Rethink: John was NOT the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Continuing where we left off, we are brought to our next reference;

So the Roman cohort and the commander, and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and bound Him, and led Him to Annas first; for he was father‑in‑law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one man to die on behalf of the people. [John 18:12-14]

And Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest, but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought in Peter.    [John 18:15-16]

The context for this is during the trial of Jesus. We see that Jesus was being followed by Peter, which everyone knows about, and our second mysterious disciple make another appearance. Peter would not have been able to gain access by himself, but rather it was the “other disciple” who was known to the High Priest and he was the one who got Peter in. If you read John 20 you will see that the “other disciple” is “the disciple whom Jesus loved:

And so she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” [John 20:2]

At this point we will build a case against the “beloved disciple” being John. When we contrast  John 18 to Acts 4 I think we will see that this “other disciple” could not be John. Acts 4:1-23 tells us what happened to Peter and John following the healing of a crippled man. Peter and John were seized and brought before the “rulers, and elders, and scribes, and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas” in order to be questioned about this miracle.

Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John, and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were marveling, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus. [Acts 4:13]

Here is where it gets interesting. Notice here what these Jewish leaders recognized. It was in that moment that they suddenly understood that these men had been with Jesus. The principal thing that we need to get out of this passage is that it was at that point that the high priest and the other rulers became acquainted with Peter and John for first time. But our text in John 18 tells us that the “other disciple” was known by the High Priest. This teaches us that the high priest did not know John [or Peter] before this incident. So the “other disciple” could not have been John!

Furthermore, and building upon this, we see in John 20 that this “other disciple” was the first to believe after the resurrection:

So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb entered then also, and he saw and believed. For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.    [John 20:8-9]

This happened early on the first day of the week “the other disciple saw and believed” but later that day notice what Mark tells us:

And afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen.    [Mark 16:14]

When he is speaking of “eleven” he is speaking of the“twelve” minus Judas. These eleven did not believe but the “other disciple” had believed that morning.  This fits really well because while we are told that “the other disciple whom Jesus loved” believed, Peter did not believe, but would believe a little later, as we see in Mark 16. The other disciple was clearly not one of the eleven and could not have been John, because John was counted among the eleven who were rebuked for not believing, while the disciple whom Jesus loved, Lazarus, had already believed!

To pile it one, at Jesus’ trial there are only two disciples there with Him, Peter and the “other disciple”. Peter denies that he even knows Him. Then we go to the cross and none of the “twelve” are there. They were all afraid. But notice who was there:

Therefore the soldiers did these things. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”  Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own household.    [John 19:25-27]

The Synoptics say all the twelve deserted Jesus once he was taken away for execution, even Peter, and record only women being at the cross. There is no contradiction here if the disciple whom Jesus loved is Lazarus rather than one of the Twelve.

The only man that we know of who was at the cross as Jesus died was “the disciple whom He loved”. Why? What gave Lazarus this boldness? Think about it. Why would Lazarus be afraid to die? He had already died and been raised from death. He had no fear of death he was loved by Him who is the Resurrection and the Life. We know too that this “other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved” was the first to believe, and was not one of  “the eleven”

Jesus loved Lazarus and he made him responsible to take care of His mother. The historical figure of Lazarus is more important than we may have previously imagined, due to his role in the life of Jesus and Jesus’ mother. Jesus must have trusted him implicitly to hand over his mother to him when he died.

 After the resurrection morning, the next mention of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” occurs in John 21:2-8.

There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples.  Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.” They said to him, “We will also come with you.” They went out, and got into the boat; and that night they caught nothing.    [John 21:2-3]

Two of those who were present are not named–which is consistent with the author’s practice of not naming himself! In fact, If you read John 20:1-8, you see that the writer mentions “the other disciple” 4 times without giving him a name even as he gives everyone else involved in the action a name. But that’s alright because he is named in verse 7.

That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord.” And so when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea.    [John 21:7]

Since “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was present, look at the author’s list in John 21:2. We see that “the sons of Zebedee” are named one of which was John and we know that the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” is present at the same time! This is strong evidence that the author was not the Apostle John. At the end of the Fourth Gospel Jesus is talking to Peter and tells him what kind of death he would experience. In response to this:

Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” Peter therefore seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” [ John 21:20-21]

Jesus tells Peter how he is going to die and Peter’s response is, I would argue, “What about Lazarus”? As soon as the topic became death, who did Peter’s mind turn to? Lazarus!

Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” This saying therefore went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”  [John 21:22-23]

We have this idea that “this man” is John because we read that back into the text from Church history, knowing that he is supposed to have died at an old age and not martyred unlike the rest of the apostles [though it is doubtful John was unique in him not being tortured.] We say “it must be John” because the popular belief is that his longevity qualified him for this task. And yet what do we see in the text? Something about this “other disciple” caused some or all of the disciples that were present at this event to jump to their erroneous conclusion – that Jesus’ words, “If I want him to remain until I come” meant “that disciple should not die”  The rumor “that disciple should not die” did not spring from a misunderstanding about what Jesus said. This error happened because of whom Jesus was speaking about!

I’m sure that Peter and the rest of these disciples knew that this individual was Lazarus who had already died and been brought back from the dead. In this case, a reason for one or more of those disciples jumping to the conclusion that they did, suddenly becomes evident. Since Jesus had already raised his friend Lazarus from the dead, those who knew that Lazarus was the subject of Jesus’ words in John 21:22-23 had mistakenly interpreted Jesus words to mean that Lazarus would be ‘exempted’ from having to undergo a second physical death.

I think we can  agree that the raising of Lazarus from the dead was a profound event in the life of Jesus. Yet this remarkable miracle is missing from three of the four gospels. The first three gospels don’t offer even a hint that this miracle occurred and they never mention that Jesus had a friend named Lazarus that he loved. Now consider that Matthew was probably an eyewitness to the raising of Lazarus. This was surely a powerful and unforgettable experience, yet Matthew left this out when he wrote his Gospel. Lazarus was big news! So why is it that the other Gospels fail to mention any of this?

Strangely enough it turns out that there is another prominent figure in the life of Jesus who is also nowhere to be found in the first three gospels. The person is “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. Is this simply a coincidence?

As fas as how the Fourth Gospel ever come to be attributed to John, I would suggest that  a man named John, not the son of Zebedee, could very well have edited this book. Although the Beloved Disciple is claimed as the Source of the book, that does not necessarily mean that he is its actual Writer. Most scholars are in agreement that John 21 makes clear that while the Beloved Disciple is said to have written down some Gospel traditions, he is no longer alive when at least the end of this chapter was written. This would also mesh well with the early Christian traditions attributing it to John.

This is the disciple who bears witness of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his witness is true. [John 21:24]

The “we know his witness is true” is a dead give away that someone other than the Disciple whom Jesus loved put this Gospel into its final form and added this appendix. This also explains something else. Whoever put the memoirs of the Disciple whom Jesus loved together is probably the one who insisted on calling him that. In other words, the Disciple whom Jesus loved is called such by his final editor, and this is not a self designation. If the Writer was a close colleague and follower of the Source, it is quite understandable that he would refer to his master by using the honorific title “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”

Well what say you? Are you convinced? Unconvinced? I would love your thoughts. And also, if you want more evidence, click on the link to David’s blog, as he offers more things that I’ve chosen to delete for the sake of brevity and space.

21 thoughts on “Rethink: John was NOT the disciple whom Jesus loved.

  1. I mentioned a free eBook on this topic on your other page. Many of the point that David Curtis used were from one of the earlier editions of this book, so you may want to check out this new edition:

    TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com is the site where you can either read it online or download various printer-friendly and pdf versions. FYI

    • You’re welcome and thank you for you’re willingness to encourage our fellow Bible students to search the scriptures on this topic. Sadly, far too many are not even willing to give a fair hearing to the biblical evidence, so you may get more heat for your posts than you expected, but the truth is ALWAYS worth whatever it costs!

  2. A book I would really like to get my hands on is Lazarus and the Fourth Gospel Community (link below) but I haven’t found it cheaper than $89 second-hand and I don’t believe its in print anymore.

    From a synopsis I’ve read in the past there is historical evidence of an Eleazar (Lazarus) from a priestly family with sisters named Miriam (Mary) and Martha. If that Eleazar is the same who was raised from the dead by Jesus and who wrote the fourth Gospel it explains how he was able to get Peter into the temple courts. Also how he knew the name of the slave whose ear was cut off, and how he knew that one of the people talking to Peter afterward was that slave’s cousin.

    If the same Eleazar wrote the Revelation it explains how he was so intimately familiar with the Old Testament temple imagery and how it was so eloquently woven into that text.

    Thanks to the one who posted the e-book, I am about to start reading it. Here’s the link to Amazaon for the one I mentioned.

  3. Good solid article. I have one clarification. I don’t think the rumor concerning Lazarus’ 9+ lives was started solely by Jesus’ statement in John 21. I think the seeds of this rumor began earlier. Consider this:

    John 11:23-25
    Jesus said to her, “Your brother [Lazarus] will rise again.” Martha said to Him, “ I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live EVEN IF HE DIES…”

    Though we now understand that Jesus was speaking about the gift of eternal life (not physical longevity), Martha was most likely confused. How could a man be dead and yet live? But this was before Lazarus was raised.

    So, consider the following rumor that you referenced..

    John 21:20-23
    Peter, turning around, saw THE DISCIPLE WHOM JESUS LOVED [DWJL] following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that THAT DISCIPLE WOULD NOT DIE; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?

    It was said of Lazarus, “he who believes in Me will live even if he dies…”

    John 11:3
    So the sisters sent word to Him, saying, “Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick.”

    John 11:36
    So the Jews were saying, “See how He loved him!”

    John 11:43
    When He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth.”

    So revisiting what Jesus said to Martha, is there any doubt why this rumor would have taken off?

    John 11:25-26
    Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me WILL LIVE EVEN IF HE DIES, and everyone who lives and believes in Me WILL NEVER DIE. Do you believe this?”

    To their knowledge, “he who believes in Me will live even if he dies”, applied directly to Lazarus. Lazarus, they assumed, would NEVER DIE.

    Blessings!

  4. I came to this conclusion that Judas the betrayer was a metaphor for Lucifer the fallen archangel in the beginning of time. The Allegory of Judas sitting closest to Jesus during the last supper and betraying him is evident as a cross referenced story to the original fall of man caused by Lucifer (originally an archangel for good turned bad).
    This story is mirrored in the New Testament allegory of the last supper.

    Many scriptures cross reference Judas (the betrayer) as sitting the closest to Jesus?

    Further proof of this is shown in the crucifixion story of two thieves on the cross, one repents the other does not, this is a veiled story that the *unrepentant thief (Lucifer) was also close to Christ at Christ’s death.
    I would say the unrepentant thief (who tried to steal God’s power) is left behind (alive) to witness the second coming of Jesus.
    The second coming hasn’t happened yet, it is *happening over time.
    This is empowered by the end times of an antichrist acting as God itself, so there are many cross references to give us a heads up. When we see the opening scriptural reference.

    Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”

    Jesus is referencing the resurrection here (when I return), also… he is showing the power of the Creator by saying, “if I want him to remain alive”?

    This is clearly coming from God through Jesus i.e., only God through Jesus has the power to keep those alive or dead, immortality or permanent death.
    The creator is allowing Lucifer to remain alive but behind Jesus, (not next to him) to witness the power of God in this statement.
    What better way to punish Lucifer of his original sin of misleading mankind than to “leave him alive but left behind” during Jesus second coming?
    Remember Lucifer thinks he can rule the earth, but the creator is showing that he can’t.

    The ultimate power of God is shown here.

  5. you are right about john judas was the most loved and this validates the gospel of judas you make several errors of judgement in trying to prove lazuras i am new to computers a poor typist and prefer writing or talking i believe i can logically prove my point if you are open minded to discuss it

    • http://www.TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com presents the biblical evidence that proves the unnamed beloved disciple who wrote the fourth gospel was not John and shows why anyone who has been deceived by that unbiblical teaching of men should stop trusting in non-Bible sources and let the word of God be the standard of truth on biblical issues.
      Surprisingly the number of verses that would justify teaching the John idea is equal to the number of verses that would lead one to believe this person was Judas, but since that number is ZERO there is no BIBLICAL reason for anyone to believe either of those man-made notions — and the same is true for those who says this disciple was Mary Magdalene, Thomas, James, or any of the other litany of unbiblical ideas that men have and continue to propose as candidates for the writer of the fourth gospel. Since those ideas cannot stand up to biblical scrutiny, they like every other false teaching will be discarded by anyone who respects the authority of God’s word.

  6. Hello Bible Student
    There is nothing wrong in exploring Bible in different ways as long as the meanings enhance and add value to the “words” of God. Bible is multidimensional and paradoxical. There are 2 creation stories. There are 4 authors giving different perspectives. There are 4 resurrection stories. we can go on and on That makes the Bible far more powerful.

  7. Very elaborate and interesting article. I am convinced “the disciple Jesus loved” was not Lazarus. Let look at this passages: “Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?”. the Synoptic gospels clearly state that only the twelve were at this supper that the question about the betrayer was asked:
    Matthew 25:20 “When evening had come, He sat down with the twelve.”
    Mark 14:17 ” In the evening He came with the twelve”
    Luke 22:14 “When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him” NKJV

    The disciple Jesus loved is not Lazarus but one of the twelve (minus Judas Iscariot). He had hanged himself)

    • Good comment, Delmar. That’s the same conclusion I initially drew which immediately ruled out the DWJL being someone other than one of the 12. But there’s a problem with our logic. Nowhere in the verses you referenced does it say, “Only the 12 were at the last supper.” Jesus clearly came with the 12. And clearly the 12 were in that room. However, you have made an intellectual inference that the Biblical text simply does not support.

      Most likely, as was the case in Acts 1, there was ordinarily a far greater entourage that followed Jesus. than merely the 12. The numbers were often 70 or even greater as we see shortly after Jesus’ resurrection.

      Acts 1:12-15 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey. 13 And when they had entered, they went up into the UPPER ROOM where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James. 14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. 15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about A HUNDREDS AND TWENTY), and said,”

      So, at least in the above instance, the group was APPROX 120. And this was clearly the norm throughout Jesus’ ministry.

      When the 12 arrived with Jesus gathering for the last supper, this was someone’s home. Was the home abandoned? Surely not. If I announced that I came with my “family of four”, would you automatically assume that we were the only people at that location? Not unless I specifically said, “The four of us were the only ones present.”

      In the same way, I think there were probably many more than the 12 in that upper room. However, let’s leave the land of conjecture and find our proof in Scripture.

      Mark 14:16-18 So His disciples went out, and came into the city, and found it just as He had said to them; and they prepared the Passover. 17 In the evening He came WITH THE TWELVE. 18 Now as they sat and ate, Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you, ONE OF YOU who eats with Me will betray Me.”

      So far your argument is holding up, correct? If Mark would have stopped there, we’d have had no certainly that anyone other than the 12 was in the upper room, right? But Mark included an incredibly valuable detail that is often missed. Look at Jesus’ more specific statement.

      Mark 14:19-20 And they began to be sorrowful, and to say to Him one by one, “Is it I?” And another said, “Is it I?” 20 He answered and said to them, “IT IS ONE OF THE TWELVE, who dips with Me in the dish.”

      So why, if there were only 12 in that room, would Jesus have made that additional clarifying statement? Because there were more than 12 in that room. It was undoubtedly full of devout followers including Lazarus who was reclined next to Jesus just as he had been in the prior chapter of the 4th Gospel. Jesus had just narrowed the group of potential betrayers down to the 12 that He arrived with.

      What people fail to realize when they attempt to force the Apostle John into the mold of the DWJL, is that the Bible is abundantly clear in 3 places that John simply cannot be the DWJL. So, since John is the only possible choice out of the 12, they unwittingly subject the Bible to error. And this, in my view, is tragic because it plays right into the hands of the liberals who already question the integrity of the Bible.

  8. Pingback: St. Lazarus the "One Whom Jesus Loved" - Possible He Wrote the 4th Gospel? - Page 2 - Christian Forums

  9. After Lazarus was raised from the death the Jews sought to kill him too because many belived in Jesus through him.Then how can he go to the high priest’s house with such boldness.If he was known to the high priests how would the Jews think of killing him?

    • Jil, you raise a good point worth considering. However, once you realize that the “other disciple” (John 18) was in fact the “Disciple Whom Jesus Loved” (John 20: the context and flow bear that out), I would ask you the same question regarding John and Peter. If John was the DWJL, why then, since he was known to have been a follower of Christ, didn’t the High Priest’s guards capture both of them? The fact is that both Jesus and His followers were equally hated by the Jews. Yes, some of them wanted to kill Lazarus, but it wouldn’t be surprising that he had allies.

      Per Acts 4, it’s clear that neither John nor Peter were KNOWN by the High Priest and/or his cohorts. So, since the 4th Gospel’s author made it plain that he (the “other disciple” who was the DWJL) was KNOWN by the High Priest, the “other disciples” could not have been the Apostle John. The 4th Gospel is also the only Gospel to reveal the name of the guard whose ear Peter lopped off. So the author shows an unusual familiarity with the priestly cohort, not found in the 3 synoptics.

      Also, is should not go without notice that ALL the disciples fled in fear (Mt 26:56; Mk 14:50). Matter of fact, after the crucifixion the ELEVEN were hovelled in a house when Jesus arrived.

      So who was it that was bold enough to be at the cross along with the women? Perhaps it was the man who didn’t fear death since he had been raised? There is nothing in Scripture that gives us the even an inkling that the youngest Apostle, John, was emboldened to the point of not fearing death. And the fact is that he was with the other 10 when Jesus chastised them all for their unbelief.

      Yet, Lazarus had already died once and was rumored to be impervious to death. Isn’t Jesus’ good friend, the only man in the Bible to have been singled out to have been loved by Jesus, the one who would have fearlessly stood by his beloved friend? Not only that, but he was a man of means who lived just 2 miles from the Cross.

      Contrarily, are we to believe that Jesus entrusted His mother to very young man, John, who lived well over 100 miles to the north? Hadn’t he fled in fear with the others? The Bible tells us “from that time on, this disciple took her into his home” (John 19:26-27). So he had to have traveled 3 day’s journey north and then have been back in time to race Peter to the tomb. That would have been physically impossible! By the time John returned after dropping off Jesus’ mother, Jesus would have been raised 3 days. Yet, for the man who lived just a 2 miles away in Bethany, it would have been highly probable.

      Though raising objections is fruitful, what we are implored to do is find the person who BEST fits the descriptions ascribed to the DWJL. Fearless. Rumored not to die. Loved by Jesus. Not part of the 11. First to believe. Lived near the cross. Was a man of financial means. Had a reason to conceal authorship. Known by the High Priest. Personally familiar with grave clothes and resurrection. Though I am always careful to go against tradition, this is one instance where I am compelled to depart. :)

  10. This is the reasons I don’t believe Lazarus was the disciple whom Jesus loved, and this disciple was likely an apostle. Sorry the typos, I’m not english speaker.

    The author of the fourth gospel is an eyewitness. So he was present in the events he told or at least, many.

    Pay attention to these verses:

    “So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit ” “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”(John 20:23)

    An Apostle is someone God has sent out to spread the word. As you can see Jesus uses this word. This means he was talking to the twelve apostles.

    This verse can be read in parallel with this one from Mark:

    “Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they sat at table; and he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” “(Mark 16: 14-18)

    Lazarus wasn’t even one of the twelve. Scripture also shows only the twelve were at the last supper. The beloved disciple was at the last supper. This rules Lazarus out, too.

    “When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve” (Matthew 26:20)

    “When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, truly I tell you, one of you will betray me–one who is eating with me. They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, “Surely you don’t mean me?” It is one of the Twelve,” he replied, “one who dips bread into the bowl with me. ” (Mark 14:17)

    “When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table.” (Luke 22:14)

    “And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28)

    “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” (John 6:70)

    “So that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:30)

    Some people argue that maybe there were more people at the upper room, but when Jesus and the apostles were surrounded with more people, the scripture states it.

    “It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.” (Luke 24:10)

    Also, Peter and John were sent to prepare the supper. If there were more disciples in the house, why send two apostles?

    Another important point is in John 21. This chapter shows the disciple whom Jesus loved is a fisherman. He was among the seven who gone fishing in the Sea of Galilee. It’s true we only know for sure that four apostles were fishermen,(Andrew, Peter, James, John) but I don’t think it’s a coincidence the place Jesus chosen to appear after the resurrection is the place he chose his first disciples ;)

    The miraculous catching of fish is very similar to this one:

    “When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into deep water, and let down the nets for a catch.” Simon answered, “Master, we’ve worked hard all night and haven’t caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets.” When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish that their nets began to break. So they signaled their partners in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and filled both boats so full that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!” For he and all his companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken, and so were James and John, the sons of Zebedee, Simon’s partners. (Luke 5:1-11)

    Maybe the disciple whom Jesus loved remembered the first miraculous catching of fish?

    This is also an answer to these who like to argue the author of the fourth gospel cannot be a simple Galilean fisherman. The scripture shows Zebedee had boats and servants. Also, because the Sea of Galilee was rich in fish, not everyone could be a fisherman. For this reason, the fishery licenses were very expensive. Jesus choose these simple men. Acts show Peter and John were leaders.

    Many argue that since the raising of Jairus daughter, and the transfiguration isn’t in the fourth gospel, John couldn’t have written it. Really?

    “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)

    And, who can guarantee this verse isn’t about the transfiguration?

    “We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)

    “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!” (Matthew 17:4)

    Lazarus is simply called” the one whom Jesus loved”, not “the disciple whom Jesus loved” but that part of the scripture says Jesus loved also Mary and Martha. And why Lazarus name would disappear, since it would be so obvious? Many people uses this as an argument, like the rich young ruler, since Jesus “loved him”.

    Also, if we consider “the other disciple” and the “disciple whom Jesus loved” the same person, how could he be Lazarus if Jesus only knew he was sick when they were closer to Bethany? Like, it means Lazarus wasn’t with them until that point.

    We can´t say for sure the disciple whom Jesus loved was John but also we can´t say he wasn´t. At the same time, I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that along the reports of the Church Fathers (I chose to believe them over modern scholars….) and the Muratorian Canon, John belonged to the inner circle of Jesus…he, with Peter and James, saw Jesus transfigured, saw Jairus daughter being raised, saw Jesus agony in the garden. This shows John was closer to Jesus than Lazarus.

    This is my reasons, I respect who believes otherwise, but I have this feeling, along the points I wrote. You know, when you’re reading the scriptures and you something hit you? :)

    Best regards

  11. Susana, you raise some good points. And it’s obvious that you’ve clearly put a great deal of thought into your response. BTW, your English is better than most native English speakers. So, don’t sell your English short. :)

    Based upon your remarks, I’m not certain you’ve read and digested all that has been written prior to your comment. Quite a few of those items have been addressed. I won’t deal with all the proofs for Lazarian authorship since my comments would be redundant, but I will make a few observations and draw a conclusion that you may not have considered regarding the Last Supper. That seems to be a sticking point for many. Da Vinci’s famous painting has clearly helped emblazon in our mind’s eye that there were ONLY 12 posing with Jesus. :).

    In my view, anyone assuming that there were only 12 in that room have made the classic assumptive mistake that goes beyond what Scripture tells us. And for most of my life I was in that number. Most assume that since Jesus came with the 12 that there were only 12 at the Supper. Not only is there is clear evidence that the DWJL was NOT one of the twelve (we’ve already provided 3 convincing proofs of that fact), but if we pay attention closely to the Biblical texts regarding the Last Supper, we will find that there were more than the 12 (plus Jesus) in that room. Matter of fact, there were most likely many more, just as there were in Acts 1. In the upper room just prior to Peter’s amazing Pentecost sermon, we find the disciples gathered with more than a hundreds others:

    (Acts 1:12-16) Then they returned to Jerusalem from the [j]mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away. 13 When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. 14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. 15 At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (A GATHERING OF ABOUT ONE HUNDREDS AND TWENTY PERSONS was there together), and said, 16 “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.

    This was the entourage that often accompanied Jesus. So it was customary to have quite a large contingent of committed disciples along with the 12. Now, at the last supper it should be noted that they were meeting in someone’s house. This was not an abandoned building but was a home with a large upstairs room (Luke 22:12). In two accounts the authors paid special attention to the size of the room. And I find that interesting.

    So, from a cursory reading of the various Gospel accounts, we aren’t specifically told that ONLY the 12 were in that Passover room.

    Mark 14:17 When it was evening He came with the twelve.
    Matthew 26:20 When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve.
    Luke 22:14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table.

    All we know for certain is that the entire band of 12 were in that room. “Coming with the 12″ makes that point clear. As an anecdote, I wonder why they would have needed such a LARGE upper room for merely the 12? Now, consider the following:

    (Mark 14:17-19) When it was evening He came WITH THE TWELVE. 18 As they were reclining at the table and eating, Jesus said, “Truly I say to you that ONE OF YOU will betray Me—ONE WHO IS EATING WITH ME.”

    So this proves that it was one of the 12, right? If Jesus came with the 12 and it was one of them, then that would exclude Lazarus or anyone other than a disciple. Yes, that would be the correct conclusion if one was remiss in reading the very next verse. For a moment consider the “they” and “them” in the next verse included far more than the 12. Matter of fact, I’ll show that it must.

    (Mark 14:19) THEY began to be grieved and to say to Him one by one, “Surely not I?” 20 And He said to THEM, “It is ONE OF THE TWELVE, one who dips with Me in the bowl.

    Do you see the problem with the traditional interpretation? If there were only 12 disciples in that room, why would Jesus have made this clarifying statement, “It is one of the twelve”? The large number of congregants went one by one asking who it was and so Jesus said, “It is ONE OF THE TWELVE”. That’s the qualifier that excluded the others in that room. However, if there were ONLY 12 in that room, that would have made Jesus’ qualifier rather silly. If you were one of ONLY 12 in that room, wouldn’t you have thought, “Dah, Jesus, of course it’s one of us. Who else could it be!?”

    So there were most definitely others in that room. Possibly as many as there were at Pentecost. Therefore, just as was the case when we find Lazarus reclining with Jesus in John 12:2.

    (John 12:2) So they made Him a supper there, and Martha was serving; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with Him.

    Then we no longer see the name Lazarus. Isn’t it interesting that when Lazarus disappears, the DWJL appears?

    (John 13:23) There was reclining on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.

    Lazarus disappears and the DWJL appears. Just like the Superman/Clark Kent scenario. :)

    Let me address one other point that you raised Susana, which regards being an eyewitness. For argument’s sake, let’s presume for a moment that the Apostle John was indeed the 4th Gospel author. What were the three most significant, mind-blowing, life-changing events that we know John witnessed? Would agree that the following three were monumental?

    1. The raising of Jairus’ daughter
    2. The Garden of Gethsemane
    3. The Transfiguration

    Do you know how many of those events are contained in the 4th Gospel? NONE! This is not absolute proof that John didn’t write the 4th Gospel, but it certainly should cause one pause. Why in the world John wouldn’t have included the most life-altering events in his own Gospel account is beyond odd.

    Matter of fact, of all the events where we know John is present (due to the synoptic accounts), I don’t believe any of them are included in His own eyewitness account. Since he was for the most part a tag along with his big brother James, (Matthew only mentions John in that context – always as the brother of James), don’t you find it strange that John doesn’t include any of the events where he was an eyewitness, in his own Gospel?

    Susana, thanks for indulging me. Sorry for the length, but it takes a while to offer an explanation.

  12. Susana, sorry for the few grammatical errors. I couldn’t alter the contents once they were posted. :( Instead of “In my view, anyone assuming that there were only 12 in that room have made the classic assumptive mistake that goes beyond what Scripture tells us. And for most of my life I was in that number, ” it should have been “were only 12 in that room HAS made the…”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s