The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved
Chapter 4
A Wrong Assumption & More Evidence
The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved and the Last Supper
A misperception about Jesus’ last Passover tends to give credence to the idea that the author of the fourth gospel could be John. It stems from the fact that the Bible says “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was the person who “leaned on his breast at supper and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?” (Fourth gospel 21:20)
Scripture says Jesus “cometh with the twelve” (Mk 14:17) and “sat down” with “the twelve” (Mt 26:20, Lk 22:14). Therefore, many assume the beloved disciple had to be one of the twelve. Complicating this, there are also many Last Supper paintings that help instill an image in our mind of Jesus seated with the twelve, having a private supper with no one else in the room. These artist renditions and an erroneous assumption have led many people to accept a faulty conclusion.
The Bible never says the twelve were the only ones present with Jesus at this event. It does not say they were there alone and there is nothing to indicate Jesus’ other disciples were kept away. Is there any reason to believe Jesus and the twelve dined alone at that last Passover? Not unless one reads a constraint into the text that is not in Matthew 26:20, Mark 14:17, or Luke 22:14.
Keep in mind, as we have already seen, it is wrong to assume someone is not at an event simply because a passage of scripture does not mention him (cf. Fourth gospel 19:39-40, Mt 26:59-60, Mk 15:46, Lk 23:53).
Earlier it was pointed out it would be wrong to infer Peter was alone when he followed Jesus into the palace of the high priest simply because no one else is named in the reports of this event in the first three gospels. Peter was not alone when he entered the palace of the high priest. Yet, the first three gospels omit the “other disciple” even though he was the one who got Peter in the door! [As will be shown in a moment, Acts 1:21-22 also proves the twelve were not the only men who accompanied Jesus throughout his ministry.]
There are other examples, but the point is if we presume too much or build an argument from silence, we can easily miss the truth. The gospel writers knew how to specify a limited attendance when they meant to do so. Therefore, we must not assume those who are mentioned were the only ones at an event, unless the Bible itself specifies such a restriction.
Dinner Guests?
Scripture does not say the twelve were alone with Jesus during his last Passover. Thus, the next logical question becomes, does anything in the Bible indicate others might have been present? The answer is yes. Several things suggest this.
First off, Jesus and his disciples were guests in someone else’s home that night! Earlier that day “the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover? And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at thy house with my disciples” (Mt 26:17-18). Notice, there is no justification for assuming the occupants of this home were expected to cancel their own Passover meal and vacate the premises!
Moreover, Jesus was accustomed to dining with others. The residents of those households where he ate were included, not excluded. Mark 2:15 says, “as Jesus sat at meat in his [Levi’s] house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples.” Likewise, in Luke 11:37 it says, “a certain Pharisee besought him [Jesus] to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat.”
We also see this when Jesus was in Bethany six days before that Passover. We are told, “There they made him a supper, and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him” (Fourth gospel 12:2). This suggests other questions. Who worked at that Passover supper? Peter and John went earlier in the day and “made ready the Passover” (Lk 22:8-13). But who served the food and who cleaned up? Jesus and his disciples were house guests at the time. So, isn’t it likely their host took care of those details? And isn’t it also likely their host would have dined with them? (Fourth gospel 12:2, Lu. 7:36, 10:38-40, 11:37 & 24:29-30 confirm this is the case.) If the Bible never said the twelve were the only ones with Jesus at that supper, why would we think Jesus and the twelve spent the entire Passover alone by themselves?
Not Alone at the Passover
Other passages likewise indicate the twelve were not alone with Jesus that night. In Acts 1:21-26, a replacement for Judas was selected from a group who Peter identified as “men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us.” So, the twelve were not the only ones with Jesus during his earthly ministry. This is rarely discussed, but it proves that in addition to the twelve apostles, other disciples also followed Jesus throughout his earthly ministry. So, why assume these men were barred from the supper, if they were welcomed before and after it?
Also, in identifying his traitor Jesus said, “It is one of the twelve that dippeth with me in the dish” (Mk 14:20). In the gospels, “the twelve” is used only of those who Jesus named as “apostles” (Lk 6:13). “Disciples” refers to any of his followers, including some or all of “the twelve” (cf. Fourth gospel 6:66, Lk 19:37). For example, following the supper we see Jesus at Gethsemane with “his disciples” (Fourth gospel 18:1). This included the apostles, minus Judas. But it surely would have also included the apostle candidates of Acts 1:21-22, and we know the apostles were not the only ones there with Jesus because we are told of a “young man” who was still with Jesus after the rest had fled (Mk 14:50-51). Immediately after the supper this man was with Jesus and the disciples. Did he just show up or did he arrive with them? If he accompanied them, he was with them earlier, and this would mean he was with them at the supper!
If the twelve were the only ones with him, why did Jesus include the stipulation, “one of the twelve?” If they were alone, why did he not say, “one of” you? In fact, the only other time Jesus used the term “the twelve,” this is what he did. It was when the twelve affirmed their commitment to him after many disciples forsook Jesus. He responded, “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” (Fourth gospel 6:70) [“You twelve” in the Greek reads “you the twelve.”] Thus, at the supper, when he said the traitor was, “one of the twelve” (not ‘one of you’), it indicates “the twelve” were a subset of those who were there! Moreover, Jesus used the term “one of you” earlier at the supper (Mt 26:21, Mk 14:18). So, when he later stated his betrayer would be “one of the twelve” (Mk 14:20), this added detail no doubt brought relief to the disciples who were not included in “the twelve.”
Jesus also said, “with my disciples,” when he sent word regarding who would be eating with him (Mt 26:18, Mk 14:14, Lk 22:11). He did not say with “the twelve,” and nothing indicates he excluded the loyal disciples who Peter said, “companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us” (Acts 1:21). But we do find both Jesus and Peter saying things that point toward others being present at the supper.
After the Supper
If Jesus sat down to supper with the twelve and the one whom “Jesus loved” joined them later, then he was not one of the twelve. The sequence of events in the fourth gospel seems to indicate this is what occurred. For example, notice how the fourth gospel’s author begins his report on the events of that night, “And the supper being ended…” (Fourth gospel 13:2). Ended? Does the record in his gospel start at a later point than the other gospels do when they report on that night? As you will see, the answer is yes, but not merely by reason of this verse.
[Various Bible versions translate this verse differently because of conflicting opinions about the word tenses involved. However, instead of choosing between the opposing opinions of scholars, let us look again to the Bible to see what it can tell us.]
Luke 22:17-19 tells us Jesus, “took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” Keeping this in mind, one will find the next verse is extremely relevant to this discussion.
Luke 22:20 continues, “Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you.” Did you catch when this occurred? It was “after” supper! [In the Greek it reads, “also the cup after having supped.”] The Bible provides a confirmation of this sequence of events in 1 Corinthians 11:25. In this verse we read, “also he took the cup when he had supped, saying this cup is the new testament in my blood.” [Here the Greek says, “also the cup after having supped.”] The sequence of events, and particularly what happened after the supper, has scriptural relevance. Next we will see how this pertains to the anonymous author’s gospel and consider how understanding the sequence of events helps us to identify “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”
Where Is the Bread and the Cup?
Churches tend to place great significance on the memorial custom that is commonly referred to as Communion. 1 Corinthians 11:26 says, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” So, the emphasis on this is fitting. Moreover, when followers of Jesus think about Jesus’ last Passover, the bread and the cup usually come to mind first.
The gospel accounts of that night focus on this solemn event, but only in three of the gospels. In the fourth gospel, you will find no mention of these things! Why would the one whom “Jesus loved” have omitted the breaking of the bread and the sharing of the cup from his gospel, especially since he wrote so much about that night? While Matthew 26:20-29, Mark 14:17-25, and Luke 22:14-38 give us the details about the supper, the fourth gospel devotes five whole chapters to the events of that night (Fourth gospel 13:3 – 17:26), much more than the other three gospel writers combined! Yet, in spite of this, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was the only gospel author to omit the bread and the cup. Obviously, this was not because it was unimportant. So, why is it missing?
The four gospels each report different things. So, this author’s omission of the bread and the cup is not a problem. However, this omission might suggest the author was not one of the twelve. We are not told why the author omitted these items. But he may have left this out of his gospel simply because he was not in the room when the bread and the cup were shared. This omission is understandable if the author joined Jesus and the rest of the disciples after they shared the bread and the cup. It would also explain why his report of that evening begins after the supper.
The fourth gospel also does not tell us about Jesus sending two disciples to prepare the Passover. The other gospels all report this in varying detail and they all end with “and they made ready the Passover” (Mt 26:17-19, Mk 14:12-16, Lk 22:7-13). This unnamed author’s omission of this item should not come as a surprise, since this omission is consistent with an account that starts at a later point in the day than the other three gospels do. Now let us look at what his book does say.
The Foot Washing Incident
After mentioning that it was in Judas’ heart to betray Jesus, amazingly, the first thing the author of the fourth gospel tells us about that Passover night is the washing of the disciples’ feet. “He [Jesus] riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel and girded himself. After that, he poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet” (Fourth gospel 13:4-5).
Here again, the biblical record is suggesting the supper, or at least a key part of it, had ended, since this begins with Jesus rising, “from supper.” [The literal Greek reads, “he rises from the supper.”] Despite this, some say they deduce just the opposite, supposing from this passage that the supper had not yet started. They infer this because they begin with the assumption Jesus would have washed their feet before the meal. But it turns out, the Bible does not support this conclusion.
For example, in Luke 11:37 we read about a time when a Pharisee asked Jesus to “dine with him: and he [Jesus] went in, and sat down to meat.” Then in the next verse it says, “when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not washed before dinner” (Lk 11:38). Thus, we cannot assume it was customary for Jesus to wash before eating.
Also, in Matthew 15:2 Jesus was asked, “Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.” Mark 7:5 puts it this way, “Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?” So, it seems washing prior to eating was not their usual routine.
These verses show Jesus was not in the habit of always washing before eating and that his disciples behaved likewise. Similar divisions exist today. Some people wash their hands before using the restroom. This differs from most Westerners, who are much more accustomed to washing their hands after using the restroom.
Given what the Bible tells us about that night, it is apparent Jesus washed the disciples’ feet after the supper, not before it. Jesus may have done so, but scripture never notes where he actually washed prior to eating, hands or feet. So, while the first item recorded in this author’s gospel from that Passover is the foot washing, this is still consistent with the other facts that indicate his account of that evening begins after the supper. Finally, consider that after Jesus had washed the feet of his disciples, it says he, “set down again” (Fourth gospel 13:12). [The Greek says, “having reclined again.”] Again? Here the author’s use of the word “again” reveals Jesus had already been sitting down earlier that night, before the foot washing occurred.
“Not of You All”
Jesus washed the feet of “the disciples,” thus, this was not limited to the feet of the twelve (Fourth gospel 13:5). Then, after Jesus sat down again, he said, “I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen” (Fourth gospel 13:18). Here he contrasts a larger group referred to as “you all,” with a subset, which he called “chosen.” Since the twelve were “chosen” (Fourth gospel 6:70, cf. Lk 6:13), if they were the only ones who were present at this meal, then what distinction was Jesus making here?
Some may think these words were meant to exclude Judas Iscariot. Yet Luke 6:13 tells us, Jesus “called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles” and it goes on to list Judas by name (Lk 6:16). We also find Jesus saying, “Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” (Fourth gospel 6:70) Therefore, we see Judas was “chosen.” So, if Judas was “chosen,” who did the words “you all” refer to? His words here are one more statement that indicates Jesus and the twelve were not alone during that supper, as here again he refers to more than just the twelve whom he had “chosen.”
The Sequence of Last Supper Events
If one “whom Jesus loved” does not have to be one of the twelve, then the facts suggest the following scenario. Earlier on that day, Jesus sent Peter and John to prepare the Passover. Later, he arrived with and sat down to supper with the twelve. After the supper, when the record of the fourth gospel begins, Jesus got up and began to wash the disciples’ feet. When Jesus had finished, he sat down again, and only then is “the disciple whom Jesus loved” introduced, sitting next to and leaning on Jesus.
The idea that the one whom “Jesus loved” must be one of the twelve presents irreconcilable problems (more on this later). But the thing to realize is that this idea is not dictated by scripture. We are told Jesus “cometh with”/“sat down” with the twelve (Mt 26:20, Mk 14:17, Lk 22:14). Honest reflection forces us to acknowledge those words do not limit attendance at the supper to Jesus and the twelve. Why? Because the record of scripture proves the gospel writers knew how to specify a limited attendance at an event when this was what they meant to do (Mt 14:23, Mk 5:37 & 9:8, Lk 8:5 offer some of the many examples of this).
A Hidden Key in the Book of Acts
The next two paragraphs might initially seem unrelated to this study, but the information provided is critical to the upcoming analysis of the evidence. Besides his betrayal of Jesus, Judas Iscariot was unique among the twelve for another reason. The Bible says he went to the “chief priests” to betray Jesus (Mt 26:14-16, Mk 14:10-11, Lk 22:2-6), but in addition to becoming a traitor, Judas gained another distinction at that point. Judas’ conspiracy with the “chief priests” set him apart from the twelve in that those priests got to meet Judas. Nothing suggests the high priest would have known or even recognized any of the twelve other than him. Once you realize this, you can grasp the importance of a verse found in the Book of Acts. When this is contrasted with the evidence presented thus far, this can conclusively prove the Apostle John could not possibly be the unnamed “other disciple.”
Acts 4:1-23 reports what happened to Peter and John after they healed a lame man. They were brought before the “rulers, and elders, and scribes, and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas…” (Acts 4:5-6) to be questioned about this miracle. Peter’s answer to them is found in Acts 4:8-12.
Then Acts 4:13 tells us, “when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.” Why did the high priest and the rest “marvel?” To begin with, they discovered Peter and John “were unlearned and ignorant men” (Acts 4:13). [The words in the Greek mean “unlettered” and “uninstructed.”]
Along with any Galilean accent Peter and John may have had, their vocabulary, mannerisms, etc. would have revealed they lacked a formal education. In addition, the Bible lets us know regional traits could be easily discerned by the people of that day (e.g., Mt 26:73, Mk 14:70, Lk 22:59). Regardless, Acts 4:13 points out what really shocked those leaders was seeing Peter and John, whom they judged to be unlearned and ignorant men, exhibit such “boldness.” Instead of cowering before the educated men who would judge them, Peter and John proclaimed the name of Jesus.
They also charged those rulers with his death, said God had raised Jesus from the dead, and said the name of Jesus was responsible for the healing of the lame man that had occurred (Acts 4:9-10). During the encounter recorded in Acts 4:5-12, those leaders were learning elementary facts about the men who were before them. Acts 4:13 also says, “they took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus.” [In the Greek it reads, “they recognized them that with Jesus they were.”]
The telltale discoveries made by those rulers during this inquisition show Peter and John were not familiar to, or even recognized by, the high priest and his fellow religious leaders. This evidence lets us know the high priest and the other rulers first became acquainted with Peter and John on that day. On top of this, keep in mind Acts 4:6, which lists both “Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas” as being among those who were present at this inquest.
The Apostle John and the High Priest
The reaction of the high priest and the other religious rulers was a response to new information. It was when Acts 4 was actually happening that the high priest and those with him learned the things which led them to conclude Peter and John were unlearned and ignorant men who had been with Jesus. Here the high priest was learning things which he would have already known if he had been previously acquainted with the two men who were standing in front of him.
Therefore, the high priest did not know John prior to Acts 4 and this proves John could not have been the “other disciple.” To confirm this, let us look at the record of the night Jesus was arrested and taken away to be falsely accused.
We are told Jesus was taken “to Annas first” (Fourth gospel 18:13). Then we read about two disciples who followed Jesus; “Simon Peter followed Jesus and so did another disciple” (Fourth gospel 18:15). [The Greek here states, “Now there followed Jesus, Simon Peter and the other disciple.”] Then, the verse says something that ultimately ‘clears’ John. It says, “that disciple was known unto the high priest.” It seems God wanted to highlight this, for his inspired author emphasized this fact by repeating it.
The next verse says, “Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter” (Fourth gospel 18:16). The “other disciple” was known to the high priest and he had access to the high priest’s palace. Does this suggest he was a Galilean fisherman? Certainly not. Furthermore, this disciple was the one who got Peter past the doorkeeper.
Consequently, the Apostle John could not possibly have been the “other disciple” because John was not known to the high priest (Acts 4:13). [This holds up even if a person is inclined to question whether Annas or Caiaphas was acting as high priest in those days, since both of them were present during the events of Acts 4.] Prior to Acts 4:13, there is nothing to suggest the Jewish leaders were acquainted with John or knew of his association with Jesus. In contrast to this, the “other disciple” was known to the high priest, who would, therefore, have known of his association with Jesus.
Moreover, something said on that night shows the “other disciple” was publicly associated with Jesus before that day. Yet this was not true of Peter, as this question reveals: “The damsel that kept the door” asked Peter, “Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples?” (Fourth gospel 18:17) The word “also” was a reference to the “other disciple” who had just talked with her (Fourth gospel 18:16). So, even “the damsel that kept the door” knew the “other disciple” was associated with Jesus. But as you now know, John’s association with Jesus was not known to the high priest until Acts 4:13.
If Not John, Then Who?
The evidence presented thus far has shown the Apostle John was not the “other disciple.” God’s word proves the John tradition cannot withstand biblical scrutiny. Scripture never justified believing “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was John. Also, unless Jesus was alone with the twelve at his last Passover meal, nothing would require the one “whom Jesus loved” to even be one of the twelve!
Who was this anonymous disciple? The Bible answers this question if we will rely on the evidence in scripture and let God’s word lead us. Many facts point to this author’s identity, from his relationship with Jesus, to details that suggest a possible motive for this author hiding his identity.
There is one, and only one, person in the Bible who can reasonably fit with everything scripture says about this unnamed “other disciple.” As we weigh the facts that reveal the identity of the one whom “Jesus loved,” it will be shown how each piece of evidence concerning the author of the fourth gospel points to a unique, and very famous, friend of Jesus. Nevertheless, recognize the case against the John idea is not dependent on the case that follows. If there is a man in jail for a crime and we uncover proof he did not do it, we do not hold him in jail until we find out who did do it. We let him go. Likewise, if biblical evidence is able to prove the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” was not John, then we ought to admit our mistake and let go of that false tradition – whether or not we know for sure who this author was.
Some will act as though it is okay to continue promoting the John idea so long as they object to some point in the next part of this study. But that is not okay. Whoever the one whom “Jesus loved” was, he was not John, and this tradition forces the Bible to contradict itself, as the testimony of God’s word has already shown.
Ch. 5: Author of the fourth gospel