Theology Club: Why did John write his Gospel?

Arsenios

Well-known member
Matthew, Mark and Lude were written around the same time, after the Pauline Epistles, then a 40 plus year wait, and then the Gospel of John and Revelation...

So why would John write his Gospel after all that time, and toward the end of his life? Does it have a fundamentally different purpose its account from the three earlier Gospels?

If the Jews were the target audience of the first three, as they were in so much of the Pauline Epistles (because they argued so forcefully and extensively against Levitical Law, which was ONLY a concern of the Jews), then who was the target audience of John's Gospel.

Thomas Hopko argues that this Gospel is intended ONLY for those well matured in the Faith, and that the earlier three were designed for those approaching the Faith...

Arsenios
 

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Matthew, Mark and Lude were written around the same time, after the Pauline Epistles, then a 40 plus year wait, and then the Gospel of John and Revelation...

So why would John write his Gospel after all that time, and toward the end of his life? Does it have a fundamentally different purpose its account from the three earlier Gospels?

If the Jews were the target audience of the first three, as they were in so much of the Pauline Epistles (because they argued so forcefully and extensively against Levitical Law, which was ONLY a concern of the Jews), then who was the target audience of John's Gospel.

Thomas Hopko argues that this Gospel is intended ONLY for those well matured in the Faith, and that the earlier three were designed for those approaching the Faith...

Arsenios
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/John/John-Declares-Purpose-Writing
 

Danoh

New member
Lol, as you will have found out by this time tomorrow (probably sooner), I'm afraid you've set off one more pet peeve landmine with this thread, Arsenios.

That despair aside, lol, here is a question for you to consider in light of the following passage.

John 5:

1. After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
2. Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
3. In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
4. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he
had.

If such was the case, then John may not have written this book some forty years later, for if I am not mistaken, the Romans had basically destroyed anything of any importance in Jerusalem around 70AD.

If such was the case, would John have written "Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches"?

Further, John appears to be writing when Israel's hope was still very much on the table and in their land - John 1:

10. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11. He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The sense of verse 12 is - but as many - of His Own - as received Him.

Compare verse 12 and 13, with John 3:

1. There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2. The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John is not new, in light of the later, Pauline revelation, information - the issue here in John is Israel's New Covenant.

9. Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10. Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

And guess what this here, that follows, is:

11. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13. And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Verse 13 is in the sense of - no man hath ascended up to heaven, that he might see these things as I alone have. But he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven - He has - I Am the Christ.

He is reminding the man about what King David had described. He is basically telling the man - I Am the Lord David saw the LORD say unto his Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Anyway, I'll leave you to the small moment of peace this thread has left. I'll leave you to your further consideration of these things :)
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Lol, as you will have found out by this time tomorrow (probably sooner), I'm afraid you've set off one more pet peeve landmine with this thread, Arsenios.

Well, I must say, an un-stirred pot is not worth sipping... :)

Jes' sayin'!

Anyway, I'll leave you to the small moment of peace this thread has left.

Do you really think this will stir up such a bee-hive?

Might could bee... :)

I do have a streak of troll in me, no question...

Maybe I will finally learn to bee-hive, I say, behave!

A.
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
If such was the case, would John have written "Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches"?

Historical dramatic present is taught in Greek 101...

WITHIN the time established by the narrative, of COURSE there IS RIGHT NOW such a pool...

And as the 70AD history works out, ONLY WITHIN that narrative time...

Arsenios
 

Danoh

New member
Historical dramatic present is taught in Greek 101...

WITHIN the time established by the narrative, of COURSE there IS RIGHT NOW such a pool...

And as the 70AD history works out, ONLY WITHIN that narrative time...

Arsenios

Well aware of all that. But I don't place a very high value on external evidence; way too much "perhaps this... possibly that..." speculation.

And the 70AD history does not work out; it does not match all that Israel's prophets foretold; including the Lord, in His role as a Prophet unto Israel (Prophet/Priest/King).

Note also that its failed to help you answer your question.

Lol, it appears you ignored what I pointed out as to John 1 and John 3.

Per Matt. 10: 6; 15:24; Mark 1: 1-3; 7:27; Luke 1:31-33; 9:20; John 1:49; John 5:46, 47, and many other passages in all four books, point to all four having been written as a witness to Israel about their prophesied Messiah.

John itself relates, in John 20:

30. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

In other words, this here, from John 1:

45. Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

49. Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Lol, it appears you ignored what I pointed out as to John 1 and John 3.

I did, forgive me! I hadn't taken it seriously...

The problem with that theory is that it results in Jesus and His disciples being ONLY for the Jews, and Paul being ONLY for the Gentiles, and thereby one has driven a wedge of division and separation between Christ-God in the Incarnation of our Lord and the Gentiles [ourselves] who now only have Paul as our pastor...

The fact that Christ restricted most of His ministry to the Jews cannot be used to invalidate those teachings for the Gentiles not under the Law.

For instance: When He said: "I AM the Resurrection and the Life..." He said this to a Jew. Does that somehow mean that He is NOT YOUR Resurrection and YOUR Life because you are a Gentile?

He came for the conversion of Israel from the Law to Faith in Him which he gave to His followers, all as prophesied, and His Own received Him NOT... Is John saying this [and writing the 4th Gospel] only to and for the Jews?

Because if THAT is your standard, taking ONLY that which is written to and for the Gentiles as FOR YOU, then you must get out your scissors and remove and discard most of the Bible from your purview...

"Thou shalt not commit adultery." This was written to and for the Jews alone... But you are a Gentile... By your theory, you are obligated to discard that teaching unless you can find Paul writing it to the Gentiles. And the teachings of Paul about the Law is never to the Gentiles who were never under the Levitical Law - He writes in Romans: "I am speaking to those of you knowing the Law." Jews are the ONLY ones KNOWING the Levitical Law. So from that point on, you are required by your theory to ignore Paul's writing that follows, because he is NOT writing to/for you, because you are a Gentile.

And by this simple idea of dividing the writings to/for the Jews FROM those to/for the Gentiles, you shred the Bible as your witness to the Faith of Christ which He discipled to His Disciples/Apostles... Because they were all Jews... Not a bad coup by some [dark] standards...

But the OP question has to do with the timing of the 4th Gospel's writing as being at the end of the first century, decades after the first three were written... Why were the first three written? And then why the 4th? IF you think that they were ONLY written to/for the Jews, then they MUST be discarded because we are not Jews.

And for ANY exegesis, you must FIRST establish that the text is written ONLY to/for the Gentiles, and only THEN can you use it to for exegetical STUDIES, and discipleship goes to the back of the class...

Arsenios
 

DAN P

Well-known member
Matthew, Mark and Lude were written around the same time, after the Pauline Epistles, then a 40 plus year wait, and then the Gospel of John and Revelation...

So why would John write his Gospel after all that time, and toward the end of his life? Does it have a fundamentally different purpose its account from the three earlier Gospels?

If the Jews were the target audience of the first three, as they were in so much of the Pauline Epistles (because they argued so forcefully and extensively against Levitical Law, which was ONLY a concern of the Jews), then who was the target audience of John's Gospel.

Thomas Hopko argues that this Gospel is intended ONLY for those well matured in the Faith, and that the earlier three were designed for those approaching the Faith...

Arsenios


Hi and John 20:31, were written so that the Jews might believe that Jesus is the the CHRISOS / MESSIAH , the Son of God !!

dan p
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
I believe John wrote his gospel because there were two rows of six loaves of bread in the Temple. And God had something to say.

The first three were written for those approaching the Faith, Jew and Gentile, and told the story of Christ for those entering that Faith... They tell, from three perspectives, the story of the Incarnation of Christ...

Decades later, John wrote the 4th Gospel...

And unlike the other three, it does not begin with the incarnation, but with Genesis 1: In the beginning (was the Word)...

Why?

Arsenios
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Hi and John 20:31, were written so that the Jews might believe that Jesus is the the CHRISTOS / MESSIAH , the Son of God !!

dan p

Hey, Dan... The particular signs recorded in that Gospel ARE indeed recorded so we will know that Jesus is the Son of God... Even though He did MANY more than just these...

But why ANOTHER Gospel account?

Arsenios
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
Hey, Dan... The particular signs recorded in that Gospel ARE indeed recorded so we will know that Jesus is the Son of God... Even though He did MANY more than just these...

But why ANOTHER Gospel account?

Arsenios

While Dan and AMR have both given good answers, I have a proposition that I've never seen explicitly expressed (not that I'm that well read...).

If you accept that the Revelation of John was written by the same man, and you compare the styles of the two books (which I understand is one of the reasons some don't accept that it was the same John), you see one that - in English - seems a little stilted and not very flowing. Even his epistles - while more poetic - still can seem (at times) like a string of proverbs put together. But when you read the gospel of John, you are immediately struck by the writer's flowing expression of things that are developed well beyond mere historical or even apologetic fact.

In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made.
In Him was life and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

John 1:1-5

In a few short sentences, John has expressed more about the pre-existence, function in the Godhead and revelation of Jesus Christ than many have in entire books.

My thought is that - if this is the same man that was on the Isle of Patmos and was shown the Revelation of Jesus Christ - then who better to reveal a bit of that in a writing intended to reveal who Jesus Christ was? In other words, the John before the Revelation does not have the understanding of the John after the Revelation. And so for that reason - and that reason only - he can write about Jesus in the intimate way he did. Not because he was considered the closest to Jesus on earth (though that may be why He chose John as the one to receive the Apocalypse), but because John saw things that - in many respects - were "not lawful to be uttered". What was sealed and beyond any man's natural comprehension was given to the world through John's pen. The Revelation changed him.

So the short answer is that John's gospel is a revelation of who Jesus was and what He did from a spiritually mature man - intended for anyone with an ear to hear.
 
Top