JOHN THE APOSTLE & JESUS

JOHN THE APOSTLE

John 1:35-40

 

        In dealing with the subject of our Lord's methods with John the Apostle, I shall proceed upon the assumption, which is a reasoned conviction that "the disciple whom Jesus loved," referred to in the Gospel, is John himself, and that he wrote this account of Jesus. If these things be granted, one of the outstanding facts in his narrative is that of his reticence in referring to himself by name. As a matter of fact, he never names himself in the Gospel. Moreover, his reticence in referring to those to whom he was related is equally marked. He never mentions his brother's name, or his mother's name, or the name of the Virgin Mother.

        From the synoptic writings we know that John was the son of Zebedee and Salome. It is best to remember that while Zebedee and his two sons, John and James, were fishermen, it does not necessarily follow that they were poor men. Mark and Luke both refer to the fact that Zebedee had hired servants (Mark 1:20; Luke 5:7, 10). It is also quite clear that Zebedee and his sons were in partnership with Simon and Andrew.

        Salome, the mother of this man, was the sister of the Virgin Mary. This will be found by reference to Matthew 27:55-56, and John 19:25. Therefore, after the flesh, he was a cousin of Jesus. It is equally evident that Salome, whether in her own right or not we cannot tell, was a woman of means, if not of wealth. Luke 8:3 has given us the list of a company of wealthy women who ministered to the necessity of Jesus, and Salome was one of such.

        These references will help us to realize that John was not a poor man in our sense of the term. Those times were simpler and better times in that matter than those in which we live. It is also to be remembered that John had a house in Jerusalem. It was in that house he gave shelter to Peter after he had denied his Lord, and surely it was to that house he first took the Mother of Jesus when she was committed to his care in the dark hour of the Cross.

        We know one other fact concerning him, that he was a friend of the high priest. It is quite true there may be different interpretations of the reference. Mr. Morton in his remarkable book, "In the Footsteps of Jesus," has endeavored to account for John finding access to the palace by saying that he probably sold fish, and knew the household. The only remark I have to make on that is that it is entirely gratuitous, in view of the fact that the New Testament distinctly tells us he was a friend of the high priest. This, of course, was the reason why he had access to the high priestly coup.

        Then, moreover, we are familiar with his intimate friends, his own brother, James, Andrew, and Simon; and as in other cases, this fact must be taken into account in thinking of the man.

        In looking at him we may very rapidly follow in chronological sequence the places where he appears in the Gospel narratives. We first see him with Andrew following Jesus as they left John the Baptist. He is next seen about eighteen months later, when Jesus called him to leave Zebedee, and told him He would make him a fisher of men.

        Then we find him among the number of the apostles, chosen by our Lord. Once more, we see him sent forth with the other apostles. These are the only references to him during the first three years of our Lord's ministry, except that he was associated with Peter and James in the visit to the house of Jairus.

        In the final six months he is seen, first in the same company on the mount of transfiguration. Then we see him angry with one who had cast out demons in the name of Jesus, but who was not acting with the company of the apostles. Here it is worthy of note that we should not have known of this fact except that John himself had confessed it as a mistake made by himself. It was when the Lord had in answer to their question about greatness, set a child in the midst, that John told this account.

        Soon after that we see him going through Samaria with Jesus, and desiring to call down fire upon a village that had refused hospitality to his Lord.

        Mark gives us an account of his coming with his brother to Jesus seeking the position of power in the Kingdom. Matthew in this connection shoots that they made their request through their mother. Here, too, it is best to remember that however we may be tempted to criticize them for the request, it is arresting that they were asking it in dark days when our Lord was telling them that He was going to die, strangely perplexing them. Nevertheless they believed He was somehow coming into the Kingdom, and so preferred their request.

        Again, he was one of the four who sought the explanation of the Olivet prophecy. He went with Peter to prepare the upper room for the Passover. At last we see him with the same two, Peter and his brother, taken into Gethsemane; and then next following the Lord into the judgment hall. It is evident that while there he was watching Peter, and saw him in the moment when, with a broken heart, he went out into the night. It is equally evident that he followed him and took him to the shelter of his home. Then he was at the Cross, near enough for the Lord to address him directly, and commit to his care His Mother.

        Beyond the Cross, he is seen on the resurrection morning investigating the mystery of the empty tomb, and indeed, apprehending the full meaning of what had happened when he entered the tomb. Then, weary of waiting, he joined the company of those seven who went fishing, and was with Christ on the morning by the sea. Yet later he is seen in the upper room. After Pentecost we have a glimpse of him at the Beautiful Gate with Peter. Next he is seen going through Samaria, the very region where he had desired fire to be called down, preaching with Peter. We have one other historic glimpse of him in the letter to the Galatians when Paul went to Jerusalem; John was one of those who interviewed him.

        At last we see him in Patmos for "the Word of God, and the testimony of Jesus," and necessarily his name also is found upon one of the foundation stones of the city of God.

        Now as we pass these incidents in rapid review in memory, I cannot help feeling that he was a man who, perhaps, as a fisherman was out of place. We might say that he was a dreamer, but we will change the word, and say he was a mystic. We may change that again, and describe him as a seer and a poet. These very words, dreamer, mystic, seer, poet, put him out of the realm of interest to multitudes of people. And yet we venture to say that there is not one of the disciples of Jesus named in these Gospel narratives in whom the common multitude of Christian people are more profoundly interested than in John.

        John was a man who gained proof for himself by insight rather than by deduction. I am not suggesting that he undervalued deduction. His Gospel would contradict any such view, for throughout it, he is massing evidence from which deductions may be made. Nevertheless for himself, I repeat, that his proof came by insight. When we take up the first of the letters that bear his name, we mark the mystical qualities characterizing them.

"That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life . . . that which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you also."

Yes, he had seen, he had heard, he had handled; but when he saw, he saw far more than others did. When he heard, he heard what others did not hear. When he handled, he became conscious of matters not obvious to the common crowd. John was a man who was ever looking for the invisible, and seeing it; listening for the inaudible, and hearing it; feeling after the intangible, and sensing it.

        Moreover, John was a great lover, loving with passion and force. The word "love" became the very keynote of his writings. The energy of this love created his dynamic. He was capable of being intolerant, as his statement concerning the forbidding of a man revealed. He might even be vengeful, as his desire to call down fire proves. He was self-confident, as his request for position and power shows. This request was not a desire for notoriety, but for the opportunity of the using of ability.

        Now we ask as to our Lord's methods with this man, so different from his friend, Andrew, and also from Simon. The first action was that taken when John was with Andrew. He challenged him as He did Andrew as to what it was he was seeking, and then gave Himself to him for the rest of that day. As we watch this man we can imagine how even then he was looking for the invisible, listening for the inaudible, questing for the intangible. There is a sense in which that question of Jesus was intensely poetic. To this man John, it would demand that he should investigate himself in all those inner promptings and desires of his nature. In reply to this word of the Lord, this man, in common with his friend Andrew, immediately enrolled himself as a disciple, as he addressed Jesus as Rabbi.

        The next words of Christ again had a fuller meaning for John, "Come and ye shall see." In this connection it is interesting to turn over to the book of the Revelation. There we read: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show unto His servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass; and He sent and signified it by His angel unto His servant John; who bare witness of the Word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, even of all things that he saw."

        Here we have the same word, the verb eido with reference to vision. Said Jesus, "Come, and ye shall see" at the very beginning of His ministry, and in the last writings he referred to the things that he "saw." Christ invited the seer to see, promised the questing soul of the poet that his quest should be answered, and now in his old age he says, "I saw." This word, spoken to Andrew unquestionably had a differing interpretation for John, according to his own personality.

        Then we find our Lord calling this man to leave his fishing boats and his nets, and all the business of the common days. To him, in conjunction with Andrew, Simon, and James, He said, "I will make you to become fishers of men." This word, of course, applied to the four, and it had a distinct reference to their callings in life, our Lord making use of that calling to illustrate on the higher level, that which should be their business in the work of His Kingdom. For purposes of illustration I may say that our Lord never said to me, I will make you a fisher of men. In the year 1980 I sat in a pastor’s office  broken and without hope. That day Jesus answered my need for His forgiveness, and He said, Come after Me, and I will give you a meaningful life. My life took new direction on that day. He called for the consecration of my natural capacity to His Kingdom business. That is exactly what He did with John. He asked for the dedication of the skill and ability he had in his earthly calling to the higher business of the Kingdom, which He was bringing in.

        Then John was among the number of the twelve whom the Lord called and set apart, first to be with Him, and then to be sent forth. It was in this connection that He surnamed him and his brother Boanerges. We are all familiar with the correct interpretation of Boanerges as sons of thunder. I think, however, we should not forget that when our Lord spoke of these men in that way He was referring to natural capacity unrealized and unfulfilled, but now to be realized and fulfilled. He had surnamed Simon, Rock, the one thing that at the moment he was not, but the one thing he was capable of becoming, if a true principle were found and applied. So with John and his brother and myself. There were within them dynamic forces revealed in the stories we have already considered in the action of John; and our Lord now used the descriptive name as intended to show that there should be a fulfillment of that natural capacity.

        As we have seen in the account of John, there came three special hours when, in association with two others, his brother and Peter, he was with the Lord when the rest of the twelve were not present. In the house of Jairus, raising his daughter, at the mount of transfiguration, and finally in the garden of Gethsemane. Perhaps one may not be dogmatic as to the reason why these three men were taken by the Lord on these three occasions. Personally I do not for a moment believe that they were so taken because they were favorite disciples. I rather believe that they were taken to places of special revealing because of dynamic weakness within them. If we take the central one of the three occasions, that of the transfiguration, let it not be forgotten that He left nine men in the valley. Now I submit it takes more trustworthiness to remain in the valley and face the demon than go to the mountain to the place of vision.

        However, to return, John saw his Lord on these three occasions in a special way. He saw Him first as Master of death as He laid His hand on the dead child, and said, "Talitha Cumi." He saw Him on the mount of transfiguration metamorphosed, the one Who came to the realization of the fullest meaning of human nature, and Who might have left the earthly scene without dying. He saw Him then as the Realizer of life at its highest. Then he saw Him in Gethsemane, this Master of death, this Realizer of life at its highest, dedicating Himself to death.

        Again we have an account of three occasions upon which our Lard sharply corrected him. He corrected his intolerance when he confessed it, as He said to him concerning the man whom he had forbidden: "Forbid him not, for there is no man which shall do a mighty work in My name, and be able to speak evil of Me. For he that is not against us is for us."

        He was thus correcting his spirit which was that of complete loyalty to the Lord, but which conceived of his own position, and that of his fellow apostles as being so important that anyone else doing anything in the name of Jesus, but not in association with them, was to be forbidden.

        He sharply rebuked him also when he manifested the vengeful spirit that would eagerly call down fire out of heaven. Again the action of John was that of loyalty to his Lord, but it was manifesting itself in an evil spirit. The Lord said, in view of this fact: "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of."

        Having said this, He gave John an example of the true spirit as He quietly passed on His way, without any manifestation of recrimination or action of revenge.

        Once more He rebuked his self-confidence very beautifully and very tenderly, but none the less definitely when he and his brother sought positions of power. Said Jesus: "Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?"

        And then, amazingly, they replied, "We are able." He did not deny it, but admitted them to that fellowship, and told them that they should drink that cup, and be baptized with that baptism. That day He revealed to John that the way to the position of power in His Kingdom was the way of the Cross, of the passion baptism of suffering and of sacrifice. They had a good way to travel before they arrived, but what is noticeable is that He did not sharply rebuke them, but revealed to them the secrets of the power they sought.

        Finally, in watching our Lord's dealing with John, we are impressed with the wonderful confidence which Jesus had in him. We have two illustrations of this fact, one which moves upon a very simple level, and is yet uplifting, and one which is wholly beautiful.

        The first was that He trusted His Mother to his care. That in itself is full of suggestiveness as to the character of John.

        The other is wholly inspiring. When God authorized His Son to send to His bond-servants a revelation of Himself in glory, m grace, in government, this was the man He chose. He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John. This, as we have already seen, John is careful at the beginning of the book to tell us.

        As we thus pass over the record of our Lord's dealings with John we come to that final page, that postscript to his Gospel. Peter did still not understand John. After his conversation with Jesus, in which following the miraculous catch of fishes He had challenged his love, given him his work, told him that he must go by the way of the Cross, Peter had looked at John, and had said: "Lord, and what shall this man do?"

        Sharply rebuking the interfering spirit of Peter He uttered words which are of the very essence of poetry, undoubtedly understood of John more than of any other. He said: "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"

        John, in his narrative, is careful to point out at this point that those hearing it did not understand it, and consequently a legend went out that John was not to die. This misapprehension John, who understood, corrected as he wrote: "Jesus said not to him, that he should not die; but, if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee."

        Thus he made no attempt to explain the poetic reference, but simply corrected the misapprehension. John had heard the voice of his Lord speaking to Peter concerning himself, and he realized that whoever might misunderstand him, his Lord did not.

        Thus, all through the history, we see Jesus dealing with this man, this seer, this poet, removing from him the elements that blinded, clearing the atmosphere, bringing the confused into focus, interpreting to him the deepest things, because he was forever a questing soul; using him at last for the interpretation of Himself in his Gospel, which leads men to the profoundest facts concerning Himself; and then commissioning him to be the writer of that Literature which unveils the Lord in His glory, His grace, and His government.