Who Was the “Disciple Whom Jesus Loved”?
1. The “Disciple Whom Jesus Loved” and the Author of the Fourth Gospel
Five New Testament writings traditionally have been attributed to John, the son of Zebedee, the “disciple”/”apostle” of Jesus. The name of John has been attached traditionally to the Fourth Gospel for centuries. Those early Church traditions have suggested that the Fourth Gospel was first published from Ephesus, in the Roman Province of Asia (modern Turkey), not Palestine. The Gospel is quite similar to the three letters in its language and style, but there are also some differences. A few of its ideas appear also in the Revelation, but not many; and again, the language and style of the Gospel are totally different from those of the Revelation.
The second and third letters traditionally attributed to the apostle John indicate their author only by a title, “The Elder.” The first letter gives no identification of its author at all, but the language and style are similar to those of the other two letters and the Gospel. The Book of the Revelation (Apocalypse) was written by an individual who specifically identified himself by the name “John” (Revelation 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8). The language and style of the Revelation are completely different from those of the three letters and the Gospel. It seems to have been written in Greek by a person who was thinking in Aramaic, whereas the writer of the letters was comfortable in Greek.
Opinions in modern scholarship are divided on the question of the authorship of the five “Johannine” writings. It is generally agreed that the Revelation (Apocalypse) was written by a different author from the letters and the Gospel. Some suggest a different author for the letters than for the Gospel, and a few suggest a different author for the first letter than for the other two letters.
Most modern Biblical interpreters usually hold that all five works, or at least the three letters and the Gospel, are somehow based on the thought of one early Christian thinker. They are thought to come from one early community of Christians, who had many ideas in common. But these scholars suggest that the various individual works were written or edited, at different times, and in differing forms, by different later writers/editors—a kind of “Johannine School” of thought. This “Johannine Community” seems to have developed in different ways over a generation or so, in different locations and in response to changing situations.
I myself have concluded that it is quite possible that John the Apostle, son of Zebedee, might have been the author of an early edition of the Revelation (perhaps during or shortly after the reign of the Emperor Nero). The writing style is somewhat ungrammatical and the writer appears to have been writing “translation Greek,” thinking in Aramaic and writing in Greek. The content of that book certainly fits with the Synoptic Gospels’ description of John as a “Son of Thunder.” Someone else may have edited the final edition of the Revelation about 95 CE.
But I think someone else wrote the Fourth Gospel, basing his work at least partly on the information provided by a person designated as the “disciple whom Jesus [especially] loved,” who was probably Lazarus. (See detailed arguments below). The actual final author/editor of the Fourth Gospel must remain unknown. He may very well have been “the Elder” who probably wrote all three of the letters attributed to John. The actual name of “the Elder” may even have been John.
A persistent Church tradition held that John the son of Zebedee settled in Ephesus, but also apparently held that there was another individual called the Elder John, who was prominent there about the same time. The same Church tradition suggests that all five Johannine writings were produced in that area. The Island of Patmos, from which the author of the Revelation wrote, is not far from Ephesus. It seems quite likely that over the years, the Church traditions confused the two Johns. Whether Lazarus himself ever made it to Ephesus, and how he might have been connected with, the final writer(s)/editor(s) of the Fourth Gospel, or that Church Community, is a mystery that remains to be resolved.
The earliest specific suggestion that has been handed down in Church tradition about the authorship of the Fourth Gospel is that of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, in Gaul (modern France), about 180 CE, who wrote, “John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned upon His breast, also published a Gospel while residing in Ephesus in Asia.” (Against Heresies, III:l:l). This identification subsequently, sometimes with the minor variation that he had assistants, was almost universally accepted in the early church.
Today, it is recognized that such late second-century traditions about people who lived a century earlier were often simplified, and that the authorship traditions were sometimes more concerned with the authority behind the Biblical writings than with the identity of the actual authors. Accordingly, most modern Biblical scholars doubt whether an eyewitness wrote any one of the four canonical Gospels. Yet it is likely that in many cases the Gospel writers did depend on oral traditions that did originate with some of the companions of Jesus. The “beloved disciple” may indeed have been one of these. But the contrast with Peter (John 13:23-26; 18:15-16; 20:1-10; 21:20-23), and the “beloved disciple’s” appearance at scenes where the Synoptic Gospels place none of the Twelve (e.g., John 19:26-27) suggest that the he may not have been one of “the Twelve.”
2. The “Witness”
Two passages in the Fourth Gospel purport to identify the primary source of the tradition(s) in this Gospel:
John 19:35 (He who saw this (ὁ ἑωρακὼς ho heorakos) has testified (μεμαρτύρηκεν memartyreken) so that you also may believe. His testimony (μαρτυρία martyria) is true, and he [or, there is one who] knows that he tells the truth.)
We are told here that a person who had seen the piercing of Jesus’ side during the crucifixion had given reliable testimony about that event. For convenience we may refer to this person as “the witness.” This witness is not clearly identified, but just before this passage, in John 19:26-27, we are informed that “the disciple whom Jesus [especially] loved” was one of those present at the crucifixion.
John 21:24 This is the disciple (ὁ μαθητὴς ho mathetes) who is testifying (ὁ μαρτυρῶν ho martyron) to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony (ἡ μαρτυρία he martyria) is true.
Here, at the conclusion of the Fourth Gospel, this witness is identified more precisely as being the same person as the “disciple whom Jesus [especially] loved.” It is not certain whether the reader is expected to understand that the disciple in question physically wrote “these things” himself, or caused them to be written. It seems clear however, that he has now died prior to the writing of this concluding chapter of the Gospel, which he did not write. “These things” might refer only to the events described in chapter 21. But nearly all interpreters hold that the words are obviously a reference to the same eyewitness as in 19:35.
The disciple in question is apparently being proposed as the (or a) source for at least the narratives of events that took place in Jerusalem and Judea, which are the primary focus in this Gospel, if not for all of the narratives in the Gospel. The writer(s) of chapter 21 are clearly distinguished from the “beloved disciple” (“we”; cf. “I” in verse 25).
How are these two passages to be evaluated? John 21:24-25 clearly suggests that Chapter 21 is an addition to the Gospel, and belongs to the final editing. The original conclusion is found in John 20:30-31, which is a fitting conclusion to all that has gone before, and apparently does not anticipate any further addition to the book. Likewise, John 19:35 is a parenthesis that probably was added in the final editing of the Gospel. We cannot be certain that the original edition of the Fourth Gospel attributed its tradition to an eyewitness disciple. But the work as we now have it certainly seems to suggest that those (“we”) who compiled/edited and published the work as we now have it understood that to be the case.
3. The “Other Disciple”
Who was the “disciple whom Jesus loved”? There are three types of references to anonymous disciples in the Fourth Gospel:
John 1:35 The next day John again was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and as he watched Jesus walk by, he exclaimed, “Look, here is the Lamb of God!” 37 The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. 38 When Jesus turned and saw them following, He said to them, “What are you looking for?” They said to Him, “Rabbi” (which translated means Teacher), “where are You staying?” 39 He said to them, “come and see.” They came and saw where He was staying, and they remained with Him that day. 40 It was about four o'clock in the afternoon. One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. 41 He first found his brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Anointed). 42 He brought Simon to Jesus, Who looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas” (which is translated Rock).
Here two disciples of John the Baptizer follow Jesus. One is named: Andrew; the other is unidentified. In the immediate context other disciples appear: Simon Peter (Cephas), Philip, and Nathaniel. The “other disciple” referred to in John 18 and John 20 below may or may not be the unnamed disciple here.
Two passages mention “another disciple” or “the other disciple”:
John 18:15 Simon Peter and another disciple (ἄλλος μαθητής allos mathetes) followed Jesus. Since that same disciple (ὁ δὲ μαθητὴς ho de mathetes) was known to the High Priest (γνωστὸς τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ gnostos to archierei), he went with Jesus into the courtyard of the High Priest, 16 but Peter was standing outside at the gate. So the other disciple (ὁ μαθητὴς ὁ ἄλλος ho mathetes ho allos), who was known to the High Priest (ὁ γνωστὸς τοῦ ἀρχιερέως ho gnostos tou archiereos), went out, spoke to the woman who guarded the gate, and brought Peter in.
Peter and another disciple follow Jesus, Who has been taken captive, to the palace of the High Priest. This “other disciple,” is “known to the High Priest” and gets Peter into the palace.
John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. 2 So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple (τὸν ἄλλον μαθητὴν ton allon matheten), the one whom Jesus [especially] loved (ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς hon ephilei ho Iesous), and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” 3 Then Peter and the other disciple (ὁ ἄλλος μαθητὴς ho allos mathetes) set out and went toward the tomb. 4 The two were running together, but the other disciple (ὁ ἄλλος μαθητὴς ho allos mathetes) outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the cloth that had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple (ὁ ἄλλος μαθητὴς ho allos mathetes), who reached the tomb first, also went in; and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise from the dead. 10 Then the disciples returned to their homes.
Mary Magdalene runs to Peter and to the other disciple (also identified here as “the one whom Jesus loved”) to tell them that Jesus’ body is not in the tomb. The two “race” (competitively?) to the tomb. The “other disciple” arrives first, but Peter enters first; then the other disciple enters, sees, and is first “to believe.” It is probable, but not certain, that this “other disciple” is the same as the one mentioned in John 18:16-16 above.
4. The “Disciple Whom Jesus [Especially] Loved”
Six passages mention the “disciple whom Jesus [especially] loved” (the Greek verb “to love” is agapao in all these instances except 20:2, where phileo is used):
John 13:21 After saying this Jesus was troubled in spirit, and declared, “Very truly, I tell you, one of you will betray Me.” 22 The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom He was speaking. 23 One of His disciples (εἷς ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν heis ek ton matheton)—the one whom Jesus [especially] loved (ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς hon egapa ho Iesous)—was reclining (ἦν ἀνακείμενος en anakeimenos) (i. e., at the meal) next to (ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ en to kolpo, literally, in the bosom of) Him: 24 Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom He was speaking. 25 So while reclining (ἀναπεσὼν anapeson) next to Jesus, he [i. e., “the one whom Jesus (especially) loved”] asked Him, “Lord, who is it?” 26 Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it into the dish.” So when He had dipped the piece of bread, He gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot. 27 After he [Judas] received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “Do quickly what you are going to do.”
The disciple whom Jesus [especially] loved reclines next to Jesus during the Last Supper, and Simon Peter, reclining on the other side of the “beloved disciple,” signals to this disciple privately for him to ask Jesus about the betrayer. The “beloved disciple” does this, and Jesus identifies the betrayer as Judas.
John 19:25 Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple whom He [especially] loved (τὸν μαθητὴν . . . ὃν ἠγάπα ton matheten . . . hon egapa) standing beside her, He said to His mother, "Woman, here is your son." Then He said to the disciple, "Here is your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.
The disciple whom Jesus [especially] loved stands near the cross, and Jesus gives Mary over into that disciple’s care as his own mother.
John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. 2 So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple (τὸν ἄλλον μαθητὴν ton allon matheten), the one whom Jesus [especially] loved (ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς hon ephilei ho Iesous), and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” 3 Then Peter and the other disciple (ὁ ἄλλος μαθητὴς ho allos mathetes) set out and went toward the tomb. 4 The two were running together, but the other disciple (ὁ ἄλλος μαθητὴς ho allos mathetes) outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the cloth that had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple (ὁ ἄλλος μαθητὴς ho allos mathetes), who reached the tomb first, also went in; and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise from the dead. 10 Then the disciples returned to their homes. (Question: where were their homes?)
The “other disciple” at the empty tomb mentioned in this passage is parenthetically identified here as “the one whom Jesus [especially] loved.”
John 21:1 After these things Jesus showed Himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias; and He showed Himself in this way. 2 Gathered there together were Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others (ἄλλοι ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ δύο alloi ek own matheton autou duo) of His disciples. 3 Simon Peter said to them; “I am going fishing.” They said to Him, “We will go with you.” They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing. 4 Just after daybreak, Jesus stood on the beach; but the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5 Jesus said to them, “Children, you have no fish, have you?” They answered Him, “No.” 6 He said to them, “Cast the net to the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in because there were so many fish. 7 That disciple whom Jesus [especially] loved (ὁ μαθητὴς ἐκεῖνος ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς ho mathetes ekeinos hon egapa ho Iesous) said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on some clothes, for he was naked, and jumped into the sea. 8 But the other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full of fish, for they were not far from the land, only about a hundred yards off.
The disciple whom Jesus [especially] loved is in a fishing boat with Simon Peter and the other disciples (cf. the scene in Luke 5:1-11); he recognizes the Risen Jesus standing on the shore and tells Peter, who leaves the boat to go and meet Him. Seven disciples are said to have been present on this occasion: Simon Peter, Thomas “the Twin,” Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee (the only mention of these in the Fourth Gospel, but their names from the Synoptic Gospels—James and John—are not given), and two other disciples, unidentified by name. The “beloved disciple” could be any one of these seven except Peter (see below), and it is probable that he is one of the two unnamed disciples.
John 21:20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom [especially] Jesus loved (τὸν μαθητὴν ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς ton matheten hon egapa ho Iesous) following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper (ὃς καὶ ἀνέπεσεν ἐν τῷ δείπνῳ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ hos kai anepesen en to deipo epi to stethos autou) and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray You?” [John 13:21-26] 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If it is My will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow Me!” 23 So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him [Peter] that he [the disciple whom Jesus loved] would not die, but, “If it is My will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”
The disciple whom Jesus [especially] loved is following Peter and Jesus: the writer parenthetically reminds the readers that this is the same disciple spoken of in John 13:23-26. Peter turns and sees this disciple and asks Jesus about him. Jesus seems to suggest that this disciple might remain alive until He Himself returns. The writer of this passage says that this statement of Jesus created confusion among the Christians, who began to believe that this disciple would not die. Reading between the lines, the reader must probably assume that that disciple has died by the time of the writing of this passage, and that, thus, there is the need of explanation.
John 21:24 This is the disciple who is testifying (Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ μαθητὴς ὁ μαρτυρῶν houtos estin ho mathetes ho martyron) to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony (αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία autou he martyria) is true.
The writer of this passage identifies the “witness” with the “beloved disciple,” suggesting that he is the source of [at least most of] the things that have been narrated in the Fourth Gospel, apparently having been an eyewitness to many or all of them.
In comparing these references, we find that John 20:2 identifies the “beloved disciple” with the “other disciple” in that passage. It is not clear whether or not the “beloved disciple” is also to be identified with the “other disciple” in John 18:15-16, but an affirmative answer is suggested by the fact that the disciple in 18:15-16 is associated with Peter, an association that seems to be a mark of the “beloved disciple.” There is nothing definite that would clearly identify the unnamed disciple in John 1:35-42 as the “beloved disciple,” although Peter is once more in the context even there.
We note, then, that at least in John 20:2-10 and in John 21 we have the same anonymous disciple who is known in two different ways, as “the other disciple” and as “the disciple whom Jesus [especially] loved.” If modesty was what led this eyewitness not to refer to himself by name in reporting traditional stories about Jesus, it is difficult to believe that he would constantly call attention to the special love that Jesus had for him.
A plausible solution is that the eyewitness disciple had modestly referred to himself simply as “the other disciple,” in his oral and/or written testimony, and was probably referred to that way in the earliest version(s) of this Gospel (not including chapter 21). We may further surmise that that it was his own followers who referred to him as the “the disciple whom Jesus [especially] loved.” following his death, and that it was his followers who edited the last/final edition of the Gospel accordingly. This suggestion receives some confirmation from John 20:2 where “the one whom Jesus [especially] loved” is obviously a parenthetical addition to identify “the other disciple” more precisely.
It is well known that the primary focus of this Gospel is in Judea, and especially in the vicinity of Jerusalem, not in Galilee, as was the case in the Synoptic Gospels. Many interpreters have suggested that the reason for this is that the “witness” was not a Galilean fisherman like John the son of Zebedee, but a native of Jerusalem. And it is hardly likely that a Galilean fisherman would have been “known to the High Priest.” One also wonders if Jesus would have committed his mother to the care of an “apostle,” (the very word means, “one who is sent,” i.e., as a “missionary”), who was called to be an itinerant preacher, as John and the others are said to have been. Would there have been a disciple and friend with a more stable home situation to whom Jesus might have committed his mother?
If we did not have the Church tradition, there is nothing in the Fourth Gospel itself that would suggest John as the author, and we might come to a different conclusion about its authorship. One commentator concluded that the evidence of the Gospel itself suggests that the “beloved disciple” was
“ . . . a young Jerusalemite of good family, possibly with priestly connections, not one of the Twelve, but one whom Jesus admitted to a peculiar intimacy during the closing period of his ministry” (G. H. C. MacGregor, The Gospel According to St. John, The Moffat Commentary, p. xlvi).
But can we be any more specific than this?
4. Lazarus of Bethany, Brother of Mary and Martha
Try this theory: it is worth noting that all of the passages about the “beloved disciple” in the Fourth Gospel occur after the narrative about the raising of Lazarus of Bethany in chapter 11:1-44. It is even more suggestive that Lazarus is the one and only male figure in this Gospel, of whom it is specifically said that Jesus loved him (John 11:3, 5, 11, 36; the Greek verb phileo and the noun philos are used in John 11:3, 11, and 36; the Greek verb agapao is used in John 11:5. We do note, however, that the usage of terms in reference to the “beloved disciple” is just the opposite, for agapao is more frequent in those instances.
John 11:1 Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped His feet with her hair [this story will be narrated in 12:1-8]; her brother Lazarus was ill. 3 So the sisters sent a message to Jesus, “Lord, he whom You [especially] love (ὃν φιλεῖς hon phileis) is ill.” 4 But when Jesus heard it, He said, “this illness does not lead to death; rather it is for God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” 5 Accordingly, though Jesus [especially] loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus (ἠγάπα δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν Μάρθαν καὶ τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτῆς καὶ τὸν Λάζαρον egapa de ho Iesous ten Marthan kai ten adelphen autes kai ton Lazaron), after having heard that Lazarus was ill, He stayed two days longer in the place where he was. . . . 11 After saying this, He told them, “our friend [ὁ φίλος ἡμῶν ho philos hemon, literally, “the one whom we love”], Lazarus, has fallen asleep, but I am going there to awaken him.” . . . 35 Jesus began to weep. 36 So the Jews said, “See how He loved him!” (ἴδε πῶς ἐφίλει αὐτόν ide pos ephilei auton) . . .
The home of Lazarus was in Bethany, outside Jerusalem. A native of this area certainly might have been “known to the High Priest.” And no doubt, if it was commonly believed such a person had been raised from the dead, people might have been expected that he “would not die” again. Someone has suggested (facetiously?) that the very reason the “beloved disciple” was first to recognize the risen Christ in John 21:7 was because he was Lazarus who had gone through the same kind of experience himself.
Actually, the Gospel describes the raising of Lazarus as a kind of “resuscitation” of a corpse. Probably that is not exactly what Jews and Christians expected the resurrection at the End of the Age to be, nor what the earliest Christians believed had happened in the case of Jesus. Note 1 Corinthians 15, in which Paul speaks of a transformation from a physical body to a “spiritual body.”
Certainly it is becoming increasingly clear that the story about Lazarus is especially significant for the understanding of the message of the Fourth Gospel. The story in chapter 11 tells that Lazarus, one whom Jesus especially loved (11:3, 5, 12, 36) was ill at his home in Bethany, near Jerusalem, in Judea. But Jesus delays going there, on the ground that His friend’s illness is designed to reveal His own glory as the Son of God.
After two days, by which time Lazarus has died, Jesus does go to Judea. But note that He does this at the risk of His own death at the hands of “the Jews” (11:8, 16). And four days after the entombment, when it is quite certain that Lazarus is really dead, Jesus brings him back to life.
The apparent sheer apparent inhumanity of Jesus’ conduct makes it clear that the mere recital of the story is not the Gospel writer’s sole intention. Rather, each step of the story points beyond the story to something else.
On Jesus’ arrival, Martha converses with Jesus (11:21-27), and Jesus assures her that her brother will rise again. She understands Him to speak of the resurrection expected at the End of the Age. But Jesus asserts that what is expected in the future is already present in Him. He is the life-giving power that Judaism associated with the End of all things (11:25). True Life, now and in the future, means the Life of Jesus Christ, Who is the Giver of life and the Conqueror of death (11:25-26). The writer makes this last assertion because, in going up to Judea Jesus faced death at the hands of “the Jews.” But, as the readers will understand, although Jesus did die, He is now alive in their midst. He had conquered death by dying. Life came through His death. The life-giving power of Jesus is somehow connected with His self-sacrifice unto death.
The story of the raising of Lazarus is now followed almost immediately by the story of Jesus being anointed at Bethany (12:1-8). The very first verse of this new story, as John tells it, mentions the raising of Lazarus. Indeed, the introduction of Mary in the preceding story has anticipated this one (11:2). The key verse in the story of the anointing is verse 7, in which it is clearly stated that the anointing points forward to Jesus’ death.
There then follows an account of a plot by “the Jews” to kill both Lazarus and Jesus (12:9-11; cf. 11:47-57). Then there follows the story of Jesus’ “triumphal” entry into Jerusalem (12:12-19), which, in John, points to the Lordship of Jesus being recognized. The crowds follow Jesus here, according to John, because He raised Lazarus from the dead (12:17-18). It is as the Conqueror of death, through His readiness to risk His life, that Jesus is now acknowledged as Lord. And this thought, that Jesus’ power comes through His death, which conquers death, then governs the rest of the Fourth Gospel.
In the following scene Greeks (Gentiles? Hellenistic Jews from the Diaspora community?) now come to see Jesus (12:19 ff.). But the writer implies that these visitors can come to Jesus only because He died. It is the death and resurrection of Jesus that creates and gathers together a worldwide community (12:23-24).
The next section is this writer’s counterpart to the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane in the Synoptic Gospels. Here the evangelist makes clear that the “lifting up” of Jesus on the cross—His hour of shame—is actually the hour of His “glory.” By means of His death on the cross—of His being “lifted up,” this writer calls it—a power is at work that will eventually draw all persons to God. At last, the real meaning of Jesus’ “glory” or “glorification”—terms that have haunted this Gospel from the beginning (1:14)—is made clear. It is not, and has never been, what human beings mean by “glory”—power, worldly success, fame—but the exact opposite—self-giving to the bitter end of the cross. The hour of His death is His hour of “glory.”
And at the same time it is the hour of the “judgment of this world” (12:31). Because this is so, in this Gospel others do not lead Jesus to His cross. Rather, it appears that He chooses the cross and is in full control of the events leading to it (10:17-18). Thus, the cross is the sign that gathers up all the preceding signs in this Gospel, including the sign of the raising of Lazarus. For all the reasons indicated to this point, some persons might well suggest that this Gospel should have been called “The Gospel according to Lazarus.”
5. Some Fragments from the “Secret Gospel of Mark”:
Minor additional support for identifying Lazarus with the “beloved disciple” may have been found in two fragments of the non-canonical, so-called “Secret Gospel of Mark.” These fragments, unknown until 1958, are quoted in a previously unknown letter of the early Christian writer, Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 CE):
First Fragment [Insert between Mark 10:34 and 35]: 1 And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. 2 And coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to Him, “Son of David, have mercy on me.” 3 But the disciples rebuked her. 4 And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, 5 and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. 6 And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. 7 And straightway, going in where the youth was, He stretched forth His hand and raised him, seizing his hand. 8 But the youth, looking upon Him, loved Him, and began to beseech Him that He might be with Him. 9 And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. 10 And after six days Jesus told him what to do 11 and in the evening the youth comes to Him, dressed only in a linen cloth. 12 And he remained with Him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. 13 And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.
Second Fragment [Insert between Mark 10:46a and 10:46b]: 1 And the sister of the youth whom Jesus [especially] loved and His mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them.
Some interpreters question whether these fragments are genuine or a forgery. The story as we have it bears a striking resemblance to the narrative of the raising of Lazarus in John 11:1-44, and, if genuine, is possibly a variant version from the oral tradition. The young man’s name is not given. There are also echoes of the story of the so-called “rich young ruler” (Mark 10:17-22) also. And the mention of the reference to a “linen cloth” worn by the youth reminds one of the scene in the Garden at Jesus’ arrest (Mark 14:51-52), and of the empty tomb narrative in the canonical Mark (Mark 16:5 ff.). Then the second fragment does identify the young man as one “whom Jesus [especially] loved,” as in the Fourth Gospel.
A scholar named Frederick Balz has recently suggested a new theory about the identification of Lazarus with the “Beloved disciple.” Who was Lazarus? This critical question is what Baltz devotes 109 amazingly insightful pages to answering, thereby cracking open the larger questions. He argues a double equation. Lazarus = the Beloved Disciple = the former High Priest Eleazar, son of Boethus, and “founder” of the Fourth Gospel community. Eleazar son of Boethus was the High Priest of Israel from 4 BCE to a time shortly before 6 CE. “Lazarus” is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Eleazar. Like Lazarus, Eleazar had two well-known sisters, Miriam (Mary) and Martha. Baltz uses texts from the Talmud and Midrashim to argue that these are the same Mary and Martha that we find in the Gospels. Their brother, the former High Priest Eleazar, according to Balz, was the “Lazarus” whom Jesus raised from the dead, the Beloved Disciple. In this view Lazarus, Mary, and Martha were all much older persons than tradition has always held. Certainly this view would explain why the Beloved Disciple was a person especially known to the High Priest, Caiaphas, who presided over the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus.
If this identification holds, then Balz says it is no wonder Caiaphas and the council were so alarmed by Jesus’ raising of Lazarus! A former High Priest of Israel had not only accepted the radical call of Jesus, but also, by being raised from the dead had become Jesus’ Beloved Disciple and a transforming symbol of the whole people’s resurrection. The client rulers of Israel overseen by Rome recognized that Jesus and the resurrected Eleazar both had to be killed (John 11:53, 12:10-11) to prove that death, not life, still held power in the Empire.
What makes Baltz’s little Scripture study so beautifully challenging is that while not assuming old conservative answers that don’t work—such as that of John, son of Zebedee, being the Beloved Disciple—Baltz also refuses to read the Gospel through the skeptical glasses of the liberal. Baltz takes seriously the Fourth Gospel’s claim that it takes history seriously. Contrary to a scholarly prejudice, this Gospel’s theology is profoundly intertwined with the history of Jesus, as its author claims at the end. Jesus’ “signs” as drawn from that history are so astounding that faith is necessary to accept them. By risking the faith to accept Jesus’ raising of Lazarus as a truth of history, Baltz has freed himself to explore fundamental questions that modern scholarship has been afraid to touch. It will be interesting to see how other Biblical interpreters evaluate Balz’s theories.
