Chapter 5 - THE BIBLE DOES REVEAL
THE IDENTITY OF THE "OTHER DISCIPLE"

What Is God Telling Us?

The author’s explicit description of himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, puts the focus on Jesus’ relationship to him. So, if we want to ascertain the identity of this individual, it’s logical that we’d begin by searching the Bible for evidence of such a relationship in the life of Jesus. Prior to Pentecost, did Jesus have this type of relationship with anyone identified in the Bible? Yes, he did – and this was so clear that simply referring to this relationship was able to identify one particular individual without even mentioning this person’s name! (Jn. 11:3)

We saw that the scriptures do not teach that John had this specific type of relationship with Jesus (prior to Pentecost). John’s ‘inner circle’ participation is not equivalent to the unique bond implied by the designation “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. The label “the disciple whom Jesus loved” implies Jesus had a relationship with this disciple that was notably different from the relationships that he had with the rest of his disciples. Oddly enough, the phrase that conceals the author’s identity also turns out to be the best indicator of his identity!

Hidden In Plain Sight

In fact there is actually so much evidence that points to the identity of this author that one begins to wonder how this could have been overlooked. To start with, think about the term “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. More than just the author’s ‘handle’, this is proof of Jesus’ relationship with the author.

Does the Bible explicitly name anyone who was “loved” by Jesus? Yes. The Bible names one, and only one, candidate who had this relationship! Two verses confirm that this individual was “loved” by Jesus. In John 11:3, Jesus receives a plea for help from his friends Mary and Martha of Bethany, “Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick” and John 11:5 simply says, “Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus“.

Lazarus is the only man named in the Bible that is also identified as being “loved” by Jesus (for the period prior to Jesus’ resurrection). Twice it is stated that Jesus “loved” Lazarus – three times if we count the opinion of the Jews from John 11:36. Of course, this fact alone can’t prove that Lazarus was “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. However, this is certainly a lead that is worth investigating! [And as we do so you will see how each piece of scriptural evidence points to this person being Lazarus.]

Bible References To Jesus’ Love

“The disciple whom Jesus loved” identifies the author as being the object of Jesus’ love. Since he is not called ‘the disciple who loved Jesus’, this study does not examine any verses which deal with an individual’s love toward Jesus. Also note that this study isn’t meant to be a discussion on the principles of love or on the general topic of the love of God. Instead, this study will examine what the Bible says about Jesus’ love for or toward specific individuals.

Following Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, several passages refer to Jesus’ love. For example, Paul writes of “the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal.2:20), and he also tells the “followers of God” to “walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us” (Eph. 5:1-2). Paul also wrote, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church” (Eph. 5:25). However, these verses are both post-Pentecost and not applicable to determining the identity of the “other disciple”.

Before Pentecost, only fifteen verses mention Jesus’ love. Three of these references Jesus’ love for Lazarus and five others refer to “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. The Bible has only seven more verses prior to Pentecost that overtly mention Jesus’ love: Mk. 10:21, Jn. 13:1(2x), 13:34, 14:21, 15:9 & 15:12. Moreover, of these verses, only Mk. 10:21 refers to a single individual and in any case, not one of these verses names anyone. So let’s take a closer look at Lazarus, since he was both “loved” by Jesus and identified by name.

A Sudden Appearance

In John 11:3 the appeal of Mary and Martha is, “Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick”. This tells us that Jesus already had a close relationship with Lazarus that was in existence prior to that time.

This conclusion is also confirmed by John 11:5 which says, “Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus”. In addition, in John 11:11 Jesus refers to Lazarus as, “Our friend Lazarus”. In spite of this, there is no mention of Lazarus or Jesus’ friendship with Lazarus until his name appears in the eleventh chapter of our fourth Gospel. Why is this?

Nothing in the Bible overtly explains the origin of this friendship. Notice that this curious situation strangely parallels the situation we saw regarding “the disciple whom Jesus loved”! And even more important, note that neither Jesus’ friendship with Lazarus, nor the fact that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead is mentioned in the other three Gospels! This resembles their similar omission of “the disciple whom Jesus loved”.

What makes this especially noteworthy is that the Bible tells of only three people who were raised from the dead by Jesus: Lazarus (Jn. 11:14-45), Jairus’ daughter (Mt. 9:18-25, Mk. 5:22-24 + 35-42, Lu. 8:41-42 + 49-56) & a widow’s son (Lu. 7:12-15). News of these astonishing events spread quickly (Mt. 9:26, Lu. 7:16-17, Jn. 11:45). But the raising of Lazarus was substantially different from the other two, as you’ll soon see.

Jesus’ Friend Becomes ‘A Celebrity’

The fact that the other Gospel writers totally avoid any discussion of the raising of Lazarus is particularly striking, because of what happens after Lazarus comes back from the dead. John 11:45 says, “Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him”. (Keep in mind that these individuals were eyewitnesses.)

When Jesus is next in Bethany, John 12:9 tells us, “Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead”. So, we see that Lazarus began attracting the attention of people on account of what Jesus had done for him.

This caused such a stir that, “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” (Jn. 12:10-11). Is this a report on the allure of fame or the witness of Lazarus? We lack further details as to why these people were drawn to Lazarus, but it is clear that the public was well aware of Lazarus and the miracle that raised him from the dead.

Consider also John 12:12-18, which reports about an incident that is frequently referred to as the ‘triumphal entry’. Did you know that the raising of Lazarus is specifically interconnected with (and even responsible for) this event?

We read of the wonderful greeting that Jesus received from a cheering crowd as he rode into town on a donkey (Jn. 12:12-18). Notice, however, that the Bible also tells us about the crowd’s motivation. Although we might assume that it was the teachings of Jesus or a realization that he was the Son of God that brought out the crowd that day, the scriptures specify the real reason for the crowd’s response.

The Bible reveals that the motivation for the crowd’s reaction was the miracle involving Lazarus! “The people therefore that was with him (Jesus) when he called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead, bare record. For this cause the people also met him, for that they heard that he had done this miracle” (Jn. 12:17-18).

Therefore, we see that the crowd’s response that day was the result of hearing that Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead – because it was “For this cause the people also met him” (Jn. 12:18). And they had merely “heard”!

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. What’s more, the ‘formerly dead’ Lazarus had such an effect on the people that the priests take the extreme step of plotting to have him killed. Lazarus was big news! So why is it that the other Gospels fail to mention any of this? If this seems odd to you, just think about how this parallels the way the other Gospels also omit “the disciple whom Jesus loved”!

A Sudden Disappearance

Even stranger than the silence of the other three Gospels on all of these Lazarus matters, is the abrupt disappearance of Lazarus in the only Gospel that mentions him. Despite his sudden fame and his seemingly strong influence on the Jews (Jn. 12:11), after John 12:17 the anonymous author’s Gospel never mentions Lazarus again!

The sequence of these things in this author’s Gospel helps highlight two important truths. The first is that that Lazarus is named in only eleven verses of this Gospel (six in chapter 11 & five in chapter 12). Lazarus is not mentioned before John 11:1 – and after John 12:17 he seems to vanish.

What is even more remarkable is discovering that this friend whom “Jesus loved” (Jn. 11:5) is last mentioned in John chapter 12 – while the obscure and unnamed disciple “whom Jesus loved” is first mentioned in the very next chapter (Jn. 13:23)!

If you think this is an unimportant coincidence then just wait, for there is more evidence to come. Still, many will acknowledge that this presents a significant parallel: the only man named in the Bible who is also singled out as being “loved” by Jesus abruptly vanishes from this Gospel and then the only disciple singled out as being “loved” by Jesus abruptly appears in this same Gospel.

The sequence of these things in the Bible is not an accident! Furthermore, this ‘new’ disciple plays an important role in the events that follow.

Some may dispute this theory, as it might seem inconsistent to suggest that Lazarus would hide his identity as author of this Gospel, because he used his name several times in the same Gospel. However, as you will see a little later, there is a perfectly logical and Biblically based reason why Lazarus would have done precisely that.

Others may point out that the Bible doesn’t call Lazarus a “disciple”; we will also deal with this potential difficulty.

For now though, let’s look at the second reason why the sequence of these events is important. As noted above, this Gospel does not use the term “the disciple whom Jesus loved” until after Lazarus is raised from the dead. And this miracle was certainly a powerful act of love toward Lazarus. In his time here on earth Jesus did not end human physical death, and the Bible tells of only three people that Jesus raised from the dead while he was here. Lazarus was definitely privileged in this regard. This is also extremely relevant to the sequence of Gospel events because after Lazarus had been raised from the dead, he would never be (and could never be) the same again.

Dead Man Walking

The raising of Lazarus is not a fairy tale. This isn’t fiction. It was an important actual event. So let’s take the time to consider the reality of this situation. Lazarus had a close relationship with Jesus, before he was raised from the dead. Their prior relationship was close enough that the sisters of Lazarus sent for Jesus when their brother was sick – and they did so with the message “Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick” (Jn. 11:3). We don’t know the extent of this relationship, but it evidently had existed for some time.

Taking into account that Lazarus already had a close relationship with Jesus, what do you think his relationship with Jesus would have been after he came out of the grave? What would his life have been like after that?

Is it reasonable to believe that Lazarus could have simply said, ‘Thanks, Jesus!’ and went back to his normal, everyday life – going back to his job as a cook or a carpenter or whatever?

It’s laughable to propose that Lazarus could have just brushed off the tomb dust and gone back to his normal life. Pause and take the time to really contemplate this miracle. It would surely be the most profound event in anybody’s life. But, in the life of one who was already close to Jesus, the effect of this miracle must have been extremely transforming. How would Lazarus have been different after this?

When Jesus revisits Bethany, “they made him a supper” (Jn.12:1-2), but no rational person is likely to suggest that this one dinner was the full extent of Lazarus’ effort to show his gratitude or his loyalty.

In John 6:68 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life”. Where would Lazarus have gone? He’d not only heard the words of Jesus; he experienced their power firsthand (in a way that few ever had)! In light of this, which result do you think is most likely:

A. Lazarus lives in fear of death for the remainder of his mortal existence because he realizes that this life is all that he’ll ever have?
B. Lazarus, now no longer sick, returns to his life – he remains just a normal guy who does his job and observes the Sabbath and tries to be a good person, etc., etc., etc.? - or -
C. Lazarus is thoroughly and radically changed in response to this rare and precious gift from God?

Like White On Rice!

If we take the time to think upon these things, we realize that since Lazarus already had a special relationship with Jesus, his response to this gift from Jesus would not have ended with extreme gratitude. Without a doubt, he would have been motivated to be even closer and more loyal to his friend Jesus than he had previously been.

In fact from that day forward, Lazarus would be more likely to stick closer to Jesus than anyone – ‘like white on rice’, as the old saying goes. And not surprisingly, close to Jesus is exactly where we next find Lazarus!

John 12:2 tells us that when Jesus went to Bethany again, “There they made him a supper, and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him”. This is one of only two verses that actually depict Lazarus, John 11:44 is the other one. [John 12:9, 10 & 17 refer to Lazarus but he is not depicted as being present.] So given that this is the last time that Lazarus is depicted in the Bible, what stands out about this verse?

Where the Bible places Lazarus in his last appearance is the key thing that we need to get from John 12:2. The last time Lazarus is seen, he is sitting with Jesus at a supper table. The first time that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is seen, he is leaning on Jesus at a supper table (Jn. 13:23).

Is this simply another remarkable coincidence or is it part of a larger pattern of evidence?

You’ll have to decide. But for now let’s look at another occasion when someone seemed to stick close to Jesus. In John 18:15-16 the “other disciple” is seen sticking close to Jesus. When Jesus was arrested this “other disciple” followed Jesus and “went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest” (Jn. 18:15). Later when Jesus was dying and looked down from the cross, we are told “Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved” (Jn. 19:26). We don’t find “the twelve” standing at the foot of the cross, but this disciple is there. Why? What gave this particular disciple the courage and stamina to stand by Jesus (until Jesus gave him another assignment in Jn. 19:27)?

Just the evening before, the ‘inner circle’ let Jesus down by falling asleep three times. Then the disciples fled when Jesus was seized. Peter and the “other disciple” reappeared and followed Jesus, yet while this “other disciple” went “in with Jesus” Peter stayed out by the fire and denied that he even knew Jesus. Soon, Peter left too. There appears to be only one “disciple” standing by the cross of Jesus. Why didn’t he exhibit the fear that overcame the rest of the disciples? Why did this “other disciple” act so differently (as compared to the rest of the disciples)?

Been There. Done That.

Given their relationship, Lazarus must have known about Jesus’ many miracles. Then, on top of hearing about or even seeing miracles, Lazarus personally experienced coming back from the dead. What priority do you think Lazarus might have put on self-preservation after he was raised?

It is true that survival is a very potent human instinct, but it’s fairly easy to grasp why (the raised) Lazarus might not react in the way that the rest of the disciples did. In the most emphatic way possible, God let Lazarus know that his life could end at any time and, more important, that Jesus could give life again. Thereafter, trust in Jesus would no longer be just a mental concept. Lazarus had become a living symbol of the power of Jesus and every time that he opened his eyes he was likely to remember that day.

Regarding death, Lazarus was someone who could truly say, “Been there. Done that”. Imagine the effect this would have had on the rest of his life. This experience could reasonably be expected to have had a significant effect on his fear of death. [Possibly even overcome it totally?]

The Courage Evidence

A simple brush with death can cause people to change substantially. Several days worth of death, reinforced by the many who came to see him thereafter (Jn. 12:9 & 17), would have given Lazarus a wholly unique outlook on life. Could this lead to the type of courage and character that the Bible attributes to the unnamed “other disciple”?

In John 18:15 the “other disciple” chooses to go “with Jesus into the palace of the high priest”, and we know that he was a known associate of Jesus (Jn. 18:17). Unlike the rest of the disciples, he didn’t act in a way that exhibited a concern for preserving his own life. This is totally understandable if this individual was Lazarus.

Furthermore if this was Lazarus, then the “other disciple” was truly at risk when he entered the “palace of the high priest”. This is because these priests wanted to kill Lazarus also (Jn. 12:10)!

The Bible doesn’t say if Lazarus knew of the plot against his life at that time or if he learned about this later. In either case though, the behavior befits a raised Lazarus – someone who could know that his own life was greatly at risk and still stick with Jesus. [Some may ask, ‘if the “other disciple” was Lazarus, why didn’t they kill him that night?’ Maybe one sham trial was enough or they might have figured that getting rid of Jesus would end their troubles. But the Bible doesn’t speak to this so we can’t be sure.]

What Is A “Disciple”?

There is another reason why someone might question the theory that Lazarus was the “other disciple”. They might point out that Lazarus is not specifically called a “disciple”. This is true, yet that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a disciple. The Bible tells us that Lazarus was a friend of Jesus and the disciples. In John 11:11 Jesus refers to him as, “Our friend Lazarus”. So we know Lazarus must have spent some time with them. The question for us is would it be correct to refer to Lazarus as a “disciple”?

“Disciple” wasn’t a rank like ‘Eagle Scout’. You didn’t pass a test to become one. In the scriptures disciples come (Acts 6:1) and disciples go (Jn. 6:66). Numerous verses use this term, about a wide variety of people. [In the literal Greek this word simply means a “learner” or “pupil”.]

While it isn’t clear precisely what made one a “disciple”, to contend that Lazarus wasn’t a “disciple” merely because the Bible doesn’t label him as such is unreasonable in light of what we know about his appearances in the Bible. The reason our first three Gospels don’t call Lazarus a “disciple” is because they couldn’t – since they never mention him at all (not his friendship with Jesus, nor even the miracle that raised him from the dead). Moreover, while it is true that the one Gospel that does mention Lazarus also never calls him a “disciple”, this isn’t proof that Lazarus wasn't a disciple. Surely, if Lazarus was the author of this Gospel and he wanted to use the term “the disciple whom Jesus loved” to hide his identity, then the absence of the label “disciple” for Lazarus in this Gospel is perfectly consistent with that effort.

John 20:31 says, “these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”. We’ll revisit this verse later when we discuss the author’s motive for hiding his identity. For now though, recognize that the author was only including things that he believed would accomplish this goal. As you’ll see, this was reason enough for the author to avoid calling Lazarus a “disciple”. [Not identifying Lazarus as a “disciple” may be the key reason that the author’s effort at anonymity was so effective!]

Finally, the proposition that Lazarus wasn’t a “disciple” fails the logic test. We know that Lazarus was “loved” by Jesus. He was raised from the dead by Jesus. He had supper with Jesus. Is it fair then to infer that Lazarus was learning from his experiences and relationship with Jesus? Yes, it is.

The Character Evidence

Coming back from the dead would certainly affect one’s character. So it’s reasonable to suggest that a back-from-the-dead Lazarus might exhibit a high degree of courage and unusual faithfulness toward Jesus. Neither “the twelve”, nor the rest of the disciples, could be expected to exhibit these traits in the same way as (a raised) Lazarus. The question is do we see Lazarus acting this way?

If Lazarus was the “other disciple”, then we know that he did manifest these traits! So let’s take a look at the behavior of the “other disciple” to see if this also points to them being the same person.

To begin with, consider the first time we see “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. When Jesus said, “one of you shall betray me” (Mt. 26:21 – at the ‘Last Supper’), the disciples began to inquire about who he was referring to. It was at that point that they each began to ask this question about themselves! “And they were exceedingly sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?” (Mt 26:22) This is not the same as asking ‘who is it’, since each one of them was questioning their own character! [This appears to have occurred during the supper (see Mt. 26:22 & 26, Mk 14:18 & 22).]

After the foot washing, when Jesus sat down “again” (Jn. 13:12), the conversation returned to the subject of the traitor’s identity – but this time something very different occurred.[Note that this took place “after supper” (Lu 22:20, Jn. 13:2).].

Luke 22:23 states, “they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing”. John 13:22 tells us, “then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake”. At this point John 13:23 continues the story: “Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he (Jesus) spake”.

Why didn’t Peter ask the question himself? Why did “the twelve” all question their own loyalty? Peter was a member of the ‘inner circle’, yet when this question was raised Peter felt compelled to go through “the disciple whom Jesus loved”! What was it about “the disciple whom Jesus loved” that made Peter turn to him, rather than Jesus, in order to get an answer to this question?

Jesus had been speaking to them, so all of the disciples would have been near enough to pose this question directly to Jesus. They were probably afraid to do so, because they were not sure that the answer wouldn’t be their name (Mt. 26:22, Mk. 14:19). But when Peter signaled “the disciple whom Jesus loved” to ask Jesus who the traitor was, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” didn’t exhibit self-doubt as the rest had (Jn. 13:24). “He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?” (Jn. 13:25)

Notice that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” doesn’t ask, ‘Is it I?’ Neither did he hesitate to ask Jesus this question. [He was sure of himself and his physical position even suggests this – it is reported several times that he was leaning on Jesus.]

Three times the Bible describes his position at this event (Jn. 13:23 & 25 and 21:20). This wasn’t just to record the seating arrangements. His position at the table that night gives us insight into how close he was to Jesus personally. He could lean on Jesus because they had a close relationship!

John 13:28 refers to those who were “at the table”, and this distinction suggests that there were others present that were not sitting “at the table” (with Jesus). Yet “the disciple whom Jesus loved” had a close enough relationship with Jesus to feel comfortable “leaning” on him at that time. This bond didn’t materialize out of thin air on the night of that supper. Also, it seems to be different from the type of bond that Jesus had with the rest of his disciples, including Peter (notice that no one else “leaned” on Jesus). The quality and degree of camaraderie that is revealed in this action represent a very secure friendship and an obvious devotion.

Does The Shoe Fit?

Is it reasonable to suppose that Lazarus may have been privileged to enjoy an especially close friendship with Jesus at the time of this event? Yes, it is. And again we find that Lazarus fits with the information that the scriptures disclose pertaining to “the disciple whom Jesus loved”.

As the saying goes, if the shoe fits, wear it. Does the evidence fit Lazarus? If you haven’t yet been persuaded, then perhaps the evidence from the morning that Jesus’ vacant tomb is discovered will convince you.

Resurrection Morning

Take a close look at the unnamed author’s account of events on resurrection morning. This isn’t just a confirmation of the vacant tomb. If that was all God wanted, then the author might well have been inspired to use fewer words. So, keep an eye out for the details that his words contain. There is actually quite a bit of very revealing information regarding the “other disciple” – and it all ends up supporting ‘the case for Lazarus’.

John 20:1-4 reads, “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre”.

Pause for a moment and consider that last sentence. Of course, it is possible that the author recorded this fact merely in order to tell us that he (the “other disciple”) was the better athlete. Or perhaps, the author was simply being accurate. There is, however, another possibility that we should consider. Ask yourself: Other than sheer athletic ability, what could have caused the “other disciple” to “outrun Peter”? [The answer to this, it turns out, also suggests why this point was even noteworthy!]

The answer is passion. The fact that the “other disciple” outran Peter could be an indication that he had a more intense desire to see the vacant tomb. If so, he would have pushed himself harder to get there quickly. As you consider this possibility, remember that it was the “other disciple” himself who wrote this and took the time to record these particular details from that day. Also note that it is very likely that the idea that Jesus’ body wasn’t in its tomb would have had a special impact on Lazarus – who had a similar experience.

Now let’s continue on with John 20:5-9. “And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead”.

These days the ‘witness of the empty tomb’ has come to mean that the empty tomb itself is proof of the resurrection of Jesus. Although it may be well intentioned, this is not exactly Biblical. First, realize that the things that Peter and the “other disciple” saw that morning did not seem to harmonize with their understanding of the scriptures. We know this from John 20:9 which tells us, “as yet they knew not the scripture, that he (Jesus) must rise again from the dead”. [This is particularly significant because these two men react differently.] More important, notice that the Bible declares that the tomb wasn’t empty! Although the tomb no longer contained the body of Jesus, it did contain some very important pieces of evidence.

The Evidence In The Tomb

In John 20:2 Mary Magdalene tells Peter and the “other disciple” that the body of Jesus has been removed, which prompts them to rush to the tomb. “So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre” (Jn. 20:4). When the “other disciple” got to the tomb he stooped down and “saw the linen clothes” lying inside, at which point he stopped and “went he not in” (Jn. 20:5). Yet when Peter got there he didn’t stop, but instead went right in (Jn. 20:6). It is “then” that the “other disciple”, “went in also” (Jn. 20:8).

Why do you think the “other disciple” stopped when he “saw the linen clothes”? After Peter goes in, the “other disciple” does too. Why didn’t he go in when he arrived? He ran, so he must have felt a sense of urgency. Despite this, he seems to ‘freeze’ just outside the entrance until Peter passes by him and enters the tomb. So why did the sight of “the linen clothes” cause him to stop in his tracks?

In a moment you will see that there is a potent reason why this curious behavior on the part of the “other disciple” is further evidence that he was Lazarus. But first, let’s focus on the reactions of Peter and the “other disciple” to the evidence left in the tomb that morning. One of them “believed”!

“Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed” (Jn. 20:8). It was the “other disciple” who believed, but notice when this occurred. It happens only after he enters the tomb and sees the “the napkin, that was about his (Jesus’) head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself”, as described in John 20:7.

The First Disciple to “Believe”

When he witnessed those “linen clothes” and “the napkin that was about his (Jesus’) head” in the tomb, the “other disciple” suddenly “believed”. Why? The author takes the time to precisely depict these items (Jn. 20:7) and he calls our attention to the “linen clothes” by repeating this phrase three times (Jn. 20:5-7). This is important. We can learn about the author/“the disciple whom Jesus loved” from the emphasis he places on these things and the effect that they had on him – “he saw, and believed”.

John 20:8 is the first time that the Bible uses the word “believed” after the resurrection of Jesus – and it pertains to this unnamed disciple! This is no small point. The fact that the “other disciple” was the first person that “believed” is very significant.

Do the scriptures indicate that the Apostle John would have any reason to be affected in this way by the things described in John 20:4-8? No, they do not. Furthermore, note that the Bible does not state that Peter “believed” (at that point in time). The vacant tomb and “the linen clothes” and the “napkin” did not have the same effect on Peter.

However, the sight of “the linen clothes” (and especially “the napkin”) surely would have affected and could easily have overwhelmed Lazarus. He understood the significance of these items because he had experienced the wearing of “linen clothes”. He would never forget the time that he wore “linen” – the material that was used to wrap dead bodies!

The “Linen” Effect

“And he (Lazarus) that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin” (Jn. 11:44). It is no accident that the ‘author’ took the time to mention this seemingly trivial detail of the “napkin” with regard to Lazarus also. [Recall that it was only after the sight of the “napkin” that the “other disciple” was convinced – “he saw, and believed” (Jn. 20:8).]

As for the “graveclothes”, notice how bodies were prepared for burial in those days. John 19:40 tells us, “Then they took the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury”. So, it was the custom to use “linen” as a covering for dead bodies.

Let’s take a quick look at the usage of “linen” in the New Testament. The English word “linen” was used to translate several different Greek words, but only two of these Greek words pertain to dead bodies. These two words are both used to describe the material that covered the body of Jesus, so they may be synonyms. (Compare Lu. 23:53 to Lu. 24:12 & Mt. 27:59 to Jn. 19:40.)

One of these words always refers to the cloth covering a corpse. Likewise, the other always refers to the cloth covering a corpse – with one exception. We’ll discuss this curious exception a little bit later. What we need to think about at this juncture is how would Lazarus have reacted to the sight of these items (which had been covering the body of Jesus).

Consider that the first thing that Lazarus must have seen when he came back from the dead was the inside of the “napkin” that covered his own face! In the moments after Jesus called him back to life, Lazarus came out of his cave-grave, still wrapped in his graveclothes and Jesus gave the instruction, “Loose him, and let him go” (John 11:44).

It isn’t likely that Lazarus ever forgot being “loosed”. Therefore, it is logical to suggest that the sight of Jesus’ abandoned graveclothes would have had a powerful and wholly unique effect on Lazarus.

The “other disciple” ran to Jesus’ tomb and stooped down to go in, but instead he stopped when he saw “the linen clothes” (Jn. 20:3-5). Moments later when he did go in, this “other disciple” became the first person to believe on the risen Lord – “he saw, and believed” (Jn. 20:8).

In light of this evidence and especially given his reactions to “the linen clothes” and “the napkin”, can we conclude that behavior of the “other disciple” would befit Lazarus? Yes, we can. The facts that the author reports about this event harmonize perfectly, if Lazarus was the “other disciple”.

NEW EVIDENCE: The “Other Disciple” - He “Believed” Before the Rest 

The foregoing arguments regarding the fact that the “other disciple” was the first disciple who “believed” on the morning of the resurrection focused on why he “believed” (in reaction to what “he saw” in the tomb). But it turns out that a key piece of evidence is missed if we fail to consider when he “believed” in light of all that the Bible has to say about that day.

The appendix The Other Disciple Believed First offers new evidence which confirms that the one whom “Jesus loved” was not one of “the twelve”. [This information will be included in the next printing of The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved.]

The Fishing Trip

After that morning, the next mention of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” occurs in John 21:2-8. John 21:2-3a states, “There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee”. They catch nothing that night (Jn. 21:3b). The next morning Jesus is standing on the shore and he begins to speak to them – but “the disciples knew not that it was Jesus” (Jn. 21:4).

Jesus tells them, “Cast the net on the right side of the ship” and when they do they cannot even pull the net in because of “the multitude of fishes” (Jn. 21:6). Next, John 21:7 reveals the author’s presence when it states, “Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord.” Thus “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was the first disciple to recognize Jesus that day. More important, however, is the list of those who were in attendance during this event.

Since “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was present, let’s consider the author’s list in John 21:2. Two of those who were present are not named – which is consistent with the author’s practice of not naming himself! Still, notice that the actual presence of the author isn’t disclosed until later in the passage (in John 21:7). This may explain why many have overlooked an important fact.

We see that “the sons of Zebedee” are named in John 21:2 and yet we know that the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” is present at the same time! (Jn. 21:7) This is strong evidence that the author was not the Apostle John.

One cannot say that John’s presence here proves that he could be the “other disciple”, without first explaining why the author would suddenly act in a manner that is inconsistent with his otherwise considerable efforts to remain anonymous!

The First Error

Later during this same appearance of Jesus, these disciples came to shore and dined with Jesus (Jn. 21:7-14). Then Jesus had a conversation with Peter (Jn. 21:15-19) Immediately thereafter we read, “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?” (Jn. 21:20-21) To this Jesus replied, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me” (Jn. 21:22).

What follows this is a very strange reference to this unnamed “other disciple”. In John 21:23 we read, “Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” So, here is the source of the first error that was spread “abroad” among the post-resurrection brethren – and a focus on “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was the cause!

Notice the way that the author handles this mistake. He reports the false idea that had spread among the brethren and then he reviews the facts. After noting that Jesus didn’t say, “He shall not die” (Jn. 21:23a), he then repeats Jesus’ words verbatim – “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” (Jn. 21:23b). This should tell us something.

The author presents the words of Jesus to his readers without interpretation but he does take the time to tell his readers what Jesus did not say so as to correct an interpretation that was being spread among the brethren. The author then repeats what Jesus said with no added clarification for those who would later read his ‘book’. Therefore, the author must have thought that Jesus’ words were sufficient. So, if the readers of this ‘book’ could understand Jesus’ words, then what could have caused the disciples that heard Jesus’ words on that day to make the erroneous assumption that they did?

A Telltale Rumor

We know that the author tried to rectify this misunderstanding in John 21:23 (which also implies that he learned of this rumor only after it had already been spread around). We also know that this rumor started with the group of disciples that were present that day (Jn. 21:2). So, why did some or all of those disciples assume that Jesus’ words meant that this particular disciple would “not die”? The problem could not have been that Jesus’ words were unclear; because this author twice quotes them in a way that indicates he expected that the readers of his ‘book’ would not be confused by them (Jn. 21:22 & 23).

How were the disciples who heard Jesus speak these words different from all of those who would later read these words in this author’s ‘book’? There is one critical difference that distinguishes between these two groups. This factor exposes the reason why the disciples misconstrued Jesus’ words and it shows why the readers of this author’s ‘book’ wouldn’t have made this same mistake (even if the author had not included his refutation of the rumor).

The knowledge of the identity of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is what differentiates these two groups! The readers of the author’s ‘book’ did not know the author’s identity. In contrast, the disciples of Jesus knew “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. His identity was not a mystery to them!

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 will that he tarry till I come” meant “that disciple should not die” (Jn. 21:23).

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!

Suppose for a moment 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.

Jesus had publicly displayed his willingness to have his friend Lazarus loosed from the bonds of death, and this miracle took place not all that long before this misunderstanding occurred. Clearly this was a very special privilege, not granted to all of the ‘disciples’, nor their families and friends. At that time, Lazarus was one of the few living individuals who had ever been chosen to receive this unique gift and ‘everyone’ knew it (Jn. 12:9, 11 & 18).

If the “other disciple” was Lazarus, then a reasonable explanation for origin of this false rumor becomes readily apparent. 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.

Here again, we see that the facts surrounding the “other disciple” perfectly fit Lazarus. This telltale rumor easily harmonizes with all the other evidence, if Lazarus was “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. We will look at still more evidence that supports this theory, but first let’s seek to answer this question: why did this author hide his identity?

Chapter 6 - WAS LAZARUS THE BELOVED DISCIPLE WHO WROTE THE FOURTH GOSPEL?
 

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