1

"The Rhetorical Purpose of the Fourth Gospel"

Chicago Society for Biblical Research
April 21, 1990
at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Deerfield, IL

When I speak of the rhetorical purpose of the Fourth Gospel, I use the adjective "rhetorical"

in the broad sense of having to do with a message of persuasion rather than in the technical sense

of an exploration of the author's use of Greek rhetorical training, which I consider unlikely. Any

discussion of the rhetorical purpose of the Fourth Gospel needs to begin with an examination of

the author's own statement of purpose in 20:30-31. This text indicates that the gospel contains

material selected "in order that you might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God, and

that in believing you might have life in his name."

It may be helpful to point out at the start that this paper is based on the version of the

gospel that we are familiar with today. This is not because there were no stages of development

behind the Gospel as we know it, there almost certainly were such stages, rather it is because of

this presenter's lack of courage. I have never been able to motivate myself to invest a

considerable amount of time and energy to research the theology or purpose of a document that

may turn out not to have existed at all! I will not, therefore, take time to explore how this

statement of purpose or any other part of the gospel might have functioned at some earlier stage

of production. My concern is how the various parts of the gospel function in its present form.

Scholars over the years have debated whether the purpose of the Fourth Gospel was

evangelistic or didactic. That this debate went back to the early centuries of our era is evident

from the fact that the manuscript tradition is divided over whether "in order that you might

believe" involved a present or an aorist subjunctive with the conjunction hina. The present

subjunctive, "in order that you might continue to believe," implies a believing audience that needs

encouragement to persevere. The aorist subjunctive, "in order that you might come to believe,"

implies an unbelieving audience that needs to be brought to faith. The external manuscript

evidence is fairly evenly divided between the two options.

 2

Riesenfeld sought to break the impass by showing that John normally uses the present

subjunctive after hina.1 Carson challenged him, however, on the grounds that most of the

evidence for that was adduced from 1 John, not the gospel itself, which has a more mixed

picture.2 Carson went on to demonstrate that the present construction in John 6:29 includes the

process of coming to believe while the aorist construction in John 11:15 implies a confirmation of

faith.3 It is, therefore, likely that exegesis of 20:31 will not settle the issue of the Gospel's

rhetorical purpose. In fact, more and more scholars attempt a median approach like that of

Beasley-Murray, who in his recent commentary states, "There is ground, therefore, for thinking

that the Fourth Gospel was written with both evangelistic and didactic aims in view."4

Such a view may suffice to deflect criticism, but I consider it more likely that the evangelist

had a primary purpose in mind and that that purpose involved not those outside the fellowship, as

Carson maintains,5 but those who had already come to believe. This position is based, not on

exegesis of John 20:30-31 primarily, but on subtle evidences of the author's persuasive purpose

throughout the gospel. The catalyst for this paper was an article written for pastors published in

1977 by Paul Minear.6 Because Minear is not a specialist in the Fourth Gospel and because the

article was published in Interpretation rather than in a more technical journal, his article has not

received the attention that I believe it deserves.

Minear's fundamental contribution was the suggestion that the publication of the Fourth

Gospel coincided with the passing of the generation that had known Jesus in the flesh. The

Gospel, therefore, was designed to speak powerfully to the insecurities of the second generation

1
H. Riesenfeld, "Zu den johanneishche hina-Sätzen," Studia theologic
2
D. A. Carson, "The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:31 Reconsi
3
Ibid., p. 640.
4
George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 36 (
5
Carson, pp. 639-651.
6
Paul Minear, "The Audience of the Fourth Evangelist," Interpretatio
 3

at a time when the last living witnesses of the Christ were passing off the scene.7 I would like to

review some of Minear's evidence and suggest additional evidence in the Gospel that would

support his fundamental thesis.

Of immediate interest is the fact that the evangelist's statement of purpose is appended to

the "doubting Thomas" pericope of 20:24-29. In verse 29 Jesus is recorded as saying, "because

you have seen me you have come to believe, blessed are those who do not see yet have come to

believe." In the original setting of the Gospel Thomas represents all of the disciples who have

seen and handled Jesus, while Jesus' statement reaches out to those who have been denied that

privilege. This statement, therefore, would have provided a strong affirmation of the faith of

those who knew neither Jesus nor one of His disciples. Seeing and personal contact are not

crucial to the development of faith and may even hinder it.

The two-fold use of the verb "believe" in verse 31 echoes the double use in verse 29. Thus,

the Thomas pericope provides the interpretive context for understanding the statement of purpose

in verses 30-31. Verse 30 states that many signs were performed before the disciples and not

written in the gospel. Verse 31 asserts that the things written in the gospel have the capacity to

produce the same results in faith that occured for the disciples. The disciples are, therefore,

distinguished from the readers of the gospel on the grounds that their faith was based on seeing,

that of their readers was not.

Thus the purpose statement of 30-31 is intimately linked with the Thomas pericope.

Thomas sees the sign of the resurrected Christ and believes. In verse 30 the disciples see many

signs and, according to verses 19-25, have come to believe in the resurrected Christ. In verse 29

a blessing is pronounced in third person on those who did not see the signs but came to believe.

In verse 31 the reader's response of belief comes in reaction to the written account of the signs.

Thus the readers of the gospel are contrasted not only with the disciples of verse 30 but with

Thomas in verse 29.

7
Ibid., pp. 343-348.
 4

The rhetorical purpose of the gospel, therefore, is to help the second generation, those who

did not see but had access to the fourth gospel, to understand that those who had only contact

with the living words of the gospel were at no disadvantage compared with those who had had

personal contact with Jesus or one of His disciples. The evangelist's purpose was to persuade the

second generation that they could function quite effectively as Christians in the absence of a living

apostle. This purpose is manifest in a number of ways throughout the gospel, many of which are

mentioned in Minear's article.

The second generation appears again in the intercessory prayer of Jesus in chapter 17. In

verse two Jesus asserts that He has the authority to give eternal life to everyone that His Father

gives to him. In the subsequent portions of the prayer it is clear that He has two groups in mind.

One is the disciples whom He has preserved faithful with the exception of Judas (verse 12). The

other group is made up of "those who believe through their word," namely the word of the

disciples (verse 20). Again there is the distinction between those who believe on the basis of

physical contact with Jesus and those who have not seen but believe because of the disciples'

word.

The second generation may be alluded to also in the parable of the vine and the branches in

chapter 15. Jesus is the vine, his personal disciples are the branches, and the fruit they bear is the

second generation, whose connection to Jesus is through the disciples only. This parable is set in

the context of John 14:26 where it is the role of the Paraclete to bring Jesus' words to His

disciples' remembrance. Thus the Paraclete is understood as God's active agent providing the

knowledge and understanding of Jesus' words that will nourish the second generation long after

the disciples have passed off the scene.

It seems reasonable also to see the second generation in the story of the appearance of Jesus

to seven of the disciples by the Sea of Galilee in chapter 21. Without Jesus the disciples are

unsuccessful in their quest for a little maritime income. But at Jesus' direction, the harvest is
 5

enormous. Whether or not the number of fish is a cryptic symbol for the church8 the story

exhibits the same pattern as the vine and the branches parable. To quote Minear, "the untorn net

symbolizes the oneness for which Jesus prayed in 17:20ff. John's readers would associate

themselves more fully with the fish than with the fishermen and would be taught by the allegory to

trust. They would realize that Jesus himself intended their conversion and that he would continue

to be present to their community."9

Further hints of the second generation may include the "other sheep" of 10:16 and the fact

that in the fourth gospel Jesus' disciples are normally enlisted by go-betweens rather than by Jesus

personally.10 The Baptist sends two disciples to Jesus, Andrew finds his brother Peter, Philip calls

Nathaniel, and the Samaritan woman hauls out her whole city. By these repeated means the

author sends signals that a personal invitation from Jesus is not necessary for full discipleship.

While Minear has offered considerable evidence to back up his suggestion, he may have

missed the most important indicator of both the evangelist's concern for the second generation

and of the message he sought to communicate to them. This indicator is found by comparing the

miraculous signs of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel with similar events in the Synoptics.

In each of the Synoptics Jesus is repeatedly described as physically touching people in the process

of healing them.11 Such description, remarkably, is totally absent in the Fourth Gospel.

The miracle of turning water to wine at the wedding in Cana12 was performed without any

physical contact on Jesus' part. The servants were instructed to fill the water pots and then draw

8
See the article "Gematria and John 21:11--The Children of God" by J
conjecture that the author intended the readers to pick up on the fact that
was 153.
9
Minear, p. 347.
10
Minear, pp. 348-349.
11
Matt 8:3-4; 8:14,15; 9:18-25; 9:29,30; 14:29-31; 20:34; Mark 1:29-
7:14,15; 8:40-56; 13:13; 22:51.
12
John 2:1-11.
 6

liquid from them to take to the head caterer of the feast. Jesus also fails to touch the paralytic at

the pool in chapter 5. In chapter nine he smears a little clay into the blind man's eyes, but the

miracle does not take place until the man washes his eyes in the Pool of Siloam, more than a

kilometer away.13 In chapter 11 Lazarus is called from the tomb, Jesus is not described as shaking

him or dragging him out first. The common denominator of all these "signs" is the lack of

physical contact in order for Jesus to accomplish any task he chooses. Thus the second

generation would come to understand that distance is no barrier to the attainment of Jesus'

blessings. Their lack of personal contact with Jesus placed them at no disadvantage.

That this absence of touching was intentional on the part of the author is made even more

certain by a comparison of two other miracle accounts in the fourth gospel with their Synoptic

counterparts. The account of the royal official's request for the healing of his son in John 4 has

strong parallels to the centurion of Capernaum's request for the healing of his slave in Matt 8:5-13

and Luke 7:1-10. Although in Matthew the healing is also accomplished without the physical

proximity of Jesus,14 a number of differences in the accounts highlight the Johannine emphasis on

distance. In Matthew and Luke Jesus intends all along to go to the centurion's home and heal the

slave directly, in the Fourth Gospel he has no intention of doing so. In Matthew and Luke the

centurion does all he can to talk Jesus into healing at a distance, in John the father begs Jesus to

come in person. Even more striking is the fact that the distance at which Jesus heals is increased

from a couple of hundred yards at the most in Matthew to some sixteen miles in John 4! These

three differences underline the Johannine interest in demonstrating that distance presents no

barrier to Jesus' activity in behalf of people. Therefore, the second generation need not feel

inferior to those who knew Jesus personally.

The thesis of this paper is not undercut by a narrative that appears in all four of the gospels.

When the mob led by Judas comes to arrest Jesus in the garden, all four gospels describe a

13
John 9:6,7.
14
In Luke the story draws to an abrupt close with a pronoucement abo
 7

disciple cutting off the ear of the high priest's slave. The evangelist of the Fourth Gospel even

names the culprit and the slave, which may indicate his confidence that his version of the story is

accurate. But Luke 22:51 describes Jesus as healing the ear by a touch. The inclusion of this

detail in John would be seriously problematic to our thesis, but the evangelist leaves it out of the

story. While it may plausibly be argued that he was unaware of the incident, its absence fits the

pattern we have observed throughout the gospel.

An additional message to the second generation my lie in the fact that in each of the above

miracle accounts, the act is accomplished by the word of Jesus. To the servants at the wedding of

Cana he says, "fill and draw".15 To the royal official he says, "go, your son lives".16 To the

paralytic he says, "rise, take your bed and walk".17 To the blind man he says, "go and wash".18

To Lazarus he says, "come out."19 It is the word of Jesus that accomplishes his intention, not a

physical touch. Since the exaltation of Jesus on the cross is the greatest "sign" in the gospel, it is

interesting that only in the Fourth Gospel is Jesus described as ministering to his mother while on

the cross, and he accomplishes this also with a word.20

For the second generation, the message that comes through in these scenes is the power of

Jesus' words to overcome barriers of space. As a preacher I heard a few years ago said, "His

word is as good as His presence!"21 The powerful message of the Fourth Gospel to its original

audience was that Jesus' word is as powerful at a distance as it is close at hand. Though only

ministered through a printed page, it still retains its power to save and to heal. It is through that

15
John 2:7,8.
16
John 4:50.
17
John 5:8.
18
John 9:7.
19
John 11:43.
20
John 19:26,27.
21
The preacher was Desmond Ford and the time was the mid-70s.
 8

Word that the Paraclete ministers to the needs of the second generation.22 In fact, it could be

argued from the Paraclete discourses in the gospel that the presence of the Paraclete makes it an

advantage to be physically separated from Jesus.

If the thesis of this paper is correct, the rhetorical purpose of the gospel is primarily aimed

at the didactic encouragement of those who already believe rather than to evangelize those who

do not. It is intended to strengthen and maintain faith rather than to create it. Thus this thesis has

the potential to settle an issue of long standing in fourth gospel studies.

Before closing it may be well to deal with a couple of potential objections to the thesis. It

would be natural to read the purpose of the fourth gospel in universal terms as applying to all

readers at all times. But chapter 21 provides the more specific setting for the evangelist's

rhetorical purpose. Peter and Jesus walk on the beach with a certain "disciple whom Jesus loved"

trailing along. Peter asks regarding the fate of that disciple. Jesus replies in verse 22, "if I wish

him to remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me anyway." Then comes a significant

editorial comment in verse 23. "The rumor went out among the brethren, therefore, that that

disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only 'if I wish him

to remain until I come, what is that to you?'"

Now it is extremely likely that chapter 21 was not attached to the gospel in earlier editions.

It and other parts were added to provide a particular setting for the "final edition." But it is that

very "final edition" that we are concerned with here. What has changed to cause a rewriting of

the gospel? Evidently the death of the "beloved disciple" figure. It is reasonable to suppose that

as his end neared, many drew upon the rumor mentioned in verse 23 to fuel eschatological

expectations. With his death, these and perhaps the whole community would be plunged into

confusion and uncertainty. In one blow they would have lost both their sign of the impending

eschaton and their last living link with the Master Himself. Thus the final edition of the gospel

would need to serve two purposes. One was to quash the rumor by a reinterpretation of the

22
John 14:26,27.
 9

statement attributed to Jesus. This was accomplished in verse 23. The other purpose was to

persuade the second generation that they could function quite effectively as Christians in the

absence of a living apostle.

Since there is no explicit evidence in the gospel that the final editor anticipated a period of several

generations between his time and the "last day," unless one assumes that all last day references

were inserted by a still-later editor, it is likely that the gospel spoke with specific force to the

original situation. Its impact on later generations is not surprising, however in light of the initial

purpose.

A more serious objection to our thesis consists in the fact that word-healings such as

observed in the fourth gospel are found in considerable quantity also in the Synoptic Gospels.23

With the exception of Mark they are in roughly equal proportion to those miracle accounts where

Jesus touches people. But in the Fourth Gospel the miracles not only manifest a total absence of

Jesus' touching but often emphasize the distance involved.24 The fact that the presence or absence

of touching incidents tends to be fairly consistent in triple traditions leads me to believe that

whether or not Jesus touches someone during a Synoptic healing has far more to do with the

tradition inherited than with a theological concern.25 His lack of touching in the Fourth Gospel,

on the other hand, is deeply significant theologically.

In conclusion it may be of interest to mention two theological corollaries that seem

indicated by the gospel's rhetorical purpose. It is worthy of note that in each of the accounts in

the Fourth Gospel where Jesus performs a distant miracle, some human party must act in order

for the miracle to be actuated. The servants must pour water before they can draw wine, the

23
Matt 8:13; 8:28-34; 9:6,7; 15:21-28; 17:17,18; 17:26-28; 21:18,19;
8:24,25; 17:14; 18:40-43.
24
The feeding of the 5000 and the walking on the water (John 6:1-21)
handling the bread or touching the sea is not portrayed as significant to th
25
To list just a pair of examples from each category: all three acco
9:18-25; Mark 5:21-43; Luke 8:40-56. All three acounts contain healing on c
2:11,12; Luke 5:24,25.
 10

paralytic must arise and gather his bedding, the blind man must go to the Pool of Siloam and

wash. The implicit message to the second generation would be that they too must act on the

words of Jesus recorded in the gospel if they wished to obtain the blessing offered to its readers.

Finally, since the gospel is the product of the Paraclete's work and since the words of Jesus

in the gospel are as good as his physical presence, the resultant impression is that of an extremely

high claim to authority. This gospel above all others offers the power of Jesus' words in ministry

to those who most missed his personal presence. Its implied author is the only disciple who

resided in the bosom of Jesus just as Jesus had done with His Father (John 13:23-25 cf. 1:18), he

was the only disciple who beheld the ultimate sign at the cross (19:26,27), and he had given the

longest witness to those things. The reader is led to go away with the impression that nowhere

else can the living Christ be as successfully made real as in interaction with the gospel that

contains words as powerful as Jesus' personal presence.