Introduction
Overview
The Gospel of John opens by identifying Jesus as the Word, who was with God and who was God, but who has now become a human being to bring us life (Jn 1:1–18). The central section of the Gospel divides into two books. The Book of Signs (1:19–12:50) features seven miracles or signs that Jesus performs to identify himself and call people to faith. The Book of Glory (13:1–20:31) focuses on the last week of Jesus’s life. Passion week is often described in John as Jesus’s glorification (7:39; 12:16, 23, 28; 13:31–32; 17:1, 4; 21:19). The epilogue (21:1–25) describes Jesus’s appearances to his disciples after the resurrection, Jesus’s restoration of Peter, and a word about the author of the Gospel.
Authorship
The Fourth Gospel provides no explicit internal evidence concerning its author. “John” is nowhere identified as such. But this silence is not unusual and is a feature found in the Synoptics as well. The Fourth Gospel may, however, provide us with clues concealed in the enigmatic figure of the “[disciple] Jesus loved.” This title occurs five times in John (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). John 21:24 describes the beloved disciple as the one “who testifies to these things and who wrote them down.” Therefore, the origin of the Gospel must in some way be connected to this person. The Gospel of John may be a record of his eyewitness account of Jesus’s life.
But who is this disciple? First, some have suggested that he is an idealized literary figure: the ideal Christian disciple. To a degree this is true (he is faithful and intimate in his knowledge of Jesus). But this hardly excludes the possibility of a genuine historical person. Second, Lazarus has sometimes been nominated. Lazarus is the only male figure said to be loved by Jesus (11:3, 5, 36). Further, the beloved disciple texts occur only after Lazarus is introduced in chapter 11. But this solution is unlikely. Why would Lazarus’s name be mentioned in chapters 11 and 12 but then left shrouded in subsequent accounts? Third, we know that a man named John Mark was a part of the early church (Ac 12:12) and that he was associated with Peter. If Mark was related to the Levite Barnabas (Col 4:10), this may also explain how the beloved disciple knows the high priest in Jn 18:15. A strong patristic tradition, however, maintains that Mark wrote the Second Gospel—and besides, the beloved disciple was certainly one of the Twelve (13:23), and John Mark was not.
The best solution may still be the traditional one: John the son of Zebedee (Mk 3:17; Ac 1:13). This man was one of the Twelve and along with James and Peter formed an inner circle around Jesus. This is the origin of his eyewitness testimony and penetrating insight. In the Synoptics, John appears with Peter more than with any other, and in Acts they are companions in Jerusalem (Ac 3–4) as well as in Samaria (Ac 8:14). This dovetails with the Peter/John connection in the Fourth Gospel. Raymond Brown has offered a novel theory to buttress this. He suggests that John and Jesus may have been cousins (through their mothers). This explains two things. In Jn 19:25 Jesus entrusts Mary to John due to a natural family relation. (She may have been John’s aunt.) And in 18:15–16 John is known by the high priest through Mary’s priestly relatives (Lk 1:5, 36).
Patristic evidence points to the same conclusion. Writing at about AD 200, Irenaeus says that the beloved disciple was John the disciple of Jesus and that John originated the Gospel at Ephesus. Irenaeus even writes that when he was young, he knew another teacher, Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (ca. 69–155), who claimed to have been tutored by John himself. The church historian Eusebius (ca. 300) records this John/Polycarp/Irenaeus connection in the same way. Further, Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus (189–198), refers to John’s association with the Gospel in his letter to Victor the bishop of Rome. It is also confirmed by Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200) and the Latin Muratorian Canon (180–200).
Polycarp, a disciple of John, was a leader of the church in Smyrna, one of the seven churches mentioned in Rv 2–3.
Criticisms of this conclusion are commonplace, and we would do well to consider the most important ones. (1) Earlier in this century critics regularly pointed to John’s inaccurate geographical details. They affirmed that this inaccuracy could hardly come from an eyewitness writer. But subsequent historical and archaeological study has if anything shown John’s reliability. (2) Could a fisherman-turned-apostle have penned a work of such subtlety and insight? Could a Galilean such as this be acquainted with Greek thought? Of course. Recent study of Palestinian Judaism has shown a remarkable degree of Greek cultural penetration at all levels of society. And while the NT does affirm that John the apostle was a commoner (Ac 4:13), we still are unwise to predict what John could or could not accomplish. Furthermore, this fails to consider that John’s disciples, an amanuensis (professional scribe), or John’s community may have edited the final edition of the Gospel. (3) Finally, some lodge the complaint that John was not readily accepted in the early church. This is true. But we have to reckon with two facts. First, our evidence for John’s neglect is not as weighty as it seems. Important early writers may not quote John or allude to him, but to note what a patristic writer fails to say is an argument from silence. Second, John found wide acceptance in heretical gnostic circles. This has been confirmed recently by the gnostic documents found at Nag Hammadi, where in the Gospel of Truth Johannine themes abound. The unorthodox on the fringes of the Greek church embraced John and provided the earliest widely known commentaries (Valentinus, Heracleon). Therefore, the church was cautious in its use of the Gospel because of its dangerous abuse elsewhere.
Date
All that we have been saying about the authorship of the Gospel implies some conclusion about its date. The sources of John must be early and have their roots in first-generation Christianity. But fixing a certain date for the publication of the Gospel is difficult because objective data are slim. The latest possible date is AD 150. Not only do patristic references, allusions in apocryphal Gospels (Gospel of Peter), and Nag Hammadi point to this; but also recently in Egypt two papyrus fragments of John (Rylands Papyrus 457; Egerton Papyrus 2) have been dated at about AD 150. Allowing time for John to circulate, the Gospel could not have been completed long after 125.
The earliest possible date for the Gospel is more difficult. If John knows and employs the Synoptics (and this is disputed), then AD 70 or 80 is appropriate. In Jn 9:22; 12:42; and 16:2 we read about Jewish believers being excommunicated from the synagogues. In AD 85 the rabbis of Palestine instituted such expulsions for Christians (e.g., Rabbi Gamaliel II). Therefore, we find a remarkable consensus of scholarly opinion that John was published somewhere between 80 and 100. Irenaeus says that the apostle lived to a great age—until the reign of Trajan (98–117). And Jerome, writing much later (ca. 375), argued that John died “in the sixty-eighth year” after Jesus’s death: hence, about AD 98.
However, an earlier date may be within reach. Current research has challenged John’s “dependence” on the Synoptics (especially Mark and Luke). If anything, John may know pre-Synoptic traditions. Above all, the way in which John describes the topography of Jerusalem, his knowledge of the geographical and political divisions in Judaism, and his use of metaphors all point to a date approximating that of the Synoptic writers. The great watershed date of AD 70 (when Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome) is critical: John presupposes a Judaism before this war. And with his critical disposition toward the temple (2:13–24; 4:21–24) and severe conflicts with Jewish leaders (cf. chaps. 5; 8; 10), we are surprised to find no reference to this catastrophic event. To paraphrase C. H. Dodd, much in John is barely intelligible outside of the context of pre-70 Judaism.
To sum up, the traditions about Jesus that John preserves most likely stem from the earliest apostolic period: perhaps AD 60–65. But the final edition of the Gospel may have been published later. John and/or his disciples may have edited the work, making additions and sharpening its message for later Christians.
Place of Composition
Tradition tells us that the place of writing was Ephesus, and no decisive reasons have been raised against it. There may even be biblical support for it. The Fourth Gospel entertains a polemic aimed at followers of John the Baptist (see 1:19–28, 35–42; 3:22–36; 10:40–42). Elsewhere in the book of Acts we learn about Paul encountering followers of John the Baptist with deficient beliefs. Surprisingly, they too are located in Ephesus. But it would be impossible to be certain that the Gospel was written here.
Purpose
The interpretation of any biblical book is strengthened when we understand the deeper motives and concerns that have led the author to write. John’s vigor and concentration reveal a remarkable intensity of purpose. It is as if a powerful truth had broken upon him and he was compelled to express it. To a greater extent than the Synoptics, each section of the Fourth Gospel contributes to a central theme: the appearance of the Son of God in human history. John explores two facets of this appearing: revelation and redemption.
John 1:5 underscores this revelation: “That light shines in the darkness, and yet the darkness did not overcome it.” Dualistic language describes this harsh invasion of the world by God. Offending every modern sensibility, John writes that in Christ we behold the glory of God—even though he has appeared in flesh. But this offense is an ancient one too. The darkness assails the light but cannot vanquish it. The world is in permanent enmity with the Son. But even though Jesus is persecuted, tried, and crucified, still John affirms that the light is not extinguished.
But the gift of Christ is not simply his revelation of the Father (14:9). John’s second message concerns redemption: “In him was life, and that life was the light of men” (1:4). There is hope for us in the world. The message of this invasion of history is also a message of sacrifice and redemption. Those who embrace this revelation, who identify with the light, and who have faith shall gain eternal life. The life of the Son is poured out in sacrifice, thereby creating the community of the redeemed (17:6, 20–26). They bear Christ’s Spirit, which sustains them because the hatred once extended toward the Son is now extended to them (15:12–27).
Thus John’s purpose in writing is to explain this revelation and redemption and to explicate their possibilities. In 20:31 the author makes clear this aim: “But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” Here several major themes converge: belief, acknowledgment of Jesus’s sonship, and the promise of life. The Gospel is written for Christians who, already knowing the rudiments of Christ’s life and Christian truth, now wish to go further. Not only is there an uncompromising maturity in this Gospel, but also its narratives imply that it was written to address certain practical circumstances in the church. On the one hand, some would say that John is engaged in a polemic—asserting Christian truth amid unsympathetic forces. On the other hand, John’s purpose also includes the clarification of Christian doctrines at an early stage of church development.
Audience
John’s Gospel reflects Jewish concerns. The conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees that we see in the Synoptics is given marked attention in John. A brief perusal of Jn 8:31–59 or 10:19–39 makes this clear. There is a sustained attack on the religious position of Judaism. For instance, “the Jews” virtually becomes a technical term in John for those who reject Jesus. In 9:22 the parents of the blind man, who are Jewish, fear “the Jews.” But this is not all. The messiahship of Jesus and his relationship to the festivals and institutions of Judaism are both emphasized.
What does this mean? Each Gospel was written not only to record the history of Jesus but also to address particular circumstances in the life of its first readers. Here the Christians of John’s church may have needed encouragement due to persecution and hostilities. So John buttresses Christian claims against Jewish unbelief. The historical fact of Jewish unbelief in Jesus’s day is joined with Jewish opposition in John’s day. But make no mistake. John’s Gospel is not anti-Semitic, despite this intense debate with “the Jews.” This Gospel bears witness to a harsh divorce that took place in the first century within Judaism: Jews who believed in Jesus were in full debate with Jews who did not. And as readers of this Gospel, we are listening in.
John’s Gospel also reflects Christian concerns. At the time the Gospel was published, the early Christian church had grown and diversified considerably. Therefore, it is no surprise to find that John has included historical materials relevant to Christian needs in his generation. It would be a mistake, however, to think that any of these needs became the controlling force in John’s literary design. On the contrary, they serve as subthemes that run through the Gospel and clarify John’s situation.
Major Themes
Scholars have identified an extensive array of topics in the Gospel of John, but we shall note in passing only four prominent motifs.
The significance of John the Baptist. Did the Baptist himself have followers who failed or refused to follow Jesus? Luke 3:15 and Ac 19:1–7 imply this, while later writings confirm it. The Fourth Gospel takes pains to affirm that the Baptist was not the Messiah (Jn 1:20; 3:28), that he was not the light (1:8–9), and that Jesus is superior (1:30; 3:29–30; 10:41). We even witness disciples of John the Baptist becoming Jesus’s first converts (1:35–42). Matthew, Mark, and Luke have no parallel motif.
The place of sacramentalism. Of course, John has a “sacramental” view of history inasmuch as the incarnation of Christ for him means the genuine appearance of God in history. Worship can affirm such genuine appearances when worship symbols (baptism, the Lord’s Supper) take on the real properties of that which they depict. Hence such symbols are called sacraments. Scholars have identified a unique Johannine interest in the Christian sacraments, but there is little agreement about John’s intention. Some note an absence of interest (e.g., the Lord’s Supper is omitted), while others see allusions everywhere (baptism: Jn 3; 5; 9; Eucharist: Jn 2; 6; both: 19:34). It seems best to conclude that John’s principal message about each is corrective (see 3:1–21; 6:52–65): without the Spirit these expressions of worship become powerless rituals void of their original purpose.
Our future hope: Eschatology. Many early Christians longed for the second coming of Christ and anticipated an imminent end to history. This explains the cherished sayings of Jesus about this in the Synoptics, where this future expectation is described (see Mk 13; Mt 24; Lk 21). How did they cope when this hope was frustrated (cf. 2 Pt 3:1–12)? John does not record Jesus’s Synoptic eschatological discourses. He still maintains the future hope (5:25–30; 1 Jn 2:28) but introduces a fresh emphasis: the longed-for presence of Jesus is mediated to us now in the Spirit. In the upper room Jesus’s announcement of the Spirit takes on eschatological tones (see 14:18–23). That is, in one vital way that we often overlook, Jesus has come back and is already with us in the Spirit. In technical terms, John emphasizes a realized eschatology in contrast to the apocalyptic hope of the Synoptics.
Christology. Irenaeus, the second-century church father, wrote that the Gospel of John was penned to refute the gnostic heretic Cerinthus. While this is not likely, Irenaeus nevertheless correctly observed that John’s presentation of Christ was carefully considered. Questions about Jesus’s nature, origin, and relation to the Father are examined in a fashion unparalleled by the Synoptics. For instance, John affirms the oneness of Jesus and the Father (10:30; 14:9–10), their distinction (14:28; 17:1–5), and their unity of purpose (5:17–18; 8:42). It is not surprising that in the formation of trinitarian doctrine, John’s Gospel played a notable role. This was particularly true at the Council of Nicea (325), when Arius denied the eternal nature of the Son. In later Arian debates, Athanasius was heavily dependent on the Fourth Gospel and found in the Greek term logos, a title for Jesus used in the Johannine prologue, a most serviceable tool for depicting the person of Christ.
John claims full divinity for Jesus. On the one hand, if anyone were inclined toward adoptionism (that Jesus was a divinely inspired man), John’s Gospel gives an unrelenting argument to the contrary. On the other hand, the Greek world was comfortable with divinities and, if anything, hesitated to affirm Jesus’s full humanity (docetism). Here John contends that Jesus is truly human, truly flesh (1:14; cf. 20:27). The brilliance and abiding value of John is that it strikes a middle path between these concerns. Jesus was eternally divine and fully incarnate, fully God and fully human.
But scholars have been quick to point out that this “balanced Christology” seems artificial. If one removes the prologue (1:1–18), the balance is tipped and, in the opinion of some, John becomes a docetist. But this seems unfairly harsh. One solution has been to view John as having stages of development; the prologue may have been added to the Gospel at a later stage when the Epistles of John were published. The battle cry of 1 John is certainly against docetism (1 Jn 4:1–3), and if the high Christology of the Fourth Gospel had been fueling heretical docetic beliefs, then the addition of the hymnic prologue would have given the needed balance.
Nevertheless, it is vital to say that the humanity of Christ is intrinsic to the whole of the Gospel of John. Jesus is indeed God in the flesh, but he is also fully human. This affirmation alone has rendered John valuable to the church and its creeds.
Outline
1. The Prologue (1:1–18)
2. The Book of Signs (1:19–12:50)
A. The Testimony of John the Baptist (1:19–51)
B. Jesus and the Institutions of Judaism (2:1–4:54)
C. Jesus and the Festivals of Judaism (5:1–10:42)
D. Foreshadowing Death and Resurrection (11:1–12:50)
3. The Book of Glory (13:1–20:31)
A. The Passover Meal (13:1–30)
B. The Farewell Discourse (13:31–17:26)
C. The Passion (18:1–19:42)
D. The Resurrection (20:1–29)
E. Conclusion (20:30–31)
4. Epilogue (21:1–25)
A. The Miracle of 153 Fish (21:1–14)
B. Jesus and Peter (21:15–23)
C. Appendix (21:24–25)