Let us now briefly consider a few salient points.
Why the name John?
First, it is important that we understand why Lazarus, upon his initiation, had to be called John. The reason goes back to ancient times when human contact with the spiritual world still existed so that the inherent character of an incarnated being was known, and that person had to be called by that name.1 A person’s name could be changed only when there was a true change of character—it is the “New Man” concept of the New Testament, but by then it was only a vestige of earlier times. We all know of these—Abraham, Sarah, Jacob/Israel, Naboth/Elijah,2 Simon/Peter and Saul/Paul, to name only the most notable ones. That is the secret behind Evangelist John’s identity. His name was changed as a result of the initiation, the “raising,” of Lazarus—who thereby became John, at least among those with deepest insight. But again, why John?
The answer to this question is also the answer to that consummate enigma that ends John’s Gospel, verse 23 of the last chapter,
The “until I come” cannot have referred to Christ’s Resurrection because all of the disciples survived till that. By the time this chapter was written, probably all of the disciples had died except Lazarus/John (and possibly even he, though I think not), but that his death was near he certainly knew himself and the last thing he would have done is suggest to his future readers after he was gone that “the saying” was all a mistake since he too had died. So what could the verse mean? Only that in some way he was in fact to survive till the Parousia, the Second Coming.
It is shown in The Burning Bush that the “Second Coming” commenced early in the twentieth century,3 so if this verse is true, then in some manner John had to have stayed alive until our time. The “etheric body” in the above chart is also known as the “life body,” and it is also shown in The Burning Bush how the etheric (or life) body of high initiates is preserved for humanity in the Earth’s etheric realm,4 the realm in which the Second Coming is now occurring.5 In this way, in truth, Lazarus/John has survived until Christ has come again. And he has also survived, in a more metaphorical sense, in that his Gospel can only in our age now be read with understanding. It was written for our time—which is also why it had such a hard time getting into the canon in the fourth century.
The name “John” came from the Hebrew Johanan which combined Yahweh or Yah with “Anna.” And the “Anna” meant “grace.” The Christ event was an event of grace, as we find in the Prologue of John’s Gospel. The name “John” was unique in New Testament times because then it could be connected only with the source of grace, the Christ. In the New Testament, the name “John” had to describe one who was a forerunner or announcer of the Christ. This is why so much emphasis is laid on the fact that the Baptist had to be called “John” in the birth story in Luke’s Gospel.
Only three persons of significance emerged in the New Testament with the name John.6 These were the Baptist, Zebedee John and Lazarus/John. The Baptist announced the Christ in his earthly mission. Zebedee John was selected by Christ in the hope he could fulfill the role of announcing his coming again. But only when we see his failure in this respect can we then understand the heretofore puzzling statement of Christ in Mk 10,31, “But many that are first will be last, and the last first.” Christ was here saying, in between the “rich, young ruler” incident and the “raising of Lazarus” incident, that Zebedee John would have to step aside from that role and let the last of the appointed disciples take his place, “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” This disciple had to be named “John,” for by writing his Gospel he would be the announcer of the Christ in his coming again in the Age of Pisces, the Fishes.
The Wealth of Lazarus
The second point is that Lazarus/John was indeed a “rich” person. He was rich in two respects. First, like Paul he was rich in all the ancient esoteric tradition that Christ called “the fig tree.” So he would have become spiritually “ill” as this was passing away.7 But there is substantial evidence that he was also rich in worldly goods. Both of these are indicated by the fact that he was of the high priestly caste of Israel. We note that Luke identifies him this way in Acts 4,6, calling him “John,” but not identifying him as Lazarus. Lazarus was one with the rulers. Thus, Luke’s Gospel was the only one that referred to the “rich, young ruler” as a “ruler,” while all suggested he was wealthy. The fact that Lazarus was one of the ruling clan also identifies the “other disciple” with Peter who “was known to the high priest” and who entered with Jesus into the priestly court while Peter had to remain outside—and who later went outside to bring Peter in, when the maid asked Peter if he was not one of the disciples (which he denied), but the maid never asked that of the one who brought him in, for she recognized him as the priestly Lazarus (see Jn 18,15-18). Furthermore, it was the fact that Jesus had overtly initiated (“raised”) this high priestly member and taken him into his clan that triggered the resolve to put an end to Jesus, as clearly stated in John’s Gospel (see Jn 11,45-53, but especially Jn 12,9-11) where it indicates that “the chief priests planned to put Lazarus also to death, because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus.” Why was this? Because Lazarus was one of their leaders, a member of the high priestly caste—very influential, and nothing less than a traitor to Caiaphas and the other ruling clan.8
The third point is that there were always twelve disciples acting, never just eleven, even though there are references to Jesus’ appearing to “the eleven.” John’s Gospel shows why they refer only to “eleven.” In Jn 20,21 it says that Thomas was not with them when Jesus appeared. I cannot go into this as fully here as in The Burning Bush, but it was spiritually critical that there always be twelve disciples. So when Judas left the group, the disciple whom Jesus loved filled his place as one of the twelve and could thus refer to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” He then stepped aside when Matthias was elected to take Judas’ place, for John’s mission was to take the Mother of Jesus and to then write his unique Gospel for the future time when it would make the coming of Jesus clear.
Christ’s identification of Judas as the betrayer
The fourth point relates to the fact that there were two suppers during Holy Week and immediately before, as John’s Gospel tells us. All the Gospels report the second of these, the one in the upper room in Jerusalem. Only John’s Gospel tells us of the one six days before the Passover (Jn 12). It was at the house of Lazarus where his sister, Mary Magdalene, anointed Christ’s feet with costly ointment. The critical supper, for our present purposes, is the second, in the upper room.
The critical clue to what happened there is in the identification by Jesus of the one who would betray him. Jesus announced at this supper that he would be betrayed by one of them. In the three synoptic Gospels, they all asked who it was, but no answer was given that could identify the betrayer. Note that this took place during the dinner, for the betrayer was eating with Jesus then—as they all were. We also note that even though the betrayer was not then identified, all twelve, including Judas, participated in the Eucharist and the foot-washing by Jesus. Luke tells us that a dispute broke out among them as to who would be greatest, and we may presume that it was here the foot-washing occurred. But please notice that none of the synoptics mention the foot-washing—only John’s Gospel.
Now in John’s Gospel Judas is specifically identified by Jesus who handed him a morsel, whereupon his departure was witnessed by all of the disciples, leaving no question as to who it was. What had happened to move from the uncertain identity in the synoptics to the clear identification in John’s Gospel?
The closeness of Jesus and Lazarus/John caused the latter to be standing outside the door of the upper room with a basin of water, awaiting the certain moment when it would be necessary for Jesus to wash the feet. Thereupon Lazarus/John entered with the basin, and remained thereafter to lie upon the bosom of the Lord (“leaning upon the beloved,” as in the Song). Note that in John’s Gospel this all occurs after the Eucharist.
The relationship of John and Judas
The fifth point, consistent with Lazarus filling the shoes of Judas until the election of Matthias, is the relationship between Judas and John. The name Iscariot is related to the zodiacal sign of Scorpio, the scorpion, metaphorically in Paul’s letters, “the sting of death” (1 Cor 15,56). But the higher zodiacal counterpart of the scorpion is the Eagle. John was the Eagle, and that has from early days until now been the symbol of the John Gospel. John gives these four Gospel symbols in his Apocalypse at Rev 4,7, and if you will examine the twelve symbols of the zodiac, you will see that these four represent the four corners, lying ninety degrees apart from each other.9
But this zodiacal phenomenon pointed to the karmic connection, not only of all three of the John beings, but also to their lower counterpart, Judas. In keeping with that connection, Lazarus/John followed Judas and the capturing band to the Garden of Gethsemane, whence he then followed Jesus through the trials and all the way to the foot of the Cross—the only one of the twelve to do so.
The heretofore puzzling omissions in John’s Gospel
The sixth and last point is that this all explains why so many important things were not mentioned in John’s Gospel, things that until our day have been taken as deficiencies in it compared with the synoptic Gospels. The big three among these things that John didn’t mention are the Transfiguration, the Eucharist and Christ’s Passion in the Garden of Gethsemane. But we can now see that the reason he didn’t mention these things is that he was not present for any of them—and furthermore, by the time he wrote his Gospel they were all set out in the other Gospels. We might even suspect that their omission helped conceal his identity until the time was right for its disclosure in the Age of the Fishes.