Chapter 3: THE EVIDENCE PRO & CON: WAS JOHN
"THE DISCIPLE WHOM JESUS LOVED"?

The Evidence Will Prove John Didn’t Do It!

This is no reflection on John, since there is no proof that he ever claimed to be the author of the Gospel that came to bear his name. This was the fault of others erroneously attributing it to him.

Certainly the Apostle John can’t be blamed for the mistakes of others and he is dead, so there is no way for him to correct it. The Bible, however, can set the record straight when it is carefully examined. God’s Word has all the evidence that we will need to discover the truth about this author.

Let’s begin by looking to see what the Bible reveals about John (the brother of James and son of Zebedee). We’ll contrast this with what is said about “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. As we do, time and again you will see that the evidence indicates that John and “the disciple whom Jesus loved” are two different people.

We will be analyzing a lot of information about “the disciple whom Jesus loved” as we go through this process. You will also be learning many of the facts that are needed to prove the identity of this individual as we take the time to see exactly how the evidence ‘clears’ John.

How Humble Was John?

In defending the idea that the Apostle John was the author of this Gospel, some will say that the reason John didn’t identify himself as the author was that he was just being humble. Is this reasonable?

In the Book of Revelation the Apostle John used his name repeatedly. Was John more prideful (less humble) when he wrote that book? Surely not, but this contrast between the behavior of John and that of the anonymous author cannot be overlooked.

Moreover, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is not the most humble-sounding self-description. If it wasn’t part of scripture, the author’s use of this designation might actually seem quite immodest. Wouldn’t it have been more humble for this author to have simply used his name rather than repeatedly refer to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”? Those who want to attribute this Gospel to John will be hard pressed to offer an answer to this question. But it turns out that the Biblical record suggests that the actual author had a very good reason to avoid identifying himself by name.

The notion that ‘humility was the reason that John did not use his name’ has other shortcomings. Consider what the Bible tells us about John and his brother. They’re named “The sons of thunder” by Jesus (Mk. 3:17) and we are told they sought power to call fire down from heaven to consume people (Lu. 9:54). They also proposed that they should be the ones sitting on the right hand and left hand of Jesus in his kingdom (Mk. 10:35-41, Mt. 20:20-24). Does that sound like humility?

Mark 10:41 says, “when the ten heard it they began to be much displeased with James and John”. Clearly it was not humbleness on the part of John and James but a lack thereof that caused this indignation among the remainder of “the twelve”!

This does not mean that John was never humble, of course. But the preceding facts were brought up merely to show that the Bible does not give us any reason to believe that John was unusually humble. Prior to the day of Pentecost at least, it seems that humility may have not been John’s strong point. Naturally, we would expect that the presence of the Holy Spirit after Pentecost would enable John to be more humble. However, that does not give us license to presume unfounded actions on the part of John or anyone else.

John used his name five times in the Book of Revelation. Moreover, nothing in the Bible suggests that John had a motive to hide his identity from the readers of this Gospel. Therefore, we can conclude that it is unfounded to suggest that John referred to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” in this Gospel simply because he wanted to be humble. This idea has no scriptural support whatsoever.

A Glaring Contrast

A simple truth can sometimes go unnoticed; but when we realize it or when it is pointed out to us, then we wonder how it could have been missed. Consider, for example, the other books contained in the scriptures that are attributed to the Apostle John. Can you guess what is missing from all of these other books?

None of these other books ever refers to the Apostle John as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”! So, if the Apostle John wrote the Gospel that bears his name, then what explains this glaring contrast?

In order to claim that the Apostle John wrote this Gospel, one needs to offer a rationale as to why John would exclude the phrase “the disciple whom Jesus loved” and this key identifying relationship from other books that are attributed to him. Then again, it might be that John is not called “the disciple whom Jesus loved” in any other book simply because he wasn’t “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. We have proof that John was willing to refer to himself by name (Rev. 1:1, 1:4, 1:9, 21:2 & 22:8). So perhaps this “other disciple” was someone else – someone other than one of “the twelve”.

Why Include John, But Exclude “The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved”?

There is plenty of additional evidence to show that John was not “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. For example, notice how differently the other Gospel writers treat these two. As noted earlier, John upset the rest of the disciples on at least one occasion (Mk. 10:41). Still the other Gospel writers had no problem including him in their Gospels. John’s name appears twenty times in the other three Gospels (excluding citations that refer to John the Baptist).

The other Gospel authors report that Jesus selected “Peter and James and John” for special duties (Mt. 17:1, Mk. 13:3 & 14:33, Lu. 8:51, etc.). Also in Luke 22:8 we see that Jesus picked “Peter and John” to go ahead and prepare the place for his last Passover. We will discuss the significance of these ‘special assignments’ a little later.

The point being made is that the writers of the other three Gospels are more than willing to tell us about John’s involvement in Jesus’ ministry. They openly refer to John’s presence and his actions associated with various events. But there is something peculiar about this. Do you see the incongruity that this presents?

The other three Gospel writers never referred to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” or the “other disciple”. As previously shown, they didn’t mention his presence even when we know he was present! (For an example compare Jn. 18:15-16 to Mt. 26:58, Mk. 14:54 & Lu. 22:54-55). Despite this, the other Gospel writers seem to have no problem when it comes to revealing John’s presence. Conversely, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is conspicuous by his absence (from the other three Gospels).

If “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was John, then this inconsistent treatment presents a problem. Since the other three Gospel writers mention John, but leave him out when recording events where the record in the fourth Gospel mentions “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, the “other disciple” etc., how did they know when to leave John out? Even if they had a copy of the fourth Gospel to know when to leave John out, this still doesn’t seem to make sense.

However, this discrepancy does make sense if John and “the disciple whom Jesus loved” are two different people. The other Gospel writers disregard the presence of “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, but they cite the presence of John, the brother of James and son of Zebedee.

Does the work of the other Gospel writers support a conclusion that the “other disciple” and John are one in the same? No, it does not – and one cannot avoid this inconsistency if they wish to say that John was the “other disciple”.

The other Gospels omit “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. Contrast this with references to John that you find occurring in those same Gospels. This distinct treatment suggests that these were different people, not the same individual. Also, if they were two different people, then the reason that the other Gospels treat them differently is understandable.

The Relationship Between Jesus And John

It is taught that Jesus had an ‘inner circle’ of disciples. This refers to the fact that sometimes only “Peter and James and John” were permitted to accompany Jesus (Mt. 17:1, Mk. 13:3 & 14:33, Lu. 8:51). These ‘special assignments’ were mentioned briefly in the last section. Being selected to be with Jesus on these occasions was certainly a special privilege that Peter, James and John enjoyed over the rest of the disciples.

We need to consider John’s inclusion in this so-called ‘inner circle’ because it has been used by many as a rationale for claiming that John was “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. They argue that this shows that John had a special relationship with Jesus and this belief leads them to the conclusion that the phrase “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is properly applied to John. Unfortunately this is not good logic, nor is it scriptural.

Remember that the Apostle John is not alone in these ‘inner circle’ passages. While John’s place in this ‘inner circle’ does suggest that he had a ‘special relationship’ with Jesus, the same could be said of Peter and James (and maybe Andrew also). There is no verse that indicates Jesus’ relationship with these other ‘inner circle’ Apostles was notably different than his relationship with John.

Jesus did select Peter and John to prepare his last Passover (Lu. 22:8). But this one verse isn’t a sufficient reason to conclude that Peter and John were the two closest disciples of Jesus. Nonetheless, many do think that Jesus’ two closest disciples were Peter and John – but this is because they’ve already been taught that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was John. This idea is so pervasive that most don’t notice when circular arguments are used to ‘prove’ that John was “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. [E.G., ‘Peter and John were the closest to Jesus and Peter wasn’t the “other disciple”, therefore this “other disciple” must be John.’ Clearly, Peter wasn’t “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn. 13:23-24, 20:3 & 21:20). However, this tells us nothing about John because this argument rests on a false premise. ]

Although superficial ‘arguments’ might appear to support the theory that John was “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, the evidence contained in the Bible proves otherwise. Furthermore, there is no reason for assuming that this “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” had to be one of the ‘inner circle’ members. As you’ll see, the author called himself “the other disciple” for a very important reason – because he was “other” than “the twelve”.

Peter Was Foremost Among “The Twelve”

Peter was the first disciple renamed by Jesus (Jn. 1:42). Jesus called Peter blessed (Mt. 16:17). An angel mentioned Peter by name on resurrection morning (Mk. 16:7). Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep (Jn. 21:15-17). Moreover, Peter was the one chosen to give the sermon on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14). Thus it is unmistakable that Peter was the disciple who stood out among “the twelve”.

One would expect Peter to stand out from the rest of “the twelve”, because that fits with what the scriptures reveal about him (but the same thing can’t be said when it comes to John). When Jesus was arrested, his disciples fled (Mt. 26:56, Mk. 14:50). However, Peter at least found the courage to follow Jesus (Mt. 26:58, Mk. 14:54, Lu. 22:54, Jn. 18:15) – although his three denials did begin soon thereafter.

There was only one of “the twelve” who had a very special and distinct relationship with Jesus and that was Peter. [As stated earlier, Peter was not “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn. 21:20).] Prior to Pentecost, the scriptures do not single out John in a similar manner. Besides the fact that he participated in the ‘inner circle’, nothing insinuates that John was ‘a cut above’ the rest of “the twelve” (pre-Pentecost).

Conversely, the scriptures do imply that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was ‘a cut above’ the rest of the disciples and we will go into detail about this later. Furthermore, a unique and very close relationship with Jesus is precisely what the term “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is acknowledging. Do you believe that John’s place in the ‘inner circle’ provides a basis to say that he had a relationship with Jesus equivalent to that of “the disciple whom Jesus loved”? This is a huge stretch, but without it the ‘case’ for John goes nowhere.

The Behavior And Character Of John

Now we will compare the character of John to what is disclosed about “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. (Remember that we are talking about the pre-Pentecost Apostle John.) First, let’s consider the behavior of John during one of the key events in Jesus’ life. The Bible reveals that when Jesus went to the Garden of Gethsemane, he specifically asked for John’s support. Matthew 26:37 says Jesus, “took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee and began to be sorrowful and very heavy”. Then Jesus had a simple request, “watch” (Mt. 26:38, Mk.14:34).

Regrettably, John and the other two couldn’t even stay awake for Jesus while he stepped away to spend some time in prayer. When Jesus returned he found them sleeping and his dismay was clear when he said to Peter, “could ye not watch with me one hour?” (Mt. 26:40, Mk. 14:37). Again Jesus left to pray and John let him down a second time. When he returned the second time, Jesus “found them asleep again” (Mt. 26:43, Mk.14:40). The third time that Jesus went to pray the same thing occurred.

The point is that John didn’t have the strength to stay awake for Jesus in this time of need – even though Jesus specifically asked him to do so. The subsequent trial and crucifixion of Jesus would have certainly been much more traumatic and frightening events. (In that desperate period even Peter denied Jesus, before abandoning him completely.)

Matthew 26:37-45 and Mark 14:33-41 give us a feel for just how much the ‘inner circle’ disciples disappointed Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane that night. Jesus knew he had been betrayed and that he would be killed before the end of Passover. But Jesus’ urgent requests were not able to rouse John and the ‘inner circle’ to action. Immediately following this series of failures by the ‘inner circle’, an armed and hostile crowd surrounds Jesus and hauls him off to trial.

Since John did not have the stamina to stand with Jesus at Gethsemane, why should we believe that just a short time later John abruptly changed – and that John (and only John) found the fortitude in himself to be enduring for Jesus that fateful night?

The Bible does not indicate that John acted notably different from the rest of Jesus’ disciples on that night. Yet one has to believe this if they believe that John was “the other disciple”, because we know that after Jesus was arrested and his disciples fled, this unnamed individual “followed Jesus” (Jn. 18:15).

The Bible also says that while dying on the cross, Jesus saw “the disciple standing by, whom he loved” (Jn. 19:26). Therefore, the Bible suggests that this “disciple” was with Jesus for the period of time that is covered between John 18:15 and John 19:27. But this behavior stands in stark contrast to the actions of the Apostle John earlier that same evening, when John couldn’t even manage to stay awake for Jesus.

The Scriptures Present A Contrast

The important thing is to note the timing – all of this happens in one night. Earlier in the evening at the Garden of Gethsemane, the Apostle John let Jesus down three times. Later that same night before Jesus was tried, the “other disciple” showed up and went in with Jesus (Jn. 18:15). And we also know that this “other disciple” was standing by the cross until Jesus gave him a different assignment (Jn. 19:25-27). This is a stark contrast. Think about this fact and then ask yourself, Does the evidence support the conclusion that the “other disciple” and John are the same person or does it indicate they are more likely two different people?

When you compare scripture with scripture you find that the evidence indicates that John and “the other disciple” are two different individuals. This “other disciple” exhibited a boldness and moral strength that set him apart from the rest of the disciples. He was the one that stayed with Jesus until the time of his death. He was the first of the disciples at Jesus’ vacant tomb on resurrection day (Jn. 20:2-4). Furthermore when he went into the tomb that morning, the scripture says he “believed” (Jn. 20:8) – the first disciple after the resurrection to do so. Although all of this speaks well of the “other disciple”, it does not in any way suggest that this person was the Apostle John. On the contrary, all of the facts indicate that the “other disciple” and the Apostle John were two different people – because they behave differently!

And they all forsook him and fled”

It’s true that the “other disciple” wasn’t the only one to exhibit courage on the night Jesus was arrested. Peter too, showed up that night to follow Jesus (Mt. 26:58, Mk. 14:54a, Lu. 22:54, Jn.18:15). However he remained outside, warming himself by a fire (Mk. 14:54b & 14:67, Lu. 22:55-56, Jn. 18:18). Then he denied Jesus (Mt. 26:70-74, Mk. 14:67-71, Lu. 22:57-60, Jn. 18:25). After he denied Jesus, Peter recalled Jesus’ prophecy of this and then he “went out” and “wept bitterly” (Mt. 26:75, Lu. 22:62). All of this occurred prior to Jesus being taken before Pilate and might appear to suggest that, unlike Peter, the “other disciple” was always present with Jesus.

Nevertheless, we need to think of both the “other disciple” and Peter as returning – when they “followed Jesus” that night. This is because of some things that Jesus had said earlier that evening. In John 16:32 he told his disciples, “ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone”. On the Mount of Olives a little bit later Jesus said, “All ye shall be offended because of me this night” (Mt. 26:31, Mk. 14:27). Of course, he was correct. Mark 14:50 tells us what happened just before Jesus was led away to the high priest. It says, “And they all forsook him and fled.”

So we should be careful not to assume that Peter and the “other disciple” did not flee the scene at Gethsemane, as did the rest of the disciples. And yet, we do read that these two “followed” Jesus that same night (Jn. 18:15). Although this might seem to be a discrepancy in the scriptures, it is not. With regard to Peter, consider the fact that the Bible tells us that Peter followed Jesus “afar off” (Mt. 26:58, Mk. 14:54, Lu. 22:54). This could be an indication that Peter was keeping a safe distance between himself and Jesus. On the other hand, Peter might have been following “afar off” as the result of fleeing first and then turning back to follow after the crowd had taken Jesus away.

Is it plausible that Peter might vacillate like this? Well after finding the courage to follow Jesus, Peter proceeded to deny even knowing Jesus. In addition, consider Peter’s vow to Jesus earlier that evening. Jesus had said, “All ye shall be offended because of me this night” (Mk. 14:27). But Peter objected to this and confidently singled himself out as being more reliable than the rest of the disciples. His reply was very adamant, “Although all shall be offended, yet not I” (Mk. 14:29). Jesus responds by foretelling Peter’s denials that were to come later that night (Mk. 14:30). Regardless, Peter continued to insist that Jesus was wrong. Mark 14:31 records Peter’s rebuff of this prophecy: “But he (Peter) spake the more vehemently, If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise”.

Is it reasonable to suggest that Peter might have remembered these words after fleeing? Yes. Whatever the reason though, it appears that Peter initially fled with the rest of the disciples before he followed Jesus that night. Of course this still leaves us with this same apparent dilemma regarding the “other disciple”. Did he flee or did he follow? As you will see later, there is an answer to this seeming discrepancy for the “other disciple” also.

Courage Under Fire

When we are careful not to force the identity of John on the text, our eyes become opened to questions about the unique character of “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. Why did he behave differently (as compared to the rest of the disciples)? After the rest of the disciples fled, how was it that this man found the courage to follow Jesus? And what gave him the fortitude to stick with Jesus that night, when even Peter finally threw in the towel and left?

If the ‘inner circle’ disciples couldn’t even stay awake for Jesus when he specifically asked them to do so, what could motivate this “other disciple” to accompany Jesus into his trial and to stand by the cross until Jesus dismissed him?

These questions raise yet another question. Is there some individual in the Bible that we could expect to exhibit these characteristics? Moreover, does the Bible give us enough evidence to explain why this “other disciple” behaved the way he did?

The answer to these last two questions is yes. As you will soon find out, the Bible contains the answer to all of these questions. First though, let’s remove any remaining doubts about the hypothesis that John was “the disciple whom Jesus loved”.

Chapter 4 - GOSPEL OF JOHN OR NOT? THE "OTHER DISCIPLE WHOM JESUS LOVED" WAS NOT JOHN