John New Testament

Introduction

The gospel of John is simultaneously the deepest and the most accessible gospel to read. It has been called so simple that a child could wade in it, but so deep that an elephant could swim in it. The purpose of the gospel of John is found in his very own words: “These have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (Jn. 20:31).

Authorship

Who Wrote the Four Gospels? Critics contend that we do not know who really wrote the gospels. In fact, it is argued that the standard titles of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren’t added until a century later to give these documents apostolic authority. Does the evidence support the authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

Date

Evidence for an Early Dating of the Four Gospels: Many historians and commentators date the Gospels between AD 70 and AD 100. This subject is surely up for debate. However, based on the manuscript evidence, the citations of the Church Fathers, the dating of the Book of Acts, and the early citations from Paul, we think there is good evidence for an early dating of the Gospels.

According to Clement of Alexandria, John wrote his gospel last (Church History, 6.14.7), and Irenaeus reported that John wrote it while living in Ephesus (Against Heresies, 3.1.2) and even into the reign of Trajan (post-AD 96, Against Heresies, 3.3.4). Borchert states that “these three statements were among the foundation stones that provided the basis for the traditional view of dating.”

Regarding an exact date for John’s Gospel, we are not sure. But at the same time, we are in good company! No one that we’ve read lands on a firm date. D.A. Carson holds to a tentative date of AD 80 to 85—though he states that any date from AD 55 to 95 is possible. Likewise, J. Ramsay Michaels dates the gospel to the second half of the first century (AD 50-100), though he leans toward after AD 70. Leon Morris follows J.A.T. Robinson in dating this book before AD 70—perhaps as early as the AD 50’s or 60’s. Gerald Borchert dates the book sometime at the end of the first century. Because of Thomas’ declaration “my Lord and my God,” Köstenberger opts for a Domitianic date (AD 81-96).

Historical Accuracy

Critics of the NT have long held that John’s gospel is not good history. It describes a Jesus in such exalted terms that it has all of the signs of being a later embellishment. However, John’s gospel claims to be written by an eyewitness, and this can be supported from the historical accuracy of the document itself.

The Romans devastated Jerusalem in AD 70. The Roman legions exiled the Jews from Israel, scorched their land, and burned their Temple and city to the ground. Since John’s gospel claims to be a first-century, eyewitness testimony (Jn. 19:35; 21:24), the author would need to be acquainted with life in Israel before the Jewish War of AD 66.

And this is precisely what we find! Despite the fact that Israel was ravaged by war, foreign occupation, and exile, the author correctly mentions many historical details. Paul Barnett writes, “The fourth evangelist mentions as many as twelve places not referred to in the other gospels.” Consider a few examples:

John correctly mentioned a “deep” well near Mt. Gerizim (Jn. 4:4, 11, 19-20). Historian Edwin Yamauchi affirms, “Halfway between Galilee and Judea in Samaria is one site which all authorities believe to be authentic. This is Jacob’s Well where Jesus spoke with the woman of Samaria (John 4). Above it loom the twin mountains of Ebal and of Gerizim. It was the latter which the woman pointed out as the sacred place of worship for the Samaritans.”

John noted that the official told Jesus to “come down” from Cana to Capernaum to see his son (Jn. 4:47, 49). This wasn’t just a figure of speech. Geographically, Cana is several hundred meters above Capernaum, so this off-the-cuff remark happens to be geographically accurate.

John accurately identified the Pool of Bethesda. For years, critics held that the pool of Bethesda was purely legendary. Yet, in the 1890s, archaeologists discovered this pool, and it had exactly five colonnades—just as John recorded. Blomberg writes, “Reconstruction showed how two juxtaposed rectangular enclosures would have created five porticoes.”

John accurately identified the Pool of Siloam (Jn. 9:7). Archaeologist James Hoffmeier writes, “During the summer of 2004… thanks to the use of a metal detector, four coins were found embedded in the plaster… [The] coins and pottery associated with it suggest that it flourished right up to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Because it stands at the bottom end of the valley, it would quickly have silted over and its location been forgotten. The stone-lined pool was in all probability the Pool of Siloam of Jesus’ day.

John accurately identifies geographical locations. John correctly named the Kidron Valley (Jn. 18:1), and he appropriately distinguished Cana in Galilee from Cana in Sidon (Jn. 2:1; 4:46). He knew that there was “much water” in “Aenon near Salim” (Jn. 3:23). He knew that Ephraim was “a town… near the wilderness” (Jn. 11:54). He was familiar with the Hebrew names for the places in Palestine (Jn. 19:13). He knew that it was a one day trip from Cana to Capernaum (Jn. 4:52), and a two day journey from Bethany beyond the Jordan to Bethany near Jerusalem (Jn. 10:40; 11:18).

Remember, this was written in a time before Google Earth, Wikipedia, or even extensive cartography of the ancient world! Time and again, John recorded details that would be unique to an eyewitness before the destruction of Israel in AD 70.

John was also aware of cultural details that would only be relevant to Israel before the destruction of Jerusalem. After the Romans destroyed the Temple, Judaism changed radically. Specifically, the Jewish religious parties (e.g. the Sadducees and Pharisees) became virtually extinct. And yet John described Jewish culture with detailed precision. He discussed ritual purification (Jn. 2:6), cultural relations (Jn. 4:9), burial procedures (Jn. 19:40), the view of the Law (Jn. 7:49), Sabbath regulations (Jn. 5:1-19; 9), and the high priest Caiaphas (Jn. 11:49, 51; 18:13). It’s interesting to note that in 1990, investigators discovered an ossuary or a “bone box” that contained Caiaphas’ name and bones. Hoffmeier notes, “There is widespread agreement that this ossuary belonged to the high priest.”

John’s knowledge of Jewish culture, topography, architecture, and religion was so accurate that Israel Abrahams (a Jewish scholar) wrote, “My own general impression, without asserting an early date for the Fourth Gospel, is that the Gospel enshrines a genuine tradition of an aspect of Jesus’ teaching which has not found a place in the Synoptics.” These facts don’t necessarily mean that John wrote his gospel before AD 70, but they do support the thesis that he lived before this time.

Why does John omit so many events recorded in the Synoptic gospels?

Most of John’s gospel is original to him (~90%). He excludes Jesus’ baptism, his parables, his calling of the Twelve, his transfiguration, his exorcisms, his temptation by Satan, his teaching at the Lord’s Supper, and his Olivet Discourse. Why did John exclude this material, and choose to include so much novel material?

First, it could be that John knew what Matthew, Mark, and Luke had already written, and he felt no need to repeat their pre-existing material. Scholars debate whether John had access to the Synoptics, or whether he is a truly independent source. We are inclined to agree with C.K. Barrett that John did have some access to the Synoptics. Furthermore, Clement of Alexandria wrote that “John” wrote his gospel “last of all, conscious that the outward facts had been set forth in the Gospels, was urged on by his disciples, and divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel” (see Church History, 6.14.7).

Second, it could be that John wanted to offer different emphases. For example, John was definitely present at the Last Supper (Jn. 13), and yet, he failed to mention the inauguration of the Lord’s Supper. Morris comments, “He must have known of this and known that it was important. Yet he omits it. We need not be too surprised if he omits other things that we consider important.”

Third, John is very similar to the Synoptic gospels—even if he adds more content:

Why is Jesus ‘different’ in John’s gospel?

John includes the famous “I am” statements of Jesus, which do not appear in the Synoptic gospels.

The portrait of Jesus in John’s gospel doesn’t contradict the portrait given in the Synoptics; instead John merely adds material that we didn’t previously know. Morris writes, “If modern biographies can’t quite capture all aspects of great men of history, how much more would it be impossible to capture the Son of God?” He adds, “The Jesus whom all four Evangelists depict was a gigantic figure, greater by far than can be comprehended in any one Gospel.”

Is John theologically embellished?

Many scholars believe that John’s highly developed view of Jesus’ deity and the Trinity must date the book later. However, this argument doesn’t carry much weight for a number of reasons:

First, Paul’s earlier letters contain even stronger passages on the deity of Christ (e.g. Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:5-8). Even critics date these specific letters to the 50’s or 60’s AD.

Second, John contains a “high Christology,” but also contains a high view of Jesus’ subordination. While no gospel teaches the deity of Christ more strongly, it is also true that no gospel teaches the subordination of Jesus more strongly. If John is really just a “theologically embellished” text, then why would he emphasize the humanity and subordination of Jesus so strongly?

Third, the earliest church fathers contain stronger affirmations of Jesus’ deity. For instance, Ignatius (~AD 108) contains even stronger language for the deity of Christ (see “High Christology” of Ignatius). If John is really such a late and embellished gospel, he isn’t as “embellished” as the very earliest church fathers.

Fourth, John contains far less miracles than the Synoptics. If John is really so theologically embellished, then why does it contain far less miracles than the other gospels? Mark is considered to be the first written gospel, and it contains roughly forty miracles, while John contains only seven miracles in Jesus’ pre-passion ministry. Furthermore, John contains no cases of exorcisms, while the gospels contain dozens.

Is John anti-Semitic?

John refers to Jesus’ interlocutors simply as “the Jews,” while the Synoptic gospels refer to them as the Pharisees or Sadducees—specific types of religious leaders. Did John write this because he was anti-Semitic? This doesn’t seems fair. After all, John writes that:

• Salvation came from the Jews (Jn. 4:22).

• Many Jews became believers in Jesus (Jn. 11:45; 12:11).

• Jesus was “a Jew” (Jn. 4:9).

• Some Jews believe in Jesus (Jn. 11:45; 12:11).

Carson writes, “‘Anti-semitic’ is simply the wrong category to apply to the Fourth Gospel: whatever hostilities are present turn on theological issues related to the acceptance or rejection of revelation, and not on race.” We agree. After all, John himself was Jewish! If John was hateful of Jews, then he would need to be hateful of himself, the other eleven apostles, and Jesus himself! This seems wildly implausible.

What are the Seven Signs of John?

The Gospel of John lists seven signs to confirm Jesus’ identity:

• The turning of water into wine (2:1-11)

• The healing of the official’s son (4:43-54)

• The healing of a paralytic (5:1-15)

• The feeding of the multitude (6:1-14)

• The walking on the water (6:16-21)

• The cure of the blind man (9:1-41)

• The raising of Lazarus (11:1-44)