2. Who Wrote the Fourth Gospel?
3. When Was the Fourth Gospel Written?
4. Why Was the Fourth Gospel Written?
Introductions in commentaries run all the way from a few brief paragraphs to book-sized excursuses. John Calvin’s two-volume work has only a two-page introductory word on “The Theme of the Gospel of John.” By contrast, D. A. Carson’s one-volume work devotes over eighty pages to a thorough discussion of such standard issues as author, date, purpose, history of interpretation, distinctive characteristics, etc. C. K. Barrett’s 143-page introduction is even broader. It includes such additional issues as the background of the gospel (non-Christian as well as Christian), the theology of the gospel, and its origin and authenticity. Thus it becomes evident that the nature and size of an introduction is determined by the purpose of the commentary and the specific audience the author has in mind.
This commentary on John has not been written with the scholarly guild of NT experts in mind. While their work has played a major role in my own preparation, the end product is intended for pastors and inquiring laypeople who are looking for a relatively simple and straightforward exposition of John’s account of the life and (especially) the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. It has been my desire to explain in understandable language what the text actually says, what it means, and its relevance for daily living. In addition—and this, perhaps, is the most important purpose—I would hope that the work will lead the serious reader to a new appreciation of the wonder and awesome grandeur of God’s great redemptive plan. This is why I have kept in mind the need to reflect not only on the immediate passage but also on the larger theological landscape of which a particular verse is an integral part. While careful exegesis will reveal what God has said, Spirit-controlled reflection on the text will allow God to continue to speak in the present. History becomes present reality. Truth is transformed from theoretical dogma to existential reality. As Paul tells his young colleague Timothy, the purpose of theological instruction is that believers will be “filled with love that comes from a pure heart, a clear conscience, and sincere faith” (1Ti 1:5 NLT).
In sum, the purpose for which I have written this commentary has less to do with preliminary issues than with a desire that the truths of John’s gospel effect a change in the reader’s life. My treatment of such issues as date, author, and distinguishing characteristics will be restricted to a brief survey. Other works will supply more adequate coverage for those who desire to be more thoroughly informed on introductory issues.
From the closing paragraphs of the fourth gospel we learn that the one “who testifies to these things” and “wrote them down” (21:24)—i.e., the author—was “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (21:20). He is further identified as the one who leaned back against Jesus at the Last Supper to ask who the betrayer was (cf. 13:23). Elsewhere we learn that he was one of the two disciples who, on learning from Mary Magdalene that Jesus was no longer in the tomb, rushed to the grave to verify the report (20:1–9). It was to “the disciple whom [Jesus] loved” that he committed the care of his mother (19:26–27). He was also the one who first recognized the risen Lord in Galilee following the resurrection (20:7).
But who was this one characterized in such a complimentary fashion? From the account of the miraculous catch of fish (21:1–14) we know that he was one of the seven disciples who went fishing with Peter. Since Peter, James, and John served as the inner circle of the disciples—they were chosen to be with him at the raising of Jairus’s daughter (Lk 8:51), on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mt 17:1), and in the garden of Gethsemane (Mk 14:33)—it seems likely that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” would be one of the favored three. It is clear that Peter is not the one in question—the text distinguishes between the two. Since James was martyred early in the history of the church (Ac 12:2), undoubtedly before the fourth gospel was written, John is the only one of the three who remains as a candidate. Granted, this does not “prove” that it was John the apostle who wrote the gospel, but it does present a strong presumption in his favor.
The case for Johannine authorship is greatly strengthened by the external evidence. D. A. Carson writes that early testimony is “virtually unanimous” that John the son of Zebedee was the author.1 Irenaeus (Haer. 3.1.2), writing in the second century, says that “John the disciple of the Lord, who leaned back on his breast, published the Gospel while he was resident at Ephesus in Asia.” From the gospel itself we learn that the author was a Palestinian Jew well acquainted with the religion, land, and customs of his people. Repeatedly throughout his work he gives every indication that he was an eyewitness to the scenes he was describing.
It is objected by some that an author would not refer to himself as one “whom Jesus loved,” but such a criticism reads modern social and linguistic norms into an ancient setting. The designation is not to be taken in an exclusive fashion, as though Jesus loved no one else, but as a descriptive title used of one who had enjoyed the special privilege of an unusually close relationship to his Lord.
Because the fourth gospel is so different from the Synoptics, its authenticity is sometimes called into question. Many of the major themes and events of the first three gospels are missing in John, while at the same time it includes many significant episodes not mentioned by the others. The argument is that if the Synoptics present a clear picture of Jesus, then John’s portrayal can hardly be accepted. Such criticisms overlook the varying purposes for which the four gospels were written. It was not John’s purpose to supplement or correct the Synoptics. His gospel is a later, more reflective presentation of major themes in Jesus’ life and ministry. If it is true, as many assert, that John’s gospel grew out of his preaching ministry, its various differences from the Synoptics would not come as a surprise; they would, in fact, be expected.
Traditionally, the composition of the fourth gospel has been assigned a date late in the first century. If it depends on the Synoptics (as many have held), it must be subsequent to them. It is also argued that the gospel’s thoroughgoing theology would have required a considerable amount of time to develop. More recently, the traditional arguments for a late date have been countered by the view that it must have been written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.2 For John not to have mentioned this incredibly important event of Jewish history is held to be highly improbable. Carson suggests AD 80–85 as a reasonable date.3
While some have held that the purpose of the gospel was to combat Docetism or to oppose those who retained their loyalty to John the Baptist, it is clear from the evangelist’s own words that his purpose in writing was that his readers would “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing [they might] have life in his name” (20:31). That other purposes may have been served is not denied, but to inform the author against his own testimony as to why he wrote what he did displays an unusual degree of arrogance.
With these few words on authorship, date of composition, and purpose, it is now time to come to grips with the gospel itself. There is no other book in the Bible that to the same degree serves as a simple primer for new believers while at the same time continues to challenge the most learned scholars with its theological depths. More graphically, Morris describes it as “a pool in which a child may wade and an elephant can swim.”4 So at whatever level you find yourself, there lies before you a work that will not only inform you but whose full meaning and significance will always seem to lie just beyond our reach. John, the beloved apostle, presents us with his own eyewitness account of the life and times of Jesus the Christ.
The following is a selective list of commentaries and monographs on John available in English, confined for the most part to those referred to in the commentary (they will be referred to simply by the author’s name [and initials only when necessary to distinguish two authors of the same surname]). In instances where the same author has written a commentary as well as (a) book(s) and/or (an) article(s), the commentary will be referred to by the author’s name, and the book(s)/article(s) by the author’s name and short title.
References to resources that do not appear in the bibliography will carry full bibliographic details at the first mention and thereafter a short title.
Barclay, William. The Gospel of John. 2 vols. The Daily Study Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1955.
Barrett, C. K. The Gospel according to St. John. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.
Beasley-Murray, George R. John. Vol. 36. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987.
Bernard, J. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928.
Borchert, Gerald L. John 1–11. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1996.
Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel according to John. 2 vols. Anchor Bible. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966, 1970.
Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 1941. Reprint, Louisville, Ky.: Westminster, 1971.
Calvin, John. Commentary on the Gospel according to John. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949.
Carson, D. A. The Gospel according to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
Dodd, C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1953.
Haenchen, Ernst. John. 2 vols. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel according to John. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953–54.
Hoskyns, E. C. The Fourth Gospel. London: Faber & Faber, 1947.
Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1994.
Kysar, Robert. John. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986.
Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. New Century Bible Commentary. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1977.
Marsh, John. The Gospel of St. John. Pelican Gospel Commentaries. Baltimore: Penguin, 1968.
Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Revised edition. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to John. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.
Reith, George. The Gospel according to St. John. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1948.
Ryle, J. C. Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels. Vols. 3–4. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1951.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel according to St. John. 3 vols. New York: Seabury, 1968.
Tasker, R. V. G. The Gospel according to St. John. Tyndale NT Commentaries. 1960. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Temple, William. Readings in St. John’s Gospel. 2 vols. London: Macmillan, 1939–40.