The Gospel of John is a document written partly to supplement the Synoptic gospels. The author of the Fourth Gospel has access to the Jesus tradition, and this is evidenced by the level of detail, by the Jesus sayings that are shared with the Synoptics, and by the appeal to third-party testimonies. The Gospel of John is also a polemic document as well as a persuasive document designed to evoke a confession from its audience.
As Brian noted in his post on the Synoptic confession, Matthew, Mark, and Luke present Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God, and expect a response—namely, to confess what has been portrayed. John does the same thing as well:
But these things have been written in order that you might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you might have life in His name (John 20:31)
Thus, one of the first things we find is that John expects one to understand something about Jesus. One is to grasp certain things about Jesus. While the question of whether faith must precede theology, or vice versa, is a relevant question, John’s purpose here is not to debate that question. John’s aim is to get the audience to respond to what has been revealed about Jesus. This content at the onset of John reveals much:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This one was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and apart from Him, was not one thing made. (John 1:1–3)
Jesus existed before the beginning with God and is by nature God. Jesus is the Son of God because He is the Word made flesh (John 1:14). So the preexistence and heavenly origins of Jesus comprise part of the content of what one believes concerning Christ.
John 21 is considered a later addition to the Gospel, and so the original ending is believed to be John 20:30–31. If this is the case, then Thomas’s confession serves as a nice bookend to the earlier edition. Here is what takes place:
Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)
The second thing we find is that we must declare something about Jesus. In this case, Thomas’s confession is that Jesus is Lord and God; this confession is in line with what John reveals to us at the beginning of the Gospel. We also find Peter’s confession about Jesus:
“And we have believed and have known that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:69)
This confession is interesting because it is Peter’s only confession about Jesus in John. In all four gospels, Jesus is never addressed by any other human being as “the Holy One”; instead, the demons are the ones who make this confession. This serves to highlight some sort of other-than-human quality of Jesus.
The third aspect of John’s purpose is that the one who believes might have life in Jesus’ name. As one responds to what one knows of Jesus by declaring it in word, one then declares belief in Christ in one’s manner of living. After Thomas and Peter responded to what they knew about Christ and declared it, they lived without questioning the Lord when He appeared (21:12). According to church tradition, Thomas spread the gospel of Christ into India where he was martyred. Peter was instated as one who would feed Jesus’ sheep, and then invited to follow him (21:19).
Possibly the most significant story of content, declaration, and ethic in John is the blind man of John 9. He understood that Jesus made mud and instructed him to wash in the Pool of Siloam so that he could see (9:6–7). When questioned by the Pharisees, the now-seeing man made a declaration about Jesus from the best that he knew: that Jesus is a prophet and that Jesus was from God (9:17, 33). Later, when approached by Jesus, the man once again believes that Jesus is the Son of Man (9:35, content), makes his declaration of Jesus as Lord (9:38a, declaration), and responds with worship (9:38b, ethic).
the archives near Emmaus 
Fantastic post! It does seem that the Fourth Gospel asks us to believe in Christ’s deity more precisely than the Synoptics. In your study of the gospels do you think this is so? Do you think there are any statements in the Synoptics that make as strong a statement about Jesus’ divine nature? Also, since you have been studying how John’s gospel evolved, is there any building on any of the Synoptic gospels where you would say the Synoptic authors had to be updated on the identity of Christ because John’s gospel provided more insight (e.g. Like John’s chronological correction regarding the temple cleansing)?
Brian,
Thanks! I think that John is more explicit in presenting the divinity of Christ than the Synoptics, although the Synoptics have their fair share as well. For example, the Matthean baptismal formula is very strong. There are also those passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have YHWH as the doer of certain actions (salvation, liberation, healing, etc.) and are applied to Jesus in the Synoptics. Let me get back to your regarding the updating of the Synoptic view. Off the cuff, every gospel begins with a “beginning” but John seems to imply that his is the true beginning. What do you think?
@JohnDave: That would make sense. The Synoptic evangelist see Jesus as “beginning” with his birth and early ministry while somehow “embodying” the presence of YHWH in a sense that is beyond any other “embodiment”, whether kings or temples. John reveals this is because he shared in the reality of YHWH even earlier as the Logos of God. This sounds like Paul’s idea as well with the kenosis.
Great post!
In particular, I don’t think the Synoptics are necessarily “concerned” with presenting such an explicit picture regarding the divinity of Jesus – though, as mentioned, I think they do have their fair share.
Jesus, asked by the high priest, Caiaphas in Matthew 26, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” – The title of Son of God, which is clearly messianic in origin did not mean “God”. So when asking Jesus are you the Messiah, it wasn’t considered blasphemic if Jesus replied with “Yes, I am”. Jesus did this, but moreover said something quite significant. Jesus replies “You have said so,”…“But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” – Jesus, in this statement quotes from Daniel 7 and Psalm 110, which in second Temple Judaism would have been understood by Jewish hearers as quite the divine proclamation, perhaps even so divine to be claiming shared status with Yahweh himself. How do we know this? Though there is more evidence supporting this, we see with the classical blasphemic response of one claiming to be God, namely, the tearing of ones robes. If Jesus just said, “Yes, I’m the messiah”, Caiaphas wouldn’t have done this, rather he would have possibly said something like “This man is clearly deluded!”
Hope this adds to the discussion!
Daniel.
@Daniel: It adds indeed! Wright had some good things to say about the combination of Daniel 7 and Psalm 110 in Jesus and the Victory of God. I think he correctly argued that while this depiction in Mt. is not as intense as later creedal Christology, or even Johnannine Christology, it does imply that Messiah shares in the divinity of YHWH in some sense. The exalted king now shares God’s glory. That is a big deal!
Daniel and Brian,
These are great insights. I haven’t read enough Second Temple texts, but many a commentary on these texts and on Daniel 7 see the messianic person as an exalted human figure, but not much more. In my paper for a Christology class, I argued that John’s use of the Son of Man is apologetic in purpose and portrays Jesus as more than a mere human being, and more than an angel. I know a couple of texts from the Second Temple period that seem to do this (Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra 13). Are either of you aware of others STJ texts?
@JohnDave: I don’t know of any of the top of my head (I’d have to research). As regards Daniel 7.13 Wright notes that the LXX reads “as Ancient of Days” (ὡς παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν) rather than as the MT says it, “to the Ancient of Days” (וְעַד־עַתִּ֤יק יֽוֹמַיָּא). If there is any dependency of thought by early Christians on the LXX here they may have read backward to see Jesus as someone embodying the Ancient of Days?
John is my favorite book of the bible.