John 1-11: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture

By Gerald L. Borchert

THE NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY is for the minister or Bible student who wants to understand and expound the Scriptures. Notable features include:* commentary based on THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION;* the NIV text printed in the body of the commentary;* sound scholarly methodology that reflects capable research in the original languages;* interpretation that emphasizes the theological unity of each book and of Scripture as a whole;* readable and applicable exposition.

• Language: English
• Publisher: BH Publishing Group
• Release date: Aug 22, 1996
• ISBN: 9781433675638

Book preview

Dedicated To

my beloved wife, seminary professor, and companion

Doris Ann;

my brother, Don, my colleague in seminary and graduate school,

his wife, Ellen;

my two sons, Mark and Tim,

and their wives, Karen and Phyllis;

all of whom

have successfully completed their journeys

through theological education

and to my students: past, present, and future

May God continue

to embody in them and in all who read this work

the reality of the Word which became flesh

in Jesus.

Editors’ Preface

---

God's Word does not change. God's world, however, changes in every generation. These changes, in addition to new findings by scholars and a new variety of challenges to the gospel message, call for the church in each generation to interpret and apply God's Word for God's people. Thus, THE NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY is introduced to bridge the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. This new series has been designed primarily to enable pastors, teachers, and students to read the Bible with clarity and proclaim it with power.

In one sense THE NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY is not new, for it represents the continuation of a heritage rich in biblical and theological exposition. The title of this forty-volume set points to the continuity of this series with an important commentary project published at the end of the nineteenth century called AN AMERICAN COMMENTARY, edited by Alvah Hovey. The older series included, among other significant contributions, the outstanding volume on Matthew by John A. Broadus, from whom the publisher of the new series, Broadman Press, partly derives its name. The former series was authored and edited by scholars committed to the infallibility of Scripture, making it a solid foundation for the present project. In line with this heritage, all NAC authors affirm the divine inspiration, inerrancy, complete truthfulness, and full authority of the Bible. The perspective of the NAC is unapologetically confessional and rooted in the evangelical tradition.

Since a commentary is a fundamental tool for the expositor or teacher who seeks to interpret and apply Scripture in the church or classroom, the NAC focuses on communicating the theological structure and content of each biblical book. The writers seek to illuminate both the historical meaning and contemporary significance of Holy Scripture.

In its attempt to make a unique contribution to the Christian community, the NAC focuses on two concerns. First, the commentary emphasizes how each section of a book fits together so that the reader becomes aware of the theological unity of each book and of Scripture as a whole. The writers, however, remain aware of the Bible's inherently rich variety. Second, the NAC is produced with the conviction that the Bible primarily belongs to the church. We believe that scholarship and the academy provide an indispensable foundation for biblical understanding and the service of Christ, but the editors and authors of this series have attempted to communicate the findings of their research in a manner that will build up the whole body of Christ. Thus, the commentary concentrates on theological exegesis while providing practical, applicable exposition.

THE NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY's theological focus enables the reader to see the parts as well as the whole of Scripture. The biblical books vary in content, context, literary type, and style. In addition to this rich variety, the editors and authors recognize that the doctrinal emphasis and use of the biblical books differs in various places, contexts, and cultures among God's people. These factors, as well as other concerns, have led the editors to give freedom to the writers to wrestle with the issues raised by the scholarly community surrounding each book and to determine the appropriate shape and length of the introductory materials. Moreover, each writer has developed the structure of the commentary in a way best suited for expounding the basic structure and the meaning of the biblical books for our day. Generally, discussions relating to contemporary scholarship and technical points of grammar and syntax appear in the footnotes and not in the text of the commentary. This format allows pastors and interested laypersons, scholars and teachers, and serious college and seminary students to profit from the commentary at various levels. This approach has been employed because we believe that all Christians have the privilege and responsibility to read and seek to understand the Bible for themselves.

Consistent with the desire to produce a readable, up-to-date commentary, the editors selected the New International Version as the standard translation for the commentary series. The selection was made primarily because of the NIV's faithfulness to the original languages and its beautiful and readable style. The authors, however, have been given the liberty to differ at places from the NIV as they develop their own translations from the Greek and Hebrew texts.

The NAC reflects the vision and leadership of those who provide oversight for Broadman Press, who in 1987 called for a new commentary series that would evidence a commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture and a faithfulness to the classic Christian tradition. While the commentary adopts an American name, it should be noted some writers represent countries outside the United States, giving the commentary an international perspective. The diverse group of writers includes scholars, teachers, and administrators from almost twenty different colleges and seminaries, as well as pastors, missionaries, and a layperson.

The editors and writers hope that THE NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY will be helpful and instructive for pastors and teachers, scholars and students, for men and women in the churches who study and teach God's Word in various settings. We trust that for editors, authors, and readers alike, the commentary will be used to build up the church, encourage obedience, and bring renewal to God's people. Above all, we pray that the NAC will bring glory and honor to our Lord who has graciously redeemed us and faithfully revealed himself to us in his Holy Word.

SOLI DEO GLORIA

The Editors

Author's Preface

---

The Gospel of John has become for me a very close companion. My relationship with this book began almost before I can remember because I do not now recall when I first learned to recite John 3:16. I do know, however, that it was back in the years when I attended a German Baptist Church with my parents in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

But it was later during the years when I was in sixth grade and living in Calgary that something happened in my life that forever sealed this Gospel into the very core of my being. During that time I was placed in an isolation hospital for nearly a month and told that I would not be able to bring anything out when I emerged—everything would be burned! It was one of those old hospitals that had no telephones or radios in the rooms and certainly no television yet. I was left to myself without any direct means of communication with the outside world and every four hours for days was punctured with penicillin.

Before I departed for the hospital, however, my brother, Don, who is now the chair of philosophy at Ohio University, stuck in my hand a small paperback copy of the New Testament. Little did he know at the time that that book would become my most precious possession in the hospital. In my sense of being cut off from all of my loved ones, I made a promise to God that if people would send me letters, cards, or anything else, I would learn for each communication a verse from the Bible. By chance or otherwise I chose the Gospel of John, and when I left the hospital I had memorized most of the Gospel. My pastor at the First Baptist Church of Calgary heard what the son of one of his deacons had done and asked me to recite for the church the verses I had learned. So the birth of my basic knowledge of the Gospel was graciously affirmed by a caring church.

During my years in university and the study of law, my mind and heart turned back to the study of the Bible, and I became the Bible Study Chairman and later the President of the InterVarsity Group. In those years the Gospel of John was my companion. Although I knew the words in the King James Version, it took seminary studies to help me realize the profundity of the message of John which I had earlier memorized. Now after more than thirty years of having taught the Gospel in various places throughout the world, having interpreted it with one of my former students, Manfred Brauch, in a television series in Chicago, and having written many articles and smaller works on this marvelous book, I rejoice that at last I have been able to set down in a more complete form some of the thoughts which have been brewing in my mind for many decades.

But prefaces are not only where a writer can say something about himself and his work. Prefaces are also places where gratitude can be expressed to the many people who have assisted in bringing ideas to the publication stage. I happily welcome this opportunity to do so here.

To my former professors in Biblical Divisions during my seminary, graduate studies, and postdoctoral work—Nelson Baker, James Barr, James Charlesworth, Edward Dalglish, Joseph Fitzmyer, Bertil Gärtner, Hans Jonas, James P. Martin, Bruce Metzger, Carl Morgan, Otto Piper, D. Moody Smith, Gerhard von Rad, Theodore Vriessen, and Franklin Young—I express my sincere gratitude for their leading me to new insights concerning the Bible and the milieu in which it was written.

To my former students and doctoral candidates at eight theological schools in the United States, three in Canada, and in eight other countries, I stand greatly indebted for their penetrating questions which time and again have forced me to rethink my set answers and earlier formulations.

To the librarians at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, and Andover Newton Theological School, and particularly to Paul Debusman at Southern for making available to me his remarkable knowledge of bibliography and for his assistance in locating or relocating references for which I had only partially complete notes gathered in over thirty years of teaching, I herewith add my sincere thanks.

To the secretarial staff at Southern, particularly Winnie Reed, as well as Robin Ebeyer and their supervisor Cynthia Meredith for the marvelous assistance rendered in transferring my scribbled notes to the computer screen I stand indebted. Then to R. Jack Painter, my former Garrett Fellow and currently an Adjunct Professor of New Testament in our department at Southern, for his careful proofreading of this manuscript and his significant suggestions in the final stages of my work; and to the editors of Broadman & Holman for their enduring patience throughout this long endeavor, I express my heartfelt thanks.

In expressing my gratitude I must not fail to mention my marvelous family: first, my dear wife, Doris Ann, who has been my faithful seminary colleague and beloved companion in thought and activity throughout my academic life; our two sons, Mark and Timothy, who have grown up in the midst of theological dialogue and who have themselves studied the Gospel of John in their seminary programs; our two daughters-in-law, Karen and Phyllis, who are truly like daughters to us and who likewise have traversed the seminary journey and have joined in theologizing; and to my brother Don and his wife, Mary Ellen, who many years ago were fellow travelers in seminary and graduate school and continue to be partners in spirit and in dialogue. To these dear family members I especially dedicate this work.

As a bit of advice to my readers, I would ask them, before they venture further into the study of individual segments of this commentary, to scan the section of the Introduction related to the Structure and Message of the Gospel so that they will understand more clearly where I think John is headed with his marvelous Gospel.

In conclusion, I hope that my work will assist readers to discover the profound message in this magnificent writing of John, which Clement of Alexandria early designated as a Spiritual Gospel. Moreover, I trust that God may use my study to draw Christian pilgrims to glimpse a greater vision of the "Lamb of God¹ who takes away the sin of the world. And finally, I pray that the reader may be gripped by the power of resurrection joy and with Thomas be able to confess concerning Jesus that he is my Lord and my God!"

—Gerald L. Borchert

Louisville, Kentucky

Palm Sunday 1996

---

¹Mozart, in his magnificent Agnus Dei, caught up a little of the magnitude of the feeling that permeates this amazing Johannine work.

Abbreviations

---

John 1-11

---

INTRODUCTION OUTLINE

Introduction

1. The Gospel and Its Genre

(1) The Term Gospel

(2) Gospel as Genre

2. The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel

(1) Orality and the Missionary Motive

(2) Apologetics and Deviant Writings

(3) The Need for an Instructional Source

(4) Providing Followers with a Sense of Time and Purpose

3. John and the Synoptics

4. The Question Of Sources

(1) Issues in the Text

(2) Theories Concerning Sources

(3) The Johannine Community and Sources

(4) Conclusion

5. The Gospel and Narrative

(1) The Personas of the Story: Writers and Readers

(2) Internal Context and the Question of Truth

(3) Literary Tools

Literary Characters

Literary Vehicles

Irony

Misunderstanding

Symbolism

6. The Historical Milieu in Which the Gospel Was Written

(1) The Old Testament

(2) Rabbinic Judaism

(3) Qumran

(4) The Samaritans

(5) The Jewish Milieu and Persecution

(6) Philo and the Hellenistic Milieu

(7) The Corpus Hermeticum

(8) Gnosticism

7. Authorship, Dating and Provenance

(1) The Issue of Authorship

Internal Evidence

External Evidence

Conclusion

(2) The Dating and Provenance of the Gospel

Dating the Gospel

The Place of Writing

8. A Reference to the Theology of the Gospel

9. The Structure and Message of the First Half of the Gospel Outline of John 1-11

INTRODUCTION

The Gospel of John is one of the most captivating books of the Bible. Not only does it fascinate the best minds among Christian scholars and ministers but its poetic-like stories have grasped the attention and loyalty of countless laypersons: men, women, and young people throughout the world. Its often-quoted verses mark it as one of the most beloved works of Christian literature.

Yet the fact that this Gospel is given to many new believers as their introduction to the Christian gospel does not mean that it is fully understood by beginning readers.¹ Verses like those that speak of eating the flesh of the Son of Man (6:53) can easily make the recent believer gasp at the crass realism of its imagery. Nevertheless, many can witness to the fact that this Gospel spoke often to their spiritual condition during the early stages of their Christian pilgrimage. But such testimonies do not imply that this Gospel cannot also confront them in much more profound ways after many years of faithful living as mature or integrated branches in the authentic vine (15:1-11), which is Jesus the Son of God.

Although the vocabulary of this Gospel is rather simple and seemingly redundant at times, the Johannine Gospel contains one of the most artistically complex and sophisticated combinations of theological themes and ideas found anywhere in the Bible. The book is like a multifaceted symphony that was composed by an awe-inspiring musician who could take a theme and enhance it with vibrant subthemes that sound both discords and harmonies as it winds its way toward the final climax and resolution of the major thematic proposition.

The reader can confront this Gospel like a novice listener of a symphony who knows little about technical music but who recognizes that the music being experienced seems to be unusually captivating. Or the reader can be like a studied musician and music critic who recognizes the technical excellence of the thematic interweaving that takes place in an inspired score and beyond all aspects of analysis is drawn up into ecstasy by the interpretation of a maestro and the musicians as they unfold the symphony. When the symphony reaches its conclusion this seasoned listener as well as the novice can then hardly be restrained from repeatedly shouting Bravo! in response to the superb presentation. In the writing of the present commentary, I confess that the experience has been for me like that of a music analyst who has been in the task of teaching his subject for over thirty years and can merely add his Bravo! to those of many others who have earlier studied and experienced the fascinating work of this brilliant and inspired evangelist.

1. The Gospel and Its Genre

(1) The Term Gospel

The Greek term for gospel is euangelion which is derived from the word angelos meaning messenger with a prefix of eu, meaning good. The term euangelion thus carries the foundational meaning of good news.² The verbal form euangelizesthai means to announce the good news. While the noun form is used in all three of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) as well as in Acts, Paul, 1 Peter, and Revelation, and the verb form is used in Matthew, Luke, Acts, Paul, and 1 Peter, neither form appears in John or the Johannine Epistles.

The noun form in its origin carried the expectation that the messenger would receive a reward for the delivery of a good message such as the joyous report of a victory in battle. Thus, messengers happily carried such announcements of victory and good news to expectant receivers like kings. But dispatched messengers charged with announcing defeat frequently failed to arrive at their destinations, or if they were forced to arrive, they would probably present a garbled form of the message to ensure their own self-preservation. Message and messengers were as a result generally linked inextricably in the minds of the ancients. Because of the tendency to self-preservation and self-aggrandizement in the Hellenistic world, however, messengers were sometimes regarded with suspicion.³

Truthfulness of the messenger was, thus, an important goal. Would the messenger actually be willing to stake his life on his message? That was the question. It is significant that the words for witness in the New Testament (martys; martyria, which probably originated from a concept of remember or take care⁴) developed in the English martyr the meaning of bearing witness with one's life.

Although the term euangelion is missing in the LXX, the roots of the concept of the herald of good news are certainly present in passages such as Isa 40:9-11; 52:7-10; 61:1-3, and possibly 60:6 (where verb forms are used and represent constructs of the Hebrew bāsār; cf. also Pss. Sol. 11; 1QM 18:14).⁵

In the New Testament the term euangelion is used frequently by Paul with genitive attributions: of God (e.g., Rom 1:1; 15:16), of the Son (Rom 1:9), or of Christ (e.g., Rom 15:19; 1 Cor 9:12; 2 Cor 2:12). It is also used in the unqualified form (e.g., Rom 1:16; 10:16; 11:28; 1 Cor 9:18; 15:1) and as Paul's own presentation of the message (my gospel, Rom 2:16; and our gospel, 2 Cor 4:3).

As noted earlier, although the term is not used in John, it is used in the Synoptics and generally refers to the message of Jesus. While Becker has indicated that some scholars have questioned whether Jesus would have used the Hebrew or Aramaic equivalents for euangelion, he quickly added that the gospel or good news is clearly attributed to him in both Mark (e.g., 1:15; 8:35; 10:29; etc.) and Matthew (e.g., 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; etc.).⁶

To summarize briefly the meaning of gospel in the New Testament, several points seem evident. In the case of Paul the unqualified use of the term gospel seems to be a kind of formulaic statement concerning the proclamation of the good news about Jesus, together with all the ramifications concerning salvation. The use of the phrase gospel of God suggests a meaning of God's involvement in the giving of the good news and in the coming of Jesus. The combination gospel of Christ can imply several meanings for that genitive case so that it usually refers to the message about Jesus, but one must not forget the possible use as a possessive form, namely, Jesus’ gospel, or of Jesus as the giver of the message. Accordingly, one must seek to understand the context in each case. Where Paul referred to my gospel or our gospel, the meaning is clearly his message about Jesus, and it is certainly not used as a message about Paul.

But the text in Mark 1:1 (lit., the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ) may be a little different. In that setting it can refer either to a statement concerning the beginning of the message about Jesus or derivatively as the beginning of a written presentation about Jesus. If the meaning is the latter, then the term is verging on a definition of gospel as Gospel or as related to a written genre, which I shall address shortly. The scholarly reader, who may have been schooled in a more general definition of gospel, should not dismiss too quickly this latter notion concerning Mark 1:1. At that point euangelion may have a slightly different nuance than usual. I cannot help but wonder if that statement is not a note appended to the beginning of the Gospel of Mark to inform readers that the document they are about to read is a Gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. These words would then be a confessional summary about the book which may have lost its title or introduction. If that were the case one would not have to speculate about the seeming disjointed nature of vv. 1-2.⁷

(2) Gospel as Genre

With the possible exception just mentioned, the term euangelion in the New Testament implies oral preaching or teaching. The writing of the early epistles, however, marked a transition from the oral stage of presentation to the written stage of formal Christian communication. Paul, in texts like 1 Cor 11:23-26, and especially 15:1-11, sets out in written form what he considered to be the gospel tradition. The Greek paredoka (I delivered) is a typical Jewish formula-like statement implying the passing on of important traditional material. As C. H. Dodd indicated, texts like Acts 10:34-43 are written examples of the early Christian preaching (kērygma; 1 Cor 1:21) of the gospel. He differentiated this public proclamation of Christianity from didachē which is understood as instruction or paraenesis.⁸ The content of this early preaching Dodd extracts from the speeches in Acts and from Paul's summary statements (e.g., Rom 10:8-9; 14:9-10; 1 Cor 1:23; 2:2-6; 15:1-17; 2 Cor 4:4; Gal 3:1).⁹

The writing of the Gospels is regarded by many scholars to have begun with Mark, although some scholars like W. R. Farmer continue to dialogue with the earlier Griesbach hypothesis and argue for the priority of Matthew. But in spite of the fact that the simple Markan hypothesis has received considerable criticism in more recent scholarship, it remains the starting point of Synoptic theories.¹⁰

The form of our Gospels is that of an extended narrative about Jesus which contains among other matters a combination of sayings, deeds, miracles, historical statements, and biographical notes akin to but not exactly like some ancient biographies, heroic narratives and dialogical treatises. Justin Martyr appears to have been the first to refer to these memoirs of the apostles as gospels (Apol. 1.66).¹¹ Irenaeus (Ad. Haer. 3.11.8) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1.136.1) also give evidence of the acceptability of the designation of gospels for these written documents.

Scholars in recent years have sought to identify a category, form, or genre into which the Gospels would best fit. C. Votaw in 1915 contended that the Gospels were similar to popular Hellenistic biographies.¹² This general designation is usually attached to Votaw's name but as R. Guelich has indicated Votaw usually identifies the Gospels as religious tracts intended to promote the Christian movement or propagandist media, or evangelistic tracts promoting Christ, Savior and Teacher.¹³

K. L. Schmidt in 1923 challenged this view by claiming that the Gospels were a unique genre of literature.¹⁴ His compatriot R. Bultmann argued in the same direction.¹⁵ The perspective of the form critical approach is well represented by M. Dibelius who sought for the contextual setting (Sitz im Leben) of individual texts but gave little attention to the contextual setting of the Gospels themselves. Indeed, this view was that because of a primitive immanent eschatological expectation of the Parousia, there was little intention of writing down the proclamation of these early Christians. In fact, this perspective regarded these early believers as unlettered people and generally incapable of producing documents akin to the more sophisticated documents extant in the Hellenistic world.¹⁶ The thesis that developed then was that the Canonical Gospels were a unique type of literature containing rather crudely developed collections of traditional material beginning with the Markan composition and combined by Matthew and Luke with a collection of sayings materials as well as some individual reminiscences of these editors.

Although these views were modified slightly by succeeding scholars in the fifties and sixties, the emphasis on the unique nature of the genre was not greatly challenged by the majority of scholars until the seventies and eighties.¹⁷ Conservative scholars tended to accept the categorization of uniqueness for these Gospels but generally rejected the accompanying negative designations inherent in the views of Dibelius and company.

In 1977 C. Talbert reexamined the issue of genre, and in the three main chapters of his brief study he critiqued the major theory of Bultmann by arguing from his research of mythical and cultic perspectives in early biographies that those Hellenistic biographies were in fact propagandist writings. Moreover, he employed his study to distinguish the canonical Gospels from other primitive gospel forms by reference to the reserved attitude that controls the perspective in the canonical Gospels.¹⁸ While his work was basically a critique of Bultmann, the entire issue of genre was reopened, and scholars began to chip away at the earlier consensus.

As a result of recent analyses, it may be said safely that the Gospels can be viewed as a significant separate literary genre. But while there have been no clearly identifiable comparative forms discovered in Hellenistic literature so that there is a uniqueness to the Gospel form, nevertheless the Gospels do contain similar features to other ancient biographical and narrative forms. On the other hand, in spite of any differences between our canonical Gospels (and possibly a few nonextant apocryphal gospels that have been named elsewhere but have not been preserved), there is clearly a greater structural similarity between the Gospels themselves than there is between the Gospels and any other ancient literature.

This literary genre of Gospel is to be understood as an outgrowth of the early church's preaching. As such, the contextual setting of the early church, to the extent that it can be known, is an important ingredient in gaining the meaning not only of any individual pericope (as in form criticism) but of each Gospel as the major unit of focal research.¹⁹ This ingredient will be discussed throughout this Introduction but particularly in connection with the subject of milieu.

The Fourth Gospel has a rather different content, arrangement, style of writing, and method of presenting the story of Jesus from that of the Synoptic Gospels; but its structural focus on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus may be said to bear a sufficient likeness to that of the Synoptics that it can be viewed as belonging to the same literary genre. Within this category of Gospel genre, however, the Fourth Gospel has its own purpose and mode of development.

2. The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel

In 1933 F. C. Grant sought to detail the issues connected with the development of Gospel writing. In that study he considered the probable motives behind the emergence of the Gospels.²⁰ Building upon Grant's concern, it seems to me that a number of motives can be suggested for the writing of the Gospels. Before launching into a discussion of these motives, however, it is well to be reminded that John's Gospel, like Luke's (cf. 1:1-4), does contain a stated purpose for its writing at John 20:30-31:

Many other signs, indeed, Jesus did in the presence of his disciples which have not been recorded [or written down] in this book; yet these have been recorded in order that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that [in the genuine process of] believing you might have life in [the power, of, or by virtue of] his name! (author translation)

When this verse is set in the context of the entire Gospel, it becomes a magnificent door through which the studied reader can gain access to the motives behind the writing of this document, which Clement of Alexandria well designated as the Spiritual Gospel.²¹

In accordance with this purpose statement it becomes immediately clear that the Gospel is not intended as a mere academic exercise but that the reader is expected to provide an appropriate response. That response is pointedly spelled out in 20:31, where genuine life is identified for the reader as the goal of human existence. The attaining of that goal, moreover, is proclaimed to be achieved through the process of believing in the reality and nature of who Jesus is, both as the long-anticipated Messiah (Christ) and as the actual human embodiment of the Godhead on earth. It is another way of expressing the twofold nature of Jesus which Paul formulated in a more complex manner at Rom 1:3-4. But as will become evident in the Gospel, believing is not mere intellectual assent but involves committing oneself to this Jesus.

The general purpose of this Gospel thus has both a missionary or evangelistic side and also an instructional side (both will be discussed further). The very nature of its recording is for the purpose of communicating a message. But it is not a message of some visionary experience of a seer who has been encapsulated in a spiritual trance and who seeks to enlighten readers as the result of such a mystical encounter. Instead, the evangelist clearly defines the Gospel as a written record that relates directly to miraculous signs Jesus performed in the actual presence of his disciples. These disciples had come to understand that the name of Jesus, like that of God, is a symbol of the presence of life-giving power for humanity.

The purpose statement also indicates that not everything that happened while Jesus was on earth has been recorded in this Gospel. Clearly much more was known, as John 21:25 indicates, and thus the reader should not be troubled if only a small part of John overlaps with the Synoptic Gospels. What has been included is a determined selection, written with a stated purpose in mind. It probably is best, therefore, not to refer to the Gospel of John as a Life of Jesus but rather as a Testimony about Jesus that is aimed at providing the reader with insight into the strategic offer of eternal life in Jesus. With this perspective in mind, further analysis of the motives behind the writing of the Gospel can be conducted.

(1) Orality and the Missionary Motive

As the early Christians moved their focus of mission outside the context of the land of Israel with the proclamation of the gospel, some authoritative written exemplars of Jesus’ life and work clearly became a necessary tool. While the early missionaries employed epistolary writing as a means for communicating with converts, particularly in matters of church practices and ethical perspectives, the early Christians tended to focus on oral presentation concerning the life and work of Jesus, the Christ.²² These matters were related to the desire that testimonies should be given orally since message and messenger were clearly interrelated.²³ Rather than writing about Jesus in the initial stages of the church's mission, it was regarded as more authoritative to bear witness orally like the perspective in the more recent hymn that implores: Tell me the stories of Jesus! As long as there were living witnesses or immediate successors of these witnesses who could perform this task, the living testimonies were undoubtedly considered preferable to written words.

Moreover, oral testimony was preferred to written statements because not everyone could read. In this respect it is important to remember that after the Jerusalem Council reached its decision that the Gentiles would be accepted into the Christian community without the need for observing Jewish particularistic rules, the Council not only gave its decision in writing to the missionaries but also sent Judas and Silas to bear witness orally (apangellein) to their decision (Acts 15:27). Likewise, the reading of Scripture among the early Christians was not generally a silent experience for one personally, and certainly silent reading was not used in community events. Scripture was most likely read orally after the manner of the Jewish practice.²⁴ Thus one should best translate the benediction in Rev 1:3 for contemporary readers as, "Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear" (italics added).

With the passing of time and the deaths of the near witnesses, however, the need for authoritative, written statements about the life and work of Jesus became not merely a helpful tool but also a necessity in order to preserve the reliable tradition. Accordingly, the concluding words of the Fourth Gospel give witness to the passing of an era when the community's firsthand, reliable witness (cf. John 19:35; 21:24) was either dead or near death (21:23).

(2) Apologetics and Deviant Writings

The emergence of documents with strange fairy-tale-like stories about Jesus and skewed theological ideas in works such as the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and indeed the Gospel of Truth (which in fact is not a gospel in the sense of Gospel genre but more of a theological treatise) bear witness to the necessity in the church for authoritative Gospels to combat the growth of deviant views and fanciful legends concerning Jesus.²⁵ To peruse these noncanonical documents and reflect on the stories about Jesus preserved in them and other early documents gives the reader the immediate sense of the genuine reserve and feeling of authenticity that is present in the canonical presentations concerning Jesus.²⁶

Some recent scholars are bent on setting the Gospel of Thomas alongside the four canonical Gospels,²⁷ even though its dating cannot be established, and it hardly is to be equated with the Q of Synoptic studies.²⁸ Such a use of sources like Thomas in fact is an indication of why works like the Gospel of John needed to be written to preserve the integrity of the early church's message and why the early Christians wrestled with the establishment of the New Testament canon.

Other scholars like R. Bultmann are convinced that the New Testament and works like the Gospel of John are filled with mythological formulations such as the legend of the empty tomb. Yet one has the uneasy feeling that Bultmann has attempted not merely to demythologize the New Testament stories but also to remytholigize those stories of Jesus in terms of a mid-twentieth century perspective. But such an approach is based on a rationalistic formulation of facticity wherein reduplicable sense perception acceptable to his era of scientific research is made the standard for what should be judged to be authentic.²⁹ The pseudosophistication of a mind-set that categorizes ancient thinkers as incapable of distinguishing truth from error because of some general way of thinking is from my point of view really questionable!

Moreover, the general tendency to lump all ancient works including the New Testament writings into a common pot of creative story writing in order to substantiate some mythological theory fails to recognize the commitment to truth and authenticity on the part of the canonical writers (cf. e.g., Luke 1:1-4). There is no question that the world has time and again been duped by religious quacks who have sought self-gain, power, and prestige among their misled devotees.³⁰ It is, of course, imperative always to examine the motives not only of the original purveyors of ideas but also of their successors. Yet to assume that the New Testament writers such as John were misguided, easy believers in fantasy flies in the face of the disciples’ own sceptics, such as Thomas (John 20:25), who demanded proof before committing themselves to the resurrection of Jesus and the early Christian kerygma.

(3) The Need for an Instructional Source

As indicated earlier, communication of the Gospel was generally and primarily oral in nature following the pattern of oral tradition among the rabbis. The oral traditions of the rabbis became set, and after the so-called council meetings of Jamnia in the late first century there developed a tendency toward written codification of legal opinions to ensure consistency within Judaism. The result was the writing of the Mishna. In a similar fashion Luke indicated that his intention was to set in writing the matters that had been delivered to him (note the use of paredosan in Luke 1:2, which is the familiar Greek term for the handing down of tradition). The concept of tradition is strongly linked with the idea of instruction.

In this respect it is intriguing indeed to speculate on the role of John Mark when he traveled with Barnabas and Paul. Acts 13:5 indicates that Mark was designated as their hypēretē>s, which can easily be translated as assistant. Although some scholars debate whether the term derives from the idea of under-rower, it is most unlikely that it comes from a nautical setting and instead refers to someone who has the duty to deal with the directions of a superior.³¹ Could Mark and later Silas have functioned as those who in addition to helping generally would have provided instructional assistance to new believers? We may never know for certain, but the notion is tempting.³²

The thesis of J. A. T. Robinson is that the Gospel of John was not addressed to the Gentile, Greek-speaking world but to the Jewish, Greek-speaking diaspora. Furthermore, Robinson's theory that the Gospel is an instructive critique of Judaism from within rather than a condemnation from without is very intriguing.³³ For instance, such a matter as Jesus’ statement to the Samaritan woman, wherein he distinguishes the Samaritans as you and aligns himself with the Jews as we in John 4:22, certainly is worth pondering.

The style of many of the interchanges in John certainly reminds the reader of synagogue instructional debates among the rabbis or teachers of the law. In this respect one should recall in the debate over the bread of life (which occurs with the feeding of the multitude and the walking on the sea) that as the interchange nears the conclusion, all of a sudden the statement is made that the discussion has taken place as Jesus taught in the synagogue in Capernaum (John 6:59). Although the form of the discussion certainly reflects a synagogue style of teaching and argument, the story itself had hardly suggested up to that point that the setting had changed from outdoor to indoor.

Indeed, when one reflects on the Gospel as a whole, one has the feeling that while the purpose statement is clearly linked to a missionary focus, the form of most of the pericopes in the Gospel are styled according to a teaching format, whether it is the obvious instructional chapters in the Farewell Cycle, the discussions in the Cana Cycle, or the arguments in the Festival Cycle. Because of its format, this Gospel is an ideal resource for teaching; namely, there is a repeated interweaving of story or illustrative word pictures (such as shepherd, vine, and raised serpent in the wilderness) with related theological reflections or analyses. It is in fact an ideal textbook for Christian instruction!

(4) Providing Followers with a Sense of Time and Purpose

If there is one thing the reader of this Gospel soon senses, it is that the Jesus of the Johannine Gospel is not directed by self-serving goals, relationship pressures, or fear of hostility. As early as 2:4, the reader is introduced to the focus of Jesus’ life as being upon his hour (cf. 12:23; 17:1-2). Moreover, he is presented as a person whose very reason for being is the fulfillment of his mission to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (1:29). Furthermore, he is pictured as having an absolute commitment to act as a faithful agent and do the will of the one who sent him (5:30).

In focusing on Jesus in this way, the evangelist provides the reader with a divinely directed perspective on the significance of time and purpose for authentic living. Although Jesus is portrayed in this Gospel as the matchless Son who has total intimacy with God (1:1-3,18), John employs the portrait of Jesus to provide a model for Christian discipleship.

The authentic follower of Jesus is to recognize that time is in the hand of God (14:1-3; 16:24; 21:22-23; cf. also 5:25-29; 6:39-40) and that pain or suffering is an inherent aspect of faithful discipleship (e.g., 16:2,20; 17:14; 21:18-19). Furthermore, Jesus’ self-sacrifice serves as an indelible pattern for his faithful followers (e.g., 12:23-26; 15:18-20).

Accordingly, the Gospel must not merely be read as a story about Jesus. It is also a challenge to copy the pattern of Jesus in the manner that Paul challenged his readers to copy both Christ and himself (cf. Phil 2:5-7; 3:17). Imitation involved not merely following a person's words but copying a person's life, and it was a crucial key in the ancient world to delivering an authentic message.³⁴ The Gospel thus opens immediately after the strategic announcement of Jesus as the Lamb of God, with the thematic notation that the disciples followed Jesus. The Greek word akoluthein in 1:37-38,40,43 is the verb used for becoming a disciple or follower of Jesus. There are, of course, some whose following was very preliminary (cf. 6:2), but in John Jesus indicated that true followers would not walk in darkness (8:12), would know the voice of the Shepherd, and would not be led astray (10:4- 5,27). But Jesus’ followers are warned by the picture of the presumptive Peter that following involves more than words of intention (13:36-38); it demands the commitment of life, and it promises the ultimate reward of being with Jesus (12:26; 17:24).

In conclusion, approaching the Fourth Gospel with a sense of these motives for writing the document should prepare the reader to peer more deeply into the Johannine message and to understand a little better why this book is one of the foundational documents of Christian theology and life.

3. John and the Synoptics

Scarcely is there a subject in Johannine studies that is fraught with more mines in the field than the relationship between John and the Synoptics. The subject impinges upon almost every other aspect of Johannine studies from authorship and historical questions to matters of organization and theology. Nevertheless, I will focus directly on the subject at hand and leave other aspects for discussion elsewhere.³⁵

To begin the review of the subject, it is important for the reader to be aware that while John and the Synoptics are all categorized under the general heading of Gospels, there are substantial differences between them. In John there is no actual account of the baptism of Jesus (e.g., Mark 1:9), no parables such as are present in the Synoptics (e.g., Mark 4), no general calling of twelve disciples or naming of all of them (e.g., Mark 3:13-19), and no story of the transfiguration (e.g., Mark 9:2-13). There is no account of any demon exorcisms (e.g., Mark 5:1-20), no institution of the Lord's Supper (e.g., Mark 14:22- 25), no account of the temptations of Jesus (e.g., Matt 4:1-11) nor of the strategic confession at Caesarea Philippi (e.g., Matt 16:13-20), no kiss of Judas (e.g., Mark 14:45), and no extended eschatological address like the Olivet Discussion in the Synoptics (Mark 13; Matt 24-25; Luke 21:5-37).

On the other hand, there is in the Synoptics very little that parallels John's three Cameos of Witness (1:29-51), no changing of water into wine (2:1-11), no Nicodemus story and its discourse (3:1-36), no account of the Samaritan woman (4:1-42), no resuscitation of the dead Lazarus (11:1-44), no direct parallels to the mashals of the shepherd (10:1-30) and the vine (15:1-11), no comparable account of a foot washing (13:1-20), and no formal similarities to the great Johannine prayer chapter (17:1-26), the appearance to Thomas (20:26-29), or the recommissioning of Peter (21:15-23).

To these differences one can add the I am sayings: the earlier temple cleansing (2:13-23; cf. Mark 11:15-19), Jesus moving in and out of Judea several times, the anointing apparently six days prior to Passover (12:1) rather than apparently two days before Passover in Mark (14:1-3), and finally the apparent differences related to the day of eating the supper and the time of the crucifixion (What does the Preparation mean at John 19:14,31?).

Having noted these distinctives, the reader may wonder if there are any parallels between John and the Synoptics. The cursory answer is: of course! For example, John the Baptizer is introduced in the Prologue as a contrast to Jesus, but then he is identified in relation to the Isa 40:3 text similar to the Synoptics (John 1:23; e.g., Mark 1:3); and whereas Jesus’ baptism is not explicitly stated in John for other reasons (see my commentary at that point), it might so be implied.

Few miracles in the Synoptics clearly are parallel to the Johannine signs, but the two strategic signs of John 6, which reflect Israel's exodus experience and involve the feeding of the five thousand and Jesus’ dominion over the stormy sea by his walking on the water, also are represented in the Synoptics (e.g., Mark 6:30-52). Although the other healing miracles in John and the Synoptics are not identical, they have some similar features, such as Jesus’ commands to the paralytics at the pool of Bethesda (Get up! Pick up your mat and walk, John 5:8) and in Capernaum (Get up, take your mat and go home, Mark 2:11). Although the persons Jesus heals in John 4:46-54; 5:2-9; 9:17 are different from those in the Synoptics, the events are similar. It is intriguing in this respect that while Mark has the healing of a blind man described in terms of Jesus’ putting spit on his eyes (8:23; cf. John 9:6, where Jesus makes mud from spit and puts it on the man's eyes), Mark also indicates that Jesus used spit to heal the tongue of a deaf and dumb man (7:33). What I am suggesting is that such a style of healing may not have been an isolated practice for Jesus, and there may have been a number of such healings and resulting oral stories circulating in the Christian community. As such, it would not be necessary for scholars to argue, as some skeptical form critics, that differences in the Gospel presentations of these stories are the result of creative development on the part of the storytellers.

Similarly, in the confrontational teaching sections of the Gospels one notes that the Sabbath became a crucial point of conflict between Jesus and the Jewish religious authorities. It is probable that the conflicts in John over Sabbath (e.g., John 5 and 9) represent only a small selection of the examples that could have been chosen. The incident of the disciples picking grain in the fields on the Sabbath as recorded in Mark (2:23-24) is an example of the clash between Jesus and the religious leadership. Out of such clashes emerged proclamations concerning Jesus’ being Lord of the Sabbath and reflections on doing good on the Sabbath (e.g., Mark 2:27-28; 3:4), which are not greatly different in focus from the argument in John over Jesus’ breaking of Sabbath and his claim that God was his Father and that he had authority from the Father for judgment (John 5:17-23).

In addition, one finds a number of similar maxims and sayings of or about Jesus in both the Synoptics and John, such as a prophet being without honor (e.g., Mark 6:4; John 4:44); listeners having blind eyes (Mark 8:17;