Gospel of John 1-21

The final gospel, and believed to be the final written as well, begins with considerably more literary flair than its predecessors.  If you read only one gospel on that basis, Gospel of John is your choice.

One of the many major differences between John and its predecessors is how John the Baptist is presented.  To be frank, he's very much de-emphasized, making it clear exactly where he stands in relation to Jesus.  In fact, he identifies exactly who Jesus is upon seeing him (along with the rest of us) for the first time.

Jesus recruits Andrew, identified as a disciple of John the Baptist.  Andrew in turn recruits his brother Peter.  Jesus then recruits Philip, who in turn recruits Nathaniel (an alternate name for the standard Bartholomew, just as Matthew and Mark use Thaddeus while Luke uses Judas, who is also popularly referred to as Jude, perhaps to further distinguish him from Judas Iscariot).  Jesus remarks that he saw Philip beneath a fig tree, which is better news for fig trees in this gospel, and also the second wildly additional emphasis on Philip, and by no means the last, in John.

The wedding at Cana occurs, which is Jesus's first public miracle (sort of the reverse of the Last Supper), where "his mother" is used to prod him into action.  John then reaches the temple incident every other gospel puts at the end of the ministry.  This is just as well, because the whole character of Jesus by that point is also markedly different.  He foretells his death and resurrection, which in John is simply not a matter of dread.

Nicodemus, the most famous of the secret converts in the gospels, appears, only in John.

Then the famous John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

The apostles are described as baptizing, which is another marked difference in John.  John the Baptist, meanwhile, is still active at this point.  Usually he's safely imprisoned.  He uses the opportunity to reiterate his position in relation to Jesus: "He must increase, but I must decrease."  By the end of the first century, no doubt Christians have really gotten into the flow of this, so John is only affirming this.

The incident with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well occurs.  It's an affirmation as to Jesus's mission to the Gentiles.  He's also, however, already dodging the religious authorities, perhaps because of that very divide between his ministry and its Jewish origins.

He cures a civil servant's son, then the paralyzed man.  In John, it's the Jews in general who persecute Jesus, but again because he performs the latter act on the sabbath.

The diminished role of John the Baptist is once again reiterated, just in case you hadn't gotten the message already.  Remember, according to my theory about Q Gospel, which the three previous gospels drew from, John the Baptist was perhaps equal or possibly even greater in status among the very earliest members of Christianity.

Jesus feeds the multitude, which the people view as the sign that he's the prophesied messiah.  They try and make him king.  If he'd never had such an episode (usually featured only in the Palm Sunday incident), the Jews would really have no cause to take him seriously, because as far as they're concerned (as far as I know), the messiah is supposed to be someone great, like David or Solomon, and by definition a king.  If Jesus had allowed them to make him king in this incident, the whole trajectory of his ministry would have been altered, and perhaps even the necessary death and its manner would not have occurred.  Then again, for skeptics, of course he never became king.  But we'll see what Pilate thinks of this later.

He walks on the water.

"Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph?"  (Finally, both names used deliberately.)

His teaching alienates some of his disciples, but the apostles remain faithful.

Some people remark that Jesus is speaking openly but the religious authorities are doing nothing about it, even though they already want him dead.  Jesus makes a reference to spreading the ministry to the Greeks.  In the last books of the Old Testament, the Greeks were about as bad as anyone ever got to Jews.

He keeps splitting opinions, but some openly declare him to be the messiah.  Among the religious authorities, Nicodemus stands up for Jesus.

The adulterous woman appears, one of the more curious episodes from John, where people still wonder what it was he wrote in the sand while waiting for someone to cast the first stone.

Jesus describes Satan as both a murderer and the father of lies.  In John, a lot of what he says is in a direct dialogue with the people.  However, when he says, "I am" (in the Old Testament, remember, when God gives himself a name, he uses I Am Who Am, which is usually translated as Yahweh), there are people who want to stone him.

He cures the blind man, who is subsequently subjected to heavy questioning from the religious authorities.

Jesus discusses the Good Shepherd.  John the Baptist is once again invoked as a confirmation, but here it's the same as in the other gospels.

Then we reach Lazarus, whom John identifies as the brother of Mary and Martha.  The sisters Mary and Martha previously appeared in Luke, and the name Lazarus as well, but it's in John where the trio takes on its greatest emphasis.  Not the least because Lazarus dies, and then the shortest and most impactful sentence of the Bible: "Jesus wept."  Then, of course, Jesus resurrects Lazarus.

The religious authorities are fearful that if Jesus's followers become too big, they'll provoke the Romans into destroying everything to quell them.  The high priest unwittingly suggests exactly as has been planned for Jesus all along: that one man die to spare everyone else.

Jesus spends time with Lazarus, Martha, and Mary, and this is where John reaches the point where a woman anoints Jesus.  In fact, John identifies Mary as the woman.

Palm Sunday occurs.  This is said to be a direct response to the resurrection of Lazarus.

Philip pops up again.  John also emphasizes Isaiah more than the other gospels.

The Last Supper occurs, and it's a considerably more elaborate affair, including the washing of the feet and an extended discourse that is more or less Jesus's last testament.  Judas Iscariot is identified as the betrayer, but in such a way that the other apostles would not have blatantly noticed.  (Jesus is a nice guy.)  Those who speak up include Peter, Thomas, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus).  It's the first time Thomas appears, because remember, John doesn't give the same apostle rundown as the other gospels.

After the betrayal, during Peter's traditional three-times denial (which John later echoes with three times affirming who Jesus is), there's an unnamed apostle with him, probably intended to be the same as the more famously-unnamed apostle a little later.  This apostle is said to be known by the high priest, which is another significant detail.

Jesus stands before the high priest, then Pilate.  Jesus and Pilate engage in considerable back-and-forth.  John has him uttering a few famous phrases: "What is truth?" and "Here is the man!"

He has Jesus scourged, hoping it will satisfy the religious authorities.  Pilate wants to release him.  "Shall I crucify your king?"  When he finally consents, he has the placard above Jesus's head read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews," and when questioned about this, states, "What I have written, I have written."  None of this is to say that, as in Gospel of Matthew, Pilate outright didn't want to execute Jesus.  History records Pilate to be bloodthirsty.  Perhaps he was merely amusing himself.  Perhaps he allowed Jesus to humor him because it allowed him to have the necessary excuse to conclude the deed.  The Jews could hardly have been allowed to have a king like that.  By calling Jesus the Jewish king, he at once validates the argument and also validates Jesus himself.  A paradox.  He remains faithful to Rome either way.  If he endorses Jesus, he's also having him duly executed.  But it's still an endorsement, no matter how it's viewed.  It's a way of validating a theory I had about certain parallels from the Old Testament, considering the true nature of Jesus's relationship with both Rome and the Jews.  At one point he would have had to be fairly friendly with both, perhaps before or even parallel with the ministry.  When the crucifixion occurs, he needs to be betrayed by both, and so all these efforts to pass judgment from one to the other entity is really a way of saying that neither one really wanted to do it.  But there it was.  It had to happen.

Another of my theories.

Mary (his mother), plus another Mary (Mary's sister), and Mary Magdalene (another Mary) are all present at the crucifixion, along with "the disciple whom he loved."  This disciple, perhaps the same as the earlier unnamed one, is routinely identified with John.  You'll notice that Gospel of John has not even mentioned John, much less his brother James.  Another theory: the other gospels go out of their way to describe the sons of Zebedee as the most unrepentant, obnoxious apostles.  Peter misbehaves repeatedly, but is always redeemed.  Should it be any real surprise if the gospel ascribed to John tries to skirt this controversy, but in a way that actually affirms his reputation?  We'll never know the truth, of course, but it certainly makes sense.  John is traditionally described as the youngest of the apostles.  The lateness of the earliest date for the first appearance of this gospel would have put John at approximately 90 years old.  Likely he would have had someone taking dictation, although if he is indeed both the unnamed disciple and "the one whom he loved," that would also make John the friend of the high priest, which would make him fairly learned as well.

Speculation.

Mary Magdalene discovers the resurrection; Peter and the unnamed beloved apostle race (in Luke it was Peter alone who did this) to confirm it.  Jesus reveals himself to Mary Magdalene directly.  Thomas doubts.  You'll recall that previously when there was doubt at all about the resurrection among the apostles, it was all of them.  Perhaps more impish behavior on the part of John, or perhaps merely the difference between first and second-hand (if even that) knowledge.

The sons of Zebedee are finally referenced, in exactly that way.

Jesus helps the apostles catch fish.  The unnamed apostle is identified as the chief witness of this gospel (giving further circumstantial proof to some of our working theories).  At the end, Jesus remains among them.