The Purpose of the Gospel of John


Of the four gospels, John’s gospel presents Jesus as God most forcefully. John explicitly declared Jesus to be God (John 1.1) who brought all things into existence (John 1.3). John’s gospel confirmed that Jesus was YHVH of the Jews (John 8.57-58). He is light (John 1.4, 8.12) and life (John 1.4, 5.26, 14.6). As a vehicle to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God, John crafted his gospel with eight signs–seven pre-resurrection and one post-resurrection and seven “I Ams.” They are the following:

Chiastic Structure of the Eight Signs of John’s Gospel
AThe Marriage at Cana (John 2.1-11)
 BHealing an official’s son (John 4.46-50)
   CHealing a paralyzed man (John 5.1-15)
      DFeeding 5,000 (John 6.1-14)
      D’Walking on the sea (John 6.15-21)
   C’Healing a man born blind (John 9.1-12)
 B’Raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11.1-44)
A’The draught of fishes (John 21.1-14)

Seven signs were prior to Christ’s resurrection. The eighth is after His resurrection. Seven in Scripture is the number of completion or perfection. Eight indicates a new beginning. Note also the relationship between the signs, i.e., the 1st and the 8th, 2nd and 7th, etc.

The Seven “I Ams” in Which Jesus Declared that He is Almighty God

  1. I am the Bread (John 6.35-51)
  2. I am the Light (John 8.12, 9.12)
  3. I am the Door (John 10.7)
  4. I am the Good Shepherd (John 10.11)
  5. I am the Resurrection and the Life (John 11.25)
  6. I am the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14.6)
  7. I am the True Vine (John 15.1)

In Revelation, Jesus declared, “I am the Alpha and the Omega” (Revelation 1.8, 21.6) and “I am the root and descendant of David, the bright morning star” (Revelation 22.16). Revelation points to new beginnings: the Millennial Kingdom and Eternity.

The Kingdom Program

The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), present Jesus as the King of the Jews who proclaimed the kingdom of God (Matthew 4.17, 9.35). John the Baptist and the Twelve also proclaimed this kingdom message. But in John’s gospel, the King and His kingdom are practically absent. Consider the following:

The phrase “kingdom of God” is found in the following passages:

  • Matthew 6.33, 12.28, 19.24, 21.31, 43
  • Mark 1.14-15, 4.11, 26, 30, 9.1, 47, 10.14-15, 23-25, 12.34, 14.25, 15.43
  • Luke 4.43, 6.20, 7.28, 8.1, 10, 9.2, 11, 27, 60, 62, 10.9, 11, 11.20, 12.31, 13.18, 20, 28-29, 14.15, 16.16, 17.20-21, 18.16-17, 24-25, 29, 19.11, 21.31, 22.16, 18, 23.51
  • John 3.3, 5

The phrase “kingdom of heaven” is found in the following passages:

Matthew 3.2, 4.17, 5.3, 10, 19-20, 7.21, 8.11, 10.7, 11.11-12, 13.11, 24, 31, 33, 44-45, 47, 52, 16.19, 18.1, 3-4, 23, 19.12, 14, 23, 20.1, 22.2, 23.13, 25.1, 25.14.

This phrase is unique to Matthew. Is there a difference between the “kingdom of God” and the “kingdom of heaven?” There can be. Probably the best analysis of this was by E. W. Bullinger. See Appendix 114, The “Kingdom of Heaven” and the “Kingdom of God” from The Companion Bible.

The phrase “gospel of the kingdom” is found in the following passages:

  • Matthew 4.23, 9.35, 24.14
  • Mark 1.14

The synoptic gospels provide a much greater emphasis on Jesus’ kingship and kingdom than John. Except for two passages in John 3, the king and His kingdom are not mentioned (except for Jesus’ trial before Pilate, John 18.33-19.22). Why is this? The most logical reason is John wanted to focus his message primarily on Christ’s deity, not on His kingship and kingdom. When he mentioned His kingship, it was to emphasize the fact his own people, the Jews, were the ones primarily guilty of murdering their Messiah and rejecting their King and His kingdom. Peter made this fact abundantly clear in his post-resurrection messages to the Jews (Acts 2.26, 3.10-15, 4.10-11).

The Purpose of John’s Gospel

Why did John write his gospel? John provided the answer to this question in John 20.30-31. He wrote:


The faith necessary for salvation during Jesus’ ministry was to believe Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. John declared Jesus performed many signs (σημεῖον) that he did not record in his gospel. The eight signs he recorded were to prove that Jesus was the Christ and that his readers might have life through Him. The signs were miracles. All signs are miracles but not all miracles are signs. The signs had special significance in John’s gospel for national Israel: they proclaimed Who He was.

To whom did John write? He wrote to Jews. His gospel was written to prove to Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. The information he provided was that they might “believe that Jesus is the Christ; and that believing you might have life is His name.” What did this mean?

Believing in Jesus’ Name

What did the Jews believe in order to have eternal life during Jesus’ day? We have examples to show what they believed. Below are accounts from John’s gospel, Matthew’s gospel, and Acts:

1. Nathanael’s Faith


2. Martha’s Faith


3. Peter’s Faith


4. The Ethiopian Eunuch’s Faith


5. Saul’s Faith


The above testimonies have a common thread. What one believed for salvation during Jesus’ earthly ministry and shortly afterwards, what “believing in Christ” meant during this time was believing Jesus was Israel’s Messiah and the Son of God.

When when we read the following passage we must understand what it meant at the time. John wrote:


This passage is probably familiar to more people than any other passage in Scripture. Most misunderstand it, however. The gospels reveal that Jesus ministered to Jews only (Matthew 10.5-6; John 12.20-26) with two exceptions (Matthew 15.21-28; 8.5-13; cf. Luke 7.1-10). In context, this passage has to do with Jewish salvation, the gospel of the kingdom, not Gentile salvation. Interpretatively, John 3.16 has nothing to say for salvation today. It becomes meaningful today in light of Paul’s gospel (1 Corinthians 15.1-4).

In His conversation with the Pharisee Nicodemus Jesus told him that “whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.” What did Jesus expect Nicodemus to believe? He expected him to believe He was the Christ, the Son of God. On the basis of this faith one obtained salvation.

This was the crux of the objection the chief priests made against Jesus. This was why they arrested Him. They refused to believe He was the Messiah, the Son of God. Thus, John recorded:

So when the chief priests and the officers saw Him, they cried out saying, “Crucify, crucify!” Pilate *said to them, “Take Him yourselves and crucify Him, for I find no guilt in Him.” The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God” (John 19.6-7).

The Cross

What is missing in all of the salvation messages above? The cross. The blood of Christ. The resurrection of Christ. None of these exist. How do we learn about the cross, Jesus’ shed blood, and the resurrection? We learn them from Paul.

Paul was the first to declare the significance and meaning of Christ’s death and resurrection. The first place we read about the significance of Jesus’ death for salvation is in Romans 3. Paul wrote:


No one wrote about the significance of the death of Christ for salvation until Paul. Christ’s death and resurrection was Paul’s gospel. Paul declared:


No one preached this gospel until Paul. Paul declared it to be “my gospel” (Romans 2.16 16.25). The gospel before Paul was the “gospel of the kingdom,” believing that Jesus was the promised Messiah, the Son of God. As we have seen above, this was the gospel Paul preached immediately following his own conversion. However, later, probably during the three years Paul recounted that he was in Arabia (Galatians 1.17-18), the glorified Lord revealed the significance of His death and resurrection as a redemptive and propitiatory work for the sins of mankind.

Someone may object that Peter preached Christ’s death and resurrection in Acts 2. Luke recorded Peter’s sermon:


I urge the reader to read carefully Peter’s message. Let him ask the question, “What message was Peter conveying?” Was Peter’s message good news? Hardly. Peter accused his audience (all Jews) of murdering their Messiah and declared God had raised Him from the dead. Did Peter tell them Christ had died for their sins and rose from the dead? No. Peter declared:


What was their reaction? Did they say, “Praise God! Jesus died for my sins and rose from the dead so I might have eternal life.” No. They were convicted. The death of Christ for them was a sin they had committed. Peter presented Christ’s death, not as a victory, but as a matter of national repentance. Thus, Peter told them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2.38). Again, this was the gospel of the kingdom, not the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20.24) the gospel of Paul (Romans 2.15, 16.25, 1 Corinthians 15.1-4). What’s different? Everything!

After God saved Saul of Tarsus, all this changed. God began a new salvific paradigm with Paul. For Paul, the cross was glorious. He preached “Christ crucified.” Read and consider what Paul wrote the Corinthians in light of the gospel message during Jesus’ earthly ministry and the ministry of the Twelve following Jesus’ resurrection:



What we find in John, the rest of the gospels, and early Acts is that believing in Jesus meant believing that Jesus was the Christ, Israel’s Messiah, the Son of God. This was a Jewish message. No mention is made of the cross, his shed blood, or glorious resurrection in the gospels or early Acts. Jews were saved during Jesus’ ministry and the ministry of the Twelve by believing in Christ as the Messiah and Son of God. This is what believing in Jesus meant. No one is saved today by believing that Christ is Israel’s Messiah or that He is God.2 A passage such as John 3.16 has nothing to do with the gospel today. The gospel for today is 1 Corinthians 15.1-4. Strictly speaking, John 3.16 is interpretively invalid for us today. However, it can be applicationally valid when conveyed under the context of Paul’s gospel of grace (Acts 20.24).

1  While verse 37 is not in some early manuscripts it is consistent with the other passages.
The gospel of the kingdom, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God will be reprised before the Lord returns (see Matthew 24.14).


Updated, March 1, 2016.

Save pagePDF pageEmail pagePrint page

47 Responses to The Purpose of the Gospel of John

  1. Ron G says:

    In John 14 we read the following:
    This passage is often used as a proof text for the rapture of the church and is often taught in the context of the Jewish wedding symbolising this event bit us applied to the Church.
    Traditionally, the groom would go away for an undisclosed period of time where he would prepare a place his bride. At some point the father of the groom would say it is ready now go get your bride and bring her home to were you are.
    What are your thoughts on this given the rapture was a secret revealed to Paul and the Gospel of John is written to Jewish believers?
    God Bless
    Ron G

    • doctrine doctrine says:

      While this passage has been used for the Rapture, it is an erroneous conclusion. We know it is wrong because the Bible tells us so. Paul wrote that the Rapture was a “secret” (1 Corinthians 15.51). No one knew of it until the ascended Lord revealed it to Paul who revealed it to us (cf. Colossians 1.25). The Rapture is wholly associated with the Church, the body of Christ, which is a Pauline revelation.

    • Good work Bro. Doctrine.

      (@ Ron G) Here is what John 14 means for the Jews to whom the book was written to, but then I provided an application for us in the body of Christ in this dispensation. Enjoy! -Bro. Hoss

      John 14: Doctrinal interpretation and our application.

  2. Sue says:

    Hi Don,
    In John 3:3 Jesus is talking to Nicodemous and tells him he must be born again to see the Kingdom of God.

    Is this the same understanding that relates to Paul’s ministry in Ephesians where we have been made alive 2:5 and 2 Cor 5:17 ‘therefore anyone who is in Christ is a new creature.

    I have read that Jesus means that Nicodemous should convert to Judaism.

    Could you bring some clarity.

    Thank you for your time.

    • doctrine doctrine says:

      Two kinds of people exist: those who know God (the saved) and those who don’t (the unsaved). While God is changeless, He has changed how people know Him over time. All salvation is of God. If He told us to do 6 jumping jacks and clap our hands 3 times for salvation that would be the way of salvation. Our response would be to obey. Jesus did not tell Nicodemus to believe He would die for him and be raised from the dead (Paul’s gospel). The saving message of the gospel of the kingdom (Jesus’ gospel) was to believe who He was–the Son of God, the Messiah. So Jesus was telling Nicodemus that to know God was a God-thing. If he would believe He was the Son of God, the Messiah, he would be “born from above.” For us today, we are to believe Paul’s gospel–that He died for us and rose again.

  3. courtney king says:

    Bro.Don, i have found problems with dispensations, though they appear to be less troublesome than the Christological position. Is it safe to say that from Gen. To Rev. The bible is progressive revelation with covenant theology a corner stone please help. Thank you so much for articles. Courtney king

  4. Becky says:

    Hi Don,
    So it occurs to me this morning that it is actually very deceiving to send new believers or even unbelievers to the gospel of John as is widely practiced by modern-day Christendom. I do believe that all the gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are crucial for understanding and proof that Jesus was the Word made flesh, the Son of God, or as Paul would say, “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” as is all Scripture. John 3:16 is true for all mankind, otherwise we could not be saved, but at this point I have concluded that the way this verse has been “dispensed” has caused great and even dangerous deception, would you agree? As you say, for Gentiles it absolutely must be linked to the gospel according to Paul.
    Also, have you ever thought about the names/titles of each “book” in the new testament, especially and specifically the four “gospels”? I read the opening verses of these four, and I just don’t see the “intent” of the writer in these titles. I can’t help but wonder if titling them, “The Gospel According To…..” hasn’t added to the confusion.

    • doctrine doctrine says:

      Once one understands Paul’s unique apostleship these matters fall into their proper place. It is frustrating and sad to see the unnecessary confusion in Christendom. God expects us to be faithful stewards of truth. The task of opening hearts is God’s.

  5. Paul Miller says:

    Do you think it is proper, in light of Pauls’ Gospel, to use the term “born again” when presenting the Gospel of grace to a Gentile?

    • doctrine doctrine says:

      I like to keep things simple. Believe Christ died for your sins and rose from the dead is the simplest and clearest salvation message (1 Corinthians 15.1-4).

  6. Vanessa says:

    Hello Doctrine,
    What did Jesus mean when he said “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. When Jesus told the Jews to be born again what did he mean. I am from South Africa and have many unaswered questions and have been trying to contact Les Feldick but he is not well at the moment. Thank you.

  7. Vanessa says:

    Are you then saying that there were 2 Gospels. Pauls Gospel and the Kingdom Gospel. Which I think you are saying….Does this mean that one could choose between the 2 Gospels? Does this mean that although the 2 Gospels conflicted both lead to Salvation.?
    Why did Peter and the Apostles offer the right hand of fellowship to Paul if they knew his Gospel was different to theirs.
    Please bear with me as I shall be back with more questions as I am struggling to understand this.
    Thank you for your time.

    • doctrine doctrine says:

      Yes. For a short period of time two gospels existed–the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of the grace of God. Read my articles, Jesus vs. Paul, The Gospel of the Kingdom, and The Great Hinge. I think they will answer most of your questions and all this will come together. Grace and peace.

  8. Pingback: Your messiah | You're Not the Only One

  9. Greg says:

    Doctrine: in that John wrote these inspired words many years subsequent to Paul’s ministry, why did John not convey the good news of the death and resurrection of Christ?

    • doctrine doctrine says:

      Why do you think John wrote after Paul? Paul wrote that he completed the canon (Colossians 1.25)?

      • Greg says:

        My understanding is that many of Paul’s letters were written prior to AD 60. John’s epistles were written subsequent to that date. Notwithstanding the timeline, John would have heard Paul’s gospel.

        • doctrine doctrine says:

          John could have written his gospel quite early, possibly before Paul’s letters. No one knows when John wrote his gospel. John did learn of Paul’s gospel, if not before, by the Council of Jerusalem in 51 A.D. John was an apostle of Israel and the prophetic program. His gospel is wholly Jewish and is Old Testament just like the synoptics. He gave a record of salvation during that program. The faith part of that program was to believe who Jesus was (cf. John 11.23-27), to believe in his “name” as is recorded in early Acts. According to the Greek of Colossians 1.25 the canon of Scripture was completed by Paul, i.e., around 67 A.D. All arguments for John (or anyone else) writing after 67 A.D. are specious.

  10. Janvion2Jesus says:


    i have been reading your articles for a while and i am realy blessed, my question is this:
    how do we know that it is not yet the time to preach this Gospel of Kingdom since we have many evidences telling us that the Lord returns is imminent.
    please i’m a little confused, i hope you will response soon.

    • doctrine doctrine says:

      Thank you. The gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20.24; 1 Corinthians 15.1-4; Galatians 1.6-9) is the gospel until God completes the Church, the body of Christ. The gospel of the kingdom formally ended at Acts 15.11. It will be reinstated at the Rapture (the end of the Church). My articles, The Great Hinge and The Gospel of the Kingdom might be helpful.

  11. Theresa says:

    In John 10:16. Who are the other sheep?

    • doctrine doctrine says:

      Sheep always refers to Israel. Gentiles or the Church are not designated as sheep. So, the “other sheep” were Jews who would believe in Him in the future, and projecting far in the future, the Jewish remnant who would repent in the Tribulation and believe in Him. Everything in the Gospels is Old Testament and Jesus ministered only to Jews (with a couple exceptions).

  12. Joe says:

    Have you ever noticed that John is speaking in the present tense in chapter 5 vs. 2? That would mean the structures were still standing…..before 70 AD? Interesting. I did some research and there is something called the ‘historical present’…something tells me that the historical present here is a stretch but what do I know? Why do some teachers believe only they (experts in Hebrew and Greek) can really know what is meant. Are we to believe the Holy Spirit intended people unversed in the origianal languages of the bible to rely on linguists?…. I believe a simple plow boy would interpret this to mean the structures were still standing. Are there instances of historical present in the New Testament?

    • doctrine doctrine says:

      The historical present is fairly common. See the article for a discussion of historical presents in John. John 5.2 is cited as a debatable historical present (p. 709). Translations render ἔστιν “is” rather than “was.” One can argue John was conveying the pool existed when Jesus went to it in Jerusalem. But one can also argue John was stating it existed at the time he wrote. This would mean the verse provides grammatical support that John wrote his gospel prior to 70 A.D. (which he did). I would argue that a strong case exists for the latter view since John rendered the verb as past (imperfect) elsewhere in the pericope (John 5.1, 5). A clear historical present is λέγει in John 5.6. Dan Wallace wrote an article about John 5.2 in 1990. In it, he stated, “In Hawkins’ Horae Synopticae, the author lays out every historical present in the synoptic gospels and Acts-216 in all. From these raw data certain trends become evident: (1) every historical present in the list is in third person; (2) every historical present is in the indicative mood; and (3) εἰμί is not on the list. Of the thirty or so NT grammatical works I have had occasion to glance at with reference to the historical present, not one identified any example of εἰμί as bearing such a nuance. Furthermore, in my examination of John, I have found no such examples. It is no wonder then that the historical present advocates are a bit clandestine in their descriptions of ἔστιν this verb will simply not fit the mold of the historical present.

      • Joe says:

        Thank you Doctrine…..reading your reply was like me listening to Luciano Pavoratti singing in Italian. It sounded beautiful but I didn’t understand it. Not really, I did grasp the drift. I’ll read it over and over until I fully get it. I really appreciate your full and complete answer. thank you

        • doctrine doctrine says:

          Thank you. I have to say, no one’s every compared my writing to Pavoratti’s singing! And I thank you for asking the question for it made me look further into this issue. This is something that I really appreciate from readers. Questions such as your sharpen us.

  13. Joe says:

    If you appreciate deep questions this may be something to sink your teeth into. We all know that Gen 1:1 refers to a long time ago. There seems to be references to time/place before creation (if that’s possible to comprehend). Acts 2 :23, II Tim 1:9. God in Three Persons met and decided the way things would get done. I have read and reread the thoughts on the following….I know they apply to Reformed theology. Does any of this refer to us? If so, which one should we believe applies to us?

    Sublapsarianism, infralapsarianism or supralapsarianism…maybe there is another ‘arianism’ out there I’ve never heard of….

  14. Joe says:

    Wow! I hope there is no quiz re: Wiki. I’ll rely on your two essays. Thank you.

  15. Nathaniel says:

    Wonderful work my brother, the distinction you made clear between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace is like a revolution in my understanding of sciptures. God bless you and strengthen you.
    But don’t you think that the sacrificial death of Christ for the world is implied in John 3:16 in the light of the gospel of grace? 1cor.15 :3,4. Thanks.

    • doctrine doctrine says:

      Thank you for your kind words. I’m glad what I’ve written has been helpful. Yes, clearly embedded in John 3.16 is God’s final revelation of the significance of Christ’s work on the cross. But apart from Paul and especially 1 Corinthians 15.1-4, this would not be understood.

  16. ele says:

    God bless your ministry.I just want to ask if you could explain to me this Luke 16:16. Is John the Baptist the last prophet? I would be very happy to receive a reply from you Sir. Thank you and God Bless….

    • doctrine doctrine says:

      No. Jesus was identified as a prophet as were Judas and Silas (Acts 15.32). Jesus said the law and the prophets were until John. I think Jesus meant the program of prophecy of His coming were until John. Once Jesus arrived, the kingdom program began to be offered. That program will continue after the Church is removed and will culminate with Christ’s second advent.

  17. ele says:

    God bless your ministry Sir: pls. explain. The marriage supper of the Lamb is for the Jews? Not for the gentiles? Thanks a lot Doctrines.

  18. Becky says:

    Hi Don, i keep thinking you mentioned in one of your studies, the order the books of the “New Testament” should more practically be in. It was either you or Les. Thanks

  19. Joe says:

    I’m assuming the Gospel of John was written many years after the Crucifixion. I’m also assuming that by the time of the writing of his book John had heard of the Gospel of Grace and the means of salvation as expressed by Paul. Why does John write his gospel and not address the Gospel of Grace (the means for salvation in the Church Age). Shouldn’t his readers have been told? I have to imagine some of John’s readers might not have know of Paul’s (“My Gospel”) Gospel even at this later date. What would John have considered more important…the events and activites that transpired during the incarnation and those few days that followed or their eternal state?

    • doctrine doctrine says:

      I suspect John was written much earlier than the vast majority think. I think Revelation was written early, i.e., 50-55, even though John lived long after this. J.A.T. Robinson, a theological liberal, demonstrated in Redating the New Testament, the paucity and fragility of evidence about late dating by scholars. Robinson dated everything before 70 A.D. Most scholars think John was written late because they do not believe John could have developed early the theology found in his gospel.

  20. Mina says:

    I think Jesus mentioned about his death on the cross to Nicodemous and that is the way to be born again.

    JOHN 3:14‭-‬15 AMP”

    What do you think?

    • doctrine doctrine says:

      Believing in Christ under the gospel of the kingdom meant believing in His identity, that He was the Messiah, the Son of God. God did not reveal the significance of Christ’s death and resurrection, i.e., that His death paid for our sins, until He revealed this to Paul.

  21. Vernon Gray says:

    Hi Don,

    As I understand things 1, 2 & 3 John were written to the Christians who accepted the Kingdom Gospel.
    What references might we get for such a notion in first John?
    Consider the following…

    The Body of Christ is considered complete in Christ. A son is someone who is mature enough to inherit from the father. Romans 8:14, 15 “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.”

    Individuals in the Body of Christ are complete in Christ. They are “Sons’ who have the standing before God to inherit. Not so with children who need tutors.
    Gal 4:1 – 3 “Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;

    Consider then what John says to the Kingdom Believers in1 John.

    I am trying to make a distinction between Paul’s writings and Johns.

    God Bless,


    • doctrine doctrine says:

      We find no Church language in John. He does not mention the Church, the body of Christ, our identification with Christ, not being under Law but under grace, the Rapture, nothing about the cross, salvation by faith alone, etc.

  22. Vernon Gray says:

    Thanks Don. We tend to miss these facts with casual reading.

Leave a Reply
