Allegory of the Church
Some interpreters have maintained that the anonymity of the disciple Jesus loved makes him an allegorical figure representative of the ideal disciple, or the Church, or some particular community of Christians.
Certainly anonymity may function allegorically in the Gospels. Perhaps the most striking evidence of this device is found in the Gospel of Mark, where such figures as the Syrophoenecian woman (7:21–30) or the woman who anoints Jesus in Bethany (14:3–9) may serve, in their anonymity, as representatives of important features of a participation in the mission and ministry of Jesus.
But do any signs exist that the figure of the beloved in the Gospel of John fulfills this function? A superficially plausible case is made by remarking that the beloved is to remain until the return of Jesus in chapter 21. What but the church itself may be said to have this role? On this basis, then, one may also say that the beloved, as the community, is the faithful witness who bears testimony to the death and resurrection of Jesus and so is the “author” of this narrative exposition of the gospel. Similarly one may suggest that the beloved, as the community, is rightly placed both as witness to the cross and to the empty tomb. We might even link this to the notion of the Church as the bride of Christ and so as the beloved of Jesus. And to this strand of thought may be added the idea that just as Jesus is “from the bosom of the Father” (1:18), and the disciple reclines on the breast of Jesus, so also the community reclines in the bosom of Christ.
But the superficial plausibility of this view evaporates upon examination. Its point of greatest strength—that the beloved is to remain until the return of Jesus—is also its fatal weakness, for this view is clearly mistaken according to the text itself. Though some of the “brothers” had concluded that the beloved was to remain until Jesus’ return, the text itself disputes this supposition. Are we then to conclude that the community will not remain on earth until the return? The only reasonable conclusion on the basis of this passage is that here at least the beloved is regarded as an individual. Moreover if anyone in this scene is regarded as tied to the church, Peter would be the one. Peter is asked whether he loves Jesus. Peter is to feed and care for the “sheep.” Peter is summoned to follow, even to death. Peter thus represents the leadership of the community, not the beloved. Nor is Peter given a commission with respect to the beloved. What happens to the beloved is a matter between Jesus and the beloved unmediated by Peter (What is it to you?). If the beloved represented the community, then why is Peter’s commission (to care for the sheep) not a commission to care for the beloved?
The identification of the disciple Jesus loved with the bride of Christ does bring to expression Jesus’ special relation to that disciple but not in such a way as to make the disciple a type of the church. Rather, that identification (inadvertently) suggests that the relationship between Jesus and this disciple had the erotic character of a bride and bridegroom relationship, except that both are male.
The suggestion that the location of the beloved (lying on Jesus’ chest) is meant allegorically also falls when we consider that the very passage that emphasizes the individuality of the disciple (chapter 21) also recalls that he was the one who reclined in this fashion.
In order to solve this difficulty, Bultmann made the interesting proposal that the beloved be regarded not as a type for the church as a whole but for the Gentile church. In order for this assessment to work, Bultmann first must simply dispose of chapter 21 as a later addition to the text, an addition that misunderstands the allegorical role of the disciple and mistakenly treats him as an individual.4
Once this and other passages that speak of the beloved as a witness are rejected as later and mistaken interpolations, then, according to Bultmann, seeing the beloved as the type of gentile Christianity becomes possible. Using Bultmann’s approach, the interpretation of the scene at the cross between Mary and the beloved is as follows: the gentile church (represented by the beloved) is to acknowledge the Jewish church (represented by Mary) and to care for rather than reject her. Bultmann can also see the same idea in other passages where Peter takes on the function of representing the Jewish church.5
What can be made of this view? In the first place, nothing in the text suggests that the beloved has a gentile form of faith. He is as Jewish as Mary, Peter, or Jesus. The Gentile should not necessarily have advance knowledge of the identity of the betrayer, be regarded as an eyewitness to Jesus’ death, nor be a believer in the empty tomb tradition (which seems no more gentile than belief on the basis of a resurrection appearance).
Apart from the lack of any internal evidence from the Gospel to suggest this reading, most commentators are less inclined to see incompetence in redactors than was Bultmann. To be sure, the question of the writing and the editing of the text of the Gospel is a much vexed one, and the last chapter of the Gospel does read like a later addition. But the idea that later redactors were so incompetent as to change an allegorical into an actual figure is difficult to believe. Scholars have thus not accepted Bultmann’s view of the beloved as representing (in some episodes) a gentile as opposed to Jewish Christianity.6
Some wish to see in the beloved a type of ideal discipleship, which the reader is then called upon to emulate.7 The difficulty with this view is that at no point is the beloved characterized by any other quality than his relationship to Jesus. He is never singled out for his insight, his faithfulness, his courage, his obedience, or his “hearing” or “doing” of the word. He is not noticed in the foot-washing scene. He is not noticed in the appearance of Jesus to the disciples which eventuates in their being commissioned to participate in his mission or in the forgiveness of sins (20:19–23).
The attempt to identify the role of the beloved either in terms of his peculiar authority in the community or as an allegory for the community itself does not stand up to scrutiny. The only feature of the disciple that is distinctive is that Jesus loves him. This status is distinctive because Jesus loves this disciple in a special way in which he does not love the other disciples, although he loved them too. The homoerotic features of this relationship cannot be “sublimated” into the claims of rival authorities (Peter and the beloved) or “spiritualized” into an allegory for the relationship between Jesus and the church. We are thus returned to the startling but increasingly unavoidable supposition that physical and emotional intimacy characterize this relationship. In short, the increasingly apparent conclusion is that we are dealing with a homoerotic relationship.
The Question of Identity
Who was the disciple that Jesus loved? Was he John, as tradition maintains? Or one of the other disciples we encounter in this text? Pursuing this question does not bring us to a definitive conclusion concerning the name of this disciple, but the pursuit does provide us with a window into the relation between Jesus and his disciples generally. This perspective will make possible some further clarification about the relationship between Jesus and the disciple he loved.
John
The standard answer to the question is that John the son of Zebedee is the disciple Jesus loved. We know a great deal about this son of Zebedee from other Gospels, where he is identified as one of the twelve and as brother to James, together with whom he is termed a “son of thunder.” He is portrayed as a