Why does the apostle John write far more clearly about the deity of Christ than seems to be the case in the other gospel accounts? He starts with a most powerful declaration of the One who became Jesus in the flesh as having being God in the beginning, see John 1:1-14. But from there on in, similar expressions of deity come thick and fast, and with a clarity that seems to be crisper than in the other accounts.
I am not asking for a comparison between John’s gospel and the others, but to seek from Trinitarians of the Protestant group how they would respond to a non-trinitarian accusing John of portraying Jesus differently to the others, perhaps due to an unwarranted bias.
A linked question The statements of the early Church Fathers regarding the doctrine of the Trinity (pre-Nicea) does allude to John calling the Word 'God' but it enquires about the early Church Fathers and the formation of the formal Trinity doctrine, not about why the apostle John had his particular emphasis in his gospel. I am not searching out the history of the formation of the doctrine but sticking to why John wrote the way he did.
Nor do I want answers majoring on disagreement with my claim that John writes far more clearly about the deity of Christ than do other New Testament writers. That has been dealt with elsewhere on here. Surely nobody will disagree that his first 14 verses are immensely more attention-grabbing as to the deity of Christ than elsewhere in the N.T?
If we can take that as understood, can answers suggest whether or not John’s emphasis on the deity of Christ is too much, or perhaps understood in light of what he wrote in his epistles and in the Revelation of Jesus Christ?  This should not end up as a mere argument about manuscripts (as if John's strong claims can be diluted by questioning the veracity of ancient manuscripts). I hope answerers will grasp that we view the biblical gospel of John as taken, because that is what Protestant Trinitarians do. If anyone disagrees, please post your own question on that!
&quot;I am not asking for a comparison between John’s gospel and the others&quot;; nevertheless, a brief comparison is necessary:

Tax collector Matthew's Gospel is very organized (e.g. written in 5 sections).
Its intended audience is Jews (expectations of the biblical messiah), and Jesus is presented as a Ruler, to lead them.

Servant by tradition Mark's Gospel is very concise (it's the shortest).
Its intended audience is Romans (very practical and efficient), and Jesus is presented as a Servant, to get the job done.

Physician Luke's Gospel is emotional (includes nativity and other non-doctrinal events).
Its intended audience is Greeks (art and beauty), and Jesus is presented as Human, to be one of them.

John's Gospel is precise (detailed and told in chronological order).
Its intended audience is everyone, and Jesus is presented as God, to save them.


The first three Gospels were written to make it easier for Jews, Romans, and Greeks to understand and be converted to Christianity.
They told the story in ways that were best suited for their specific audiences, stressing what would be important to them, and glossing over details that wouldn't.
If Matthew had lead with &quot;Jesus is God&quot;, the Jews would have literally killed him, so he had to present Jesus as the promised Messiah.
If Mark and Luke had lead with &quot;Jesus is God&quot;, the Romans and Greeks would have thought: &quot;Oh, not another one&quot;.
John's Gospel was written well after the others, for the benefit of all Christians.
The Christian community was growing, and was ready to accept the concept of Jesus as God.
By providing missing details and chronology, John complements what the other Gospels say and makes them easier to understand in context.
Even though written last, John's Gospel is the one that should be read and understood first; then the others can be better understood in his context.
The real question should have been: &quot;Why did the other gospels write less clearly than John?&quot;.