The Gospel of John

Hey class, we're going to look at the Gospel of John. And we have here a medieval painting of the Apostle John, who's holding his gospel. The gems represent the four Gospels. Many ways John's gospel, I think, is a gem of a gospel. It has very many unique characteristics. So let's look at some of those.

You know, no doubt have a synopticon or a Harmony of the gospels that sets forth the uh Matthew, Mark, and Luke in parallel columns, and even John is in there. But you'll see that there's very little overlap between John and the synoptic Gospels. So there's 90 difference—90 percent of John's gospel does not appear in the synoptics. There's some obvious differences. It focuses on the Judean and Jerusalem Ministry of Jesus. Almost nothing is said about his early Galilean ministry that's emphasized in the synoptics. There's many discourses, of course, in the Gospel of John, but interestingly no parables. Also, there's a lack of travel narrative—little movement of Jesus from one place to another. Not at all like the gospel of Mark, where you have Jesus moving rather rapidly from place to place.

Another interesting observation is John has a strong emphasis on Jesus's personal relations—personal interactions with individuals or groups of individuals. In fact, there are 27 interviews in the gospel. It becomes the platform that these—these conversations become the platform by which Jesus presents his teaching on certain important theological issues. My conclusion then is that John must have had its own—his own sources, and those sources were independent from the synoptics. Uh, it doesn't mean that John didn't know the synoptic gospels, but John didn't choose to use those sources. He chose to say some—something different and not the same thing as the synoptics.

There's two main ways to look at this. Uh, one is that he didn't know the synoptic gospel, but that's highly unlikely given that he probably wrote in the 80s or 90s. And many scholars believe it was written during the reign of Diocletian. And if that's the case, then the synoptics would have been in circulation many years—about 20 years, in fact. So John did—did know them, but then chose not to write something uh that would be the same. In other words, he just chose to say something different, and that's the more probable explanation. The synoptics were known—well known. Uh, so why would one of the last remaining apostles see a need to repeat the same thing that's in those works—or the substance of those works? So he meant to supplement them and perhaps address different current issues in Ephesus or the problems with false teaching in Asia Minor about Jesus Christ—christological errors. Maybe there may have been many things are circulating, and John wanted to address those uh issues.

So we look at the content. It's often looked at as being called a very—most theological gospel that we have now. Why do they say that? It's not—the other gospels are not theological because John ex—is explicit about his christology—explicitly saying that Jesus is God. It means that he comes out of the—out clearance about the deity of Jesus Christ. John 1:1, "Word was God, and the word became flesh and dwelt Among Us." So he's talking about Jesus. This clear statement at the beginning is matched by equally clear statement at the end of The Gospel in chapter 20, verse 28. You know, Thomas sees the resurrection Jesus and declares, "What—my Lord and my God." The Apostle uses this inclusio—this literary device—to bracket off a major emphasis in his entire work—that is Jesus Christ being Divine.

So modern scholarship, however, use John's doctrine of Christ as advanced compared to this optic. So what does that mean? Well, there—they believe that the saying that Jesus is divine is an evolutionary advancement over the synoptics. For them, you see, truth is not objective but subjective and evolves according to your own circumstances. So it's not like John was basing things in the historical Jesus, but uh many scholars uh say that John's gospel is more historical actually and has been proven to be more accurate in place—places and things that said uh being very Palestinian in origin than any of the other Gospels. So let me just say that the view of the synoptic gospels regarding Jesus is, I think, very much like that of John's gospel. I do see a difference in how the truth is presented, but just because the truth is not presented the same doesn't mean it evolved into something different. So it's clear that the Divinity of Christ is prominent in John—that's for sure. For example, Jesus refers to God as "my father" 35 times. That's amazing—making himself, of course, equal to God. Is why they wanted to kill him in 5:18—"we're trying to kill you because you're making yourself equal with God"—and Jesus said, "Very verily I say to you, before Abraham was—was born, I am." And of course, that "I am" hearkens back to the burning bush experience of Moses where God—Yahweh—identifies himself as The Great I Am—The Eternal one. And so in John 10:30, he says, "I and the father are one," and then they go on and say in verse 33, "We're not stoning you for any good work but for blasphemy because you a mere man claimed to be God."

Let's continue on with characteristics. Also, the very—most uh Jewish of all gospels—all—all the Old Testament ideas and Concepts uh are alluded to and—and permeate the entire gospel. But at the same time, he doesn't quote the Old Testament like Matthew and the other synoptics do—very few quotes of the Old Testament in—in there. But the whole ideology—the—the concepts beyond—Behind what he's saying and all the symbolism—the imagery and the figures—um, the bread of life being the—you know, taken from the—the bread of life that's on the show—show table—in the light of the world—taking from the lamp in the Tabernacle—the door—the Good Shepherd—all these kinds of um, you know, uh Concepts and ideas are found in the Old Testament referring to God—"I am your Shepherd who leads you into—you know, besides Still Waters"—Ai and the sayings about him being the resurrection and the life—whereas in the Old Testament God is their life—he is the uh one who is their light—"I am your light and salvation"—remember that in the Old Testament. So all of those figures and things uh—it—people—Abraham—the feasts—all—especially Passover—there's three of those mentioned in his gospel—three uh at three different Jerusalem visits. And so this is very a very Jewish book, and that's why uh some Scholars argue that it has a a very strong Palestinian flavor to it and has more Palestinian—early Palestinian ideas in it than even the synoptic Gospels.

Another characteristic is abstract—abstract contrasting themes like light and darkness. And of course, in the inter-testinal period uh qumran documents found that there's a lot of this uh contrast between these very same things—like flesh and spirit. And but the thing that we want to say here is that this is not a cosmological dualism—this is a moral—an anthropological dualism. It's the fact that there's good and evil people and that they're—they walk in the light or they walk in the Darkness. And there's extensive teaching on the Holy Spirit—the connection to Regeneration and spiritual rebirth in John 3. The ongoing work of the holy spirit is emphasized um much like—you know, even more so than in Luke, I think—especially in 14 through 16 about the life of the church being connected to the Holy Spirit working in and through the church and—and bringing them into all truth.

The purpose—now there's a lot of this—that—things that we could say—well, for example, Clement of Alexandria in the third Century said that John did write a spiritual gospel in contrast with, of course, the historical synoptic gospels is what he was talking about in that context uh to it. Also, they suggest it supersedes or complements the synoptics. The other uh suggestion is as a polemic against unbelieving Jews—that it showed—it was a rebuke against them because they didn't receive their Messiah—"he came into his own and they—they did not receive him"—in John chapter one. And also to combat Gnostic denial of the humanity of Jesus. We'll see later that the humanity—Jesus is a strong teaching in John. And also to write a gospel for hellenistic Christianity. And of course, there's some Merit to that because John was pastoring in Ephesus—that's an Asian monitor—and there was uh the hellenized community all through the Asia. And also to pursue ecclesiastical agenda—that is to correct Aaron teaching about the Lord's Supper. John 6 emphasizes that—are the baptism in John 3—those two ordinances—the Lord's Supper in the baptism uh is only about 10 percent of the Gospel of John—that's far too limited to be the main purpose for him writing. Also, the suggested has been the—to correct the notion of a futuristic and apocalyptic eschatology—that is to replace that with a realized eschatology—that as you can participate in the kingdom of God right now—being born again uh and—but John chapter 6 even has that the kingdom is Future and that the—that you will uh enter into that Kingdom—will enter into that Kingdom—and others will enter into uh based on whether you do good or evil and—and uh that you—others will be judged and that's a futuristic apocalyptic eschaton that we await and uh so it's not absent in John's gospel. So I—I don't think that um—now the idea that we can participate now in the Kingdom uh is real—that it's a—well, partially—I'd say a partially realized eschatology that's in John, but also then there's the idea of—to preserve tradition—the discourses and the narratives that we don't find in the synoptics—preserved for use in the church—that is that it's like a lectionary—that these uh sections of John read—like you could separate them out into separate little sermons and sermonic use. But again, there's uh more differences than there are similarities between John and the lectionaries. And so again, it's a very practical use, but uh probably too limited for his purpose.

But let's just look at what John himself says—of course, in John 20, he States forth his purpose—"written uh so that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God—that believing you may have life in his name." So notice the three big line—these signs—same—samion are written uh and then uh that you might believe—believe is the main thing—you may believe—and believing you'll have life—life in his name—three main keywords. And we need to understand what life is in the gospel. And so life is um an interesting Concept in the Gospels. It involves physical and spiritual and eternal life. There's even an intermediate life that's referred to in the gospels and some Parables and so forth—that—these Lazarus and so forth. So their life is a big concept and one that John explores.

We have the Messiah as immediate uh contribution uh immediately—you know, the first thing we see is that uh Simon is told uh by Andrew—"we have found the Messiah"—that's verse 41. And then Philip uh tells the Nathaniel and told him—"we found the one Moses wrote about in the law and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." And uh and so we have all those things about him claiming to be Messiah uh and also he—of course, the woman of—well, he comes out and says—"I am he—I'm the one"—when Messiah comes—"well, I am he," right—a very clear uh claim. The prerogatives and attributes and actions that belong to God in the Old Testament and Only God are attributed to Jesus. And of—for example, he does say—"before Abraham was I am." So all these signs and miracles—all the "I am" sayings—of course, that comes from um burning bush experience of Moses—"that I am"—and these have no prayer—have no predicates uh they're just simply standing—setting out there in the Greek text—says "I am"—and they're obviously put in the language that way to show that he's identifying himself with God—the god of the Old Testament. And all the signs—the Samaya—by the way, what is a Samaya? It's a miracle that attests to the presence of deity. They reveal who Jesus is by his Works—who is he? He is the Divine one—who—the—The God Who turns water into wine—chapter two—who heals the Royal official son in chapter four—he heals the invalid at the pool of Beth say that in chapter five—who feeds the 5,000 in chapter six—and walks on water in the sea uh chapter six—which reminds us of the uh description of God in the Old Testament as the sea Walker—the one who walks on the storms of the sea—and then the one who brings sight to the uh to the blind in chapter nine—the one who raises Lazarus from the dead in chapter 11. So we have the—these signs in the first half of the book—the signs book uh versus the—then the last part of the book is the passion week—the story section of the book. But all of those signs uh contribute to the picture that Jesus is the Divine Son of God who uh by use of other metaphors as well points to Divine qualities—the embodiment and source of the life of God—the light of God. So just fill in the blank with any of these uh here, and you can go back in the Old Testament and see where these are attributes that are given to God and—and describe who he is—divine qualities—the personal expression of God is the son—that is the idea that the god reveals himself as the son and as the word that becomes flesh—um—that incarnate revelation of God as the word—yeah.

So another surprising thing is the special uh emphasis on his Humanity. I know many people are very surprised that Jesus's humanity is—is so stressed in John as well as his divinity. And why is that? Why is it important? Because it was part of the Redemptive program of God, and um this is abundantly clear all through the—the ways in which Jesus gets tired and hungry and thirsty and feels pain. He has bodily uh existence—"he says, 'touch me'"—he says—"because a spirit doesn't have flesh and blood"—and so Jesus is subject to death—he's has a normal range of human emotions—it's seen all through the gospel—gospels. And so John had his special interest in picturing him as human, and that might comes as quite a surprise to people because the humanity of Jesus was called into question in the earliest first century um before his deity uh the—his deity was not questioned—it was his—his uh his Humanity uh so that um there was this error that claimed that Jesus only appeared to have a body—that he uh that was taught by sirens in Ephesus—right where John was pastoring—and so the denial of him coming in the flesh uh is also something you see in the letter of First John—and that's why that letter starts out with—"that which we have seen—that which we have touched—that's what we handled with our own hands uh the word of life"—and concerning this life we have that in Jesus—right—this. So the denial developed later into second century system of gnosticism. But uh just look at Hebrews 2, where there is this emphasis as well uh outside of John—we—we see how strongly this—the humanity of Jesus is emphasized. But Hebrews 2 does it for a different reason—"it was necessary for Jesus Redemptive mission to experience death in our place for all people—so he was made a little lower—while lower than the Angels—namely Jesus—and because of suffering of death crowned with Glory"—and notice the emphasis here—"he shared in Flesh and Blood—he himself likewise also partook of the same." So why so uh—to qualify as our high priest—through suffering—for him to identify with Humanity—to share in humanity in order to represent us before God—is our high priest—also he must take on Humanity—to nullify Satan in the power of death—notice this down here—and uh so that's very paradoxical—paradoxical—it's a paradox—he's—he's going to defeat death by death—by dying—he sets us free from sin—death and bondage through his resurrection—defeating death. So it's a very uh interesting concept that Satan had the power of death over us because we're Sinners—and uh wherever you find uh sin you find death—and uh I—I just love that passage in First Corinthians 15:54-56 where Paul speaks directly to death like a funeral dirge—but he's mocking death—"he says, 'death has been swallowed up in Victory—O death, where is your Victory—O Death, where is your Sting?' The sting of death is sin and the power of sin is the law." So uh Jesus rendered Satan powerless—the one who had the power of death—and of course the power of death is in—is exercised through sin—and the devil is given power over us because of our sin—but Jesus delivered us from death and sin by taking upon himself human nature—dying in our place—he has freed us from this bondage of sin—in this penalty which is death. So he needed to take on Humanity for the atonement—for our sins—atonement—the satisfaction of our sins—and that's why the author of Hebrew presents Jesus as Superior or greater than the high priest Aaron.

There's also a theological emphasis on faith—that we must exercise Faith—by the way, it's used—the verb is used 55 times in this gospel—but it's interesting that pistuo is used—but pistis—the noun is not used in John's gospel. So what does that mean? That means Faith or believing is an action uh in John's gospel—we exercise faith—we are Believing—by trusting in the person of Jesus and trusting what God has done in Christ to redeem us—because what we believe about Jesus—who is his identity as the Messiah—the Son of God—defines him—and we will inherit eternal life—it says—by believing in him—and that uh the substance of what he did and what he said—then another great one is the idea of atonement—as we mentioned uh he's identified early on as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world—and of course that idea of the Lamb uh is the blood that was shed to um cover over sin in the Old Testament—Testament—the kaffar—the covering—that is the—like the Ark of the Covenant uh the lid over the Covenant in the holy of holies—that those blood was put on it as a covering for sin—but in the—in the Greek here—the lamb is what iro—taking away—that's a different—it shows the permanency—the idea that Jesus was sacrificed once for all to take away—not just cover over—but take away sin—in the permanency of that sacrifice of Jesus. So some see—of course, a replacement or transport—transformation—some call it—Motif—that is that Jesus fulfills the spiritual significance of all Old Testament feasts—and some say that uh John was emphasizing this uh because it was post-destruction the temple—so the feast—what do you do with those in Judaism—was in—found in Jesus um and he—he's the antidotype that fulfills all these other types. So the Passover is a type that foreshadows Jesus—the day atonement is a type that for Shadows this—the sacrifice of Jesus and his covering and his uh atonement for sin uh the Tabernacle—the bread of life in it—in the—in the water uh—again—Jesus saying—for example—that uh if you believe in me—out of his belly—of spring—lit—Living Water—that's in Isaiah 25. So we have the Fulfillment of all of those types in Jesus in The Gospel of John.

Also, John emphasizes the soteriological role of the spirit—he's the one who regenerates us—gives us New Birth—he's the one who we must worship—of—it's by him that we worship in spirit and Truth in John chapter 4—he is the promised provision of the church in John chapter seven—he's the one that will uh be in us and lead us into all truth in John 14-16—he's the comforter—another comforter—just like Jesus—he—he—so he's the—our—the presence of Jesus—a real in our lives now in the church—and he is the spirit of truth that leads us into truth. So the—the emphasis on the holy spirit is very strong in John—is as much so as it is in the Gospel of Luke.

So let's look at some critical issues—just briefly—authorship—puts John um Apostle or not—that's a modern creation—the question—and in the early church it was unanimous—it was the Apostle John—Papias said at one time uh in what uh modern Scholars take off on is that the—it—the Elder John wrote the Gospel—and that uh Elder—I think—would be a presbyter uh in the church somewhere—some—another John—but what is Papias doing? He's just simply calling John an old man—and because he was an old man by that time—and uh so the date range uh some argued pre-70 to mid-sec second century—there's all kinds of dates here—during the reign of the mission is the most common date here—and uh some suggest Trajan—a little bit—a little bit later—in order to give development time for the doctrine of Christ to develop—again—that advanced christology idea—and then as others Go—real radical onions—like Robinson—who says it's a pre-70 date because it's so Palestinian in origin and so accurate to what's happening in Palestine prior to the destruction of the Temple. So uh all kinds of ideas about its relation to the synoptics—we've already talked about—some question it's unity and structure—the prologue in chapter 21—they say is dislocated—that it was written later and added to the—the basic assigns book of signs that was out—so there's all kinds of interesting theories—if you're interested in that—look at Donald Guthrie's book—an introduction to New Testament—it's an older book—but it goes into the excruciating detail about this idea of the structure and unity of the book—language and style—there's always—is it good Greek—bad Greek—it's simple Greek—simple syntax—that's for sure—so he was not a main Greek speaker—in fact, it's such simple syntax that we use it in first-year Greek sometimes to actually learn how to learn New Testament Greek through this coin a—but there is no Aramaic Originals—we have—there's no uh different kinds of gospels of John floating around out there—and so the idea that it had an Aramaic original—I don't think has any uh real weight to it—ideological provenance—that is—where does John get his religious ideas and terminology—Greek or Jewish—that is the Lagos Concept in chapter one—some have connected that with Philo and—and Hellenistic Judaism and their ideas in the diaspora—well, it's natural that John would use Hellenistic uh Greek uh ideas that were floating around there—I don't think he syncretized them—that is—he adopted their—their Concepts—like the follows concept of the logos is totally different than what we see in John's gospel—I think rather what we see here isn't a contextualization—that is—he's taking language and using it um us to bring in uh ideas that his audience—Hellenistic Greeks uh Helena's Jews—could identify with—and then he redefines them—as often—even Paul takes common terms of the day and redefines them—just—well—in fact, the Septuagint did the same thing—it took common language of the day and redefined it according to Old Testament Concepts. So the theological placement in the development of the New Testament—we talked about that—again—the question of historicity—accurate or embellished—that has to do with dating uh does it reflect Jesus' time or John's time—so this is a a big question among some Scholars—that it uh those who don't believe that it's historical—that it's more theological—it doesn't reflect uh the history during Jesus' time—but rather is more toward John's time and meeting his audience's needs uh that uh is uh debated by the scholars today—and I don't think there's a resolution to that—in fact, it's kind of funny when you look at Raymond Brown—Catholic scholar—who wrote the massive two-volume tone on the Gospel of John—who researched all the extent writings along John's gospel—all the commentaries—all through history—and he—he basically says that John's sources represent a Palestinian origin and may well predate the synoptic tradition—but then he develops a very composition theory—that with multiple stages and authors—and ends up with contradicting himself in his own work—it's kind of funny.