JOHN, GOSPEL OF. The “Fourth Gospel,” as it is often called, prob. has influenced Christian thought of the first four centuries more decisively than any other book of the NT. It was accorded a place of apostolic authority from the first as witnessed by several patristic writers. After Augustine, however, Pauline writings made the major contribution to Christian theology. In recent times it often has been the center of controversy, occasioned more often by dogmatic considerations than historical or literary data. A major factor in the discussion is the relationship of this to the other three gospels. In this article consideration is given first to the data on which conclusions must be based, reserving for later consideration matters of interpretation. In this procedure a greater objectivity is sought.

Outline

I. Structure

No two students of John’s gospel will agree as to the best way to exhibit the train of thought conveyed therein. The following skeleton outline is presented as the result of careful study, but not necessarily as the author himself would have displayed it.

In structure, the fourth gospel differs from the other three in several respects: (1) there is no mention of Jesus’ birth and youth; (2) relatively little is said about Jesus’ early Galilean ministry, the stress being on His Jerusalem ministry; (3) in this account Jesus visits Jerusalem for the Passover three times, in the synoptics once; (4) in this gospel much more attention is given to Jesus’ last words with His disciples; and (5) the book is introduced by what is often called a prologue (1:1-18) and closes with an epilogue (ch. 21).

II. Content

A. Text. The earliest extant portions of the NT are from the gospel of John. These include The Rylands Papyrus 457 (P52) on John 18:31-33, 37, 38, dated between a.d. 125 and 150. Another early text is the Egerton Papyrus 2 (a.d. 140-160), published by Bell and Skeat in 1935. The Bodmer Papyrus II (P66 and P75) rank among the earliest complete extant texts of the fourth gospel. They date from about a.d. 200. Scholars have noted the high degree of correlation between P75 and Codex B. In these Bodmer texts several passages of dubious authenticity are missing, including John 5:4 and 8:1-11. These newly discovered texts tend to justify the labors of NT criticism as reflected in the Westcott-Hort and Nestle texts and in the latest critical text of the American and European Bible Societies, edited by Aland, Black, Metzger and Wikgren (1966). Of the ancient texts, P75 is believed by many to be the most accurate.

Among the variants are the following: 1:3, 4 “without him was not anything made. That which has been made was life in him” (RSVmg.) is the preferred reading. “Only God” (1:18) is in the better text (P75) rather than “only Son.” At 4:9 Aleph and D omit “For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.” Most of the ancient MSS omit 7:53-8:11, some place it after ch. 21, others after Luke 21:38; it is prob. an authentic episode but not part of the original text of John. At 8:57 Aleph reads, “Has Abraham seen you?” At 13:10 “except for his feet” is omitted by some Lat. MSS. Many scholars consider 20:31 the original terminus of the gospel and ch. 21 the appendix. The stylistic differences, however, are slight, and all extant MSS include this chapter. The concluding postscript (21:24, 25) prob. is an attestation of apostolic authorship by the final editor(s).

B. Vocabulary. The characteristic Johannine vocabulary is an important clue to the meaning of the gospel. Even the casual reader of the fourth gospel will be impressed by the remarkable paradox of a simple diction and profound thought. The most characteristic terms in the Johannine vocabulary are common. Many of them, to the Eng. reader, are monosyllabic. These include word, world, light, life, know, love, hate, and truth. Also prominent are glory, darkness, belief and evil. Although the words are very commonplace, they carry an enormous weight of theology. Who can fathom the depth and breadth of such concepts in this gospel as life, light, glory, love, and truth? It is characteristic also of this author to use bold contrasts, such as between God and the devil, the believer and the world, light and darkness, truth and error, life and death. Probably the most important single term in this gospel is the word “life.” This is the central theme of the book. Although love is prominent here also, before there is love there must be life. However, in light of the Johannine prologue and its antecedents in the Genesis account of creation, it may well be that in a cosmological sense light comes before life. The basic theme of this gospel is that in Christ is life and “the life is the light of men.” The purpose of the gospel is also summed up in terms of life. The end in view is eternal life and the means to that end is belief in the Son of God (20:31).

C. Major events

1. Events included. Most of the events reported in this gospel are found nowhere else. Only one miracle, the feeding of the 5,000, is common to all four gospels. John alone records the initial encounter between Jesus and the disciples of John in Judea. This is followed by the wedding in Cana, which John calls the first miracle, or “sign.” The cleansing of the Temple in Jerusalem is reported in connection with the first Passover visit, creating the problem of whether there were two cleansings or one; if the latter, then John’s account places the event at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, whereas the synoptics state that it comes at the close. The interview with Nicodemus in Jerusalem is reported at length, followed by a discourse concerning John and his relation to Jesus.

The scene then shifts to Samaria with a lengthy report of Jesus’ interview with the woman of Sychar. In ch. 5 Jesus is again in Jerusalem where the third of His major signs, or miracles, occurred—the healing at the pool of Bethesda. This event leads to a lengthy dialogue with hostile Jewish leaders about keeping the Sabbath and Jesus’ relation to the Father.

At the second Passover, Jesus is in Galilee, and the discourse on the Bread of Life follows the feeding of 5,000 who are pilgrims. Chapter 7 reports His presence again in Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles where He delivered a major speech on the coming of the Holy Spirit. Extensive discourses follow concerning His relation with God the Father. The theme of light is introduced again in ch. 8 and continued in ch. 9. Here Jesus cures a blind man at the pool of Siloam and states that the people who are most truly blind are those whose blindness is spiritual and self-imposed, whereas those afflicted with physical blindness, through no fault of their own, are led to the light (9:39-41). Thus the miracle, like many others in this gospel, is also a parable. Still in Jerusalem, the discourse concerning the Good Shepherd is at the same time a condemnation of false shepherds and ends with added hostility so keen that Jesus retires from public view (10:40). The sickness and death of Lazarus brings Jesus again from retirement into Bethany where Lazarus is brought back to life. This, in turn, leads to a greater determination on the part of the Jewish leaders to do away with Him (11:53-57).

The third Passover brought Jesus again to Jerusalem, or rather to His Bethany headquarters at the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. At a supper honoring Lazarus, Mary anointed Jesus with costly ointment, much to the disgust of Judas. The Passover feast, meanwhile, had brought many hundreds of people to the Holy City, and it was then that the triumphal entry occurred with three groups of people centering on Jesus: a group who had witnessed the resurrection of Lazarus, another group of pilgrims from the N, and a third group residing in Jerusalem (12:12-18). An inquiry by several Greeks led Jesus to make an important prediction concerning the significance of His death, using the analogy of grain that must be buried in the earth before it can bring forth new life, an obvious prediction of His own immediate future.

John devotes more attention to the last days of Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem than any of the other writers. Following the triumphal entry was the feast with the disciples and the announcement of the betrayal by Judas, the departure of Judas for this purpose, the washing of the feet of the Twelve by the Master and the extended discourse concerning the future followed by the high priestly intercessory prayer of Christ (ch. 17).

In the events that follow, John’s account parallels closely that of the synoptists. This includes the arrest in the garden, the trial before the Jewish authorities, then the trial before Pilate, the sentence to death, the crucifixion and burial. In the accounts of the Resurrection, John’s account supplements that of the others and presents events otherwise unknown. These include the appearance to Mary Magdalene, to Thomas, and to seven disciples in Galilee, ending with Jesus’ dialogue with Peter.

2. Events omitted. One of the problems of the fourth gospel is the large number of important events mentioned in the other gospels but ignored in John. These include the nativity stories, which are familiar from the chs. in Matthew and Luke, and the parables featured by the synoptists. There is no mention in this gospel of the exorcism of devils, even though Jesus is thrice accused of being demon possessed. In this gospel no attention is paid to publicans, lepers, or children, as is characteristic of the other three. No mention is made of naming of the twelve apostles. There is no “sermon on the mount,” such as Matthew and Luke report. The calling of sinners to repentance is notably absent in this account. The apocalyptic features of the synoptists, including eschatological themes and the warnings against the judgment of hell, are not specified in this gospel. Many of Jesus’ characteristic apothegms and proverbs, such as “you are the salt of the earth” are not included in this account. No mention is made of the institution of the Eucharist, although it is implied in ch. 6. John also omits Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane. There is no description of the trial before Caiaphas, though it is alluded to in the account. Jesus’ ascension on Mount Olivet is omitted, although the theme of ascension is rather characteristic of the gospel. The major aspect of the Johannine problem is that of explaining the points at which this gospel differs so radically from the first three, and why.

D. Major ideas

1. Life. As noted previously, John’s major concern is with divine life, the life that is in God and which, under certain conditions can be shared by men. The basic condition to this sharing is belief in Jesus as the Son of God. This overarching concern dominates the gospel from the first v. to the last. Unlike Luke, this author is not primarily concerned to set down an orderly account of the actual events. Instead, he is very selective in his choice of events, his choice being dictated by a didactic purpose; for John is interested not only in the events, but also in their significance.

2. Witness. One of the most distinctive features of the fourth gospel is the emphasis upon witness. The term “witness” occurs thirty-four times in verb form and thirteen times as a noun, a total of forty-seven occurrences as compared with sixteen in all of the other three gospels. The author classifies himself primarily as a witness (1:14, 16; 19:35; 21:24; cf. 5:30-47). His method is not only that of marshaling evidence to convince the readers, but of making a personal declaration of what he has experienced. The point is that faith is based on evidence, either firsthand or second-hand, and whereas belief based on evidence is good, belief that is not dependent on sensory evidence is better (20:29).

3. Belief. Witnessing is designed to induce belief, belief in Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God and the only source of spiritual life. The noun faith (pistis) is not mentioned, but the emphasis is upon the verb (pisteuein). Belief, or faith, is not the confidence in the final outcome—as in Hebrews, nor trust for personal salvation—as in Paul, but rather, committal to the person of Jesus Christ (6:29; cf. 10:32; 17:3). It goes beyond the acceptance of testimony concerning the validity of the proposition; it is an existential decision between light and darkness, God and the world, truth and error. Hindrances to faith are not lack of evidence, but the subjective factors of pride, self-esteem, a desire for the worldly honor, and stubbornness (5:44; 8:43; 9:22; 12:39).

4. Glory. Unlike the first epistle of Peter and the letters of Paul, “glory” (δόξα, G1518) is not that which follows humiliation in time; it is linked with humiliation and transforms it. Glory is basically a revelation of God’s presence. This glory is resident in Jesus, and its radiance is in contrast to that of the OT (1:14-18). Instead of the shekinah glory dwelling in the Temple, it dwells in Jesus who is the true Temple (2:19). The distinctive feature in this gospel is that glory emerges from the ignominy of death (11:4; 12:33; 21:19). Jesus’ suffering, death, Resurrection, and ascension are seen as one event (7:39; 12:28-33). John was convinced that the glory is essentially akin to that witnessed by Isaiah (John 12:41).

5. Regeneration. A metaphor that John develops with an emphasis not found in the other gospels is that of the “new birth.” This underlying current surfaces at 1:12, 13; 3:1-10; 8:39-45. Whereas Paul speaks of the new life in Christ under the caption of justification and employs legal terms, John uses the biological concept of birth. Thus the entrance into the Christian life is envisioned as being “born of God” in addition to being born in the natural manner (1:12). In the interview with Nicodemus, Jesus stated emphatically that the condition of participating in the kingdom of God is being “born of water and the Spirit” (3:5). Here the contrast is made between physical life and spiritual life, a theme that is characteristic of this gospel. Just as physical life comes from one’s human parents, so spiritual life comes from God through the Son and Holy Spirit. This matter of spiritual genealogy is explained in some length in ch. 8 where Jesus accused the Jews of having as their father the devil and asserted that a true Jew is not one who can trace his ancestry to Abraham, but rather one who is in the spiritual lineage of Abraham (8:39-58). This lineage can be identified by obedience to divine revelation. In this case, God’s revelation is through His Son. The idea is not new, but the way John expresses it is unique. The genealogy of birth elsewhere in the NT is to be found in 1 Peter 1:3, 23; 2:2. The concept has had a powerful influence on consequent Christian theology.

6. The world. This gospel contains strong emphasis upon a moral dualism—between light and darkness, good and evil, God and the evil one, the believer and the world. This theme runs throughout the gospel but is esp. prominent in the prologue (1:5, 10-12). It occurs again in one of the key vv. of the gospel: “this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (3:19). It appears again in Jesus’ discourse with His brethren, where the basic hostility between the redeemer and the world is stated: “The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify of it that its works are evil” (7:7). This hostility between light and darkness is again expressed after the healing of the blind man (9:38-41). The theme is esp. prominent in the extended discourse with the disciples prior to Jesus’ arrest. The hatred of the world is a basic fact of life that they must face (15:18-16:33). In the ensuing confrontation they are assured of the help of the Holy Spirit as their advocate (16:7-11; cf. Luke 12:12).

7. Love. Although the theme of love is prominent in all Christian writing, it is esp. conspicuous in the Johannine writings. The relation of God to the hostile world is basically that of love (John 3:16). Also, the quality that distinguishes Jesus’ disciples from all others is love (13:34, 35). The climax of Jesus’ intercessory prayer is the request for the love that unites the Father, the Son, and the believers (17:26). In Jesus’ dialogue with Peter, the quality prized in the relationship is love (21:15-19). This theme is emphasized even more in the companion volume to the gospel, the first epistle of John.

8. Truth. The appeal of this gospel to the world dominated by Gr. culture is perhaps reflected by the emphasis on truth. God’s revelation is equated with truth. The prologue points out that whereas the law was mediated through Moses, Jesus Christ mediated a twofold blessing—the Hebraic benefit of grace and the Gr. benefit of truth. Both the Hebraic and Hellenistic spiritual blessings converge in Jesus, the Son of God. Later, Jesus assured His disciples that obedience to His word would assure them of the truth that emancipates (John 8:31, 32). Jesus is the embodiment of truth (14:6). This truth is projected into a skeptical and perplexed world represented by Pilate’s unanswered query, “What is truth?” (18:38). The world itself is divided into those who are of the truth and those who are in sin and error (18:37). Finally, the gospel itself claims to be the expression of truth. The written record is that which conforms to the facts; such is the solemn affirmation that closes the volume (21:24).

These are some of the main ideas that constitute the fabric of this gospel. John is not content simply to record historical events; he is selective in the events he chooses to illustrate some of these themes. The themes are like the themes of great symphonies, many of them introduced in the prologue, or prelude, and woven throughout the fabric, one coming to prominence now, another later. John’s thought is often described as cyclic. It is something like a circular staircase or a spiral, in which a theme will appear and then recede to appear later at a higher level. John does not treat one topic in one place and then go on to another topic, but keeps them in suspension through his narrative. The author, for example, takes care to point out hindrances to belief, such as an attitude of undue appreciation for the esteem of one’s fellow men (5:44) or the fear of community pressure to conform, e.g., that which inhibited the parents of the man born blind (9:22).

III. Distinctive features

A. Data peculiar to John. The relationship between John and the other gospels is seen not only in what John omits, but also in what John includes and the others omit. The prologue is found nowhere else in the Scriptures, and the distinctive contribution is John’s use of the term logos and its application to Christ. The great affirmation is that the eternal word became flesh in time. This is John’s way of referring to the Incarnation, which parallels Paul’s description of the kenosis (Phil 2:5-11). Only John mentions the calling of the disciples of John in the Jordan valley specifically Peter, Andrew, Philip, Nathanael, and presumably, the author himself. The synoptic accounts place the formal enlisting of these men in the apostolic circle at the shores of the Sea of Galilee. To harmonize the two accounts, it is necessary to assume that the latter was the confirmation of an earlier acquaintance reported by John. Also peculiar to John is the reference to Jesus as the Lamb of God, from the lips of John the Baptist (1:29, 36). The emphasis upon the Son of man in this context is also quite distinctive, including the allusion to Jacob’s ladder (1:51).

Only John reports the episode at Cana, the significance of which is that it strengthened the disciples’ belief in the adequacy of their master (2:11). The important interview with Nicodemus, which is one expression of the heart of the Gospel, is reported only in John, together with the allusion to the serpent in the wilderness (3:14). A portrayal of John the Baptist as friend of the bridegroom (Christ) is found nowhere else in the NT (3:29), although in Ephesians and in Revelation Christ is mentioned as the husband of the Church (Eph 5:25; Rev 21:2). The interview with the woman at Samaria is the occasion of the introduction of Jesus as the giver of the water of life, a theme that reappears in Jesus’ statement at the Feast of the Tabernacles (John 7:37).

In addition to the healing of the man at the pool of Bethesda, John alone reports the dialogue between Jesus and His critics on the issue of belief and the witnesses (5:32-47). Here, as elsewhere in the gospel, the author stresses the intimate relationship between Jesus Christ and God the Father. The problem is to state the closest conceivable relationship and yet maintain a distinction. It is compressed in a statement, “I and the Father are one” (10:30). The discourse on the bread of life following the feeding of the multitude is found only in John (ch. 6). This is the closest John comes to a teaching concerning the Eucharist. The visit to Jerusalem referred to in John (7-9) has no parallel in the synoptic accounts. This visit was characterized by an acrimonious dialogue between Jesus and His friends who registered an increasing degree of skepticism (7:5). The people speculate concerning Jesus’ identity. The growing conviction on the part of the populace that He is what He claims to be is matched by a contrasting degree of hostility to the claim that He is the expected Messiah. This conflict is dramatically portrayed following the healing of the blind man at the Pool of Siloam. The reader is enabled to see the issues laid bare. Effective use of contrast is made as the author delineates the reactions of the man himself, his parents, the Pharisees, and Jesus.

John is the only evangelist who employs the analogy of sheepfold and shepherd, although the “lost sheep” is found elsewhere (Luke 15:3-7). The concept of shepherd was a familiar one to users of the OT (Pss 23; 80; Ezek 34). It proved to be the Church’s favorite portrayal of its Lord and Savior (1 Pet 2:25; 5:1-5). The miracles, or signs, that John singles out for special treatment include the wedding feast at Cana, the nobleman’s son, the lame man at Bethesda, the blind man at Siloam, the walking on the sea (ch. 6), and the culminating sign, that of bringing Lazarus back to life.

The raising of Lazarus is presented as a historical event, but the account leaves the reader wondering why it was not mentioned in the other gospels. Whereas the synoptic gospels view the cleansing of the Temple as the immediate cause of the steps to kill Jesus, in John’s account it is the raising of Lazarus that brings events to a head (12:10, 11). Only John reports the interpretation voiced by Caiaphas concerning the necessity of putting Jesus to death (11:49-51). Only John reports Jesus’ interview with the Greeks and the ensuing theme of life out of death after the analogy of the sowing of the seed and the resulting harvest (12:20-26). Only John reports the washing of the disciples’ feet and the lesson in humble service that it teaches (13:1-20).

Especially prized by readers of the gospel are chs. 14-17, which reflect the intimate conversation between Jesus and the worried disciples. The role of the Paraclete—Comforter, Counselor, or Advocate—is found nowhere else in the Scriptures except in the first epistle of John (1 John 2:1). The Holy Spirit is equated with the Advocate and the Spirit of Truth (John 14:16, 17; 15:26). An interesting parallel to the Spirit of Truth is seen in the Qumran lit. where the spirit of truth is in contrast to the spirit of error and of darkness (1QS, iii, 13—iv, 26). This is climaxed by the Lord’s intercessory prayer, which only John records.

Altogether, John reports fourteen dialogues that are characterized by (1) a question from the hearers, (2) the Master’s answer in enigmatic form, (3) the misunderstanding of His answer and (4) Jesus’ clarification of the issue. The conversation with Nicodemus well illustrates this sequence. Nicodemus asks, “How can a man be born when he is old?” Jesus replied, “That which is born of flesh is flesh....” The response was, “How can this be?” Then Jesus explained further...(John 3:1-15).

In this gospel, Nathanael and Thomas are given special attention. The relation of the beloved disciple and Peter is given prominence, with the beloved disciple on at least three occasions being the first to perceive the spiritual significance of what was being said and seen, and then sharing it with Peter (13:24-26; 2:8; 21:7).

John alone reports the committal of Jesus’ mother to the beloved disciple and the emergence of blood from the side of Jesus (19:25-27, 34-37).

In John’s account of the burial and Resurrection, Mary Magdalene receives special prominence, as does Nicodemus. Nicodemus is mentioned three times in John and nowhere else in the NT. He appears first as a seeker, then as a defender in the Sanhedrin of justice and of Jesus, and finally as one of the last to place Him in the tomb (3:1; 7:50; 19:39).

These indicate that the fourth gospel presents an independent report from that of the other three. Although some scholars view this as a protest or a correction to the other three, most agree that it is designed to supplement rather than to alter the report of the other gospels. Luke and John appear to have the most in common, but both show independence in presentation. All four evangelists drew on a common oral tradition.

B. Comparison with the synoptics and Acts. The fourth gospel is designed for the world at large, to convince the uncommitted (20:31). The other gospels are written with a somewhat different purpose. Luke, for example, writes to believers to confirm their faith (Luke 1:1-4). It has been suggested that Matthew had in mind people of the Jewish nation because of his emphasis on fulfillment of prophecy. It has been suggested that Mark was concerned primarily with the Rom. world, hence his emphasis upon action rather than upon discussion.

The eschatological element is not stressed in John. In the synoptics, John the Baptist predicts a coming judgment with the Messiah serving as judge, gathering the wheat and burning the chaff. This eschatological motif of judgment is lacking in the fourth gospel. In the synoptics, many of the parables deal with the last judgment, such as the parable of the tares and of the fish; John has nothing comparable. The warning against hell fire, where the worm dies not and the fire is not quenched, prominent in the synoptics, is completely lacking in John. The synoptists, esp. Luke, have parables that stress repentance (Luke 15) and God’s willingness to accept the sinner, whereas in John’s gospel, stress is placed on the obstacles the sinner encounters in his quest for saving faith. In this gospel, therefore, the stress is upon evidence, witness to the evidence, belief and hindrances thereto. Demonology, so prominent in the synoptics, has no parallel in John, although three times Jesus is accused of being demon possessed (John 7:20; 8:48; 10:20; cf. Mark 3:21).

The other gospels stress that the Holy Spirit will come to the defense of the disciples when they are persecuted for their faith (Matt 10:20). The same role is mentioned in the fourth gospel, where the Holy Spirit is the Paraclete, or the Advocate, who will defend persecuted disciples (John 15:18-16:15). The same idea is common to all four gospels, namely, that the Spirit will serve the believer as defense attorney. Formidable problems present themselves in an attempt to closely correlate the fourth gospel and the Acts with reference to the Holy Spirit. In John 7:37, it is said that the Spirit is not to be given until after the glorification of Jesus. After His Resurrection and before His ascension, Jesus breathed on the disciples and they received the Holy Spirit (20:22). Most conservative scholars think of this inbreathing of the Spirit by the Master as prophetic of the fuller outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. According to E. F. Scott, C. H. Dodd, and others, however, the emphasis in this gospel is not upon the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost, nor on the second physical advent of the Lord, but rather upon the Spirit fulfilling the numerous predictions of Jesus’ return, as set forth in John 20. This hardly seems valid inasmuch as Jesus was still with them when the inbreathing occurred. There seems to be, therefore, no essential contradiction between the doctrine of the Spirit in John and that in Luke-Acts. There is, however, a difference of emphasis. In John, the ministry of the Spirit is to reveal Christ, to illuminate, to teach, and to console, whereas in Acts, the function of the Spirit is more activistic and dynamic. In Acts, it is the Spirit who inspired the witnesses and thrusted them out to the world at large; the Spirit bestowed the gift of tongues and other charisma, and even transported a person bodily, as in the case of Philip (Acts 8:39). In John, however, the primary function of the Spirit is to provide guidance “into all the truth” (John 16:13). In Acts it is to empower, and in Paul’s writings it is to cleanse (Gal 5:15f.; cf. Acts 15:9). As E. F. Scott has noted, the doctrine of the Spirit in John is one of the most distinctive and important contributions this gospel makes to NT theology.

In John is no specific mention of the ascension into heaven as is true of the synoptics and Acts. The nearest approach to this is Jesus’ statement to Mary that He had not yet ascended to His Father (John 20:17). The theme of ascension, however, does appear in the gospel (chs. 3, 8, and 20). This has led some scholars, with C. H. Dodd, to see in John a “realized eschatology.” In substance, this is the belief that when the gospel was written, the Church had given up the expectation of the Lord’s early bodily return and instead substituted a renewed emphasis upon the ministry of the Holy Spirit in whom Jesus actually returned. Thus John “demythologized” Jewish apocalyptic eschatology according to this viewpoint. The relationship between Jesus and the Spirit is the most intimate, with the Spirit being subordinate to the Son (16:7).

C. Comparison with the epistles

1. Pauline. Paul’s preoccupation is with the sins of the flesh and sins of the spirit, sins that esp. characterized the Gentiles (Rom 1:18-32; 3:1-20). These include the various desires of the fleshly, or animal, nature (Gal 5:15). When Paul speaks of the sins of the Jews, it is in the area of unbelief (Rom 10) or of hypocrisy (Rom 2) and legalism. John is concerned less with the catalogue of the various types of sins that characterized the pagans of the day from whom Paul’s converts came. John, rather, is concerned with men’s chronic preference for darkness rather than light (John 3:19). He is concerned chiefly with the problem of unbelief and the things that hinder man’s coming to faith, hence to life (5:44). He does not catalogue the vices of Jesus’ enemies, as is seen in Matthew (23:2-39), but deals rather with the underlying principle that leads to rejection of the light and the light bearer (John 3:19).

The concept of righteousness is less prominent in John than in Paul. Whereas Paul speaks of the righteousness of God as the dominant factor with which man must reckon, John stresses such attributes of God as love and light. Both stress God’s love to man (John 3:16; cf. Rom 5:6-11). Paul is more concerned with Mount Sinai and its application to the Christian Gospel (Gal 4); John dwells more in the wilderness with its symbolism of manna, fire, and water (John 3:7). Whereas Paul stresses Jesus’ death and Resurrection, John emphasizes Jesus’ incarnation and ascension. By the ascension, John includes His death upon the cross that in itself is an ascension (3:14; 8:37; 12:25).

Because Paul thought in terms of law, his nomenclature is that of a court of law; hence his terms are adoption, justification, propitiation, and reconciliation. John prefered the biological analogy of birth (John 1:12; 3:6; cf. 8:41, 44).

Both are in agreement with reference to the basic tenets of the Christian faith: upon the substitutionary nature of Christ’s death, His vicarious atonement, bodily resurrection, appearances and ascension.

In eschatology, Paul gives much greater prominence to the return of Christ, the last judgment, and the restoration of all things to the jurisdiction of Christ. John seems less influenced by Jewish apocalypses.

2. Petrine. Both the gospel of John and the first epistle of Peter stress the concept of persecution and suffering for the sake of the Gospel. According to 1 Peter, the suffering is caused by external pressures, reflecting a period of persecution, presumably by the leaders of the Rom. world. In the fourth gospel, however, the persecution is anticipated in the future and its similarity to the persecution of Jesus by the Jews is pointed out. In John, the chief antagonists of the Gospel light are the Jewish leaders, whereas in Peter, the opposition is not pinpointed, but presumably it is the pagan world. In John, the hostility is portrayed more in general principles, as the conflict between light and darkness, the two being mutually antagonistic. This is esp. prominent in ch. 8 though it is anticipated in the prologue.

Common to the first epistle of Peter and the fourth gospel is the concept of the new birth. In John, the birth is by water and spirit (John 3:5); in 1 Peter, “You have been born anew, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God” (1 Pet 1:23). In both, the contrast between the newly born and the spiritually born is striking. In John, the two genealogies, or family trees, are conspicuous, esp. in ch. 8, where the children of the devil are in contrast to the children of light. The same parallel is seen in the Qumran writings, esp. the Manual of Discipline and The Book of Wars. In Peter, the birth is through the Word of God. It is the Word that brings to birth and the Word that nourishes the newborn (1 Pet 1:3, 23; 2:2).

Another concept common to both John and Peter is that of shepherd. In John, the good shepherd gives his life for the sheep; likewise in Peter, “the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls” is He who “bore our sins in his body on the tree” (1 Pet 2:24, 25). The concept of feeding the sheep is found only in the fourth gospel and 1 Peter. As Peter was urged to feed the sheep, so Peter’s readers are urged to “tend the flock of God that is your charge” so that they can render a good account to the “chief Shepherd” who will bestow “the unfading crown of glory” (John 21:17; 1 Pet 5:2-4).

In John, the prime virture is spiritual insight that leads to belief and hence to life and witnessing. In Peter, the virtues most urgently needed are those of constancy, of patience under test, of submission to authority, and of quiet continuing witness in a hostile world (John 3:16-19; cf. 1 Pet 4:1-19).

The eschatological emphasis in 2 Peter is not paralleled in the fourth gospel, nor does the gospel give a great deal of attention to the matter of growth in grace of the believer as is true of 2 Peter (1:3-11). Second Peter is a stirring summons to holy living in view of the imminent return of the Lord. In John, the emphasis is more upon embracing Christ as Lord and Savior and walking henceforth in His way of love.

3. Johannine. Although C. H. Dodd and others doubt whether the same person wrote both the gospel and the epistle, the preponderance of evidence favors a common authorship of both. Even a superficial examination indicates the prominence in both gospel and first epistle of such elemental concepts as witness, light, love, truth. Common to both is the simplicity of diction linked with profundity of thought. Common also to both is the concept of the believer’s relation to God in biological terms. Thus in the epistle, the children of the devil and the children of God are in marked contrast not only with reference to their source of life, but in their relation to sin (John 8:44; 1 John 3:8-10). He that is born of God does not commit sin, whereas he that does sin is of the devil (1 John 3:8-10). In both the hostility of the world is stressed.

The central theme of both is spiritual life: it is not merely something temporal, or a continuation of the present life; it is rather a life that is different in nature. Because it is essentially spiritual rather than mental or physical, eternal life begins in the believer when he receives Christ (John 1:12). It is a qualitatively superior type of life that begins with belief and lasts into eternity.

Brotherly love is stressed in both, esp. in John 13, and is found throughout the first epistle. Love is equated with God, and the “sons of God” possess this love as a bestowal of grace, not something inherited. The epistle is more concerned than is the gospel with expressing love in deeds, thus the epistle is the more practical of the two (1 John 3:14-18).

Among the differences is the fact that in the epistle there is no expressed concern for the apostasy of the nation of Israel. The Christology is different as well. In the gospel, the stress is on Jesus as the Son of God; in the epistle, the stress is on His being the Son of man—to refute the heresy of docetism, the doctrine that Jesus’ humanity was not real.

Both these writings contain the term paraclete (comforter), a term found nowhere else in the NT (John 14-16; 1 John 2:1).

4. Other epistles. a. Hebrews. Although the form and nomenclature is strikingly different, the basic theology of both the epistle to the Hebrews and the fourth gospel is the same. In both there is stress upon Jesus as the Son of God; in both there is stress upon His condescension in taking human nature. The incarnation is spelled out more in detail in Hebrews, noting that incarnation involves sharing death with the rest of mankind (Heb 2:5-18).

Both John and Hebrews lay stress upon the experience of the Israelites in the wilderness. This appears in Hebrews (chs. 3 and 4) where the readers are urged to follow their Joshua into the Promised Land lest they meet with the tragedy resulting from unbelief, as did their ancestors in Sinai. In John’s treatment, the Book of Exodus appears in the background of chs. 3 and 6 esp., as offering a precedent for faith.

However, whereas John stresses belief as that which leads to life—a belief centering in Jesus as the Son of God; in Hebrews, faith is paradoxical in nature in that it is a conviction of realities visible only to spiritual eyes. It is this that enabled the heroes and heroines of old to survive obstacles and inherit life. Thus the readers of this epistle are taught that faith involves confidence in God’s availability and in His capability of seeing things through to a successful conclusion.

The humanity of Jesus is stressed perhaps more in Hebrews than in John. In Hebrews, the stress is upon His work as mediator, thus stressing the incarnation and Jesus’ experience as a real person, “he learned obedience through what he suffered” (Heb 2; 5:1-8). In Hebrews, the OT priesthood is held up as God’s provision for sins, which had a temporary effectiveness. In John, there is little concern for the priesthood as such, either past or present. The purposes of the two are in contrast, as is easily apparent. John was written primarily to win the adherence of the masses to Jesus as Savior and Lord, whereas in Hebrews, the problem is to help the believers to be stabilized and not to abandon their faith in Jesus as their Lord. The danger confronting Heb. readers was a relapse into Judaism or indifference to the claims of the Gospel. The danger in John was conformity to the spirit of the age that had a basic hostility to divine revelation because it cherished its own ways, its pride, and its prejudices, and did not wish to be disturbed. The thought of the writers is quite distinct. In John, several ideas are kept in abeyance and wait to urge themselves upon the readers’ attention; in the epistle to the Hebrews, however, the author has his argument well organized and moves from one thought to the other in steady sequence, rather than in a spiral, or cyclic, fashion. In Hebrews, there is greater concern with the subjective effects of the atonement in cleansing the conscience from dead works to serve the living and true God. In John, relatively less concern is placed upon personal sanctity of the believer and more upon calling his attention to Christ. In the epistle, Jesus is the leader, the author, and perfecter of faith; in the gospel, He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world and the One who is worthy of being king, but who deliberately rejected this role.

b. James and Jude. Parallels between the fourth gospel and the epistle of James are rare. Whereas John speaks of being born of the Spirit, James speaks of being brought forth by the word of truth—a different metaphor, but the same idea (James 1:18). In James, relatively little attention is placed on the person and teachings of Christ and much upon the believers’ conduct and attitude. To John, the crucial issue is entering by faith into the Christian fellowship, whereas in James there is an attempt to get Christians to be more than nominal adherents, to become sincere exemplars of the pure faith and of the wisdom that comes from above (James 3:13-18).

Jude, like 2 Peter, is preoccupied with heresy and the Second Coming. The need for sound doctrine is stressed more prominently than in the gospel of John.

IV. Background

The fourth gospel contains phrases and ideas that make an understanding of its background more important and indispensable for adequate understanding of its message.

A. OT. For several decades debate concerning the predominant external influences on this gospel have been current. A generation ago, the prevailing view among critical scholars was that Gr. influence was dominant in this gospel. Recently there is a growing recognition that the prevailing influence was Hebraic. This position has been vastly strengthened by the discovery of lit. of the Qumran area that has many words and ideas paralleling that of John and that provides evidence that many of the assumed Hel. phrases and ideas were already in Pal. during the 1st cent.

The influence of the OT is very pronounced from the opening words of this gospel. The prologue is evocative of the Genesis account of creation with its account of the origin of light and life. Both Genesis and this gospel speak of all things originating with God through His word. The link between Genesis and John is doubtless Psalm 33 where it is stated, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth” (Ps 33:6). The psalmist continues, “for he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood forth” (Ps 33:9). In John’s prologue, likewise, the word (logos) is the agent in creation. Also included in the first ch. of this gospel is the contrast between law and grace, Moses and Christ (John 1:17, 18).

Elijah and Isaiah are alluded to in John’s conversation with the priests and Levites (1:19-23). The Lamb (ἀμνός, G303) of God to which Jesus is compared by the Baptist (1:29) prob. refers to the sacrificial lamb of the Passover, although C. H. Dodd thinks it has greater affinity to the warlike lamb (ἀρνίον, G768) of the Apocalypse. The key to the answer is the fact that the lamb is that which takes away the sins of the world. Doubtless, it is an allusion to the suffering servant of Isaiah (Isa 53:7-12; cf. 1 Pet 2:21-25). The influence of Jacob’s vision of the ladder reaching to heaven is reflected in Jesus’ prediction of a similar vision by His followers (Gen 28:12; cf. John 1:51). In this one chapter, Jesus is said to be greater than Moses, greater than Elijah, greater than the patriarch Jacob, and believed by Nathanael to be the Son of God and king of Israel (John 1:49). He also is believed to be greater than the Temple. The same idea is found in the synoptics but in a completely different context (Matt 12:6; cf. John 2:19).

Reminders of the Passover occur frequently in John where it is stated that He went to the Passover thrice during His public ministry. The discourse in ch. 6, with its insistence that believers must eat the flesh of the son of God to have life, is based upon eating the paschal lamb on this occasion. The background of Genesis and Exodus is esp. conspicuous (chs. 3, 4, 5, 6). Nicodemus is reminded of the serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14). The episode at the well near Sychar evokes memories of the patriarch Jacob and his purchase of the land near Shechem. The reference to the living water is a poignant reminder of their ancestors’ desperate need of water during their Sinai sojourn when water was sometimes miraculously provided, thus sustaining life. Chapter 5 introduces the Sabbath controversy and its background of the institution of the Sabbath in the Pentateuch. Even greater emphasis is placed upon the manna of the wilderness sojourn and its vastly superior counterpart in Jesus Christ. Thus Jesus tells His hearers that they are witnesses to a greater miracle than even were their fathers who ate the manna. Water from the rock is again recalled (ch. 7) on the occasion of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev 23:34-36; Num 20:10-13; cf. John 7:2, 38). The reference to the Spirit here and in John 3:8 has striking affinity with Ezekiel 36:25-27, where the outpouring of the Spirit and the bestowal of a “new heart” are predicted. The striking analogy of Jesus as the Good Shepherd recalls several OT passages (Ps 23; Isa 40:11; Jer 23:1-4 and Ezek 34). The analogy of the vine and branches, descriptive of the relation between Jesus and His followers, is meaningful because of extensive use of this analogy in the OT (Ps 80:8-13; Isa 5:1-7; Ezek 15). The influence of Isaiah is perhaps slightly less in this gospel as compared with the synoptics, esp. Mark, though John does allude to Isaiah’s vision in summing up the nation’s response to Jesus (John 12:38-41). One misses, however, the connection between Isaiah’s role of the Messiah and its fulfillment in Jesus’ ministry (cf. Isa 61:1-6; Luke 4:18-20). There is less overt attention to prophecy and its fulfillment in this gospel as compared with Matthew. This author is not so much concerned with direct quotations as with allusions. OT influence is more implicit than explicit, but its influence is deep and pervasive. It is remarkable, however, that this author stresses Jesus’ career, not so much as an explicit fulfillment of certain OT predictions, but as an event in which the OT is overshadowed by the glory incarnate in Jesus through whom came grace and truth, light and life. In Jesus, the glory of God is seen in human form in a manner that transforms all of life that responds to Him.

In the epistle to the Hebrews, the “Christ-event” excels the OT by its greater amplitude and efficacy. In Paul, the Gospel replaces the Torah both in time and in splendor. In John, the OT themes of glory, light, water and manna are simply eclipsed by the splendor of the incarnate Son. Whereas Matthew goes from the OT to its fulfillment in Christ, John goes from the Incarnation back to its antecedents in the old covenant.

B. Jewish literature

1. Rabbinic influence. The difficulty in ascertaining the extent of rabbinic influence on the fourth gospel arises from the fact that doctrines of the rabbis were not put in written form until the codification of the Mishnah about a.d. 200. There is reason to believe, however, that the oral tradition behind this document extended, essentially in its extant form, back to the time of Jesus. The evidences that indicate a knowledge of Jewish exegesis on the part of the author of this gospel are quite impressive. The sentence structure of this gospel is notably akin to that of the rabbis. This may be explained as due to the influence of the Aram. language or to the influence of the OT. But, in any case, the Sem. influence can be seen clearly in the syntax of this gospel. In this respect, the evangelist stands closer to rabbinic usage than does either Paul or James. For example, in the use of the term “law” (Heb. Torah), John treats the term much the same as it is treated in writings of the rabbis—“the Word became flesh and dwelt among us...the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:14, 17). The evangelist states that the incarnate Logos fulfills the functions of the Torah, but does it more effectively. Also, whereas the rabbis likened the Torah to water, wine, bread, and light, the evangelist links these concepts with Jesus.

The author’s acquaintance with rabbinic exegesis is reflected also, for example, when Jesus was criticized for healing on the Sabbath (John 5:16). A similar defense of circumcising a child on the Sabbath was defended by Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah. The rabbis maintained that if one of the 248 members of the body was healed on the Sabbath following circumcision, how much more is the healing of the whole body commendable. In the light of this, Jesus wondered why they were indignant at Him for giving help on the Sabbath to the whole man (John 7:23).

In a similar manner, the rabbis agreed that in His capacity as judge, God did not rest on the Sabbath day; God maintains His judicial activities continuously. In a similar fashion, Jesus said, “My Father is working still, and I am working,” indicating that it was in His role as judge that He worked on the Sabbath (John 5:17, 30).

The rabbis taught that when the Messiah came, He would be hidden during His childhood and suddenly appear as a mature man ready to take control. Some thought He would be hidden in Rome, others, the N, or Paradise, or in the sea. Familiarity with this doctrine is reflected in the rabbinic