Reading Acts

Some Thoughts on the Book of Acts and Pauline Theology

Home About Reading Acts Book Reviews Israel Trips

Subscribe to feed

Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels

November 28, 2014 in Gospel of John | Tags: Gospel of John, Jesus, John, Kstenberger, the Gospel
of John

It is well known that the gospel of John is considerably different than the other
three Gospels. One of the reasons that the Gospel of John seems so different is
that the three synoptic gospels are so similar. Because of the similarities
between Matthew, Mark, and Luke some theory of literary dependence must be
given to explain the close relationship.

For example, there is no birth,

baptism or temptation in John.
While Jesus does seven miracles,
they are called signs and there
are no exorcisms. There are no
parables, despite Mt 13:34 and Mk
4:34 which indicate that Jesus
primarily spoke in parables in the
second half of his ministry.

There are several extended

dialogues which have no real
parallel in the synoptic gospels.
Jesus does not re-interpret the
Mosaic law, as in the Sermon on
the Mount, nor does he predict the
fall of Jerusalem (cf. Mark 13 and
parallels.) In fact, there is no
prediction of a second coming in John, although Jesus does promise to send the
Paraclete to the disciples after he returns to heaven (14:25-26, 16:7-15). The
Last Supper is not described as an ongoing celebration, rather, John describes
Jesus washing the feet of the disciples (13:1-16). While the arrest and
crucifixion is described in similar ways to the synoptic gospels, there is no agony
in the garden of Gethsemane.

I am following Andreas J. Kstenberger, A Theology of Johns Gospel and his

Letters (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2009). Kstenberger follows B. F.
Wescotts observation that Johns Gospel was written after the success of the
(Pauline) Gentile Mission, after the destruction of Jerusalem, and at the same
time as the emergence of Gnosticism as competitor to Apostolic Christianity.

For Kstenberger, the Fall of Jerusalem is the most important factor. I am sure
that the rise of Gnosticism is a major factor, but I am not sure that the success
of the Gentile mission is as much of a factor than sometimes assumed. John
wrote the gospel some thirty years after the death of Paul, from Ephesus, the
city where Paul had his most success among Gentiles. Yet the Gospel has very
little to say about Gentiles. The Samaritan Woman (John 4) is a possible
example, but Samaritans are a in many ways neither Jew nor Gentile. The
healing of the officials son in John 4:46-54 is sometimes offered as an example
of a Gentile who encounters Jesus, but if he is John certainly does not make this
explicit.

On the one hand, the Gospel is evangelistic. John wrote to Jewish readers
who might be open to Jesus as an alternative to the Temple and the festivals.
But there are a few stories which are could be described as drawing Gentiles to
Jesus. The story of the blind man who is healed in John 5 may show that Jesus
is superior to Asclepius, a Roman god of healing. Given the number of allusions
to the Hebrew Bible and the importance of the Jewish story of redemption, it is
clear that the main target of the Gospel is Jewish.

On the other hand, the Gospel is apologetic. John wrote to Christians

(either Jewish or Gentile) in order to clarify who Jesus was as an answer to
growing questions raised by developing Gnostic theology. There is a serious
theological challenge developing in the church, John must address this as
insufficient for explaining who Jesus was. John describes Jesus as the Word,
equal with God because he is God. But Jesus is also flesh, fully human. These
two facts are stated in the prologue and supported throughout the Gospel of
John.

The Gospel of John is therefore a window into the end of the apostolic era.
Christianity was making progress against paganism, but needed to to develop a
theology of Jesus in the face of an internal challenge. Can we draw other
implications from the differences between John and the Synoptics?