Chapter 4 - A WRONG ASSUMPTION &
MORE EVIDENCE THAT CLEARS JOHN

“The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved” and The ‘Last Supper’

A misperception about Jesus’ last Passover has tended to give credence to the idea that John was the author of this Gospel. John 21:20 tells us, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was the one who “leaned on his (Jesus) breast at supper and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?” (Also see, Jn. 13:23-25.)

However, because Mark 14:17 states, Jesus “cometh with the twelve” and Matthew 26:20 says, Jesus “sat down with the twelve” some presume that the “other disciple” has to be one of “the twelve”. There are also many ‘Last Supper’ paintings that help instill an image in our mind of Jesus sitting with “the twelve” at a table having a private supper together with no one else in the room. However, these artist renditions and an erroneous assumption have led many people to accept a faulty conclusion.

Note that the Bible does not say that “the twelve” were the only ones present with Jesus at that Passover. Nowhere are we told that they dined alone. Nor will you find any verse that indicates that other disciples could not participate. Is there any reason to believe that they dined alone that last Passover? Not unless you read a constraint into Matthew 26:20 and Mark 14:17 that isn’t in the text.

Remember that it is wrong to assume that someone is not present at an event simply because a passage of scripture doesn’t mention their presence!

This was demonstrated earlier by contrasting Luke 24:10-12 with John 20:2-10. If someone had only the passage from Luke, they might jump to the conclusion that Peter was alone when he went to the tomb on resurrection morning. However, Peter was not alone when he visited Jesus’ vacant tomb with the “other disciple” that morning. What’s more, the person that Luke left out wasn’t some bit player! “The disciple whom Jesus loved” was a key figure in the life of Jesus. [Also, as you’ll see in a moment, Acts 1:21&22 proves that “the twelve” weren’t the only ones with Jesus throughout his ministry.]

There are additional examples, but the lesson here is clear. We must guard against presuming too much or building an argument from silence, lest we miss the truth. When the Gospels describe an event, it is wrong to assume that attendance at the event is limited to the individuals who are said to be present – unless the passage itself specifies this limitation.

Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner?

The scriptures do not state that “the twelve” were alone with Jesus the entire evening of his last Passover. Still, we should ask if there is anything in the Bible that implies that others might have been present? The answer is yes. There are several passages that support this idea.

First off, consider that Jesus and his disciples were guests in someone else’s home that night. Earlier that day “the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples” (Mt. 26:17-18). What is missing is any justification for assuming that the occupants of that home simply vacated the premises.

Moreover, the Bible indicates that Jesus was accustomed to dining with others. The residents of those households where Jesus ate were included, not excluded. Mark 2:15 says, “as Jesus sat at meat in his (Levi’s) house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples”. Also, Luke 11:37 states, “a certain Pharisee besought him (Jesus) to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat”. We also see this when Jesus arrives in Bethany, six days before his last Passover. John 12:2 tells us that “There they made him a supper, and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him”.

This suggests another question. Who worked at that Passover supper? We know that Peter and John had gone earlier in the day and “made ready the passover” (Lu. 22:8-13). However at the supper, who served and who did the dishes? Jesus and his disciples were houseguests at the time, so isn’t it likely that their host took care of these details? And is it also possible that their host would have sat with them (as in Lu. 7:36, 11:37, 24:29-30 & Jn.12:2)?

In light of the fact that the Bible never states that “the twelve” were the only ones present with Jesus at the last Passover, why should we suppose that Jesus and “the twelve” spent that entire Passover evening alone by themselves?

Not Alone At The Passover

There are still more passages that indicate Jesus and “the twelve” weren’t alone at that last Passover. One of these is Acts 1:21-26, which tells about the time when the eleven remaining Apostles named a replacement for Judas. They began by selecting two men. But notice what is said about the group from which these two came. Peter said that this person should be chosen from among, “these men which have companied with us at all time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us” (Acts 1:21-22).

This proves that “the twelve” were not the only ones with Jesus during his earthly ministry! The fact is that Jesus had additional loyal disciples who accompanied him throughout his time here on earth – and although this point is rarely emphasized, Peter’s words let us know that this was the case.

Likewise, a curious statement by Jesus also hints at the presence of others. At the ‘Last Supper’ the disciples were inquiring about which one of them was the traitor. Then Jesus said, “It is one of the twelve that dippeth with me in the dish” (Mk. 14:20).

Of course, “the twelve” is specific to the men Jesus personally chose to follow him. Contrast this with the term “disciples”, which is used of numerous people (sometimes even including some or all of “the twelve”). [To see this, compare John 18:1 with John 6:66 which says, “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.”]

If Jesus and “the twelve” were the only ones at that last Passover, then why would Jesus need to include the stipulation “one of the twelve” in his answer? The term “the twelve” is a limiting phrase, used to specifically refer to those “chosen” disciples. And yet, Jesus used this phrase at the ‘Last Supper’ (Mk. 14:20). But if “the twelve” were the only ones present, wouldn’t Jesus have said, ‘One of you’?

In fact Jesus does exactly that in John 6:70, which is the only other verse where Jesus used the phrase “the twelve”. In John 6:66-69 many disciples abandoned Jesus. He then challenged “the twelve”, who declared their devotion. In reply he said, “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” (Jn. 6:70). [“You twelve” in the Greek reads, “you the twelve”.] Consequently, at the ‘Last Supper’ when Jesus said the traitor was “one of the twelve” (instead of saying “one of you”), it indicates that he and “the twelve” were not the only ones present.

Notice too, that the author didn’t call himself ‘one of the twelve whom Jesus loved’. [An indication that he wasn’t one of “the twelve”?] If Jesus sat down to supper with “the twelve” and then later they were joined by “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, then naturally this person wasn’t one of “the twelve”.

“After” The Supper?

When examined carefully, the record of the Gospel attributed to John offers additional evidence that argues against “the disciple whom Jesus loved” being one of “the twelve”. The sequence of ‘Last Supper’ events is the focus of our examination here.

Consider for example, how the author begins his report on that evening – “And the supper being ended….” (Jn. 13:2) Ended? Does the record in this unnamed author’s Gospel start at some later point during that evening? As you’ll see the answer is yes, but not merely by reason of this verse.

[Various Bible versions translate this verse differently because of conflicting interpretations of the Greek word tenses involved. However, the study of things like word tenses can often end up with us having to choose between the opposing opinions of Greek scholars. So instead, let’s look again to the Bible to learn what it can teach us.]

In Luke 22:17-19 Jesus “took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me”. (Keeping this in mind, you will find the next verse is extremely relevant to this discussion.)

Luke 22:20 continues, “Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you”. Did you catch when this occurred? It was “after supper”! [In the Greek it reads, “also the cup after having supped”.] The Bible provides a confirmation of this sequence of events in 1st Corinthians 11:25. There we read, “also he took the cup when he had supped, saying this cup is the new testament in my blood”. [Again the Greek says, “also the cup after having supped”.]

Therefore it can be seen that the timing of events that night (particularly what happened “after” the supper) has scriptural relevance. Next we’ll learn how this pertains to the anonymous author’s Gospel and see why understanding the sequence of events helps us to identify “the disciple whom Jesus loved”.

Where Is ‘The Lord’s Table’?

The church places great significance on the memorial custom that is referred to as ‘communion’ and/or ‘the Lord’s table’. 1st Corinthians 11:26 says, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come”. Therefore this emphasis is appropriate. Moreover, whenever one thinks about the ‘Last Supper’, the bread and the cup usually come first to mind.

The Gospel accounts of that day focus on that solemn event – but only in three of the Gospels! The Gospel attributed to John has no mention of this incident. Why would the breaking of the bread and the sharing of the cup be left out of this one author’s Gospel account (especially since this author wrote so much about that night)?

Contrast the account in John 13:3-17:26 with the accounts in Matthew 26:20-29, Mark 14:17-25 and Luke 22:14-38. The author of our fourth Gospel devotes five whole chapters to that night – much more than the other three Gospel writers combined. Yet despite this, his Gospel account is the only one which omits the ‘Lord’s table’. Certainly not because it was unimportant, so why is it missing?

Of course, each Gospel leaves out different things. So the fact that the Gospel attributed to John omits the bread and the cup is not a problem. Still, this does add credence to the theory that the author of this Gospel wasn’t one of “the twelve”. This event may have been left out of this author’s gospel simply because he was not present when it occurred, but the Bible is not explicit about why this author omitted it so we cannot be sure. Nevertheless, this omission is perfectly understandable if this author began his record of that evening’s events at the point where he sat down with Jesus and “the twelve” – which seems to have been “after” their supper.

Also, this author’s Gospel does not mention that Jesus sent two of his disciples to “prepare” the Passover. However, the other three Gospels refer to this in varying degrees of detail, all ending with the statement, “and they made ready the passover” (Mt. 26:17-19, Mk. 14:12-16, Lu. 22:7-13). The fact that the unnamed author omits this part of the story shouldn’t be a surprise, since this omission is also consistent with an account that starts at a later point that day than the other three Gospel accounts. Now let’s look at what this author’s Gospel does say.

The Foot Washing Incident

It is interesting to note that the very first event that this author’s Gospel reports from that Passover meal is the washing of the disciples’ feet by Jesus. John 13:4-5 states, “He (Jesus) riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel and girded himself. After that he poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet”.

Here again the evidence is suggesting that “the supper” (or at least a portion of it) had ended, since this begins with Jesus rising “from supper”. [The literal Greek reads, “he rises from the supper”.] In spite of this, some deduce just the opposite – supposing from this passage that the supper had not yet started. They infer this because they begin with the presupposition that Jesus would have done this foot washing before the meal. But it turns out that the Bible doesn’t support this conclusion.

For example, Luke 11:37 tells of a similar situation when a Pharisee asked Jesus to, “dine with him: and he (Jesus) went in, and sat down to meat”. Then the next verse notes, “And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not washed before dinner” (Lu. 11:38). So keep in mind that the Bible indicates that it may not have been customary for Jesus to wash before eating.

Also in Matthew 15:2 Jesus is asked, “Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread”. Furthermore Mark 7:5 reports that a group of scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus, “Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?”

These passages imply that Jesus was not in the habit of always washing before eating and that his disciples behaved likewise. [Similar divisions exist today. In some cultures people learn to wash their hands before using the restroom. This is the opposite of most Western cultures, where people wash their hands after using the restroom.]

The point is that the foot washing incident apparently occurred after the supper, not before it – given all that the Bible has to say on this subject. (There is no record of Jesus washing before eating, hands or feet.) And remember that the foot washing is the first event from that Passover meal that is recorded in this author’s Gospel. Once more we see that the evidence indicates that the account in our fourth Gospel begins “after” the supper.

Finally, consider this: In John 13:12 we read that after Jesus had washed the disciples’ feet, then he “set down again”. [The literal Greek says, “having reclined again”.] “Again”? The author’s use of the word “again” clearly reveals that Jesus had already been sitting down at some time earlier that night!

“Not Of You All”

Now consider John 13:4-20. First, notice that John 13:5 tells us Jesus washed the feet of “the disciples”. It does not say, “the feet of the twelve”. Similarly, in John 13:18 (when Jesus speaks to the disciples) he says, “I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen”. This verse seems to contrast two groups: the large group, who Jesus addressed as “you all” and a subset that Jesus called “chosen”. However, if “the twelve” were the only ones present, then what distinction was Jesus making here?

Some may presume that was said merely to exclude Judas Iscariot. Yet Luke 6:13 tells us Jesus, “called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles” and it goes on to list Judas by name (Lu. 6:16). Also Jesus said in John 6:70, “Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” Therefore, the Bible affirms that Judas was “chosen”.

So if Judas was “chosen”, who was Jesus referring to when he said, “you all”? It seems fair to suggest that perhaps Jesus’ words in John 13:18 could be another indication that Jesus was not alone with “the twelve” at that last Passover (because he appears to refer to more than just “the twelve”).

The Sequence Of ‘Last Supper’ Events

If “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is not required to be one of “the twelve”, then the Bible seems to imply the following scenario. Early that day Jesus sent Peter and John to prepare the Passover. Later, he arrived with and sat down to supper with “the twelve”. After the supper, Jesus got up and proceeded to wash the feet of his disciples [and the account in our fourth Gospel begins]. Jesus finished washing the disciples’ feet and he sat down again [and only then is “the disciple whom Jesus loved” introduced – sitting next to and leaning on Jesus].

The idea that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” had to be one of “the twelve” has several problems, but the key thing to realize is that this idea isn’t dictated by scripture. Matthew 26:20, Mark 14:17 & Luke 22:14 let us know that Jesus arrived with and sat down with “the twelve”. Honest observation, however, requires us to concede that these verses don’t make any assertion or put forth any restriction that would limit the attendance at the ‘last supper’ to only Jesus and “the twelve”.

NEW EVIDENCE - Not One of “The Twelve”

The forgoing arguments showed that nothing in scripture required one whom “Jesus loved” to be one of “the twelve”. This is true and still necessary for consideration because of the participation of the one “whom Jesus loved” in Jesus' last Passover. Beyond this however it turns out that the Bible is also able to provide clear evidence to show that this “other disciple” was not one of “the twelve” (which of course would also rule out John).

Facts have come to light that can prove the one whom “Jesus loved” was “other” than “the twelve” and this evidence is presented in an article entitled The Other Disciple Believed First that is posted on TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com and will be an appendix to the next printing of the book. 

While it is good to note that their is no verse that requires that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” be one of “the twelve” this new insight goes far beyond this and shows how the plain text of scripture proves that the one whom “Jesus loved” had to be someone “other” than “the twelve”.

A Hidden Key In The Book Of Acts

[The next two paragraphs might initially seem unrelated to this case, but the information provided is critical to the upcoming analysis of the evidence.]

Besides his betrayal of Jesus, Judas Iscariot is unique among “the twelve” for one other reason. In Matthew 26:14-16, Mark 14:10-11 & Luke 22:2-6 we see how Judas Iscariot went to the “chief priests” to betray Jesus. Understand that besides becoming a traitor, Judas gains another distinction here.

Judas’ rendezvous with those “chief priests” sets him apart from “the twelve” in that those priests got to meet Judas. Nothing in the Bible specifically indicates the high priest would have known (or even recognized) any of “the twelve”, other than Judas. Once you realize this you will be able to grasp the importance of a key fact hidden in the Book of Acts. Besides the evidence presented thus far, the writer of the Book of Acts recorded some information that will help us prove conclusively that John, the brother of James, cannot be the “other disciple”.

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…” (Acts 4:5 & 6) in order to be questioned about this miracle. [If you’re wondering how this helps to prove that the Apostle John was not the “other disciple”, then pay close attention to the reaction of the high priest and these rulers just a few verses later.]

The high priest, rulers, elders, scribes, etc. “gathered together” and began their interrogation of Peter and John (Acts 4:5-7). Peter’s answer to their question is recorded in Acts 4:8-12. The very next verse describes their reaction to Peter and John.

Acts 4:13 speaking of the high priest and these rulers says, “when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus“.

Why did the high priest and the rest marvel? To begin with, they could tell that Peter and John “were unlearned and ignorant men” (Acts 4:13). [The Greek on these two points reads, “unlettered” and “uninstructed”.]

Along with any Galilean accent that Peter and John may have had, it is also possible that their vocabulary, clothing or mannerisms made it obvious that Peter and John lacked a formal education. Also realize that the Bible indicates that regional traits could be easily discerned by the people of that day (Mt. 26:73, Mk. 14:70 & Lu. 22:59).

Nevertheless, Acts 4:13 reveals that what really shocked those leaders was the “boldness” exhibited by the “unlearned and ignorant” Peter and John. Without fear, they openly stood for the name of Jesus and blamed this group for his death. Peter declared that Jesus was raised from the dead and that it was because of Jesus that the healing miracle of the lame man had occurred.

The important thing for us to notice from this is the awareness to which those leaders had come. Acts 4:13 goes on to say that, those leaders “took knowledge of them (Peter and John) that they had been with Jesus”. [In the Greek this verse reads, “they recognized them that with Jesus they were”.]

This verse exposes the telltale discovery that was made by those leaders. It was in that moment that they suddenly understood something like, ‘Oh, these two were followers of that Jesus of Nazareth’!

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. Keep in mind that the ones having this reaction were Annas the high priest and Caiaphas, etc. (Acts 4:5 & 6).

John And The High Priest

The preceding section established that the reaction of the high priest and the other rulers was a response to new information. It was when Acts 4 was actually happening that Annas and the others discovered the things that caused them to marvel.

Acts 4:13 informs us that the high priest didn’t know that John “had been with Jesus”. It was only then that the high priest (and those rulers) came to the conclusion that Peter and John were “unlearned and ignorant men” – and also that they “had been with Jesus”. The foregoing facts show that the high priest did not know John (or Peter) before this incident.

This turns out to be a key point that affirms that the Apostle John cannot be the “other disciple”. In order to demonstrate how this is true we must carefully compare Acts 4 with the information that the Bible reveals regarding the night that Jesus was betrayed and taken away to be falsely accused.

John 18:13 tells us that Jesus was brought “to Annas first”. Then we read about two disciples that followed Jesus. John 18:15 begins, “And Simon Peter followed Jesus and so did another disciple”. [The Greek here states, “Now there followed Jesus Simon Peter and the other disciple”.] The words that follow this, however, are what ultimately ‘clear’ John.

John 18:15 goes on to say, “that disciple was known unto the high priest”. Also it seems that God wanted to highlight this point, for his inspired author elected to emphasize this fact by repeating it.

In John 18:16 we read, “Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter“. Therefore, there is no doubt that the “other disciple” was known to the high priest. This “other disciple” could get into the palace and furthermore, he was responsible for getting Peter past the doorkeeper.

Consequently, the Apostle John could not have been the “other disciple” because we know from Acts 4:13 that John was not known to the high priest! [Since both Annas and Caiaphas were present during the events of Acts 4, this holds up no matter which one was high priest during Jesus’ trial.]

When Peter and John were brought before them, those Jewish rulers “took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13). Yet this “other disciple” was publicly associated with Jesus, even before he “went in with Jesus” (in John 18:15). Besides the fact that he was “known unto the high priest”, something else said that night reveals that the “other disciple” was known to be a disciple of Jesus prior to Jesus’ trial. [But this was not true of Peter, who was later specifically asked about it!]

In John 18:17 we see that “the damsel that kept the door” asked Peter this question: “Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples?” She used the word “also” in reference to the “other disciple”, who had just spoken with her (Jn. 18:16). Therefore, we see that even “the damsel that kept the door” knew the “other disciple” was a disciple of Jesus. However as you now know, John’s association with Jesus was not understood until Acts 4:13 occurred.

If Not John, Then Who?

The evidence presented up to this point has demonstrated that the Apostle John [also referred to as “John the brother of James” (Mk. 3:17)] wasn’t “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. You’re now aware of the scriptures involved and you’ve seen that this presumption fails to hold up under scrutiny. In terms of overt Biblical support, there is NO solid piece of scriptural evidence that would lead one to conclude that John was “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. [And if Jesus wasn’t alone with “the twelve” throughout his last Passover, then there is nothing that requires the “other disciple” to even be one of “the twelve”.]

You have seen how the scriptures can show us that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” wasn’t the Apostle John. Conversely, it is appropriate to search the scriptures to see if the Bible contains additional information on this subject – including any passages that could help us to determine who this anonymous author really was. This is what we’ll do next. As we do you will discover that the Bible actually contains quite a number of facts that suggest the true identity of “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. Furthermore, you will learn that this particular individual even had a good reason to want to hide his identity.

There is one, and only one, person named in the scriptures whose character and motivation can reasonably fit with everything that the Bible tells us about “the other disciple, whom Jesus loved”. In addition, the Bible reveals that this man was both publicly associated with Jesus and  known to the high priest.

Every reference to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” can be shown to precisely fit this one specific individual. You will see this beginning in the next chapter, as we examine the evidence that reveals the author’s true identity.

Chapter 5 - WHO WAS THE BELOVED DISCIPLE, AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL?
 

Click here for free printable versions of this beloved disciple Bible study