About Jesus - Steve
The Gospel Of John
commentary is based on the 1994 edition of the New International Bible.
Chapter titles in this commentary correspond to chapter titles in
quick reading of the four gospels will show that Johnís gospel is
quite different than the other three.
One main difference is that the others major on certain events
that showed the teaching and character of Jesus.
John does relate some events to us but there seems to be a more
theological emphasis on his writing.
This can be seen right from the first verse when he speaks about
Jesus being the Word of God that was made flesh.
The rest of the book shows us this fleshly divine Word.
It's thus clear to me that John wanted to portray Jesus in a
light that no one had done before, and I'm sure glad he did.
other gospels spend much time on Jesus' Galilean ministry.
From Johnís account you would hardly know that Jesus was born,
raised, and spent most of His life in
Galilee. There is no account of
Jesusí birth, other than the statement concerning the Word becoming
flesh. Half, or even more
than half, of the book concerns the last week of Jesusí ministry.
we learn from John is not found in the other gospels.
This does not mean what John is saying is not authentic, as some
suggest. It also does not
mean that John is re-interpreting who Jesus is and who He was while He
was on earth, as some say. It
simply means that Johnís reasons for writing are different than the
others. Again, it's obvious
that John was not coming from an historical approach but a theological
approach to Jesus. Some
suggest the specific reason why John wrote his account was because
Gnosticism, which had not yet fully developed, was beginning to creep
into the church. I will
comment more on this when we come to the first chapter of John.
is commonly thought that Johnís gospel was written from the city of
somewhere between 90 and 95 AD where John lived in his senior years.
Some suggest that it might have been written as late as 110 AD.
Still others, those who hold to the Preterist view of prophecy
say John wrote all of his writings prior to the fall of Jerusalem
in 70 AD. This helps support
their prophetic view that states most if not all of the book of
Revelation has already been fulfilled and it was fulfilled prior to the
fall of Jerusalem.
Some Bible teachers suggest;
and I think they are in
minority, that there are two John's.
One John is the John who was a disciple of Jesus.
Other's say there was another John, called John the elder, who
was an elder in the church at
close to the turn of the first century.
Some, and I'm in this camp, feel that there are not two Johns.
John the disciple of Jesus is John the elder who lived in
at the end of his life.
I understand both sides of the debate, from my limited knowledge, I
believe the Gospel of John was written by John the Apostle, who was an
elder in the city of
in and around 90 to 95 AD. John would have been very old by the time he wrote
this letter. He could have
easily have been 90 years old.
Eusebius, a very important fourth century writer and
theologian quotes early Christian authors to say that John wrote his
account because the other three gospel accounts didn't incorporate the
deeds of Jesus prior to John the Baptist's death.
If you read John 3:22 to 24 you'll note that John does indeed
incorporate some of the activity by Jesus before John the Baptist's
death. As a matter of fact,
John the Baptist was still baptizing in the early days of Jesus'
Next Section - Chapter 1:1 - 18