Apostle John the Evangelist

This article will explain both from the Bible, as well as historical claims and other writers, about the Apostle John. John was a very important apostle for many reasons, and several of those are covered in this article. (Here is a link to a related sermon titled Apostle John: The Disciple that Jesus Loved)

The Bible shows that after Jesus died, Peter and John were shown to be together throughout the New Testament (Acts 3:1-11; 4:13; 8:14; Galatians 2:9) and perhaps even to the time that Peter died (cf. 2 Peter 1:14-15 and 18 with Matthew 17:1-5). John not only assisted Peter, he probably learned how to help guide and lead the true Church from him.

Shortly after Peter apparently died, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem (in 70 A.D.), many Christians fled to Pella, while others moved to Asia Minor. The Apostles John and Philip settled in Asia Minor--some believe this could have happened in the 40s A.D., others later.

Reportedly, no later than 67 AD, John was in Ephesus and led the churches in Asia Minor (Ruffin C.B. The Twelve: The Lives of the Apostles After Calvary. Our Sunday Visitor, Huntington (IN), 1997, p. 94). Although for a time he was in Patmos (Revelation 1:9), the Apostle John ended up living in the city of Ephesus. John may have outlived Peter by over 30 years.

Here is some of what The Catholic Encyclopedia records about John and his travels:

I cited The Catholic Encyclopedia to demonstrate that even the Church of Rome recognizes some of the truth about the Apostle John.

John was not only the last of the apostles to die, he was also the last writer of any of the books of the New Testament.

John is mentioned in all the other Gospel accounts, plus several of the epistles. We also specifically have five books of the Bible (The Gospel according to John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and the Apocalypse/Revelation) written by John.

Martin Luther liked John's Gospel account so much that he wrote, "The first three speak of the works of our Lord, rather than His oral teachings; that of St. John is the only sympathetic, the only true Gospel and should undoubtedly be preferred above the others. In like manner the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul are superior to the first three Gospels " (O'Hare PF. The Facts About Luther, 1916--1987 reprint ed., p. 203). And though Martin Luther's position on this, and some of his other matters, appear to be blasphemous and in contraction to II Timothy 3:16, it does show the value he placed on some of John's work.

John was also one especially loved by Jesu. Five times it is recorded that Jesus loved John (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). Here is one of those times:

The Bible itself is about love and John's writings reflect that. Jesus loved John so much that He entrusted His mother Mary to John:

John wrote what is perhaps the most famous passage in the entire New Testament, which says:

John wrote a lot about love, with the next passages as some of the more famous ones from his Gospel account:

John taught that God is love, and pointed out certain contrasts to love his epistles:

And interestingly, although he was in charge of the church and lived in Ephesus, Jesus had him write this to the church at Ephesus:

John was the only biblical writer to use the specifically used the terms antichrist or 666.

This scripture says that antichrist is a deceiver who does 'not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh'.

This scripture states that the 'spirit of Antichrist' is not confessing that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and that apparently some of his teachings began when John was still alive.

Was John trying to day that 'spirit of Antichrist' is not acknowledging that there was a person named Jesus? This seems highly unlikely as even atheists acknowledge there was one referred to as Jesus Christ who lived in the flesh.

Might this spirit of Antichrist have something to do with a teaching that denies that a member of the Godhead actually emptied Himself of His divinity to become human? Even though that is what happened according to Philippians 2:6-7? Please see the article Binitarian View.

Notice that the Apostle John taught that there would be basically two groups: a group that followed his practices and teachings and another that would claim to but would not. Essentially, there are still two groups today (for details about others who taught about the two groups in early church history, please see Early Church History: Who Were the Two Major Groups Professed Christ in the Second and Third Centuries?).

It is interesting to note that the Roman Catholic Church does believe that there are references in John's writings to Rome, and that they are negative. Specifically, John warned about Babylon throughout the Book of Revelation, called the Book of the Apocalypse in Roman Catholic writings. Here is some of what John wrote (Catholic Rheims translation):

Of course, Rome is the most famous city of seven hills in the entire earth. And John is writing that this woman has some influence over worldly kings.

The Roman Catholics suggest that by mentioning Babylon, that John is only referring to the Roman state or those that are reprobate (Victorinus is consider a "Church Father" by Roman Catholics). However, it appears clear that even the Catholics admit that John is referring to a reprobate church (he used the analogy of a woman) as Babylon. A reprobate church would seem to be one that incorporates non-biblical practices (such as certain traditions) as superior to biblical ones.

But irrespective of these passages, John (the last living original apostle) never writes anything positive about Rome or the church there.

As John got older, he noticed that various ones who claimed to have been taught by the apostles were not continuing in the ways they had learned from apostles such as him. Here is some of what he wrote about that,

Notice that John specifically wrote that those that did not follow what he was teaching those who were with them, that they are not of God! John knew the difference between truth and error. John recorded the following statement from Jesus:

John's most famous disciple was probably Polycarp of Smyrna. Notice a relatively recently found and translated ancient document (c. third century) that supports this:

So, John is shown to have taught Polycarp. Notice that John passed the canons to Polycarp, this would seem to mean (at that time in history) the books of the Bible and/or the way of real Christianity.

Polycarp or his associate Papias (Holmes, p. 560) is credited for being Irenaeus' source for items such as that the term 666 may mean Roman man. (Irenaeus himself says he did the calculation based on what those who knew John said). Irenaeus wrote:

It should be noted that there is no record that either Polycarp or Papias wrote positive things about Rome.

The Apostle John wrote what is known as the fourth gospel as well as three letters and the Book of Revelation. Some realize this, though some do not wish to believe this:

Recently The Huffington Post and other publications have explored two new books relating to the person of Jesus Christ and the Gospel of John. Both books dismiss the possibility that the Apostle John actually wrote the Fourth Gospel or that Jesus of Nazareth is accurately portrayed in its contents. These are not innovative assertions. Both new books follow old lines of scholarship and skepticism that reject the divine claims of Christ, the historicity of his miracles, and the active theism that permeates the New Testament record. But many others scholars -- the ones less often interviewed in the media -- hold a valid countering view: Both internally and externally there is strong evidence the Apostle John was behind the writing of the Fourth Gospel and that he composed his account with the accuracy of an eyewitness and the pen of a brilliant thinker

Though the first two centuries of Christianity were years of persecution and dispersion, wreaking havoc on record keeping, we have clear indications the early Christians were confident of the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel. For example, John had a disciple named Polycarp (AD 69-155), a young man who heard the apostle's sermons in Ephesus, absorbed his teaching and became a bishop and martyr in nearby Smyrna. Polycarp had a follower named Irenaeus (AD 130-200), who became Bishop of Lyons and who wrote: "John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on him, himself also published the Gospel in Ephesus, when he was living in Asia." Thus we have a direct chain of early evidence and personal testimony linking John to Polycarp to Irenaeus and avowing John's authorship of the Fourth Gospel.

We additionally have the writings of Theophilus of Antioch, who died in AD 181. Quoting word-for-word from John 1:1, Theophilus said: "And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing men, one of whom, John, says, 'In the beginning was the Word.'"

Then there's the Muratorian Fragment, an early list of New Testament books giving short accounts of the origin and contents of the canonical books. According to this document, the author of the Fourth Gospel was the apostle John.

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215), an educator in Egypt, made a similar assertion: "But that John, last of all, conscious that the outward facts had been set forth in the [first three] Gospels, was urged on by his disciples, and divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel." In other words, after the other three Gospels appeared, John was urged by friends to write an account explaining the theological and spiritual aspects of the person of Christ.

Moreover we have the record of Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 260-340), the "Father of Church History," who had access to early documents some of which are now lost to us, and who lived in Palestine where the Gospel events took place. He wrote that after the outbreak of persecution in Jerusalem the apostles were scattered across the world, and John went to modern-day Turkey and lived in the city of Ephesus. According to Eusebius, there was no debate about the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. Eusebius said: "Now let me indicate the undisputed writings of this apostle (John). His Gospel, read by all the churches under heaven, must be recognized first of all." According to Eusebuis, John lived in Ephesus, read the synoptic Gospels, welcomed them and affirmed their accuracy; but wanting to make some additional points, he composed his account.

Even in Roman times amid growing pains and persecution, we have testimony from Europe (Lyons), the Middle East (Caesarea), Africa (Alexandria), and Asia (Antioch), all attesting to the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. Biblical scholar William Hendrickson said: "Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and Theophilus show us that in the last quarter of the second century the Fourth Gospel was known and read throughout Christendom: in Africa, Asia Minor, Italy, Gaul, and Syria, and that it was ascribed to the well-known John."

We also have an interesting discovery now exhibited at the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England, called the Ryland Fragment. It was excavated about a hundred years ago, just as scholars were convinced the Fourth Gospel couldn't have been written in the first century, its philosophy and theology being so developed. This small scrap of papyrus was found in Egypt and dated to the time of Hadrian, perhaps about AD 125. It contained lines from John 18, which demonstrates the Gospel of John was in wide circulation with copies being read in Egypt on papyri within a few years of John's death. Since John is widely accepted as the last of the four Gospels, this discovery supports the conclusion all four Gospels were first century documents that spread across the Roman world within a generation.

If any other ancient text were affirmed by this kind of evidence, its authorship would be virtually unquestioned. What if these early witnesses had better understanding of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel than today's well-meaning writers whose agendas are sometimes influenced by anti-supernatural presuppositions? I have no hesitation accepting the view that the Apostle John wrote this book, and in fact, I can't imagine anyone else who could have done it. Admittedly, Christianity doesn't stand or fall on the precise identity of the author of the Fourth Gospel -- the author identifies himself only as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." But it does stand or fall on the identity of Jesus Christ, and on whether he was a legend, a liar, a lunatic, or the person John presents him to be -- the Lord of all.

Letting John be John and Jesus be Jesus is a solution that leaves me intellectually satisfied and spiritual enriched. As John said near the end of his Gospel: "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

Before going further, perhaps it should also be mentioned that a 2nd century collection of writings (which contains some erroneous doctrines), related to the Apostle John, has the following:

While the above is not scripture, notice that it identifies the “Lord’s Day” as the seventh day of the week, and also points to the belief that John put Polycarp over the church. So, neither of those are new concepts in the 21st century. Furthermore, the idea that the seventh day if the Lord’s Day is consistent with Jesus’ words in Matthew 12:8 Mark 2:28, and Luke 6:5 stating He is “Lord of the Sabbath” day.

Polycrates was a late 2nd century Christian leader from Ephesus and successor to John and Polycarp. When Roman Bishop Victor wanted all the churches in Asia Minor to change the observance of Passover from its original date of the 14th of Abid to a Sunday, Polycrates wrote the Roman leader stating:

From Polycrates' account we learn that John died in Ephesus, and that he and those who followed with would not deviate from scripture, understood that they needed to obey God rather than men, and refused to observe a Sunday Passover (which Roman Bishop Victor insisted on).

It should be understood that the Church of Rome has long recognized that the Apostle John had practices that differed from it. Roman Catholic priest and scholar Bagatti admits this regarding John:

Thus, it was the original practice of “the mother Church” to keep Passover (often wrongly translated as “Easter” in English) on the 14th. Some Catholics have apparently, however, used human reason and false tradition to ignore John’s practice. Notice what the medieval historian and Catholic Priest Bede (also known as “the Venerable Bede”) recorded from a Catholic Abbot named Wilfrid who was trying to justify near the beginning of the eighth century why it was acceptable to not follow the Apostle John’s practices regarding Passover:

Hence, John and the faithful in Ephesus did what the Bible taught. But Roman Catholics claim there is a later tradition from an unknown time that Peter supposedly reasoned that if Jesus was resurrected on the first day of the week, that the anniversary of His death should be observed on a Saturday night instead.

This is illogical, as well as inaccurate. The Continuing Church of God has kept the practices and teachings of the Apostle John. Unlike those associated with Rome, we have not protested against his teachings.

Nor do I believe that John kept the correct date of Passover out of fear of the Jews. Nor is there any evidence that Peter had a different practice than John (especially since they are shown to be together throughout the New Testament).

There is nothing in the Bible or the historic accounts to indicate that this was the case (furthermore, it is more likely that Sunday was adopted out of fear of the Romans). The Roman Catholics should simply admit that although John kept Passover on the biblically correct date, they changed the date because of compromise and anti-Jewish sentiments. (More on Passover is included in the article Passover and the Early Church.)

And one of those biblically observed traditions was the observance of Passover on the 14th for over a century by those of Ephesus and Smyrna (Trajan reigned from 98-117, see also Timelines of Early Church History; it is generally felt that John did not live too many years into the reign of Trajan).

Thus, even an early Greco-Roman Catholic saint admitted in writing that those in Ephesus during his time (late 2nd century) were true to what they had learned from the apostles—and that included Passover. Since the Bible warns that those who do not follow the practices of John are antichrists, those wishing to be faithful should give heed to follow the examples in the Bible and of John and observe Passover when he did. They should not accept later traditions when they conflict with the Bible.

Understand that the Bible shows, an apostle is the highest spiritual position in the church,

Thus, it does not seem biblically reasonable that a local elder in Rome ruled the true Church at a higher level than a prominent apostle ordained by Jesus and noted to be a pillar by Paul.

Notice that in first John, John made it clear that he taught what he learned from the beginning:

Thus, the Bible is clear that John taught the truth of Christianity from the beginning. And he taught it so that others could have the same fellowship with the Father and the Son. Thus, the Bible shows that faithful would follow John (not the practices of the successors of Linus or Cletus) in order to be true Christians. John kept Passover on the 14th and those who claim to have apostolic succession with the practices of Jesus and the apostles would need to keep Passover on the 14th.

And here is some of how The Catholic Encyclopedia recognizes about John's prominence,

But there is no scriptural reason to think that John only considered that the churches in Asia Minor were under his leadership. Actually, in one of his other letters, John also wrote "To the elect lady and her children" (2 John 1)--which appears to be a reference to the entire Church (see also Revelation 12:17). Hence he felt he had a leadership position related to the entire Church, not just those in Asia Minor.

Therefore, it is no surprise since John outlived Peter and all the other original apostles that any church leadership succession would have transferred to him.

Notice that even the Greco-Roman Catholics admit that John guided the churches in Ephesus. It would seem illogical that since many of the Roman Catholics claim to have had four 'bishops of Rome' (after Peter) (Lopes A. Translation by Charles Nopar. The Popes. Pontifical Administration, Rome, 1997) before John died, that John, an original apostle, would be subservient to them. This is especially true since none of those 'bishops of Rome' claim to have held the position of apostle--a bishop is essentially an elder who is a pastor or overseer (compare Acts 20 vss. 17 and 28). Even the noted Roman Catholic scholar F.A. Sullivan writes, “…in Luke’s day, local church leaders could be called either elders or overseers, without a clear distinction between the terms” (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 65) (overseers in this passage is the translation from the Greek term episkopoi which also means bishop).

Furthermore, according to Roman Catholic sources, there were no bishops in Rome prior to the second century (and Peter died in the first century):

As the Bible shows, an apostle is the highest spiritual position in the church, "And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles" (1 Corinthians 12:28). Thus it does not seem biblically reasonable that an elder (not even if there were a bishop ranked one) in Rome ruled the true Church at a higher level than a prominent apostle ordained by Jesus.

Early writings had a variety of positive titles and statements about Apostle John (e.g. Polycrate's Letter; Harris Fragments; Irenaeus Fragments 2,3; Irenaeus Against Heresies, V, 18:2).

Roman Catholics may be surprised that the Roman and Orthodox Catholis saint (who they also call a "doctor of the church"), John Chrysostom clearly stated that the Apostle John, who Jesus called a son of thunder (Mark 3:17) and the one who learned upon Jesus (John 21:20), had the keys of heaven himself:

Although John Chrysostom is not wrong to teach that John was one who received 'the keys,' his teaching differs from the most common view in the Church of Rome that Peter alone had the keys (see Was Peter the Rock Who Alone Received the Keys of the Kingdom?).

The Apostle John was a recognized apostle, disciple, writer, leader, and faithful teacher.

Ephesus

Ephesus was biblically important. John lived in Ephesus and despite him being apparently the last of the original apostles to die, not all accepted his leadership and form of church governance. Here is something he apparently wrote from Ephesus:

Prior to this, the Apostle Paul did many important miracles in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-17). He also said "I will tarry in Ephesus until Pentecost. For a great and effective door has opened to me" (1 Corinthians 16:8-9). This shows that not only did the Church in Ephesus keep the Feast of Pentecost, it was in Ephesus that a great door to proclaim the Gospel was opened for Paul and the church.

It is in Paul's letter to the Ephesians that the offices of church government are listed, with apostles again listed ahead of pastors,

The early Church in Ephesus was led by Paul for at least three years (Acts 20:17,31), probably Timothy (1 Timothy 1:3), and later John. Ephesus clearly was a Gentile church (Ephesians 2:11;3:1) that kept God's Holy Days such as Pentecost (1 Corinthians 16:8) and Passover/Unleavened Bread (as Polycrates’ later testimony indicates). Paul, who was given to be the apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7; Ephesians 3:8) and approved to do so by Peter and John (Galatians 2:7-9), played a major role in the church at Ephesus.

In the early 4th Century, Eusebius wrote, “Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus" (Eusebius. Church History. Book III, Chapter 4.). An episcopate means a bishopric (or pastorate), which demonstrates that in the time of Timothy, evangelist ranked ministers (2 Timothy 4:5) and not mainly apostles, were considered to be bishops (Roman Catholic accepted writings do not normally refer to bishops as apostles). Hence, this further suggests that the Apostle John would not be subservient to any bishop of Rome as most historians believe he came to Ephesus after Timothy (though even if he came before, he still was never under Timothy's ecclesiastical authority).

The above is one of a few early sources that state that John was based out of Ephesus (another, probably later was Tertullian. The Prescription Against Heretics. Chapter 36. Translated by Peter Holmes. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 3. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Around 25 years after Jerusalem was destroyed the first time, John was inspired to write

Unlike Rome (which apparently, according Roman Catholic and other sources is condemned in Revelation), Ephesus was a church commended by Christ in the book of Revelation, and at that time was the second largest city (after Alexandria) in Asia Minor (more can be found in the article The Ephesus Church Era).

Many Roman Catholics point to Matthew 16:18-19 as proof that the authority of the Church was given just to Peter and his successors in Rome, "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."" But of course Peter died, Jesus is the Rock (1 Corinthians 10:4), and Rome was not mentioned. As these verses show, it is the true Church, and not a location, that was not to be prevailed against by death.

In his letter to the Ephesians, the Apostle Paul makes clear that the Church was not just built on Peter but is built on the foundation of the apostles (plural) AND the prophets, with Jesus as the CHIEF cornerstone, and including all the members in the church as well,

By combining these passages in Matthew and Ephesians, we may be learning that just like Peter was a predominant apostle until his death that Ephesus itself would be the predominant church until, as Revelation 2:1-10 allows, Smyrna gained predominance—with the true Church of God never dying out. While the Roman and Orthodox Churches teach that the same church organization itself would continue, Revelation 2 & 3 shows a series, in an apparent overlapping succession of Churches of God, each with somewhat different strengths and weaknesses.

The following non-biblical account from Irenaeus indicates that John was very seriously opposed to heretics:

An Armenian writing from 600 A.D. states that it was followers of Cerinthus who first proposed a December 25th Christmas festival, which first spread among the Greeks. And while that is difficult to prove (and Rome itself did not adopt a December 25th Christmas until the fourth century), Cerinthus did hold to improper theological concepts and he taught allegorizing of scripture, taught that non-biblical tradition was more important than scripture, blended Gnostic teachings with the Bible, implemented improper festivals, claimed to be an apostle, and claimed that angels gave him messages. More on Cerinthus can be found in the article Cerinthus: An early heretic.

The Apostle John commended the Church at Ephesus because, "you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars" (Revelation 2:2), thus indicating that the faithful there did not accept the false Cerinthus.

Since both Peter and John prepared Jesus' last Passover together, both would know when it was.

Jesus frequently trained the two of them, by themselves, or with only one other apostle:

Note: James and John were the two sons of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21). Also note that the "James" that Paul referred to in Galatians 2:9 was a different James. But it was the same "John" in all of the verses listed here.

Thus, the idea that John would takeover as the primary leader of the Church after the death of Peter (and all the other apostles for that matter) is not only logical, but consistent with what the New Testament shows about him (the New Testament never shows that Peter spent time with, or even necessarily knew, Linus).

John, who spent much time with Peter, worked with Peter, and outlived Peter, is clearly the logical apostolic successor to Peter. John also wrote the last several books of the New Testament and was the logical one who actually canonized the New Testament (The New Testament Canon - From the Bible Itself).

When he was fairly old, John reportedly was taken to Rome from Ephesus, then suddenly exiled to Patmos, by Emperor Domitian then returned to Ephesus:

It has been reported that this exile to Patmos happened because the Emperor's efforts to kill John in oil did not work. Here is one account of the oil incident:

Whether or not John actually was plunged into oil, about this time, a schism occurred in Corinth and someone apparently decided to contact the Christians in Rome for assistance (possibly because John may have been in Rome then). The response that came was delayed “[b]ecause of the sudden and repeated misfortunes and reverses which have happened to us” (The Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians commonly known as First Clement. Verse 1. Holmes MW, ed. As translated in The Apostolic Fathers Greek Texts and English Translations. Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 3rd printing 2004, pp. 28-29 ) (perhaps including John’s exile). If this letter was sent to Rome because John and others were there, it simply shows that some in Corinth were trying to contact the leadership of the Church. Also, it seems logical that those in the Church at Rome may have decided that since John was being exiled, they should simply respond with their opinion.

Although many Roman Catholics suggest the response sent (which they call 1 Clement) is definitive proof that the Bishop of Rome was the ruling Church, the letter actually refers to its contents only as “our advice” (Ibid, Verse 58..2, pp. 94-95) , does not list any author, and does not otherwise prove anything about Roman authority (other Catholic scholars realize that since Clement is not listed as the author that this was not definitive proof of the authority of any Roman bishop, see What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History?).

Perhaps, it should be noted that Ignatius, while in Smyrna, sent a letter “via the Ephesians” to the Church in Rome (Ignatius. Letter to the Romans. Verse 10. In Holmes. pp. 176-177) as well as other letters to several other churches; so based on Corinthian letter logic, Roman Catholics should have more reason to accept Asia Minor as the ruling Church instead of Rome. But even more so, because Ignatius specifically acknowledged that the Church in Ephesus had been predestined for greatness by God, as he wrote, “to the church at Ephesus in Asia, blessed with greatness through the fullness of God the Father, predestinated before the ages for lasting and unchangeable glory forever” (Ignatius. Letter to the Ephesians. Verse 0. In Holmes. pp. 136-137).

As previously quoted, Paul once noted that it was "James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars" (Galatians 2:9) of the Church in Jerusalem (Cephas is the Aramaic word for Peter). Once James and Peter were killed, this only left one pillar, the Apostle John. Is it logical that John would be the leader to succeed Peter?

It is Ephesus, and not Rome, that the Bible gives pre-eminence for the start of a major Gentile church. It is logical that these offices would be listed for the church at Ephesus as it would become the predominant church during the apostolic era. Also note that this governance structure was intentionally designed to prevent the church from being tricked doctrinally and other ways. It was also in Asia Minor (Caesarea), and not Italy, that the Holy Spirit was first poured out on the Gentiles (Acts 10:47). It was specifically the Gentiles of the Church of Ephesus that Paul states were added to the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets and Christ (Ephesians 2:20). Even the Catholic Irenaeus noted, “the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles” (Eusebius. Church History. Book III, Chapter 4).

But Ephesus was not to remain predominant, and may have ceased being so about 135 A.D.—this is about same time of the second destruction of Jerusalem and possibly when Polycarp sent out his letter to the Philippians.

Now John greatly outlived Peter and is believed to have lived as late as 95-100 A.D. John had a disciple named Polycarp who became the bishop of Smyrna. Polycarp was probably 25-30 years old when John died. Polycarp himself lived until his was martyred around 156 A.D.

Notice that Tertullian (who must have known some of the differences between the two groups) felt that only two groups could claim ties to the apostles. But according to admissions from more modern Roman Catholic scholars, only Asia Minor had demonstrable true apostolic succession (for more details, please see What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History?).

The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches that "the See of Ephesus, {was} founded by St. John the Apostle" (Gerland, Ernst. The Byzantine Empire. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. Nihil Obstat. November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 2 Feb. 2010 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03096a.htm>). Because the "See of Ephesus" was founded by the Apostle John, it should be clear that the church he founded was not "Protestant," but an original Church of God (which also was called 'the Church of God" is Smyrna by Ignatius, see Ignatius' Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Verses 0-1.1. In Apostolic Fathers. Lightfoot & Harmer, 1891 translation). Because the Continuing Church of God traces its leadership history from Peter through John, then Polycarp and other Church of God leaders, we are NOT Protestant, but a continuation of the original apostolic Church of God (see also the free online book: Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God Differs from Protestantism).

Although often discounted now, originally, Ephesus was recognized as important. Notice what the theologian and historian John M. Neale explained in 1850:

Notice that Ephesus was the real true church with “apostolic succession” and that it took struggles for Constantinople to claim to be above it.

It has been written that John's direct successor was Polycarp, "Polycarp, the successor of St . John in the see of Ephesus" (Wall JC. The first Christians of Britain. Talbot & Co., 1927. Original from the University of California, Digitized Sep 25, 2007, p. 34)--but Polycarp did not seem to be prominent over much of true Christendom until Jerusalem was taken over in 135 A.D.

That area had prominent faithful leaders until some time into the third century.

After a synod in 2011, a claimed Greek Orthodox group put up a website that has the following list:

(It should be noted that the Bible refers to Timothy as an evangelist in Timothy 4:5 and neither he nor Onesimus were biblically referred to as apostles.)

While it is true that there was apostolic succession from the Apostle John and including all of those leaders, the Greek Orthodox are misleading all by trying to hint that they are the true successors of these leaders--it is only groups like the Continuing Church of God that have the same teaching of those leaders--the Greek Orthodox do not.

It should also be noted that I put together a list of all the above from the Apostle John to Apollonius in 2008, with similar dates, showing how the true Christian Church, now best represented by the Continuing Church of God had apostolic succession from the Apostle John (I did NOT get this from the Greek Orthodox; the above group may have copied some of it as I have had it online since 2008). This information was also part of a free online book: Continuing History of the Church of God.

The Apostle John wrote the Book of Revelation (also called the Apocalypse), which records seven churches. Some feel that the messages to the churches represent seven consecutive eras of the true Church, essentially as a description of things that are and a prophecy of things to come.

The Philadelphia remnant of the true Church of God believes that portions of the Book of Revelation teach the history of the the true church as those of seven succeeding churches.

The church that came after Ephesus was Smyrna. And the leader in Smyrna was Polycarp, the disciple of John. Does it not make sense that the last Apostle and leader of the church in Ephesus would pass the overall leadership of the church (there could have been a time of transition with others like Ignatius involved until Smyrna became prominent) to his disciple, the faithful leader of the church who lived in Smyrna? (An article of related interest might be The Smyrna Church Era).

John taught love, which is the theme of the Bible. John was the disciple that Jesus loved (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20).

Biblical, Catholic and other sources acknowledge that John was an apostle who was a major leader in the church. He was a leader in Jerusalem, traveled in a leadership position, and spent time with leading apostles such as Peter and Paul.

John went to Ephesus of Asia Minor and wrote various books of the Bible from there. John was still writing books of the Bible when some claim there had already been 3-4 bishops of Rome (there allegedly were 4 bishops of Rome after Peter died before John is believed to have died). Furthermore since there were no bishops of Rome until the second century (the listed ones seem to have been merely local elders), it is illogical that Apostolic succession would occur in Rome instead of in Asia Minor. For centuries, even the Roman Church admitted that there had been apostolic succession from John in Asia Minor (which some have called the "See of Ephesus"). And the records of history show that this was basically true until sometime into the third century.

John was the longest living of the original Apostles. He was the one that Jesus especially loved. Since an apostle is a higher rank than a presbyter/elder, it makes no sense that while John was alive that the leadership of the true church was in Rome and not under him.

John's disciple Polycarp, was the leader of the church in Smyrna. A church that is considered to have been a faithful one by Catholic and other sources. We in the Continuing Church of God trace our succession through him through John after Peter.

The Apostle John, sometimes called John the Evangelist

Hierarchical Succession of the Patriarchal See of Ephesus