The Gospel of John is unique in its portrayal of the person and work of Jesus. He is equal and one with God the Father, and is the agent of creation, the revealer of God and full of grace and truth. He is the ‘bread of life’, ‘the light of the world’, ‘the gate of the sheep’, ‘the good shepherd’, ‘the resurrection and the life’, ‘the way and the truth and the life’, ‘the true vine’, the ‘Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world’ and ‘the Saviour of the world’. His words are ‘full of the Spirit and life’, and those who believe in him will never die spiritually; even though they die physically, they will live – he will raise them up on the last day.
It is also unique in its portrayal of God the Father. He is ‘spirit’, and seeks those who will worship him ‘in the Spirit and in truth’. He has life in himself, and he granted Jesus to have life in himself also so that he can give eternal life to all who believe in him. Out of his great love for the people of the world he gave his Son so that they might have eternal life. To know him through Jesus Christ is to experience eternal life.
And it is unique in its teaching about the person and work of the Holy Spirit. By the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit people are born from above and become children of God. He is the ‘living water’ that wells up to eternal life within those who believe, and it flows from Jesus through them. He comes as the Advocate to be with believers for ever after Jesus’ return to the Father, to teach them and to bear witness to Jesus alongside their witness.
The content of this Gospel is as follows:
Among the canonical Gospels, John alone speaks of the Logos who was with the Father in the beginning, who came down from heaven, incarnate in the person of Jesus. In this respect it is unlike Mark’s Gospel, which begins its story of Jesus with the ministry of John the Baptist, or the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which begin their accounts with the story of Jesus’ birth. The Gospel of John has no account of Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist (though it is assumed in 1:29–33) or his temptation, his exorcisms, his transfiguration or the institution of the Lord’s Supper, all of which feature in the Synoptic Gospels.
In the Gospel of John Jesus’ message is presented mainly in terms of eternal life and resurrection, whereas the Synoptic Gospels highlight his preaching of the kingdom of God. All four Gospels, of course, highlight the saving significance of his suffering, death and resurrection. The Gospel of John’s extensive teaching about the Holy Spirit stands in contrast to the paucity of Jesus’ teaching on this subject in the Synoptic Gospels. In the Gospel of John Jesus’ teaching is frequently presented in long conversations, extended discourses and debates, unlike the Synoptic Gospels in which Jesus’ teaching is more often found in parable form or in short pithy sayings. The Gospel of John also makes frequent use of irony.1
There is a striking similarity between the language of the Gospel of John and that of the Letters of John, so a prima facie case exists for positing the same basic authorship for all four documents. The authorship of the Gospel of John and the interrelationship between the Gospel and the Letters is presented below. It depends upon certain assumptions concerning historical and literary matters, and is only as good as those assumptions. It provides a working hypothesis with which to begin a study of the Gospel of John and may be modified if that proves necessary.
The beloved disciple (identified as the apostle John) lived in Ephesus and was an esteemed figure in a group of churches in relationship with the church at Ephesus. These churches are sometimes referred to by scholars today as the Johannine community. The beloved disciple produced an early form of the Gospel of John in which the life and teaching of Jesus were described, primarily to show readers that Jesus was the Messiah and to encourage them to believe in him and so experience eternal life (20:30–31). He may have had secondary purposes also, including the encouragement of Jewish believers being persecuted by their unbelieving Jewish kinsfolk.
Sometime after the writing of the early form of the Gospel, disagreement arose in the parent church in Ephesus concerning the nature of the Messiah, the necessity of his atoning sacrifice and the behaviour expected of those who claim to know God. This disagreement became so sharp that it led to the secession of a number of the members, who then proceeded to propagate their aberrant beliefs among those remaining in the Johannine churches. This caused deep uncertainty among the members. Therefore, the beloved disciple wrote 1 John to expose the errors of the secessionists and to reassure the remaining members that they were in the truth, that they knew God and that they were recipients of eternal life. First John was sent as a circular letter around the churches of the Johannine community. As a follow-up to this circular letter the beloved disciple wrote 2 John, which was addressed to one of these churches and its members (‘the lady chosen by God and to her children’) to warn them about the secessionist missionaries, and to urge them not to give hospitality to them and thereby endorse their erroneous teaching. Third John was written as a further follow-up and was addressed to an individual, Gaius, who was a member of one of these churches. It commends him for giving hospitality to faithful missionaries who had gone out from the parent church and complains about one Diotrephes who refused to do so.
Following the writing of these three letters, either the beloved disciple added an assertion of trustworthiness of what he had written (cf. 21:20–24), or the beloved disciple had died and others edited his Gospel, including their testimony to the trustworthiness of his work. It is this final version of the Gospel that was included in the New Testament canon.
When reading any biblical document, it is important to recognize what sort of literature it is. The four Gospels have traditionally been regarded as biographies of Jesus. Clearly they are not biographies in the modern sense, notably because they contain little about Jesus’ early years and development (though Luke does contain a brief account of his visit to the temple at twelve years of age) and because they certainly have a theological message to convey. Reticence to view the Gospels as biographies has led some to regard them as folk tales, memoirs of the apostles or historical novels, while others suggest that a Gospel is a new literary form created by the evangelists. Recent scholarship suggests that ancient readers of the Gospels would in fact have recognized them as similar to the Hellenistic bioi (lives of famous people), or Graeco-Roman biographies. While there are some differences between the Gospels and the Graeco-Roman biographies, it seems legitimate to regard them as literature that falls within this broad category.2
The authors of Matthew and Luke probably made use of Mark’s Gospel and another source which scholars call Q, as well as other material known only to themselves. The question naturally arises whether in writing the Gospel of John the evangelist made use of sources as well. He knew the Synoptic Gospels (see commentary on 3:24; 11:2) but did not make extensive use of them. Only 8% of the Synoptic material has parallels in the Gospel of John, and even these parallels are not close. There are indications within the text of the Gospel of John that the evangelist may have made use of other sources in composing his Gospel: there are a number of rough transitions (called aporias) in the Gospel which may reflect the weaving together of material from various sources. For example, (1) the prologue (1:1–18) has a distinctive poetic style of its own, and if it were omitted, the story of Jesus would begin with the ministry of John the Baptist as it does in Mark’s Gospel; (2) chapter 5 describes events and a debate that took place when Jesus was in Jerusalem, and then, without any indication that he returned from Jerusalem to Galilee, we are told abruptly in 6:1 that ‘Jesus crossed to the far shore of the Sea of Galilee’; (3) in 11:2 Mary is described as ‘the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair’, but the story of this act of devotion does not appear until chapter 12; and (4) in 14:31, following the first part of the farewell discourse, Jesus says to his disciples, ‘Come now; let us leave’, but there is no hint of any movement in what follows; this only comes in 18:1. These aporias suggest that the evangelist may have made use of sources in composing his Gospel. One such source, it has been suggested, was a Gospel of Signs (see pp. 21–22 below).
The purpose for the writing of the Gospel of John is stated in 20:30–31: ‘Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these 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.’ Those needing to be convinced that Jesus is the Messiah would be unbelieving Jews; the messiahship of Jesus was not an issue for Gentiles. Seeing that the Gospel was probably written originally in Greek, we may say it was intended primarily for unbelieving Greek-speaking Jews, including believing Jews whose faith was being shaken.
There are notable variant readings in 20:31 where the word ‘believe’ is found. One variant uses the aorist subjunctive (pisteusēte), while the other has the present subjunctive (pisteuēte). It has been argued that the aorist subjunctive denotes initial belief whereas the present subjunctive denotes ongoing belief. If this distinction is accepted, the use of the aorist subjunctive would support an evangelistic purpose for the Gospel (i.e. to bring about initial belief), while the use of the present subjunctive would indicate an edificatory purpose (i.e. to urge people to continue to believe). However, this whole approach is questionable, for the actual use of Greek tenses does not support this sort of distinction. In the Gospel of John itself the aorist tense of the verb ‘to believe’ is used to denote both initial and continuing belief (cf. e.g. 1:7; 7:39), and the present tense likewise is used to denote both continuing and initial belief (cf. e.g. 6:35; 1:12).
A comparison of 20:31 with 1 John 5:13, especially if 1 John was written by the same author, supports an evangelistic purpose for the Gospel as opposed to a clear edificatory purpose for the letter:
John 20:31: – But these 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.
1 John 5:13: – I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
If the evangelist intended his Gospel to be primarily edificatory, he could have made his intention a lot clearer by expressing himself along the lines of 1 John 5:13.
More than anything else, it is the emphasis of the Gospel of John upon the need to believe in Jesus and the stories of people who did so which suggest that its primary purpose is evangelistic, while also functioning to assist those whose faith is being shaken. John the Baptist testified to the light ‘so that through him all might believe’ (1:7; cf. 10:40–42); the evangelist says that Jesus gave the right to become children of God to all who believed in him (1:12), and stresses that those who believe receive eternal life (3:15–16, 36) and escape condemnation (3:18); Jesus promised eternal life to those who believed in him (5:24; 6:40, 47), and he prayed for those who would believe through his disciples’ preaching (17:20).
There are many examples of people who met Jesus, heard his word and believed in him: Nathanael acclaimed Jesus as the Son of God and the king of Israel (1:47–51); the Samaritan villagers acknowledged Jesus as the Saviour of the world (4:29, 39–42); his disciples (6:69; 16:30–31), the man born blind (9:35–38) and Martha (11:27) all put their faith in him; and Thomas acclaimed Jesus as ‘my Lord and my God’ (20:28), after which Jesus pronounced a blessing upon those who, unlike Thomas, though not seeing, would believe (20:29).
There are just as many examples of people who believed in Jesus when they witnessed the miracles he performed: his disciples believed when they saw him turn water into wine in Cana (2:11); the royal official believed when he saw his son healed by the word of Jesus (4:53); the crowds in Jerusalem believed when they saw the many signs Jesus did there (7:31); many Jews believed when they saw Jesus restore Lazarus to life or heard that he had done so (11:45; 12:11); and many Jewish leaders believed secretly when they saw his miracles (12:37–43).
Finally, comments in support of the truthfulness of the Gospel were included to encourage readers to put their faith in Jesus (19:35; 21:24). The cumulative effect of all this indicates that the primary purpose of the Gospel is evangelistic: to bring people to faith in Jesus.
However, while this appears to be the primary purpose of the Gospel of John, it is not the only one. Many secondary purposes can and have been suggested. The most important is to encourage and edify those who already believe. In particular, one aim of the evangelist seems to have been to strengthen Jewish believers who were being persecuted by their unbelieving kinsfolk by showing that Jesus himself had suffered similar persecution, and that he had warned his disciples that they would experience the same. Nowhere is the aim of encouraging readers more evident than in Jesus’ farewell discourse in chapters 13–16. There he prepares his disciples for life without his physical presence after he returns to the Father. He exhorts them to carry out humble, sacrificial service for one another and to love one another as he loved them. He tells them to remain in him and in his love by obedience to his commands. He promises that another Advocate, the Holy Spirit, will come to be with them, to teach and guide them, and to bear his witness to the world along with theirs. He warns them of the hostility they will encounter from the world when he has returned to the Father, and bequeaths to them his peace.
Other secondary purposes have been suggested, some more likely than others. These include (1) to supplement (likely) or supersede (unlikely) the Synoptic Gospels; (2) as a polemic against followers of John the Baptist (unlikely) – while John is repeatedly portrayed as less than Jesus, he is nevertheless consistently depicted positively as a faithful witness; (3) to encourage members of the Johannine community in their struggle with the synagogue (possible) – but the Gospel appears to have been intended for an audience wider than just the Johannine community; (4) as a polemic against the Jews3 (unlikely) – at the most this could refer only to those Jews opposed to Jesus and can in no way be applied to all Jews then or now; (5) to combat Gnosticism (unlikely) – while there is a stress on Jesus’ incarnation and real humanity which could serve to combat Gnosticism, those places where Jesus’ real humanity is implied do not appear to be polemically intended, as corresponding passages in the Letters of John are (see 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7); (6) to deal with the problem created by a delayed parousia (unlikely) – some see the promise of the Advocate as a response to the delayed parousia, but this promise is better seen as preparation of the disciples for life without Jesus’ physical presence, and in any case the hope of Jesus’ second coming is still retained; and (7) to correct attitudes towards the sacraments, either by providing a basis in the Gospel tradition for later practices of the church, or to combat their over-emphasis and abuse in the church (unlikely) – while later Christians might detect what they think are sacramental allusions, it is hard to demonstrate that the evangelist’s intention was sacramental in the passages concerned (e.g. 3:5; 6:51–58).
In the scenario provided above it was assumed that the beloved disciple, identified as the apostle John, was responsible for producing the original form of the Gospel of John. Such a view is not universally accepted and therefore needs to be examined in the light of the testimony of the early Church Fathers (external evidence) and the information that may be gleaned from the Gospel of John itself (internal evidence).
The testimony of early Christian tradition is that the apostle John spent the latter years of his life in Ephesus, the capital of the Roman province of Asia. There he wrote and published the Gospel of John, which he sent to the churches of Asia. He died and was buried in Ephesus. This tradition rests upon various testimonies of early Church Fathers which are set out in (roughly) chronological sequence below.
First, there is the testimony of Papias (c. ad 60–140), bishop of Hierapolis in the Roman province of Asia. Papias’s own writings survive only in fragmentary quotations in the works of Irenaeus and Eusebius. Irenaeus (d. ad 202), bishop of Lyons and native of the Roman Province of Asia, describes Papias as ‘the hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp’ (Against Heresies 5.33.4). The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Gospel of John, found in about forty manuscripts of the Vulgate and believed to have been written in the latter half of the second century ad, describes Papias in similar fashion as ‘the dear disciple of John’ and ascribes to the apostle John the authorship of the Gospel of John.4
Second, Clement (c. ad 150–215), who became head of the catechetical school in Alexandria in ad 190, records the tradition which associates the apostle John with Ephesus, saying that he returned to that city from the Isle of Patmos after the death of the tyrant (usually identified with the emperor Domitian, ad 81–96) (The Rich Man’s Salvation, 42). Clement attributed the writing of the Gospel of John to John the apostle, implying that the apostle knew the Synoptic Gospels but chose to compose a ‘spiritual gospel’ to complement the bare facts they had already made known (cited by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.14.7).
Third, part of a letter written about ad 190 by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, which refers to the burial place of John in Ephesus, is preserved by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. 3.31.1–3). While there are some problems with Polycrates’ testimony (which includes statements confusing Philip the apostle with Philip the evangelist), his claim that John was buried in Ephesus is corroborated by Eusebius’s own affirmation that the story about there being tombs for two Johns in Ephesus was true (Eccl. Hist. 3.39.6).
Fourth, the Muratorian Canon, written about ad 180–200 and associated with the city of Rome, affirms that the apostle John was the author of the Gospel of John:
The fourth of the gospels, that of John, (one) of the disciples. When his fellow-disciples and bishops urged him, he said: Fast with me from today for three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us relate to one another. In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that whilst all were to go over (it), John in his own name should write everything down.
Fifth, the clearest affirmation of the writing of the Gospel of John by the apostle John was made by Irenaeus (d. c. ad 202). In a passage where he claims to have known Polycarp, who in turn knew John the apostle, he says that John the apostle lived among the believers in Ephesus until the time of Trajan (ad 98–117) (Against Heresies 3.3.4). He asserts: ‘John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia’ (Against Heresies 3.1.1).
Sixth, Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria (d. c. ad 265), a person of critical independence in matters relating to the Bible, while denying the common authorship of the Gospel of John and Revelation, affirmed that John the apostle was the author of the Gospel of John:
I do not, therefore, deny that he [the author of Revelation] was called John and that this was the writing of one John, and I agree that it was the work, also, of some holy and inspired man. But I would not easily agree that this was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, who is the author of the Gospel, and the general (catholic) epistle that bears his name. (Cited in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 7.25.6ff.)
From these various quotations from early Church Fathers it is clear that the apostle John was widely believed to be the author of the Gospel of John. Questions were raised very early concerning the authorship of Revelation, but there were no questions raised about the apostolic authorship of the Gospel of John. However, there are matters which caution us from too easily embracing these traditions: (1) the New Testament itself says nothing about John residing in Ephesus; (2) Ignatius, who wrote to the church at Ephesus in the early years of the second century, never refers to John, though he does mention the church’s connection with Paul (Ign. Eph. 12.2); (3) Mark 10:39 could be taken as a prophecy that John as well as James was to be martyred, and there are ancient martyrologies which speak of both apostles suffering martyrdom at the same time. Nevertheless, against both the silence of Ignatius and the questionable testimony of the martyrologies must be placed the strong testimony of both Irenaeus and Eusebius especially in support of John the apostle as the author of the Gospel of John. The validity of the testimony of Irenaeus continues to be a matter of debate among modern scholars, with some content to accept it, while others are not. Brown’s conclusion is noteworthy:
Thus, it is fair to say that the only ancient tradition about the authorship of the Gospel of John for which any considerable body of evidence can be adduced is that it is the work of John son of Zebedee. There are some valid points in the objections raised to this tradition, but Irenaeus’ statement is far from having been disproved.5
The Gospel of John itself does not disclose the name of its author. In this respect it is the same as the other three canonical Gospels (the titles that appear in the NT today were added by early editors of the NT canon). However, in the Gospel of John we find the following statement: ‘This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true’ (21:24). This statement is found in the epilogue and contains testimony to the truthfulness of the things written by the beloved disciple. He is mentioned five times in the Gospel (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). Also, mention is made in several places of ‘the other disciple’ or ‘another disciple’ (18:15, 16; 20:2, 3, 4, 8), who is identified as the beloved disciple in 20:2. Can the beloved disciple be identified more explicitly?
The Gospel of John mentions the Twelve (i.e. the twelve disciples whom Jesus chose) four times (6:67, 70, 71; 20:24). We may infer that the beloved disciple was one of the Twelve because he was present at the Last Supper, and other Gospels indicate that Jesus celebrated this supper with the Twelve and apparently the Twelve only (Matt. 26:20; Mark 14:17). The Gospel of John mentions five of the Twelve by name: Simon Peter (1:40–42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6, 8–9, 24, 36–37; 18:10–11, 15–18, 25–27; 20:2–4, 6; 21:2–3, 7, 11, 15–17, 20–21), Andrew (1:40, 44; 6:8; 12:22), Philip (1:43–46, 48; 6:5, 7; 12:21–22; 14:8–9), Thomas (11:16; 14:5; 20:24, 26–28; 21:2) and Judas Iscariot (6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26, 29; 18:2–3, 5). It refers to ‘the sons of Zebedee’ (21:2) without mentioning their names (their names were, of course, James and John; see Matt. 4:21; 10:2; Mark 1:19; 3:17; 10:35; Luke 5:10). That the apostle John is not mentioned by name in the Gospel of John leaves open the possibility, but does not prove, that he was the beloved disciple and therefore the Gospel’s anonymous author.
Theoretically, the author could have been any one of the Twelve not mentioned by name in the Gospel of John, excluding, of course, Judas Iscariot. However, other considerations narrow the field. That the disciple who wrote these things came to be known as the beloved disciple and was the one who reclined next to Jesus at the Last Supper suggests he enjoyed some intimacy with him. The Synoptic Gospels indicate that of the Twelve, Jesus chose three, Peter, James and John, to be present at the raising of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), to witness the transfiguration (Matt. 17:1; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28) and to be with him during his agony in Gethsemane (Mark 14:33). It was also Peter, James and John who asked Jesus for an explanation concerning the time of fulfilment of his prophecy of the destruction of the temple (Mark 13:3). It is highly likely that one of these three intimates of Jesus was the one who became known as the beloved disciple. It is unlikely to have been Peter as he is frequently mentioned by name in the Gospel of John. It could be either of the sons of Zebedee, for neither of these disciples is mentioned by name. However, it is unlikely to have been James as he was martyred very early on (Acts 12:1–2). There is, therefore, a prima facie case for identifying the beloved disciple as the other son of Zebedee, the apostle John. As this is also the consistent testimony found in the writings of early Church Fathers, it is hard to pass by this conclusion, despite widespread reluctance to accept it by many, but by no means all, modern scholars.
To recognize the apostle John as the author of the Gospel of John does not necessarily mean that the Gospel in the final form we have it today came entirely from his hand. The anonymous self-references made by the author found in an original form of the Gospel, expressions such as ‘the other disciple’ or ‘another disciple’ (18:15, 16; 20:2, 3, 4, 8), may have been explained as, or supplemented by, references to the beloved disciple by later editors of the Gospel.
Despite the fact that a reasonable case can be made for regarding the apostle John as the author of the (original form of the) Gospel of John from both external and internal evidence, there is widespread rejection of this conclusion (in favour of other candidates such as John Mark, Lazarus and John the presbyter) for other reasons. Some of these are listed below, together with brief comments on their viability:
1. It is odd that the author, if he was the apostle John, should describe himself as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ – yet as Morris notes, ‘it is not a very natural way of describing anyone else either . . . So, while we recognize the fact that the objection is weighty, it does not seem weighty enough to cancel out the arguments adduced earlier.’6
2. Much of what is found in the Synoptic Gospels is missing from the Gospel of John, which belies the fact that its author was one of the Twelve – yet John may have had his own reasons for the selection of material for inclusion in his Gospel.
3. As a Galilean fisherman, John would have been uneducated, possibly illiterate, and not sophisticated enough to produce this Gospel – however, young Jewish boys were normally taught to read and write, and Greek was used extensively in Jesus’ world. Also, a long ministry in various parts of the empire would have enabled John to obtain a working knowledge of that language. It is noteworthy that the Greek of the Gospel of John is the simplest in the New Testament, not surprising if the author’s mother tongue was Aramaic.
4. A Galilean fisherman would not have been sufficiently well known in Jerusalem and to the family of the high priest to gain access to his courtyard and feel secure there when Jesus was on trial (18:15–16). This is a more substantial objection, but it needs to be noted that John’s father Zebedee was not a poor fisherman but one who owned his own boat and had hired hands, as well as his sons, to help operate his business. It is not unreasonable that such a family would have had connections with the high-priestly family in Jerusalem.
5. The Synoptic Gospels say that all the disciples forsook Jesus and fled when he was arrested, but the Gospel of John says that the beloved disciple, identified as John, followed him to the high priest’s courtyard and later stood by him at the cross. Such a problem is not insurmountable. John’s initial reaction, like that of the other disciples, might have been to flee when Jesus was arrested, but then he could have recovered himself and followed Jesus to the high priest’s house, and later to the cross.
6. The author of this Gospel shows an intimate knowledge of the geography of Jerusalem and Judea, something one would not expect from John who was a Galilean – but Galilean Jews went on frequent pilgrimages from Galilee through Samaria and Judea to Jerusalem and would therefore have had a good knowledge of the geography of Judea and Jerusalem. Also John, as one of the Twelve, accompanied Jesus on his five journeys to Jerusalem, and these trips would have reinforced his geographical knowledge.
These are the more significant objections,7 but none of these or others seems sufficiently compelling to force one to reject the evidence of the early Church Fathers and the Gospel itself in favour of identifying the apostle John as the author of the original form of the Gospel of John. The most recent studies of authorship continue to reflect differences of opinion. Some prefer the view that John the son of Zebedee is the beloved disciple and the author of the Gospel.8 Others continue to question this,9 some suggest alternative authors,10 and it has also been suggested that the Gospel was later edited in ways that reflect the phases of the development of the Johannine community.11 In the commentary that follows the view adopted is that John the son of Zebedee is the ultimate authority behind the Gospel of John, though out of respect for the author’s desire for anonymity he is usually referred to simply as ‘the evangelist’.
By the end of the nineteenth century, the dominant view in scholarly circles was that the Gospel of John was written in the latter half of the second century ad in order to present the gospel message in Hellenistic terms. Such a position is now untenable in the light of the discovery in 1920 of the papyrus p52 (a small fragment containing five verses from John 18) dated to the early part of the second century ad and arguably the earliest known portion of the New Testament. This suggests that the Gospel of John was written, at the latest, in the final decade of the first century, and certainly not in the latter half of the second century as previously argued.
While the latest possible date for the writing of the Gospel of John is now generally recognized as the last decade of the first century, there are widely divergent opinions concerning the actual date of composition. Robinson claimed that the Gospel of John was written as early as the 60s, before the destruction of Jerusalem in ad 70.12 He mounted a strenuous defence of the antiquity of the Gospel of John, arguing that it predated the other three canonical Gospels.13 The arguments for such an early date are largely arguments from silence, notably that there is no mention of the destruction of the temple in ad 70. However, if the Gospel of John was written in the late 80s or 90s the destruction of the temple would have occurred some twenty to thirty years before, long enough ago for it not to have required any comment. Some support an early date by arguing that the evangelist did not know the Synoptic Gospels and therefore could have written his Gospel before them. However, there are indications that the evangelist did know the Synoptics even though he chose to incorporate little of the Synoptic tradition in his own Gospel. Accordingly, we would need to date the writing of the Gospel of John after, not before, the writing of the Synoptics.
According to early church tradition, John the apostle wrote this Gospel while resident in Ephesus. Clement of Alexandria says that John returned to Ephesus after the death of the tyrant (Domitian, emperor from ad 81 to 96) and Irenaeus says that he remained there until the time of Trajan (emperor from ad 98 to 117). Unfortunately, there is no information about the time John first took up residence in Ephesus. According to the Muratorian Canon there was collaboration between John and other disciples of the Lord, of whom the apostle Andrew is specifically mentioned. Even if this tradition is reliable, we have no information about Andrew being in Ephesus, nor of the time of his death, traditionally held to have been by crucifixion in Achaia.
The fact that early church traditions mention John’s residence in Ephesus continuing through to the time of Trajan (ad 98) has led to the conclusion that the Gospel of John was probably written quite late, in the 80s or 90s. However, those traditions do not actually specify the time of writing, only the extent of his period of residence in Ephesus. In the absence of further information, a date of writing in the 80s or 90s is reasonable. Ephesus as the place of writing appears to be quite secure in early church traditions.
Beginning in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, serious questions were raised concerning the historical reliability of the Gospel of John. A number of factors contributed to this. First, there are the significant differences between the portrayal of Jesus’ life and ministry in the Synoptic Gospels and their portrayal in the Gospel of John. Many significant events recorded in the Gospel of John (e.g. the dialogue with Nicodemus, the conversation with the woman of Samaria, the raising of Lazarus and Jesus’ farewell discourses to his disciples) have no counterparts in the Synoptic Gospels. They record only one journey by Jesus to Jerusalem in the period of his ministry, whereas the Gospel of John records five such journeys. The Gospel of John places the cleansing of the temple at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, whereas the Synoptic Gospels all locate it at the end. In the Synoptics, Jesus’ teaching is presented mostly in short pithy sayings and with frequent use of parables, but in the Gospel of John it takes the form of long conversations or extended discourses. In the light of these differences it is asserted that, if the evangelist knew the Synoptic Gospels (and there are indications that he did), these significant divergences from the Synoptics make the historical reliability of the Gospel of John suspect.
Second, the language of the Gospel of John is strikingly similar to that of the Letters of John; even Jesus’ language is similar to that of the Letters of John. Further, it is argued that the language of the Gospel of John is Hellenistic, that the Gospel was produced in a Greek community and that it is to be dated in the second half of the second century ad. Therefore, it could not have been written by one of Jesus’ disciples.
As a result of observations such as these, the dominant scholarly view by the end of the nineteenth century was that the Synoptic Gospels, not the Gospel of John, were to be regarded as primary evidence for the life of Jesus. The Gospel of John’s contribution was theological rather than historical, its cultural background was Hellenistic rather than Jewish, and it was written in the latter half of the second century to express the gospel message in terms compatible with Greek philosophy. Despite exhaustive reviews of the evidence, like that conducted by B. F. Westcott,14 which challenged this view, it continued to dominate scholarly work on the Gospel of John throughout the nineteenth century.
A number of factors emerging in the twentieth century changed the direction of the study of the Gospel of John and gave rise to greater respect for its historical reliability. First, Israel Abrahams, Reader in Rabbinics at the University of Cambridge and an orthodox Jew, told the university’s theological society: ‘To us Jews, the Gospel of John is the most Jewish of the Four.’15 Such a statement can be supported by the many references and allusions to the Old Testament found in the Gospel of John (e.g. 3:14/Num. 21:9; 10:1–18/Ezek. 34), the intimate knowledge of Jewish festivals and their symbolism reflected in Jesus’ discourses (e.g. Tabernacles/7:2–39; Dedication/10:22–39) and Jesus’ use of rabbinic arguments in his debates with the Jewish leaders (e.g. 5:31–47).
Second, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, beginning in 1947, provided first-hand documentation of an orthodox Jewish community that occupied the site known today as Qumran from the latter half of the second century bc until ad 68, when it was overrun by the Romans, and which therefore covered the period of Jesus’ ministry. These documents use language similar to that found in the Gospel of John, in particular dualistic language (life/death, light/darkness, etc.), which had previously been regarded as emanating from second-century Hellenistic sources.
Third, the accuracy of the evangelist’s references to the customs, culture and geography of first-century Palestine has been recognized. For example, he accurately portrays Samaritan beliefs in chapter 4, and his reference to the five covered colonnades of the Pool of Bethesda in 5:2, long thought to be unhistorical, has now been verified by archaeological work.
The undeniable differences between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John are best accounted for by recognizing that the evangelist worked largely independently of the Synoptics. In 1938 Percival Gardner-Smith argued that the evangelist did not even know the Synoptics and therefore could not have been guilty of embellishing them.16 Dodd’s statements are more balanced: ‘The prima facie impression is that John is in large measure at any rate, working independently of other written gospels’;17 ‘Behind the Gospel of John lies an ancient tradition independent of the other gospels, and meriting serious consideration as a contribution to our knowledge of the historical facts concerning Jesus Christ.’18 Robinson publicized these developments, referring to a ‘new look’ on the Gospel of John.19 Smalley sums up the implications of the ‘new look’: ‘We can now reckon seriously with the possibility that the Gospel of John, including John’s special material, is grounded in historical tradition when it departs from the Synoptics as well as when it overlaps them.’20 Not all scholars have gone along with these trends, but the Jewishness of the Gospel of John is widely recognized, and its claims to historical reliability are being taken more seriously.21 In some ways, however, the historical debate has been overtaken by other concerns related to the interpretation of the Gospel of John.
Several trends are discernible in recent studies of the Gospel of John, and in many cases particular scholars have been involved in the pioneering work. Edwards’ summary of ‘newer literary and other approaches’ to the study of this Gospel is a helpful introduction to these matters.22
Robert Fortna, taking note of the rough transitions (aporias) in the Gospel of John, has reconstructed what he believes was the original Gospel of Signs used by the evangelist in his composition of the Gospel of John.23 The content of Fortna’s Gospel of Signs consists roughly of (1) an introduction, including exordium (1:6–7), the Baptist’s Testimony (1:19–34) and the conversion of the first disciples (3:23–24; 1:35–50); (2) the Signs of Jesus, including water turned into wine (2:1–11), a nobleman’s son healed (2:12a; 4:46b–54), a miraculous draught of fish (21:2–14), the multitude fed (6:1–14), interlude: walking on water and a miraculous landing (6:15b–25), a dead man raised and a conversation with a Samaritan woman (11:1–5; 4:4–42; 11:17–45), a man blind from birth healed (9:1–8), and a thirty-eight-year illness healed (5:2–14); (3) the death and resurrection of Jesus, including the cleansing of the temple and death plot (2:14–19; 11:47–53), the anointing at Bethany (12:1–8), the triumphal entry (12:12–15), the Last Supper (fragments of sources scattered in chs. 12, 13, 14 and 16), the arrest (18:1–12), Jesus in the high priest’s house (18:13–28a), the trial before Pilate (18:28b–38; 18:39–40; 19:6–16a), the crucifixion and burial (19:16b–38; 3:1; 19:39–42), the resurrection (20:1–20), and the peroration (20:30–31). Fortna argues that the purpose of the Gospel of Signs, stated explicitly in 20:30–31, was to show potential Jewish converts that Jesus is the Messiah. The way many of the accounts of Jesus’ signs finish with statements that people ‘believed in him’ indicates that the Gospel of Signs was not just a mere collection of stories but a ‘missionary tract’ with a unifying purpose: to bring people to faith in Jesus. It was the combining of the Gospel of Signs with material from other sources by the evangelist which accounts for the aporias. While it is likely that the evangelist made use of sources, both oral and written, in the composition of his Gospel, Fortna’s suggestion concerning a pre-existing Gospel of Signs remains just an interesting conjecture.
J. Louis Martyn, building upon Fortna’s hypothesis concerning an underlying Gospel of Signs, seeks to identify the influences which caused the evangelist to make additions to this work, thus producing the Gospel of John as we know it. Martyn suggests that the conflict between the church and the synagogue (i.e. between Jews who believed in Jesus and those who did not) prompted the evangelist to add extra material to the Gospel of Signs. As it now stands, the Gospel of John functions as a two-level drama. On one level, it recounts events in the life and ministry of Jesus. At another level – and this is the more important of the two – it reflects the experience of Jews the evangelist knew in the town in which he lived: believing Jews, unbelieving Jews and Jews who secretly believed. The man born blind not only plays the part of a Jew healed by Jesus, but also reflects the experience of Jews of a later time who were expelled from the synagogue because of their allegiance to Jesus as Messiah. The references to threats of excommunication for any who believed in Jesus (9:22; 12:42; 16:2) reflect the attitude of unbelieving Jews, not only in Jesus’ day, but also at the time the evangelist wrote.24 Nicodemus’s three appearances in the Gospel (3:1–15; 7:50–52; 19:38–42) and the reference to the leaders who believed in Jesus but were afraid to confess their belief openly (12:42–43) reflect the experiences both of secret Jewish believers in Jesus’ time and of those who lived in the town and at the time in which the evangelist wrote this Gospel.25
The implications of this approach are that the Gospel of John in its final form addresses problems experienced in the Johannine community; it was not intended as an evangelistic tract as was the hypothetical Gospel of Signs. However, if more recent claims that the Gospels were intended for all Christians, not just a particular community, are true,26 then reading the Gospel of John largely as a message addressed to the Johannine community and reflecting its struggles would not be the best way to approach this Gospel.
Culpepper advocates another way of reading the Gospel of John, one that neither seeks to identify the sources used, nor attempts to uncover historical facts about Jesus or the Johannine community. Instead, the Gospel is studied as a literary production, making use of the insights of modern narrative theory and literary criticism.27 The focus of his study is upon the way the real author transmits his story to the real reader. This involves an implied author/narrator and an implied reader/narratee. The story itself has its own narrative time, plot and characters. Explicit commentary is added when the implied reader is judged to need extra information (e.g. concerning what is really going on or what the characters in the story are thinking and feeling). Implicit commentary is provided through symbolism and irony, something which the implied reader is expected to understand. Culpepper’s approach helps today’s readers to understand the narrative of the Gospel of John, and may be used alongside other critical tools in the study of the Gospel of John. For Culpepper, however, truth is not dependent upon the historical reliability of the storyline. A novel can convey ‘truth’ even if it is fictional. He argues that the Gospel should not be used as a window into the life of Jesus or the Johannine community, but as a mirror in which we see ourselves reacting, learning and discovering what the narrative gives us.28 And it is in this respect that we see the danger of this approach when taken on its own: it sidelines the important issue of the historical reliability of the Gospel of John.29
Stibbe points out some of the limitations of Culpepper’s groundbreaking work. These include the assumption that the Gospel of John can be studied as if it were a modern novel, and its neglect of the importance of the historical and sociological background. Stibbe himself advocates an ‘integrative’ approach which looks at ‘the Johannine narrative at the level of text, context, and pre-text, that is to say the surface level of the narrative, the social context of the narrative, and the historical reference, sources and tradition of the narrative’.30
Talbert, who also adopts a narrative-critical approach to the reading of the Gospel of John, says:
If this way of reading a Gospel is followed, then the theological tendencies of the material need not be linked exclusively with specific, immediate problems in the community but may represent part of a balanced way one stream of early Christianity understands and expresses its faith.
He adds that it is inappropriate, therefore,
to take the occasional Pauline letters as a model for interpreting a Gospel . . . to focus on one life situation as the occasion . . . to focus on only one background for understanding the narrative (e.g., Qumran, rabbinic Judaism, mystical Judaism, Hellenistic Judaism, Greco-Roman philosophy, Hermetica, Gnosticism, etc.), to focus on anything other than the final form of the text of John.31
Brodie similarly adopts an integrative approach, employing the historical, theological and literary methods, but in which the literary method is the starting point, and whose most basic feature is analysis of the structure of the text. Ultimately, though, his focus is upon the theological implications of the text.32
The structural approach to exegesis focuses not upon questions of historicity, source criticism, form and redaction criticism, nor authorial intent, but rather upon the structure of the text as it stands. It is recognized that authors had their own purposes in producing texts, but the end result was also affected by factors of which, for the most part, they were unconscious. Patte uses the illustration of weaving a blanket to describe how this works. Weavers may have designs in mind but the end results are constrained by the loom they work with, the colours of the threads available to them and the very culture of which the weavers are a part.33 He identifies three types of structures affecting the production of texts: ‘the structures of the enunciation (the constraints brought about by the author as an individual or as a group, and his situation in life), the cultural structures (the constraints which characterize a specific culture), the deep structures (which characterize man qua man)’.34 Structural analysis of a text involves the identification of its basic structural elements and how they are organized to effect authorial intent.35
Reader-response critics seek to understand the effect a written text would have had upon its first-time readers36 and/or to articulate their own response to the text in present-day contexts. The first is very difficult to achieve because of the great chronological and cultural gaps between then and now, and the second is a subjective enterprise which, though important, results in as many responses to the text as there are present-day respondents.37
Feminist interpretations of the Gospel of John may be said to fall, at least in part, into the reader-response category. Feminist interpreters note the place occupied by significant women in the Gospel of John. The mother of Jesus features in the accounts of the wedding at Cana (2:1–12) and the crucifixion, when Jesus committed her into the care of ‘the disciple whom he loved’ (19:25b–27). The Samaritan woman engaged Jesus in theological debate at Jacob’s well (4:1–42). Mary and Martha feature prominently in the accounts of Lazarus’s restoration to life (11:1–45) and the dinner given for him at their home in Bethany, when Martha served and Mary anointed Jesus’ feet with costly perfume and wiped them with her hair (12:1–8). Mary Magdalene was present at Jesus’ crucifixion and came early to the tomb, and finding it empty ran to tell Peter and ‘the other disciple’ (20:1–10); later, while she wept at the tomb, Jesus himself appeared and commissioned her to tell his disciples that he was ascending to his Father and to their Father, to his God and their God (20:11–18).
Early feminist works comment positively on the way the fourth evangelist presents these women in his Gospel. For example, Schüssler Fiorenza comments: ‘These five women disciples are paradigms of women’s apostolic discipleship as well as their leadership in the Johannine communities.’38 Kitzberger says: ‘In spite of its male author and its male narrator the Gospel of John shows an outstanding interest in female characters and remarkable sensitiveness concerning their characterisation.’39 Schneiders comments:
Mary Magdalene, contrary to what generations of condescending male commentators would have us believe, is by all accounts an official apostolic witness of the resurrection. She is the one who, in the Johannine community, takes Peter’s role of confirming the brothers and sisters once she herself has been converted (Luke 22:31–32). She is the only person, in this Gospel, to receive an individual appearance and a personal and individual commission from Jesus.40
While these things allow feminist theologians to read the Gospel of John positively ‘with the grain’, there are other considerations that have led some to conclude they must also read it ‘against the grain’. So, for example, Kitzberger, reading the account of Jesus and the Samaritan woman, notes the
sexist and racist bias of the story, which reflects not only the Jewish attitude towards the Samaritans but also a patriarchal attitude towards women. The first bias is put on the lips of the woman herself (v. 9); the other is located in the minds and hearts of the disciples (v. 27). ‘How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?’ (v. 9), the woman asks Jesus; then when the disciples return to the well, ‘they were astonished that he was speaking with a woman, but no one said, “What do you want?” or, “Why are you speaking with her?”’ v. 27).41
Post-colonial interpretations of the Gospel of John may also be included in the reader-response category. Fernando Segovia is an example of one who adopts this approach to the interpretation of the Gospel of John. He has a special interest in Latin American, Caribbean and US Hispanic-American studies. He detects in the Gospel of John the evangelist’s vision of a ‘clash of kingdoms and empires . . . the non-material or spiritual other-world, the kingdom of God; the material or fleshly this-world, the kingdom of Satan’. Through Jesus’ death and resurrection the clash of kingdoms is now past; ‘the old order has been displaced; and the new world order has been installed – in principle, but not yet in practice.’ Segovia says the outcome of this
is the clearing of a space for the other-world within this-world – as an ‘outpost’, as it were, of the kingdom of God in the kingdom of Satan, where light and life, grace and truth, are to be found . . . Such a space, tantamount to a ‘colony’ of the other-world in the this-world serves, therefore, as ‘redoubt’ for resistance to and raiding into the kingdom of Satan.42
There is much to be learned from recent trends in the interpretation of the Gospel of John, but not all are equally helpful and some are problematic. In the end, authorial intent, as best we can ascertain it, must be given pride of place. What authors want to convey to their readers is the essential meaning of their writings, even if these reflect other attitudes and cultural conditioning.
God, who is referred to more often as ‘the Father’ and addressed once by Jesus as ‘Holy Father’ (17:11), existed in the beginning (1:1, 2). His face has never been seen by any human being apart from Jesus (1:18; 6:46; cf. Exod. 33:18–23), he has life in himself (5:26) and he raises the dead (5:21). To know him is eternal life (17:3). He is ‘spirit’ and seeks those who will worship him ‘in the Spirit and in truth’ (4:23–24). He spoke in ancient times to Moses (9:29), and in latter times sent John the Baptist to testify to his Son (1:6).
He has one unique and only Son (3:16, 18), upon whom he has placed his seal of approval (6:27), and to whom he has given power over all things (3:35; 13:3; 16:15), including responsibility for judgment (5:22). The Father loves the Son (3:35; 5:20; 10:17; 15:9; 17:24), glorifies him (8:54; 12:28; 13:31–32; 17:5) and testifies to him (5:37; 8:18). The Father is one with the Son (14:7, 9–11, 20), yet greater than him (14:28). He teaches him (8:28), sends him into the world (3:16, 17, 34; 5:36, 37; 6:57; 8:42; 10:36; 14:24; 20:21), works through him (5:17–19; 10:32) and tells him what to do (10:18; 12:49–50; 18:11). Those whom he has given to the Son (6:37; 10:29; 17:24) he teaches and draws to the Son (6:44–45, 65). He sends the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, to the disciples in answer to Jesus’ prayer (14:16, 26; 15:26).
The Father loves the people of the world and gave his Son so that they might have eternal life (3:16). He requires people to believe in his Son (6:29), and his wrath rests upon those who reject his Son (3:36). Those who believe in his Son are born of God (1:13), become his children (1:12–13; 20:17) and are the recipients of his special love (16:27).
The Gospel of John is rich in Christological statements. Jesus is portrayed supremely as the Son of God (see commentary on 1:34) who reveals the Father, but there are many other ways in which he is described. One way to classify these is to note the evangelist’s comments in his own name first, then what he has the various characters within his narrative say about Jesus, and finally what he has Jesus say about himself.
The evangelist describes Jesus as the Logos who existed from the beginning in close relationship to God. The Logos may be said to be God, was the agent of creation and is the light of all people (1:1–4). He was incarnate in the person of Jesus and revealed the Father’s glory, full of grace and truth (1:14). Jesus is ‘the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in the closest relationship with the Father’ (1:18), something reflected in the evangelist’s many references to Jesus as the Son of God (3:16, 17, 18, 35). He also speaks of Jesus as the Son of Man who descended from heaven and who will be lifted up, as the serpent was in the wilderness (3:13, 14–15). He is the one from above, sent into the world by God and who will return to God (3:31, 32, 34; 13:1, 3). He is the king of Israel who came to Zion sitting on a donkey’s colt (12:14–15) and was described as king in Pilate’s inscription (19:19). He is the one who utters the divine ‘I am’ (egō eimi, niv: ‘I am he’) when the temple police try to arrest him, causing them to fall backwards to the ground (18:6). The evangelist says he composed his Gospel so that his readers might come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (20:31). Alongside all this emphasis upon Jesus’ exalted status the evangelist also notes things which reflect Jesus’ human frailty, thereby confirming that the Logos became flesh: he was tired from his journey into Samaria (4:6), he wept at the tomb of Lazarus (11:35), and from his pierced side blood and water flowed (19:34).
John the Baptist hails Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (1:29, 36), the one upon whom the Spirit rests and who baptizes in the Spirit (1:32, 33), and he declares that Jesus surpasses him (1:30). Above all, John testifies that Jesus is the Son of God (1:34). Andrew tells Peter that he has found the Messiah (1:41), the blind man says that Jesus is a prophet (9:17), Nathanael addresses him as the king of Israel (1:49), the Samaritans acknowledge him as the Saviour of the world (4:42), Peter and the other disciples say that they have come to believe that he is the Holy One of God (6:69) and the man born blind comes to believe in Jesus as the Son of Man (9:35, 38). The culminating confession is that found in the words of Thomas: ‘my Lord and my God’ (20:28). Exposed to Jesus’ words and works, Jewish people ask whether he is in fact the Messiah (7:26, 31) or the Prophet (7:40). At his triumphal entry they hail him as king of Israel (12:13), but their leaders reject this identification (19:12, 21). The leaders recognize the implications of Jesus’ teaching but reject his claims, saying that he is not the Son of God (19:7) and that he is not equal to God (10:33). Pilate consistently refers to Jesus (satirically?) as the king of the Jews (18:39; 19:14, 15, 21–22).
The most abundant expressions of Christological data in the Gospel of John are those the evangelist places on the lips of Jesus. Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man upon whom the angels of God ascend and descend, who has received authority to execute judgment, who gives the bread of life, who will ascend to where he was before, who will be ‘lifted up’ by the Jews, and who is glorified in his passion and exaltation as God himself is also glorified in him (1:51; 5:27, 28; 6:27, 62; 8:28; 9:35, 37; 13:31). Some forty times Jesus speaks to or of God as his Father, thus presenting himself as the Son of God. About eleven references imply that heaven is Jesus’ home: he is the one from heaven. In 4:26 Jesus states explicitly that he is the Messiah. Some twenty-one times Jesus speaks of himself as the one sent by the Father. Seven times he speaks of himself as the one who gives eternal life. He is the one to whom the Scriptures bear witness (5:39, 46). In chapter 6 he refers to himself eleven times as the bread of life which came down from heaven. In 8:12 he declares himself to be the light of the world. He is the one who makes known the truth (8:31–32, 40). He claims to be the pre-existent one, having existed before the patriarch Abraham (8:58). Using the ‘I am’ + predicate formula seven times, Jesus reveals himself as the bread of life, the light of the world, the gate for the sheep, the good shepherd, the resurrection and the life, the way, the truth and the life, and the true vine (6:35, 48; 8:12; 10:7, 11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1). Jesus uses the absolute ‘I am’ (egō eimi) formula in a way that implies divinity, especially in the great controversy with the Jews (8:58) and when arrested in the garden (18:6). Jesus accepts the disciples’ recognition of him as Teacher and Lord (13:13, 14). By his actions, he presents himself as the bestower of the Spirit (20:22). Alongside all this, there are statements of Jesus in which he expresses something of his human frailty: he says that his heart is troubled at the prospect of the cross (12:27), his spirit is troubled at the prospect of betrayal (13:21) and he thirsts when on the cross (19:28).
When speaking of his relationship with God the Father, Jesus emphasizes two things which on first reading appear contradictory. He speaks repeatedly, on the one hand, of his essential unity with the Father in such texts as 10:30 (‘I and the Father are one’), and, on the other hand, of his obedience to his Father (e.g. 6:38; 14:31).43
The difference between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John is quite marked in respect of Jesus’ teaching concerning the Holy Spirit. The Synoptics say a lot about the role of the Spirit in the life and ministry of Jesus, but contain few references to Jesus’ actual teaching about the Spirit. The Gospel of John, by way of contrast, contains many sayings and some lengthy discourses of Jesus concerning the Spirit, notably in the Last Supper farewell discourse.
In the Gospel of John Jesus is proclaimed by the Baptist as the one upon whom the Spirit descended and remained (1:32), possibly distinguishing Jesus from the prophets upon whom the Spirit came sporadically. Unlike John who baptized only with water, Jesus baptizes with the Spirit (1:26, 32–33). Jesus speaks the words of God, and what he says is trustworthy because God has given him the Spirit ‘without limit/measure’ (3:34), possibly again distinguishing Jesus from the prophets to whom the Spirit may be said to have been ‘measured’. Jesus’ glorification (death and subsequent exaltation) was the necessary precursor to the bestowal of the Spirit upon his followers (7:39).
Only those who are born from above by the mysterious work of the Spirit can see/enter the kingdom of God (3:3, 5). The words of Jesus which are spirit and life (6:63) mediate this birth from above. Jesus describes the Spirit as living water which wells up to eternal life within those who believe (4:14) and flows from him through them (7:38). Jesus foreshadowed a time when people’s worship would be in Spirit and truth (4:23–24). In the Last Supper discourse Jesus promised his disciples another Advocate after his departure, one who would be with them for ever (14:16). The Advocate is identified as ‘the Spirit of truth’, who will be in them (14:16–17), teach them and remind them of all that Jesus taught them (14:26), bear witness to Jesus alongside the witness of the disciples (15:26–27), prove the world guilty in respect of sin, righteousness and judgment (16:7–11), and also guide the disciples into all truth, declaring things to come (16:12–15) (see ‘Additional note: the paraklētos’, pp. 351–352).44
One noticeable difference between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John is the emphasis on futurist eschatology in the former and the relative lack of it in the latter. The Gospel of John places significant emphasis upon realized eschatology – that is, blessings thought to be realized only in the future that can now be experienced in the present. Thus those who believe have eternal life already (3:36; 4:14; 5:24; 6:47, 54), have passed from death to life (5:24), have received the promised Spirit (7:39; 14:16–18, 26; 16:13) and have escaped condemnation/judgment (3:18; 5:24). Yet alongside the realized eschatology there is also evidence of futurist eschatology in the Gospel of John: Jesus speaks of the ‘last day’ when he will raise up those who believe in him (6:39–40), a time ‘when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out – those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned’ (5:28–29). Jesus also assured his disciples that, although he was shortly to leave them, the purpose of his leaving was to prepare places for them in the presence of God, and that he would come back to take them to be with him there (14:1–3).
Bultmann argued that the evangelist’s eschatology was essentially realized and that later Christians introduced futurist elements, thus spoiling what the evangelist himself wanted to say.45 Dodd says that ‘the eschatological outlook survives in the anticipation of a Day when those who are in the tombs will hear the voice of the Son of God, and come forth to the resurrection of life or judgment’, but adds that the evangelist
is deliberately subordinating the ‘futurist’ element in the eschatology of the early Church to the ‘realized eschatology’ . . . which was from the first the distinctive and controlling factor in the kerygma. His theme is eternal life . . . but life eternal was realized here and now through the presence of Christ by His Spirit in the Church.46
However, the tension between realized and futurist eschatology is a common feature in the New Testament, and its presence in the Gospel of John cannot be explained away and should not be regarded as unusual. The evangelist is being faithful to his sources by retaining references to futurist eschatology, and also faithful to the teaching of Jesus in which the ‘already and the not yet’ are held in tension.
The major category employed to depict salvation in the Gospel of John is eternal life. God the Father is the source of eternal life and he has given the Son also to have life in himself (5:26). The literal meaning of ‘eternal life’ is the life of the age (to come), but with the coming of the Messiah it is something which may be experienced, in part, in the present age and will be consummated in the resurrection (5:24).
Eternal life, as it is experienced by humans, is defined as knowing God through Jesus Christ (17:3). This knowledge involves a relationship with God, which on the human side is expressed in obedience and fellowship. Jesus employed three primary metaphors to depict the human experience of eternal life: being born of the Spirit (3:3–8), having one’s thirst quenched by the water of life (4:14; cf. 7:37) and having one’s hunger satisfied by the bread of life (6:35). Eternal life for those who believe was obtained at the cost of Jesus’ own life (6:51; 10:11, 15) and is mediated through the word of Jesus (5:24; 6:63, 68). For a fuller discussion, see ‘Additional note: eternal life’, pp. 121–122.
There are forty-seven uses of witness terminology in the Gospel of John (either the verb martyreō or the noun martyria), all but three of which involve testimony to Jesus or Jesus’ own testimony. There are seven witnesses to Jesus in this Gospel: (1) John the Baptist (1:7–8, 15, 19, 32, 34; 3:26; 5:32–34); (2) other humans, including the Samaritan woman (4:39), the Jewish crowd (12:17) and his own disciples (15:27); (3) Jesus himself (3:11, 32–33; 7:7; 8:13–14, 18; 18:37); (4) Jesus’ works (5:36; 10:25); (5) God the Father (5:37; 8:18); (6) the Scriptures (5:39); and (7) the Holy Spirit (15:26).
‘Witness’ is a forensic term. A witness (martys) is one who knows the truth and can testify to it in a court of law. Many times the witness motif in the Gospel of John carries the idea of the lawsuit, something which has its background in Yahweh’s lawsuit against Israel (Isa. 43 – 48). A significant proportion of the witness terminology occurs in contexts in which God, incarnate in Jesus Christ, has a controversy with the ‘world’, incarnate in the Jewish leaders who epitomize the world in its opposition to God. The majority of the uses of witness terminology occur in chapters 5–12, which record the great controversy between Jesus and the Jewish leaders.
During his earthly ministry Jesus was the main witness to the truth. Following his glorification that role was taken over by the Holy Spirit, who acts as Jesus’ advocate. The disciples also function as witnesses to Jesus alongside the Holy Spirit (15:26–27; 16:8–11). On the last day the words Jesus spoke while in the world will function as a witness against those who rejected his message (12:48).
The witness theme of the Gospel of John relates primarily to the overall purpose of the Gospel: to promote belief in Jesus. It is also a reminder that the Christian faith does not rest upon subjective experience but upon historical fact for which reliable testimony is available (see 19:35; 21:24; 1 Cor. 15:1–8). This explains the stress upon eyewitnesses in the New Testament (see 1:14–15; 19:35; 21:24; 1 Cor. 15:1–8; 2 Pet. 1:16–18; 1 John 1:1–4). That the witness theme in the Gospel of John emerges mostly in the context of controversy and denials of Jesus’ claims is a reminder that witness to Jesus Christ in our own day may have to be given in similar circumstances, and that believers should not be overawed by the doubt and disbelief they encounter. As Jesus’ witness led to persecution and death, and the witness of his disciples attracted the same, so too believers today may face opposition and rejection if they act as witnesses for Jesus Christ.
When the Jewish crowd asked Jesus what they must do to do the works God requires, he replied, ‘The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent’ (6:29). Faith, belief in Jesus, is what the Gospel of John is all about. It was written to bring about faith (20:31) and it provides numerous examples of people who responded in faith to Jesus (see comments on the purpose of this Gospel, pp. 6–9).
Exemplary faith responds immediately to Jesus’ word. Examples of such faith are the responses of the mother of Jesus (2:5), the servants at the wedding feast in Cana (2:7–8), the Samaritan townspeople (4:41), the royal official who sought healing for his son (4:49–50) and the man born blind (9:35–38). These all responded in faith to Jesus’ word.
Some people responded with faith when they saw the signs/miracles which Jesus performed (2:11, 23; 7:31; 11:45; 12:9–11), while others who witnessed them still refused to believe (12:37). Sometimes the faith of those who ‘believed’ because of his miracles was inauthentic (2:23–25; 8:30–47).
Jesus’ attitude to the role of miracles as a basis of faith is complex. On the one hand, he upbraided those who would not believe unless they saw signs and wonders (4:48), and, on the other hand, he urged those who were having difficulty accepting what he said to consider the signs he performed so that they might believe (10:38; 14:11). He criticized those who saw only the miraculous event and failed to see its significance (6:26). The evangelist describes seven signs performed by Jesus so that those who read about them might believe (20:31). It is true to say that signs have a role in stimulating faith when those who witness them perceive their significance, but signs-based faith should develop into implicit faith based upon Jesus’ word alone.
Love and obedience are important and related themes in the Gospel of John. The Father loves the Son (15:9; 17:23–24, 26), and because of this love he has placed everything in his hands (3:35). The Father’s love for the Son was called forth by the Son’s obedience to him (15:10), especially his obedience in laying down his life (10:17). The Father’s love for Jesus’ disciples is also emphasized. He loves those who love (14:21) and obey (14:23) his Son, just as he loves the Son himself (17:23). The Father loves the world, something demonstrated by his giving his one and only Son so that those who believe in him might not perish but have eternal life (3:16).
Jesus’ love for the Father is expressed in doing what he commanded (14:31). Jesus loves his disciples (14:21; 15:12) as the Father loved him (15:9). He showed them the full extent of his love by washing their feet (13:1), something that symbolized his sacrificial death on their behalf, and expressed it in the words, ‘Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends’ (15:13).
Love is expected of Jesus’ disciples. They are to show their love for Jesus by obeying his commands (14:15), in particular his command that they love one another (13:34–35). Peter was to show his love for Jesus by taking care of Jesus’ ‘sheep’ (21:15–17).
There is a lot in the Gospel of John concerning the believer’s individual relationship with Christ and the importance of the individual’s obedience to his commands. On first reading there appears to be little interest in the church or its ministry. For example, Jesus’ words to Peter at Caesarea Philippi about the foundation of the church and his instructions about church discipline found in Matthew 16:17–19; 18:15–20 have no counterparts in the Gospel of John. Does this mean that the evangelist was not interested in the people of God as a community, or, in other words, did he have no theology of the church? On the surface of things this might appear to be so.
However, there are many places in the Gospel of John where the idea of a Christian church is implied. The evangelist speaks of the community among whom the new shekinah dwells (1:14), the bride of Christ (3:27–30), those given by God to Christ as his own (17:2, 6), those in whom the promises to Israel concerning the Spirit find fulfilment (7:37–39), the flock of God (10:1–21), the dispersed people of God gathered into one (10:16), a community in which mutual service, even lowly service, is carried out (13:12–17), those who will be gathered around Christ in the heavens (14:1–3), the community in which the Spirit dwells (14:15–17), branches in the vine (15:1–17), and a community in which Peter was appointed to feed ‘Christ’s sheep’ (21:15–17) and in which the false rumour about the beloved disciple not dying before Jesus’ return spread (21:20–23). So, despite the emphasis upon the individual’s relationship with Christ, there are in the Gospel of John many allusions to the community character of the people of God.
There are few allusions to church order or official ministry in the Gospel of John. The word ‘apostle’ is not used. However, Peter is commissioned for a pastoral role vis-à-vis Christ’s ‘sheep’ (21:15–17), and the disciples are to have a role in Christian mission (4:35–38; 13:20; 20:21–23).
There are places in the Gospel of John which suggest that the church is understood to be God’s new covenant community. Pryor notes, for example, that (1) just as Israel was the flock of Yahweh, so now believers are God’s flock cared for by Jesus, the ‘good shepherd’ (10:1–18); (2) just as the presence of God among the tribes of Israel was a sign of their covenant relationship with him, so the ‘tabernacling’ of the incarnate Christ among his disciples is a sign of their covenant relationship with God (1:14); (3) just as Israel was chosen by God to be his people and became the object of his special love, so too the disciples are chosen by Christ (15:16) and are the objects of his special love (13:1); and (4) just as God promised to breathe new life into Israel (Ezek. 37), so too Jesus breathed on his disciples and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ (20:21–23).47
It has been suggested that the Gospel of John’s ecclesiology is sectarian. On the one hand, it emphasizes the need for love among the band of disciples, while, on the other, it speaks of the hatred of the world towards this band. Does this reflect a fortress mentality characteristic of a sectarian movement – reflecting the way the evangelist’s community understood itself vis-à-vis the synagogue? Such a view is based upon modern definitions of a sect in terms of a community’s self-perception over against the world. This definition, however, does not fit the context of first-century Judaism in which there was widespread adherence to core values, despite the existence of splinter groups (sects). The identity of these sects was defined, not over against the world, but vis-à-vis the other Jewish sects. Further, the love–hate motif in the Gospel of John does not reflect a sectarian attitude. Sects are inward-looking, but the Gospel of John is outward-looking and missional. There is an emphasis upon God’s love for the world (3:16), those who are still to be gathered into God’s people (10:16) and the disciples’ witness in the world (15:27; 20:21). The warnings about the world’s hatred, then, do not reflect a fortress mentality, but realism about the experiences of those who are to be involved in mission.
The Gospel of John contains no account of Jesus’ baptism by John, nor of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, and this raises questions about the evangelist’s attitude to the sacraments. Bultmann argued that the evangelist was critical of, or at least reserved in his attitude towards, sacraments, so he deliberately omitted reference to them in his Gospel. Eventually, however, the Gospel was revised by a rather traditional Christian who was responsible for the sacramental allusions now found in the Gospel of John, in particular, adding ‘water and’ at 3:5 and references to eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood in 6:51–58.48
Others argue that the evangelist neither opposed nor endorsed the sacraments, but sought to revise his readers’ understanding of them. So the bread of life discourse (ch. 6) reinterprets the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. Baptism is reinterpreted as meaningful for rebirth only through the gift of the Spirit (3:5). Still others argue that originally the Gospel of John did not mean to ignore the sacraments, but rather to leave them at an implicit rather than explicit level. Later editors ‘helped’ the Gospel say more clearly what they were confident the evangelist wanted to say. A third revisionist view suggests that originally the Johannine church knew nothing of the sacraments, being out of the mainstream of early church development – it was neither pro-sacramental nor anti-sacramental, but a-sacramental. However, after the Gospel was circulated to a wider community, words and phrases were added to make it more sacramental. These were not revisions to bring out what was implicit, but additions at points where the author’s text was neutral.
Other interpreters see deliberate sacramental allusions in 2:1–11 (water turned into wine in Cana), 3:5 (born of water and spirit), 6:1–14 (feeding of the multitude), 6:51–59 (Jesus’ discourse about eating his flesh and drinking his blood), 13:1–7 (Jesus’ words to Peter during the foot-washing) and 19:34 (water and blood flowing from Jesus’ side). Accordingly, Barrett says that ‘there is more sacramental teaching in John than in the other gospels’.49 Brown argues that we are indebted to the Gospel of John for most of our understanding of the sacraments, in particular to 3:5; 4:13–14; 7:37–39 for our understanding of baptism, and to 2:1–11; 6:32, 57; 15:1–10; 19:34 for our understanding of the Eucharist.50
Others note what they believe is the fundamental sacramentality of the Gospel of John. Kysar argues that in the Gospel of John faith grows out of sensory experience (signs, seeing and hearing), and that this is analogous to the use of water, bread and wine in the sacraments.51 Smalley says that the Gospel of John makes extensive use of symbolism, inviting readers to look beyond the material to the spiritual, and also that it moves from the symbolic to the sacramental: ‘symbol evokes and represents that which is spiritual and divine, but sacrament actually conveys, through the material elements involved, what is spiritual and divine’.52
Finally, there is what Carson calls the metaphorical non-sacramental approach. One does not deny that Christian readers might detect, for example, overtones of the Eucharist in chapter 6, but one insists that the chapter is primarily metaphorical and Christological.53 Eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ is a heavily metaphorical way of speaking about belief in Christ, not about participation in the Eucharist. Such an approach seems to be more in keeping with the overall message of chapter 6 (see commentary on 6:25–59, especially on 6:40, 54).
There are many references to ‘the Jews’ in the Gospel of John, and these must be interpreted with great care lest it be assumed that the Jews were always the enemies of Jesus, so adding fuel to the fires of anti-Semitism. The Greek word Ioudaios (‘Jew’) is found seventy times in sixty-six verses in the Gospel of John. The niv renders Ioudaios mostly as ‘the Jews/Jews’ (twenty-seven times), ‘the Jewish leaders/ opponents/officials’ (sixteen times), simply ‘they’ (six times) and ‘we’ (once), besides many particular expressions, such as ‘king of the Jews’. By rendering Ioudaios frequently as ‘the Jewish leaders’, the translators of the niv sought to distinguish the actions and attitudes of most of the Jewish leaders, who were often antagonistic towards Jesus, from the Jews in general, who were not all, and not always, antagonistic towards him.
The majority of negative references to the Jews in the Gospel of John refer to the Jewish leaders who were antagonistic towards Jesus. This is balanced by a number of references to Jews, and even to some of their leaders, who believed in Jesus. Jesus’ disciples, of course, were Jews, and Jesus himself insisted that ‘salvation is of the Jews’. Nowhere does the evangelist imply that all Jews were antagonistic towards Jesus.
It is important to recognize that not all criticisms of things Jewish are anti-Semitic. There is a long tradition of internal self-criticism among Jewish people, that is, intra-Jewish polemic (e.g. the prophets of the OT criticized their own people when they forsook the covenant). There are also criticisms of Jewish religion which are not anti-Semitic, any more than criticism of Hinduism is anti-Indian. Only criticisms of the Jewish race can properly be called anti-Semitic. It is therefore unjustified to brand the fourth evangelist as anti-Semitic. He was a Jew writing primarily for Jews. The way he writes the story of Jesus may reflect tensions between believing and unbelieving Jews, between those who followed Jesus Messiah and those who remained committed to Pharisaic tradition. In that case, what is reflected in the Gospel of John is not anti-Semitic, but intra-Jewish tension. However, the Gospel of John was not written to criticize Jews, but to commend Jesus as the Messiah to them. Its negative references to the Jews must never be taken to refer to all Jews in Jesus’ day, and even less so to all Jews of all times.
The structure of the Gospel of John is unique. It comprises four parts:
Related to this structure is the important theme of Jesus’ ‘hour/time’ (hōra). Throughout most of the record of Jesus’ work in the world readers are told repeatedly that Jesus’ ‘hour’ had not yet come (2:4; 7:30; 8:20), but when the time for his return to the Father arrived they are told that his ‘hour’ had now come (12:23, 27), and this realization dominates thereafter (13:1; 16:32; 17:1).
Virtually all interpreters of the Gospel of John recognize this overall structure, but when it comes to a more detailed analysis there are differing opinions. In respect of Jesus’ work in the world (1:19 – 12:50), one popular approach is to see 1:19–51 as an introduction to Jesus’ ministry, then 2:1 – 4:54 as an independent unit beginning and ending with Jesus performing a miracle in Cana of Galilee. The next long section, 5:1 – 10:42, is arranged around Jewish festivals (cf. 5:1; 6:4; 7:2; 10:22), and then 11:1 – 12:50 functions as a bridge concluding the account of Jesus’ work in the world and preparing readers for the third major section of the Gospel, his return to the Father (13:1 – 20:31). One problem with this approach is that, to identify a ‘Cana to Cana’ unit, one has to make too much of the fact that two miracles happened to be performed in Cana, not something the evangelist makes much of in his account. Another problem is that the structuring of 5:1 – 10:42 around the Jewish festivals fails to recognize that throughout the Gospel, and not only in 5:1 – 10:42, the evangelist consistently uses Jewish festivals and Jesus’ movements in relation to them as chronological markers (cf. 2:13, 23; 3:22; 4:4, 43; 5:1; 6:4; 7:2, 10, 14, 37; 10:22, 40; 11:55; 12:1, 12, 20; 13:1; 18:28; 19:31, 42). It is probably best, then, to treat 1:19 – 12:50 as one long presentation of Jesus’ work in the world, marked by signs and public discourses, and this is reflected in the analysis below.
In respect of Jesus’ return to the Father (13:1 – 20:31), it is generally recognized that it falls into three sections: the Last Supper, with the farewell discourse and Jesus’ prayer (13:1 – 17:26), the passion narrative (18:1 – 19:42) and the resurrection narrative (20:1–31).
Mlakuzhyil has surveyed the many structures proposed for the Gospel of John, and the criteria used to identify them (literary, dramatic and structural), before providing his own analysis and arguing for a Christocentric structure of the Gospel.54 His suggested structure includes a Christocentric introduction (with a hymnic testimonial, 1:1–18; a kerygmatic testimonial, 1:19–51; and a historical sign, 2:1–11), followed by the two major divisions, the Book of Jesus’ Signs (2:1 – 12:50) and the Book of Jesus’ Hour (13:1 – 20:29), a Christocentric conclusion (20:30–31) and an appendix (21:1–25).