The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved
Chapter 6
Why Did the Author Write the Gospel?
The Motive?
The fourth gospel’s anonymous author took the time to record his purpose for writing his book, and this is likely part of the reason he hid his identity.
He wrote, “many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name” (Fourth gospel 20:30-31).
The author’s aim was to point people to Jesus and encourage them to believe he “is the Christ, the Son of God.” While this may appear merely to be his goal for the gospel, it turns out this objective provided a motive for this author to cloak his identity. (All of this was under the inspiration of God, of course, but God does use people in their existing circumstances to declare his will and carry it out.)
The author wanted to point people to Jesus, so he would have avoided doing things that might have interfered with this goal. Also, Lazarus had a reason to believe disclosing his identity could interfere with this objective. If we consider what happened after Lazarus was raised from the dead, we can see the problem he faced. He became a celebrity. If he was the author of the fourth gospel, did this present a dilemma for him when it came to the gospel’s stated goal?
The Fame Problem
In chapter 12, which is the last place Lazarus was mentioned by the author, we get a feel for how famous he became. For instance, it says, “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). Consider the implications of “they came not for Jesus’ sake only.” How would this have affected Lazarus?
Would he have welcomed the spotlight and basked in the glory this brought to him? Nothing suggests he took advantage of this or milked it for his own ego. (The sudden disappearance from the fourth gospel of the name Lazarus actually indicates quite the contrary.)
Prior to Pentecost we do not read of people wanting to “also” see Peter or any of the apostles, even though they helped feed the crowds (Mt 14:19, 15:36, et al.) and displayed power over devils (Lk 10:17). The focus of the people had always been Jesus. They came to confront, see, touch, listen to, or be healed by Jesus. But after Lazarus was raised from the dead in front of many eyewitnesses, the people came to see him “also.” Thus, the friend whom “Jesus loved” faced a peculiar dilemma.
We read, “by reason of him [Lazarus] many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus” (Fourth gospel 12:11). Moreover, the raising of Lazarus was a key reason the crowd met Jesus when he rode in to Jerusalem on a donkey. “For this cause the people also met him [Jesus], for they heard that he had done this miracle” (Fourth gospel 12:18). This may lead some to suggest Lazarus’ new found fame was a good thing because it could help to draw more people, who would then get to hear Jesus. However, there is good reason to suspect this would not have achieved a lasting result, since the crowd at the Triumphal Entry was not cheering for Jesus just a few days later, when the choice for pardon was Jesus or Barabbas.
There is no reason to think the raised Lazarus was anything but loyal to Jesus. Nevertheless, he became a novelty, who people also sought in addition to Jesus (Fourth gospel 12:9). This would have presented Lazarus with an unusual problem.
John the Baptist articulated this principle: “He [Jesus] must increase, but I must decrease” (Fourth gospel 3:30). One way Lazarus could avoid drawing attention away from Jesus would be to ‘disappear’ (by obscuring his identity or becoming anonymous).
The author of the fourth gospel did not report everything Jesus did (Fourth gospel 20:30). The goal of his book was that its readers “might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” so they could “have life through his name” (Fourth gospel 20:31). The author had a motive to cloak his identity. If he was Lazarus, he may have hidden his identity to prevent his notoriety from interfering with the goal of the gospel. Is this what led the author to hide his identity? While we cannot know for sure, this explanation is at least a reasonable and biblically sound possibility.
What about Him?
Even the disciples were not immune to this distraction effect, as can be seen when some of them accompanied Peter on a fishing trip and Jesus paid them a visit. While seven disciples were present, the resurrected Jesus took the time to focus on Peter (Fourth gospel 21:15-19). Moreover, we are also told this was only, “the third time that Jesus showed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead” (Fourth gospel 21:14).
However, in spite of Jesus’ focus on him, it seems as if Peter’s attention was easily distracted – by the presence of “the disciple whom Jesus loved!” “Then 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?” (Fourth gospel 21:20-21)
Instead of responding to the words Jesus had spoken to him, Peter appears to change the subject. It is not likely he did this because “the disciple whom Jesus loved” just happened to fall in his line of sight. So, what do you think could have prompted Peter to ask this question?
Furthermore, several disciples were present, so what motivated Peter to focus on “the disciple whom Jesus loved?” Verses 20 and 21 do refer to him “following” and Peter’s “seeing him,” but the mere fact that he was nearby would not have been a sufficient reason for Peter to single out one particular disciple from the rest who were there.
At that instant, Peter deliberately referred to this one disciple only. Why? Consider the possibility Peter may have asked specifically about “the disciple whom Jesus loved” at that moment because of who this disciple was, since Peter would have known him as Lazarus.
The other thing to take into account is the point at which Peter’s attention turned to the one whom “Jesus loved.” This is noteworthy because the topic of conversation had just changed, and at that moment Jesus was speaking about Peter’s death!
Jesus Foretells Peter’s Death
“This spake he [Jesus] signifying by what death he [Peter] should glorify God” (Fourth gospel 21:19). In the verse before this, Jesus foretold how Peter would die. After that prophesy, he had two more words for Peter, “Follow me” (Fourth gospel 21:19).
When Jesus raised the topic of Peter’s death, Peter seemed to change the subject, which might be dismissed by some as a typical reaction to anxiety. But bear in mind the one speaking to Peter was the resurrected Jesus, who had overcome death. As soon as Peter was told “by what death he should glorify God,” what did Peter do? “Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved… Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?” (Fourth gospel 21:20-21) [The literal Greek reads, “Lord, but of this one what.”]
Why, upon learning “by what death he should glorify God,” did Peter feel compelled to refer to one particular disciple? Was Peter merely concerned for this disciple or is there a more rational explanation that might better account for his question?
If the one whom “Jesus loved” was Lazarus, then we can see logic in Peter’s question. Perhaps he was wondering if he would be raised like Lazarus, or he may have been asking if Lazarus would have to die again – especially since he likely heard Jesus say, “he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die” prior to raising Lazarus (Fourth gospel 11:25-26). But regardless of why he asked his question, we can consider the distracting effect the one “whom Jesus loved” seemed to have on Peter.
Death is a weighty matter. Still, when Jesus brought up Peter’s death, Peter turned his attention from Jesus to “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” However, the key here is not the topic of death or Peter’s attention shifting from Jesus, it is his timing. He focused on the one whom “Jesus loved” as soon as the topic became death. Would Peter’s mind have associated Lazarus with this topic? Naturally.
This was only “the third time Jesus showed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead” (Fourth gospel 21:14). Even so, Jesus was not the sole focus of Peter’s attention. The author (known to us as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”) ended-up being a distraction for Peter, just as he later became a distraction to those who spread the rumor that said he would not die.
Being a distraction would surely conflict with the author’s objective (cf. Fourth gospel 20:31). Earlier we discussed how this potential conflict would provide a motive for the author to remain anonymous. So, the question is: Do the facts support the conclusion that this was Lazarus, writing anonymously to avoid any hindrance to his goal?
An Act of Humility?
The idea of Lazarus not using his name to avoid becoming a distraction fits with the author’s expressed intent. After Lazarus was raised from the dead, he became an attraction (Fourth gospel 12:9). If he was also the God-inspired writer of the fourth gospel, then Lazarus would have been more than willing to avoid claiming authorship, rather than taking the risk of interfering with his intention of focusing his readers on Jesus.
“The disciple whom Jesus loved” may not be a very humble sounding term. However, we know it is an accurate description, since it was written under the inspiration of God – and note the timing here also. The author began referring to himself by this term only after writing “they came not for Jesus sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also.”
It is common to hear people claim ‘John was humble’ because of the author’s anonymity. But this author was not John, so any attributes one may want to infer about this author do not apply to John. If this author’s effort to remain anonymous shows he was humble, then this quality would pertain to the author, whoever he was.
Likewise, another fact may also imply humility on the part of Lazarus. This gospel tells of the raising of Lazarus and the subsequent public response, but the author did not report a single word that was said by the man who was identified as Lazarus! We do not know if humility was the reason for either this or his anonymity. Still, it is worthwhile to note these things as we seek to weigh all the biblical data regarding the author’s character (i.e., Lazarus’ character).
Names in Scripture
The belief that a man might forgo his name is not foreign to the Bible. The disciples of Jesus were willing to change their names. Simon became Peter (Lk 6:14), Saul became Paul (Acts 13:9), etc. Further, this practice was not new. Abram became Abraham way back in Genesis 17:5. In addition, the Bible often uses multiple names for people. James and John were surnamed “Boanerges” (Mk 3:17), Thomas was, “called Didymus” (Fourth gospel 21:2), and “Judas” (not Iscariot) was also called, “Thaddaeus” (cf. Mk 3:18, Lk 6:16).
Thus, it is at least compatible with scripture to suggest Lazarus may have stopped using his name. Did he do this? If he was the unnamed author of the fourth gospel, then as far as this gospel is concerned, the answer is yes. As the jury, you must decide if scripture can prove this author was not John. If so, then your next job is to decide if the biblical evidence indicates this author was Lazarus. Hopefully, you have been convinced, but we will look at one final piece of evidence that might help to persuade anyone who is still unsure.
The Other Murder Plot
Lazarus had an effect on many people. We are told, “by reason of him [Lazarus] many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus” (Fourth gospel 12:11). This may have been due to the fact he was raised from the dead. But if Lazarus had already been a known figure in the community, then this would have amplified the effect of the news of him being raised, and several things hint at this idea.
For example, after he died “many of the Jews” comforted his sisters and after four days the Jews were still weeping over Lazarus (Fourth gospel 11: 19 & 33). In addition to his well-attended memorial service, the body of Lazarus was in a cave tomb with a rock door (Fourth gospel 11:38). This sounds like the kind of tomb we see associated with a rich man, Joseph of Arimathea (Mt 27:57-60). Moreover, when Lazarus and his sisters threw a supper for Jesus, his sister Mary anointed Jesus with “a pound” of “very costly” ointment (Fourth gospel 12:1-3). This, too, may be another indication that their household had no shortage of money.
Regardless, “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). In the time between the raising of Lazarus and the plot to kill him, a ground swell of response to this miracle started to develop among the people (cf. Fourth gospel 12:18). Also, as word of the raising of Lazarus spread, those religious leaders would have found even more reasons to want to dispose of him. Lazarus was the only one besides Jesus who was the object of a murder plot by the chief priests prior to Pentecost. The “chief priests” did not plot to kill all of the disciples of Jesus and they did not target just any random friend of Jesus. These men wanted to get rid of Lazarus specifically.
The thing to consider is the chief priests knew Lazarus had been raised from the dead, and knew of the public’s fascination with him and the impact this was having on the people (Fourth gospel 11:46-47, 12:9-11 & 18). While the chief priests may have known Lazarus as a figure in that community before Jesus raised him from the dead, after he was raised they knew him as the man they wanted to kill (Fourth gospel 12:10). These facts are relevant because they indicate Lazarus was known unto the chief priests.
Which Disciple Was Known?
The author twice tells us the “other disciple” was known unto the high priest (Fourth gospel 18:15 & 16). As was shown earlier, this helps prove John could not be the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved.” The John idea faces a truly insurmountable problem here. But, if this “other disciple” was Lazarus, this fact can be reconciled with the biblical evidence.
Here too, as with all of the other biblical data that was weighed in this study, we see the scriptures harmonize completely with the idea of Lazarus being “the other disciple, whom Jesus loved.”
“Add Thou Not unto His Words”
The title, ‘The Gospel of John’ was not part of the original text. It was added later and the evidence in scripture is able to prove the John idea is not true. Therefore, we have a compelling reason to avoid promoting the idea that the one whom “Jesus loved” was John. So, herein, the book written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” has not been referred to by the misleading title ‘John’/‘Gospel of John,’ since that can only serve to perpetuate a false idea.
Instead this anonymous gospel author’s work was referred to as the fourth gospel. This is a simple and easy-to-understand way to refer to his book in terms of its location in the New Testament. Those who reject the unbiblical John tradition (and who refer to the gospel in a way that does not promote that erroneous tradition) will no doubt have to endure ridicule and scornful looks from those who will not accept the biblical evidence on this issue. Nevertheless, those who are careful to refer to the gospel of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” by a term that does not promote the John error are justifiably encouraged by the words, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Th 5:21), for they are holding fast to the truth revealed in scripture. Inspired scripture is what we are to rely on, not the things men add to it. “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Prv 30:5-6).