A Commentary on the Gospel of John

The Gospel of John is one of the four Gospels which the early church authorised as being based on the evidence of eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. John was one of His Apostles and had a unique opportunity to learn what Jesus taught in His most intimate conversations. Indeed John was one of the 'inner three' among the Apostles. It was John who questioned Jesus at the last supper about who would betray Jesus. Thus John was a very suitable author of a Gospel, that is, of an interpretive life of Jesus. The Johannine literature consists of the Gospel and three letters. There is no good reason for doubting that all were written by the Apostle John. See below.

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?

If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.

FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.

THE PENTATEUCH

GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS 1.1-7.38 --- 8.1-11.47 --- 12.1-16.34--- 17.1-27.34--- NUMBERS 1-10--- 11-19--- 20-36--- DEUTERONOMY 1.1-4.44 --- 4.45-11.32 --- 12.1-29.1--- 29.2-34.12 --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- SAMUEL --- KINGS --- PSALMS 1-50--- ECCLESIASTES--- SONG OF SOLOMON --- ISAIAH --- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL 1-7 ---DANIEL 8-12 --- AMOS --- MICAH ---NAHUM--- HABAKKUK---ZEPHANIAH --- HAGGAI ---ZECHARIAH --- MALACHI --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- READINGS IN ROMANS --- 1 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-16 --- 2 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-13 -- -GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS--- PHILIPPIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS 1-6 --- 7-10 --- 11-13 --- JAMES --- 1 & 2 PETER --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- JUDE --- REVELATION

--- THE GOSPELS & ACTS

Hi! Welcome to our commentary on the Gospel of John by Dr Peter Pett BA BD (Hons.London) DD.

For the commentary go to Commentary on John. But before doing so read the introduction below.

Who wrote the Fourth Gospel and why is it so different from the others?

To take the second question first as to the reason for the style of the fourth Gospel we must of course first recognise that it bears the imprint of its author. He it was who selected the material he wished to use and who commented upon it.

Furthermore he wrote so much later than the other Gospel writers that he almost certainly knew of the existence of the other Gospels, and of their contents. Thus the difference arises from the writer’s purpose, and the different incidents he recalled, which fitted in with that purpose.

But this is not to suggest that he changed the material to suit his philosophy. The material in John's Gospel is clearly connected with a Hebraistic background, and it is not changed to suit the convenience of the writer. Furthermore we now know that the so-called Greek ideas (such as the logos) were widely used in Palestine at the time. The concepts are thus Palestinian. What is probable is that he had in mind materials that he knew would be helpful to his readers with their own Greek background.

However a reading of the Gospel makes very clear that it has to be placed squarely in the setting which is revealed by the other Gospels. John does not make specific use of these but his account refers briefly, and often indirectly, to matters which only make sense against the background of the other Gospels. The Galilean ministry is a case in point. John is concerned with Jesus' activity in Jerusalem and the surrounding area but he says sufficient to show that he was aware of an extensive Galilean ministry, although he virtually ignores it.

The fact however is that the author gives us a whole new perspective on Jesus. He deals with arguments with Jewish leaders and teachers which are barely dealt with in the Synoptics (although clearly implied in some of Jesus teaching there) which suggests that he was of a type who took great interest in such teaching, in contrast with those who remembered 'sermons' but did not enter fully into disputation. As in fact Jesus must have had arguments with these parties it is clear that John is filling us in with material that the other Gospel writers for one reason or another neglected.

He obviously had a great interest in Jerusalem and Jesus’ attitude to the Temple and its authorities, and was almost certainly related to the Jewish hierarchy in some way (18.15), which explains his interest in this aspect of the life of Jesus. The whole Gospel bears the stamp of his personality in the type of incident he brings to mind and the detailed conversations he remembers.

Furthermore the Gospel is full of incidental things which confirm that he was an eyewitness to the events that took place. He remembers almost incidentally the time at which events took place, the places at which they occurred, and significant details relating to events which demonstrate his vivid memory of those events. He was 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' and 'sat' (lay on a kind of mattress) next to Jesus at the last supper (21.20).

So important were his words seen to be that early church leaders wrote a superscription to confirm his authority (21.24).

His position at the last supper points conclusively to one of the inner band of disciples and it is John with whom the early church always associated it. There is nothing in the Gospel to repudiate this idea, and the fact that John is not mentioned in the Gospel, and that John the Baptiser is simply called John would seem strong support for it.

Hunter lists three reasons why, in his opinion, John could not have written the Gospel.

However these are doubtful arguments. Firstly we have no real grounds for thinking that the writer did directly use Mark and Luke. He only shows a similar general background. There is no definite connection. And anyway, as they were accepted by the early church as authoritative, he would have every reason to use them either directly or indirectly. Use of other people’s materials was not frowned on then.

Secondly, the parables were mainly used with the sympathetic 'common folk' while in John the discourses are to the intelligensia. In any case, the Gospel of John does have parabolic material, of a kind well suited to the intelligensia, as C H Dodd among others has pointed out.

And thirdly, the term 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' could be looked on as humble wonder at the amazing fact, rather than a claim to a special position. From this point of view there is no difficulty in the title. Someone coined the title, and it has difficulties whoever we suggest as the author. An awed humility is the best way of interpreting it.

Howard claims that the lack of mention of special events when John was present e.g. the transfiguration and the garden of gethsemane, count against his authorship, but that is to make assumptions which are not fully valid. Who can say what someone would include when they are writing with a specific purpose in mind? The writer clearly emphasises the spiritual aspect of Jesus’ life and teaching, which he may not have thought best conveyed by such events. We may well ask, would someone else who wrote about Jesus and the disciples have so assiduously ignored John, and so specifically excluded such important and well known events.

In favour of the suggestion that John wrote the Gospel is the statement that it was written by the disciple who lay in Jesus' bosom, the favoured place at the Last Supper, the fact that John the Apostle is never named in the Gospel and that John the Baptiser is named simply 'John' with no thought of distinguishing him from the disciple, (unlikely if the Gospel was written by another, especially an admirer of John).

Also significant is that no one in the second century church, whether Christian or heretic, ever considered the Gospel to have been written by anyone else.

Certainly the writer is a Jew who knows intimately the details of the Jewish religion, and the fact that he is an eyewitness comes out again and again in incidental references.

John owned his own fishing business, and his mother sought high places for him and his brother, which would tie in with his being from an important family. There is therefore no reason why he should not be connected to the Jewish hierarchy, possibly through inter-marriage, and interested in events relating to them. It can well be argued that it was this connection that meant that he would remember events which took place in Jerusalem at a time when the other disciples were too awed to be taking so much notice of the events.

There would appear to be sound reasons for recognising that the Gospel was authored by John the Apostle.

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?

If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.

FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.

THE PENTATEUCH

GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS 1.1-7.38 --- 8.1-11.47 --- 12.1-16.34--- 17.1-27.34--- NUMBERS 1-10--- 11-19--- 20-36--- DEUTERONOMY 1.1-4.44 --- 4.45-11.32 --- 12.1-29.1--- 29.2-34.12 --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- SAMUEL --- KINGS --- PSALMS 1-50--- ECCLESIASTES--- SONG OF SOLOMON --- ISAIAH --- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL 1-7 ---DANIEL 8-12 --- AMOS --- MICAH ---NAHUM--- HABAKKUK---ZEPHANIAH --- HAGGAI ---ZECHARIAH --- MALACHI --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- READINGS IN ROMANS --- 1 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-16 --- 2 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-13 -- -GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS--- PHILIPPIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS 1-6 --- 7-10 --- 11-13 --- JAMES --- 1 & 2 PETER --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- JUDE --- REVELATION

--- THE GOSPELS & ACTS

Return to Home Page for further interesting articles

Click back button to return to previous page
Counter

This page hosted by GeoCities Get your own Free Home Page