Why didn't John's Jesus preach the Kingdom?

[Elijah John]

Why didn't John's Jesus preach the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom of Heaven? Or if he did, he certainly didn't seem to emphasize the Kingdom, by name anyway.

This in contrast to the the Synoptic Jesus.

[ttruscott]

No need...it was well covered elsewhere already...

[Elijah John]

No need...it was well covered elsewhere already...

So, was it Jesus or John who did not want to be redundant? Remember, the NT hadn't been compiled at the time of the writing of the GoJ. Wasn't that element of Jesus preaching important to John's audience? Enough to include?

[bjs]

[Replying to Elijah John]

The most common explanation Christians have given, going back at least to the 4th century, is that the synoptic Gospels had been written and were already in circulation by the time John wrote his Gospel. He and his first readers knew what was in one or more of the synoptics and John wanted to expand on that instead of repeating it.

John beings where the synoptics end. They synoptics build up to the plain statement that Jesus is God. Look, for instance, at the structure of Mark. The first 8 chapters build towards Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. The next 8 chapters build towards the fact that being Son of God does not mean glory in this life, but it means death on a cross.

John opens with the declaration that Jesus is God in the flesh, and the first thing John the Baptists says about Jesus is that he is the “Lamb of God.� All these things Mark was trying to get us to slowly understand, John declares in the first chapter.

This is because John’s audience already knew this. They had read Mark (or another synoptic) and they believed that Jesus is God in the flesh. John then made a conscious effort not to repeat what is found in the synoptics, but instead of expand people’s knowledge of Jesus with new stories and information not found in the other Gospels.

[ttruscott]

No need...it was well covered elsewhere already...

So, was it Jesus or John who did not want to be redundant? Remember, the NT hadn't been compiled at the time of the writing of the GoJ. Wasn't that element of Jesus preaching important to John's audience? Enough to include?

I accept the divine inspiration of the Bible so it is all from GOD, not the men doing the writing. TheBible is GOD's word, saying what HE wants it to say...

[brianbbs67]

No need...it was well covered elsewhere already...

So, was it Jesus or John who did not want to be redundant? Remember, the NT hadn't been compiled at the time of the writing of the GoJ. Wasn't that element of Jesus preaching important to John's audience? Enough to include?

I accept the divine inspiration of the Bible so it is all from GOD, not the men doing the writing. TheBible is GOD's word, saying what HE wants it to say...

Except we know the Bible is added too and taken from. That is man's work. Sure you can say God's message gets out, because it does. That doesn't make what man has wrought holy.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

John 3:3
3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.�

John 3:5
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

John 18:36
36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.�

----

The kingdom phrase is used significantly less in John. Eternal life phrases are used significantly more in John compared to the synoptics. They are preaching two sides to the same coin.

[polonius]

Why didn't John's Jesus preach the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom of Heaven? Or if he did, he certainly didn't seem to emphasize the Kingdom, by name anyway.

This in contrast to the the Synoptic Jesus.

RESPONSE: For a very simple reason. Mark wrote his gospel and Matthew (especially) and Luke used it as their source for their gospels.

Evidently the writer of the Gospel we call "John's" didn't have access to Mark's, Matthew's or Luke's writings and consequently avoided most concrete reporting writing a more or less interpretative gospel .

Note that in John's gospel he has Jesus crucified a day early (not on Passover) and doesn't have any institution of a eucharist at the last supper.

On the other hand, John does report later events, such as the Christians being excluded from the Jewish synagogues when they started claiming Jesus was divine in the early 80's.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 8 by polonius]

John is right about Jesus not dying on a friday night. The passover came and then the Sabbath came and then he rose.(at twilight Saturday which is Sunday at sunset using God's time) there were 2 holy days in his death week. There was no good friday or Ishtir Sunday. Or Maudy Thursday.

[ttruscott]

No need...it was well covered elsewhere already...

So, was it Jesus or John who did not want to be redundant? Remember, the NT hadn't been compiled at the time of the writing of the GoJ. Wasn't that element of Jesus preaching important to John's audience? Enough to include?

I accept the divine inspiration of the Bible so it is all from GOD, not the men doing the writing. TheBible is GOD's word, saying what HE wants it to say...

Except we know the Bible is added too and taken from. That is man's work. Sure you can say God's message gets out, because it does. That doesn't make what man has wrought holy.

Believing it says what GOD wants it to say has NO MEANING about who wrote what HE wanted said down.