The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved
Chapter 5
Meet the Author of the Fourth Gospel
What Is God Telling Us?
The author’s explicit description of himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” puts the focus on Jesus’ relationship to him. So, if we want to ascertain the identity of this individual, it is logical to begin by looking for evidence of such a relationship in the life of Jesus. Prior to Pentecost, did Jesus have this type of relationship with anyone? He did. This was so clear that referring to this relationship was sufficient to identify one particular man – without even mentioning his name (Fourth gospel 11:3).
Scripture never says John had this specific type of relationship with Jesus (prior to Pentecost). Moreover, being taken aside by Jesus three times with Peter and James does not imply John had the unique bond implied by the designation “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” As has been noted, this term lets us know this disciple was set apart from the rest of the disciples based on Jesus’ relationship to him. While this term has been a stumbling block for many on this author’s identity, it is actually the key to identifying him.
Hidden in Plain Sight
So much biblical evidence points to the identity of this author, one begins to wonder how it could have all been overlooked. To start with, consider the term “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” While it helped to hide the author’s identity, it also calls our attention to Jesus’ relationship with the author. In the gospels, besides the unnamed author, only one man who associated with Jesus was also identified as being loved by him. Two chapters before he introduced the one whom “Jesus loved,” the author of the fourth gospel told of a friend of Jesus who was loved by him – in 11:3, when this message was sent to Jesus, “Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick,” and in 11:5, where we are told, “Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.”
Except for “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” the only man who associated with Jesus who was singled out as being “loved” by Jesus was Lazarus. We are told “Jesus loved” Lazarus. His sisters cited this relationship, and when Jesus wept prior to raising Lazarus, the Jews who were “weeping” at his tomb attributed Jesus’ tears to his love for Lazarus (Fourth gospel 11:19, 33 & 36); so this was public knowledge. The fact that “Jesus loved” Lazarus does not prove Lazarus was the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved.” This lead is, however, certainly worth investigating.
Bible References to Jesus’ Love
The phrase “whom Jesus loved” identifies the author as being the object of Jesus’ love. Since he is not called the one who loved Jesus, this book does not examine verses dealing with an individual’s love toward Jesus. Also, this study is not meant to be a discussion either on the principles of love or on the general topic of the love of God. Instead, this study will examine what scripture says about Jesus’ love for or toward specific individuals.
Outside of the gospels, all of the references to Jesus’ love are unrelated to the “other disciple.” In the gospels, Jesus’ love was referred to fifteen times (Fourth gospel 11:3, 5 & 36, 13:1(2x), 23 & 34, 14:21, 15:9 & 12, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7 & 20, Mk 10:21), but only two men in the fourth gospel were explicitly identified as being the object of Jesus’ love, Lazarus and the one whom “Jesus loved” (Fourth gospel 11:3, 5 & 36, 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7 & 20 [Forms of two Greek words, agapao and phileo, were translated “love” in these verses and both were used to refer to ‘both’ men]).
In the first three gospels, there is only one time where an individual was said to be “loved” by Jesus. Mark 10:17-22 tells us of a meeting between Jesus and an unidentified man, and the passage says Jesus “loved him.” But the passage does not say if this man ever had any other contact with Jesus. So, we will proceed to take a closer look at Lazarus, since the fourth gospel tells of both his association with Jesus and the fact he was loved by Jesus.
A Sudden Appearance
“Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick” was the appeal of Martha and Mary (Fourth gospel 11:3). This reveals Jesus had this relationship with Lazarus prior to that moment. This was confirmed two verses later when we read, “Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus” (Fourth gospel 11:5). Jesus also referred to him as, “Our friend Lazarus” (Fourth gospel 11:11). However, in spite of all the history this implies, the fourth gospel makes no mention of Lazarus until his name appears in the 11th chapter. Why is this?
Nothing in the fourth gospel overtly explains the origin of this friendship. (Still, the curious aspect of this sudden appearance is indeed parallel to what we saw regarding “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”) Even more important, the first three gospels never refer to Jesus’ friendship with Lazarus, nor to the miracle of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. (This resembles the similar omission of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” in those gospels.)
What makes this noteworthy is we are only told about three people who Jesus raised from the dead: a widow’s son (Lk 7:12-15), Jairus’ daughter (Mt 9:18-25, Mk 5:22-24 & 35-42, Lk 8:41-56), and Lazarus (Fourth gospel 11:14-45). News of these miracles spread quickly (Fourth gospel 11:45, Mt 9:26, Lk 7:16-17). They were all miracles, but the raising of Lazarus was substantially different from the other two, as will be shown.
Jesus’ Friend Becomes a Celebrity
The three other gospel writers do not mention the raising of Lazarus and this is particularly striking because of what happened after Lazarus was raised from the dead. “Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him” (Fourth gospel 11:45). (i.e., the eyewitnesses.) Let us compare this to what happened six days later when Jesus was again in Bethany. “Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead” (Fourth gospel 12:9).
So, scripture lets us know the people were attracted to Lazarus in the aftermath of this miracle. This caused such a stir “the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death: Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus” (Fourth gospel 12:10-11).
Is this a testament to the allure of fame or to the witness of Lazarus or perhaps both? We lack further details as to why these people were drawn to Lazarus. But it is clear the public was aware of him and of the miracle Jesus did for him. Consider the event people commonly call the Triumphal Entry (Fourth gospel 12:12-18). Did you know the raising of Lazarus played a key role in terms of the crowd’s attendance at that event? We read of the greeting Jesus received from a cheering crowd as he rode into town on a donkey (Fourth gospel 12:12-15). Scripture also tells us about the crowd’s motivation.
People might assume it was the teachings of Jesus or the realization he was the Son of God that brought out the crowd on that day. But the author of the fourth gospel highlighted a particular reason for the crowd’s participation in that event.
This author points out the raising of Lazarus helped bring out the crowd at that Triumphal Entry. “The people therefore that was with him [Jesus] when he called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead, bare record. For this cause the people also met him, for that they heard that he had done this miracle” (Fourth gospel 12:17-18).
Thus, the crowd’s presence on that day was linked to their having heard the reports about Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. “For this cause the people also met him” (Fourth gospel 12:18), and they had merely heard.
The disciples of Jesus witnessed the raising of Lazarus. Undoubtedly, this was surely an electrifying and unforgettable experience. Yet, for some reason, the writers of the first three gospels decided they should not mention a word about it. What is more, we are told the formerly dead Lazarus had such an effect on the people that the priests took the extreme step of plotting to have him killed. Lazarus was big news! So why did the other gospels not mention any of this? If this seems odd, just think about how this parallels the way the first three gospels also omit “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”
The Transition
What may be even stranger than the silence of the other gospels on all of these Lazarus matters, is his abrupt disappearance from the fourth gospel. In 12:9 it says the people came to see Lazarus, and 12:11 tells us he had a strong influence on the Jews. But after 12:17 refers to his return from the dead, the fourth gospel never mentions Lazarus again.
The fourth gospel’s presentation of Lazarus reveals two notable facts. First, Lazarus is named in only eleven verses of the fourth gospel, six in chapter 11 and five in chapter 12. He is not mentioned before chapter 11 verse 1 and after chapter 12 verse 17, he seems to vanish.
But what is even more interesting to note is this friend whom “Jesus loved” is last mentioned in chapter 12 – just before the obscure and unnamed disciple whom “Jesus loved” is first mentioned in the very next chapter (Fourth gospel 13:23).
If you are inclined to think this transition might be simply an unimportant coincidence, then just wait. There is much more evidence to come.
Still, one has to admit this presents us with a striking parallel. The one man associated with Jesus who was also singled out as being “loved” by Jesus abruptly vanishes from the text, and then the only disciple to be singled out as being “loved” by Jesus abruptly appears in this same gospel.
The sequence of these things in the Bible is no accident! Furthermore, this newly evident disciple plays an important role in the events that follow.
Some may want to dispute the thesis that the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” was Lazarus because it might seem inconsistent for him to hide his identity as author of the gospel while mentioning his name several times in the same book. However, as will be shown a little later, by weighing the testimony of scripture, one is able to grasp a perfectly logical and biblically sound reason as to why Lazarus may have done precisely this.
Others may point out the Bible does not call Lazarus a “disciple” and we will also deal with this potential difficulty. Here is another reason why the order of these events is significant. This author used the term “the disciple whom Jesus loved” only after Lazarus was raised from the dead in the text – and this miracle was certainly a powerful act of love toward Lazarus.
During Jesus’ earthly ministry, he did not end suffering and death for everyone. The Bible tells of only three people Jesus raised from the dead while he was here. Lazarus was definitely privileged in this regard. This is extremely relevant to the sequence of gospel events, since after Lazarus was raised from the dead, he would never be the same again!
Dead Man Walking
The raising of Lazarus is not fiction. It was an important event in history. So, let us take the time to consider the reality of this situation. Lazarus was close to Jesus before he was raised from the dead. Their relationship was close enough that when Lazarus was ill, his sisters sent for Jesus with this message, “Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick” (Fourth gospel 11:3). This relationship must have existed for some time, and the message reveals his sisters felt “he whom thou lovest” applied to Lazarus, since their message did not even mention his name.
Lazarus had a close relationship with Jesus before Jesus raised him from the dead. What do you think this relationship was like after that experience? How would Lazarus have been changed by receiving this one-of-a-kind gift from God?
Is it reasonable to believe Lazarus simply said thanks and went back to his usual, daily routine – spending his time on the cares of this world, just like his fellow citizens?
It is laughable to suggest Lazarus could just brush off the tomb dust and return to his normal life. Pause and take time to consider this miracle. It would surely be the most profound event in anyone’s life. But for one who was already close to Jesus the effect must have been extremely transforming. How would Lazarus have been different after that?
Later, when Jesus came to Bethany again, “they made him a supper” (Fourth gospel 12:1-2). Yet, no one would believe that a supper was the full extent of Lazarus’ effort to show his gratitude or his loyalty. Peter once said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life” (Fourth gospel 6:68).
Where would Lazarus have gone? He not only heard the words of Jesus, he experienced their power firsthand, in a way that few ever did. In light of this, which of the following is most likely?
- Lazarus lived in fear of death for the rest of his time on earth, because he knew what it was like to die and dreaded having to do it again.
- Lazarus returned to what he was doing before he got sic He remained a normal guy, tried to be a good person, observed the Sabbath, etc.
- Lazarus was thoroughly and radically changed in response to this rare and precious gift from God.
Like White on Rice
Lazarus already had a special relationship with Jesus, so his response to this gift from God would not have been limited to mere gratitude. Without a doubt, he would have been motivated to be even closer and more loyal to Jesus than he had previously been.
In fact, from that day forward, Lazarus more than anyone else, would have a reason to stick close to Jesus, ‘like white on rice’ as the old saying goes. Also, not surprisingly, close to Jesus is exactly where we next find Lazarus. When Jesus was in Bethany again, we read, “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 verse and 11:44 are the only verses that actually depict Lazarus. So, this is the last time he is depicted in the Bible. (He is mentioned later in 12:9, 10, and 17, but he is not depicted as being present.) Since this is his last appearance, what stands out about this verse?
Where we find Lazarus in his final appearance is the key thing to note. The last time that Lazarus is seen, he is sitting with Jesus at a supper table and the first time that the one whom “Jesus loved” is seen he is leaning on Jesus at a supper table (Fourth gospel 12:2 & 13:23). Is this simply another remarkable coincidence or is it part of a larger pattern of evidence?
You will have to decide. For now, let us look at another time when someone seemed to stick close to Jesus. After Jesus was arrested, the “other disciple” followed him and “went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest” (Fourth gospel 18:15). Later, when Jesus was on the cross, Jesus looked down and “saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved” (Fourth gospel 19:26). The apostles were not standing at the foot of the cross, yet this disciple was there!
Why him and not the rest? What gave him the courage and stamina to stick with Jesus until he was assigned to the mother of Jesus and “took her unto his own home?”
The evening prior, Peter, James, and John let Jesus down by falling asleep three times. Then, the disciples fled when Jesus was seized. Peter and the “other disciple” reappeared and followed Jesus. But, while this “other disciple” went “in with Jesus,” Peter stayed out by the fire, denied knowing Jesus, and soon left. By contrast, as Jesus was on the cross, the disciple “whom he loved” was close enough for the crucified Jesus to speak to him. So, why did this beloved disciple behave in a way that set him apart as being a cut above the rest of the disciples?
Been There. Done That.
Given their relationship, Lazarus must have known about some of Jesus’ miracles. Then, on top of hearing about or perhaps even seeing miracles, Lazarus personally experienced coming back from the dead. What priority would Lazarus have put on self-preservation after he was raised?
Survival is a very potent human instinct. But it is still fairly easy to grasp why the raised Lazarus might not have behaved like the rest of the disciples. God taught him, in the most emphatic way possible, that death is not necessarily final. More important, he learned Jesus can give life. Thereafter, faith in Jesus would not have been a mental concept for him. He had become living proof of the power of Jesus, and every time he subsequently awoke, it is likely he recalled the moment of that miracle.
Regarding death, Lazarus had ‘Been there. Done that.’ – though he would surely not have been cavalier about it. Imagine the effect this miracle had on his life. Such an experience could reasonably be expected to have had a significant effect on his fear of death. (Possibly even overcome it?)
The Courage Evidence
A close call with death can cause a person to change drastically. Being dead for four days, along with his interactions with those who came to see him after his return (Fourth gospel 12:9 & 17) would have given Lazarus a wholly unique outlook on life. Could this lead to the type of courage and character the Bible attributes to the unnamed “other disciple?” The “other disciple” went “with Jesus into the palace of the high priest,” even though he was a known associate of Jesus (Fourth gospel 18:15-17). Unlike the rest of the disciples, the “other disciple” did not act in a way that exhibited a concern for his own life. Nevertheless, this is understandable if this individual was Lazarus.
Also, if the “other disciple” was Lazarus, then he was truly at risk when he entered the “palace of the high priest” because the “chief priests” wanted to kill Lazarus too (Fourth gospel 12:10). We are not told if Lazarus knew about the plot to kill him at that time or if he learned about it at a later point. Regardless, the unique behavior of the “other disciple” still befits a raised-from-the-dead Lazarus, i.e., a man who would stick with Jesus even when his own life was at risk. Some may ask, If the “other disciple” was Lazarus, why did they not kill him that night? They had planned to kill Lazarus because he caused people to believe on Jesus. But if they killed Jesus, which they were in the process of doing, then they had no further reason to bother with Lazarus. Even so, the Bible does not speak to this, so we cannot be sure.
What Is a Disciple?
Some may try to argue against Lazarus being the “other disciple” by pointing out Lazarus was not called a disciple in scripture. While this is true, it does not mean he was not a disciple. He was a friend of Jesus and the apostles, for Jesus referred to him as, “Our friend Lazarus” (Fourth gospel 11:11). So, we know Lazarus must have spent time with them. However, the question for us is: Would it be correct to refer to Lazarus as a “disciple?”
“Disciple” was not a rank like Eagle Scout. There was no prescribed ritual to become a disciple. In the Bible, disciples come and go (cf. Fourth gospel 6:66, Acts 6:1). The term “disciple” is used in many verses, about a wide variety of people. [In the Greek, this word simply means a “learner” or “pupil.”]
While it is not precisely clear what made one a disciple, to contend Lazarus was not a disciple merely because he is not called a “disciple” in scripture is not reasonable. Why? Well, the first three gospels do not call him a disciple, but they could not do so, since they never mention him at all (not his friendship with Jesus, nor the miracle of his being raised from the dead).
The one gospel that tells us about Lazarus, also does not call him a “disciple.” But this would fit with Lazarus using the term “the disciple whom Jesus loved” to cloak his identity as the author of the gospel. [Another possibility is Lazarus may have graduated from friend to dedicated follower of Jesus only in the aftermath of what Jesus did for him. If so, this may be why the author referred to himself as a “disciple” only after he reported this miracle.]
The author said his goal in writing was “that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (Fourth gospel 20:31). We will revisit this verse later when we discuss the author’s motive for hiding his identity. For now, let us realize the author was only including things that would help accomplish this goal. As we will see, this was reason enough for him not to call Lazarus a disciple. (Not identifying Lazarus as a disciple may well be the key reason the author’s effort at anonymity was so effective.)
Finally, to suppose Lazarus never became a disciple is not reasonable. We know he was loved by Jesus. He was raised from the dead by Jesus. He had supper with Jesus. Is it fair to infer Lazarus learned from his experiences and his relationship with Jesus? Yes, it is.
The Character Evidence
Coming back from the dead would certainly affect one’s character. Thus, it is reasonable to think Lazarus might exhibit a high degree of courage and faithfulness toward Jesus, in a way that set him apart from the apostles and the rest of the disciples. Do we see Lazarus behaving this way? Well, if Lazarus was the “other disciple,” then he did manifest these traits. So, we will weigh the actions of the “other disciple” to see if he behaved as a raised-from-the-dead Lazarus would act.
Notice how the one whom “Jesus loved” was set apart from the rest of the disciples by his reaction on the night of the supper. The topic of the betrayer came up several times that evening. First, before the bread and the cup, when Jesus said the traitor was “one of you” (Mt 26:21, Mk 14:18). Then the disciples were “sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?” (Mt 26:22; cf. Mk 14:19) This is different than asking, Who is it?, because to ask their question was to doubt their own character! This ended when Jesus ruled out all but the twelve by saying, “It is one of the twelve that dippeth with me in the dish” (Mk 14:20). Then, after the bread and the cup, the issue came up again. But since Jesus already ruled out all but the twelve, this time the response takes the form of a dispute about which apostle it would be; “they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing” (Lk 22:23).
Still, the reaction of one person stood out from the rest. We see this after the foot washing, when Jesus sat down “again” (Fourth gospel 13:12). At that point, Jesus once again raised the issue of the traitor (Fourth gospel 13:21). The next verse says, “then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake” (Fourth gospel 13:22). Peter then probed further by using the one “whom Jesus loved,” who was then present. “Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he [Jesus] spake” (Fourth gospel 13:23-24).
Why did Peter not ask this himself? Did he doubt his own loyalty? He was an apostle, yet he used the one whom “Jesus loved” to ask this question. What about this disciple that made Peter turn to him instead of just asking Jesus directly? [Would Peter have gone through John to ask Jesus a question? Mark 10:41 suggests he would not.]
Anyone at the table was close enough to ask a question, yet Peter chose to prompt the one whom “Jesus loved” to do it. When Peter signaled him to ask which one of the twelve would be the traitor, this man did not hesitate or exhibit self-doubt like the rest had.
“He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?” (Fourth gospel 13:24-25) Indeed, his ease in posing the question befits the raised friend whom “Jesus loved,” because Lazarus would know whoever the betrayer was, it could not be him!
The one whom “Jesus loved” appears to have no qualms about asking this question. Unlike Peter, he seems sure of himself, and his physical position even suggests this for the author lets us know he was leaning on Jesus.
Three times the author described his position at the supper (Fourth gospel 13:23 & 25, 21:20). This reveals more than just the seating arrangements. His position at the table that night gives us insight into how close he was to Jesus personally. He could lean on Jesus because they had a close relationship.
No one else is said to have leaned on Jesus. This friendship did not materialize out of thin air on that night and it seems to be superior to the bond Jesus had with the rest of his disciples, including Peter. The quality and degree of camaraderie that is revealed by his position imply a secure friendship and an obvious devotion.
Moreover, Peter’s choice to use the one whom “Jesus loved” to ask about the betrayer lets us know this disciple was not one of the twelve. How? Peter would not use any of the apostles to ask this question – because Jesus had already said one of the twelve would be the traitor (Mk 14:20). One apostle could not be trusted and Peter wanted to know who it was. If he wanted someone to ask for him, it would have been someone who was not one of the twelve.
Does the Evidence Fit?
Is it reasonable to suppose Lazarus may have been privileged to have an especially close friendship with Jesus at the time of the supper? Yes, it is. Would such a relationship explain some of the actions of the one “whom Jesus loved” on the night of the supper? Does the evidence fit Lazarus? If you have not yet been persuaded, perhaps you will be convinced by the evidence from the morning when the unoccupied tomb of Jesus was discovered.
Resurrection Morning
Look at this author’s account of the events on resurrection morning. It is not merely a confirmation of the unoccupied tomb. If this was all God wanted, this anonymous author might have been inspired to use fewer words. So, keep an eye out for the details his words contain, because they provide us with quite a bit of revealing data regarding the “other disciple” and all of it ends up supporting the case for Lazarus.
“The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulcher, and we know not where they have laid him. Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulcher. So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulcher” (Fourth gospel 20:1-4).
Pause and consider the last sentence above. Did the author mention this merely to let us know he (the “other disciple”) was a better athlete? Or was he simply being accurate? There is another possibility we should consider. Ask yourself: Other than sheer athletic ability, what could have caused the “other disciple” to outrun Peter? (The answer to this, it turns out, also suggests why this point was even noteworthy.) The answer is adrenaline! The “other disciple” might well have outrun Peter simply because he had a more intense desire to see the tomb. If so, then he would have pushed himself harder to get there even more quickly. As you consider this, remember it was the one whom “Jesus loved” who wrote this and took the time to describe this seemingly trivial detail from that day.
The idea that Jesus’ body was not in the tomb would also have had a special impact on Lazarus, who had recently vacated a tomb of his own.
Now, let us pick up where we left off. “And he [the “other disciple”] stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulcher, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulcher, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead” (Fourth gospel 20:5-9).
In our day, ‘the empty tomb’ is a term used by some who say this is proof of Jesus’ resurrection. While this may be well-intentioned, it is not biblical. First, realize the things Peter and the “other disciple” saw in the tomb on that morning did not fit with their understanding of scripture. We know this because it says, “as yet they knew not the scripture, that he [Jesus] must rise again from the dead” (Fourth gospel 20:9). This is highly significant because these two men react differently.
In addition, notice the tomb was not empty! Even though the tomb no longer contained the body of Jesus, the tomb did contain some important pieces of evidence.
The Evidence Inside the Tomb
Mary Magdalene told the “other disciple” and Peter the body of Jesus had been removed. This led them to rush to the tomb. It says, “So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulcher” (Fourth gospel 20:4).
When he got there, he stooped down and saw the linen clothes inside. The “other disciple” stopped at that point and did not go in. When Peter got there, he did not stop; he went right in. The “other disciple” remained outside until this, but then he “went in also” (cf. Fourth gospel 20:2, 4, 5, 6 & 8).
Why did the “other disciple” freeze when he saw the linen clothes? After Peter went in, the “other disciple” did too. Why did he not go in when he first got there? He ran, so he must have felt a sense of urgency. Despite this, he stood outside the entrance until Peter passed by him and entered the tomb. Why did the sight of “the linen clothes” cause him to stop in his tracks?
In a moment, you will see this curious behavior of the “other disciple” offers further evidence that he was Lazarus. But first, let us consider the difference in the reactions of Peter and the “other disciple” to those things they saw in the tomb on that morning – one of them “believed.”
“Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulcher, and he saw, and believed” (Fourth gospel 20:8). The “other disciple” was the one who believed, and notice when this occurred. It happened only after he entered the tomb and saw “the napkin, that was about his [Jesus’] head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself” (Fourth gospel 20:7).
The First Disciple to Believe
Upon seeing the linen clothes and the napkin, the “other disciple” believed. This author took the time to depict these items precisely, and he underscored the linen clothes by repeating this phrase three times (Fourth gospel 20:5-7). This is important and we can learn something about this author/“other disciple, whom Jesus loved” from the emphasis he put on these items and the effect they had on him; he saw, and believed.
Note, the first time the word “believed” is used after the resurrection, it refers to the “other disciple.” This is no small point. His being the first person who believed is extremely significant. (The Appendix will expound on this point later.) Does scripture indicate the Apostle John had any reason to react in a unique way to those items that were in the tomb? No, it does not. Furthermore, apparently Peter did not believe at that point in time. The author makes it clear that the unoccupied tomb, the linen clothes, and the napkin did not have the same impact on Peter.
However, the sight of the linen clothes would likely have stopped Lazarus in his tracks and the sight of the napkin would have had a unique effect on him. The significance of these items would not have been lost on Lazarus, for he had experienced waking up after he had been dressed in linen, the material that was used to wrap dead bodies.
The Linen Effect
“He [Lazarus] that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin” (Fourth gospel 11:44). Here the author also mentioned the seemingly trivial detail of the napkin with regard to Lazarus. Moreover, it was when the “other disciple” went in the tomb (i.e., where the napkin could be seen) that this reaction occurred – “he saw, and believed.”
While the author did not report what Lazarus’ “graveclothes” were made of, he noted the Jews used linen to bury the bodies in those days. “Then they took the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury” (Fourth gospel 19:40). So, this would indicate linen was most likely used for Lazarus’ body also.
Let us take a quick look at the use of the word “linen” in the New Testament. The word “linen” was used to translate several different Greek words, but only two of these Greek words involve dead bodies. These two words were both used to describe the material that covered the body of Jesus, so they may well be synonyms (cf. Fourth gospel 19:40 compared to Mt 27:59; and Lk 23:53 compared to Lk 24:12).
One of these words always refers to the cloth covering a corpse. Likewise, the other always refers to the cloth covering a corpse, with one exception. We will discuss this curious exception a little bit later. What we need to think about at this juncture is how Lazarus would have reacted to the sight of the items which had been covering the body of Jesus.
What was the first thing Lazarus saw when he came back from the dead? The inside of the “napkin” that covered his own face! In the moments after Jesus called him back to life, Lazarus came out of his cave-grave still wrapped in his graveclothes. Thus, Jesus gave the instruction, “Loose him, and let him go” (Fourth gospel 11:44). It is unlikely Lazarus ever forgot being loosed. Therefore, it is logical to suggest the sight of Jesus’ former graveclothes would have had a powerful and wholly unique effect on Lazarus!
The “other disciple” ran to Jesus’ tomb and stooped down to go in, but instead he stopped when he saw “the linen clothes” (Fourth gospel 20:3-5). When he did go in moments later, this “other disciple” became the first person to believe on the risen Lord, “he saw, and believed” (Fourth gospel 20:8).
In light of this evidence, especially his reaction to the linen clothes and the napkin, can we conclude this disciple’s behavior befits Lazarus? The facts that are reported about this event in scripture fit together logically and completely if this disciple was Lazarus.
The Fishing Trip
After resurrection morning, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is next seen when he and five others volunteer to accompany Peter, who announced he was going fishing. “There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee” (Fourth gospel 21:2-3). They caught nothing that night, and the next morning “Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus” (Fourth gospel 21:3-4). Jesus spoke and said to, “Cast the net on the right side of the ship” and when they did they could not pull in the net because of “the multitude of fishes” (Fourth gospel 21:5-6). The author’s presence was revealed in the next verse when he wrote, “Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord” (Fourth gospel 21:7).
The first one to recognize Jesus that day was “that disciple whom Jesus loved.” More important, however, is the list of who was there, for right after he mentioned “the sons of Zebedee” (James and John), he mentioned two unnamed disciples were present. This reference to an unnamed disciple fits with the author’s pattern of concealing his identity at this point in his gospel. Still, what should grab our attention is when we realize the author grouped John in with the five apostles whom he identified in the first part of his list. Then, in contrast with those apostle names, he lumped together the two unnamed disciples and tacked them on to the end of his list (Fourth gospel 21:2).
The author listed “the sons of Zebedee” with the apostles, yet he referred to himself anonymously (as “that disciple whom Jesus loved”) moments later in verse 7 – and this argues against his being John. The author consistently used anonymous terms to refer to himself since he first did so in his record of Jesus’ last Passover, and he continued that practice in this very passage. So, it would be totally contrary to that effort for the author to have named himself in verse 2.
The First Error
Later during this event, those disciples came to shore and dined with Jesus (Fourth gospel 21:7-14). Following this, Jesus had a conversation with Peter (Fourth gospel 21:15-19). This was interrupted when “Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following, which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me” (Fourth gospel 21:20-22).
Next, we find a very strange reference to this unnamed disciple. “Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” (Fourth gospel 21:23) Here, the author reported and corrected an error that was circulating among the brethren. So, the first error about this disciple occurred long before he was mistakenly called John (i.e., when some said he would not die).
How should one respond to a false teaching? The method used by this God-inspired author was to note what was not said and then to emphasize what was said. He pointed out Jesus did not say what the rumor said. Then he quoted Jesus’ words verbatim, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” The author offered no further comments on the words of Jesus. Rather, he faithfully presented Jesus’ words and let them speak for themselves.
The author clearly expected his readers could understand Jesus’ words. But if those words were sufficient for the readers of his gospel, why were they misinterpreted by those who spread the false rumor that said this author would not die?
A Telltale Rumor
The fourth gospel’s author tried to correct the misunderstanding that had been circulating among the brethren. Nothing suggests the rumor was started by the men who were on the fishing trip. But there are things that indicate how this rumor could arise after others were later told about this trip. Still, regardless of who started the rumor, some of the brethren believed the one whom “Jesus loved” would not die. This begs the question, what could have caused this? Jesus’ words did not demand this conclusion, for the author twice quoted his words verbatim (Fourth gospel 21:22 & 23). So, the author of the fourth gospel knew the “not die” idea did not represent what Jesus had said, rather, this idea was wrongly substituted for his words.
There is a big difference between people who heard Jesus’ words recounted by the men who were on the fishing trip, and all those who would later read those same words in this author’s book. The former group had a key piece of information that the author withheld from his readers and this helps to explain why the “not die” idea was ever believed in the first place. What differentiates these two groups is the knowledge of the identity of “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” The author did not reveal his identity to those who would later read his book. The disciples of Jesus, on the other hand, knew who he was. His identity was not a mystery to them, and initially at least, they would likely have included this information in their testimony of what happened on the fishing trip.
What was it about this particular disciple that caused some to jump to the wrong conclusion? Why did they assume they should conclude Jesus’ words, “If I will that he tarry till I come” meant “that disciple should not die?” The false assumption about this man not dying was not caused by what Jesus said. Rather, it arose because of whom Jesus had been talking about! What if those who heard about this event from those who were on the fishing trip, knew Jesus’ words referred to Lazarus? Since he had already died and been brought back from the dead, a reason for the erroneous rumor becomes evident, and it is possible to see why some could jump to the conclusion that the words Jesus spoke meant, “he should not die.”
Jesus had displayed his willingness to have his friend Lazarus loosed from the bonds of death even after four days. This miracle took place not all that long before the “not die” rumor occurred. This was a unique blessing, one not granted to all the disciples, nor their families and friends. Lazarus was one of the few individuals who had ever been chosen to receive this one-of-a-kind gift and all of the disciples knew it (Fourth gospel 12:9, 11 & 18).
If the one whom “Jesus loved” was Lazarus, then, as noted, there is a logical explanation for the origin of the false rumor. Jesus had already raised his friend Lazarus from the dead. So, those who knew he was the subject of Jesus’ words mistakenly inferred Lazarus would be exempted from having to undergo a second physical death.
The “not die” rumor may also have arisen due to people reading a false meaning into these words – “he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die” (Fourth gospel 11:25-26). Jesus said this to Martha in the context of his raising of Lazarus, and she likely mentioned this when she talked about that event. So, the “not die” idea could also be linked to a misapplication of Jesus’ words “shall never die.”
Once again, it turns out the facts surrounding this disciple perfectly fit Lazarus. This telltale rumor easily harmonizes with all of the other biblical data, if Lazarus was the one whom “Jesus loved.” Before we consider more facts that support this conclusion, first let us try to answer this question: Why did this author conceal his identity?