Religion Study Notes: John's Gospel Vs. Matthew, Mark and Luke
Jesus' ministry in Matthew, Mark, and Luke's accounts took place almost entirely within Galilee with a trip to Jerusalem only at the very end. However, John presents Jesus as traveling throughout diverse locations. He mentions four journeys of Jesus to Jerusalem and a period of preaching in Judea as well as in Galilee. Also, John is where the idea of Jesus' three years of ministry comes from. The Synoptics portray Jesus' ministry in a span of only one year culminating with one Passover. But because John mentions three Passovers separately, Jesus' ministry (according to John) must have been at least slightly more than two years and possibly three and a half. However, the chronology of John is debated because it is obvious that his primary concern was theology and not history. The fact that he places the Temple cleansing story near the beginning of the Gospel in contrast with its placement just before the Crucifixion as it is found in the other Gospels presents one of the largest problems of unifying the chronology between John and the Synoptics.
Even the overall picture of Jesus varies drastically between the Synoptics and the Gospel of John. Throughout the Gospel, initiated in the prologue, John emphasizes the divinity of Christ. John shows Jesus' disciples recognizing the significance of who he is very early on in the Gospel by the titles they use to refer to him, while in the Synoptics it is more of an evolved realization that does not culminate until near the end. This is particularly true with the Messianic secret found in Mark. Unlike the Synoptics, which make use of parables, short stories, and sermons of Jesus strung together, John displays extended discourses of Jesus and arguments with religious leaders or other people. John's Jesus is also frequently interrupted with questions or objections from listeners although this never happens in the Synoptics. Nevertheless, most scholars concede that the Synoptics hold Jesus' language and teachings closest to their original form, while John took liberties to translate loosely and paraphrase to fit more with his own style of writing.
The Johannine accounts of Jesus' miracles vary greatly from the Synoptic accounts. The Synoptics seem to account for Jesus' miracles in a more general form, reporting them over and over as evidence that Jesus was powerful and that he could do practically any miracle he wanted. Also, many of the miracles were probably included simply because they happened historically at that point in the story and the Synoptic authors were far more concerned with being historically accurate. John, however, is far more selective in his miracle presentations. In his Gospel, they are referred to as signs and they all reveal something significant about who Jesus is. None of the healing stories in John are also found in Mark. Even though John's Gospel contains far fewer miracles than the Synoptics, they are frequently more incredible, such as the raising of Lazarus from the dead after four days. In John, Jesus' miracles are specifically directed to make a specific point rather than just because Jesus generally healed.
All of these differences are primarily because John was making a much different point through the message than were the Synoptics. John was concerned first and foremost with who Jesus is and his recognition (or lack thereof) by those around him. Matthew, Mark, and Luke often stressed some general attributes about Jesus, such as his goodness and mercy or the salvation that he came to bring. John stressed first and foremost that Jesus is God, always in charge, the ruler of everything. Some argue that the prologue was not written until later to further emphasize the humanity of Christ in face of many heresies that tried to ignore it, but Jesus' humanity in John really does come across as being almost subject to his divinity. While the Synoptics start with the much more human aspects of his persona, such as his genealogy and birth, John's Gospel starts with his preexistence and his incarnation into human flesh. He definitely presents the highest Christology of all the Gospels and in the Gospel of John, Jesus is always fully in charge of his situation. This is one possible reason for why John placed the Temple event at the beginning rather than just before the crucifixion: to show that Jesus would be crucified when he was ready to be crucified and not that he was the victim of an unavoidable chain of events.
One more important aspect of Jesus' message in John's Gospel is that of realized eschatology (the end times). Matthew, Mark, and Luke were certainly very forward on the promise of Jesus' return and this eschatological salvation through the final and absolute coming of the Kingdom of God can easily be seen as their primary focus. John most likely wrote his Gospel twenty to forty years after the Synoptics and the church may very well have begun to despair at the delay in Jesus' return. John emphasizes Jesus' promised Holy Spirit as the mediator of his presence until the time of his return has arrived. Salvation in John is not just something that happens after this life but also something that happens immediately with the arrival of Jesus' transformation in each individual's life. This primary inclusion of the Holy Spirit in John's Gospel is one of the few more blatant expressions of the Trinity found in the whole Bible. The differences between John's Gospel and the Synoptics result from his primary importance placed on the message he was conveying through the life of Jesus, rather than the life and character of Jesus itself being the primary importance.
Published by Adam Willard
I'm 28, happily married with our first baby boy. I'm a Returned Peace Corps Volunteer who served in South Africa from 2008-2010 and now I'm living with my family in Madagascar, serving as Christian missiona... View profile
- The Bible in a Nutshell XVII: John & ActsIn this series, I promise to give a thorough description of each book in the Bible in 10 sentences or less (as thorough a description as you can fit into 10 sentences-and yes I've stuffed some of the sentences until t...
Accounting for Differences in the GospelBiblical Books Matthew, Mark, and Luke are synoptic, meaning they cover the same time period, but there are differences in the story.- Why is Jesus Called Mighty God?One of the central and most important messages of Christmas is the Incarnation, the doctrine that Jesus became flesh. The promise of the Messiah was that hope and we share in that hope today because the light has dawn...
Communicating the Gospel: The BasicsCommunicating the Gospel in this media oriented world can be tough. Competition for our attention is tough! What is the most effective way to spread the gospel?
Jesus Touches My Heart Every DayJesus Christ came into the world to set people free.
- The Gnostics: The Gospel of Thomas
- The Shadow of the Galilean: The Story of Jesus
- The Role of John the Baptist
- The Gospel of Judas: Controversy? or Enlightenment?
- The Gospel of Judas
- Book Review: Just like Jesus
- The Gospel of Judas
- All four Gospels tell the story of Jesus' life, ministry, and character but they tell it differently
- John's Gospel focused on the message of the life of Jesus, rather than just the history.
- Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the Synoptics and they share many similarities.
6 Comments
Post a CommentWe have all four Gospels, each for their individual attributes and each for their unique perspectives on Christ, and my point was mainly that John is a bit more unique than the others. Each testifies to the truth for sure, and I have no doubt that each is entirely accurate to Jesus himself, who he is, and what his work is on Earth. However, John appears to be less historically accurate in terms of chronology and specific details and intentionally so. I don’t believe that in any way detracts from his message or the truth it conveys, but I do believe that trying to understand his intentions like that can help us understand the message better. Again though, all four Gospels have their own variations and their own perspectives and as a whole we have a better understanding of Jesus because of them. But the point of this article was to emphasize how John stands apart more drastically from the rest rather than how all the Gospels do many of the same things.
Hi Bobby, I don't disagree with most of what you said and I think you misunderstood my own intentions with this article. I was particularly attempting to emphasize the differences between John's Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels, not to disprove any theology in any of them, or to point out supposed flaws or anything like that, but simply to make it more clear on a basic outline level what in John was emphasized significantly differently (but not entirely other) than the Synoptics. I certainly agree with you that they are witnesses to the same Christ. But I think John worked with different material than the Synoptic authors and he certainly worked at a much more different time period, and so the differences between his Gospel and the Synoptics are more drastic than the differences within the Synoptics themselves.
Below is a complete analysis of your post:
YOUR THESIS: “While the Synoptics obviously share a dependency amongst themselves, the Gospel of John stands alone, and it is still hotly debated today whether or not its author, John, even had access to the Synoptic Gospels. One can therefore expect to find major differences in their principle aspects: ministry, miracles, and message.”
Response: John’s Gospel does not share any apparent LITERARY relationship with the other Gospels, but THEOLOGICALLY it has much in common with them.
The four Gospels agree that: Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God; he demonstrated this in his words and miracles; he presented himself and his message as having absolute authority over Jew and Gentile; he fulfilled the prophecies God gave to Israel; he alone is the source of eternal life; he accomplished his purpose by dying for the sins of all and rising from the dead – and by demonstrating the reality of his resurrection to his disciples. (A number of other examples could be cited.)
So lack of literary dependence does not necessarily entail any essential differences in how Jesus, his miracles, or his message are viewed in John in contrast with the Synoptics.
YOUR THESIS APPLIED TO JESUS’ MINISTRY
1.“The Synoptics portray Jesus' ministry in a span of only one year culminating with one Passover.”
Response: Most scholars agree that the Synoptic authors had no intention of representing (or using your term “portraying”) a precise timeline of the events of Jesus’ life; neither did John. The case can be made that each of the Gospels reveals a THEMATIC structure, including Mark.
Apparently the Gospel writers were very conscious of how they arranged both the events and sayings of Jesus – not to convey a precise chronology – but to present a coherent picture of Jesus that was both relevant and true.
2.“Unlike the Synoptics, which make use of parables, short stories, and sermons of Jesus strung together…John displays extended discourses of Jesus and arguments with religious leaders or other people.”
Response: Literary dependence could explain the limited representation of Jesus’ methods in the Synoptics. But this does not challenge a high measure of accuracy in either their accounts or John’s independent account. Nor does it indicate a vastly different portrayal of the nature and content of Jesus’ message.
3.“John's Jesus is…frequently interrupted with questions or objections from listeners although this never happens in the Synoptics.”
Response: To say that interrupting questions or objections “never happens in the Synoptics” is, at best, an exaggeration. And again because of literary dependency among the Synoptics and the independence of John, both can be conveying information of relatively good accuracy with no essential differences in the content of Jesus’ message in either case.
4.“John shows Jesus' disciples recognizing the significance of who he is very early on in the Gospel by the titles they use to refer to him, while in the Synoptics it is more of an evolved realization that does not culminate until near the end.”
Response: In John’s Gospel, Nathaniel calls Jesus “Son of God” and “King of Israel” in John 1:49. Other than that, there are no such references to Jesus made by his disciples in the early part of John.
In both the Synoptics and John – from the start – the disciples were consistently confronted with statements about who Jesus is, beginning with the testimony of John the Baptist and the outcries of demons – as well as the statements of Jesus himself. Then Peter’s confession in John 6:69 that Jesus is “the Holy One of God” corresponds well to his confession in the Synoptics that Jesus is the Messiah (Matthew 16:16 and Mark 7:29).
There were times, especially when the crowds restricted his movements, that Jesus urged others not to express what they knew about him (See Mark 1:43-45, contrasted with Mark 5:19-20, spoken to one who lived in a region Jesus would not be travelling in). But these instructions include recognition of the accuracy of what was known about Jesus.
The disciples’ inability to absorb and adapt to the nature of the one they followed fits the full account of John up to the time of his resurrection, no less than the Synoptics.
5.“In the Gospel of John, Jesus is always fully in charge of his situation…Jesus would be crucified when he was ready to be crucified and not [as] the victim of an unavoidable chain of events.”
Response: Your statement implies that the Synoptics convey that Jesus was “the victim of an unavoidable chain of events,” while in John he holds all the cards and calmly calculates the timing of his death.
Contrary to your depiction of Jesus in the Synoptics: Jesus consistently recognizes the plan and purpose of God in his death, and is fully aware of its timing. And all along, he is a willing participant in the God-ordained, prophetically-predicted process. He is not a victim, being swept along. In this sense, he is in charge, even in the Synoptics. Your analysis reminds me of John Dominic Crossan’s statement that, in Mark, Jesus is “out of control” in the Garden of Gethsemane. Crossan’s analysis is an obvious mistake, because prior to Gethsemane, Jesus had prophesied his betrayal, had calmly instituted the Lord’s Supper, and had prophesied the apostles’ retreat and Peter’s denial. In the Garden, he rebuked and warned the apostles for sleeping, announced the arrival of his betrayer, and chided those who arrested him. In this account, Mark also incorporates Jesus’ earnest prayer to be relieved of his task along with his surrender to it. (See Mark 14:17-50.) In short, all four Gospels depict a Messiah who is in control, while dealing with the deep human emotions and physical pain of his saving work.
Contrary to your depiction of Jesus in John: (1) The best text and most common rending of John 8:59 is translated, “Then they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out from the temple area.” (2) Jesus is on a timetable, not his own, wherein at first, his “hour” had not yet arrived, and finally it DOES arrive! (See John 2:4; 12:23; and 17:1.) (3) Jesus’ statement in John 12:27 corresponds to his urgent prayer in Gethsemane as recorded in the Synoptics. In John he says, “Now my soul is greatly distressed. And what should I say? ‘Father, deliver me from this hour’? No, but for this very reason I have come to this hour.” This is intense material that conveys Jesus’ human side very well and is fully compatible with what is said in the Synoptics.
YOUR THESIS APPLIED TO JESUS’ MIRACLES: “The Synoptics seem to account for Jesus' miracles in a more general form, reporting them over and over as evidence that Jesus was powerful and that he could do practically any miracle he wanted…In John, Jesus' miracles are specifically directed to make a specific point rather than just because Jesus generally healed.”
Response: Scholars have long recognized a selective process in specific miracles that are reported in the Gospels and the context in which they are reported. Statements about miracles in general are one thing, but the assertion that the place and content of specific miracles are without specific literary and theological variations in any Gospel would have to be explained and defended.
Furthermore, even when the miracles are reported within a truly historical context – and in many cases this can be argued effectively – Jesus himself may have utilized specific miracles to make specific points about himself and his work.
YOUR THESIS APPLIED TO JESUS’ MESSAGE
1.“John was concerned first and foremost with who Jesus is and his recognition (or lack thereof) by those around him. Matthew, Mark, and Luke often stressed some general attributes about Jesus, such as his goodness and mercy or the salvation that he came to bring…The differences between John's Gospel and the Synoptics result from his primary importance placed on the message he was conveying through the life of Jesus, rather than the life and character of Jesus itself being the primary importance.”
Response: The question being answered in all the Gospels is WHO Jesus is, and the Gospels answer the question. “Who do men say that I am?” Jesus asks. The answer is given as the thesis of each Gospel, stated at their beginning.
Matthew says, Jesus is the Messiah, the son of David, the Son of Abraham and also the Son of God. Mark says, he is the Messiah, the Son of God. Luke says, he is the Lord God whose entry is led by John the Baptist (Luke 1:16-17). John says, he is the Word who was with God and was God. All the Gospels agree that there message identifies Jesus THROUGH his life and character.
2.“The Synoptic authors were far more concerned with being historically accurate…”
Response: John is no less concerned with truthful testimony than any of the other Gospels. John records: (1) “He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe. His testimony is true, and he knows he is telling the truth.” (John 19:35) (2) “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:30-31) (3) “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.” (John 21:24)
3.“Throughout the Gospel, initiated in the prologue, John emphasizes the divinity of Christ…Jesus' humanity in John really does come across as being almost subject to his divinity.”
Response: So John’s Gospel emphasizes Jesus’ deity, but it does not deny his humanity. In John, Jesus can get very tired (John 4:6) and may cry at the grief of others (John 11:33). And the Synoptics may emphasize Jesus’ humanity, but they do not deny his deity.
In the Synoptics: (1) Jesus speaks like God – on his own authority. He does not speak as an elder or even another prophet. The prophets announced that the word or voice of God had come to them. And the elders cited this or that authority. But Jesus simply asserts “Amen, I say to you.” And states that both the Law and his own words will not pass away (Matthew 5:18 and 24:35). (2) He forgave sins as God does. (3) He will judge the world as God does. (4) He gives life as God does. (5) When he healed – unlike any other person in the Bible – he sometimes simply said, “I will”; and he displayed other miraculous powers – not in the name of another – but on his own authority. (6) He promised to be personally and spiritually present wherever the church is and wherever his message is proclaimed (Matthew 18:20 and 28:18). Matthew book-ends his story with the name of Jesus that means “God with us” and the assertion that Jesus is “with you always.” Etc.
The deity of Jesus that is EXPLICIT in other parts of the Bible is at least IMPLICIT in the Synoptics.
Again, when each Gospel is read with the full impact of the person being described, they are all four in harmony.
4.“One more important aspect of Jesus' message in John's Gospel is that of realized eschatology (the end times). Matthew, Mark, and Luke were certainly very forward on the promise of Jesus' return and this eschatological salvation through the final and absolute coming of the Kingdom of God can easily be seen as their primary focus. John most likely wrote his Gospel twenty to forty years after the Synoptics and the church may very well have begun to despair at the delay in Jesus' return…Salvation in John is not just something that happens after this life but also something that happens immediately with the arrival of Jesus' transformation in each individual's life.”
Response: You acknowledge that, in John, there is both a future and present significance to salvation, the Kingdom, etc. But you seem to imply that everything is future in the Synoptics. However, theologians discuss realized eschatology as an aspect of interpreting the Synoptic Gospels as well as John.
In the Synoptics, the kingdom is near (or has arrived) – according to both John the Baptist and Jesus – and that the kingdom was already being entered or taken hold of (Matthew 11:12). Jesus reveals the Father (Matthew 11:27), gives rest (Matthew 11:28-29), and has already ushered in the Age of Jubilee (Luke 4:17-21).
In both John and the Synoptics, the kingdom is present and future.
The four Gospels are compatible on this point as on all others. The emphases may differ from one to the other, and John was written in an independent fashion, but they are in essence witnesses to the same Christ.
Thank you so much for this article. It helped me a lot in my research. It is very direct to the point and it was easy to understand. I am a sophomore in college and I'm majoring in missions. One day I would like to be a medical missionary. God bless you for all your work in the ministry! Again, thank you very much!
It is an answer to a long search. I advice you do more. I appreciate this effort you have put in. Shalom
I have been doing a study on the comparision between John and the Synoptic gospels. This information helped a lot.