# Did Lazarus write the Gospel of John?



## shackleton (Mar 31, 2008)

This is what someone from a local bookstore is claiming based on a book that comes to this conclusion. 
The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved - who was that beloved disciple?
The whole book is on line
Who was the disciple that Jesus loved? Trust the Bible evidence.
Conclusion
This Bible study presented evidence in two cases. In the first it was shown that the Apostle John wasn’t “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (the author of the fourth Gospel). In the second facts were cited that indicate this unnamed beloved disciple was Lazarus. Now, let’s review the evidence that's been presented so far. *Pause to pray and ask God to use His Word to lead you to the truth. * (This is always a bad sign)

He would have had to write 1,2,3 John as well because of the similarity of all these writings.

Bible study on the beloved disciple, who was the disciple Jesus loved?


----------



## Sonoftheday (Mar 31, 2008)

Are we ever given biblical evidence to believe Lazurus was one of the deciples, or Apostles??


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 31, 2008)

shackleton said:


> This is what someone from a local bookstore is claiming based on a book that comes to this conclusion.
> The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved - who was that beloved disciple?
> The whole book is on line
> Who was the disciple that Jesus loved? Trust the Bible evidence.
> ...





RE: *Pause to pray and ask God to use His Word to lead you to the truth. * (This is always a bad sign)

Truther words have yet been spake!


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 31, 2008)

If you can find a picture of the author, J. Phillips, put it in the center of this circle ------>


----------



## Sonoftheday (Mar 31, 2008)

> RE: Pause to pray and ask God to use His Word to lead you to the truth. (This is always a bad sign)
> 
> Truther words have yet been spake!



Oohh I didnt even notice that, It doesnt say ask God to lead you to the understanding of his word, but to lead you to use his word to lead you to the truth. As if Truth is something outside of his word. Yucky I feel sick.


----------



## Grymir (Mar 31, 2008)

This is totally bogus!! And this person even gives the KJV a bad rap by using it to quote from. A reading of the church fathers will clear up any doubt as to who wrote what and even when. These modernist make me wanna  I wonder how many people will believe junk like this???


----------



## bookslover (Mar 31, 2008)

Oddly enough, Lee Irons has a post up at his blog on this very subject. He cites Ben Witherington III as an advocate of this view. Irons, himself, doesn't buy it.

Go to The Upper Register Blog and scroll down a bit.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 31, 2008)

Obviously, he didn't write it. If he did then how did he write John 11?! He was dead at the time.

Check and Mate!


----------



## bookslover (Mar 31, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Obviously, he didn't write it. If he did then how did he write John 11?! He was dead at the time.
> 
> Check and Mate!



Someone could say that Lazarus was given that information afterwards, when he was (supposedly) writing the gospel - but it's still nuts.

Weirder yet - D. A. Carson, in his _New Testament Commentary Survey,_ says that one wacky commentator believes that the Virgin Mary wrote Hebrews!


----------



## Zenas (Mar 31, 2008)

Rich,

Lazarus seemed like a never say "die" type of guy though.


----------



## shackleton (Mar 31, 2008)

The History Channel says Mary Magdalene wrote John...


----------



## KMK (Mar 31, 2008)

shackleton said:


> This is what someone from a local bookstore is claiming based on a book that comes to this conclusion.
> The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved - who was that beloved disciple?
> The whole book is on line
> Who was the disciple that Jesus loved? Trust the Bible evidence.
> ...



I was recently given a copy of this article. The man who gave it to me is a hyperpreterist.


----------



## Zenas (Mar 31, 2008)

I wrote John. 

I'm off to dose up on embalming fluid.


----------



## shackleton (Apr 1, 2008)

KMK said:


> I was recently given a copy of this article. The man who gave it to me is a hyperpreterist.



The person who turned me onto this was also a hyper-preterest. Other things he has said:

Every verse in Revelation that refers to Babylon in his mind means the nation of Israel. Israel is the whore of Babylon.
The kingdom of God is within us therefore we need to look within ourselves to find God. 
The "gentiles" who are saved in the NT are really Jews from the lost tribes of Israel and in this way all Israel will be saved. 
God talks to him while driving in his car and reveals great truths to him the problem is that he is not always listening and tells God could he please repeat that but nothing. 

It is entertaining but sad at the same time because he works at a major Christian Bookstore and a lot of people, including pastors, listen to him and think he is very knowledgeable and see him as a mentor of some sort


----------



## Thomas2007 (Apr 1, 2008)

I haven't had a chance to read this, just scanned it briefly - the author would be correct in noting that authorship never served, at least for the Reformers, as the basis of canonicity. They always proceeded from theological truths to reason and empirical evidences and never reversed that process, which is common position among textual criticism today.

The author states this:

"The content of our fourth Gospel is true and trustworthy. This is not what is in question. Nothing presented herein casts any doubt whatsoever on the legitimacy of this Gospel as inspired scripture, nor its rightful inclusion in the New Testament. No one should think that this study in any way challenges the words of God’s inspired writers or the accuracy of scripture. Any such innuendo would plainly be a flagrant distortion of what is discussed herein."

Not having read his work, and just presuming that his intentions are honorable, then questioning the authorship of John does not in and of itself cause any problems. I don't know that I'm going to take the time to read this as it doesn't intrigue me that much - but it is interesting.

But you might try and not overreact if you haven't read it, I just don't see how this is a perceived as a threat to some.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## A5pointer (Apr 1, 2008)

I wonder how Lazarus liked it when his source told him they said he was stinky or stinketh? Seriously I have been teaching through John and just handled the crucifixion account. The stunning detail and mention of Mary surely put him at the foot of the cross. He ends the text with witness terminology becoming the third witness giving creedence to Jesus' identity. Hard to imagine otherwise for me. Also in the trial by pilate where the jews would not enter only John could have known what was said. Just my


----------



## KMK (Apr 1, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> I haven't had a chance to read this, just scanned it briefly - the author would be correct in noting that authorship never served, at least for the Reformers, as the basis of canonicity. They always proceeded from theological truths to reason and empirical evidences and never reversed that process, which is common position among textual criticism today.
> 
> The author states this:
> 
> ...



This quote is what leads to my so-called 'overreaction': 



> The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved uses the example of the Bereans who "searched the scriptures daily to see if it is so" and treats the facts in the Biblical record as testimony. You're the jury, the only evidence allowed in the courtroom is the Bible and the question to be answered is who was the disciple whom Jesus loved, the beloved author of the fourth Gospel?
> 
> How one answers a question depends on where they look for the answer. If we rely on others to give us the answer (trusting teachers, commentaries or scholars to think for us), then if they tell us that John was the beloved disciple that is what we will believe.



The author's intention is to 'poison the well'. Ultimately, the author is saying, if you allow church history or teachers, commentators or scholars to influence you, then you are not a Berean. If you trust the church over trusting the author, you are guilty of not thinking for yourself.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 1, 2008)

It was _Luke_, not “The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved” who “uses the example of the Bereans” (Acts 17:10-12). And where does this chap get off dictating what is and is not allowed as rules of evidence in the courtroom, as though he were the Judge! It is the Son of God who says what is allowed in His court of inquiry as His people separate fact from fiction, not some self-appointed one.

There are some serious (as in fatal) problems with the idea Lazarus was “the beloved disciple”.

Hengstenberg, Hendriksen, Morris, and Carson all give good defenses of the apostle John’s authorship of the Gospel, _and_ his self-designation as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, even if they differ a little on a point here and there.

In John 21:24, the Evangelist says of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (verse 20) – and concerning whom Peter inquires of the Lord, “What shall this man do?” (v. 21) – that it is _himself_, that is, the writer of the Gospel. This identification – and Johannine authorship of v. 24 – is denied by some good exegetes (for instance, Wm. Hendriksen and Leon Morris), but is ably defended by others: E.W. Hengstenberg and D.A. Carson, who make excellent cases for the author of the Gospel writing this verse, and not other men. Proceeding then on this established point (see their commentaries) – that the Evangelist has said _he himself_ is that beloved disciple, let us look at who this disciple is.

Verse 20 says that it is none other than he “which leaned on his [Jesus’] breast at supper,” so we know that he had to be one of the Twelve. The Synoptics say that only the Twelve ate the “last supper” with Him: Luke 22:13 ,14: “…they made ready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.” Mark 14:16-18: “…they made ready the passover. And in the evening he cometh with the twelve. And as they sat down and did eat…” Matthew 26:20, 21: “Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. And as they did eat…” 

We know from John 13:23 that, as it is recalled in John 21:20, the disciple whom Jesus loved leaned on Jesus’ bosom or breast (meaning, in the language of the time, he was right in front of Jesus as they all reclined at table, and actually did lean back on Jesus when he asked Him who it was that should betray Him). So the writer of the Gospel *is* the beloved disciple – and apostle. Now it could not have been Lazarus as Lazarus was not an apostle. He was not invited – he was not there! 

Please see Leon Morris’ process whereby he eliminates all the other apostles from the authorship and leaves only John the son of Zebedee, in his NICNT commentary on John (pp. 6, 7), in the section on authorship. Likewise see D.A. Carson’s work in the PNCT series of commentaries, as well as Hengstenberg’s classic reprinted by Klock & Klock.

On p. 7 Morris remarks on “the curious fact that John is not mentioned by name anywhere in this Gospel. It is not easy to think of a reason why any early Christian, other than John himself, should have completely omitted all mention of such a prominent apostle.”

I looked over the paper Witherington wrote (linked to in an earlier post), and he represents a school I have little liking for. He puts an unfair spin on the writing of Papias, and doesn’t even mention the testimony of Polycarp via Irenaeus of the authorship of John Zebedee!

It’s a shame we have to spend time refuting every novel fancy that arises in the wicked minds of men as they seek to twist the Scriptures, but the day will come when we shall have our fellowship in the City of God, where no natural light is needed, “for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof”, and we shall walk by “the pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb”, and rejoice on the banks of that river where is the tree of life; and there shall be no more curse, and our tears shall be wiped away, death and suffering utterly abolished, in a kingdom of joy, peace, and unspeakable glory, into which “there shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” (from Rev 21 & 22) Even so, Come, Lord Jesus!


----------



## Stephen (Apr 1, 2008)

Oh no, not another April Fools joke.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 2, 2008)

Would it were but that!


----------

