Take the 2-minute tour ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I was reading a book by Andreas Köstenberger and he points out that in the Fourth Gospel, the beloved disciple is depicted at least several times as having greater access to knowledge as compared specifically to Peter.

In John 13:24, Peter asks the beloved disciple to ask Jesus who he means. In 18:15-16, the other disciple provides Peter access to the high priest's courtyard. In 20:4, he outruns Peter and reaches the tomb first and in verse 8 while both went into the tomb, it is the other disciple who "believes". In 21:7, the beloved disciple identifies "the Lord" on the beach to Peter. Finally, in 21:18-21 the beloved disciple as the narrator is clearly privvy to Peter's future; but when Peter asks about the beloved disciple, Jesus turns away his question - "What is that to you?"

Hopefully this is not too speculative, but my question is why does the gospel writer show us these things?

share|improve this question
    
"my question is why does the gospel writer show us these things?" Of course, he was inspired by God to do so is the principle reason. Still, these and other facts he recorded about himself help to prove he was not John, so the case against simply trusting man's tradition is good reason to carefully consider them. –  user419 Feb 10 '12 at 14:49
add comment

5 Answers 5

There's significant discussion regarding the ending of John and how disjointed it seems (specifically, chapter 20). This has led some to hypothesize that John's gospel has been edited a few times. These could be insertions from the Johannine community revising an original document.

Take it for what it's worth. I've also heard that could be a form of self-reference that is not necessarily self-aggrandizing. We tend to read something like "the disciple whom Jesus loved more than any others" but that may be an anachronistic reading of our own culture into the text. After all, didn't Jesus love all of his disciples?

edit: Per John's request, here is a source that I could recall.

Craig L. Blomberg. Jesus and the Gospels 2nd Ed. (B&H: Nashville, 2009), 198.

There's a diagram that demonstrates a possible (thought not necessarily does the author indicate that it is firmly-established) path for production of the text which we currently have as The Gospel of John.

Hope that this helps.

2nd edit (to answer the question): Sorry, I got so into the whole redaction thing that I failed to show how it could be a potential answer.

If it is the result of a series of redactions by a Johannine community, it could be their way of referring to John and does not actually represent the way he would self-identify in written fashion and they are the ones choosing to show us these things.

Having said that, even if this is the case, I believe in the infallibility of Scripture and that whether this was the work of several revisions, or of one person, the Holy Spirit intended for us to hear it. John may have been somewhat wealthy and notable (given the access that he has to the priest's courtyard) and, while Peter could be seen as the leader (CEO ?), John could have been the spiritually stabilizing force within the group. The person to whom even Peter looked for deeper knowledge, understanding, and spiritual support (if such things are not anachronistic).

share|improve this answer
    
Whew - I've tried, John. :) Now it's back to work on my thesis :) –  swasheck Jan 13 '12 at 18:02
    
That's a lot better. I hope to see more answers from you soon! –  Jon Ericson Jan 13 '12 at 18:08
add comment

John appears to have been written later than the synoptic gospels. John may have written it specifically to bring to light other events that had not been documented by the other three. If that was his goal, the events to which John was a unique witness would naturally be high on that list.

share|improve this answer
    
Welcome to Biblical Hermeneutics! –  Jon Ericson Jan 13 '12 at 17:54
    
Hi Remiel, there was a suggested edit from an anonymous user: was that you? Either way, it would be great if you could edit your thoughts into a more complete answer :) –  Jack Douglas Jan 15 '13 at 17:56
    
I don't recall suggesting an edit... –  Stephen Collings Jan 15 '13 at 20:17
add comment

Perhaps whoever composed the Gospel of John was pointing out that one can always grow further in one's relationship with the Lord. It could be that Peter, having been given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, was considered a model for the church. John could be saying that although Peter is certainly one whom we should follow, one can go beyond Peter's example to be like the beloved disciple.

share|improve this answer
add comment

The order of the gospels were written has been traditionally accepted as Mark, Matthew, Luke, John.

As time passed, they had the opportunity to examine the scriptures more closely as Jesus had taught them, and as the Bereans did, to see that Jesus fulfilled the hidden prophecies therein.

Each book in the order they were written demonstrates a deeper understanding of the hidden things exemplified in the treatment of John the Baptist. John as the last author, was able to link the circumstances of the life of Christ to the most hidden prophecies. The book of Revelation is a masterpiece of riddle based on the metaphoric prophecies of the Old Testament.

So the details 'revealed' in John are not necessarily because he knew the details at the time he observed them (some details possibly even collected afterward as the apostles shared their memories, such as the future of Peter) but he was able to tie the details to OT prophesies because of the greater amount of time he had to study the scriptures and reflect upon the detail. He records them because they have meaning when tied to the OT.

If we read the gospels as sermon notes (just the reminders of what Jesus did) and presume the audience knew the OT, we can tie the details to OT prophecies. Peter was a type of Christ being that he was a rock and Jesus was the rock.

The rock that was split in the OT is a picture of the cross as God is divided Father from Son. Peter as a type of Christ must also be 'split' from Jesus as he denied him three times. Why three times? because the rock was split three times. So John believed while Peter had not yet been reconciled with Jesus. The detail tells us more about Peter than the beloved disciple. This information is necessary to properly understand Peter's reconciliation on the beach.

share|improve this answer
    
Traditionally, the order is Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Many modern academics put order them as Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. –  Frank Luke Jan 15 '13 at 19:18
add comment

Peter and John are types for us to understand. To do so you must look at the Law of Moses and take care to see something that you have probably never been shown. First, answer this question: Is God perfect and unable to make a mistake? If yes, (I hope you know that He is) then why did Paul write in Hebrews 8:7-13 that the Old Covenant was faulty? If God is perfect then He would have never made a Covenant He would have to correct, right? Furthermore, why did He wait until the exile to make this covenant? Why didn't Abraham have the same covenant? (see Romans 4:17) Abraham was righteous by faith. (he lied at least twice about his wife, half-sister or not, and yet God called him friend) When Isreal left Egypt they complained before the Red Sea; three days after the Red Sea; for food in the desert. Yet God didn't judge them according to their sins, He blessed them according to His faithfulness to His covenant with their forefathers. The law is mentioned for the first time in Exodus 13:9 and it is to be spoken, not writen. In Exodus 18 Moses is judging the people and teaching them the commandments of God before the "Big Ten" are given. I submit to you that it was never God's intention to give the Law on stone. Not until Exodus 19:8: all the people answered and said, we will do All He (God) says. (saddest verse in the old testament) Isreal amended the covenant of Abraham (righteous by faith) with their presumption that they could do All. Turn over to Duet 6:24-25 and you will see that the Law on stone had just been given. Notice now, they will be counted righteous by works. So sad, my heart broke when the Lord showed me this. I said all that to answer your question: Hebrew names have a meaning (the English translation is based on sound not meaning) that when understood have profound implementations. Peter = stone / John = God is Gracious (Grace) Isn't that beautiful! Praise His Name!
Peter always boasted of his love for Jesus; his devotion; his willingness to give and do all. John called himself the disciple Jesus loved. John was aware of the fact that it was Jesus who loved him that mattered. On your list of events comparing Peter to John, one was forgotten: While our Lord was dying on the cross, Peter was somewhere crying; John was at the foot of the cross consoling Mary, the mother of our Lord.
I submit this too you and all who read this: The problem with the body of Christ today is that we still emphasize our ability and our love for Jesus and our will to do rather than His Grace. We are Peters, often quick out the gate, and tripping over our own feet. Great intentions but always falling short. Rather than Johns, knowing that Christ love for us called us worthy, not our works. Read IJohn 4:10. This will lead to a grace based life and blessing.
Final thought I would like to leave you with: 10 times in the New Testament the 3 disciples Peter, James, and John are singled out as being, "the inner circle" if you will. Did you know that James means "supplanter" (replace) If you insert the definitions of these names you get "the stone, replace, grace" Isn't that beautiful! Praise His name forever! This only happens in the gospels and only before the Cross. Now, Romans 6:14 tells us we are under grace not the law. Romans 2:15 says that the law is written on our hearts. Under the New Covenant Jesus has reinstated the original covenant of Abraham where we are righteous by faith. (Peter (the stone or law) and John (grace) are sent out together to do the first miracle of the new church in Acts 3; that's awesome!)
Ok, one more thought: Romans 2:4 says that it is the goodness (kindness) of God that leads us to repentance (change our way of thinking). IJohn 4:19 says that we love Him because He first loved us. If you want to "do" good works, focus on Christ's love for you. The more you know that you are loved, the more you will love. It's designed by God that way, so none of us can boast and say we did it. He did it all, we just need to understand that. If you are looking at yourself, you will never be what you really are! You are the righteousness of God because He gave you righteousness as a gift. When you mess up, don't worry. God isn't mad at you. His anger at sin was exhausted at the Cross. That's the freedom in Christ. No more condemnation. Not more Judgement. We are fellow heirs with the King of Kings. Go live knowing you're loved, special, and a child of the Most High. Hallelujah!!

share|improve this answer
1  
I'm going welcome you to Biblical Hermeneutics, but this answer really isn't the sort that we are looking for. For one thing, it's not the easiest thing to read the way that it's formatted. I encourage you to read the FAQ and edit this answer. –  Jon Ericson Jul 18 '12 at 19:31
    
In addition, your answer is not very focused. –  Kazark Oct 20 '12 at 13:17
add comment

protected by Jon Ericson Jul 18 '12 at 19:15

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.