A New Argument for John's Identity
A New Argument for John's Identity
There is a glaring contradiction in the Gospel accounts related to John's death for those who hold the traditional view of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel.
According to the Gospel of Matthew, the mother of the sons of Zebedee approached Jesus on one occasion with the following request: “Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” Jesus answered her saying, “You do not know what you are asking,” and turning to James and John he then said, “Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” “We are able,” they replied. Jesus then said, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant…” (Mt 20:20-24; cf. Mk 10:35-41). In John 18:11 Jesus used nearly identical language to describe his own death. After Peter had severed a man’s ear, Jesus said, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” In short, when Jesus told James and John that they would drink his cup, this was an unmistakable reference to their eventual martyrdom.
This prophecy is difficult—if not impossible—for advocates of the traditional view to square with words we find toward the end of John’s Gospel. After he was told that he too would be martyred, Peter asked Jesus about the fate of the beloved disciple: “‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!’ So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die…” (Jn 21:20-23). But if this other disciple happened to be the Apostle John, how could such a rumor even begin to spread among the brothers? Jesus had already told the sons of Zebedee that they would drink the cup of death, and this appears to have been known among the other ten disciples (cf. Mt 20:24, Mk 10:41). Even if this point had largely been forgotten, surely John would have reminded them of Jesus’ words as soon as the rumor got started. Inexplicably, however, it somehow spread unchecked as if all the disciples—James and John included—had some form of collective amnesia.
If the Apostle John was the narrator of this event he also could have set the record straight with his readers. What we find instead, however, is an argument rooted in the hypothetical nature of Jesus’s words to Peter: “Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” (Jn 21:23). But in the case of the Apostle John, the very possibility that he would not die is in direct conflict with Jesus’ prophecy related to his martyrdom: “You will drink my cup…”
This is a point that many commentators across the ages seemed to have missed as well. According to Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428), “John lived a long time, that is, seventy-three years after the ascension of the Lord to the time of Trajan, and died a natural death in peace and serenity after all the other apostles.”1 But if this is John the Apostle, how are we to reconcile the report of John’s “natural death” with the words of Jesus’ prophecy? Augustine humorously notes in his discussion of Jn 21:23 that some Christians in his day “assert that the Apostle John is still living [and] is sleeping rather than lying dead in his tomb at Ephesus.” In response, Augustine says briefly, “I think it quite superfluous to contend with such an opinion.”2
This absurd view of John’s longevity appears to have lasted throughout the Middle Ages. Commenting on John 21, Martin Luther writes, “As some are greatly troubled about whether St. John died or is still alive, the Evangelist shows clearly enough that Christ did not wish to have us know that; therefore, we should not seek it out. He says, ‘Jesus did not say he would not die, and he does not now say that he would die.’ He thus lets it be in doubt.”3 Calvin similarly observes that “Christ had not intended to pronounce anything certain or definite about John, but only to affirm that he had full power to decide about his life and death.”4 And yet, according to Mt 20:20-24 and Mk 10:35-41, Jesus had pronounced something certain and definite about the Apostle John—he was to die a martyr’s death.
More recently, Richard Lenski (1864-1936) observed that “In Peter’s case, Jesus pronounced an actual prophecy; in John’s, he declined to utter a prophecy and left John’s career wholly in the secrecy of his will.”5 While this certainly fits the context of the latter part of John 21, it completely ignores the prophecy of Jesus recorded by Matthew and Mark. Craig Keener similarly noted that “Jesus has the right to choose who will be martyred and who will survive. According to strong (though not unanimous) tradition, John was one of the few original apostles to escape martyrdom.”6 But once again, this fails to acknowledge Jesus’ clear prophecy of martyrdom for both sons of Zebedee. In my own informal survey of dozens of books and commentaries written by advocates of the traditional view of authorship, I have yet to find a single discussion of this glaring conflict. In short, the only way to reconcile the conflict that exists between these verses and Jn 21:23 is to come to grips with the fact that the beloved disciple cannot be equated with John the son of Zebedee.
The above material was recently added to Shane’s new PDF resource “The Identity of The Beloved Disciple.” If you’re a supporter or paid subscriber you can download the updated edition of this PDF behind the paywall below. We’ll also send it to you for a gift of any size. You can make your donation via PayPal, or through any of the support options listed here. To learn more about this topic, listen to Episode #50: Which John Wrote John?
Shane Rosenthal is the founder and host of The Humble Skeptic podcast. Shane was one of the founders of the White Horse Inn radio broadcast which he also hosted from 2019-2021, and he has written numerous articles for TableTalk, Core Christianity, Modern Reformation, and numerous other sites and publications. Shane received a B.A. in Humanities from Cal-State Fullerton, and an M.A. in Historical Theology from Westminster Seminary California.
