The book of John is unique amongst the gospels in that it was written decades after the previous three gospels. Scholars believe John wrote the gospel to address errant teaching about Jesus Christ. Most place the date of the gospel around A.D. 90. But there is also evidence that the gospel may have been written in as many as three stages, based on an analysis of the Greek composition and style. There is not many who doubt the authorship and the book was assigned to John as early as the 2nd century. So it is conceivable that John used it as a tool to communicate the account of Jesus, while expanding it later to clarify fundamental doctrine.
You will find throughout the gospel events and teachings that are not presented in the other three, and for this reason many scholars consider John the most “Christological” of the books, delving in depth on what Jesus taught. For example, the account of the Last Supper is presented in all four gospels, but only in John is it explained (“I am the bread of life”, “he who eats my body and drinks my blood …”). Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus and the phrase “born again” are unique to John. Other examples are several references to John the Baptist, the Samaritan woman; and most surprisingly, the aborted stoning of the adulterous woman.
Often when I read John, noting it was written much later than the other gospels, I ask “What was John trying to point out?” Was there something the church had lost or forgotten. It seems throughout the gospel that with each story John was trying to set the church back on course. We need to remember that John also penned Revelations, and passages in the last book of the New Testament seem to apply to how we perceive the gospel account. “Have we forgotten our first love?” Are we “lukewarm” in our faith? Are we more ardently pursuing “true doctrine” and forgetting who Jesus was?
