Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
John is an important witness to me because he was there at the beginning ... So they are all somehow connected before Jesus shows up and changes their lives forever ... So there are two shocks which make John disappear, to become an invisible "nobody" in our written record ... and a prudent John realizes he's probably "next" ... It just became dangerous for him to be "somebody". So he went underground.
Thanks for bearing with me. Peace to all who read this.
|
Aron, I like your comments on John, and wanted to add a couple of my own for your comment.
I agree that John was there fishing when called. I have long held the opinion that James, John, Jesus, and the baptizer John, were all cousins and related as extended family, based on the early record and of who was at the cross. Especially those from Galilee, then, should have had some relationship prior to the gospel record. I felt John loved and looked up to Jesus as an older well respected cousin, yet so friendly at heart, from his childhood.
One dilemma for me ... coming from a Catholic background, the concept of "ever virgin" was greatly reinforced by the Lord's words, "behold your son." I still wonder why He said that -- when the Lord had 4 other brothers and at least 2 sisters.
Regarding the "disappearance" of John, you mentioned the cross and persecution. I have never considered those, looking at the record of events. During the crucifixion, we have no account that John showed any signs of fear. Even Peter, the bravest of all, succumbed, though I never held this against him, as so many do. Yes he denied, but he was there. Where were the other ten? Also, the persecution only made John the more bold. He was a "son of thunder" before regeneration, how about afterwards?
Early on in Jerusalem even until ~AD50, John was still "reputed to be a pillar" by Paul, yet we have no record that he spoke at the council on circumcision. My impression has always been that John, over time, like Peter, became subdued by James and the zealots of the law. He was new to Jerusalem with all its traditions and trappings, having grown up in distant Galilee. John the Baptist, however, knew it all and forsook it all to go to the wilderness, but those from "up north" were still "in awe" of it all.
Then it was the destruction of Jerusalem which "recovered" John, who later served in Ephesus. The revelations returned. When initially called, he was perhaps the youngest, and thus saved by God to minister to the church after all the destruction and persecution of the period of ad 66-70. Of course, by this I am voicing my agreement to the later date of his writings, which some object to. His ministry in the end became a "mending of nets" in the church, which had suffered dearly, and was transitioning from the "Ephesus" to the "Smyrna" model in church history.
What say ye? This little blurb on John reminds me of one I did on Timothy years ago.