the Gospel of John has a very high Christology, and yet it uses discipleship terminology throughout, even more than the Synoptic Gospels. But since John probably is not using the Synoptics as sources, it is possible that he is utilizing the term “disciple” in a different manner.
Historically and chronologically speaking, the Synoptic Gospels belong to the time after the destruction of Jerusalem. After some time, the eschatological expectations connected with this event started to wane and so the post-war communities had to prepare for life on earth. Therefore, discipleship became the way by which these communities started to build themselves up as they adjusted to the disappointment that accompanied the unrealized Parousia. Out of a growing number of oral traditions, they wrote the story of Jesus, describing him as appointing disciples. Now, whether or not the historical Jesus did that is irrelevant for our purpose here, although there is a good chance that Jesus did precisely that, especially if we take seriously the possibility that he himself had been a disciple of John the Baptist. Given this scenario, it is not unlikely that Jesus would have modeled the modus operandi of his teacher of having disciples and may have even implemented similar practices, such as style of proclamation (Mark 1:15) and piety (Luke 11:1).
Presenting Jesus as appointing disciples in order to help him in his ministry of proclamation, healing, and exorcisms (Mark 6:12) legitimized and encouraged later communities such as Mark’s to engage in the work of proclaiming the gospel to all nations (Mark 13:10), which then became their primary preoccupation. This task necessitated a structure, the church, which was made up of disciples (Matthew 28).
3. There are no references to disciple or discipleship in the Pseudo-Pauline Epistles, the Catholic Epistles, or Revelation.
But not all the communities that emerged after 70 CE utilized discipleship terminology in their writings. The Pseudo-Pauline Epistles, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, James, Judas, and Revelation do not use this terminology either. Why? If Paul was super-eschatological and the Synoptic Gospels and John were less so, does it necessarily follow that the higher the eschatological expectation, the lower the occurrence of disciple terminology? And, conversely, that the lower the eschatological expectation, the higher the use of disciple terminology? Let us consider the evidence more closely:
| Document | Level of Eschatology | Degree of Discipleship Terminology |
| Pauline letters | High | None |
| Synoptic Gospels | Moderate | High |
| Gospel of John | Low | High |
| Acts | Low | Moderate |
| Ephesians | None | None |
| Colossians | None | None |
| 2 Thessalonians | High | None |
| Pastoral Epistles | Low | None |
| 1 & 2 Peter | Low | None |
| James | Low | None |
| Revelation | High | None |
| Jude | None | None |
| 1, 2 & 3 John | None | None |
Our assumption cannot be fully corroborated, for there are documents that show a low eschatological expectation and, at the same time, show no DT (discipleship terminology). But at least in the case of Paul’s authentic letters, and in 2 Thessalonians and Revelation, the presence of eschatological language coincides with the absence of discipleship language. And in the case of the Synoptic Gospels, John and Acts, occurrences of less, or at least qualified, eschatological language appears to coincide with the presence of a robust DT. This is a considerable amount of material that at least preliminarily and partially justifies our hypothesis. Nevertheless, the presence of this technical terminology has to be explained differently.
One way of solving the problem is to say that the documents that demonstrate a low eschatological expectation, and which according to the general assumption enunciated above should have contained discipleship language, have replaced it with something akin and comparable to disciple terminology. K. H. Rengstorf provides some clarity on this issue when he notices that the book of Acts applies the term “disciple” to all believers, to Christians in general (cf. Acts 9:1; 13:52; 14:20; 16:1; 21:4, 16), but identifies that this is not the only term used by Luke to describe Christians. He also uses “believers,” “saints,” “brethren,” etc. Rengstorf suggests that the reason the Greek communities stopped using the term μαθητής to speak about believers was probably because “it tends to suggest that Christianity is simply a philosophical movement rather than personal fellowship with Christ as Lord.”70 Therefore, he argues for a sociological, and not necessarily theological, reason behind the absence of discipleship language.
The Meaning of the Term “Disciple” in the NT
The equivalent term for μαθητής in the Hebrew Scripture is talmid, which occurs only once, in 1 Chronicles 25:8. In the LXX, it does not even appear.71 According to Rengstorf, the reason for this absence is that the Hebrew Bible does not want to differentiate between a special group and the rest of the people, for God has chosen the whole people to learn God’s will, not a select group. Therefore, one cannot speak of a teacher-disciple relationship. The prophets of the Hebrew Bible were seemingly organized in guilds (“the sons of the prophets” in 2 Kgs 2:5, 7, 15, etc.), sharing the same charismatic endowment rather than devotion to a leader. Rengstorf notes that, for example, Joshua is the servant of Moses, but when Moses is gone Joshua enjoys full authority on his own, authority given by God (see Num 27:15–17; Josh 1:2–5). He is appointed as leader of the people by God, not by Moses. In the same manner, Elisha is commissioned by God, and receives authority directly from God, not from Elijah (2 Kgs 2:9–12; 3:11–12). Elisha’s relationship to Elijah is more that of a servant, an assistant or even a son, for he calls Elijah “father” (2 Kgs 2:12). Elisha, in turn, is called “father” by Joash, the king of Israel (2 Kgs 13:14). This same kind of relationship seems to be that of Baruch and Jeremiah’s (Jer 36:4–8). In other words, the teacher-disciple relationship, so prevalent in the Gospels, is non-existent in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The other problem that Rengstorf points out is that of an absence of the so-called “principle” of tradition. By this, he means the desire to fulfill the master’s intention and to preserve his sayings. This, which is a characteristic feature of the Greek philosophical world, is also missing in the Hebrew Scriptures, where Moses is not venerated as a liberator or founder of a religion, but more as the one on whose shoulders everyone who succeeds him stands.72 The reason for these distinctions, Rengstorf suggests, is that the religion of Israel is a religion of revelation. God reveals God’s will to the people through inspired stewards. Moses is one of them. He is presented as God’s minister (Exod 4:10–12), who acts on God’s behalf, not his own. His legislation comes from God, who is the Master or Teacher on whose name he, and the other stewards, speaks.73
But Rengstorf’s argument can be challenged on more than one count. First, even though the members of the prophetic guild enjoyed the same charismatic endowment, leadership was still recognized. Elisha calls Elijah “father” (2 Kgs 2:12) and the company of the prophets staying at Jericho refer to Elijah as Elisha’s “master” (2 Kgs 2:5). In the notes to the Harper Collins Study Bible, Robert Wilson states that “father” is a traditional title used for the head of a prophetic guild and also often used by a disciple speaking to a master.74 Secondly, one could say that Elisha’s petition to receive a double share of Elijah’s spirit points to Elisha’s special status as his successor, one who in many ways outshines his master. So even though the Spirit is equally distributed among all of the prophets, some have access to a privileged status by virtue of their relationship to the head of the guild. The other members of the prophetic guild recognize this when they say: “The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha” (2 Kgs 2:15). Their recognition of Elisha’s leadership role follows immediately, for they “bowed to the ground before him” (2 Kgs 2:15). Thirdly, Rengstorf’s idea that the principle of tradition is absent in the Hebrew Bible may be true, but still Elisha starts his ministry invoking the power of Elijah. There is perhaps no desire to fulfill the master’s intention and to preserve his sayings, but certainly Elisha starts his prophetic ministry invoking the God of Elijah (2 Kgs 2:14). If not preservation of sayings, at least we could talk of continuation of ministries, as well as an acknowledgment of the same source of power.
When we consider Jesus’ ministry, the parallelisms are striking. First, by coming to John to be baptized he acknowledges John’s