1 Commentary to the Gospel according to John - Rev. John Schultz THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN General Observations: The Gospel according to John and the Synoptic Gospels: The fourth book of the New Testament is in most Greek manuscript simply known as “According to John.” This links this gospel to the three preceding ones. But it is obvious that John’s Gospel is distinct from what is known as “The Synoptic Gospels.” If we would leave John’s Gospel out of our Bible, we would deprive ourselves of a large part of truth that is indispensable to our understanding of the person of Jesus Christ and of the way of salvation. John teaches us lessons that are not found in the other Gospels. The Pulpit Commentary, in its extensive introduction to the Gospel of John, highlights the following points that are representative of John’s teaching, none of which are emphasized in a similar fashion in the other Gospels: § God is Spirit § God is called “the Father” § The teaching about “The Father and the Son” § The teaching about God and the Logos § The Word made flesh § The Son of God, the Christ, the Son of Man § The Spirit and the Trinity § The world as the creature of God § The world of men § The prince of this world § Salvation of the world J. Sidlow Baxter, in his book Exploring the Book, introduces the Gospel of John as follows: “A whole volume might be filled with the encomiums which scholars and saints have written on this ‘Gospel according to John.’ Is there anywhere a more exquisite compound of infinite profundity and lingual simplicity? Was there ever a sublimer subject more ingenuously interpreted? But its priceless preciousness, of course, lies in its Divine revealings and spiritual values. Gleaming over its portal is the inscription: ‘No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.’ The Greek verb-form here translated as ‘declared’ is exegesato, from which comes our English word ‘exegesis.’ It means that in the visible Jesus the invisible God is brought forth to view. The incomprehensible concept, ‘God’ is objectively elucidated before us. The very heart of the Eternal is livingly ‘exegeted,’ for the only begotten Son comes even from ‘the bosom of the Father.’ … John’s raison d’être, also, flashes like a torch all the way through his Gospel and finds final expression at the end: ‘That ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through His Name’ (xx. 31). The three synoptists simply set forth the facts, and leave them to make their own impression on the reader. Not so John: all is statedly selected and directed to the securing of a verdict. He is concerned not only with the facts but with the issues.” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia observes the following regarding the relationship between the Gospel of John and the Synoptics: “In relation to the Synoptics, the differences are great, but more surprising is the fact that the points of contact between these Gospels and the Fourth Gospel are so few. The critics… are unanimous that the writer or the school who compiled the Johannine writings was indebted to the Synoptics for almost all the facts embodied in the Fourth Gospel. Apart, however, from the Passion Week, only two points of contact are found so obvious that they cannot be doubted, namely, the feeding of the 5,000, and the walking on the sea (John 6:4-21). The healing of the child of the royal officer (4:46-53) can scarcely be identified with the healing of the centurion’s servant (Mt, Lk); but even if the identification were allowed, this is all we have in the Fourth Gospel of the events of the ministry in Galilee. There is a ministry in Galilee, but the earlier ministry in Judea and in Galilee began before John was cast into prison (3:24), and it has no parallel in the Synoptics. In fact, the Fourth Gospel assumes the existence of the other three, and does not anew convey the knowledge which can be gathered from them. It takes its own way, makes its own selections, and sets these forth from its own point of view. It has its own principle of selection: that plainly indicated in the passage already quoted. The scenes depicted, the works done, the words spoken, and the reflections made by the writer, are all directed toward the aim of enabling the readers to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. In the writer’s view this would issue in their obtaining life in His name.” © 2002 E-sst LLC All Rights Reserved Published by Bible-Commentaries.com Used with permission 2 Commentary to the Gospel according to John - Rev. John Schultz The Author of the Gospel: None of the Gospel writers identify themselves by name. The Apostle John, however, introduces himself in a way that, at the same time, reveals and hides his identity. Five times in this Gospel we find the expression “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”1 The Gospel itself is very clear that this is the Apostle John the writer of the book. We read: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down.”2 The peculiar wording indicates, first of all, that Jesus was the source of the love John experienced. It also makes clear that John felt himself loved by Christ in a particular way. The question is whether this means that John was, in fact, Jesus’ favorite disciple or whether it was John’s subjective conviction that Christ loved him more than the other disciples. Although it is true that, in human relations there seems to be a chemistry that bonds some people immediately and others more slowly or never, I doubt that Jesus had favorites among His disciples and that He would bestow His particular love upon one of them to the neglect of the others. I believe that John singled himself out because he had opened his heart for the love of Christ in a way that set him apart from the other disciples. John testified himself, at the occasion of the foot washing that Jesus demonstrated His love for all the disciples without any distinction. We read: “Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love.”3 Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words allows for the translation of “to the utmost degree,” instead of “the full extent” in connection with Christ’s act of love towards His disciples. It is this knowing of being loved that makes John’s Gospel the deep and wonderful document of God’s love for the world. John’s experience of Jesus’ love as an exclusive relationship allowed him to reach deeper than any of the other Gospel writers. It permitted him to write a book that stands as a monument of grace and truth that is unparalleled in the Bible and in any other world literature. We do not know for sure when John met Jesus for the first time. Most commentators suppose that he was originally a disciple of John the Baptist and that together with Andrew, he was present when Jesus was identified by John as “the Lamb of God.”4 Adam Clarke’s Commentary states about the words “Two of his disciples”: “One of them was Andrew, John 1:40, and it is very likely that John himself was the other; in everything in which he might receive honor he studiously endeavors to conceal his own name.” And The Wycliffe Bible Commentary observes: “Silence regarding the name of the other points to the writer of the Gospel, who withholds his name out of modesty.” If this supposition is correct, John was one of the first disciples to meet Jesus. He became a fulltime follower after the miraculous catch of fish to which Peter reacted so strongly with his confession of being “a sinful man.” In that context John and James are mentioned as Peter’s partners.5 The Synoptics tell us that John was the son of Zebedee and the brother of James.6 Jesus gave John and James the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder.7 Adam Clarke’s Commentary writes about the following about this nickname: “[Sons of thunder] A Hebraism for thunderers; probably so named because of their zeal and power in preaching the Gospel. The term Boanerges is neither Hebrew nor Syriac. Calmet and others think that there is reason to believe that the Greek transcribers have not copied it exactly. B¦neey… ra`am…, which the ancient Greeks would pronounce Beneregem, and which means sons of thunder, was probably the appellative used by our Lord: or beniy re`es, sons of tempest, which comes nearest to the Boanerges of the evangelist. Jerome, on Dan 1, gives b¦neey ra`am (which he writes Benereem, softening the sound of the Hebrew letter `ayin) as the more likely reading; and Luther, supposing our Lord spoke in Hebrew, gives the proper Hebrew term above mentioned, which he writes Bnehargem. Some think that the reason why our Lord gave this appellative to the sons of Zebedee was their desire to bring fire down from heaven, i.e. a storm of thunder and lightning, to overturn and consume a certain Samaritan village, the inhabitants of which would not receive their Master. See the account in Luke 9:53-54.