Traditionally appearing after Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the
NT canon, the Gospel of John is also referred to as the Fourth
Gospel. Because of its many unique features, John is often discussed
in distinction from the other three Gospels, which are grouped
together as the Synoptic Gospels.
Authorship
Technically,
the Gospel of John is anonymous. The author, however, identifies
himself with the Beloved Disciple (21:24). In light of the nearly
unanimous testimony of the early church that the Fourth Gospel was
penned by the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, and that no
formidable argument has been set forth against this position, the
majority of conservative scholars agree that the Beloved Disciple is
John the apostle.
Evidence
for apostolic authorship is multifaceted. First, the external
evidence weighs heavily in favor of the traditional view that John
the apostle penned this Gospel. There is some evidence that title
pages with an accompanying ascription identifying the author date
back very close to the time of the origin of the Gospels themselves.
Such ascriptions may have been necessitated as a means of
distinguishing the Gospels from one another. With regard to the
Fourth Gospel, the earliest manuscripts uniformly ascribe it to the
apostle John.
The
evidence from the early church fathers also supports the traditional
viewpoint. Ignatius appears to have been familiar with the language
of the Fourth Gospel. Also, the Shepherd of Hermas alludes to it.
Justin appears to be the first orthodox writer to quote John (1 Apol.
61.4–5, quoting from John 3:3–5). Irenaeus is the first
to overtly assert Johannine authorship: “John the disciple of
the Lord, who leaned back on his breast, published the Gospel while
he was resident at Ephesus in Asia” (Haer. 3.1.1). This
position finds further support in Tertullian and Clement of
Alexandria (c. AD 200). The Muratorian Canon (AD 180–200) tells
us that John was urged by his disciples, and that Andrew had a dream
that John should write. Eusebius’s silence on the questions of
the authenticity, authorship, and canonicity of John speaks loudly,
since it was his objective to address the doubtful cases. In all,
there is unquestioned acceptance by the end of the second century
that the Fourth Gospel was written by John the apostle.
Second,
the internal evidence corresponds with the identification of John the
son of Zebedee as the author in that he appears to meet all the
requirements for authorship. John was one of the Twelve and, along
with Peter and James, a member of the inner circle of Jesus’
disciples. This close association with Peter makes John the best
candidate for the Beloved Disciple. Also, the call narrative of
1:35–51, when compared with Mark 1:16–20, supports the
identification of the unnamed disciple with John. Several personal
allusions in the Fourth Gospel are best accounted for if the author
is John the apostle. For example, in 1:14; 19:35 the author suggests
that he has personally witnessed Jesus. The author provides details
that suggest this Gospel was written by an eyewitness, and some of
these details serve no purpose except to affirm that an eyewitness
saw or experienced them. These include a proclivity for specifying
the time or day of an event (1:19–28, 29, 35, 39, 43; 2:1; 4:6,
52; 18:28; 19:14; 20:19); the number of water jars (six) at Cana
(2:6); the distance (twenty-five or thirty stadia) that the disciples
rowed (6:19); the number of fish (153) caught (21:11); and the
distance of the boat from land at the postresurrection appearance of
Jesus (21:8, 11).
Furthermore,
the author of the Fourth Gospel is aware of Jewish customs and
history as well as the geography of first-century Palestine. This too
accords with our knowledge of John the apostle. For example, he is
aware of customs regarding cleansing (2:6), laws concerning the
Sabbath (5:10), and the Feast of Tabernacles (7:37). The writer of
the Fourth Gospel is also familiar with history (the number of years
spent rebuilding the temple [2:20]), Jewish politics (the attitude
toward Samaritans [4:9]), Jewish authorities (Annas and Caiaphas
[18:13]), and the geography of Palestine (the pool at Bethesda with
five porticoes [5:2], the Pool of Siloam [9:7], Sychar [4:5], the two
Bethanys [1:28; 11:1, 18; 12:1], Ephraim [11:54]).
The
question remains as to why the apostle John would have written
anonymously and used such a cryptic means of identifying himself as
“the beloved disciple” (21:20; NIV: “the disciple
whom Jesus loved”). It is conceivable that John’s readers
knew his name, and that in keeping with the Semitic custom of
anonymity, John used this alternative designation. Why, though, in an
effort to humbly remain anonymous, would someone choose a designation
that seemingly connotes superiority?
In
response, some have suggested that John may have used the title with
a sense of wonder about how Jesus loved him. The stress would then be
one of amazement: John, instead of mentioning his own name, draws
attention to what he owes Jesus. This title is also combined with
other, more modest titles: “another disciple” (18:15);
“the other disciple” (20:2); “the man who saw it”
(19:35). Finally, others have noted that the designation “the
beloved disciple” may simply have been a title by which John
was known throughout the churches of Asia.
Furthermore,
if the apostle John is not the author of the Fourth Gospel, then we
must account for his absence from the narrative. The failure to
mention James and John (aside from the somewhat passing reference to
the “sons of Zebedee” [21:2]) is striking. According to
the Synoptic Gospels, these brothers are two of the most prominent
disciples in the ministry of Jesus. If John’s readers were
familiar with James and John and their general role in the life of
Jesus, then by not naming himself, John could keep his own role
subordinate in the narrative. John, as an eyewitness, needed to
mention himself, for doing so would help to establish the historical
credibility of this Gospel. This designation allowed him to write a
biography of Christ and not mention himself by name.
Time
and Place of Writing
Though
the conclusion is ultimately uncertain, it is widely believed that
John penned the Fourth Gospel from Ephesus somewhat late in the first
century (c. AD 85–95). It appears from 21:19, 23 that a measure
of time has gone by, and that Peter has already died. It has been
argued that the Gospel of John was written before the destruction of
the temple in Jerusalem in AD 70 (on the basis of references
suggesting that the temple is still standing [cf. 5:2]), but this
argument from silence does not necessarily establish the point that
it attempts to prove. Supporting a date late in the first century is
the external evidence. The early church fathers claimed that John was
written last, at the urging of his disciples, and that he wrote from
Ephesus.
The
suggestion that John was written sometime well into the second
century has been rejected by nearly all scholars. The discovery of a
very early manuscript, P52 (dated around AD 125), confirms that the
Fourth Gospel was written and circulating early in the second
century. Copies of the Bodmer Papyri P66 and P75 further establish
that the Gospel of John was circulating in Egypt as early as AD 140.
Outline
I.
Prologue (1:1–18)
II.
Preparation for Jesus’ Ministry (1:19–51)
III.
Jesus’ Public Ministry: Signs and Teaching (2:1–12:50)
IV.
The Last Supper and Farewell Discourse (13:1–17:26)
V.
The Passion and Resurrection Narratives (18:1–21:25)
Purpose
and Message
The
Gospel of John states its purpose in 20:31: “But these [signs]
are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son
of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
The Greek text of this verse is relatively ambiguous (something that
was noticed from a very early date and has resulted in some
discrepancy among the earliest manuscripts). It raises the question
of whether John wrote so that his readers might come to believe or
that they should continue in their belief. A number of leading
scholars have concluded that John was intentionally ambiguous and
that he wrote with both purposes in mind.
The
Gospel of John clearly focuses on the person, work, and identity of
Jesus Christ. John intends to clarify and affirm exactly who the
Messiah/Christ/Son of God really was and why he came. For John, the
answer is evident: Jesus Christ is the physical manifestation of God,
and he came to be crucified.
The
thesis statement of the Fourth Gospel appears at the close of the
opening prologue: “the one and only Son, who is himself God”
has “made him [the Father] known” (1:18). John
demonstrates this by affirming that what God is, the Word is (1:1);
what the Father does, the Son does (5:19); the Son and the Father are
one (10:30); the Son speaks what the Father has told him (8:28;
12:49; 14:10); and the Son is in the Father, and the Father is in the
Son (14:10–11). The climactic statement, then, is Jesus’
proclamation: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father”
(14:9).
Several
proposals have set forth various secondary intentions for the Gospel
of John. Many of these have some measure of legitimacy, though it is
difficult to establish any of them as forthright in the mind of John.
For example, it has been suggested that the Fourth Gospel was written
to combat a growing form of gnosticism. Although this Gospel has
traces of evidence that support this contention, and there is even
some external evidence in its favor, it is difficult to establish
that this was an explicit intention of John. Gnosticism as a
developed system did not arise until the second century. Others have
argued that this Gospel was written as an anti-Jewish polemic. A
close reading, however, suggests that this was not one of John’s
purposes. Perhaps the most plausible secondary proposition is that
John’s Gospel was written to complement the Synoptic Gospels.
John
and the Synoptics
The
relationship between John and the Synoptics is essential for our
understanding of the Fourth Gospel. That John is independent from the
Synoptics is evident in that the Fourth Gospel has a detailed
knowledge of events beyond those recorded in the Synoptics. John
knows of lengthy discourses after miracles (e.g., 6:26–58), a
wedding in Cana (2:1–11), conversations with Nicodemus (3:1–21)
and a Samaritan woman (4:7–37), repeated confrontations with
the Jews (e.g., 8:12–59), the raising of Lazarus from death
(11:1–44), and more. Nothing in chapters 3–5 is
paralleled in the Synoptics; and of the material in chapters 1–5,
only the ministry of John the Baptist and the cleansing of the temple
are found in the Synoptics. Compared to the Synoptics, John has a
distinct vocabulary (e.g., truth, witness, abide, love, believe,
light, life).
Also
in contrast to the Synoptics, John focuses on Jesus’ ministry
in Jerusalem, has Jesus beginning his ministry before the arrest of
John the Baptist (3:22–24 [cf. Mark 1:14]), shows Jesus’
ministry being of longer duration than in the Synoptics, records no
parables of Jesus and no transfiguration, and scarcely mentions the
kingdom of God (3:3, 5; 18:36). Furthermore, John’s theology
and explicit identification of Jesus with God are unique among the
Gospels.
Despite
the differences, however, the Gospel of John reflects significant
parallels with the Synoptic accounts. John is aware of the Synoptic
traditions regarding the Spirit’s anointing (1:32–33),
John the Baptist (1:19–34; 3:22–36), the feeding of the
five thousand (6:1–13), and Jesus’ walking on water
(6:15–21). Furthermore, the Fourth Gospel seemingly intends to
explain features that are obscure in the Synoptics. For example, why
did the disciples follow Jesus when he came to them and said, “Follow
me”? John explains that many of them were disciples of John the
Baptist, and that they had met Jesus earlier (1:19–51). That
Jesus had an extensive ministry in Judea explains why the Jerusalem
authorities were so angry with Jesus and were plotting to kill him
when he came into Jerusalem for the Passover. The central charge that
Jesus taught against the temple (cf. Mark 14:58; 15:29) is also
explained by John.
In
all, it appears that John and his readers were aware of the
Synoptics. John may even have been written to complement them and to
explain aspects of the Synoptic accounts that were obscure. Thus, the
parenthetical insertions in 3:24 and 11:2 may have been intended for
readers who were familiar with the Gospel of Mark. Most
significantly, John complements the Synoptics by presenting the
significance of the person of Jesus beyond what is found in the
Synoptics.
Jesus
in the Gospel of John
The
most significant feature of John is its high Christology. John
intends to specify precisely the person and identity of Christ. The
equating of Jesus with God undergirds the entire Fourth Gospel. In no
other Gospel is Jesus so clearly identified as God. The Gospel begins
with the affirmation that the Word was in the beginning with God, and
“the Word was God” (1:1). Later, Thomas confesses Jesus
as “my Lord and my God” (20:28).
John,
however, identifies Jesus with a wide variety of titles and
designations. He is the Word (1:1, 14), the one and only God (1:18),
the one and only Son (3:16, 18), the Son of God (1:34, 49; 11:27;
20:31), the Son of Man (3:13–14; 5:19–27), the teacher
from God (3:2), the prophet (4:19; 6:14; 7:40; 9:17), the Messiah
(1:41; 4:29; 11:27; 20:31), the King of Israel (1:49; 6:15; 12:13),
the King of the Jews (19:19), the Holy One of God (6:69), the Lamb of
God (1:29, 36), the coming one (11:27; 12:13), the sent one of God
(3:16–17, 34; 5:30; 7:16–18; 10:36), the I Am (see
below), Paraclete (14:16), rabbi (20:16), Lord (6:68; 20:18; 21:7),
and Lord and God (20:28).
Perhaps
the most significant title applied to Jesus is the identification of
him with the divine name for God: “I Am” (Gk. egō
eimi [cf. Exod. 3:14]).
John employs this designation for Jesus to buttress his claims that
he can work, speak, and act in the Father’s role. On seven
occasions, the “I am” is followed by a predicate: bread
of life (6:35); light of the world (8:12); gate (10:9); good shepherd
(10:11, 14); resurrection and the life (11:25); the way, the truth,
and the life (14:6); true vine (15:1, 5).
John
also employs the phrase “I am” in an absolute
construction (i.e., without a predicate) in parallel to use in the
LXX as a title for God. On some of these occasions, John uses the
absolute construction as a common means of identification (18:5–8).
Most intriguing, however, is John’s employment of this
designation in the extended dialogue with the Jewish authorities
(8:24, 28, 58). In 8:24, 28 the sense seems incomplete, and the form
is more a title. This becomes explicit only when compared with the
final and most significant use of this title in 8:58. On this
occasion, Jesus’ intent is not missed, and the Jews respond
with the desire to stone him for blasphemy (8:59).
The
Old Testament in the Gospel of John
The
Gospel of John has only fourteen direct references to the OT, fewer
than any of the Synoptics. Nonetheless, one of the key features of
John’s portrait of Jesus is Jesus’ fulfillment of the OT
not just as the Messiah but also in terms of the institutions,
symbols, and festivals of Judaism. In Jesus “the old has gone,
the new is here” (2 Cor. 5:17). Thus, in John’s
Gospel the old purifications are replaced with the new wine (2:1–11),
the old temple with the new temple (2:12–25), the old birth
with the new birth (3:1–21), the old water with the living
water (4:7–15), and worship in Jerusalem and Gerizim with
worship “in the Spirit and in truth” (4:20–24).
Often Jesus’ activities are dated in relation to a feast.
Throughout chapters 5–10, John affirms that Jesus has fulfilled
and replaced the Jewish festivals—Sabbath: related to work
(5:1–47); Feast of Passover: bread (6:1–71); Feast of
Tabernacles: water and light (7:1–9:41); Feast of Dedication:
temple (10:22–39).
Also,
John builds upon a typological emphasis of Jesus. He is the true
temple (2:21), the antitype of the bronze serpent (3:14), the true
manna (6:32–35), the true water-giving rock (7:37), and the new
Torah (13:34). Thus, the entire Gospel is framed around Jesus’
visits to Jerusalem, where John presents Jesus as the fulfillment of
Israel’s hope and central to the life of the nation.
Furthermore, this Gospel is replete with references to Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. Despite the relative lack of OT citations,
the message of the OT is interwoven into the substructure of the
Fourth Gospel.
Symbols
and the Gospel of John
Closely
related to understanding the Gospel of John and the OT is the manner
in which John utilizes symbols to convey his message. For example,
water often signifies life, cleansing, refreshment, renewal, the
newness that Jesus ushers in, and ultimately the life-giving Spirit.
Thus, Nicodemus must be reborn in water and the Spirit (3:5). Jesus
turns water into wine (2:8) and promises living water to the woman at
the well (4:10).
John
also sees in Jesus’ miracles a greater significance than
appears from the physical phenomena. Thus, he uses the designation
“signs” (see, e.g., 2:11) to reference the miracles of
Jesus. By means of this designation, John focuses on the significance
of the miracle and not merely the power of Jesus. John informs us
that the signs of Jesus are christological; they signify who he is,
not merely what he does. For example, from Jesus’ multiplying
of the bread we learn that he is the giver of eternal life and the
source of our sustenance (6:26–27).
Irony
and Misunderstanding in John
Another
key to understanding the Gospel of John is found in its use of irony
and misunderstanding. Irony is a literary technique evidenced in John
in instances in which opponents of Jesus make statements about him
that are derogatory, sarcastic, and so forth and yet are more true or
meaningful than they suppose. John presents such statements but
leaves them unanswered, supposing that his audience will see the
deeper truth. For example, many of the Jews missed the very Messiah
they were looking for (1:11, 45; 5:39–40); they claim to know
where Jesus is from (7:27), and yet they refuse to accept the truth
that he is from God (7:28). The most famous use of irony appears in
Pilate’s famed “Here is the man!” (19:5).
Misunderstandings
are occasions when Jesus makes a remark that is ambiguous or
metaphorical and his partner in conversation responds by taking the
remark literally, thus showing that the spiritual meaning has eluded
that person. John then explains to his readers the true meaning. John
uses this technique to bring his readers to a greater knowledge of
who Jesus is: God in flesh. Examples of misunderstandings are found
in 2:19–21; 3:3–5; 4:10–15, 31–34; 6:32–35,
51–53; 7:33–36; 8:21–22, 31–35, 56–58;
11:11–15, 23–25; 12:32–34; 13:36–38; 14:4–6,
7–9; 16:16–19.
Anti-Semitism
in John?
The
contention that John displays an anti-Semitic agenda in which the
burden for the crucifixion of Jesus is placed on the Jewish people
results from a misreading of the Fourth Gospel. A thorough reading of
John confirms that the designation “Jews” often reflects
the generic term “Israelites.” The term “Jew”
is used in a neutral sense in 4:22 (salvation is from the Jews);
8:31; 11:45; 12:11 (many Jews believed); and 2:13; 5:1; 6:4 (feast of
the Jews). When the designation “Jew” appears in a
negative sense in John, it refers particularly to the Jewish leaders
and authorities (7:13; 9:22; 19:38; 20:19). Consequently, John’s
use of the term is not based on an inherent degradation of the
people, but instead reflects the historical reality of Jesus’
confrontation with Jewish authorities.
That
John does not place all the blame on the Jews in an effort to
exonerate the Romans is also evident from the fact that Pilate is
portrayed as one who disregards justice. He has an innocent man
beaten and crucified (“I find no basis for a charge against
him” [19:6]). John does not record this cry from the Jewish
people: “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matt.
27:25 ESV, NRSV). Consequently, the charge of anti-Semitism in the
Gospel of John is unfounded.