Why is the Gospel of John so different from the other Gospels?

[LadyCalvinist]

I have been reading through the gospels and it struck me that the Gospel of John is quite different from the other gospels and I wondered why that is. I know that it was written the last of the gospels and maybe John was reacting to certain things, but still there are things in that gospel that are not in the other gospels. Why is that?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

John probably knows what is already been written, and begun to be disseminated as the "standard" witness of the apostles, their preaching of Jesus Christ as the basis of the Gospel account. The synoptic (a view together) Gospels express in writing what the apostles taught about their time with Jesus, and what it meant. As men with a shared experience, they did not need to "compare" stories to gain consistency (and the variation they possess is demonstrative of genuine eyewitness reportage); but they did share a common outline, and seem to have agreed upon it while still together in Jerusalem.

John--who appears to be the last apostle left alive--adds to what was deposited. He does it under inspiration, but he adds items that the other witness(es) omits. He would know what the standard presentation contained, and had apparently a certain intimacy with the Lord, giving John the preparation he needed at the end to "fill in" certain things. And, he also provides the most theologically reflective, the most "mature" personal portrait of Jesus.

Because of John's Gospel, we have a truly three-dimensional presentation of Jesus, 3 views from one basic perspective, + 1 from an individual who was positioned slightly in front of the others, looking in the same direction.

 

[Pergamum]

Because he wrote last and wanted a more spiritual gospel:


Origen, Commentary on Matthew:

“Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a tax collector and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, "The church that is in Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you and so does Mark my son." And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John.”


Origen, Commentary on John, 1.6:

“Now the Gospels are four. These four are, as it were, the elements of the faith of the Church, out of which elements the whole world which is reconciled to God in Christ is put together; as Paul says, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself;" of which world Jesus bore the sin; for it is of the world of the Church that the word is written, "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." The Gospels then being four, I deem the first fruits of the Gospels to be that which you so have enjoined me to search into according to my powers, the Gospel of John, that which speaks of him whose genealogy had already been set forth, but which begins to speak of him at a point before he had any genealogy.

For Matthew, writing for the Hebrews who looked for Him who was to come of the line of Abraham and of David, says: ‘The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.’ And Mark, knowing what he writes, narrates the beginning of the Gospel; we may perhaps find what he aims at in John; in the beginning the Word, God the Word. But Luke, though he says at the beginning of Acts, ‘The former treatise did I make about all that Jesus began to do and to teach,’ yet leaves to him who lay on Jesus' breast the greatest and completest discourses about Jesus. For none of these plainly declared His Godhead, as John does when he makes Him say, ‘I am the light of the world,’ ‘I am the way and the truth and the life,’ ‘I am the resurrection,’ ‘I am the door,’ ‘I am the good shepherd;’ and in the Apocalypse, ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.’ We may therefore make bold to say that the Gospels are the first fruits of all the Scriptures, but that of the Gospels that of John is the first fruits.”

Then Eusebius later writes:

“But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.”

I take this to mean that his purpose was not to rehash but to add more spiritual elements and even interpretation to Christ's life.

 

[alexandermsmith]

I agree: very distinctive Gospel. Very nice read. It has some very interesting observations/features. And the last chapter is very special.

 

[Romans922]

It's different because it's supplemental to the other 3 Gospels, generally speaking.

 

[hammondjones]

Post-Ascension, I can't think of a more romantic time to be in the church than growing up in Ephesus in John's old age, c. 95 ad, listening to him speak about his time with the Lord.

 

[Jack K]

The gospels are historical accounts that have material presented and chosen carefully for its teaching and theological value. You could think of them somewhat as you would a current-day magazine article about the life of a famous person. There would be factual reporting, but also a colorful direction to the reporting that fits the magazine's interests, purposes, and readership.

So, one of these gospel "magazine articles" is written. It's a great article, and another magazine wants to reprint it for its readers. The second reporter, being an admirer of the original article and recognizing its truth, largely keeps it as it was. But being a good reporter, he also does additional research and adds more material of interest to his readers. (Or if the second guy is named Mark, maybe he wants a shorter article and pares down the original.) Then a third reporter comes along and does the same for his magazine. Now we have three accounts, similar in many ways because they share the same original framework, but each with some distinctives.

A few decades later, another guy (let's make him a guest commentator who personally knew the famous person) decides to write his own article for yet another magazine. He's probably read the older articles and likes them, but he has his own reflections and purposes, and he wants to start from scratch. He's going to end up with a very different article. It will cover some of the same events in the life of the famous person, and descriptions of the person's mannerisms and teachings will look familiar to readers of the older articles. But the new article will also show some new sides of the person and recount some previously unreported events, and the whole tone of the writing will be distinct. It will be a great addition to the historical record. This is John's gospel.

 

[Tom Hart]

Is it not so that John wrote, at least in part, with a distinct purpose in mind? For instance, the deity of Christ is everywhere proclaimed in John's Gospel (ie. the Word, the I am statements).

What was the context of John's writing? Had particular heresies arisen to which John is responding?