Why Did John Write His Gospel?

Posted by

In a previous post, I have tried to make a case (thoroughly unoriginal) for the apostle John as the author of the Gospel that bears his name. Assuming John wrote the Gospel, why did he write it? The best place to start is with his own purpose statement in John 20:30–31: “But these [signs] 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.” John selected several startling signs of Jesus (seven, I believe; see my BBR article cited below) to convince his readers that Jesus was in fact the promised Messiah (or, as Don Carson has it, that the Messiah was in fact Jesus). His purpose was to induce his readers (or those with whom his readers came into contact) to believe in Jesus and thus have life in him.

John, therefore, was possessed by a holy focus. This is not an autobiography, or even a biography (a “life”) of Jesus. Rather, John’s Gospel is an aid to personal faith. So much for the purpose. Now what about the occasion?

This may be harder to determine. Certainly tradition seems credible that John at the urging of some of his disciples wrote his Gospel toward the end of his life (Clement of Alexandria, cited by Eusebius, H.E. 6.14.7). But what were the circumstances surrounding John’s writing? And were there other purposes that guided him as he penned his Gospel?

In a recently published article, I have argued that the destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70 may be an important external historical datum for the composition of the Fourth Gospel. No one disputes that the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, and clearly this was a momentous event with far-reaching consequences, and very few Johannine scholars question that John’s Gospel was written subsequent to A.D. 70 (most opt for the A.D. 80s or early 90s). So it seems natural to draw a connection between the destruction of the temple and the writing of John’s Gospel. Internal evidence seems to confirm this. Throughout the Gospel Jesus is presented as the fulfillment, and hence replacement, of all kinds of Jewish festivals and institutions, including the temple (see esp. 2:13–22).

Peter Walker, in his important book Jesus and the Holy City (Eerdmans, 1996, p. 197), says it well: “As a result, if any of his readers felt bereft of the Temple and of the spiritual focus provided by Jerusalem, John would have encouraged them not to mourn the loss of the city, but rather to see what God had done for them in Jesus. . . . The Evangelist, writing after the Temple’s destruction, does not bemoan its loss. . . . The presence of God has not been withdrawn, for Jesus has taken the place of the Temple. Jesus gives more than the Temple had ever given. . . . Jesus stands in the place of everything that Israel has lost.”

For further study see my essay “The Destruction of the SecondTemple and the Composition of the Fourth Gospel,TrinJ 26NS (2005): 205–42, with ample references to the burgeoning literature on the temple theme in John’s Gospel and research on the Second Temple and its destruction; as well as my book A Theology of John’s Gospel & Letters (BTNT; Zondervan, 2009). See also D. A. Carson, “Syntactical and Text-Critical Observations on John 20:30–31,” JBL 124/4 (2005): 693–714 and my article “The Seventh Johannine Sign,” BBR 5 (1995): 87–103.


  1. Lazarus was not a disciple, so how could he be the ‘most beloved disciple?’ Therefore, I do not think he penned the gospel of John.

  2. When did mark write his gospels?

  3. Here’s an intriguing theory for you. What if John actually DID NOT write the gospel of John. I find it interesting that John is described as the Beloved DIsciple throughout the Bible, yet in the Gospel of John, Lazarus is actually described as Jesus most beloved. Hmmm, makes you wonder? Did Lazarus right this or did John?

  4. The Gospel of John is quite simply gospel which has deeper meaning in every chapter. I’d like to know how important terms Messiah in the Gospel of John? May i know Dr. Kostenberger email address, so i can ask you personally about messiah in the Gospel of John? Please contact me at my email b3rn_art@yahoo.com. Thanks. God bless you

  5. Certainly thought-provoking info. I must admit that I find intriguing the scenario painted by Robinson in his book, “Redating the New Testament”, which posits the NT books as complete by the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple. Do you believe this to be a feasible option?

  6. Interesting, I look forward to reading your article on Jesus as a replacement for the Jewish feasts. I could easily see this trend after Acts 15, as Jesus’ disciples plainly state the law is not needed for salvation. But the destruction of the temple would certainly speed these thought lines.


  1. Fundamentos Biblicos » ¿Fue el evangelio según Juan escrito antes de 70 D.C.? - [...] que nada, acerca de la fecha de la composición del evangelio según Juan (acerca de lo cual ya he…

Leave a Reply