I'm willing to accept that Lazarus was the disciple #2. In fact, I find it difficult to envision that John son of Zebedee had a house in or near Jerusalem. But I find it difficult to believe that Lazarus is disciple #1 or #3 or #4.
For #1, I find this particular fact significant for identifying Lazarus with the beloved disciple leaning on Jesus's bosom at the Last Supper. In John 12:1-2, we find that "...Jesus six days before the Passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but
Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him." From this time forward in the book of John, the name of Lazarus disappears, but within the week, we then find the "beloved disciple" leaning on Jesus bosom at the Last Supper table in John 13:23. The same location which Lazarus had occupied just earlier in John 12:1-2. Why would the only named man given the special recognition of being loved by Christ suddenly disappear from Biblical record, only to give place to a nameless disciple whom Jesus loved? This leads me to believe they are one and the same man.
For #3, There is a distinction made between the reaction of John and Peter to viewing the empty tomb. It says that when the beloved disciple saw,
he believed at that point (John 20:8). Peter evidently did
not believe at that point, because Christ came to the eleven that same evening (minus Judas the twelfth) and "upbraided them with
their unbelief and hardness of heart" for not believing either the women' testimony or the two from the Emmaus road of seeing the risen Christ (Mark 16:14). This difference between the reaction of the "beloved disciple" and that of the eleven apostles (minus Judas) tells us that this "beloved disciple" was definitely NOT ONE OF THE CHOSEN ELEVEN. He was in a category by himself apart from them.
For #4, Again, there is a distinction made between John the son of Zebedee and "the disciple whom Jesus loved". These two men are listed separately in the fishing story at the sea of Tiberias. "There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and
the sons of Zebedee" (James and John), "and
two other of his disciples." (John 21:2). One of these nameless "other" disciples was "that disciple whom Jesus loved", who alone first recognized that it was the Lord causing the miracle of the multitude of fishes finally being caught (John 21:7). The "beloved disciple" was NOT John the son of Zebedee.
Did John BarZebedee suddenly disappear from history?
Yes, he did, because Jesus predicted to both James and John sons of Zebedee that, "Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with..." (Matthew 20:20-23). In other words, the brothers James and John would both be violently martyred. We read very soon in the early church history of Acts 12:1-2, just before Claudius became emperor in AD 41 that "...about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And
he killed James the brother of John with the sword." If James was martyred this soon, it only makes sense that John his brother who would
share the "same cup" would also lose his life around the same time.
There is a real difficulty, here. And one would have to reject the entire Church tradition, assign the writing of John's Gospel to a disciple other than BarZebedee, and assume that Lazarus was also called John!!!
Church tradition is not sacred. Like the noble Bereans, we are supposed to examine tradition even daily for veracity, by comparing it to scripture. For example, the location of Mount Sinai has traditionally been wrongly understood, and has recently been proven to be wrong by archaeology compared with scripture saying it was in Arabia. Likewise for the location of the temple, presumed by most to be the current Temple Mount, but again, proven to be wrong by scripture compared with archaeology. The traditional site of Christ's crucifixion is also incorrect (it was on the crest of the Mount of Olives). And the traditional site of the city of Sodom has also been incorrect (it was in the Jordan Valley at the top of the Dead Sea, according to scripture).
There is reason why the name of Lazarus can be linked with the name of John. I quote from Willis Barnstone's
The Other Bible, The Secret Gospel of Mark, p. 342. "In a letter that Clement wrote to Theodore, he stated that there was more testimony attached to
Mark than was presently available. Within this original Gospel was a discussion of
the young man, John Eleazar (Eleazar being the Hebrew of the Greek Lazarus), who after Yahshua raised him from the tomb, went to the Garden of Gethsemane clothed in a fine white linen garment over his naked body." This would explain how Lazarus would also be linked to the name of John. John Eleazar /Lazarus would be the author of all the Johannine works, as well as the book of Revelation.
This would also explain the story about Revelation's author John being boiled in oil under Nero's orders. This attempt failed to kill him (Tertullian and Jerome's account). What can one expect if you try to turn a resurrected man (Lazarus) into a deep-fat fried individual? Resurrected individuals are incorruptible and immortal, and cannot die again. Any attempt to kill them again will only result in a complete failure.
If all of these aliases Lazarus adopted sound confusing, that is because
it was meant to be confusing to the hostile Jews. Operating under many different names allowed Lazarus to continue caring for Mary by throwing the hostile Jews off the track. These enemies of Christ would have liked nothing better than to persecute Lazarus and the mother of Christ and anybody connected with them. Being incognito also allowed Lazarus to continue his evangelistic endeavors more effectively, and to deflect attention from his own resurrected status. Instead, he could then concentrate the emphasis of the Gospel onto the resurrected Christ, who deserved the preeminence.
You even go a step further and identify Lazarus with Joseph BarNabas!
I am not the one originating this view. I first encountered it on a gentleman's website under the post's title of "Identifying the Rich Young Ruler", and a couple other posts identifying Barnabas with Lazarus, called "Barnabas Whom Jesus Loved", and "The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved".
There is also a short e-book with the same theme of Lazarus being the "beloved disciple" at this link:
www.thedisciplewhomjesusloved.com
