One of the myths that still has a grip on the Western Church is that John’s gospel is somehow more “philosophical” than the others.

I don’t find this credible at all.  Part of the problem is assuming John’s use of “Logos” in the beginning of this letter is meant to have some relationship to pagan philosophy. (Which would be fine if he did.  I’m pretty sure we find some of that in Paul’s language as a means of confrontation.) But it seems much more credible to me to see in this a reference to the OT Scripture as a revelation of God’s character. The Scripture became flesh and tabernacled among us.

Another mistake is understanding John’s use of the word “world.”  He’s not making claims about he cosmos as we think of it.  His “world” is the world of first century Judaism.  Later on Jesus speaks of how the world will hate the disciples by casting them out of “their” synagogues and fulfilling “their” Scriptures.  He then quotes the OT.  This is not about Rome or all nations.  It is about Israel.

Likewise, People have thought he was transcending the issues of Israel’s identity by referring to “the Jews” as the enemies and the others.  But here is where we realize that John’s Gospel may be the most Jewish and most concerned with Israel’s internal situation of all four Gospels.  “Jew” is not contrasted with “Gentiles” but with people from Galilee and other places at the edges of Israel away from the area of Judea.  Jew means Judean.  For us it would correspond to the area from New York to Washington DC where the ruling class predominately lives.

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the feeding of the five thousand is portrayed as one of many good things Jesus does.  Only John reveals to you how problematic that action turned out to be in light of the political situation of that region in that time.  He’s not addressing world philosophy.  He’s telling the story of Jesus dealing with the pressures of his people.

John is among the prophets.