Another theory supports the polemical purpose of John. Irenaeus argued that John’s Gospel was written to refute the rising heresies of the Nicolaitans and Cerinthians.30 One can feel the polemical purpose of John when he emphasizes that the pre-existent Word became “flesh,” without using the word “man” or “body” (1:14; cf. 6:51–56), and that John the Baptist was neither the Light (1:8) nor the Christ (1:20), but was only a “lamp” (5:35) who came to bear witness to the Light. John’s teaching on Jesus’ oneness with the Father (5:18; 10:30; 12:44–45; 14:9–11; 17:21–23; 20:28) and equally on his subordination to the Father (5:19–23; 8:16, 28–29; 12:49; 14:28) can better be understood as a polemic against the prevailing heresies about the person Jesus. It seems, however, that John goes beyond this polemic purpose.
John himself categorically states his purpose: “But these things have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that as you believe, you may have life in his name” (20:31). The primary purpose of John, then, is to proclaim the gospel that in Jesus one can experience divine life and to persuade his readers to believe in Jesus as the Christ.
However, the question is: Was the Gospel written to unbelievers or to those who believed in Jesus? The word “to believe” has two different readings, which have equal support in Greek manuscripts (see comment on 20:31). If pisteuēte (“to continue believing”) is read, then John could have written the Gospel with a didactic purpose to teach young believers to be steadfast in faith in the wake of increasing heretical teachings and persecution. Actually the polemic and the didactic purposes go together, for the believers could withstand the heresies without proper teaching. If pisteusēte (“to start believing”) is read, then the primary purpose of John would be to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who have not yet come to faith, whether they be Jews or proselytes or Gentiles or Samaritans. He persuades them to believe Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, so that they might receive divine life through him.
John’s concern for evangelizing all people becomes very obvious, for example, in his use of the term “world” (kosmos)—seventy-eight times in the Gospel, whereas it is used only fourteen times in the Synoptics. In the prologue and in 3:16–21 the author of the Gospel shows great concern for the salvation of the “world” (cf. 1:5, 9–11; 3:19–21). The universal outlook is reflected in the Gospel by oft-repeated words such as “as many as,” “everyone,” “all people,” etc.31 However, proclamation would be impossible unless God’s new community becomes active by being equipped and guided by the Holy Spirit to share its faith (15:26–27; 17:20–21, 23).32 The purpose of John, then, was mainly twofold: (i) to proclaim Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, to the world; and (ii) to confirm the faith of the believers who will witness to Jesus in the world.
In course of reading this commentary, readers will understand how a new community was formed around Jesus in a covenantal relationship with God and how it drew into itself a diverse range of people, including those who live in our own day (cf. 17:20). One may perceive that the community envisioned by Jesus is rooted in and shaped by the cross. The new life given by the risen Jesus will lead them eventually to continue his mission in the world in the power of the Holy Spirit (20:21–23). The community motif found in John has led many scholars to read the Gospel as “embodying the history of Johannine community.”33 However, the inclusive nature of the Gospel leads us to look into John’s community as a universal and inclusive movement.
1. E.g., Culpepper 1989; Stibbe 1993; Malina and Rohrbaugh 1998; and Neyrey 2007.
2. Cf. Brown 1978: 1.lxxii–lxxv; idem 1979: 166–67; Martyn 2003: 37–62; Dunn 1983: 318–25.
3. Keener 2005: 1.xxv, 140–70.
4. Pryor calls this community “the covenant community” (Pryor 1992: 157–80).
5. Quast 1989: 16–25; Culpepper 2000: 84; Bauckham 2006: 127–29, 402–16.
6. See Culpepper 2000: 75–76.
7. Both Brown (1979: 33–34) and Schnackenburg (1982: 3.385) changed their view that the beloved disciple was John, the Son of Zebedee, by arguing that the disciple whom Jesus loved is an anonymous, but historical, figure who was not one of the twelve, but who was probably a man from Jerusalem. However, their arguments for later position are not as convincing as their original arguments for the beloved disciple as the son of Zebedee.
8. Cf. Brown 2010: 200–202.
9. Hengel 1989: 80–83, 109–10.
10. Barrett 1978: 103.
11. Hengel 1989: 17–21; Culpepper 2000: 111–12.
12. Cf. Anderson 2011: 135.
13. Hengel 1989: 7, 125, 144 n. 29; Barrett 1978: 101–2. However, Polycrates, the bishop of Ephesus (189–98 CE), identifies John, who leaned back on the Lord’s breast, as a priest (Eccl. Hist. 3.31.3; 5.24.3). This indicates the confusions prevailing in the “John tradition.”
14. Hengel (1989: 22, 159 n. 122) gives evidence of several fragments that show a direct connection existed between Papias and the presbyter John.
15. Köstenberger 2009: 7–8.
16. Alexandria, Antioch, and Transjordan are proposed as other possible places for the composition of John’s Gospel; cf. Brown 2010: 202–6.
17. For the three-person theory see Culpepper 1989: 3–49.
18. Perrin 2010: 301–18, esp. 315.
19. See von Wahlde 2010: 1.7 n. 6.
20. Barrett 1978: 110, 128.
21. So Hengel 1989: 81. More recently Czachesz (Czachesz 2010: 69 n. 75) has rejected that P52 necessitates a first-century date for John by uncritically following Nongbri’s.