Theology Club: Why did John write his Gospel?

whitestone

Well-known member
Odd as it seems,Luke states that there were written before he penned Luke 1:1 KJV "many" who had already set forth the things they believed. As Luke further explains they were delivered to them by those who were "eyewitnesses" of these events(Luke was not) Luke 1:2 KJV ,,,

John and the others who were eyewitnesses to these events are definitely explaining twelve loaves of bread that are always in the presence of God.The bread was in the presence of the Holy of Holies continuously. The twelve are Galatians 6:16 KJV ,,,,
 

SaulToPaul 2

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

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

John 5:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compare verse 12 and 13, with John 3:

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

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

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

And guess what this here, that follows, is:

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

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

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

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

We are in full agreement. :up:
 

Arsenios

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

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

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

John 1:1-5

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

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

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

A lovely reply...

Thank-you...

A.
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
John 20:31 has our answer.

AMR

It is preceded by John 20:30

John 20:30

KJV – And many other signs truly did Jesus
in the presence of his disciples,
which are not written in this book:

31
KJV – But these are written,
that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;
and that believing ye might have life through his name.

20:31 is therefore not referring to the whole Gospel according to John,
but only to the signs contained within it...

A.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Through the signs narrated, the reader is to come to faith in Jesus as more than a miracle worker. He is Christ, the incarnate Word, with the Father and the Spirit as the triune God. Through believing, we find life in Him who is the source of life (6:32–58). Note the similar statement in 1 John 5:13, indicating that the purpose of that epistle is to assure believers in the Son of God that they have eternal life (over against false teachings that would undermine their confidence).

AMR
 

Danoh

New member
It is preceded by John 20:30

John 20:30

KJV – And many other signs truly did Jesus
in the presence of his disciples,
which are not written in this book:

31
KJV – But these are written,
that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;
and that believing ye might have life through his name.

20:31 is therefore not referring to the whole Gospel according to John,
but only to the signs contained within it...

A.

Consider that if we take your logic herein immediately above, then we do not have all "the gospel of John" because God, per your logic here, finally cornered Himself into a rock too big even for Him to lift...

John 21:

25. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Consider that if we take your logic herein immediately above, then we do not have all "the gospel of John" because God, per your logic here, finally cornered Himself into a rock too big even for Him to lift...

John 21:

25. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

I don't see why... John is simply telling us the salvific value of the Signs which he included in his Evangel... How they lead to Life Everlasting...

The question then becomes, perhaps, why these particular Signs?

And if we take him at face value, then must we conclude that he was supplying what the first three Gospels, which were in my view primarily historical narrative, did not, somehow, provide?

Can we even agree that this Gospel was written on Patmos during his exile?

If the first three Gospels are concerned with establishing the historical reality of the Life, Death and Resurrection of Christ, then can we say that the Gospel of John is concerned with OUR salvation, "That WE should believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and believing, WE should have Live Eternal"?

Arsenios
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
So who are his intended readers?
Beginners in the Faith?
The not yet faithful?
Enquirers in the Faith?
The mature in the Faith?
Anyone and Everyone?

The article does not really answer this question...

Unless I missed the answer...

A.

my study Bible (NIV) simply says - new christians and searching non-christians was the target audience - EOT -

End Of Thread -
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Through the signs narrated, the reader is to come to faith in Jesus as more than a miracle worker. He is Christ, the incarnate Word, with the Father and the Spirit as the triune God. Through believing, we find life in Him who is the source of life (6:32–58). Note the similar statement in 1 John 5:13, indicating that the purpose of that epistle is to assure believers in the Son of God that they have eternal life (over against false teachings that would undermine their confidence).

AMR

yes, good post AMR -
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Lol,
John 5:

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

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

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

are you claiming the gospel of John was written earlier than 85 - 90 AD ?
earlier than 70 ?
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Through the signs narrated, the reader is to come to faith in Jesus as more than a miracle worker.

John 20:30-31

30 On the one hand accordingly,
many other signs also did Jesus do
in the presence of his disciples,
which are not written in this book:

31 But these are written,
that ye should be believing
that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God;
and that, believing,
ye should be having Life
in his Name.

So taking your premise, with which I agree, how is it then, at the end of the first century, these particular signs should be recorded in a new Gospel so as to instill in its readers belief in Christ as the Son of God?

iow, AMR, Why these signs and not others, and why now, almost 70 years after the Crucifixion? John, it seems, gets the last word in the Bible, both in his Gospel account and by the Apocalypse, some time after the rest of the Apostles, including Peter and Paul, have suffered martyrdom... He had been exiled to the Isle of Patmos, and there with the faithful he wrote the Gospel and then Revelation... In very old, if not deep old, age...

And he included an account of certain Signs Jesus did so that the Faithful should be believing - eg should keep on believing... Not aorist, as in "come to believe", but present, ongoing tense...

I do not believe that his writings are to anyone other than the Faithful within the Ekklesia, the Body of Christ... And the Signs he includes are a part of the cycle of worship of the Orthodox Faith to this day - The Feast Days of the Church...

The result of which would seem to indicate that he is writing a Gospel that reflects the worship of the Ekklesia by including the Signs that are commemorated in the worship services of the Faithful... By this time, such services would have been well established and fairly universal, which early writings affirm.

Note the similar statement in 1 John 5:13,
indicating that the purpose of that epistle is
to assure believers in the Son of God
that they have eternal life
(over against false teachings
that would undermine their confidence).
AMR

Well, he writes: "In order that ye should perceive [perfect tense subjunctive] that [it is] eternal Life that ye are having [present indicative] AND that ye should be believing [present subjunctive] in the Name of the Son of God."

And perhaps I am off base here, but this seems to be saying that the having of Life Eternal can go off the radar of our perceiving [eidon]... Perhaps due to familiarity? Or perhaps to, as you argue, false teachings... But the text plainly states that he is reminding them "to be [keep on] believing..." For perhaps it is a matter where back-sliding in the practice of the Faith given us by Christ is a danger even to the Faithful, even when they have Life Eternal... So that the sense of your 1 John citation is that in order to keep on having Life Eternal, they must be keeping on believing, and not growing lax in the Faith...

So that his writings to them are, I would argue, not so much for reassurance, but more as a reminder to be maintaining the praxis of believing, which entails ongoing Ekklesial Life, which is the Life of Christ in His Body, the Ekklesia... The God-given Divine Services of the Faithful [eg the Ekklesia] ...

Arsenios
 

Lazy afternoon

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

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

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

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

Arsenios


66 books in the bible.

Placing the three gospels on the first 39 books of what we call the OT. (the Bible does not)
then we have 42 books plus 24 from John to Rev.

Incidently, the disciple Jesus loved was Lazarus.

LA
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
The disciple Jesus loved was Lazarus.
LA

When I first was reading John, as a non-Christian, I thought so too... And indeed Jesus loved Lazarus, no question...

The problem with the view I used to share with you is that Lazarus is not one of the 12. He was, I believe, one of the 70... He became the Episkopos of Ephesus, if I remember it aright, and never spoke or wrote of his life of 4 days dead...

Arsenios
 

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
When I first was reading John, as a non-Christian, I thought so too... And indeed Jesus loved Lazarus, no question...

The problem with the view I used to share with you is that Lazarus is not one of the 12. He was, I believe, one of the 70... He became the Episkopos of Ephesus, if I remember it aright, and never spoke or wrote of his life of 4 days dead...

Arsenios

There is perfect reason that Lazarus authored the gospel of John and the letters too.

Search it out, You will be surprised.

LA
 

bybee

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

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

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

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

Arsenios

The Gospel of John is very difficult to comprehend. It may be interpreted in so many ways. I leave it to the theologians.
 

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Can you afford me a clue??

A.

Lazarus was the man of the spirit who was close to Jesus and an example for us all to attain to.

So many want to be apostles and the like but Lazarus was given the best part.

Joh 13:21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
Joh 13:22 Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.
Joh 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
Joh 13:24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
Joh 13:25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?

Joh 18:15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.

Joh 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
Joh 20:3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.
Joh 20:4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
Joh 20:5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
Joh 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
Joh 20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
Joh 20:8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.
Joh 21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.

Joh 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
Joh 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Joh 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

Why did Peter ask, if it were of John?

LA
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
The Gospel of John is very difficult to comprehend. It may be interpreted in so many ways. I leave it to the theologians.

In the historic Church, the Gospel readings [and the Epistle readings too, for that matter] are assigned for each day of the Liturgical Year, and the Gospel of John is only given following Pascha, when the Catechumens have been baptized. That is the only time in the entire Liturgical Cycle of the Year that John is read. Unbaptized catechumens were not permitted to hear John until after their Baptism into Christ. The synoptics were the fare of unbaptized beginners, but John was given for the baptized mature in Christ's Faith...

Hopko argues that John wrote for the mature in the Faith, who were his disciples in his exile to the island of Patmos... That John's is the advanced Gospel for those seeking full maturity in the Faith ["Be ye perfected as your Father in Heaven is perfect..."] He wrote it some 60+ years after Christ's Ascension for the faithful who had walked in the Faith for decades...

Another question might be: "Why was another Gospel needed? What was missing in the first three?" And the answer does not lie in the realm of "additional details" of the Life of Christ which the other Evangelists had 'overlooked' "... But should be found instead in the things of the Faith that show the way forward for those who have fully embraced it...

Arsenios
 
Top