder so many people prefer remaining blind. It would be more comfortable to remain blind. But remaining blind proves fatal, more so spiritually than physically. If you are physically blind, you make your other senses keener in order to survive. If you are spiritually blind, most likely you are stubborn and refuse to see the truth. Then only God's mercy will redeem you. That is why Jesus made the following remark to sum up the whole incident.
Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains (John 9:41).

Throughout the story, we see how helpless sinners are. The blind beggar could not cure himself. The Pharisees could not free themselves from their stubbornness. The parents were pressurized not to defend their son. There is nothing they can do on their own to obtain salvation. Throughout the story, we see how Jesus took the initiative to seek out to save the blind man. As for the Pharisees, he could only pass them judgment to warn them of pitfalls lying before them, just as God had warned Cain before he killed Abel (Genesis 4:7).

Dear Lord, open our hearts. Cure us of our blindness. Let us taste Your mercy. Amen.