I. Introduction

What was John's purpose for writing his Gospel? Does he tell us? Is it important for us to know?

Usually, those would be mildly interesting academic questions. They are similar to speculating about when a New Testament document was written (e.g., Was Galatians written before Thessalonians? Was Revelation written before or after AD 70?). While those are fascinating questions to ponder, and it would be fun to debate them in a New Testament seminar, they're not the kind of issues you should become dogmatic about, let alone divisive over. And yet, in some Free Grace circles, the purpose of John’s Gospel has been made into a decisive issue. These circles claim that John’s Gospel is exclusively evangelistic. (The adverb “exclusively” is key.) Proponents cite John 20:30-31 as proof for that position, and then draw several other inferences to create a new (and controversial!) soteriological position. They reason like this:

• John 20:30-31 is interpreted as giving the book’s purpose, and his purpose is said to be exclusively evangelistic.
• It is further claimed that John is the only evangelistic book in the Bible.
• Since it is the only evangelistic book, they assert that the saving message should be derived from it rather than from other New Testament writings.
• The essential saving message in John is said to be “believe in Jesus for eternal life” (in which “eternal” is narrowly defined as “irrevocable” or “eternally secure”).
• Evangelistic presentations elsewhere in the New Testament, including in John itself, are understood to presuppose that essential message.

Although proponents of this position consider these premises and conclusions to be obvious, to me they sound like piling up questionable inferences upon questionable inferences.

I have written elsewhere about why the second-to-last point is wrong. The fact is, John’s Gospel never presents the condition of salvation as believing in Jesus “for eternal life,” let alone makes that the “essential” message (see “Is ‘Believe in Jesus for Eternal Life’ the Saving Message?”). I intend to publish a study on how John actually presents the condition of salvation soon. Since the second-to-last point is definitely wrong, so is the last one. Reading into other texts a saving message that John never presents is a textbook case of question-begging eisegesis and circular reasoning.

In this article, I want to challenge the first point. Is John's Gospel exclusively evangelistic? I will present ten reasons why that interpretation is highly unlikely. However, I want to make clear that I do not regard this as an issue for division between Christians. To me, this is a low-stakes academic question. No major doctrine depends on knowing what John’s authorial purpose might have been, let alone that it was exclusively evangelistic. The deity of Christ, the fact of the incarnation, the universality of the atonement, the truth of the resurrection, or salvation by grace, through faith in Christ, apart from works, do not depend upon John being written for a particular purpose. Instead, this question has become extremely important to one school within the wider Free Grace movement because they have built their unique soteriology on that claim. My hope is to help Free Grace people avoid being sidetracked by questionable speculations and to learn to stick more closely to Scripture’s explicit statements, focusing on the great truths of the gospel. We need to unite together to fight against the false gospel of works salvation, not fight amongst ourselves over debatable theories.

II. Initial Problems

First, the claim that John’s Gospel is exclusively evangelistic is contradicted by 2 Tim 3:14-17, where Paul gives the Divine purpose for all of Scripture:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:14-17, emphasis added).

According to Paul, God designed all Scripture to (1) make someone wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (I suspect Paul means salvation in all three tenses [past, present, future]); (2) and to be useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, training, and equipping. In other words, God intended for all Scripture to serve both an evangelistic and a discipleship function. Paul’s point is not that these are incidental effects of Scripture, or merely permitted uses, but that Scripture is given for those purposes. Discipleship, therefore, is not a secondary consequence of Scripture, but one of God’s primary intentions for all that he has breathed out—including John’s Gospel. In other words, if Paul is right (and he is!), John cannot be exclusively evangelistic. To understand the purpose of the Gospel, we must account for both the Divine and human authorial intents. And John’s Gospel, like all Scripture, is intended not only make one wise for salvation, but also be used to teach, rebuke, correct, and train believers. It’s not an either-or choice between evangelism and discipleship, but a both-and. The exclusively evangelistic interpretation immediately fails the test of Scripture. We can be certain that, as far as the Divine Author is concerned, John has at least those two purposes.

Second, as a question of methodology, there is no good reason to simply assume that an author must have a single purpose. The exclusively evangelistic view seems to make that assumption. We have already seen that God Himself has multiple purposes for breathing out Scripture. As an author myself, I can attest that I usually have multiple purposes in mind when writing anything. It is a mistake to naively assume, without good reason, that John wrote with only one purpose in mind. Raymond E. Brown notes the problem and cautions against “exaggerating the need for finding specific aims in the Gospel.” He points out that it has been “a besetting fault” of some interpreters to choose just one possible goal, and to then interpret the whole gospel in light of it (Brown, The Gospel According to John, p. lxvii). I believe that is exactly the fault of the exclusively evangelistic approach. I understand the craving for simplicity, but we should avoid being simplistic. The single-purpose theory needs to be argued for and tested against Scripture—not treated as a dogmatic truth or unassailable assumption that is then used to interpret Scripture.

Third, the exclusively evangelistic interpretation of John is impractical given an ancient context. In Biblical times, when Christians evangelized, they preached the gospel and simply told the good news to their neighbors. There’s no evidence that they evangelized by distributing books, as we sometimes do today, thanks to modern technology and affordable printing from China and Korea. In the ancient world, not only were most people illiterate, but hand-copying a book would have been prohibitively expensive for widespread distribution. A book would have been ill-suited to an exclusively evangelistic purpose. Instead, religious books served a discipleship function. Just as synagogues had Torah scrolls, Christian churches made copies of the apostolic writings, shared them with one another, and read them aloud to the assembly. Of course, it was always possible for an unbeliever to be visiting the assembly when an evangelistic portion of John was being read, and they could be evangelized in that way. But Scripture was primarily used to train up a community in faith, not passed around to bring unbelievers to initial faith in Jesus.  

Those are three initial reasons to doubt the plausibility of the exclusively evangelistic interpretation. Given those objections, proponents could modify their claim in this way. They can distinguish between the Divine purpose and the human authorial purpose. And instead of asserting that the Gospel is exclusively evangelistic, they could argue that John's human authorial purpose remains primarily evangelistic and that John 20:30-31 provides proof of that. They can concede that John probably expected his Gospel to serve a discipleship purpose among the churches, but his primary aim was to write an evangelistic document addressed to unbelievers. Is that weaker claim any more likely? While it may be slightly more probable, I still think it is unlikely. John 20:30-31 does not obviously support that weaker claim. Here's why.

III. Interpretive Problems

I know how easily I can read my own theology into a text. Being truly objective when interpreting Scripture is hard. To slow myself down and listen more carefully to Scripture, I’ve adopted a simple discipline. I ask two questions: Does the text explicitly say what I think it says? If not, why am I reading it that way? Those questions help me hear what the text is saying, not merely what I want it to say.

With those questions in mind, reread John 20:30–31. Ask yourself: Does John explicitly write that he is explaining the purpose of the whole book and that his purpose is evangelistic?

Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Clearly, John does not explicitly say either of those things in this passage. Therefore, the evangelistic thesis becomes a matter of interpretation. We then turn to the second question: why do proponents of the evangelistic view interpret the passage in their way? In what follows, I aim to anticipate their reasons and offer a better interpretation of John’s words.

Fourth, John 20:30–31 explicitly explains why John recorded certain signs. He does not explain his purpose for writing the Gospel as a whole. Proponents of the evangelistic view try to defend their position by claiming that, in referring to the signs, John means all the signs in the book, and that his purpose for the signs reflects his purpose for the whole Gospel. Those are two huge assumptions that no one should simply take for granted. Instead, let’s stick to what John explicitly says. He writes to explain the signs. But does he mean all the signs in the whole book? Not necessarily. In v 31, John uses the phrase, “But these are written.” In every other instance where John uses this phrase, it refers to what he has just written in the immediate context (cf. 1 John 1:4 refers to 1:1-3; in 1 John 2:1 refers to 1 John 1:5-10; and 1 John 2:26 refers to 2:18-25). If John is maintaining the same style, then it is best to interpret “these are written” as referring to the signs recorded in the immediate context of Jesus’ resurrection appearances to the disciples. During the forty days preceding Pentecost, Jesus appeared to the disciples many times. John means he could have included other material in his Gospel, but he selected those incidents in particular (perhaps knowing what the other Gospel writers included in their books). Crucially, note how John explains that these signs were done in the presence of the disciples. If Jesus performed these signs in a discipleship context, then it is probable that John uses them in that way as well. But even if you think that John was referring to his purpose for all the signs explicitly mentioned or only implied in the Gospel, you will find them done either before the disciples or before a mixed audience of disciples and unbelievers. The signs are never used in an exclusively evangelistic way. There is no reason from the signs themselves to think they are obviously primarily evangelistic. In sum, a careful reading of John 20:30–31 is better understood as John explaining why he recorded those specific resurrection signs, and not his explaining the purpose of the whole Gospel. And, in any case, those signs serve a double purpose, not an exclusively, or even primarily evangelistic one.

Fifth, John presents both unbelievers and believers as needing to believe in Jesus’ identity. Advocates of the exclusively evangelistic view think that believing “that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God,” can only have the evangelistic meaning of unbelievers coming to faith for the first time. Once again, that is simply not true. Sometimes John presents the issue of Jesus' identity in an evangelistic context, such as when the woman at the well progresses from believing Jesus is a Jewish man to a prophet to the Messiah (“Could this be the Christ?” John 4). But the disciples, who already confessed their faith in Jesus’ identity in John 1:29, 34, 36, 41, 45, 49, are also shown progressing in their understanding and faith in who Jesus is. For example, Peter, speaking on behalf of all the disciples, confesses their abiding faith in Jesus’ identity (“We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God,” John 6:69, perfect tense). And Jesus' conversation with Martha, which reproduces the confession in 20:31, has her say, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.” The perfect tense of “believe” means she had believed in the past and continued to believe in the present that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, despite her disappointment in Jesus’ failure to save her brother from death. In other words, Martha's confession is that of a disciple, not of an unbeliever. Lastly, Thomas’ immediately example of returning to faith, with the added depth of belief in Jesus’ deity, is yet another example of why eliciting faith that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, is fitting for either evangelism or discipleship and is not obviously about evangelism alone.

Sixth, John’s use of “believe” in 20:30–31 is not limited to initial conversion but includes the deepening or restoration of faith among disciples. The evangelistic interpretation thinks that “believing” in 20:30–31 refers only to unbelievers who come to faith for the first time. But that ignores how John speaks about believing in the whole Gospel, including the immediate example of Thomas. Remember that Thomas had stopped believing in Jesus after the crucifixion and refused to believe that He had risen from the dead. But after seeing the resurrected Christ for himself, Thomas began to believe again, this time with a deeper faith, confessing the deity of Christ (20:28). When you read the Gospel as a whole, it is true that unbelievers come to believe in Jesus for the first time, such as the Samaritans (4:39) and the royal official and his household (4:53). But John also records how already-believers such as the disciples (John 2:11) come to believe in new truths such as the resurrection (20:8), or how they continue in the faith despite worldly doubts and troubles, such as how Martha continued to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, albeit with a deeper understanding of what that implies for the resurrection (perfect tense, 11:27, and possibly His deity, too). Given all the persecution that Christians were to experience, and all the temptations they faced to fall away from the faith, there can be no doubt that it was pastorally appropriate for John to desire to help Christians continue to persevere in their faith in Jesus. Indeed, many commentators believe that is exactly why John wrote his Gospel.

Seventh, John presents both believers and unbelievers needing “life.” Proponents of the evangelistic theory claim this can only mean unbelievers receiving life for the first time. While it is true that John wants his readers to have “life,” proponents of the evangelistic view miss the wide variety of ways in which John uses “life” in his Gospel. (Frankly, I think this is an area that requires much further study by the Free Grace movement as a whole. Interested readers may begin by consulting Konstan and Ramelli, Terms for Eternity). The bottom line is that “life” is not an exclusively evangelistic category for John. For example, Jesus taught that His words “are spirit and are life” (John 6:63), indicating that His words are a continued source of life for believers. When many followers began abandoning Jesus, the Lord asked the Twelve if they would also leave Him. Peter replied, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:68). It is doubtful that Peter meant they wouldn’t leave the Lord because He had the words of how to be born again. Instead, Peter meant there was an ongoing life-giving quality to Jesus’ words that Peter continued to need. Just so, Jesus came to give people “life and life more abundantly” (John 10:10), where “abundant life” is life intensified, not life initiated. Jesus being “the way and the truth and the life” surely includes both the initial reception of life and its ongoing, abundant quality (John 14:6). “Life” may also refer to the future resurrection. Jesus promised Martha that, at the resurrection of the last day, whoever believes in Him would be raised to life, not to condemnation (11:25-26; cf. John 5:24-29). Jesus also spoke of life in terms of knowing God: “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3), which is surely a qualitative experience. And no one would dispute that the image of branches abiding on the vine in the upper room discourse is all about having abundant life. In short, while it is true that unbelievers need life, it is also true that disciples need abundant life and future resurrection life. In John’s Gospel, Jesus speaks of life as a qualitative, relational, and participatory way of living in communion with God. It begins with the first act of faith in Jesus, continues by abiding in Him, and culminates in the future resurrection, at which point believers enter the kingdom or “life of the Age to come” (cf. Daniel 12:2; John 3:3, 5).

Eighth, the evangelistic interpretation of John is a minority view among commentators. That does not make it wrong. My point is simply that it is not obvious. Good, godly, and careful scholars disagree for a reason. From my survey of the evidence, a majority of commentators seem divided between (a) those who view John as serving the dual purposes of evangelism and discipleship and (b) those who view it as strictly for discipleship, especially to encourage perseverance in faith. Only a handful of commentators think the book was written with evangelism in view. I suspect that the high confidence some proponents of the evangelistic view exhibit may reflect the Dunning–Kruger effect, in which a lack of awareness of a subject’s complexity leads to overconfidence in one’s own opinions. I’ll include a long series of quotes from New Testament commentators at the end of this article so people can become a little more aware of the kinds of arguments and evidence one must try to have an informed opinion on this subject.

IV. Further Arguments

We have already noted several compelling reasons why an exclusively—or even primarily—evangelistic reading of John’s Gospel represents a minority position among commentators. Two further considerations strengthen the case that, if one attempts to infer John’s authorial purpose, it is more plausible that he wrote with both evangelistic and discipleship concerns in view.

Ninth, John’s Gospel appears to be structured around the two aims of evangelism and discipleship. Chapters 1–12 narrate Jesus’ public ministry, including explicit evangelistic appeals to individuals such as the apostles, Nicodemus, and the woman at the well. In John 12:36, Jesus leaves the crowds, and in chapters 13–21, the scene shifts, and the audience narrows to His disciples, all of whom are believers (with the possible exception of Judas). The Lord then teaches them about what could be called the deeper Christian life, preparing them to endure in the faith and to witness to the world. That rough division is not absolute, of course. There is discipleship material in the first half of the book, too. But that only supports the divine intention that all Scripture be used for both.

Tenth, the way the church has historically used the Gospel of John as Scripture reflects a primary function of discipleship. John’s Gospel was considered the most deeply theological and spiritual of all the Gospels. He was given the title “the Theologian” because of how deep his Gospel is. For two thousand years, Christians have read it with profit for their Christian lives. It reveals more about Christ’s deity, the life of the Trinity, and how to grow by abiding in that Trinitarian life than most other books. Historically speaking, John’s Gospel has not primarily been used for evangelism, but for spiritually forming disciples. Even today, with the advent of modern printing and widespread literacy, John’s Gospel is not primarily used for evangelism. Instead, it was a book written to the church, for the church, to be read in the church and heard by Christians. I believe it has primarily been used that way because that was the Spirit’s purpose for it.

V. Conclusion

In sum, the claim that John’s Gospel is exclusively or even primarily evangelistic is unlikely, given careful exegesis, sound methodology, and sensitivity to its 1st century historical context. Neither John 20:30–31 nor the broader contours of the Gospel require such a narrow construal of John’s authorial intent. While I understand how someone could read those verses and focus only on their evangelistic implications, I do not think an evangelistic interpretation is sustainable given all the evidence. On the contrary, as I argued above, Scripture itself teaches that God breathes out His Word to both make people wise for salvation and to form believers in faithfulness, maturity, and endurance. The Gospel’s call to believe in Jesus encompasses initial belief, renewed trust, deepened confession, and persevering faith. Its promise of life embraces not only regeneration, but abundant communion with Christ and future resurrection glory. To insist otherwise is to impose a simplistic and reductionistic framework onto a rich and multi-layered text. At the very least, I think a greater degree of humility and caution is required when arguing for the evangelistic view. And I think it would be unwise to build a new doctrine of salvation based on that claim which is then used to divide from other people.

What is John about? If I had to guess at John’s major theme (not purpose), I would begin at the beginning, with the Prologue, and note his emphasis on the deity of Christ. From the very first verse to Thomas’ confession, Jesus’ claims, signs, and actions all point to His being the Word that was with God and is God. As Henry Halley wrote, “The special emphasis of John is the Deity of Jesus” (Halley’s Bible Handbook, p. 527). John clearly wants his readers to deepen their understanding of Jesus’ identity until, like Thomas, they realize that He is God made flesh, and then to spend the rest of their lives abiding in that life-giving truth. All Christians need to know who Jesus is in the width, and breadth, and depth of who He is. Recognizing John’s Gospel as serving both evangelism and discipleship frees readers to hear John as the church has long heard him: proclaiming Christ to unbelievers, while forming believers to live, abide, and endure in Him. John’s Gospel fits that pattern precisely.

VI. Appendix: Commentary Survey

Debates within Free Grace circles over the purpose of John’s Gospel often take place at a popular level, without sustained engagement with the broader scholarly discussion or with perspectives outside a particular theological camp. To help readers step out of any such theological echo chambers, this survey of New Testament commentaries aims to highlight the complexity of the issues and to provide brief excerpts illustrating the reasoning behind the differing views on the purpose(s) of John’s Gospel. I have broadly characterized each commentary as belonging to the evangelistic, dual-purpose, or perseverance views, but I admit those labels may be somewhat reductionist. Furthermore, I consulted only the books in my personal library and did not attempt to survey the many journal articles that address this question.

Benny C. Aker (perseverance):

“Knowing why the author penned his Gospel is important for understanding… Here is the issue: Does the book as a Gospel seek new converts, or does it offer an apology for Christians whom outsiders are attacking for their faith and who stand in need of persuasion or encouragement to continue their faith in Jesus? …  The argument and purpose of the Gospel itself gives weight to the present tense. The nature of this Gospel suggests that believers addressed by John needed to be encouraged to keep on believing in Jesus as God’s divine Son. The writer found his congregation challenged by others regarding the nature and work of Jesus. This in turn caused them to question the religious community they belonged to, even the nature of the church… This Gospel was written to believers to remain faithful in spite of various kinds of threats from Judaism” (Aker, “John,” p. 115).

Johannes Beutler, SJ (perseverance):

“D. A. Carson defends the aorist and a ‘missionary’ understanding; by contrast, the majority of recent authors, with the oldest Greek manuscripts, prefer the present. Gordon D. Fee does now as well. In that case, the aim of the evangelist would be to encourage the readers to remain in their faith in Jesus and Messiah and Son of God. A further perspective should be added: the courage to proclaim faith in Jesus without fear even in adverse circumstances (like Nicodemus, the man born blind, the apostles, and the women who undertake the proclamation of Jesus)” (Beutler, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, p. 518).

Edwin A. Blum (dual purpose):

“The purpose of the Gospel of John, stated in 20:31, was to record Jesus’ ‘signs’ so that readers would come to believe in Him. Doubtless the author had other purposes as well. Some have argued that John wrote against synagogue Judaism, or the Gnostics, or the followers of John the Baptist. Some think John wrote to supplement the other Gospels. John’s Gospel has a clear evangelistic purpose (as do the other Gospels), so it is no accident that it has been greatly used in the history of the church for that purpose” (emphasis added) (Blum, “John,” p. 268).

Thomas L. Brodie (perseverance):

“The writing and its purpose. Like Jesus’ pronouncement to Thomas (v 29), the statement on why the gospel was written is an invitation to faith. In fact, of the two invitations, the purpose-statement, despite some textual uncertainty, is much clearer (vv 30–31, ‘…that you may believe…). The uncertainty concerns the original tense (aorist or present?) of the word ‘believe,’ but whatever the original, there is growing agreement among researchers that the purpose is to deepen the faith of those who in some way already believe…The purpose of writing is not only ‘that you may believe’ but that the believing should be rich in content (‘that Jesus is the Anointed, the Son of God’) and that through this richness of believing ‘you may have life in his name.’ The implication of opening oneself to the dignity and divinity which was first found in Jesus. Thus while Jesus’ words to Thomas pronounced those who believe to be blessed or fortunate (Makarios, ‘blessed/happy’), the statement on the purpose of writing spells out some of the meaning of that blessedness” (Brodie, The Gospel According to John, pp. 571–72, emphasis added).

F. F. Bruce (dual purpose):

“Commentators have discussed whether John’s purpose was to awaken faith for the first time or to maintain and strengthen faith already there: this question is further posed by the variation of reading between the aorist (NEB margin, ‘that you may come to believe’) and the present (NEB text, ‘that you may hold the faith’). Probably we are not shut up to two mutually exclusive alternatives, regardless of the reading adopted: John’s record has the power to awaken new faith and to revive faith already awakened” (Bruce, The Gospel of John, p. 395).

Gary M. Burge (dual purpose?):

“The fourth Evangelist stresses the purpose of his Gospel: that we might believe (the verb has two readings which the NIV marg. notes: ‘to begin to believe [aorist] and ‘to continue to believe’ [present]; the former implies an evangelistic purpose, the latter a pastoral intent for those who already believe)” (Burge, “John,” p. 877).

Gary Derickson and Earl Radmacher (dual purpose):

“Yet, the message cannot be reduced to an explanation of how to be born again. There is far more being accomplished…often Jesus’ focus is on explaining how a person could experience God’s life, beginning in this life. Eternal life is defined as more than something possessed. It is experienced. Therefore, the eternal life John is talking about in this purpose statement means more than ‘salvation’ in the sense of regeneration or future existence. It is the life of God experienced in the life of the believer. It is as much sanctification truth as justification truth. It is eternal life in its entirety” (Derickson and Radmacher, The Disciplemaker, pp. 330–31).

Joseph Dongell (dual purpose):

“The question is complicated by a twofold uncertainty: the contradictory witness offered by ancient Greek manuscripts regarding what Greek tense John actually used, and the lack of clear distinctions observable elsewhere in the Evangelist’s use of Greek tenses. The question may be answerable only by listening again to the entire Gospel to form an impression of what sort of audience the writer imagined. In my estimation, John’s gospel narrative paints portraits of persons whose faith is “on the move.” Out of fear, doubt, ignorance, hiddenness, sin and denial, faith emerges in steps and stages toward fuller trust in Jesus as the Son of God and the Giver of Life. If the experiences of these characters are a clue, we may conclude that the Evangelist desires both to initiate and to confirm faith in the hearts of the readers” (Dongell, John: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, p.243).

Tony Evans (evangelistic):

“Here John gives us the evangelistic purpose for his book. He wrote it ‘so that’ readers might believe that Jesus is the Messiah—the God-Man—who died as a substitutionary atonement for sins and that, by believing, they will receive eternal life—that is, an eternal relationship with God and an ever-expanding experience of his reality in our lives (see 17:3). That’s what salvation is all about” (Evans, Bible Commentary, p. 1065).

David Ford (dual purpose):

“But these are written so that you may come to believe (pisteusēte). Other manuscripts have pisteuēte, which means ‘that you may continue to believe.’ Is the purpose of John’s Gospel to draw people into believing or to feed and strengthen those who already believe? If forced, I would choose the second, but I agree with the conclusion of Susan Hylen and Gail O’Day: ‘The supposed opposition between coming to faith and continuing in faith misreads John’s own presentation of faith within the Gospel itself. As we have noted repeatedly, faith is not a one-time event, but a process. Many believe in Jesus only to later reject him; others have a tenuous belief that competes with their fear; even those who do believe do not fully understand. The Gospel offers its invitation to any who would begin to believe, or continue to believe, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.’ I would even more strongly affirm that one of the remarkable things about this Gospel is its way of simultaneously combining accessibility to newcomers with the ability to go on feeding those with a more mature faith” (Ford, The Gospel of John, pp. 414–15).

Robert H. Gundry (dual purpose):

“John positions these verses after the account of Jesus’ resurrection. He has portrayed Jesus as having raised himself from the dead. And the sign of Jesus’ raising Lazarus from the dead previewed Jesus’ raising himself. Therefore ‘these [signs]’ that ‘are written’ in this book include Jesus’ resurrection. John addresses directly the audience of his Gospel in telling the purpose of his writing. Believing captures the purpose. But does John refer to believing initially, at conversion, or to persistence in believing as opposed to falling back into unbelief? On the one hand, the business of receiving the Word, being born from above, and thereby becoming God’s children (1:12-13; 3:3, 7) combines with the stories of coming to faith, as in the cases of the woman of Samaria and the man born blind (chapters 4 and 9), to favor believing at conversion. On the other hand, 6:66-71 told of many disciples who left Jesus, of his asking the Twelve whether they too wanted to go away, of Peter’s affirming their continuing belief, and of Jesus’ pronouncing them the elect (that is, chosen or selected ones) except for Judas Iscariot the betrayer. Moreover, chapter 15 emphasized abiding, remaining, staying in Christ, and 10:28-29 and chapter 17 emphasized the keeping of disciples. Therefore it seems best to think that here in 20:30-31 John identifies his purpose as one of confirming believers in addition to converting unbelievers” (Gundry, Commentary on the New Testament, p. 459).

Everett F. Harrison (dual purpose):

“The signs which dot the narrative of John have climaxed in the greatest of them all, the Resurrection. Lest the reader think otherwise, the writer hastens to note that the signs were many. Only a select few are included in this book. Yet it is the writer’s expectation that these will enable the reader to believe that Jesus is the Christ (the object of Jewish expectation, based on OT prophecy, when that expectation is not perverted by false views of Messiahship) and the Son of God, revealed the Father by word and deed, culminating in obedience to the Father’s will even utno death. Believe includes the ideas of faith’s initial act and of progressing in faith as well. Life through (more literally, in) his name, i.e., in union with his own person.” (Harrison, “John,” The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1120)

John F. Hart (evangelistic):

“The apostle’s purpose for his book is evangelistic. Since many other signs (for ‘sign,’ see comment on 2:11) were done by Christ yet were not written in this book, John carefully selected his content for evangelism, especially among the Jewish people. To believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (these titles indicate His humanity, royalty, and deity, see also comments on 1:20, 34) means to be fully convinced that Jesus alone provides eternal life and resurrection (cf. comment on 11:25-27). Locating the purpose statement here rather than at the end of the book highlights Jesus’ blessing on those who believe in His death/resurrection apart from physical sight (v 30). It also demonstrates that the resurrection is the greatest sign of the book” (Hart, “John,” The Moody Bible Commentary, p. 1663).

Craig Keener (perseverance):

“Surely this conclusion (20:30-31) emphasizes the purpose of the Gospel, which should imply something about the sort of audience the Gospel originally addressed. Because John says, ‘that you may believe,’ many think that the purpose of the Gospel is evangelistic. The issue is difficult to settle textually: the aorist subjunctive has the broader geographical support and makes more sense in a summons to initial faith; the present subjunctive depends on the earliest manuscripts and makes more sense in a summons to persevere. But the matter can hardly be settled purely by appeal to the divided textual witness; if this is a conclusion, it should end where the rest of the Gospel’s evidence points. Thus many scholars would concur with Luke Timothy Johnson: ‘The present tense seems the more likely reading, and the whole tenor of the Gospel suggests less a document for proselytism than one of propaganda for the converted.’

         “Undoubtably John would like to invite faith from his opponents; certainly he wants the closet believers among them to go public with their faith (12:42-43; 19:38-40). But by what means would John get the Gospel into the hands of unbelievers except through the preaching of believers? From the perspective of marketing strategies, the intrinsic probabilities favor a primary audience of believers.

         “But the Gospel itself suggests the same. Throughout the Gospel, many people become initial believers, but their initial faith proves insufficient without perseverance (2:23-25; 8:30, 59). John’s goal is not simply initial faith but persevering faith, discipleship (8:30-32; 15:4-7). John’s purpose is to address believers at a lesser stage of discipleship and to invite them to persevere as true disciples.

         “The immediate context of Thomas provides the climax immediately preceding the conclusion and offers a paradigm for the sort of faith John seeks to elicit. Thomas had been a disciple; he was prepared to die for Jesus (11:16) and to follow where he led (14:5); but his faith was insufficient (20:29). Only when Thomas embraced the full testimony of the resurrection and offered the climactic Christological confession that Jesus was Lord and God (20:28) had he become a developed model of faith for John’s audience. John is calling his audience to a full confession of resurrection faith: Jesus is God in the flesh, and therefore his claims cannot be compromised, for synagogue or for Caesar. John will settle for no faith less secure than this” (Keener, The Gospel of John, pp. 1215–16).

R. C. H. Lenski (dual purpose)

“John’s intention was to write an evangelion, ‘a Gospel,’ setting forth the realities concerning Jesus so that they may produce faith in those who are not believers and may confirm faith in those who believe. The majority of the texts has the aorist pisteusēte, others have the present. John is writing for readers who already believe; hence this aorist is not ingressive, ‘come to believe,’ but perfective, ‘may believe definitely, finally, completely.’ The second hina clause has the durative presents [sic] pisteuontes echēte. John’s purpose in writing what he does is hina pisteusēte, ‘that you may be believing,’ i.e., now and ever” (Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel, p. 1396).

Andrew Lincoln (perseverance):

“What has been written in this book about the revelatory activity of Jesus is meant to produce belief. But is this belief initial belief, and so the purpose evangelistic? Or is it meant to produce continuance in belief, so that the implied readers are already Christians? Our translation—in order that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God—has opted for the present subjunctive as the original text and supported the second view. But the matter of tense alone is probably insufficient to decide the purpose of the Gospel and the other questions of interpretation about this verse bear on the issue of the intended readership….

         “If implied readers were envisaged primarily as those who needed to be converted, one could easily think of quite different rhetorical strategies that would have taken into account their initial unbelieving stance and therefore would have been more likely to be effective. The amount of space given in the narrative in chapters 13–17 to addressing explicitly the concerns of Jesus’ followers reinforces the view that the implied readers are far more likely to be those who know of the outcome of Jesus’ mission but need to be given a perspective on this that will support a belief about him that is at odds with the verdict of official Judaism. The purpose of this Gospel’s written record, then, is to enable believers to continue in their faith. It sets out its convictions about Jesus in the prologue and then illustrates, confirms and reinforces these convictions in the narrative in the midst of their being contested. Implied readers are invited to make the same journey and to have belief strengthened in the process” (Lincoln, The Gospel according to Saint John, pp. 506–507).

William MacDonald (perseverance):

“John builds his Gospel around seven public miracles, or ‘signs.’ Each is designed to show that Jesus is God…[John’s Gospel] ‘has induced more persons to follow Christ, it has inspired more believers to loyal service, it has presented to scholars more difficult problems, than any other book that could be named’” (MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary, p. 1464-1465).

Leon Morris (evangelistic):

“He tells us that the purpose of his writing is that men may believe. This appears to mean that John has an evangelistic aim, and if the aorist imperative of the verb be read this is beyond reasonable doubt. Some, however, accept the present tense (which seems not improbable) and argue from it that the meaning is ‘that you may continue to believe.’ They reason that the Gospel is addressed to believers. It seems that this is reading a great deal into the tense and it is more probable that we should see an evangelistic aim whatever the tense. Faith is fundamental, and John longs to see men believe. He has not tried to write an impartial history. He is avowedly out to secure converts” (Morris, The Gospel of John, p. 8).

Marianne Meye Thompson (dual purpose):

“That the likely readers of the Gospel are already believers is suggested by Jesus’ extensive Farewell Discourse to his followers regarding their life in him and with each other (chs. 14-17). Throughout the Gospel there has been persistent emphasis on the need to continue to believe, to hold fast, to abide in Jesus and a concomitant, if often implicit, warning against falling away from Jesus (e.g., 8:30-31). Discussions of the purpose of the Gospel have focused in part on the evaluation of a textual variant in 20:31: the verb translated ‘believe’ may render either the present or aorist subjective (pisteuēte or pisteusēte). Those who opt for the former reading, and who understand the Greek present to indicate ongoing action, tend to suggest the Gospel was written primarily to encourage its readers to continue to believe in the face of all the challenges to faith. Those who argue for the originality of the aorist read it as pointing to the initial act of coming to faith and thus construe the Gospel primarily as an evangelistic document. Although this commentary assumes the originality of the present subjunctive, it is doubtful that one can draw rigid lines between the two interpretive options based on the tense of the verbs alone. Jesus’ signs call for faith in him—as do his deeds, his resurrection appearances, and the Gospel’s subject accounts of them—whether initial or continuing faith” (Thompson, John, pp. 429–30).

Herman Ridderbos (perseverance):

“Among interpreters there is much disagreement—partly as a result of the variant readings of the original text—concerning the readership whom the Evangelist addresses with ‘so that you may believe.’ Is this those who do not yet believe, whom he seeks to bring them to faith and who, some think, were Jews, either Jews in general or specifically Hellenistic Jews living in the Diaspora? OR does the Evangelist address people who already believe, with the purpose of strengthening their faith? The latter view undoubtebly deserves preference. Even though the text as we now have it cannot settle the issue, the Evangelist elsewhere clearly includes his readers among the ‘we’ who believe (1:16). And the impression made by his Gospel as a whole is certainly not that of a book for beginners but rather that of a deeper discussion of the meaning of Jesus’ self-revelation for readers in whom he assumes a long acquaintance with the general picture of the course of Jesus’ life. The Evangelist does, admittedly, strongly stress the signs Jesus did in the presence of ‘the Jews’ and ‘the multitude,’ but he does this especially to demonstrate the incomprehensible character of their unbelief (cf. 12:37-43). The positive manner in which he now addresses his readers with an appeal to Jesus’ signs definitely does not suggest that he has in mind Jews who do not believe in Jesus. It all fits better in a situation of ongoing and deepening confrontation between the church and non-Christian Jews over the person of Jesus, in which the Evangelist seeks to lead the church more fully into the saving significance of Jesus’ coming and work to confirm the faith of Jews and Gentile Christians alike” (Ridderbos, John, p. 652).

R. V. G. Tasker (perseverance):

“Christian faith, to strengthen which was the primary purpose for which the Gospel is stated to have been written, rests on the conviction that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and though He is presented as such throughout this Gospel, He was nevertheless, as Paul asserts, ‘declared to be the Son of God with power…by the resurrection from the dead’ (Rom i. 4). It is moreover faith in Jesus as crucified-and-risen that is the source of life, that higher or eternal life which is the possession of the Christian. In fellowship with his risen Master the disciple shares His Master’s life” (Tasker, The Gospel According to St John, pp. 227–28).

Theophylact (perseverance)

“[John] thundered forth doctrines taught by none of the other Evangelists. Their Gospels dealt with the life of Christ in the flesh and made no clear declaration of His existence before the ages. From this arose the danger that certain contemptible men, with minds fixed on the physical world and unable to comprehend anything exalted, would imagine that Christ first came into existence when He was born of Mary, and that He was not begotten of the Father before all ages. Paul of Samaosata fell to exactly that temptation. Realizing this, the great John clearly set forth the spiritual begetting of Christ, without neglecting to record that the Word was made flesh [Jn. 1:14]. Some maintain that the Orthodox—rightly believing Christians—asked John to write about Christ’s eternal generation in order to refute certain heretics who had already begun to teach that the Saviour was merely a man. It is also said that when the saint read the books of the other Evangelists, he marvelled at the accuracy of their narratives on every point, and judged them to be sound and unbiased towards any of the apostles. But what the other Evangelists had not stated clearly, or had omitted, John clarified, developed, or added to his own Gospel, which he wrote thirty-two years after the ascension of Christ while living in exile on the island of Patmos” (Blessed Theophylact, The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to John, p. 4).

Robert N. Wilkin (evangelistic):

“The author states his purpose for writing: ‘These [signs] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name’ (John 20:30-31). That John’s purpose is evangelistic is evident throughout the book (e.g., 1:12-13; 3:16-18, 36; 4:10-11; 5:24; 6:47; 11:25-27).

         “However, some suggest that John’s purpose is not solely evangelistic. Such a view, they say, would fail to take into account why John included the Upper Room Discourse. However, the final discourse is a magnificent presentation of Jesus as He knowingly approaches death. Surely any unbeliever reading this would be amazed at the way this Man lived His last day. No other man in all of history faced his death in this way. Surely John 13-17 is powerful proof that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that His promise of eternal life to all who believe in Him is true” (Wilkin, “John,” The Grace New Testament Commentary, p. 177).

_______________________
Read the other blogs in this Rethinking John series:
https://freegrace.in/is-believe-in-jesus-for-eternal-life-the-saving-message/
https://freegrace.in/is-johns-gospel-exclusively-evangelistic/
https://freegrace.in/all-that-jesus-gives-the-benefits-of-salvation-in-john/
https://freegrace.in/when-does-someone-become-a-believer-in-johns-gospel-the-evidence-of-the-confessions/
https://freegrace.in/who-counts-as-an-unbeliever-statements-of-doubt-and-unbelief-in-johns-gospel/

________________________________________________

Shawn Lazar (DPT, McMaster Divinity College) is the pastor of Gateway United Baptist Church in Denton, TX. Purchase his book One-Point Preaching here and his latest book Once Saved Always Saved? here.