If then the beloved disciple is not presented as a mere symbol, but as a real person, was he in fact a historical individual? This is difficult to deny. For John 21:20-24 proves that the beloved disciple was a real historical person who was one of the original disciples of Jesus. It records:
Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” Peter therefore seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” This saying therefore went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” [John 21:20-23]
This passage shows that the beloved disciple was well known in early Christian circles, and it was widely held that Jesus would return before this man died. So he must have been a real person, who was one of Jesus’ disciples. As Brown remarks, the whole early Christian church was not holding its breath to see if a symbol or fictional character would die before Jesus returned.28
If this is so, then it becomes difficult to deny the historicity of the disciples’ investigation of the tomb. For the beloved disciple is said to have been a witness of that event. The only way to deny this is to assert either that he lied to his pupils or colleagues about his being there or that they all conspired together to lie in writing him back into the gospel, although they knew he really was not there. Neither of those alternatives is plausible, for they collapse back into the old view that the disciples were liars and cheats, a view that simply cannot be sustained.
Who, then, was this man called the beloved disciple? Since he was present at the Last Supper, he must have been one of the inner circle of the twelve disciples. Since he was one of the witnesses of Jesus’ appearance at the Sea of Galilee, he must have been one of the seven disciples present at that event: “There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas (called Didymus), and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples” (John 21:2). Since the beloved disciple is unnamed, he must have been either one of the two sons of Zebedee or one of the two anonymous disciples. We have noted already the close association of the beloved disciple with Peter. When we read the other gospels, we find that Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, form a trio that were closely bound to Jesus and to each other. That close association suggests that the beloved disciple was either James or John. But James was martyred for his faith very early on, so that he could not be the beloved disciple, who, according to rumor, was not to die before Christ’s return. So the beloved disciple must have been John the son of Zebedee.
Weighty confirmation of that fact is that neither James nor John is mentioned even once in the gospel of John until the list of the seven disciples in the last chapter. It is inconceivable that so prominent a disciple as John, who plays an important role in the other gospels, could fail to be mentioned unless it was because he was in fact the beloved disciple. Further confirmation comes from the fact that, although other persons in the gospel of John are carefully identified, John the Baptist is referred to only as “John.” That is probably because the gospel’s author either knew or was John the beloved disciple and thus was in no danger of confusing him with John the Baptist. According to the respected British commentator C. K. Barrett, we may conclude with assurance that “the author of the gospel, whoever he may have been, described as the disciple whom Jesus loved, John, the son of Zebedee, and one of the Twelve.”29
That conclusion is of tremendous significance. For think of it! That means that we have in our hands accounts of events either written by or based directly upon the testimony of a close companion of the historical Jesus and an eyewitness of such facts as His crucifixion, empty tomb, and appearances. That is evidence of the greatest historical value. For as one critic has put it, grant that even one gospel writer was an eyewitness of the events concerning the resurrection, and their truth cannot be denied. In John we have such a witness. Therefore, the fact of the disciples’ investigation of the empty tomb stands on solid historical ground.
8. It would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty. It would have been impossible for a Jew to believe in a resurrection if the man’s body were still in the grave. The idea that Jesus rose from the dead in a different body while His corpse remained in the tomb is a purely modern notion. As Bode emphasizes, Jewish mentality would never have accepted a division of two bodies, one in the grave and one in the new life.30 It was the body in the grave that was raised.
Therefore, the disciples could never have preached the resurrection, nor would anyone have believed them, if Jesus’ corpse were still in the tomb. And even if the disciples did not go to check out the tomb, the Jews could have been guilty of no such oversight. Even if the burial story were totally false, and Jesus were buried in the criminals’ graveyard, it would not have been difficult for the Jewish authorities to locate a freshly dug grave, even after several weeks, and, if necessary, exhume the body. When therefore the disciples began to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, and people believed them, and the Jewish authorities stood helplessly by, the tomb must have been empty. The fact that the Christian fellowship, founded on belief in Jesus’ resurrection, could arise and flourish in the face of its enemies in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus had only recently been publicly executed and buried, is powerful evidence for the fact of the empty tomb.
9. The earliest Jewish propaganda against the Christian believers presupposes the empty tomb. In Matthew’s gospel, we find the story of how the Jews set a guard around the tomb of Jesus and how the guards fled:
Now while they were on their way, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. And when they had assembled with the elders and counseled together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ And if this should come to the governor’s ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble.” And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day. [Matthew 28:11-15]
Now I want to draw your attention to the incidental remark made at the end by Matthew: “And this story was widely spread among the Jews.” This short, parenthetical comment by Matthew reveals that he was trying to answer the allegations made against the Christian believers by the early Jewish propaganda. What were the Jews saying about the Christian proclamation that Jesus was risen? That the disciples were crazy? That Jesus still lay in the tomb? That His body was in some unknown grave? No, they said, the disciples came and stole His body. Think about that. His disciples came and stole His body. The Jews did not point to His tomb or even say it was unknown; rather they entangled themselves in a hopeless debate trying to explain away the empty tomb. The early Jewish propaganda against which Matthew writes thus itself presupposes and bears witness to the fact that Jesus’ tomb was empty. The evidence is all the more powerful because it comes from the enemies of the Christian “heresy” themselves. Whether Matthew’s story about the guard and the bribe is historical is thus for us quite beside the point. The important thing is that Matthew unintentionally tells us by relating this story, which he felt compelled to refute, exactly what the early Jews were saying against the Christians. They were trying to explain why Jesus’ body was no longer in the tomb. Thus the early Jewish propaganda provides impressive evidence that Jesus’ tomb was empty.