Why Did John Write His Gospel?

Introduction

The unique style and content of John’s Gospel has generated a huge body of scholarly comment and opinion. There are innumerable commentaries and articles researching issues of language, authorship, date, and much more besides. Many eminent scholars have been engaged in the enterprise of answering the multitude of questions raised by the existence of John’s Gospel.

This article however, will not look at the ‘who, when, or where’ but address the singular question of ‘why’. Why did John write his Gospel? The early Christians were seemingly well served with three excellent synoptic gospels covering the many incidents in the life of Jesus.[1] So why did the Apostle John feel the need to add one more?

This article will answer this question.

Some Basics

We start with some necessary basic statements of our position.

• John 21:20-25 plus other internal evidences supports the view that the Author is John the Apostle.[2]
• We tend to an early date of writing (between 50-70 CE)[3] on the basis that (1) the Gospel contains passages characteristic of an eyewitness; and (2) the Gospel is silent on the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.
• We also rely on the evident similarity of concept and idiom between the Gospel and certain of the Dead Sea Scrolls, such as the Essene Scroll but particularly the Rule of the Community.[4]

So, we will review the Gospel (in summary) to see if we can define John’s purpose in writing. We take the view that we can determine the question as to why John wrote his Gospel without the need to look into the Greek text.

Overview

Gospel analysts have long identified that John’s record is almost unique from the other three Synoptic Gospels. Indeed, it is reckoned that the Synoptic Gospels share only a 10% factor of commonality with John’s record.[5]

This fact alone should alert us to the view that whatever John’s purpose was, it wasn’t to provide another ‘synoptic’ account on the life of Jesus. It seems John was more interested in making an impact on his readers with respect to certain key features of Jesus’ life (written from an alternative viewpoint of course), rather than producing a holistic account of his life i.e. a ‘synoptic’ record.

There are for example no references to the healing of demoniacs or any parables. John appears to selectively focus on only seven of Jesus’ miracles. The greatest of these was without doubt the raising of Lazarus—the supreme miracle which provided the catalyst for the plot to kill Jesus.

E. Brown, a scholar of the social environment where the Gospel and Letters of John emerged, has labeled chapter 1:1-12:50 “The Book of 7 Signs”, and 13:1-21:25 “The Book of Glory”.[6] Some other commentators divide the text even further. So it would appear that John reduced the many incidents in the life of Jesus to a select few. From this selection John has produced a text that concentrates on arguably the most powerful of Jesus’ sayings and miracles. This text then forms a most potent epitome of the life of Jesus. And from the research of scholars like Brown we conclude that John purposefully organized these incidents and sub-divided them into “Books” of learning. Each of these books formed a group of teaching materials or tableaus. These teaching tableaus in their condensed form provided the reader with material of great simplicity and yet enormous persuasive power on both an emotional and intellectual level.

The ‘Commentary’ of John

But there is another feature unique to John that gives credence to the thesis we are forming about the purpose of this Gospel. A review of the text quickly establishes that whilst incidents are described in detail, John also adds his own ‘commentary’ on the events he writes about. It seems as though John ‘stands back’ from the incident he is describing to provide his readers with further helpful comments and insights to aid their greater understanding of the matters he is putting before them. It rather seems as though the teacher going the extra mile as it were, to assist the students understanding.

Very often these comments put the actions of Jesus into context or explain background information. Sometimes they focus on the spiritual significance of an event—again so the reader can gain a better understanding. The table below details the comments/asides made by John. For the sake of brevity we have summarized the content of this ‘commentary’ in the right hand column of the table on a case by case basis. And where John has used only a short comment we have attempted a paraphrase. You will note we have drawn attention to those comments where John directly or impliedly uses the word or concept of belief (or believing) by italicizing and using a bold script.

Verse	Summary of Verse / Paraphrase
1:1-18	The Messiahship of Jesus explained and evidenced (v. 12 believe)
2:11	The Disciples believed him
2:21-22	The Disciples believed
2:23-35	Many believed
3:16-21	Whosoever believeth
6:64	Those not believing
6:71	Judas the betrayer
7:5	Unbelief of Jesus’ brothers
7:39-44	Holy Spirit and belief
10:6	They understood not
10:19-21	Jesus divides the Jews
11:51-53	Caiaphas prophecy
11:54-57	Would Jesus appear?
12:6	Judas a thief
12:9-11	Lazarus and belief in Jesus
12:16-19	The world is for Jesus
12:36-43	Isaiah and men’s praise
13:26-27	Satan enters Judas
13:28-29	Explanation of Jesus’ words to Judas as he left the upper room
19:35-37	The OT scripture fulfilled
20:30-31	Believe that Jesus is Christ
21:14	John the ‘beloved’
21:24-25	John’s testimony is true

In the 24 comments made by John as set out in the table above, there are at least 9 comments by John which positively affirm the manifestation of belief in those who heard Jesus or witnessed the events of which he writes. In the other instances, John exhorts the requirement for belief upon his readers. The one negative view of unbelief is recorded of Jesus’ brothers.

It is significant that nearly 40% of John’s comments are to do with belief in both its positive and negative forms. We can only conclude from this that John was emphasising the importance of belief in:

• The credentials of Jesus as the ‘Word made flesh’
• That Jesus is the Son of God with full power
• That he was the Lamb of God, i.e. his sacrificial death brought salvation for man.
• That the life of Jesus and his ministry, death and resurrection were all pre-ordained in numerous O.T. prophecies which Jesus fulfilled to the letter.

Conclusion – Why did John write his Gospel?

The answer to the question we have posed will be in 2 parts.

Answer Part 1.

From the evidence above, it seems reasonable to conclude that John wrote and organised his Gospel in a very concentrated form to maximise the persuasive power of its simple but elevating message. Stripped of anything extraneous, and couched in a very personal style, where the reader is almost treated as a ‘confidant’ of the Apostle, it is a treatise written for just one purpose—to convict the conscience of the reader for the wider purpose of cementing personal belief in the sacrifice of Jesus as being efficacious for salvation. Indeed, the Apostle betrays this purpose in comments made in John 2:11 and 19:35-37. But pre-eminently in John 20:30-31 where he makes a statement which in our view sums up the whole purpose of the Gospel:

…And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that believing ye might have life through his name.

In our view John writes in the way he does not because the Synoptics are deficient in some manner, but rather because he wants to focus the reader on the key issue. And the key issue (according to John) is that it is Jesus himself as the Lamb of God redeems the world rather than his philosophy / message. The personality and intimacy of Jesus which John so brilliantly conveys in his Gospel record is arguably a more muted subject in the Synoptics, which are more redolent of the message than the man himself.

Answer Part 2.

Finally, we should attempt to answer a consequential question which arises from having answered the question we set ourselves at the outset. The consequential question is this: having focused on the fact that it is belief in the atoning work of Jesus that is at the crux of salvation, at whom was John aiming this message?

The intimacy of language which John uses in his Gospel suggests to us that the target audience were known to him and sympathetic to his message. It is known that John spent time in Ephesus. Could it be that John wrote this Gospel for them? We know that the Church in Ephesus was established very early possibly from converts who had witnessed and been baptised into the ‘baptism of John Baptist’. Is it possible that in his flight from Rome circa 49 CE, having moved to the relative safety of Ephesus, he came across a body of believers steeped in John the Baptist’s teaching but not yet fully aware of Jesus?

With respect to this last point we would like to comment on how seamlessly the Apostle John transitions the prologue in chapter 1:1-18, into the life and work of John the Baptist in verse 19. It seems that, unlike the Synoptics, there is very little introduction in John’s gospel as to who the Baptist was and why he was working. Is this lack of formal introduction of the Baptist in the narrative because the Ephesus Church was already familiar with him—given that their basis of fellowship was his baptism?

Also, when we consider what John the Apostle has chosen not to write about, it makes it all the more remarkable that he records a very detailed set of exchanges between John Baptist and Jesus spanning a period of 2 days. Is the relatively copious coverage of the ‘John the Baptist episode’ written because John had the Ephesus Church in view with its clear Baptist origins? Clearly all this is a speculation which may never be proven—but it is certainly an interesting train of thought.

In aggregate then, we would argue that John wrote his Gospel for the sole purpose of persuading those who were already enlightened (possibly into the ways of the Baptist), that Jesus was not only a greater prophet than John Baptist (Jesus’ forerunner), but was so much more. Was John at pains to teach his flock that this man Jesus was not only the Messiah the Son of God with power, but through his obedience to God he made himself the sacrificial ‘Lamb of God’ which took away the sin of the world? And that it was through belief in the life and work of the man as opposed to his message, that salvation was made available to all mankind?

John records in his Gospel that when the officers of the High Priest returned empty handed without Jesus as their prisoner the justification the officers gave was “Never man spake like this man” (John 7:46). This is certainly true, but could it also be said of John the Apostle that within the NT genre “Never man wrote about Jesus with such passion and insight as this man”.

---