Expert: Brenda Martin - 1/27/2011

Question
Dear Brenda,

regarding your reply on :
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Bible-Studies-1654/2010/2/Mark-14-51-John.htm

you wrote :
2.Furthermore, John and Peter are linked in the postresurrection account at John 20:2-8.

These indications suggest that the apostle John was “that disciple [who] was known to the high priest.”

would you please help me, as I don't find any reference which telling why/how John the apostle was known to the high priest in that verse ? (John 20:2-8).

on the contrary, it seems that the high priest never know / meet John before in Acts 4:13 - while in John 18:15 it tells the high priest knew John, so he can enter "easily".

any kind of enlightening respond would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advanced.

regards.
bali

Answer
"JOHN AND PETER ARE LINKED IN THE POST-RESURRECTION ACCOUNT AT JOHN 20:2-8. JOHN WAS “THAT DISCIPLE [WHO] WAS KNOWN TO THE HIGH PRIEST.”?

In John’s Gospel is the fact that he never refers to himself by the name “John”. He is either 1.one of the sons of Zebedee or 2.the disciple whom Jesus loved, preferred or had affection for.

For instance, he writes of “THE DISCIPLE that bears witness about these things and that wrote these things.”

Similarly: “HE that has seen it has borne witness, and HIS witness is true, and THAT MAN knows he tells true things.” (John 19:35; 21:24)

Note also John 13:23: “There was reclining in front of Jesus’ bosom ONE OF HIS DISCIPLES, and JESUS LOVED HIM.” That was shortly before Jesus’ arrest.

Later that day the impaled Jesus singled out one disciple, whom John mentions in similar terms: “Seeing his mother and THE DISCIPLE WHOM HE LOVED standing by, [Jesus] said to his mother: ‘Woman, see! Your son!’”—John 19:26, 27; compare John 21:7, 20.

This same characteristic of not naming himself is evident at John 20; 2-8.

V.2 “she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the OTHER DISCIPLE, for WHOM JESUS HAD AFFECTION, and she said to them: “…

This same characteristic of not naming himself is evident at John 18:15

“Now Simon Peter as well as ANOTHER DISCIPLE was following Jesus. That disciple was known to the high priest, and he went in with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest,”

"THE HIGH PRIEST NEVER KNOW / MEET JOHN BEFORE IN ACTS 4:13"

They recognized that the apostles “used to be with Jesus.” So they DID know them.

PLUS--All four of the Gospel writers—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—record that on the night of Jesus’ arrest, one of his disciples drew a sword and struck a slave of the high priest, taking off the man’s ear.

Only the Gospel of John reports a seemingly unnecessary detail: “The NAME OF THE SLAVE was Malchus.” (John 18:10, 26)

Why does John alone give the man’s name? A few verses later the account provides a minor fact not stated anywhere else: John “was known to the high priest.” He was also known to the high priest’s household; the servants were acquainted with him, and he with them. (John 18:15, 16) It was only natural, then, that John mention the injured man’s name, whereas the other Gospel writers, to whom the man was a stranger, do not.

all the best
Brenda