Why WE Believe the Book of John? A Principle of First Mention

Good day, dear students. My name is Sir/Pastor Algae Salapan Densing, and I am honored to be your Instructor for this course entitled Teachings of Jesus. I also serve as the Head Coordinator for Values Education here at Western Mindanao Adventist Academy, where I lead the development and integration of the Values subject from Grades 7 to 12.

As we embark on this journey together, I want to emphasize that before we can truly appreciate the message of the Bible—especially the Gospel of John—we must first explore its biblical background and historical authenticity. This foundational step will help us interpret and apply its message with clearness and integrity.

We begin with the preliminaries.

Among the four gospels in the New Testament, the Gospel of John stands out as particularly unique. Unlike the Synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—John’s account presents Jesus from a distinct theological and literary angle.

The word synoptic comes from the Greek syn, meaning “together,” and opsis, meaning “view.” The Synoptic Gospels are so called because they share many of the same stories, often with similar wording, structure, and sequence. They offer a collective and interrelated portrayal of Christ’s life and teachings. For example:

• The calming of the storm is found in all three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 8, Mark 4, Luke 8).
• The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke are parallel teachings.

However, the Gospel of John introduces a paradigm shift. It presents Jesus with a stronger emphasis on His divine nature, with deeper theological reflections, especially in its presentation of Christology—the study of Christ’s nature and role.

Interestingly, the Gospel of John has historically resonated with various groups, including early Gnostics. Gnosticism was a prominent belief system during the early centuries of Christianity. While it diverged from the apostolic teachings, its fascination with John’s theological depth is notable.

To clarify few things, let us distinguish two often-confused terms: Gnosticism and Agnosticism.

Agnosticism refers to a philosophical stance where one claims that the existence of God or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. The word derives from the Greek a- meaning “without” and gnosis, meaning “knowledge.” Agnostics neither affirm nor deny God’s existence—they simply remain uncertain.

Gnosticism, on the other hand, is a religious and philosophical movement that taught that salvation comes through secret knowledge (gnosis). Gnostics viewed the material world as inherently evil and the spiritual realm as good. They often interpreted Jesus as a divine messenger sent to reveal hidden truths that would free the soul from material bondage. While they drew from Christian teachings, they also incorporated elements of Greek philosophy and other religious thought.

A central issue with Gnosticism lies in its dualistic understanding of Jesus. Rather than affirming the biblical truth that Jesus is fully God and fully human, many Gnostics viewed Christ as a half-human, half-divine being. To them, Christ’s divinity could not coexist with true humanity.

This conflicted with orthodox Christian teaching. According to Scripture, Jesus is not a divided being but a complete person—fully divine and fully human. If we think of being in mathematical terms, some Gnostics argued that one cannot be 100% of both. Yet, Scripture teaches the mystery of the Incarnation: Jesus is wholly God and wholly man, not a composite of two halves but one complete Person.

To reconcile their views, some Gnostics promoted Docetism, the idea that Jesus only appeared to be human but was actually fully divine. This raised serious theological problems—if Jesus wasn’t truly human, who then died on the cross? How could salvation be real?

Later, in the third century, Arius of Alexandria proposed a different error: that Jesus was a created being, fully human but not truly divine. His famous slogan, “There was a time when he was not,” denied Christ’s eternal divinity. Arianism became like a wildfire.

These issues came to a head at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. Convened by Emperor Constantine, this council condemned Arianism as heresy and formulated the Nicene Creed, a foundational statement of Christian belief:

We believe in one God, the FATHER Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord JESUS CHRIST, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον) with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the HOLY GHOST.

But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

Although Arius and his followers, the Arians, were not persecuted at the time—largely due to Constantine’s desire for unity—their teachings were strongly opposed by the Church. Constantine himself, despite convening the council, later leaned toward Arianism before his death in A.D. 336.

It wasn’t until the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 that the Church definitively affirmed that Jesus is one Person with two natures: divine and human, without confusion, change, division, or separation.

In the 1500s, Michael Servetus introduced Oneness Theology, asserting that Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. His views were deemed heretical, and tragically, he was executed.

As you can see, Christological debates played a significant role in the development of early Christian thought. They weren’t just theological squabbles—they shaped how the Church understood and preached the gospel.

This brings us to the authenticity of the biblical texts.

For a book to be included in the biblical canon, it had to meet several criteria. During the canonization process, Athanasius, a fourth-century bishop, played a key role in affirming the 27 books of the New Testament. He excluded apocryphal writings—some of which were favored by Gnostic circles—due to questions about their authenticity.

This is why proper interpretation is essential.

To interpret the Gospel of John correctly, we must be guided by biblical hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the discipline of interpreting texts, especially sacred or philosophical writings. It comes from the Greek word hermēneuein, meaning “to explain” or “to interpret.”

In biblical hermeneutics, we seek to:

• Understand what the text meant to its original audience.
• Study the language, historical context, and culture surrounding the text.
• Apply the message responsibly to today’s context.

Part of this involves understanding the book’s authorship, date, and setting. Without this, we risk misunderstanding its message or misapplying its truths.

The Gospel of John was written by the Apostle John, “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Scholars debate its dating—some place it before his exile, others after. I favor a post-exile composition, around A.D. 96, as it seems to address a second-generation Christian audience.

John’s Gospel presents several central themes, including love, sin, eternal life, salvation, and grace—even though the word grace itself is not used frequently in the text. These themes will guide our study and reflection throughout the course.

In the coming chapters, we will explore these ideas more deeply, always seeking to know Jesus better and to follow Him more closely.