Ntroduction: of Job, "Letter To Leander" 4)

INTRODUCTION
Introduction
The Gospel According to John has been described as a pool

in which a child can wade and an elephant can swim.1 Although
the vocabulary of John is generally simple, the meaning under
lying its words is profound. Greek students are typically intro-
duced to the Gospel in their first experience of reading from
the Greek New Testament because it is so reader-friendly. On
the other hand, the text contains some of the most perplexing
sections in the New Testament.
The simplicity of the Gospel may be seen in John 3:16, the first
biblical passage to which many people are exposed. The Gospel
is used frequently in evangelistic efforts, as well as in helping
people to mature as disciples of Jesus. It is very personal in that
it invites readers to come to faith in J esus and build a relationship
with God through His Son. Further, it challenges the reader to
continue in this faith by abiding in the Divine and having fellow
ship with other believers. The transformation that the new Chris-
tian undergoes results in the promise of eternal life, but this life
is not just for the hereafter; it is the abundant life experienced in
the present (see 5:24; 10:10). From these considerations, one can
understand why this Gospel could be viewed as a pool in which
a child can wade.
The Gospel is also profound, as Paul N. Anderson has demon-
1
This statement dates back to Gregory the Great (c. A.D. 540–604), who
compared the Word of God to “a river both shallow and deep, in which a lamb
walks and an elephant swims” (Gregory the Great Moral Reflections on the Book
of Job, “Letter to Leander” 4).
1
TRUTH FOR TODAY COMMENTARY
strated. He noted some challenges in John under three differ-

ent headings: literary riddles, historical riddles, and theological
riddles.2
Many literary questions could be asked concerning this
Gospel. Who wrote John and for what purpose(s)? Why is John
so distinctive when compared to the Synoptic Gospels? If the
earliest manuscripts did not contain John 7:53—8:11 and this
section of the Scriptures was added later, have other passages
been added to the Gospel Account? Why is Mary’s anointing
identified in the past tense in 11:2 before her action of anoint-
ing Jesus, which is not narrated until 12:1–8? Why did Jesus say,
“Get up, let us go from here” (14:31), and then speak for three
more chapters before entering the garden in 18:1?
Regarding historical questions, if Jesus spoke in parables
(as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels), why are some of them not
included in John? Why does John not speak of any casting out
of demons, as do the Synoptic Gospels? Similarly, if such amaz-
ing miracles as the changing of water into wine and the raising
of Lazarus really occurred, why do the other Gospel Accounts
not tell about them?
Theological questions based on John’s language generated
debates for many years in early church history. These include
the following: How could “the Word” (lo/goß, Logos), who was
in the beginning with God and was God, become flesh (1:1, 2, 14)
with all the weaknesses of the flesh? If Jesus and the Father are
one (10:30), how can the Father be “greater than” Jesus (14:28)?
Did the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father (14:26) or from the
Son (15:26)?
Questions that may be asked from literary, historical, and
theological perspectives clearly indicate that the one who has
been wading must become a swimmer.
PRESUPPOSITIONS
No attempt to expound any biblical text can be done with-
Paul N. Anderson, The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John

2
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 4–5.
2
INTRODUCTION
out certain hermeneutical presuppositions. It should be acknowl-

edged that every reader comes to the text with “mental baggage,”
whether he is aware of it or not. All readers are influenced, for
example, by their religious tradition, their personal experiences,
and their view of the Scriptures. However, this statement does not
mean that a reader’s understanding cannot be corrected, if war-
ranted, by a rational examination of the biblical text. This com-
mentary is based on the following presuppositions: (1) The Bible
is understood to be the inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Word
of God. This view of the Scriptures is extended not only to theo-
logical considerations, but to geographical and historical details
as well. (2) The commentary is written from the perspective of
a baptized believer. (3) God has given to humans the ability to
reason correctly. Consequently, an attempt is made throughout
this work to draw only such conclusions as are warranted by the
evidence. (4) To understand what a New Testament text means
for today, one must understand what it meant to a first-century
reader. This requires that exegesis must come before hermeneu-
tics. This exposition of John is a work in exegesis in an attempt
to reconstruct its historical, literary, and theological setting.
DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS
Some of the unique characteristics of John’s Gospel are evi-
dent, as will be discussed in the section “Relation to the Synop-
tic Gospels” (see pages 7–10). Presently, the concern is to outline
briefly some of the characteristics that stand out in John, apart
from considerations relating to the other Gospel Accounts.
Use of the Old Testament

The Gospel of John was written in Greek and is even believed
by some scholars to have been written to appeal to a Hellenis-
tic world, but the book reflects an Old Testament background.
The many allusions to the Old Testament begin with the very
first words of the Gospel, “In the beginning” (1:1), recalling the
familiar opening phrase of Genesis 1:1.
Among the various Old Testament allusions are the many references
to Jesus. Merrill C. Tenney observed that most of the eighteen
3
unmistakable references to the Old Testament in John directly

apply to Christ.3 At least five other passages citing the Old Testa
ment—though not from any specific Old Testament passage—
point to Jesus (1:45; 2:22; 5:39; 5:45, 46; 20:9). Moreover, Jesus
replaces both the tabernacle and the temple as the new localiza-
tion of God’s presence on earth (1:14; 2:19, 21). He is the “Lamb
of God” slain for the sins of the world (1:29, 36), the true “bread”
from heaven (6:35, 48), the “good shepherd” (10:11), and the true
“vine” (15:1, 5). Frequently, Jesus is viewed as fulfilling prophecy.
For example, His royal entry was on a young donkey (12:14, 15),
fulfilling Zechariah 9:9. Jewish unbelief in Jesus as the Messiah
(12:38–40) is presented by John as the fulfillment of Isaiah 53:1
and 6:9, 10. At the crucifixion, the dividing of Jesus’ garments is
said to “fulfill the Scripture” (19:24; see Ps. 22:18). Further, only
John records that Jesus’ legs were not broken as a fulfillment
of the Scriptures (19:33, 36; see Ex. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20).
The Old Testament emphasis in John’s Gospel is also evident from
the number of times Jesus appealed to Old Testament characters. Jesus
said that Abraham rejoiced to see His day (8:56) and that He Him-
self existed before Abraham (8:58). When addressing Nathanael,
Jesus cited Jacob’s vision (Gen. 28:10–17), which had to do with
communication between heaven and earth, and said that now
the Son of Man (He Himself) is the means by which heavenly
realities are brought down to earth (Jn. 1:50, 51). Jesus appealed
to Moses and the serpent on a standard in the wilderness (Num.
21:8, 9) to illustrate how the Son of Man would be lifted up (Jn.
3:14, 15). He further appealed to Moses to defend His healing of
the lame man on the Sabbath (7:22, 23; see 5:1–16).
Jesus often used the Old Testament as His resource in responding to
His opponents. He claimed that the Scriptures were testimony in
His behalf (5:39, 46). From the Prophets one learns that he must
be taught in order to come to God (6:45). After quoting Psalm
82:6, Jesus said that “the Scripture cannot be broken” (10:34, 35).
3
Merrill C. Tenney, John: The Gospel of Belief (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 110–11. Although Tenney limited his list to
eighteen verses (1:23, 41, 51; 2:17; 3:14; 6:31, 45; 7:38, 42; 10:34; 12:15, 38, 40;
13:18; 19:24, 28, 36; 20:9), others could be added (see 12:13; 19:37).
4
INTRODUCTION
It is clear from these kinds of considerations that the Old Testa-

ment plays a crucial role in John’s Gospel.
Teaching on the Holy Spirit

John’s Gospel has more to say about the Holy Spirit than
any of the Synoptic Gospels. J esus, who Himself had been given
the Spirit without measure (see 3:34), was the One who would
baptize “in the Holy Spirit” (1:33). Jesus taught that one must
be “born of water and the Spirit” to enter the kingdom of God
(3:5). The Spirit was promised to those who would believe on
Jesus after He had been glorified—that is, after He had been
crucified, resurrected, and exalted to the right hand of the Father.
The fullest exposition of the Spirit’s work is found in Jesus’ “Fare-
well Discourse” (chs. 14—17), where He identified the Spirit as
the “Helper” (para¿klhtoß, paraklētos; 14:16, 17). J esus assured
His disciples that the Holy Spirit would teach them all things and
bring to their remembrance all that He had taught them (14:26).
The Spirit would also serve as a witness to Christ (15:26). Further,
the Spirit would “convict the world concerning sin and right
eousness and judgment” (16:8). Finally, the Spirit would guide
the disciples into all the truth (16:13).
Unique Presentation of Jesus

Jesus is seen in this Gospel primarily as the Son sent by the
Father (3:17, 34; 5:23; 6:39, 44). More specifically, He is the one
Son of God who said and did only what the Father had given
Him to say and do (5:19, 30). The title “Son of God” is essentially
equivalent to the title “Messiah,” for Jesus is the “Anointed One”
sent into the world to be the revelation of God’s redemptive plan.
Although “Son of Man” is used less than in the Synoptic Gos-
pels, its usage in John appears to be distinctive. In John, the Son
of Man is presented as the One who has been to heaven and who
is consequently qualified to speak about heavenly things. Jesus
is the connection between heaven and earth and the means by
which heavenly realities are brought down to earth (1:51; 3:12, 13).
The humanity of Jesus is brought out more fully in John than
in the Synoptic Gospels. Jesus attended the wedding in Cana as
a sociable person, undoubtedly enjoying Himself while visiting
5
and talking with others (2:1–11). At Jacob’s well, He was worn

out from travel and was thirsty (4:6, 7). At Lazarus’ grave, He was
deeply troubled and wept (11:33, 35). He humbled Himself and
washed the disciples’ feet (13:4, 5). On the cross, He was thirsty
(19:28), and blood flowed from His body (19:34).
Significant attention is given to the personal side of Jesus.
Throughout the Gospel, His inner life is emphasized. Also, He
is usually not portrayed as delivering discourses to large crowds
of people; instead, His work is unfolded in His many encoun-
ters with individuals. Notable among these are His encounters
with Nicodemus (3:1–21) and the Samaritan woman (4:1–42).
The most distinctive feature of the Gospel relating to the
presentation of Jesus is His identity as the “Word” (lo÷goß, Logos).
As is pointed out in chapter 1, Jesus is an eternal divine being
who is the very nature of God and who is the ultimate expres-
sion in human form of God’s will for humanity.
Unique Presentation of Jesus’ Work

Throughout His public ministry, Jesus’ work is depicted
in John as revolving around seven signs which He performed:
changing water to wine (2:1–11), healing the royal official’s son
(4:46–54), healing the lame man (5:1–16), feeding the five thou-
sand (6:1–15), walking on the water (6:16–21), healing the man
born blind (9:1–12), and raising Lazarus (11:1–44). With the
exception of the first two, the signs function as a prelude to dis-
courses Jesus gave.4
John’s Gospel contains Jesus’ seven “I am” sayings with a
predicate complement, which reveal His identity and mission.
Jesus described Himself as “the bread of life” (6:35, 48), “the
Light of the world” (8:12; see 9:5), “the door of the sheep” (10:7;
see 10:9), “the good shepherd” (10:11, 14), “the resurrection and
the life” (11:25), “the way, and the truth, and the life” (14:6), and
“the true vine” (15:1; see 15:5). In addition to these “I am” state-
ments, a number of others occur in John without any predicate
complement (see comments on 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 18:6).
4
John’s Gospel mentions other signs Jesus performed without giving any
details (2:23; 6:2; 20:30).
6
INTRODUCTION
Unique Themes
The Gospel of John emphasizes several abstract themes.
Perhaps these themes are best summed up in the key words
“light” (fw◊ß, phōs), “life” (zwh÷, zōē), “love” (aÓga¿ph, agapē; aÓgapa¿w,
agapaō), and “truth” (aÓlh÷qeia, alētheia). Some of these themes
occur in the Prologue (1:1–18) and serve as an introduction to
the rest of the Gospel. For example, John 1:4 says, “In Him was
life, and the life was the Light of men.” The two themes of this
verse are echoed later in the Gospel. Indeed, Jesus came to give
life (3:15, 16, 36; 6:47, 54; 17:2). He offers living water that springs
up to eternal life (4:14). Further, He is the “bread of life” (6:35),
and those who eat of this bread will live forever (6:51). He came
not only to give life but also to give it abundantly (10:10). It is
not surprising that this theme frequently occurs, since the stated
purpose of John is to produce faith in Jesus so that people might
have life (20:31). The theme of light is mentioned in one of Jesus’
“I am” statements in 8:12, repeated in 9:5, and illustrated in the
subsequent healing of the man born blind. The light theme also
appears in 3:19–21; 5:35; 11:9; 12:46. A consideration of the themes
of life and light are sufficient to illustrate the recurring nature of
these abstract themes.
RELATION TO THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Much debate prevails concerning the relationship of John
to the other Gospels and cannot be treated here in depth. The
Gospel of John is generally regarded as being written after the
Synoptics. It seems obvious that John knew about the other Gos-
pel Accounts and equally obvious that John did not depend on
them to develop his own narrative. It would be expected that
the four records concerning the life and teachings of Jesus would
possess much of the same information. Indeed, all the accounts
include observations about John the Baptist, events surrounding
the feeding of the five thousand, the triumphal entry, the Last
Supper, and the passion narrative. Further, all Gospel Accounts
have a discussion about the cleansing of the temple and an
anointing of Jesus; however, these discussions are placed in dif-
ferent settings in the life of Jesus (see comments on 2:17; 12:1–
7
11). With this said, the similarities, for the most part, come to an
end. Just a cursory glance at John’s Gospel reveals several things
that are distinctive.
First, a significant amount of material recorded in the Synoptic
Gospels is omitted by John. Unlike the other three accounts, John
does not include narratives of the virgin birth, Jesus’ tempta-
tion, the transfiguration, the institution of the Lord’s Supper, the
casting out of demons, or narrative parables. The Gospel records
that Jesus and the disciples were in the garden of Gethsemane,
but no account of Jesus’ agony in the garden is given. Although
the baptism of Jesus (see 1:29–34) and the call of the disciples are
assumed, the events are not explicitly treated. Only in 3:3, 5 and
18:36 does John use “kingdom” terminology, but the term and
preaching about it are common in the Synoptic Gospels.
Second, John includes additional material not found in the other
Gospel Accounts. This includes the Prologue (1:1–18), the miracle
at Cana (2:1–11), Jesus’ encounters with Nicodemus (3:1–21) and
the Samaritan woman (4:1–42), the healing of the lame man (5:1–
47), the giving of sight to the man born blind (9:1–41), the raising
of Lazarus (11:1–57), Jesus’ extended public discourses (see 6:26–
71; 8:12–59; 10:1–21) and private discourses with His disciples
(see 14:1—17:26), and significant aspects of the passion narrative.
Much of this material relates to the emphasis that John gave to
Jesus’ ministry in Judea and Samaria over Galilee, while other
material is because of certain themes John wished to emphasize.
Third, John’s presentation of material is different from the other
Gospels. The discourse material is more than the narrative mate-
rial, and the proportion of the latter to the former is much less
in John than in the Synoptic Gospels. In addition, the style of the
discourses in John is quite different. Donald Guthrie observed
that John (in contrast to the other Gospel Accounts) presents
Jesus “in the role of a Jewish Rabbi, using rabbinical methods of
argument and lacking the more popular approach so prominent
in the others.”5 The Greek vocabulary of John is simpler than
the Synoptic Gospels. Also, clauses and sentences are connected
5
Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-
Varsity Press, 1990), 306.
8
INTRODUCTION
with simple conjunctions and are not made to be subordinate.

Further, the style of the discourses is so similar to the narrative
sections that it is difficult to distinguish between the teaching of
Jesus and that of the author. For example, although “red-letter”
Bibles attribute 3:16–21 to Jesus, it is more likely that these verses
are reflections by the writer himself (see comments on 3:16).
Fourth, John’s Gospel presents a number of chronological challenges
when compared to the Synoptic Gospels. Perhaps the most signifi-
cant concerns are the dating of the cleansing of the temple, the
length of Jesus’ ministry, and the events surrounding the passion.
The initial dating issue is that John’s Gospel places the temple
cleansing at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (2:14–17), while the
Synoptic Gospels place it at the end of His ministry (Mt. 21:12, 13;
Mk. 11:15–17; Lk. 19:45, 46). Attempts have been made to resolve
this difficulty by arguing that there was only one temple cleans-
ing and that John was more interested in theology than chronol-
ogy. Another suggestion is that there were two separate temple
cleansings—one at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and one at
the end (see comments on 2:17).
The next concern is length of Jesus’ ministry. Since John men-
tioned three Passovers (2:13; 6:4; 11:55), it appears that Jesus’
ministry lasted at least two years and probably more like three
years. The general reference to “a feast” in 5:1 could refer to a
fourth Passover, which would make Jesus’ ministry more than
three years (see comments on 5:1).
The last significant dating challenge relates to the events
surrounding the passion. Two points are worth noting. (1) The
time of the Last Supper presents a problem because the Synop-
tic Gospels clearly teach that Jesus and His disciples celebrated
the Passover on Thursday evening (Mt. 26:17–30; Mk. 14:12–26;
Lk. 22:7–39). However, certain references in John have led some
scholars to understand John to place the Last Supper on Wednes-
day evening (see 13:1, 29; 18:28; 19:14, 31, 42). If the latter is the
case, then the crucifixion would have taken place on Thursday
afternoon when preparations for the upcoming feast were being
made. This makes for a chronological discrepancy with the Syn-
optic Gospels (see comments on 13:1). (2) John presents Pilate
as making his final decision to crucify Jesus at “the sixth hour”
9
(19:14), while Mark says that it was “the third hour” when He
was crucified (Mk. 15:25). Various attempts have been made to
resolve this alleged discrepancy (see comments on 19:14).
AUTHORSHIP
The issue of the authorship of the Gospel of John has been
so widely discussed that it is challenging to determine what to
include in this commentary and what to exclude from it. For the
purposes of this work, only a brief summary will be given of the
two broad areas of internal and external evidence. In each of
these areas, the evidence that is given will be followed by objec-
tions and replies.
Internal Evidence
Consistent with the Synoptic Gospels, no explicit passage
in the Gospel of John identifies the author. However, the Gospel
does provide some clues as to the identity of the author. It has
long been recognized that B. F. Westcott gave the classic presen-
tation of the internal evidence for the authorship of John when he
observed that the author was “a Jew, a Jew of Palestine, an eye-
witness, an Apostle, and, last of all, St John, the son of Zebedee.”6
First, the author of the Gospel of John was a Jew. This claim is jus-
tified by the following considerations:
(1) The author was familiar with Jewish customs and opin-
ions of the day. He included current ideas about the Messiah
(1:19–28, 45–49; 4:25; 6:14, 15; 7:27, 31, 41, 42; 12:13, 34). Addi-
tionally, the writer related the custom of the marriage feast (2:1–
11), the estimate of women (4:27), belief in the transmission of sin
(9:2), the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (4:9), the impor-
6
B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (Cambridge: University
Press, 1881; reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1950), v. The discussion unfolds on pages v–xxviii. A similar case is made
in Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, rev. ed., The New International
Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1995), 4–15. See also A. Plummer, The Gospel According to S. John,
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: University Press,
1886), 25–32. My remarks lean on these authors.
10
INTRODUCTION
tance of rabbinic schools (7:15), and the Pharisees’ contempt for

the common man (7:49).
(2) The author had a precise knowledge of Jewish obser-
vances. He wrote about baptism (1:25; 3:22, 23; 4:2), purification
(2:6; 3:25; 11:55; 18:28; 19:31), the significance of the Sabbath (see
5:10; 7:22), the requirements of the Law concerning testimony
(8:17, 18), burial customs (19:40), and the Jewish feasts (2:13, 23;
5:1; 6:4; 7:2, 37; 10:22; 13:1; 18:28; 19:31, 42).
(3) The style of John is of Jewish origin. The Gospel was writ-
ten in Greek; but the background is Hebrew, including vocabu-
lary, sentence structure, and the arrangement of thoughts. The
vocabulary is much simpler than that of other New Testament
books. The sentence structure frequently employs coordinate
clauses connected by “and” (kai÷, kai) instead of subordinate
clauses. The arrangement of thoughts frequently signifies the
parallelism characteristic of Hebrew. The Old Testament is clearly
the background for the author’s use of imagery—for example,
the lamb, the brazen serpent, the living water, the manna, the
shepherd, and the vine.
(4) The Old Testament was the source of religious life for the
author. John 4:22 states that “salvation is from the Jews.” Abra-
ham rejoiced to see Jesus’ day and was glad (8:56). The Old Testa
ment types of the brazen serpent (3:14), the manna (6:32), per-
haps the water from the rock (7:37) as well as the pillar of fire
(8:12), and the Passover lamb (19:36) are applied to Jesus. Much
of what Jesus said and did was so the Scriptures would be ful-
filled (13:18; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36, 37).
Second, the author appears to have been a Palestinian Jew. The evi-
dence for the author’s being a Palestinian Jew is supported pri-
marily by his knowledge of topography. The author’s emphasis
on detail is clearly evident in this area, since he frequently added
information concerning the places he cited. “Bethany beyond the
Jordan” (1:28) is distinguished from the Bethany “near Jerusalem,
about two miles off” (11:18). Cana, which is not mentioned by
any earlier writer, is “of Galilee” (2:1; see 21:2), and one descends
from Cana to Capernaum on the northwest shore of the Sea of
Galilee (2:12; 4:47). “John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim,
because there was much water there” (3:23). Sychar was “a city
11
of Samaria . . . near the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his

son Joseph; and Jacob’s well was there” (4:5, 6). Jacob’s well is
spoken of as being “deep” (4:11). Ephraim was located “near the
wilderness” (11:54).
The author’s topographical knowledge was equally signifi
cant concerning Jerusalem. He knew the activities concerning
the temple before its destruction (2:14–20). He was aware that,
near the sheep gate, there was a pool called “Bethesda” which
had five porticoes (5:2). He was also familiar with the pool of
Siloam, whose name is translated “Sent” (9:7). Finally, he knew
about the portico of Solomon on the temple mount, where Jesus
was walking during the winter (10:23).
Third, the author of the Gospel was an eyewitness of the events he
described. This can be established from these facts:
He claimed to be testifying as an eyewitness. At the begin-
ning of the Gospel, he stated that “we saw His glory” (1:14). The
word from which “saw” is derived (qea¿omai, theaomai) signifies
to see with one’s eyes. From this claim, it is only natural to sup-
pose that the author placed himself among the eyewitnesses of
Christ. A second claim appears in 19:35: “And he who has seen
has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is
telling the truth, so that you also may believe.” Although the
question must be raised whether the author means that he him-
self has testified or that someone else has, there is no conclusive
reason to reject that the testimony is from the author himself.
This verse is very similar to 21:24, where “the disciple whom
Jesus loved” (21:20) is identified as the one who wrote the Gos-
pel and whose testimony is true.
A significant amount of evidence from the Gospel may be
cited to support that the author was an eyewitness. (1) He gave
vivid descriptions of such persons as Nicodemus, Peter, Thomas,
Judas Iscariot, Andrew, Pilate, Mary and Martha, the Samaritan
woman, the man born blind, and others. (2) Details relating to
time were given that could only be known by an eyewitness. Not
only did the author give attention to the seasons as in the Jewish
feasts, he noted the days (1:29, 35, 43; 2:1, 12; 4:40, 43; 6:22; 7:14,
37; 11:6, 17, 39; 12:1, 12; 19:31; 20:1, 26) as well as hours (1:39; 4:6,
52; 19:14). (See other indications of time in 3:2; 6:16; 13:30; 18:28;
12
INTRODUCTION
20:1, 19; 21:4.) (3) The author cited details of numbers, such as
two disciples of John the Baptist (1:35), six stone waterpots (2:6),
five barley loaves and two fish (6:9), three or four miles (6:19),
four soldiers (19:23), one hundred yards (21:8), and a hundred
and fifty-three fish (21:11). (4) The author gave details of places.
John baptized at Bethany and Aenon (1:28; 3:23). The son of the
royal official was sick in Capernaum while Jesus was in Cana
(4:46). Jesus was beyond the Jordan where John was at first bap-
tizing (10:40).
Fourth, the author was an apostle. He knew people’s thoughts
on various occasions (2:9; 11:13; 12:16; 13:22, 28; 20:9; 21:4, 12).
He recalled the words that the apostles spoke among themselves
(4:33; 16:17; 20:25; 21:3, 5, 7). He was familiar with the places they
frequently visited (11:54; 18:1, 2; 20:19). He was acquainted with
their misconceptions that were later corrected (2:21; 11:13; 12:16).
Fifth, the author of the Gospel was the apostle John himself. If
indeed the author of the Gospel of John was an apostle, is there
any evidence to suggest any particular apostle? Following a
reference to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (21:20), the Gos-
pel says: “This is the disciple who is testifying to these things
and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true”
(21:24). Here the beloved disciple is referred to as the one who
indeed wrote the Gospel. The question remains, however, as to
the identity of the beloved disciple. Reference to the beloved dis-
ciple may be found in five passages (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20).
In 13:23, the beloved disciple “was reclining on Jesus’ bosom”;
and it was this man who, upon a suggestion from Peter, asked
Jesus concerning the identity of the one who was to betray Him
(13:25). He is next mentioned at the foot of the cross, where Jesus
entrusted the care of His mother to him (19:26). He is seen again
on the morning of Jesus’ resurrection at the empty tomb (20:2–
10). In 21:7, the disciple whom Jesus loved alerted Peter that the
One standing on the shore was the Lord. In 21:20, 21, Peter, after
being told by Jesus about his death in the future, inquired about
the destiny of the disciple whom Jesus loved. Traditionally, it has
been held that the beloved disciple is none other than John the
son of Zebedee. This conclusion is based on the following kinds
of cumulative considerations:
13
(1) That the beloved disciple was one of the Twelve is clear
from the Synoptic Gospels, which place only the apostles at the
Last Supper (Mt. 26:20; Mk. 14:17; Lk. 22:14).
(2) The beloved disciple was in close contact with Peter. In
all the references to the disciple whom Jesus loved (13:23; 19:26;
20:2; 21:7, 20)—with the exception of the instance in which Jesus
entrusted the care of His mother to this disciple (19:26)—he is
always mentioned in the company of Peter. From the Synoptic
Gospels it may be seen that Peter, James, and John were espe-
cially close to Jesus, since this “inner circle” is frequently singled
out. Peter and John are seen ministering together in Acts 3 and
4. Again, they are seen together when the apostles sent them to
Samaria to lay hands on some new converts (Acts 8:14).
(3) The beloved disciple (21:20) was among the seven dis
ciples who went fishing at the end of the Gospel. Those listed
in 21:2 include “Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and
Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two
others of [Jesus’] disciples.” From this list the beloved disciple
must either be one of the sons of Zebedee or one of the two other
unnamed disciples. After a careful examination of all the internal
and external evidence, it is not reasonable to conclude that he was
one of the unnamed disciples. Accordingly, he must be one of the
two sons of Zebedee. The disciple cannot be James because he
was martyred during the reign of Herod Agrippa I (A.D. 41–44);
Herod “had James the brother of John put to death with a sword”
(Acts 12:2). The beloved disciple lived long enough that a rumor
began in the early church that he would not die (21:23).
(4) It has also been observed that important individuals in
John’s Gospel are spoken of with distinction. Peter is consistently
referred to as “Simon Peter” whenever he had been absent from
a particular scene for a while (see comments on 18:15). Thomas
is typically identified by his Greek name “Didymus” (11:16;
20:24; 21:2). Judas, who asked Jesus a question at the Last Sup-
per, is distinguished from Judas “Iscariot” (14:22). Judas, who
betrayed Jesus, is spoken of as “the son of Simon Iscariot” (6:71;
13:2, 26). However, John the Baptist (so identified in the Synop-
tic Gospels) is simply referred to as “John.” He is clearly a per-
son of importance, being mentioned more than ninety times in
14
INTRODUCTION
the New Testament. No other John besides this one is named in

this Gospel. John the apostle was very prominent, and one would
expect that he would at least be mentioned—especially since less
significant characters are mentioned by name (such as, Philip
and Andrew). Apparently, John the son of Zebedee would be
the only person who would not think it was necessary to make
a distinction between John the Baptist and himself.
Objections to the Internal Evidence and Replies

Attention should be given to some of the objections raised
against the internal evidence in support of John the apostle being
the author of the Gospel of John.
First, some are not convinced by the evidence presented that John
the son of Zebedee was indeed the disciple whom Jesus loved. Perhaps
their strongest objection is that one would not likely refer to him-
self as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” At first sight the objec-
tion seems reasonable. It appears strange that someone would
describe himself in such a way, since it seems to imply that other
disciples are not loved or at least loved less. The apostle Paul did
not imply that the Galatians were loved less when he said the
Son of God “loved me and gave Himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20).
Although Jesus had some disciples that He was obviously closer
to—namely, Peter, James, and John—this does not mean that He
arbitrarily shared His love. It is reasonable to think that John sim-
ply described himself as he did because he was so overwhelmed
and humbled that he was loved by the Son of God.
The rejection of John the son of Zebedee as the beloved dis
ciple has given rise to alternative possibilities for the beloved dis-
ciple. (1) This disciple might represent an idealized figure sym-
bolizing the perfect Christian disciple. However, most scholars
agree that the beloved disciple was not simply an idealized fig-
ure but a genuine historical person. (2) Perhaps Lazarus was the
beloved disciple on the grounds that he was said to be loved by
Jesus (11:5, 36). This cannot be the case, since the disciple must
have been one of the Twelve (see page 14). Further, why would
Lazarus be mentioned by name in chapters 11 and 12 but not
spoken of by name later? (3) Some believe that John Mark was
the beloved disciple. His home was in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12)
15
and may have been the place where the Last Supper was held.
Again, the beloved disciple was clearly one of the Twelve, and
traditionally Mark has been associated with the second Gospel.
Second, it has also been pointed out that much of the narrative takes
place in Judea, and one would expect a Galilean fisherman to be more
interested in Galilee. Although John was from Galilee, by the time
the Gospel was written, he had lived in Judea as well as Ephe-
sus for a number of years. More importantly, it must be remem-
bered that John’s interest was more directed toward theological
considerations. Consequently, while he gave attention to some
Galilean events, such as the wedding in Cana, his focus was on
Jerusalem where the long-expected Messiah would come and
ultimately be rejected.
Third, the question has been raised whether or not an uneducated
Galilean fisherman could have written such a narrative as the Gospel
of John. John and Peter “were uneducated and untrained men”
(Acts 4:13). The expression does not mean that they were illit-
erate or incompetent. The religious authorities were amazed
that Peter and John, who were not recognized religious leaders,
were so eloquent and competent. While it is true that neither
had been educated in any rabbinical school of distinction, they
were far from uneducated. Jewish boys were taught to read at an
early age, and since it appears that John was from a family of some
means (see Mk. 1:20), it would be expected that he was educated.
Fourth, it has been observed that John and his brother were described
as “Sons of Thunder” (Mk. 3:17). When the Samaritans did not
receive Jesus, James and John asked Jesus if He wanted them “to
command fire to come down from heaven and consume them”
(Lk. 9:54). Based on these observations, it has been suggested that
John was impatient, angry, quick-tempered, and even vengeful.
Consequently, it has been argued that he could not have written
a book that seems to be so tranquil in nature. Could the same
John who wanted to call down fire on the Samaritans also write
so benevolently of the same people (see Jn. 4)? To assume that
John’s ill nature would have prohibited him from writing the
Gospel is to ignore not only the power of the gospel to signifi-
cantly change lives but also the fact that at the time of the writ-
ing John was much older and more mature.
16
INTRODUCTION
Fifth, the omissions and additions in the Gospel of John and the style
of the Gospel, when compared to the Synoptic Gospels, have often been
interpreted as proof that John’s Gospel could not have been of apostolic
origin. As has already been noted, there are a number of omis-
sions and additions in the Gospel of John when compared to the
Synoptic Gospels (see page 8). However, what does this obser-
vation prove? Although parabolic teaching is lacking in John’s
Gospel, Jesus was not limited to one style of teaching. Teachers
often use different styles, depending upon the circumstances sur-
rounding the teaching. In John, several teaching moments occur
in more private settings versus open and public ones. Since John
was written after the Synoptic Gospels, Christians of the day
would have already been familiar with many events recorded
in the other Gospels. The emphasis in John is generally theo-
logical. For this reason, the author would have seen no need to
repeat many things with which Christians were already familiar.
Additions such as the miracle of the raising of Lazarus are not
problematic. The trend in the Synoptic Gospels is not to record
miracles in the closing week of Jesus’ ministry. John’s emphasis
is on His ministry in Judea, where the events of the last week
occurred. Since the Gospel of John was written some time after
the other three Gospel Accounts, it may be that those Gospels
omitted the Lazarus episode in order to protect family members
who were still living from curiosity seekers. John, writing at a
later day, was not so limited.
Sixth, a final objection is that since John was a Galilean fisherman,
he could not be the “other disciple” who was known by the high priest
and had access to the high priest’s courtyard (see 18:15, 16). The “other
disciple” must have been someone from the Jerusalem area who
had greater social standing than a mere fisherman. However,
it is not unlikely that John could have been known to the high
priest and had access to his courtyard. Social distinctions between
manual laborers and the educated elite were not as significant
among Palestinian Jews, so access to the high priest’s courtyard
was not improbable. Further, biblical evidence suggests that John
and his family had some degree of wealth (see Mk. 1:20), so he
could have been known by the high priest. Other considerations
along these lines are suggested in the comments on 18:15, 16.
17
External Evidence
Scholars universally agree that late in the second century John
the son of Zebedee was regarded as the author of the Gospel.
Although earlier writers (for example, Ignatius, Justin Martyr,
and Tatian) cited the Gospel as an authoritative source, the com-
ments following will use only specific references to the author-
ship of the Gospel ascribed to John the apostle.
First, the earliest unquestioned testimony that ascribes the author
ship of the Gospel to John is Theophilus of Antioch (c. A.D. 181). In
his treatise to Autolycus, he mentioned John by name and then
quoted John 1:1–3 in part.7
Second, the evidence from Irenaeus (c. A.D. 185) is significant. He
wrote, “John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned back on His
breast, published the Gospel while he was a resident at Ephesus
in Asia.”8 Based on the writings of Eusebius, Irenaeus claimed as
his authority Polycarp, who, it is claimed, was associated with the
apostles.9 The generally accepted date of Polycarp’s martyrdom
is A.D. 156, when he was eighty-six years of age. Consequently,
no legitimate reason can be given to dispute that he associated
with some of the apostles in Asia. Another significant reference
to Polycarp may be found in Irenaeus’ letter to Florinus. In this
letter, Irenaeus called attention to his boyhood memory of his
association with Polycarp and the latter’s discourse with John
and others who had seen the Lord.10 Based on the evidence of
Polycarp, Irenaeus accepted John as the author of the Gospel and
its origin in Ephesus.
Third, Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 190) ascribed the authorship
of the Gospel to John. He claimed that John wrote a supplementary
work to the earlier Gospels (see Introduction: Purpose and Readers,
page 27). According to Eusebius, Clement said, “Last of all John,
noticing that the physical things had been set forth in the [other]
Gospels, being urged by his companions and inspired by the
7
Theophilus Apology to Autolycus 2.22.
8
Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1; also cited in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History
5.8.4. Further, see Irenaeus Against Heresies 2.22.5; 3.3.4; also cited in Eusebius
Ecclesiastical History 3.23.3.
9
Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 4.14.3–8.
10
Ibid., 5.20.4–8.
18
INTRODUCTION
Spirit, wrote a spiritual Gospel.”11

Fourth, another piece of external evidence may be found in the anti-
Marcionite prologues to the Gospels. Marcion (c. A.D. 140) was con-
vinced of a limited canon of the New Testament and included
only ten letters of Paul and the Gospel of Luke. His teachings
gave rise to what have been regarded as the anti-Marcionite pro-
logues (c. A.D. 150–180). Although the text is corrupt, the anti-
Marcionite prologue to John nevertheless gives witness to John’s
authorship by suggesting that he dictated the Gospel to one of
his disciples while he was in Asia.12
Fifth, an important source of evidence is the Muratorian Canon
(c. A.D. 190). This scrap of early Christian literature comprises
perhaps the oldest known list of most of the books of the New
Testament. It was discovered by Muratori (1672–1750), an Ital-
ian Roman Catholic priest. This piece of literature claims that the
Gospel came from John after a dream or vision given to Andrew
that John should undertake the task of writing in his own name,
but that others should review and revise the work.13 Although it
may be disputed that Andrew survived until the late date of the
production of the Gospel, there are no grounds to dispute that
John was connected with its writing.
Attention could be given to various indirect evidences of
the authenticity of the Gospel of John, but the direct testimony
of John’s authorship is strong and sufficient for the purposes of
this commentary. The internal witness of the Gospel itself, as
previously noted, strengthens the external evidence even more.
Objections to the External Evidence and Replies

As with the internal evidence, consideration should be given
to some of the objections raised against the external evidence in
support of John the apostle’s being the author of this Gospel.
First, much of the criticism of the external evidence centers primar
ily on attempts to discredit the testimony of Irenaeus. The hesitancy
11
Clement of Alexandria Hypotyposes, as cited in Eusebius Ecclesiastical
History 6.14.7.
12
F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,
1988), 155–56.
13
Ibid., 159–60.
19
of scholars to accept the validity of the evidence of Irenaeus is

largely due because of conclusions already made concerning
John’s authorship. If it is concluded for some other reasons that
John could not have written the Gospel, then the only alterna-
tive is that Irenaeus must have been wrong. Consequently, the
critics allege that since Irenaeus’ witness was based on boyhood
memories, he must have been mistaken about the identity of the
John who authored the Gospel. H. P. V. Nunn found it difficult to
believe that the people of Asia knew the author of John was not
the apostle but did not correct Irenaeus’ mistaken claim. Nunn
asked, “How was it that when Irenaeus, in his later life, promul-
gated his quite unfounded statement that the Apostle wrote the
Gospel everyone believed him both in the East and in the West?”14
Guthrie observed that “confidence in Irenaeus’ testimony is sup-
ported by the recognition that all subsequent to him assume the
apostolic authorship of the gospel without question (Tertullian,
Clement of Alexandria, Origen).”15 It seems reasonable to con-
clude that if they were echoing the evidence of Irenaeus, they
must have regarded his opinion to be warranted.
Second, the evidence of Irenaeus has been discounted on the basis
that he confused the apostle John with John the elder. Support for
this argument is found in a statement by Papias as quoted by
Eusebius:
If anyone came who had followed the elders, I inquired into

the words of the elders, what Andrew or Peter or Philip or
Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the
Lord’s disciples had said and what Aristion and the elder
John, disciples of the Lord, are saying. For I did not con-
sider that the accounts from books could have the same
value for me as the words of a living and abiding voice.16
Papias’ statement is far from clear and open to interpretation.

Eusebius understood his words to refer to two Johns in Asia, one
14
H. P. V. Nunn, The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (Eton, England: Alden
& Blackwell, 1952), 36.
15
Guthrie, 271.
16
Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3.39.4.
20
INTRODUCTION
designated as an “apostle” and the other as “the elder John.”17

In support of his theory, he cited a comment from Dionysius,
bishop of Alexandria from A.D. 248 to 264, to the effect that there
were two tombs in Ephesus, both of which bore the name of
John.18 Eusebius did not have personal knowledge of two tombs;
he merely quoted Dionysius’ claim, which was itself based on
hearsay. Eusebius held that the apostle John was the author of
the Gospel and that the elder John was the author of the Book
of Revelation.
While it is true that Papias’ words do not exclude two differ-
ent Johns, the following points should be noted:
(1) Although Papias did mention two groups, including both
apostles (though Papias did not use this word) and elders, the
question seems to be whether the latter should be distinguished
from or identified with the former. If a distinction is to be made,
then the verb “had said” must refer to the men of the first group
who had passed away at the time Papias was writing. Accord-
ingly, the verb “are saying” must refer to the next generation,
implying that the second reference to the elder John must be to
a different person, one contemporary with Papias and who had
not seen the apostles. However, as Everett F. Harrison said,
It is possible that the same person is intended in both

places, only that he is seen under two conditions, first as
associated with other apostles and presumably laboring in
Palestine, then as accessible to Papias, along with Aristion,
at a time when the other apostles had passed away.19
If it is objected that John is called “the elder” in the second group,

it should be observed that the apostles have already been called
“elders” earlier in the statement, and it is improbable that the
term should have a different meaning in a single sentence. On
the assumption that John the apostle wrote the Epistles of John,
he referred to himself as an “elder” in 2 John 1 and 3 John 1 (com-
17
Ibid., 3.39.6.
18
Ibid., 7.25.16.
19
Everett F. Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), 220.
21
pare 1 Pet. 5:1). The second John is merely being identified with
the first John, and a distinction is being made between what John
“had said” earlier and what he was “saying” now.
(2) Eusebius’ interpretation of Papias’ words that there were
two different Johns may have resulted from his own agenda.
D. A. Carson noted, “He so disliked the apocalyptic language of
Revelation that he was only too glad to find it possible to assign
its authorship to a John other than the apostle, and he seizes on
‘John the elder’ as he has ‘retrieved’ him from Papias.”20
(3) Finally, other than the claim of Eusebius, there is no
other historical information about an elder John distinct from an
apostle. Concerning such a person, Papias gave no further infor-
mation. Nothing is known about where he lived, nor is there any
evidence that he wrote anything.
Third, scholars have pointed to the silence of Ignatius, bishop
of Antioch, as a challenge to John’s being the author of the Gospel.
Ignatius, held by tradition to be a disciple of John, was martyred
at Rome in A.D. 108. On his journey to Rome, Ignatius wrote six
letters to the churches in the region of Asia Minor and one letter
to Polycarp. In his letter to the Ephesians, he mentioned Paul and
his relationship to the Ephesians, but said nothing about John.
Clearly, so it is argued, if John had been a resident of Ephesus,
Ignatius would have said something about him. The criticism
does not carry much weight, for a man bound for martyrdom
in Rome would naturally be more interested in Paul (who was
martyred) than he would be in John (who died a natural death).
Fourth, the authorship of the Gospel by the apostle John was rejected
by an Asia Minor sect that emerged about A.D. 170 called “the Alogi.”
Their name is a word play, signifying they were illogical and
against the doctrine of the lo/goß (Logos). They were mentioned
by Epiphanius as having rejected John’s authorship and assign-
ing the Gospel, along with the Book of Revelation, to the Gnostic
Cerinthus.21 The Alogi may have been the same sect mentioned
by Irenaeus as rejecting the Gospel and the promises of the Holy
20
D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Com-
mentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991), 70.
21
Epiphanius Panarion 51.3.
22
INTRODUCTION
Spirit.22 Their opposition was probably not so much because of

authorship, but because of their opposition to the Montanists,
who emphasized certain doctrines like the Logos doctrine and
the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The Montanists originated in the
second century as an intellectual movement stressing the work
of the Holy Spirit. Not much weight should be placed on dog-
matic positions held by this group, which eventually died out
around A.D. 220.
Fifth, it is claimed that John could not be the author of the Gospel
because he suffered martyrdom early. This is based on two writers,
Philip of Side from the fifth century and George Harmartolus
from the ninth century. These men recorded statements ascribed
to Papias that indicate John and James were both killed by the
Jews. In Harmartolus, the statement is supported by a quotation
of Mark 10:39. The unreliability of the claim can be seen in differ-
ent ways. (1) James, the brother of John, was put to death on the
order of Herod, not the Jews (Acts 12:1, 2). (2) Mark 10:39 does
not necessarily imply the martyrdom of James and John. Only
if one looked for it could he detect martyrdom in the passage.
Jesus was merely predicting that they would both share in His
sufferings. (3) Irenaeus and Eusebius, who both held that John
lived to an old age in Ephesus, knew the works of Papias but
never referred to the alleged martyrdom of John.23 (4) Acts 12:1,
2 says that Herod ordered James the brother of John to be put to
death with a sword, but it says nothing about John’s being put
to death. Further, Galatians 2:9, written after the martyrdom of
James, describes John as one of the pillars in the church.
In summary, based on criticisms of John’s being the author
of the Gospel, it appears that the arguments put forth fall far
from being conclusive. The evidence from Theophilus, Irenaeus,
Clement of Alexandria, and other second-century writers con-
cerning the authorship of the Gospel of John is strong. The exter-
nal evidence, coupled with the more important internal evidence,
22
Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.11.9. One English translation of Irenaeus mis-
identifies the heretics as Montanists, but the sect is not named in the Latin text.
23
C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1978), 103–4.
23
leads to the conclusion that John, the son of Zebedee, was indeed
the author of the Gospel that bears his name.
DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING

The dating of the Gospel of John, like other New Testa-
ment books, is not easily decided with any precision. Various
suggestions have been put forward, including from the time
before the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) to the last quarter of the
second century (c. A.D. 175). Dates late in the second century
have for the most part been ruled out based on the discovery in
Egypt of two papyrus fragments: the Rylands Papyrus 457 (P52)
and the Egerton Papyrus 2. The former is the oldest piece of the
New Testament known to be in existence, now residing in the
John Rylands Library in Manchester, England. Both of these
papyrus fragments have been dated to the first half of the second
century and contain portions of the Gospel of John. Allowing
time for the Gospel to circulate from its place of composition to
Egypt, it would appear that early in the second century, perhaps
about A.D. 110, is the latest date that one could reasonably sug-
gest for the Gospel of John.
Some scholars, such as John A. T. Robinson,24 have proposed
an early date (pre-A.D. 70) for the Gospel’s composition. One of
the main arguments, and perhaps the strongest, upon which this
is based is John’s statement in 5:2: “Now there is [e¡stin, estin;
present tense] in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool.” The impli
cation is that John was describing a pool still in existence at the
time of his writing. If this is the case, then Jerusalem had not, at
that point, been destroyed. However, as Westcott observed, “It is
quite natural that St John in recalling the event should speak of
the place as he knew it.”25 Further, it is reasonable to think that
at the time of writing the ruins of the pool were still visible or
had even been rebuilt. Again, it is commonly known that John
used the present tense in a “historic” sense, that is, to refer to
past events (see, for example, 10:8).
24
John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM Press,
1976), 254–311.
25
Westcott, 81.
24
INTRODUCTION
The general consensus among scholars is that the Gospel

was written in the last two decades of the first century, some-
time between A.D. 80 and A.D. 95. This conclusion is based on
the following observations:
(1) Early tradition supports the view that John lived to an old
age, even into the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98–117).26 Jerome said that
John died in the sixty-eighth year after Jesus’ death.27 Tradition
further notes that John was the last of the Gospel writers to com-
pose his work.28
(2) It is generally accepted that if John was acquainted with
the Synoptic Gospels, then his Gospel Account must have been
written later. Very little of its content is found in the other three
accounts. The characters of John’s Gospel who also appear in
the Synoptic Gospels are assumed to be familiar to John’s read-
ers. In contrast, Nicodemus, who is only mentioned in the Gos-
pel of John, is explicitly identified.
(3) Some scholars have found support for a later date by
appealing to the Gospel’s silence about some details. For exam-
ple, it is silent about the Sadducees, who would have been sig-
nificant during the ministry of Jesus, but whose significance was
much less after the destruction of the temple. Caution should
be exercised in attaching too much weight to this, since “John
is similarly silent on the scribes, whose influence increased after
AD 70.”29 The Gospel is also silent about the destruction of the
temple, an event that the apostle would almost certainly have
called attention to if he had written shortly after its destruction
in A.D. 70. On the other hand, if the Gospel was written later, the
temple’s destruction might have been simply taken for granted.
Again, one should not give too much weight to arguments based
on silence. However, such arguments, when coupled with other
considerations, seem to point to a later date.
Although establishing the date of John’s Gospel is difficult,
26
Irenaeus Against Heresies 2.22.5; 3.3.4; also cited in Eusebius Ecclesiasti
cal History 3.23.3.
27
Jerome On Illustrious Men 9.
28
Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1; Clement of Alexandria Hypotyposes, as
cited in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 6.14.7.
29
Carson, 84.
25
it seems clear that neither a date before or immediately after

A.D. 70 nor a date in the second century is warranted. After all
is considered, the weight of the evidence suggests a date in the
last two decades of the first century, between A.D. 80 and A.D. 95.
The traditional place from where the Gospel of John was
written is Ephesus. Near the end of the first century, evidence
seems to show that disciples in Asia requested John to write an
account of the life and teachings of Jesus. John had undoubtedly
proclaimed the contents of the Gospel orally, and the disciples
desired that this proclamation be preserved permanently. Some
find support for Ephesus based on the use of the Gospel by the
Montanists, who for the most part were based in Phrygia, which
is not that far from Ephesus. Others point to the role played by
John the Baptist in the Gospel. Questions concerning the baptism
of John were raised by disciples of John in Ephesus (Acts 19:1–
7), and these questions might not have been completely resolved
at the time of the composition of the Gospel. The strongest sup-
port for Ephesus is that found in the unanimous patristic testi-
mony.30 No other place was identified by the writers of antiquity.
Antioch is perhaps the most popular alternative as to the
origin of the Gospel. The writings of Ignatius of Antioch seem
to indicate literary dependence on John. Moreover, it has been
noted that the Odes of Solomon, believed to be from Syria, has
resemblances to the Gospel.
Alexandria or somewhere in Egypt has also been suggested
as the Gospel’s origin. It has already been noted that the earli-
est manuscript of John was found in Egypt. Alexandria was the
home of Philo, and his writings share some common interests
with John. Further, the Gnostics made use of John, and Egypt
was significant in the growth and development of Gnosticism.
It has been proposed that this is because of the existence of the
Gospel in Egypt.
The origin of John’s Gospel cannot be decided from the
text itself. The strength for Ephesus being its place of writing is
found to be consistent. Nothing in tradition supports the other
two suggestions. Consequently, in light of the testimony from
30
Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1; see Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3.1.1.
26
INTRODUCTION
the second and third centuries, Ephesus is the most reasonable

proposal for its origin.
PURPOSE AND READERS

As with other features of the Gospel, John’s purpose has been
greatly debated, yielding a variety of conclusions.
First, perhaps the earliest attempt to analyze John’s purpose was
that of Clement of Alexandria, who said that John wrote to supplement
the earlier Gospels. He wrote, “Last of all John, noticing that the
physical things had been set forth in the [other] Gospels, being
urged by his companions and inspired by the Spirit, wrote a
spiritual Gospel.”31 This raises the issue of the relationship of
the Gospel of John to the Synoptic Gospels. This view assumes
that John had the other Gospels before him and was not satisfied
with their content; accordingly, John supplemented them with
content of a different kind. It is difficult to establish on purely
literary grounds that John was dependent on one or more of
the Synoptic Gospels. It seems clear from the Gospel itself that
John expected his readers to be familiar with the other Gospel
Accounts. If this is the case, then the omission of Synoptic mate-
rial should not be surprising. John had his own purpose (20:31)
that determined what he decided to include and exclude in his
particular work.
Second, it has been maintained that John’s Gospel was written for
the purpose of superseding the Synoptic Gospels. Guthrie observed
that if this were the case, then “the gospel would give an incom-
plete and inadequate account of the ministry of Jesus. It needs the
synoptics to make it intelligible. . . .”32 By the time of the writing
of John’s Gospel, the other Gospels had been around for years,
and it is difficult to imagine that anyone would think that John
would have been written in order to replace any of the others.
Third, it has been argued that the Gospel was written as a polemic
against unbelieving Jews. Support for this may be found in how
the phrase “the Jews” is used throughout the Gospel. It appears
31
Clement of Alexandria Hypotyposes, as cited in Eusebius Ecclesiastical
History 6.14.7.
32
Guthrie, 286.
27
over sixty times in John, far more than in all the Synoptic Gos-
pels combined, and frequently denotes those who were hostile
to Jesus (see comments on 1:19). While there is some truth that
John was written as a polemic against the Jews, this appears to
be only one aspect of the Gospel and not the main interest.
Fourth, it has been maintained that one of the major aims of the Gos-
pel was to combat Docetism, a particular form of Gnosticism.33 Gnos-
ticism is a classification of sects and religions that focus on expe-
riential knowledge of the divine rather than relying on faith.
Gnosticism, as a movement, appeared in the second century. It
maintained that matter is evil and that one could possess a supe-
rior spiritual knowledge that was more important than faith.
Since it has been argued that the Gospel was written in the lat-
ter part of the first century, to say that John’s main purpose was
to write a polemic against Gnosticism seems to say too much.
However, it seems fair to say that John was responding to doce-
tic teaching. Docetism (from doke÷w [dokeō], “to seem”) was a
form of Gnosticism within early Christianity which advocated
that Jesus never really came in the flesh; He was not a flesh and
blood person, but only a phantom that appeared to His follow-
ers. Leon Morris said that it is clear that the docetic heresy did
not appear in the first century, “but certain elements that later
were to be embodied in this heresy seem to have been quite
early.”34 Although Docetism in its fullest form did not exist at
the time of John’s writing, he was confronted with those who
were of a docetic mindset. Throughout the Gospel, great empha-
sis is placed on the humanity of Jesus. For example, Jesus was
weary and thirsty (4:6, 7); He was deeply troubled and wept at
Lazarus’ grave (11:33–38); and, He had a real body that could be
scourged (19:1) and crucified (19:18). It can be easily seen how
John’s Gospel (and especially 1 John) proved useful in combat-
ing such heresy, but this does not mean that it was John’s main
purpose.
Fifth, it has been suggested that John was writing to correct mis
33
R. H. Strachan, The Fourth Gospel (London: Student Christian Movement
Press, 1941), 44–45.
34
Morris, 31.
28
INTRODUCTION
understandings concerning John the Baptist. Acts 19:1–7 makes it

clear that there were followers of John the Baptist in Ephesus who
had an imperfect understanding concerning the Christian faith.
Consequently, some like R. H. Strachan have maintained that at
least one of John’s aims was to counteract any loyalty to John
the Baptist that should have been given to Jesus.35 The Gospel
clearly demonstrates that John the Baptist had a subordinate
role to that of Jesus. John was sent by God as a witness to Jesus
(1:6–8). John said of himself that he was not worthy to untie the
thong of Jesus’ sandal (1:27). Again, John said, “He must increase,
but I must decrease” (3:30). Although Jesus granted the signifi-
cance of John’s testimony, He said that He had greater testimony
than that of John (5:33–40). While all of this must be admitted,
it seems evident that the same teachings relative to the role of
John the Baptist might be found in the Synoptic Gospels. Accord-
ingly, John may have been thinking about some of the follow-
ers of John the Baptist in the opening remarks of his Gospel, but
this is hardly grounds to decide that it was one of his primary
purposes in writing.
Sixth, some have thought that the Gospel was written to oppose
Christian teachers who put too much or too little emphasis on the rites
of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.36 The option the interpreter takes
depends on how much he thinks that John discusses or does
not discuss these rites. Some scholars contend that neither bap-
tism nor the Lord’s Supper is the focus of the Gospel. Anderson
observed, “If the only New Testament book we had were the
Gospel of John, there would be no biblical basis for the Christian
rites of baptism and communion.”37 On the other hand, Oscar
Cullmann said that it was his intention “to show how the Gos-
pel of John regards it as one of its chief concerns to set forth the
connexion between the contemporary Christian worship and
the historical life of Jesus.”38 It is argued in this commentary
that while baptism is indeed what Jesus was addressing when
35
Strachan, 109–10.
36
Morris, 32–33.
37
Anderson, 228.
38
Oscar Cullmann, Early Christian Worship (London: SCM Press, 1953), 37.
29
He discussed the new birth in John 3 (see comments on 3:5), the

Lord’s Supper proper is not the subject of discussion in John 6
(see comments on 6:51–58). Obviously, the Gospel would correct
any wrong teachings concerning either rite if indeed there were
such teachings, but to claim that this is the main purpose of the
Gospel clearly goes beyond the evidence found in the Gospel.
Seventh, some see the Gospel’s purpose to present its message in a
Hellenistic way to the Gentile world. To accomplish this purpose,
the life and teachings of Jesus are explained in religious terms
understandable to the Greek mind. The classic representative of
this view is C. H. Dodd, who maintained that the Gospel must
be interpreted against a Hellenistic background.39 Supporting
evidence is allegedly found in the Prologue with its emphasis
on the Logos, a concept that would be familiar among certain
Greeks, and in John’s habit of explaining certain Jewish terms
like “rabbi” (1:38). Moreover, the “other sheep” (10:16) as well
as those “who are scattered abroad” (11:52) refer to Gentiles.
In 12:20, John refers to Gentiles by birth who spoke the Greek
language. However, that the Gospel is more Jewish than earlier
thought is supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls. These discoveries
appear to indicate that terms, which were earlier thought to be
of Greek origin, were in fact Jewish at the time the Gospel was
composed. Consequently, in spite of John’s appeal to Gentiles in
the Gospel, it seems evident throughout that the predominant
background is Jewish.
Finally, the Gospel was written to produce faith in Jesus. To under-
stand John’s purpose, one should give careful attention to what
John himself said:
Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in

the presence of the disciples, which are not written in
this book; but 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 (20:30, 31).
39
C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Univer-
sity Press, 1953), 9.
30
INTRODUCTION
This statement of purpose is the clearest in all the Gospels and

perhaps anywhere in the Scriptures.
In spite of the statement’s clarity, there is a textual ques-
tion as to whether the emphasis is on continuing in faith or com
ing to faith. The form of the verb “believe” (pisteu÷w, pisteuō) in
verse 31 could be read as a present or an aorist subjunctive (see
comments on 20:30, 31). As a present, it seems that John’s empha-
sis would be to encourage people to continue in faith. As an aor-
ist, it would appear that his emphasis would be to encourage
people to come to faith. Although the manuscript evidence favors
the aorist, the correct view cannot be determined on the basis of
the textual variant.
That the primary aim of John’s Gospel was evangelistic seems
clear on the basis of the first purpose clause of 20:31: “that you
may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” It appears
obvious that believers would already know that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God. The title “Christ” refers to the Messiah
and means “Anointed One”; it would have its fullest signifi-
cance for the Jewish people. Only in the Gospel of John is the title
“Messiah” to be found in its transliterated form (see 1:41; 4:25).
W. C. van Unnik argued that Paul’s preaching in the synagogues
of the Dispersion was the same as John’s, presenting Jesus as the
Christ.40 Harrison has said, “This suggests that the Fourth Gos-
pel was primarily directed toward the Jews of the Dispersion,
and indeed it manifests a strong interest in those outside the land
(7:35; 10:16; 11:52).”41 John may have been writing, then, with a
particular purpose of evangelizing Jews of the Dispersion and
Jewish proselytes.
The background in which the Gospel of John was written
was considerably different than the one in which the recorded
events took place. By the time the book was written, Christians
had begun to spread out beyond their home environment. With
the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, many Jews followed a
40
W. C. van Unnik, “The Purpose of St. John’s Gospel,” in Studia Evangelica,
vol. 1, ed. Kurt Aland, F. L. Cross, Jean Danielou, Harald Riesenfeld, and W. C.
van Unnik (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1959), 395–411.
41
Harrison, 226.
31
path that had been trod before them by other Jews. Ever since the
Babylonian exile, many Jews had been living outside of Palestine
among the Greek populations. By the middle of the first cen-
tury, more Jews were probably living outside of their homeland
than were actually living in it. This extensive diffusion of the
Jewish population throughout the Roman Empire is called the
“Diaspora.” The Diaspora environment brought about unique
challenges for Jewish communities. Without their temple, the
Jews faced the challenge of functioning without a sacrificial sys-
tem, including the priesthood. Andreas J. Köstenberger observed
that the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 was “a traumatic
event that left Judaism in a national and religious void and caused
Jews to look for ways to continue their ritual and worship.”42 It
was against this background that John seized the opportunity to
appeal to Diaspora Jews and Jewish proselytes to turn to Jesus,
the new localization of God’s presence on earth. Jesus became
the replacement for the temple and all that it meant for Jewish
life and worship (see comments on 2:21, 22). Robinson said that
John’s “overmastering concern is that ‘the great refusal’ made by
his countrymen at home should not be repeated by those other
sheep of God’s flock among whom he has now found refuge.”43
If what has been argued is correct, a few points of clarification
should be made. (1) “This does not mean that John’s Gospel was
an evangelistic document written directly to unbelievers.”44 John
probably wrote his Gospel to enable believers to proclaim the
message that J esus is the Christ, the Son of God, to the unbelievers
among whom they lived. (2) Also, it does not mean that John’s
Gospel was limited to Diaspora Jews and proselytes. To be sure,
“salvation is from the Jews” (4:22); but it then must proceed to
the Gentiles (see 10:16). The Father gave His Son “that whoever
believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (3:16; see
Rom. 1:16). (3) Further, it does not mean that the Gospel has no
42
Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004), 8.
43
John A. T. Robinson, Twelve New Testament Studies, Studies in Biblical
Theology, 34 (London: SCM Press, 1962), 125.
44
Andreas J. Köstenberger, Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Liter
ary, and Theological Perspective (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1999), 28.
32
INTRODUCTION
relevance for Christians today. The emphasis of John, especially

chapters 1 through 12, generally seems to be on encouraging
people to come to faith, while chapters 13 through 21 seem to
emphasize encouraging people to continue in faith. The Gospel
of John is about faith, fulfilling two thrusts: evangelizing and edi-
fying. John wanted people to come to believe in J esus and then
to understand what it means to abide in Him.
OUTLINES
Various outlines of the Gospel of John have been suggested.
Walter M. Dunnett gave emphasis to the theme of Jesus as the
Son of God in the following outline:45
I. Prologue: The Presentation of the Son of God (1:1–18)

II. The Public Ministry of the Son of God (1:19—12:50)
A. Confronting Individuals (1:19—4:54)
B. Confronting the Multitudes (5:1—6:71)
C. Conflicting with the Multitudes (7:1—11:53)
D. Climaxing the Public Ministry (11:54—12:50)
III. The Private Ministry of the Son of God (13:1—17:26)
A. The Last Supper (13:1–30)
B. The Final Discourse (13:31—16:33)
C. The High Priestly Prayer (17:1–26)
IV. The Passion Ministry of the Son of God (18:1—20:31)
A. The Betrayal and Trials (18:1—19:16)
B. The Crucifixion and Burial (19:17–42)
C. The Resurrection (20:1–31)
V. Postscript: The Final Appeal of the Son of God (21:1–25)
Similar to Dunnett’s outline, Dan Winkler suggested four

unique components of John’s Gospel, each of which is signified
by a single word of interest:46
45
Walter M. Dunnett, Exploring the New Testament (Wheaton, Ill.: Cross-
way Books, 2001), 27.
46
Dan Winkler, “Preaching the New Testament—John: The Way,” Freed-
Hardeman University Lectures (2008): 265–78.
33
I. The Prologue (1): Jesus Is “Special”

II. Jesus’ Public Ministry (2—12): Jesus Is “Spectacular”
III. Jesus’ Private Ministry (13—17): Jesus Is “Sentimental”
IV. Jesus’ Passion (18—21): Jesus Is Our “Savior”
Raymond E. Brown proposed an outline of John that he
thought was suggested by the Gospel itself:47
I. The Prologue (1:1–18)
II. The Book of Signs (1:19—12:50)
III. The Book of Glory (13:1—20:31)
IV. The Epilogue (21:1–25)
Brown’s outline has much to commend it.48 The Prologue serves
as an overture to the entire Gospel narrative. The first main divi-
sion of the body of the Gospel is “The Book of Signs,” while the
second main division is “The Book of Glory,” each of which has
notable differences. (1) The former is addressed to a wide audi-
ence, provoking some to believe and others not to believe. The
latter is restricted to a select audience who already had come to
believe. (2) “The Book of Signs” largely concerns the miracles of
Jesus, always designated by John as “signs,” and the discourses,
which interpret the signs. In contrast, the word “sign” occurs
in the second main division only in the summary statement of
20:30. “The Book of Glory” describes what happened from the
Last Supper to Jesus’ appearance to His disciples after the resur
rection, emphasizing the theme of Jesus’ return to the Father (13:1;
14:2, 28; 15:26; 16:7, 28; 17:5, 11; 20:17). Jesus’ return means the
glorification of Jesus—that is, “the hour” of His passion, crucifix-
ion, resurrection, and ascension where Jesus is lifted up to enjoy
the glory He had with the Father before the world existed (17:5).
(3) Jesus’ career is portrayed in the two books like the arc of a
47
Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i–xii), The Anchor Bible,
vol. 29 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1966), cxxxviii. In 1953, Dodd made
a similar division using the phrases “The Book of Signs” and “The Book of the
Passion” (Dodd, 297, 390). Since Brown (1966), many commentators have fol-
lowed his lead using his same designations.
48
The following observations are from Brown, cxxxviii–cxxxix, and
Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (xiii–xxi), The Anchor Bible,
vol. 29A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1970), 541–42.
34
INTRODUCTION
pendulum that swings from high to low and then high again. In
“The Book of Signs,” Jesus is the One who has come down from
heaven (3:13), but He is rejected by those who prefer darkness
over light (3:19). His career reaches its lowest depth when He
is rejected by His own people (12:37). In “The Book of Glory,”
Jesus is lifted up on the cross that will draw all men to Him (see
12:32), and His elevation continues in His resurrection and His
ascension (20:17). “The Book of Signs,” the first half of the arc
of a pendulum, describes the downswing of Jesus’ career, while
“The Book of Glory,” the second half of the arc of a pendulum,
describes the upswing.
The outline used in this commentary is consistent with the
purpose of John that people “may believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name”
(20:31). Accordingly, each chapter in the Gospel has been assigned
a title that focuses on Jesus in some significant way:
I. Jesus, the Word Made Flesh

II. Jesus, the Final Authority
III. Jesus, the Master Teacher
IV. Jesus, the Giver of Living Water
V. Jesus, the Great Physician
VI. Jesus, the Bread of Life
VII. Jesus, the Water of Life
VIII. Jesus, the Light of the World
IX. Jesus, the Giver of True Sight
X. Jesus, the Good Shepherd
XI. Jesus, the Resurrection and the Life
XII. Jesus, the King of Israel
XIII. Jesus, the Lowly Servant
XIV. Jesus, the Comforter
XV. Jesus, the True Vine
XVI. Jesus, the Sender of the Spirit
XVII. Jesus, the Intercessor
XVIII. Jesus, the Composed One
XIX. Jesus, the Uplifted Savior
XX. Jesus, the Victor over Death
XXI. Jesus, the Restorer
35
THE EXPANDED OUTLINE
The Expanded Outline

John 1—12
I. JESUS, THE WORD MADE FLESH

A. The Prologue of John (1:1–18)
1. The Word and God (1:1, 2)
2. The Word and creation (1:3–5)
3. The Word and John the Baptist (1:6–8)
4. The Word incarnate (1:9–14)
5. The Word’s uniqueness (1:15–18)
B. The Beginning of Jesus’ Ministry (1:19–51)
1. The witness of John the Baptist (1:19–36)
a. John’s witness to the Pharisees (1:19–28)
b. John’s witness to the crowds (1:29–34)
c. John’s witness to the two disciples (1:35, 36)
2. The response of some disciples (1:37–51)
a. Andrew and Peter (1:37–42)
b. Philip and Nathanael (1:43–51)
II. JESUS, THE FINAL AUTHORITY

A. Jesus’ Changing Water to Wine (2:1–11)
1. The setting of the sign (2:1–5)
2. The performance of the sign (2:6–10)
3. The effect of the sign (2:11)
B. Jesus’ Cleansing of the Temple (2:12–25)
1. The setting (2:12, 13)
2. The cleansing (2:14–17)
3. The response (2:18–22)
4. The general effect (2:23–25)
37
III. JESUS, THE MASTER TEACHER

A. Jesus and Nicodemus (3:1–21)
1. The necessity of the new birth (3:1–3)
2. The nature of the new birth (3:4–12)
3. The basis of the new birth (3:13–18)
4. The rejection of the new birth (3:19–21)
B. Further Testimony of John the Baptist (3:22–36)
1. The setting (3:22–26)
2. John’s testimony about himself (3:27–30)
3. Testimony about Christ (3:31–36)
IV. JESUS, THE GIVER OF LIVING WATER

A. Jesus’ Encounter with a Woman of Samaria (4:1–42)
1. The background (4:1–3)
2. The setting (4:4–6)
3. Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman
(4:7–26)
a. Living water (4:7–14)
b. The woman’s need (4:15–18)
c. True worship (4:19–26)
4. The effects of the encounter (4:27–42)
a. The effect on the woman (4:27–30)
b. The effect on the disciples (4:31–38)
c. The effect on the Samaritans (4:39–42)
B. The Healing of the Royal Official’s Son (4:43–54)
1. Jesus’ return to Galilee (4:43–45)
V. JESUS, THE GREAT PHYSICIAN

A. The Healing of the Lame Man (5:1–16)
2. The performance of the sign (5:5–9a)
3. Opposition from the Jews (5:9b–16)
B. Jesus’ Response to the Opposition (5:17–47)
1. The Son and the Father (5:17–23)
2. The Son and men (5:24–29)
3. The witnesses to Jesus (5:30–47)
a. The witness of Jesus Himself (5:30–32)
38
THE EXPANDED OUTLINE
b. The witness of John the Baptist (5:33–35)

c. The witness of Jesus’ works (5:36)
d. The witness of the Father (5:37, 38)
e. The witness of the Scriptures (5:39–47)
VI. JESUS, THE BREAD OF LIFE

A. The Feeding of the Five Thousand (6:1–15)
B. Walking on the Water (6:16–21)
C. Discourse on the Bread of Life (6:22–59)
1. The setting of the discourse (6:22–26)
2. The true manna (6:27–34)
3. The Bread of Life (6:35–47)
4. Eating the flesh of the Son of Man (6:48–59)
D. The Disciples’ Reaction to Jesus’ Discourse (6:60–71)
VII. JESUS, THE WATER OF LIFE

A. Going to the Feast (7:1–13)
1. Jesus and His brothers (7:1–9)
2. The arrival of Jesus at the feast (7:10–13)
B. Teaching at the Feast (7:14–31)
1. Jesus’ credentials (7:14–24)
2. Jesus’ messianic claims (7:25–31)
C. Reaction to the Teaching at the Feast (7:32–52)
1. The Pharisees’ attempt to arrest Jesus (7:32–36)
2. Jesus’ appeal at the end of the feast (7:37–39)
3. The people’s estimations of Jesus (7:40–52)
III. JESUS, THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD

V
A. The Woman Taken in Adultery (7:53—8:11)
1. The accusation (7:53—8:6a)
2. The response and results (8:6b–11)
B. The Light of the World (8:12–59)
1. The authority of Jesus (8:12–20)
2. The origin of Jesus’ authority (8:21–30)
3. “Abraham, our earthly father” (8:31–47)
4. “God, our heavenly Father” (8:48–59)
39
IX. JESUS, THE GIVER OF TRUE SIGHT

A. The Healing of a Man Born Blind (9:1–12)
B. The Pharisees’ Interrogations (9:13–34)
1. First interrogation of the healed man (9:13–17)
2. Interrogation of the man’s parents (9:18–23)
3. Second interrogation of the healed man (9:24–34)
C. The Healed Man’s Confession of Faith (9:35–38)
D. Jesus’ Condemnation of the Pharisees (9:39–41)
X. JESUS, THE GOOD SHEPHERD

A. The Allegory of the Good Shepherd (10:1–21)
1. The allegory (10:1–6)
2. The application of the allegory (10:7–18)
3. The reaction of the Jews (10:19–21)
B. Jesus at the Feast of Dedication (10:22–42)
1. Jesus, the Messiah (10:22–30)
2. Jesus, the Son of God (10:31–39)
3. Jesus’ retreat beyond the Jordan (10:40–42)
XI. JESUS, THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE

A. The Raising of Lazarus (11:1–44)
1. The death of Lazarus (11:1–16)
2. Jesus and Martha (11:17–27)
3. Jesus and Mary (11:28–32)
4. Jesus’ anger and grief (11:33–37)
5. The raising of Lazarus (11:38–44)
B. The Effect of the Raising of Lazarus (11:45–57)
XII. JESUS, THE KING OF ISRAEL

A. The Anointing at Bethany (12:1–11)
B. The Triumphal Entry (12:12–19)
C. The Request of the Greeks (12:20–36)
D. John’s Theological Explanation of Unbelief (12:37–43)
E. Jesus’ Final Plea for Faith (12:44–50)
40
JOHN 1
Chapter 1
Jesus, the Word Made Flesh
THE PROLOGUE OF JOHN

(1:1–18)
The first eighteen verses of the Gospel of John constitute
what has been commonly called the “Prologue.” Some have
thought that this section of Scripture was originally separate
from the rest of the book. Raymond E. Brown identified it as
“an early Christian hymn . . . adapted to serve as an overture to
the Gospel narrative. . . .”1 Although some see no real connec-
tion between the Prologue and the rest of the Gospel of John, it
is more likely that it was written for this exact place in the text
and was designed to introduce the Gospel itself. Support for this
lies in the p
arallels between the Prologue and the remainder of
the Gospel, such as the following:2
Parallel Language Prologue Rest of John

the pre-existence of the Word/Son 1:1, 2 17:5
in Him was life 1:4 5:26
the life was the Light 1:4 8:12
the Light was not overcome by darkness 1:5 12:35
the Light coming into the world 1:9 3:19; 12:46
Jesus not received by His own 1:11 4:44
1
Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i–xii), The Anchor Bible,
vol. 29 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1966), 1.
2
Adapted from John A. T. Robinson, Twelve More New Testament Studies
(London: SCM Press, 1984), 68. The narrative connections with John the Bap-
tist have been excluded.
41
Parallel Language Prologue Rest of John

being born of God and not of the flesh 1:13 3:6; 8:41, 42
seeing His glory 1:14 12:41
the only begotten Son 1:14, 18 3:16
grace and truth realized through
Jesus Christ 1:14, 17 14:6
no one has seen God, except the One
who is from God 1:18 6:46
The Prologue is not just a preface to the book, such as that

penned by Luke for his Gospel Account (Lk. 1:1–4). As an over-
ture stimulates one’s interest in the program to follow, so the Pro-
logue prepares the readers for the grand themes to follow. In the
first eighteen verses, the themes presented throughout the Gos-
pel include John’s emphasis on “life” and “light” (1:4, 5, 7–9);
“witness” (1:7; see 1:15); the “world” (1:10); and “glory,” “grace,”
and “truth” (1:14, 17). C. H. Dodd wrote that the Prologue is a
“skeleton outline . . . to be filled in with concrete detail out of
the gospel as a whole.”3
If the Prologue serves as a kind of introduction or outline of
the remainder of the narrative, it is important to assess its cen-
tral theme. Some have thought that the emphasis of the Pro-
logue is that “the Word became flesh” (1:14). The expression
“the Word,” though it is used only four times in the Prologue
(three times in 1:1) and is not repeated elsewhere in the Gospel,
is a central thought in John. It may be that the Prologue is not as
much about the Word’s becoming flesh as it is about humanity’s
response to the Word. Several scholars have called attention to
this and cited the chiastic literary analysis of R. Alan C
ulpepper.4
A chiasm is a particular writing style that uses a repetitious
pattern for emphasis. If one examines the beginning and the end
of the Prologue and continues toward the middle, certain par-
allels become evident. This arrangement makes 1:12b (“to them
He gave the right to become children of God”) the pivotal point
on which the chiasm turns.
3
C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Univer-
sity Press, 1953), 285.
4
R. Alan Culpepper, “The Pivot of John’s Prologue,” New Testament
Studies 27 (October 1980): 1–31.
42
JOHN 1
A1: the Word was with God in the beginning (1:1, 2)

B1: creation came through the Word (1:3)
C1: life received from the Word (1:4, 5)
D1: John testified to the Light (1:6–8)
E1: the Light came into the world (1:9, 10)
F1: His own did not receive Him (1:11)
G1: those who received Him (1:12a)
H: to them He gave the right to become children
of God (1:12b)
G2: those who believe in Him (1:12c)
F2: those who were born of God (1:13)
E2: the Word became flesh, revealing glory (1:14)
D2: John testified about the Christ (1:15)
C2: grace received from the Christ (1:16)
B2: grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (1:17)
A2: the Word, who is with God, has explained Him (1:18)5
Such an examination reveals the thrust of the Prologue to be

humanity’s response of faith to Jesus, the Word who became
flesh. Accordingly, what John declared about the Word through-
out his narrative demonstrates that the Word became flesh in
order that people might become children of God. This is consis-
tent with John’s purpose statement that the things he wrote were
“so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;
and that believing you may have life in His name” (20:31). There-
fore, the Prologue is not just about the Word’s becoming flesh
or just about humanity’s response, but rather about the Word’s
becoming flesh in order that humanity might respond in faith
and consequently have life.
Although the structure of the Prologue will continue to be
disputed, for the purposes of this commentary it is divided
into five sections. Each emphasizes some aspect of the Word:
the Word and God (1:1, 2), the Word and Creation (1:3–5), the
Word and John the Baptist (1:6–8), the Word Incarnate (1:9–14),
and the Word’s Uniqueness (1:15–18). These sections embody
the substance of the entire Gospel and are developed through-
out the remainder of the Gospel. Unlike the synoptic writers,
John used an approach that was strictly theological, not bio-
Adapted from Culpepper, 16.

5
43
graphical or historical. John was accurate in both biographical

as well as historical details, but his purpose was not so much to
write a chronicle as an interpretation. He presented Jesus as the
Word who became flesh, a historical figure; and he provided
overwhelming evidence that this figure is, in fact, the Christ,
the Son of God. John’s evidence was convincing to him and to
others of his day, and it has been preserved for generations since
that time.
The Word and God (1:1, 2)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
1
God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with
God.
Verse 1. John began by discussing the relationship of the

Word and Deity, including the eternality, personality, and nature
of the Word. So much has been said about the term “Word”
(lo/goß, Logos) that it seems almost unnecessary to elaborate
on it; however, some general remarks should be made. Logos
appears four times in the Prologue (1:1, 14). Whether John’s use
of Logos came from a Greek, Jewish, or some other background
is unknown. It is equally difficult to determine exactly what John
meant by the term. For the Greeks, it would denote the whole
realm of thought, the abstract rational principle lying behind the
universe. Leon Morris noted that John’s use of Logos would have
been widely recognized by the Greeks and that, though the aver-
age person would not know its full significance, he would know
that it referred to “something supremely great in the universe.”6
Even so, John’s Gospel does not appear to reflect a Greek back-
ground for at least two reasons. (1) The Greeks thought of the
gods as being detached from the world and rather indifferent to
the state of human existence. (2) One cannot overlook that 1:1
immediately calls attention to Genesis 1:1 (“In the beginning”),
6
Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, rev. ed., The New International
Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1995), 103.
44
JOHN 1
while the idea of “the Word” calls attention to the repeated state-
ment “Then God said” in Genesis 1. Also, like Moses, John used
words like “life,” “light,” and “darkness.” In the Jewish mind, the
Word focused on a person, not some abstract impersonal force.
The Word is an effective agent to accomplish God’s will (see Ps.
33:6), perhaps “a description of Jesus from the [Old Testament]
designating Him as the divine and ultimate Revealer of God’s
wisdom and power.”7 Much as one’s words reveal his heart and
mind, Jesus revealed and explained God (see 1:18). Whatever
one’s view of the background of the term may be, John was mak-
ing a claim that Jews and Greeks would equally understand. He
chose a term that was in common use; but he used it to refer to
a divine being who is the expression of God’s will, the creative
and sustaining power of the universe (see Col. 1:15–17).
First, John focused on the eternality of the Word, or the Logos:
In the beginning. While the Gospel of Mark begins with the bap-
tism of J esus and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke begin with
the birth of J esus, John’s Gospel takes the reader back to the eter-
nal purpose of God. The introductory phrase appears to be an
allusion to the first book of the Hebrew Bible, Genesis, named for
its opening words, “In the beginning.” Whereas Genesis begins
with the creation, John’s Gospel begins before the creation. The
Word was before all else. The importance of “in the beginning”
can be seen when contrasted with John’s “from the beginning”
in 1 John 1:1. The latter draws attention to that which took place
from the beginning on; John 1:1 declares that in the beginning
the Word was already there.
The timeless existence of the Word is underscored by the verb
was (h™n, ēn). It is the imperfect of eijmi÷ (eimi), which means “to
be.” In this context, the language refers to an eternal, unchanging
being. It is significant that h™n (ēn) was used, implying eternal exis-
tence, rather than ejge÷neto (egeneto), meaning “to come into exis-
tence” (see 1:3, 6, 14). Verse 6 says, “There came [egeneto] a man
sent from God, whose name was John.” John the Baptist “came”
7
Cleon L. Rogers, Jr., and Cleon L. Rogers III, The New Linguistic and Exe
getical Key to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub-
lishing House, 1998), 175.
45
into being, but the Word “was” in the sense of eternally exist-
ing. B. F. Westcott summed it up this way: “. . . St John lifts our
thoughts beyond the beginning and dwells on that which ‘was’
when time, and with time finite being, began its course.”8 John
showed that the Word has existed from all eternity and refuted
the idea that Jesus was a created being (a false teaching held by
the ancient Arians as well as some modern-day groups9).
Second, John emphasized the personality of the Word: The
Word was with God. The Greek preposition pro÷ ß (pros, “with”)
can suggest either the translation “with God,” indicating accom-
paniment, or the translation “towards God,” showing relation-
ship. These concepts are so important that John repeated the
expression in 1:2. The Word existed in the beginning, and He
existed in the closest possible association with the Father. The
preposition pros is used in such passages as Mark 6:3, where
some asked in astonishment, “Are not His sisters here with us?”
(emphasis added). Merrill C. Tenney observed that the preposi-
tion “implies association in the sense of free mingling with the
others of a community on terms of equality.”10 The Logos and God
do not just exist side by side, but are in constant fellowship with
one another. This shows a differentiation between the two and
refutes any idea that would suggest that the Logos and God are
identical (a false teaching promoted by ancient Sabellians and
some present-day groups11).
Third, John discussed the personal nature of the Word: The
8
B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (Cambridge: University
Press, 1881; reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1950), 2.
9
Arius (early fourth century) taught that Jesus and the Father do not have
an identity of essence and that J esus was a created being. This teaching is advo-
cated today by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
10
Merrill C. Tenney, John: The Gospel of Belief (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 64.
11
Sabellius (third century) taught that the Godhead is not made up of a plu-
rality of Persons, but only one—Jesus, who manifested Himself as the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit. This teaching is currently promulgated by the United
Pentecostals. For a discussion of the Godhead and the teachings of the United
Pentecostal Church, see David Lipe and Billy Lewis, The Lipe-Lewis Debate on
Pentecostalism (Winona, Miss.: J. C. Choate Publications, 1984).
46
JOHN 1
Word was God. In this clause, the Greek word for “God” (qeo÷ß,
Theos) is employed without the article, unlike the second clause
in which the article is used. John apparently excluded the article
here in order to avoid making “the Word” and “God” identical.
Without the article, the emphasis is on quality, indicating God as
a kind of being—namely, One possessed with the very essence
of Deity.12 Thus, the clause identifies the Word as being fully
God,13 without identifying Him as God the Father (see 1:14, 18).
To render the clause as “the Word was a god,” as does the New
World Translation (NWT),14 is to deny the eternity of the Word. This
translation is theologically biased, and authentic scholarship to
support this idea is lacking. The translators allege that this should
be the rendering of the clause because there is no article before
Theos. However, the translators of the NWT depart from their
arbitrary rule in the same context, where Theos without the arti-
cle is translated “God” with a capital letter “G” (see 1:6, 12, 13, 18;
NWT).
In A New Translation of the Bible, James Moffatt rendered the
clause as “the Logos was divine,” yet this seems too weak. If John
had wanted to say “divine,” he could have used the adjective
qei√oß (theios); but it would not have captured his meaning here.
Even Christians “may become partakers of the divine nature”
(2 Pet. 1:4). John did not just say there is something divine about
the Word; he affirmed that the Word (Jesus) is God in His very
nature. The NEB captures the true significance of this Word when
it says, “What God was, the Word was.”
Verse 2. He was in the beginning with God. While this verse
does not add to the content of verse 1, it repeats the points about
the eternality of the Word and the close relationship the Word
has with the Father. The repetition of these thoughts emphasizes
the great importance of the Word.
12
For further study, see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 266–69.
13
See 1:18; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 Jn. 5:20.
14
New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, rev. ed. (Brooklyn,
N.Y.: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1951), 773–75. This is a translation
issued by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
47
The Word and Creation (1:3–5)
3
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him
nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was
life, and the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines in the
darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
Verse 3. Having established the relationship of the Word

and Deity, John next discussed the relationship of the Word and
creation. If the Logos is the revealer of God’s wisdom and power,
it seems only natural that John would discuss the relationship
of the Logos to the creation. John’s discussion of the creation is
found in three verses which make two distinctive points about
the creation in general and the creation of life in particular.
First, concerning the creation in general, John said, All things
came into being through Him. Everything came into being and
owes its very existence to the Word (see 1:10b). The verb trans-
lated “came into being” (ejge÷neto, egeneto) is aorist in tense and
indicates that the creative activity was a single event (not a
process), in contrast to the continuous existence of the Word in
1:1, 2. All things came into being “through” (dia÷ , dia) Him, not
“by” Him. The use of “through” instead of “by” ensures the truth
that the Father is the source of all things, while the Word func-
tioned as the agent in creation (see 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2).
Both the Father and the Word were at work in the creation, but
the Father created through the agency of the Word.
It is characteristic of John to emphasize a particular concept
by making a claim in the affirmative, followed immediately by
the same claim stated in the negative. Therefore, after affirming
that all things were made through Him, he made it clear that
without the Word not one thing was made: Apart from Him
nothing came into being that has come into being.
Verse 4. Second, John discussed the key element in creation,
namely, the creation of life (zwh/, zōē). The Greek word translated
“life” is used thirty-six times in the Gospel of John, while there
are over 130 occurrences in the entire New Testament. Therefore,
about a quarter of all the references to life are found in John’s
Gospel. Frequently, “life” in the Gospel refers to eternal life, with
48
JOHN 1
the word “eternal” (ai˙wn¿ ioß, aiōnios) being used seventeen times
in John. (Matthew is next in frequency, using the word six times.)
In this context, “life” should be understood in an all-inclusive
sense of the term. Life is in the Logos. The Logos has the right and
the power to give “life,” to make alive (see 5:21). Without the
Logos, there would be no life. Life does not exist by its own right,
but owes its existence to the Word. A characteristic of John is the
use of words with double meanings, and this is probably the
case with “life.” While the term “life” can be applied to creatures
found throughout the earth, it also encompasses that which is
found in the spiritual realm. For this reason, the NIV speaks of
the Word as “that life.” John regularly associates the Word with
life (see, for example, 3:16; 10:10).
Not only is the Word the embodiment and the source of life,
but He is also the source of light: The life was the Light of men
(“that life was the light of all mankind”; NIV). The Word which
is life Himself is also the one true “Light of men.” Just as the first
result of God’s creative activity was light (Gen. 1:3), all the light
mankind has is a result of the Word.
Verse 5. Beginning in this verse, John discussed the ways
in which the Word is manifested. Having established that the
Word is Light, John pointed out that the Light shines in the
darkness. It is the essential action of light (fw◊ß, phōs) to shine in
the darkness, to dispel darkness. Up to this point, the text has
been in the past tense; but now it c hanges to the present, saying
that “the Light shines.” The Word, the Light of the world, con-
tinuously shines. The Light never ceases to shine in “the dark-
ness,” which refers to the evil environment over which the devil
reigns.
The NASB translates the next clause as the darkness did not
comprehend it. The NIV margin has “understood.” While one
definition of katalamba÷ nw (katalambanō) is “to understand,” that
is not the idea here. The word can also mean “to seize” or “to
overcome.” Other versions more accurately render it as “over-
come” (NIV; NRSV) or “overpower” (NJB; NCV) in 1:5 (see 12:35).
Therefore, the Light is shining in an evil environment, and such
an environment is unable to overcome it. The resistance of the
Light to the darkness and the inability of the darkness to over-
49
come the Light is a vital theme in John.
The Word and John the Baptist

(1:6–8)
6
There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7
He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all
might believe through him. 8He was not the Light, but he came
to testify about the Light.
Verse 6. The Light shines in a world of darkness, the sad

spiritual state that was the setting in which John the Baptist
came on the scene. John, the author of the Gospel, never wrote
the designation “John the Baptist,” perhaps thinking that no
other John could be confused with him.15 The author made
distinctions between other persons. For example, “Judas (not
Iscariot)” distinguishes the man in 14:22 from Jesus’ betrayer;
but no other John besides John the Baptist is prominent in the
book. It has been traditionally thought that the lack of focus on
any other John in the Gospel supports the view that John the
son of Zebedee authored the Gospel. John the Baptist is one of
the most important persons in the New Testament, being men-
tioned by name about ninety times. John 1:6–8 makes three points
about this great man, in regard to his person, his work, and his
position.
Concerning his person, John was a man sent from God.
He was “sent” as an authoritative and personal representative
of God, just like Moses (Ex. 3:10–15), the prophets (Is. 6:8; Jer.
7:25; 26:5; 35:15), and even Jesus Himself (3:17). Unlike Christ,
who was both God and man, John was a mere “man”—a human
being, rather than any other kind of being. Jesus is the eternal
Word who became flesh, while John was merely flesh. John’s
limitation of the flesh is also noted by the word came. This points
to a definite moment in time, in contrast to the Word, who for-
ever “was,” indicating timeless existence (1:1, 2). “Came” is from
15
The identification “John the Baptist” is used in each Synoptic Gospel (see
Mt. 3:1; 11:11, 12; Mk. 1:4; 6:14; Lk. 7:20, 33).
50

Ntroduction: of Job, "Letter To Leander" 4)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ntroduction: of Job, "Letter To Leander" 4)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTRODUCTION

The Gospel According to John has been described as a pool

strated. He noted some challenges in John under three differ-

Paul N. Anderson, The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John

(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 4–5.

out certain hermeneutical presuppositions. It should be acknowl-

Use of the Old Testament

unmistakable references to the Old Testament in John directly

It is clear from these kinds of considerations that the Old Testa-

Teaching on the Holy Spirit

Unique Presentation of Jesus

and talking with others (2:1–11). At Jacob’s well, He was worn

Unique Presentation of Jesus’ Work

RELATION TO THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

with simple conjunctions and are not made to be subordinate.

tance of rabbinic schools (7:15), and the Pharisees’ contempt for

of Samaria . . . near the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his

the New Testa­ment. No other John besides this one is named in

Objections to the Internal Evidence and Replies

Spirit, wrote a spiritual Gospel.”11

Objections to the External Evidence and Replies

of scholars to accept the validity of the evidence of Irenaeus is

If anyone came who had followed the elders, I inquired into

Papias’ statement is far from clear and open to interpretation.

designated as an “apostle” and the other as “the elder John.”17

It is possible that the same person is intended in both

If it is objected that John is called “the elder” in the second group,

Spirit.22 Their opposition was probably not so much because of

DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING

The general consensus among scholars is that the Gospel

it seems clear that neither a date before or immediately after

the second and third centuries, Ephesus is the most reasonable

PURPOSE AND READERS

understandings concerning John the Baptist. Acts 19:1–7 makes it

He discussed the new birth in John 3 (see comments on 3:5), the

Therefore many other signs ­Jesus also performed in

This statement of purpose is the clearest in all the Gospels and

relevance for Christians today. The emphasis of John, especially

I. Prologue: The Presentation of the Son of God (1:1–18)

Similar to Dunnett’s outline, Dan Winkler suggested four

I. The Prologue (1): Jesus Is “Special”

I. Jesus, the Word Made Flesh

The Expanded Outline

I. JESUS, THE WORD MADE FLESH

II. JESUS, THE FINAL AUTHORITY

III. JESUS, THE MASTER TEACHER

IV. JESUS, THE GIVER OF LIVING WATER

V. JESUS, THE GREAT PHYSICIAN

b. The witness of John the Baptist (5:33–35)

VI. JESUS, THE BREAD OF LIFE

VII. JESUS, THE WATER OF LIFE

III. JESUS, THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD

IX. JESUS, THE GIVER OF TRUE SIGHT

X. JESUS, THE GOOD SHEPHERD

XI. JESUS, THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE

XII. JESUS, THE KING OF ISRAEL

THE PROLOGUE OF JOHN

Parallel Language Prologue Rest of John

Parallel Language Prologue Rest of John

The Prologue is not just a preface to the book, such as that

A1: the Word was with God in the beginning (1:1, 2)

Such an examination reveals the thrust of the Prologue to be

Adapted from Culpepper, 16.

the New Testament. No other John besides this one is named in

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in