The Hidden Identity of the Beloved Disciple

The years have been kind to the apostle John. Since the days of his ministry in the days of Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the establishment of the kingdom, John has been understood to have authored certain texts in the New Testament canon, but also understood to be the “other disciple” or “beloved disciple” as is quoted in the gospel of John. Most Bible believing individuals do not question the authorship of John, however, the fact does remain that John (if he really is the author) never identifies the beloved one of Jesus. Although John has traditionally held this distinction, there is question regarding the true identity of this disciple by many modern day and previously known scholars. The purpose of this essay is to expose the theories of the identity of the beloved one, and present a simple conclusion based on the materials used for study.

            There are four passages that the author of the fourth Gospel uses to describe the one whom Jesus loved. John 13:23, 19:36, 20:2, and 21:7,20. Particularly interesting is the placement of the “beloved disciple” in the Gospel itself. It does not appear until after the story of Lazarus and his resurrection in Bethany. There are basically four views (or variations of them) held on the true identity of the beloved one to Jesus.[1] Most popular, of course, is the traditional view that John the son of Zebedee is not only the unnamed author of this gospel, but also the unnamed “other disciple.” The internal evidence for this is primarily due to the mention of Peter and John throughout the gospel accounts of Mark and Luke. Moreover, Luke’s account in Acts includes Peter and John repeatedly together. External evidence is led primarily by the word of early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Eusebius, and Origen.[2] Irenaeus identifies

“… John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”

It remains constant in the early church writings that John was the beloved disciple, but admittedly there is no mention by the apostle of his own name.

            Second, the view is held that the beloved one was not a particular disciple of Jesus, not even a man of flesh and blood.[3] Many believe this position to represent a true disciple of Jesus; perhaps even Gentile Christianity. There are many proponents of this view, not the least of which is Rudolf Bultmann. The views will be discussed in detail a little later.

            Third, Lazarus appears to be a constant possibility among those who study this topic. Although Lazarus does receive some favorable reviews as the one who truly is the beloved, there are significant problems with holding him as the “other disciple.” Almost all major commentators (Bultmann, Carson, Culpepper, Brown, etc.) mention Lazarus as a potential candidate, but almost all of them end up rejecting Lazarus.

            Fourth, the beloved disciple may be a Jerusalem disciple (not of the twelve) who was close in contact to the High Priest. According to the gospel account in John 18:15, the beloved one was known to the High Priest, thereby admitting Peter into the inner court. It seems troublesome to think of this disciple as John the son of Zebedee in one sense, because John was from Galilee, not Judea, but each theory will be reviewed as it was presented. Among others, Robert Mahoney adequately records this position held by Schnackenburg, Bultmann, and other main stream Christian scholars.[4]

            The text gives us the first clues to the identity of the disciple Jesus loved, and what John intended to say is puzzling. Was John using an impersonal reference to himself to save face or demonstrate humility? Alan Culpepper seems to record best what John may have meant to convey to the reader.[5] In humility, presenting himself in third person and with another title, John is said to recline “in the bosom” of Jesus, making similar reference to the chapter 1:18 passage of John, where Jesus is “in the bosom” of the Father. This repetition seems to call further emphasis to the writer’s close relationship with Christ.

            R.V.G. Tasker places Judas at one of the places of honor (alongside Jesus) with the beloved one at the other.[6] Thereby making himself available for inquisition from Peter and the other apostles, the beloved disciple is at the place of Jesus’ honor with special relationship.

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE

            D.A. Carson is convinced that John is the most reasonable to occupy the position as the beloved disciple. In his own words,

“If we wonder why the beloved disciple chooses this form of anonymity, two answers are suggested by the emphases of the Fourth Gospel. Just as ‘the beloved disciple’, if a self-designation, implies not arrogance but a profound sense of indebtedness to grace, so the silence as to the identity of the beloved disciple may be a quiet way of refusing to give even the impression of sharing a platform with Jesus.”[7]

As mentioned previously, Irenaeus made reference to John as the beloved, but also Eusebius accounts this as well.[8] Still, Beauford Bryant, prior to his death held the traditional view of John as the beloved, placing Judas on one side of Jesus at the last supper, and John on the other. He never proves that John is the most likely candidate, but assumes it is understood to the reader of his commentary.[9] C.K. Barrett points out that the beloved disciple does not limit the last supper to the twelve, but Mark explicitly states that none but the twelve were present, thereby limiting the identity to one of the chosen apostles.[10] In an article primarily marking the similarity of the beloved disciple to the Biblical Moses/Benjamin figure, Paul Minnear makes clear that the author John is trying to present the beloved as himself.[11]

            Some are so adamantly opposed even to the consideration of John on this point; they belittle those who believe John to be the disciple. Richard Bauckham observes in response to Martin Hengel’s treatment of the identity issue, that

“In my view, Hengel has quite unnecessarily complicated and compromised his proposal by allowing a relic of the old attribution to John the son of Zebedee back into his argument. In this context, John the son of Zebedee is a phantom which needs to be exorcised.”[12]

            While Hengel does not support the view of John the son of Zebedee as the beloved, he does present a view that occasionally brings John back into the limelight. Hengel believes the popular position is true, which credits the “ideal disciple/figurative disciple” position.

            The mere questioning of such long and time-tested tradition is discomforting to some extent. H.E. Edwards felt this way upon questioning this identity issue, when he said, “as I copy these words, something of the thrill of mingled resentment and alarm…” causes him to write the book on the disciple’s writing and identity.[13] Apparently, Edwards’ interest was stirred on this topic when an undergraduate student over 40 years prior to this remark. His utmost respect for John was sometimes called into question, now that he was convinced that there might be another who was that beloved one of Christ.

            Brendan Byrne supposes that the evidence for John the apostle being the beloved one is too great to overcome. In Byrne’s article he points out that many contemporary scholars question the validity of Irenaeus’ writing on John.[14] B.G. Griffith points out the social standing of Zebedee from a cultural context, and believes that James and John’s mother asking Jesus if they could sit at his side as an evidence of their high social standing.[15] In Griffith’s mind, this is evidence that John was capable of owning a Jewish home and being known to the High Priest. He continues in his article that Lazarus makes the most sense as the author and beloved disciple.

            James Charlesworth, in his book, points out that to think of John as the author and beloved one is not at all inconceivable, but in fact is likely based on several unpopular sources to the opponents.[16] Byrne – again in favor of the apostle John as the author and beloved one – says

“That an early Christian leader would write himself into the gospel under such a pretentious title as ‘beloved disciple’ is scarcely to be imagined. It is far more likely that the community… conferred the epithet upon him (perhaps posthumously) and that in due course their representative in the shape of the Evangelist wrote him into the gospel.”[17]

Is it reasonable to think John was “written into” the gospel? It seems a bit of a stretch to think he would construct the writing in that way.

Vernard Eller held that for Jesus to elevate one apostle above others into a more or less “favored” position, this would be out of character for Jesus and also would pull the apostles from their own context asking themselves often “who is the greatest?”[18]

ANOTHER UNNAMED DISCIPLE?

            In recent history, it seems the more experienced scholars seem to hold the view that the beloved disciple of Christ was in fact a disciple unnamed in the text at all. Leading the way for many others, Rudolf Bultmann, in his commentary on John states that the figure is likely not John, but a historical figure of another circle of believers.[19] Bultmann refers to the John 13:23 passage, where the “other disciple” is mentioned, and calls attention to the unnamed one who fills this role. According to Raymond Brown, there are a number of difficulties when one places this distinction on an unnamed disciple.[20] Although there are certainly difficulties in Brown’s mind over reverting back to John of Zebedee, there are far less frequent problems in rationale than one would find in the other cases. James Charlesworth, finds a considerable difficulty in the text of the scene of the cross. In John 19:25-27, the disciple is told, “here is your mother.” Charlesworth points out that there may indeed be a great deal of “creative narrative” that paints a more emotional picture connection between the beloved one and Jesus on the cross.[21] John O’Grady states that Charlesworth’s position that Thomas is the beloved is the strongest case made to date, and because of Charlesworth’s reasoning that Thomas was absent on the first visit post-resurrection, it must be that he had prior knowledge that he was beloved by the Savior.[22]

            Rudolf Bultmann makes reference to the comments of Jesus in John 19:26-27 and says that there is undoubtedly a symbolic meaning to the mother/son discussion the Jesus charges both of them with.[23] According to Bultmann, the symbolic meaning of Jesus’ mother is that Mary (Jewish Christianity) has overcome the offensive nature of the cross and is taken in by the beloved one (Gentile Christianity), which, according to Bultmann, convey the exact same meaning as Jesus’ prayer in John 17.

            In the thinking of Joseph Grassi, this theory is far more questionable than Bultmann, Schnackenburg or others tend to think.[24] If the beloved disciple is merely a symbolic figure, the credibility of the entire document of John is true. John says in the John 19:35 passage that “he who saw it has borne witness- his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth – that you also may believe!” More than anything else from this John 19 passage, the author wants to convey the understanding that he is an eyewitness of the events. This is not tradition, conjecture, or wishful thinking, but fact at the witness of the writer.

            According to Philip Kaufman, he himself is joining the ranks of those who have changed views (Brown, Schnackenburg) that the beloved disciple is a real person, in fact a hero in the Jerusalem community that witnessed the events of Christ.[25]

LAZARUS?

            Brendan Byrne is a modern day scholar who is a proponent of the theory of Lazarus being the beloved disciple.[26] According to Byrne, the soudarion, or facial burial cloth is the selling point of Lazarus belief. If indeed Lazarus is the beloved disciple, the words “unbind him, and let him go” will forever ring true in his mind, reminiscent of his own resurrection by the Savior. Upon seeing the burial clothes in John 20, Lazarus immediately recalls the deshrouding of his own head, and seeing the soudarion is brought to faith immediately. This conclusion, according to Brown, is a ludicrous and facetious assessment of the belief of the beloved one. Still others believe it to be the most accurate measure of what truly occurred.

            In support of this theory that Lazarus was the beloved one, is has been brought up that Lazarus did own a home close to Jerusalem. Bethany is a small town on the outskirts of Jerusalem, making the convenience of taking care of Jesus’ mother a reality.[27]

            Frederick Baltz believes that the three statements of love recognizing Lazarus as dear to Jesus make it abundantly clear that Lazarus is the “Beloved Disciple.”[28] In the understanding of Wendy Sproston North, this idea that Lazarus is the beloved disciple is a “tired theory” that should be laid to rest.[29] Baltz makes a strong observation about Lazarus being the subject of many first century rumors. If the beloved was Lazarus, then in chapter 21 when Jesus says that it is none of Peter’s business what happens to that disciple, it would make sense that the community might misconstrue this to mean Lazarus of Bethany. As Baltz puts it, “was Lazarus resurrected only to have the resurrection fail?”[30] As Bultmann stated, the beloved one must be a symbolic figure of Christianity and discipleship. Baltz, though, says that Bultmann cannot hold that position without importing meaning to the text. In that line of reasoning, Baltz understands Jesus’ statement “woman, behold your son!” as a precursor stating that Lazarus is indeed like her son.[31] They are both reborn from the grave, and no longer does Satan conquer on the basis of sin and death.

            Eller states that he “is sorry” for adding his own weight to the Lazarus theory.[32] While many have discounted it as a foolish conclusion, Eller emphatically maintains that Jesus could not possibly mean anyone else, when he says “woman, behold your son!”

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

            The four positions stated above (two of which are combined in the section on an unnamed disciple) represent that of years upon years of conjecture and speculation. Without specific names and mention by Jesus or one of the apostles, we cannot possibly know for sure who the true disciple who Jesus loved is. In light of the evidence that has surfaced, the most reasonable solution seems to be that it could possibly be John or Lazarus. The heavy weight of tradition lies upon John, but if we were to look at only evidence from the gospel of John, it appears that it could easily be Lazarus. Even though there are great schools of thought in other positions, these two seem very credible conclusions.

            John is conveying in his identification of the beloved disciple that someone was remarkably close to Jesus. Although nothing would be monumentally changed if Lazarus is held as the beloved one, tradition would certainly take it with difficulty. Hopefully, this essay exposes the issue involved with this identity crisis adequately, and exposes what John was trying to leave with the reader of his gospel. “These things are written that you may believe!”

[2] Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” book 3.1.1, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans, Grand

Rapids, 1985, 414. Some conjecture has been raised over credibility of the account of Irenaeus; however, Eusebius also makes adequate detail of John the apostle in his writings, including his assumption that John the son of Zebedee is the beloved disciple.