The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved - Glenn Conjurske
The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved
by Glenn Conjurske
When John wrote his gospel, he designed that his readers should know who he was, for, knowing that, they would know that his testimony was true. He clearly identified himself as the writer, saying, for example, “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.” Yet he never identified himself by name. He only refers to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” and he thus identifies himself five times in his gospel.
We have two things to inquire concerning this expression, “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” First, what exactly does it mean? and secondly, how is it that John could use such an expression to personally identify himself?
As to its meaning, there can be no doubt that it refers to a peculiar and special love, which Jesus had for John only, and for none of the other disciples. If it does not mean that, it means nothing at all. Note, it is not “the disciple who loved Jesus,” but “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Neither is it “a disciple whom Jesus loved,” but “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Of course, he loved all of the disciples, yet John was peculiarly “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” This was a designation which could be used of John only. If it be thought that the term expresses only the general love which Christ had for all the disciples, the expression is really meaningless, and certainly useless as an identification of the author of the book. This would be like saying, “the morning on which the sun rose”—-when in fact the sun rises every morning. Or, “the lake which has the fish in it”—-when in fact all the lakes have fish in them. If the expression means nothing except, “the disciple whom Jesus loved, as he loved all the disciples,” then it could not be used to identify one particular disciple, any more than “the lake which has the fish in it” could be used to identify any particular lake.
But we must next ask, how was it that John could use this expression to identify himself? If I say, “the drawer which has my blue-handled scissors in it,” people might open the drawers and see which one contained them. If I said, “the book which contains the genealogy of my grandmother,” folks might open the books to discover which book contains it. But if I say, “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” no man is able to open the heart of Christ and examine it, to see which disciple had that peculiar place there. For this phrase to be of any purpose for the identification of the writer of the gospel, it was not enough that that peculiar love for John should dwell in the heart of Christ, but there must also be some outward, visible manifestation of it. And in fact there was such a visible manifestation of it. He had the place of intimacy with the Lord Jesus which none of the other disciples had, but which they could not fail to observe. We see it in the fact that John was “leaning on Jesus bosom” in John 13:23, which is the first place where he designates himself as the one whom Jesus loved. John was Jesus’ best friend, and the other disciples could not fail to be aware of this. When John therefore designated himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” all who were familiar with the facts would immediately say, “That is John,” for the peculiar love which Jesus had for John could not fail to manifest itself in a special treatment of him. “Love and a cough cannot be hid,” as an old proverb says, and though this proverb speaks of romantic love, the same is true, though not so obviously so, of other loves as well. Certainly when two people are best friends, other people know it. John was Jesus’ best friend—-the one disciple whom he loved above all the others, and his special treatment of John made this obvious to them all.
Thus J. C. Ryle, on John 13:23: “Let it be noted that the general special love with which our Lord loved all His disciples, did not prevent His having a particular love for one individual. Why he specially loved John we are not told. Gifts certainly do not appear so much in John as grace. But it is worth noticing that love seems more the characteristic of John than of any disciple, and that in this he showed more of the mind of Christ. It is quite clear that special friendship for one individual is consistent with love for all.”
Matthew Henry on the same verse: “Of all the disciples John was most fit to ask, because he was the favourite, and sat next his Master….Observe, (1.) The particular kindness which Jesus had for him; he was known by this periphrasis, that he was the disciple whom Jesus loved. He loved them all (v. 1), but John was particularly dear to him.”
John Gill on the same verse: “Christ, as the son of God, and surety of his people, loved his true disciples, as he does all his elect, alike; not one more than the other; but as man, he had a particular affection for this disciple, and therefore admitted him near his person, and was very familiar with him.” On Gill’s comments I must make a few remarks. First, I do not believe it is proper to make the distinction which he makes between Christ’s divinity and his humanity. He is ONE PERSON, both God and man, and says of himself, “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man WHICH IS IN HEAVEN.” (John 3:13). “The Son of MAN” is surely human, and was at that moment standing upon the earth, and yet could truly say that he was in heaven, for he is ONE PERSON, both God and man. He does not have two separate wills, or two separate sets of emotions, the one belonging to his deity, and the other to his humanity. He is one person, and all that he feels and does proceeds from that one indissoluble personality. If he gives to John a special love and a special place, it is as God and man that he does so. But I must affirm further that Gill’s assertion that God loves all his people alike is pure assumption, with nothing that I know of in the Bible to support it, and I do not believe it is true. Nevertheless, Gill gives a clear testimony to the obvious fact that John received a special place and special treatment from Christ.
Adam Clarke writes on the same verse, “The person here mentioned was John, the writer of this history, who being more tenderly loved by Christ than the rest, had always that place at table which was nearest his Lord.”
Philip Doddridge thus expands the verse: “Now one of his disciples, namely John, whom Jesus loved with a peculiar tenderness and honoured with the most intimate friendship, sat next him at the table.”
But there is really no need to pile up testimonies in favor of a fact so obvious. But I have heard it taught that a leader in the church ought not to have any personal friends, and I have even heard it called SIN!! in a pastor if he shows a little more attention to one person than to another. Such doctrine, of course, is neither more nor less than the wounded pride of someone who feels slighted. Frankly, I have felt slighted sometimes myself. My feelings have been hurt also. I have felt the risings of jealousy also, to see the friendship which I craved given to another. But I have never dreamed of calling this sin, for folks do not owe their friendship to me. I have rather looked to God to make me worthy of the friendship I desired, and to give it to me from his hand. There may indeed be some sin in the matter, if one person is purposely slighted, and this is no doubt sometimes done even for the purpose of hurting that person’s feelings. This is undoubtedly sinful, but to prefer the companionship and fellowship of one person before another—-this is natural, and unavoidable, and there is no sin in it. And to act spontaneously in accordance with those natural feelings—-there is no sin in this. If this is sin, then the Saviour was surely guilty of it. Some (like Calvin) insist that the distinction in our love and our treatment of particular persons is to be based solely upon spiritual considerations. I deny that, but it is immaterial. Whether the special love and the special treatment which Christ gave to John was based upon spiritual or natural considerations (or a combination of the two) is really beside the point. The fact remains that he did give him that special treatment.
But what of the hurt feelings, the hard feelings, the envious feelings, which such “favoritism” and “partiality” are likely to beget in others? As unfortunate as such things are, they are an inevitable part of the normal hurts and disappointments of life, of which we must all bear our share. But those feelings are sinful if they proceed anything beyond mere hurt and disappointment, to envy or bitterness. What if sister Sue is jealous because brother Peter is courting sister Jane instead of herself? Should Peter therefore marry them both, and treat them exactly alike? But mark, it is just as legitimate for Peter to have a friend as it is for him to have a wife. Yet to have a friend at all means of necessity to treat him differently than others are treated. This belongs to the nature of friendship, and an old proverb very truly says, “He that is a friend to all is a friend to none.” Jesus had friends, and he had a best friend, and in the very nature of friendship he was partial to that friend, and treated him differently than he treated others.
But though John had the chief place in the affections of the Lord, he was not the only one to whom Jesus was partial. He had numerous disciples throughout the land, but he did not give to them equal time or privileges. At one point we are told, “He called unto him his disciples, and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles.” (Luke 6:13). This very act of choosing, which he did in the presence of all his disciples who were present, was likely to cause some hurt feelings and jealousy. How might you have felt, if you had been there, and had not been chosen? Yet the Lord did this nonetheless, for he wanted it clearly understood that these twelve had a special place. To have chosen them in private would not have answered his purpose so well.
But there is more. If this initial choosing was likely to cause some jealousy or hurt feelings, how much more his whole subsequent course. For “he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach.” (Mark 3:14). He did not divide himself equally among his disciples, but gave almost all of his time to these twelve. By many today this would be called “favoritism” and “partiality,” and no doubt it was—-but it was right. To some others who sought to “be with him” he refused the privilege, and gave it to these twelve only. “He that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him. Howbeit Jesus suffered him not.” (Mark 5:18-19).
It will be said that the Lord’s actions in these matters were determined by spiritual purposes, and this may be so, but it is really beside the point. The sister who takes offense because the pastor shows more attention to another sister than he does to herself will not be any better pleased to be told it is because the other sister is more spiritual, or more useful in the cause of Christ. It may have been entirely for spiritual reasons that the Lord spent almost all of his time with these twelve, but this does not change the fact that he did so spend his time.
But further, among this inner circle of “the twelve” there was a smaller inner circle of three. It is hardly necessary to name them, for all who are familiar with the life of Christ know very well who they were, as surely as those who were familiar with his ways would have known that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was John. The means by which everyone knows who belonged to the inner circle of three is the special treatment which they received from the Lord Jesus. So we read in Matthew 17:1-2, “And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them.” It was the Lord’s choice to admit these three only to the mount of transfiguration.
Again in the garden of his agony, “Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy.” (Matt. 26:36-37).
When he went to raise the daughter of Jairus, “he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John.” (Mark 5:37).
And inside this inner circle of the three, there was the one “best friend”—-“the disciple whom Jesus loved.”
Let those whose hearts are taken up with jealousy and hurt feelings over such things begin to judge themselves, and cease to judge their brethren or theirshepherds, for such things are right, and such judgement is wrong. Shepherds need friendship as much as other human beings do, and the “Chief Shepherd” has left them an example which they may safely follow. John is not called “the disciple who loved Jesus,” but “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” This love was open and apparent, and there was no wrong in it.
Glenn Conjurske