The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved
Chapter 3
Was John The Beloved Disciple?
The Testimony of Scripture Regarding John
John never claimed to be the author of the fourth gospel, so the fact that it bears his name was not his fault. This was caused by others erroneously attributing it to him. The Apostle John cannot be blamed for the mistakes of others, and he is not available to testify on this issue. But God’s word has preserved a body of clear and convincing evidence that is able to set the record straight in this instance.
Let us begin by looking to see what the Bible reveals about John, the brother of James and son of Zebedee. We will contrast those facts with the facts about “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” As we do this, time and again you will see the evidence indicates John and “the disciple whom Jesus loved” were two different people. We will be analyzing a lot of data about the one “whom Jesus loved” as we go through this process. You will also be learning many of the facts that are needed to establish the true identity of this “other disciple” as we take the time to learn exactly how the evidence ‘clears’ John.
How Humble Was the Apostle John?
The idea of John being the author of the fourth gospel is typically defended with this excuse, ‘John did not identify himself as the author because he wanted to be humble.’ Is this reasonable? John named himself five times in the Book of Revelation. Does this mean he was more prideful or less humble? Surely not. But this contrast does argue against the idea the same man also wrote the fourth gospel. John’s identity was repeatedly noted in the Book of Revelation, while in the fourth gospel the identity of the author was repeatedly obscured. Moreover, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is not the most humble-sounding self-description. If it were not part of scripture, the author’s use of this designation might actually seem to be quite immodest.
Rather than saying Jesus loved him, if this writer had used his name would it seem less humble? (Those who try to attribute this gospel to John offer no logical reason why he would conceal his identity. But it turns out something recorded in scripture about the actual author gives us at least one reason why he might avoid identifying himself by name.)
The notion that humility was the reason that John did not use his name has other shortcomings. Consider what we know about John and his brother. Jesus named them, “The sons of thunder” (Mk 3:17). They sought power to call fire down from heaven to consume people (Lk 9:54).
They also proposed they should be the ones sitting on the right and left hand of Jesus in his kingdom (Mk 10:35-40). Does that sound like humility? Their fellow apostles did not seem to think so for it goes on to say, “when the ten heard it they began to be much displeased with James and John” (Mk 10:41). So, it was not humbleness on the part of John and his brother that caused this indignation among the remainder of the twelve. Rather, it was a lack thereof. This does not mean John was never humble. The foregoing facts were brought up merely to show the Bible does not give us any reason to believe John was unusually humble. Prior to the day of Pentecost at least, it seems humility was not John’s strong point. Although the presence of the Holy Spirit after Pentecost naturally would have led the apostles to be more humble, this does not permit us to assume unfounded actions on the part of John or any other apostle or disciple.
In the Book of Revelation, John was named five times, and some other writers of scripture named themselves in their books. But this does not mean they were not humble. In addition, nothing in scripture indicates the Apostle John had reason to, or ever tried to, conceal his identity. So, to assume the author of the fourth gospel is referred to as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” just because ‘John wanted to be humble,’ turns out to have absolutely no scriptural support whatsoever.
A Glaring Oversight?
A simple truth can sometimes go unnoticed, but when we realize it or when it is pointed out to us, then we wonder how we could have ever missed it. Consider, for example, the other books of the Bible that are traditionally attributed to the Apostle John. Guess what is missing from all of them? None of those books ever call the Apostle John “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Neither does any other book in the Bible. But if, as the tradition of men claims, John wrote the book that today bears his name, then what can explain this glaring contrast?
Those who claim the Apostle John wrote the fourth gospel lack a plausible explanation as to why the identifying term “Jesus loved” and this unique relationship were never associated with John by any writer of scripture. Moreover, those who believe that both the fourth gospel and the Book of Revelation were written by the Apostle John cannot explain why he named himself in one book and not the other.
Then again, it might be John was not called the one whom “Jesus loved” anywhere in scripture because he was not “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” So perhaps this disciple was someone else, someone who was other than the twelve.
Why Include the One Whom “Jesus Loved” but Exclude John?
The other gospels treat John and “the disciple whom Jesus loved” differently. John and his brother upset the rest of the apostles on at least one occasion (Mk 10:41). Yet, the other gospel writers had no problem including John. Excluding references to John the Baptist, John was named a total of twenty times in their gospels. (He was referred to only once in the fourth gospel and we will consider this later.) The other gospels talk of Jesus taking aside “Peter and James and John” (Mt 17:1, Mk 14:33, Lk 8:51, et al.) and each one mentions other things about John. Time and again, the first three gospels note John’s presence and/or his actions at various events. So, the writers of those gospels were more than willing to talk about John’s involvement in Jesus’ ministry. There is something incredibly peculiar about this. Do you see the problem this presents?
The other three gospel writers never refer to the one whom “Jesus loved,” the “other disciple,” etc. As was noted earlier, they do not mention him even when scripture proves he was present (i.e., Fourth gospel 18:15-16 as contrasted with Mt 26:58, Mk 14:54, & Lk 22:54-55). So, while the other gospel writers do mention John, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is conspicuous by his absence from their books. If he was John, then this inconsistent treatment presents a problem. Did the other three gospel writers freely mention John, except for all those times when the fourth gospel happens to mention “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” the “other disciple,” etc.? How could they have known when to leave him out? Even if they all had a copy of the fourth gospel to know when it referred to this unnamed disciple, it does not follow they would omit all mention of him if he was John. However, if they knew he and John were two different people, then this dissimilar treatment is understandable.
Also, Matthew 27:56 tells us, “the mother of Zebedee’s children” was present when Jesus died, but never mentions her son John. Yet “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was at the cross. So, those who say he was John are inevitably forced to believe this author felt the presence of John’s mother was worthy of mention but her son the Apostle should be left out of the same account. Is this reasonable? In Matthew 20:20, “the mother of Zebedee’s children” was also mentioned. But there the author included “her sons” (John and James) and their conversation with Jesus (Mt 20:20-24). Since John was included with his mother when this author named her earlier, would this author have named her while ignoring John in his account of Jesus’ death if John had been there?
Does the work of the other three gospel writers suggest the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” and John were the same person? No, it does not, and those who claim John was the “other disciple” cannot explain this discrepancy. The other three gospels omit the one whom “Jesus loved,” but we find many references to John in those gospels. This distinct treatment suggests these were different people, not the same individual. Conversely, if they were two different people, then it makes sense to find the other gospel writers treating them differently.
The Relationship Between Jesus and John
Some people claim Jesus had an ‘inner circle’ of disciples because there were three times when only “Peter and James and John” were permitted to accompany Jesus (Mt 17:1, Mk 13:3 & 14:33, Lk 8:51). These three occasions were mentioned briefly in the last section. No doubt, being selected to be with Jesus at these moments was a privilege Peter, James, and John enjoyed over the rest of the disciples.
John’s inclusion in this so-called ‘inner circle’ has been used by some as a rationale for supposing John must be “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” They say this shows John had a special relationship with Jesus, which then leads them to assume the phrase “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is talking about the Apostle John. Unfortunately, this is not good logic, nor is it scriptural. First, John was not alone with Jesus on those occasions. If being included in those events implies an ‘inner circle’ relationship, then this would also be true for Peter and James. Even so, scripture never suggests John’s relationship with Jesus put him in a class above Peter and his brother James, nor does it indicate John’s relationship with Jesus was otherwise unique among the apostles.
Jesus did choose Peter and John to prepare his last Passover (Lk 22:8). However, this one verse is not enough to justify assuming Peter and John were the two closest disciples of Jesus. Regardless, many do believe the two closest disciples of Jesus were Peter and John. But this is because they have already assumed John was “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” This idea is so pervasive most do not notice when circular reasoning is used to argue for John being “the disciple whom Jesus loved” – e.g., ‘Peter and John were the closest ones to Jesus, and Peter was not “the other disciple,” so it must be John.’ It is true Peter was not “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Fourth gospel 13:23-24, 20:3 & 21:20), but this line of reasoning says nothing about John because the argument rests on a false premise.
Superficial arguments might convince people to believe John was the one whom “Jesus loved,” but the evidence proves otherwise. There is no reason to assume this anonymous disciple was an apostle or that he was one of the three men that joined Jesus on the three occasions that were discussed above. As you will see, the author called himself the “other disciple” for a very good reason – because he was “other” than the twelve.
Peter Was Foremost Among the Twelve
Peter was the first disciple who was focused on by Jesus; Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep and called Peter blessed; an angel mentioned Peter by name on resurrection morning; it was Peter who gave an answer to the mockers on the Day of Pentecost (Fourth gospel 1:42 & 21:15-17, Mt 16:1, Mk 16:7, Acts 2:14). These and other passages show, Peter was the one who stood out among the twelve.
One would expect Peter to stand out from the rest of the twelve because this fits with what scripture says about him, but this cannot be said when it comes to John. When Jesus was arrested, his disciples fled (Mt 26:56, Mk 14:50). After that, Peter at least somehow found the courage to follow Jesus (Fourth gospel 18:15, Mt 26:58, Mk 14:54, Lk 22:54), although his three denials did begin soon thereafter.
Among the twelve apostles, it was not John but Peter who had a noteworthy relationship with Jesus. (Still, Peter was not “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” as has been noted.) Before Pentecost, John was not singled out in this way in scripture. Although Jesus did take aside Peter, James, and John three times, John’s actions in the gospels do not suggest he was a cut above the rest of the twelve. Conversely, scripture does imply “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 the times when Jesus took aside Peter, James, and John provide a basis to claim the one whom “Jesus loved” was John? It takes a big stretch to make such an assumption. However, without this, the argument for John goes nowhere.
The Behavior and Character of John
Now we will compare the character of John to what we are told about the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved.” First, let’s consider the behavior of John during one of the key events in Jesus’ life.
While Jesus was in 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 made a simple request, “watch” (Mt 26:38, Mk14:34).
But Peter, James, and John could not even stay awake for Jesus while he spent time in prayer. When Jesus returned and found them sleeping, he made his dismay clear when he said to Peter, “could ye not watch with me one hour?” (Mt 26:40, Mk 14:37) Jesus left to pray again and John let him down a second time. When Jesus came back that time, he “found them asleep again” (Mt 26:43, Mk14:40). The last time he stepped away to pray, they fell asleep also (Mt 26:45, Mk14:41). John acted like his fellow apostles when things were calm, and the three of them failed to stay awake and watch. So, why would John have acted differently from them after the trouble started? The ensuing trial and crucifixion of Jesus were traumatic events, and during that period, the rest of the apostles (excluding Judas) would not have been exempt from being gripped by the same fear that ultimately drove Peter to deny he even knew Jesus (Mt 26:69-74).
Matthew 26:37-45 and Mark 14:33-41 give us a sense of just how much Peter, James, and John disappointed Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane that night. Jesus knew Judas had betrayed him and he knew he would soon be killed. But Jesus’ urgent requests were not able to rouse Peter, James, and John to action. Immediately following this series of failures by the three so-called ‘inner circle’ apostles, an armed and hostile mob showed up, seized Jesus, and hauled him off to trial.
If John could not manage to watch as Jesus had requested at Gethsemane, why would anyone think John abruptly changed and began to act unlike his fellow apostles after Jesus was seized? There is no reason to believe John acted any differently than the way the rest of the apostles acted on that night. But the “other disciple” did act differently!
He “went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest” (Fourth gospel 18:15), and at the cross the following morning, Jesus saw “the disciple standing by, whom he loved” (Fourth gospel 19:26). So, it appears he remained in the vicinity of Jesus during the time that transpired between these two verses.
What would an unbiased jury conclude if they compared the behavior of the “other disciple” to that of John, who could not even stay awake for Jesus earlier that same night?
The Bible Presents a Contrast
The night Jesus was seized, the Apostle John let Jesus down three times. But the “other disciple” went in with Jesus a little later, and the next morning, the disciple “whom he loved” was there at the cross of Jesus. This presents a stark contrast. Ask yourself, Does the evidence suggest the “other disciple” and John were the same person or does it indicate they were more likely two different people? If we set aside the John idea and just go by the evidence in scripture, what answer do we find the Bible pointing to?
The loyalty exhibited by the “other disciple” sets him apart from his fellow disciples. Moreover, Jesus entrusted his mother to this unnamed disciple at the cross (Fourth gospel 19:26-27) and it says, “from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home” (Fourth gospel 19:27). [“Unto his own” translates a term that was also used by the author in 16:32, where it is tied to a change in location. So, 19:27 indicates they departed from the vicinity of the cross at that time.]
Then, on resurrection morning, this disciple was the first man at Jesus’ tomb. Furthermore, when he entered into the tomb scripture specifically says he “believed” – the first disciple after the resurrection to do so (Fourth gospel 20:2-4 & 8). This all speaks well of the “other disciple,” but it does not in any way suggest this person was John. On the contrary, the facts in evidence show John and the “other disciple” were two different people because they behaved differently!
“And They All Forsook Him and Fled”
The “other disciple” was not the only one who showed some courage after the disciples fled on the night Jesus was seized. Peter also followed Jesus on that night. However, he remained outside, warming himself by a fire (Fourth gospel 18:18, Mk 14:54 & 14:67, Lk 22:55-56). Then he denied Jesus (Fourth gospel 18:25, Mt 26:70-74, Mk 14:67-71, Lk 22:57-60). After denying Jesus, when Peter recalled Jesus’ prophecy of this, it says he “went out” and “wept bitterly” (Mt 26:75, Lk 22:62). This all occurred before Jesus was taken to Pilate. While we are told Peter left the scene of Jesus’ trial, this is never said of the “other disciple.”
In any case, we need to think of both Peter and the “other disciple” as returning when they followed Jesus that night. This is because earlier that evening, Jesus told his disciples, “ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone” (Fourth gospel 16:32). On the Mount of Olives a little later he also said, “All ye shall be offended because of me this night” (Mt 26:31, Mk 14:27). He was correct. In Mark 14:50 we are told what happened just before Jesus was seized and led away to the high priest. It says, “And they all forsook him and fled.”
So, it would be wrong to assume Peter and the “other disciple” did not flee the scene at Gethsemane, as did the rest of the disciples. Yet, we are told these two men followed Jesus that same night. While this might appear to be a discrepancy in the scriptures, it is not.
With regard to Peter, we are told he followed Jesus “afar off” (Mt 26:58, Mk 14:54, Lk 22:54). This could indicate Peter was keeping a safe distance between himself and Jesus. On the other hand, he might have followed “afar off” as a result of fleeing at first, and then going on to follow after Jesus was taken away. Is it plausible Peter might vacillate like this?
Well, after finding the courage to follow Jesus, Peter soon denied 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 adamant, “Although all shall be offended, yet not I” (Mk 14:29). Jesus then responded by foretelling Peter’s three denials that would come later that night (Mk 14:30).
Peter insisted Jesus was wrong about this. Mark 14:31 says he “spake the more vehemently, If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise.” Is it reasonable to suggest Peter might have remembered his boastful words after he fled? Yes. Whatever the reason, it is clear that after Peter fled with the rest of the disciples, he eventually followed Jesus on that night.
In any case, we still have to deal with the same dilemma regarding the “other disciple.” Did he flee or did he follow? Later it will be shown that there is also a way to answer this seeming discrepancy for the “other disciple.”
Courage Under Fire
When we are careful not to force the identity of John upon 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 he found the courage to follow Jesus? What gave him the fortitude to stick with Jesus when even Peter finally threw in the towel and left?
If Peter, James, and John could not even stay awake when Jesus asked them to pray, what could have motivated this “other disciple” to follow Jesus into his trial and to stand by the cross until the care of Jesus’ mother was assigned to him by Jesus?
These questions raise even more questions. Is there anyone in the Bible we could expect to exhibit these characteristics? Does scripture give us enough evidence to explain why the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” behaved the way he did?
As you will soon find out, the Bible is able to answer all of these questions. First though, let us remove any remaining doubts about whether or not John was “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”
Ch. 4: Gospel of ‘John’ or not?