I. INTRODUCTION

John 15:16 should be seen as a multi-generational evangelismfocused Great Commission verse, anticipating the purpose statement. This verse aligns with the evangelistic purpose of the book as a whole (John 20:30-31). Jesus says,

“You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go forth and bear a great harvest (karpos), and that your harvest (karpos) should abide (menō), so that whatever you ask the Father in My name [especially, enablement for a great harvest], He would give you.”¹

Sixteen of the 121 NT uses of menō (abide) appear in John 14–15. The first fifteen clearly refer to a particularly close relationship between (1) members of the Trinity with each other, or (2) a special relationship that is potential for believers—which some believers enjoy with the Lord. From this consistent usage within 38 verses (John 14:10–15:16), Jesus’ reference to the “great harvest” that is to “abide” in 15:16 would most naturally refer to new generations of believers who, in turn, ought to learn to abide. Included here is the idea that believers who are currently abiding in the Lord are to have a role in the harvest of the next generation of believers. Apparently, the early church took this Great Commission to heart and had a series of bumper crops.

The desire to proclaim the good news of eternal life to unbelievers also relates to the purpose of the Gospel of John. This requires identifying the audience of the book correctly.

II. EARLY CHRISTIANITY SPREAD RAPIDLY (UNTIL CONSTANTINE’S AD 313 EDICT OF MILAN)

Acts reports that the church from the very beginning grew dramatically. In Acts 2:41, 3,000 new believers were added to the church. The Lord added daily to their number. In 4:4, 5,000 more were added. When Paul wrote the book of Romans, in AD 56-57, Rome had at least fifteen congregations.²

Less than a decade later, in AD 64, significant numbers of Christians in Rome accounts for Nero blaming them for the fire that destroyed the city. In AD 112, Pliny the Younger complained to the Emperor Trajan that Christians were everywhere throughout the Empire.³ The proliferation of Christianity made legalizing the religion politically expedient for Constantine in AD 313.⁴

Christianity multiplied under persecution, but stagnated as it slid into complacency as the State Church.

III. THE GREAT OMISSION (LOSING SIGHT OF THE GREAT COMMISSION TO EVANGELISM)

Don Richardson laments the Great Omission that has characterized Christendom ever since the Council of Nicea in AD 325 (shortly after Constantine legalized Christianity):

…the Church Fathers’ mission-less Creeds served as “pocket Bibles”⁵ for millions of Christians who had no access to Scripture. Mission-less Creeds thus misrepresented the Bible by telling Christians many wonderful truths to believe but saying absolutely nothing regarding what God might want them to do to advance his [future] kingdom [by evangelizing now]!⁶

One might imagine that the Reformation, which viewed faith alone as important, would urge believers to share the message of life with unbelievers. Such an expectation would be wildly over-optimistic. The Great Omission still plagues us; early Christianity obeyed John 15:16, but we have not. It is hardly surprising that Christendom ignores or misinterprets John’s purpose statement, John 20:30f:

Thus Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which have not been written in this book. But these signs have been written so you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing, you may have life by His name.

John, then, actually is a book designed for evangelizing unbelievers and expressly says so, even though many deny this. Is it surprising that leaders of Christendom, characterized by the Great Omission for the past 1,700 years, would want to re-interpret a passage (John 20:31) that relates to Jesus commissioning not only the apostles, but every generation following them, to evangelize?⁷ Scholars are the ones who write commentaries. How many of them champion evangelism in general or the evangelistic use of John’s Gospel? How many actually tell unbelievers about Jesus? Luke Timothy Johnson shows no interest in evangelism, he suggests that John 20:31 is John’s call to believers to “go on believing,” not his challenge to unbelievers to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God so that they might have life in His name:

… if it [believe in John 20:31a] is present tense, then the phrase would read, “that you might go on believing,” and the purpose would be reinforcement and encouragement. The present tense is the reading better supported by the manuscript evidence, and the whole tenor of the Gospel suggests less a document for proselytism than one of propaganda for the converted…the very movement of the story corresponds to the perceptions of a community that defined itself through opposition to unbelievers, and that the complex coding of the narrative prohibits understanding by… [them] (emphasis mine).⁸

If God were incapable of persuading people through signs, would not Saul of Tarsus have dismissed his miraculous encounter with Jesus? He would have continued terrorizing believers. Christianity’s message would not have “grown and multiplied” in the face of persecution as Acts asserts it did (Acts 12:24).

Instead, the Apostles (including Paul) went forth, tirelessly proclaiming the message of life, despite all opposition. Soon after Apostles came to a locale, as discussed above, churches were planted, and new believers told unbelievers the message of life. Christianity mushroomed. Luke Timothy Johnson epitomizes the Edict of Milan’s great failing. Christianity began looking for excuses not to share the message of life with a lost and dying world.

Not surprisingly, Christianity wants to reinterpret the book that indicts its failure to “go forth and bear a great harvest” (John 15:16). But if the naysayers are right, what explains Christianity’s rapid growth in its first three centuries? Remember that prior to Jesus’ resurrection, the Apostles hid behind locked doors. Jesus’ message of life (as exemplified by John’s Gospel) gave these men something worth sharing, as well as something worth dying for. Their zeal for carrying the message that was soon written in John’s Gospel underlies the rapid growth of early Christianity.

IV. THE CASE FOR JOHN ADDRESSING UNBELIEVERS

Before listing the main planks of this article, it is vital to summarize the different views concerning the make-up of the original audience of the Gospel of John. The pertinent part of the purpose statement in John 20:31 reads:

“These [signs] have been written that you may believe.”

Many mistakenly assume that John consistently uses the present tense for ongoing action that has already-begun. No, even if 20:31a had used a present (it does not), the book would still be evangelistic. Many recognize this, but others still claim:

A present tense would mean that believers continue believing to keep life by Christ’s name.⁹

An aorist tense would mean that unbelievers come to believe to acquire life by Christ’s name.

This article responds to those denying John’s evangelistic purpose. Their denial arises from two errors: (1) their acceptance of a present tense in 20:31a and (2) their misinterpretation of it.

A. Both the Majority Text and the Critical Text Have an Aorist Subjunctive in John 20:31a

The first argument (pp. 78-81) is that both the Majority Text and the Critical Text (if manuscript evidence is properly understood) support the aorist. The second argument (pp. 81-86) is that the present tense, even for those accepting that reading, should be understood as coming to believe. Finally, taking John 20:31 to address believers involves a revisionist re-interpretation of all eight signs in John’s Gospel (pp. 86-87).

Each is a stand-alone argument. Thus, if the text has an aorist (argument 1), the view that the audience of John is believers would be untenable. Second, if Johnson and others misinterpret John’s use of present tense verbs in purpose clauses, that would be fatal as well. Finally, the view would be false if it puts John 20:31 at odds with how John uses signs throughout the book.

Even accepting one stand-alone argument would nullify Johnson’s theory. The first point is that the majority of Greek manuscripts, as well as the most highly regarded Alexandrian manuscripts, of John 20:31 have an aorist tense for pisteuō.

Even if a reader chose to skip the first argument (pp. 78-81), the second (pp. 81-86) or third (pp. 86-87) would make a sufficient case by themselves. Let us first consider the textual issue briefly.

Technically, this is not a Majority Text versus Critical Text issue. The aorist appears in the Majority Text ^{1st-2nd eds.} and both Greek texts of the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (German Bible Society): Nestle-Aland (N-A)^{26th–28th eds.} and United Bible Societies (UBS)^{1st–5th eds.}.¹⁰ However, N-A and UBS barely whisper their preference for the aorist.

1. High confidence in the aorist reading by the Majority Text.

The siglum M here indicates that von Soden’s I-text agrees with the Majority Family (which is united).¹¹ Wilbur Pickering asserts that 99½% of all manuscripts agree with the Majority Text’s aorist form.¹²

2. Tentative acceptance of the aorist reading by N-A and UBS.

These texts place the aorist in brackets: pisteu[s]ēte (pisteusēte would be aorist; pisteuēte would be present). Three features show that N-A/ UBS slightly prefer the aorist:

a. Each places evidence for the aorist where accepted readings normally appear. N-A always puts the txt (text) reading last, as the original reading. UBS puts evidence favoring its preferred reading first. Both N-A and UBS list the aorist in 20:31 as the favored reading.

b. In explaining their use of single-brackets, N-A says, “The reading given in the text [not merely relegated to the apparatus] shows the preference of the editors.”¹³ Their text reads pisteu[s]ēte (aorist), so the present pisteuēte appears in the apparatus, but not in the text. Thus, the editors of the N-A (and UBS) prefer the aorist.

c. Bruce Metzger wrote a commentary (on behalf of his fellow UBS editorial committee members) explaining their textual decisions. He writes concerning pisteusēte in John 20:31:

20:31 pisteu[s]ēte {C}

Both pisteuēte [present] and pisteuēte [aorist] have notable early support…the Committee considered it preferable to represent both readings by enclosing s within square brackets.¹⁴

The {C} rating means that three of five members of the Committee voted for the aorist in John 20:31.15 The next section will show why N-A/UBS should increase their confidence level for the aorist to at least a {B} and remove the brackets.

3. The manuscript evidence.

Of the three texts cited so far (UBS, N-A, and MajT) only the Majority Text accurately reflects the reading of a key Alexandrian manuscript, P⁶⁶. The following comes from its apparatus for John 20:31. Note the parentheses around manuscript P⁶⁶ and vid [= videtur = apparently].

John 20: 31 πisteuηte (P^66vid) *א B vs MAC, [Cr]

Everyone familiar with P⁶⁶ recognize that the first three letters of the form pisteuō are lost and that only two letters are completely visible. This is why all apparatuses append vid to P⁶⁶ here. Why does the Majority Text use parentheses? “If a manuscript cited is enclosed by parentheses—as (א) or (B)—this means that the manuscript exhibits an orthographic [spelling] variation of the reading with which it appears.”¹⁶ Now, the INTF (Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung = Institute for New Testament Textual Research), which is responsible for producing the UBS/N-A texts, lists the actual reading as: [pis]teuētai.¹⁷ Letters enclosed by brackets are completely absent. Those with dots underneath are partially missing. Every transcript I have seen lists the endings as –tai, not as –te. The Majority Text encloses P⁶⁶ in parentheses because pisteuētai only partially agrees with pisteuēte.

Enclosing this in parentheses states a truth (it differs from pisteuēte), but more can be said. The scribe (of P⁶⁶ or of the manuscript from which he copied) may have repeated the ending of the verse’s first verb: gegraptai (have been written). The scribe of P⁶⁶ (and the scribe of manuscript Θ) attached the same –tai ending here also. Now, his text would read:

But these have been written [gegraptai] so that they might be believed [pisteuētai], [namely,] that…

By enclosing P⁶⁶ in parentheses, the Majority Text suggests that the scribe may have intended to write pisteuēte, but wrote pisteuētai accidentally. However, three facts suggest that the scribe wrote what he actually meant:

A. Manuscript Θ also has pistuētai (present passive), which has the same ending as gegraptai,

B. Manuscripts L, N, and W also have nonsensical forms (aorist middle) with the same ending as gegraptai,

C. The reading of Θ and the apparent reading of P⁶⁶ (pisteuētai) are present passive. A present passive would make sense in this context.

Therefore, if looking at this problem from an Alexandrian prioritist’s standpoint, the elimination of P⁶⁶ and Θ as favoring pisteuēte (the present active subjunctive form), the level of confidence in the aorist would necessarily increase, perhaps to {B}.

Similarly, the Greek texts of Joseph Vogels and Hermann von Soden unequivocally favor the aorist active subjunctive, as does the MajT. These editors recognized the weak support for the present tense. Both Vogels and von Soden were Alexandrian prioritists.

Both Majority Text and Critical Text advocates should accept the aorist. This is a stand-alone argument. Those pushing for a present tense here recognize that the aorist would preclude seeing believers as the intended audience.

Though a aorist would be fatal, a present would be a hollow victory. Only rarely do present subjunctives mean “continue what you are already doing.” See the next argument.

B. Even If a Present Subjunctive Had Been Used, It Would Mean Coming to Believe, Not Continuing to Believe

My research examined every use of hina (that) in John’s five NT books. My analysis included both the Majority Text and UBS/N-A.¹⁸ As a cross-check, I also consulted every Johannine use of hina discussed in A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures.¹⁹

The focus was to isolate passages that closely resemble John 20:31a, the key passage of this article. The criteria are:

1. The verb must be a present subjunctive. Twice (John 3:17b and 12:47a) forms appear that could either be present or aorist subjunctives. The possibility that these are aorists required their omission.

2. The present subjunctive must not be negated. Negatives complicate the interpretation of verbal aspect. Sufficient non-negated examples exist without these.

3. Each must be in a purpose clause controlled by hina. Most purpose clauses are chronologically subsequent (a few—e.g., John 3:15f—only have logical subsequence) to the controlling clause. In this way, purpose hina-clauses can differ from other hina-clauses, so restricting analysis to purpose clauses focuses upon passages that are truly analogous to John 20:31a.

Forty-one qualifying present subjunctives appear in John’s writings in the Majority Text.

1. Robertson insists that present subjunctives mean “keep on…”

A. T. Robertson was a pioneering New Testament Greek grammarian. His pronouncements carry weight in scholarship today. Unfortunately, his wordiness sometimes causes readers to draw incorrect conclusions from his words. Before delving into some of his writings, a simple math problem illustrates a comparable interpretive ambiguity.

An algebra quiz contained the following problem:

x² = 4. Solve for x.

A student answered x = 2, and when it was marked “incorrect,” he complained. The teacher responded, “You failed to mention that x could also be -2, so your answer is wrong.”

Similarly, when Robertson renders various present subjunctives in purpose clauses with, “…so you would keep on ___ing,” many interpreters assume that he means, “…so you would not stop what you are already doing.” Even when recognizing that the purposed action had not yet begun, he still says, “…so you would keep on ___ing.”

Let me illustrate: A penniless university student saying, “I study hard now so I might keep on earning a six-figure income until retirement,” his prosperity has not yet started. The New Testament also uses present subjunctives for yet-to-begin purposed actions.

As with algebra, we often quickly embrace one interpretation before even realizing that better solutions may also exist.

2. Two possible meanings for “…so you would keep on __ing.”

John 15:16a says:

“You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that [hina] you should go forth [present subjunctive] and bear [present subjunctive] a great harvest, and that your harvest should abide [present subjunctive]…”

The purpose for Jesus choosing His disciples was so they would (1) go forth, (2) bear a great harvest, and (3) that the harvest would abide.

Now, consider Robertson’s discussion of this verse:

Note three present active subjunctives with hina (purpose clauses) to emphasize continuance (hupagēte, keep on going, pherēte, keep on bearing fruit, menēi, keep on abiding), not a mere spurt, but permanent growth and fruit bearing [emphasis mine]. ²⁰

Theoretically, two interpretations of the three “keep on…” phrases are possible. The first is that even before Jesus chose the Twelve, they were already (1) going forth, (2) bearing fruit, and (3) and their fruit was already abiding. Theoretically, Robertson could be interpreted to say that the Twelve started these activities before Jesus called them.

However, no one would seriously contend that: (1) going forth, (2) fruit-bearing, and (3) abiding fruit predated Jesus choosing and appointing them. Despite the present subjunctives, Jesus chose and appointed them so these actions would begin (and then continue). Of course, He desired continuation of these actions (once begun). Robertson surely meant begin and then continue.

3. Robertson on John 20:31.

Robertson’s rendering of the present tense that appears in the Westcott-Hort text is not as clear as it might initially seem: “That ye may believe (hina pisteuēte). Purpose with hina and the present active subjunctive of pisteuē, ‘that you may keep on believing.’”²¹

Yes, “keep on believing” characterizes how Robertston handles present tense verbs. His words do not, however, signal whether he viewed the original readers as believers or unbelievers. In context he suggests that the readers were unbelieving heretics (Cerenthians or Docetists):

The man named Jesus is identical with the Messiah (the Anointed One) as opposed to the Cerenthian separation of the Jesus of history and the Christ (aeon) of theology. And the Docetic notion of a phantom body for Jesus is also false.²²

Robertson appears to have viewed John’s readers as unbelievers (entrenched in Cerenthianism or Docetism, post-apostolic heresies akin to Gnosticism). Surely, no one would imagine him classifying Cerenthians or Docetists as believers. Thus, adding brackets to his words would clarify his meaning: “that [once you come to believe in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God] you may [then] keep on believing.”²³

Robertson is rightly regarded as a Greek expert. My Advanced Greek Grammar students are expected to read his grammar carefully. Few people read entire sections (he was verbose), so he might well protest (if he were alive), exclaiming, “Readers seem to miss my point.” Indeed, imagined support by Robertson could well be the catalyst for the John-addresses-believers notion. Would it not be tragic, if the theory arose from misunderstanding what Word Pictures says.

4. Forty-one Johannine non-negated present subjunctives.

Thirty-five of John’s forty-one non-negated present subjunctives in purpose clauses (85%) are a consequence of the controlling verb:

John 3:15b, 16b; 4:36; 5:23, 40; 8:6; 9:39a; 10:10d-e; 13:15; 14:3, 16; 15:2, 16a, 16c; 16:4, 24, 33; 17:11, 13b, 19, 21b, 22, 23a-b, 24b, 26; 20:31b; 1 John 1:4; 2:28a; 2 John 1:12; Rev 3:18e; 12:6, 14.

Only four of the forty-one (10%) consider continuation of a purposed action that had already begun: John 5:20; 1 John 1:3; 5:13a-b.

Two of the forty-one (5%) are ambiguous and could arguably refer to either of the previous categories: John 6:28; 3 John 1:8.

One should not argue that a present subjunctive in John 20:31a would require (or even expect) the idea of continue to believe. Only a few contexts exist where the purpose is for an already-begun action to continue (that is, not to cease). However, those arguing for the continue-to-believe interpretation of John 20:31a base the assertion upon accepting the present-tense reading (a variant lacking stellar support, as shown earlier),²⁴ not from contextual necessity. Thus, the argument could end here. However, this article’s third argument will demonstrate a context-based reason for understanding 20:31a as come to believe.

5. Forty-one Johannine non-negated present subjunctives in purpose clauses mean “coming to [do something].”

Space does not permit examining each verse. However, they break down into three categories: places where the verb means “start doing something” (most of the uses), simply “keep on doing something,” or contexts in which either of those senses is possible.

Two places allow either possibility: John 6:28 (“What should we do that we may begin to work [or keep on working] the works of God”); and 3 John 8 (“We ought to receive such, that [hina] we may become [or may keep on being] fellow workers”).

Four non-negated present subjunctives in John refer to continuing to do something which was already being done: John 5:20 (“The Father… will show Him greater works than these, so [hina] you may keep on marveling”); 1 John 1:3 (“What we have seen…we declare to you, that [hina] you also may continue to have fellowship with us”); 1 John 5:13a (“These things I have written to you who believe…that [hina] you may continue to know that you have eternal life…”); and 1 John 5:13b (“These things I have written to you who believe…that [hina] you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God”).

The remaining thirty-five²⁵ of the forty-one uses of the non-negated present subjunctive in John’s writings all refer to the start of doing something which lasts. In each case it is preceded by an action that leads to the abiding result.

For the sake of space, four passages will illustrate this usage. In John 3:15-16 the one who starts believing in Jesus (hina pas ho pisteuon) has everlasting life which cannot be lost. Everlasting life starts at the moment of belief and that life lasts forever.

In John 4:36 the Lord said that the one who starts reaping (ho therizon)…gathers fruit for everlasting life “that [hina] both he who sows and he who reaps may continue to rejoice together.” This rejoicing starts at the Judgment Seat of Christ and it will continue forever thereafter.

A final example is John 5:23. The Father has granted all judgment to His Son so “that [hina] all might begin to and continue to honor the Son.” This honoring of the Son will begin at the time of judgment and it will continue thereafter. The Great White Throne Judgment (Rev 20:1115) will result in every knee (without exception) bowing to the Son.

6. Summary of John’s usage of present subjunctives in purpose clauses.

Eighty-three percent involve a yet-to-begin purposed action. Thus, even if one were to accept the present tense in John 20:31 (not a good idea), John’s usage of present subjunctives weighs heavily toward the meaning of come to believe (not continue to believe).

Those arguing for the continue-to-believe approach in John 20:31 have wrongly regarded an appeal to textual criticism and an interpretation of a present tense as sufficient. The article could end here, but another argument carries the whole issue forward to a new level.

C. All Eight Signs Led People to Faith in Christ

John 20:30-31 says:

Thus Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which have not been written in this book. But these signs have been written so you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing, you may have life by His name.

John expounds eight signs. Seven are found in the first eleven chapters, balanced by the supreme sign (the cross and resurrection). Consider the statement, “These signs have been written [perfect tense] so you may believe…” Jesus did each of those signs so people present with Jesus when He did the signs might come to believe. John wrote those same signs (at various points in his Gospel) for his readers, so they might also come to believe.

Let’s assume that John wrote chapters 1-5 during week one; chapters 6-10 in the second; 11-15 in the third; and 16-20 in the fourth. The perfect tense in 20:31a (“these [signs] have been written) would refer to signs that he had written weeks earlier. His perfect tense would refer quite naturally to what he had written previously. This is important, because Jesus performed those signs to prompt unbelievers to believe in Him. Would anyone claim that He turned water to wine to prevent believers at the wedding from defecting from their faith? Of course not. Jesus purposed each sign to lead people to believe. John recorded eight signs that Jesus purposed evangelistically with a parallel purpose—to persuade unbelieving readers.

John did not record the signs to prevent believers from abandoning their faith. Such a misinterpretation does not square with the evangelistic purpose of each of the eight signs in context.²⁶

A few words should be said about Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Peter, John, Mary Magdalene, and Thomas. All these had believed Jesus’ promise of everlasting life before the cross. However, they all fade into John’s background as one looks at what Jesus’ cross and resurrection accomplished. The issue here is still focused on reaching unbelievers, as the tone of the Last Discourse demonstrates.²⁷

D. The Literary Design of John Shows the Purpose Is Evangelistic

John 20:31 immediately precedes the Epilogue (John 21). It forms an inclusio with John 1:11-13 that is within the Prologue (John 1:1-14). Thus, John 20:30-31 should not be seen as merely finishing out the discussion with Thomas. It is the purpose for the whole book.

As we look at the eight signs within John’s narrative, each sign focuses on bringing people to believe in Jesus for life everlasting. John urges the readers to respond by believing in Jesus Christ, as many did when Jesus actually performed those signs.

V. CONCLUSION

Christianity for the past 1,700 years has perpetuated the Great Omission. It has ignored or even denied the evangelistic purpose of John’s Gospel (John 20:30-31), reinforced by John’s own Great Commission (John 15:16). Jesus said:

“You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go forth and bear a great harvest [karpos], and that your harvest [karpos] should abide [menō], so that whatever you ask the Father in My name [especially, enablement for a great harvest], He would give you.”

That is the one Great Commission passage that is explicitly evangelistic and which points to succeeding generations abiding (as the foundation for great harvests of the next generation and the next).

As we look at the first three centuries of Christianity, the growth rate was phenomenal. But Constantine’s Edict of Milan spawned complacency and the Great Omission. Ever since, Christendom has run away from evangelism. It is no surprise that scholars attempt to remove evangelism from John’s Gospel. Luke Timothy Johnson basically pronounced evangelism impossible, thinking that John and the Apostles urged everyone to hide in air-raid shelters. However, all the Apostles diligently spread the message of life at great personal risk. So did their followers. Grass-roots evangelism is the only way to explain the rapid growth of Christianity in the first three centuries.

We have refuted the supposition that textual criticism leads to the present tense in John 20:31a. It does not. Whether one holds to the Majority Text or to the Critical Text, the best reading is the aorist. Even the UBS/N-A texts agree, but some of their evidence (namely P⁶⁶ and Θ) does not belong as evidence for the other main reading.

We also saw that 85% of John’s present subjunctives in purpose clauses refer to not-yet-begun purposed actions. That strikes at the heart of the contention of those who claim that the present tense would supposedly demand continue to believe.

Finally, one can look at each of the eight signs in their contexts in the Gospel. John’s reason for having written each sign was to persuade unbelievers.

We need to act like we are in the good-old days (the first three centuries of Christianity). Each one of us can give Gospels of John to unbelievers and talk with them about Jesus Christ. We also can provide Gospels of John to believers and encourage them to use them in ministry to unbelievers.

John wrote his Gospel so that people would come to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, so that by believing this, they may have life in His name. God gave it to us for that reason. He (through messengers) sought to communicate that message.

The model that Jesus expresses in John 15:16 is that believers who abide in the word are able to share the word. Some who hear the wordbased message of life believe (resulting in a new generation of believers). Those new believers are to abide in the word and share the word-based message of life with others. John 15:16 is the multi-generational evangelistically-focused Great Commission for the Great Harvest. John wrote so people might acquire everlasting life by believing Jesus Christ for His promise of life.

____________________

¹ All Scripture translations (unless otherwise noted) are by the author.

² John H. Niemelä, “Introduction,” Romans: Deliverance from Wrath, by Zane C. Hodges, ed. Robert N. Wilkin (Corinth, TX: GES, 2013), 16f. Cf. John H. Niemelä, “Evidence for a First Century ‘Tenement Church,’” JOTGES 24 (Spring 2011): 99-116.

³ Pliny the Younger, “Letters,” trans. Betty Radice in Pliny: Letters and Panegyricus, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1915), 10:96:9.

⁴ Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History (Princeton, NJ: University Press, 1996), 7, posits a 40% rate per decade for early Christianity. (He documents Mormonism’s rate for 100+ years as 43% per decade.) He underestimates numbers in AD 40 and overestimates for AD 350 (almost 34 million). Even at 20% per decade, his argument that Christianity’s rapid growth precipitated legalization (rather than vice versa) would be quite plausible. It aligns well with data in the preceding notes.

⁵ Literacy rates were low, but the ninety-five word Nicene Creed could be memorized. Richardson’s point stands despite his seeming assumption that the masses could read.

⁶ Don Richardson, Heaven Wins: Heaven, Hell and the Hope of Every Person (Ventura, CA: Regal from Gospel Light, 2013), 188. Bracketed words are added, clarifying my understanding of his somewhat vague wording.

⁷ Not all holding this view minimize evangelism, but those not evangelizing would welcome it.

⁸ Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 2010), 467f. The bracketed “them” replaces Johnson’s wordy code-speak (“those who do not share the symbolic system and convictions of the community”). Much of academia claims that John writes to the “Johannine Community” which supposedly shared his views. No, John wrote to a different “community,” one that did not yet believe his views about Jesus. Treating Johnson’s presuppositions would be a whole article in itself.

⁹ Variations in expressing the purpose clause exist among those viewing a present here as continue to believe.

¹⁰ Although this reading remains the same in each edition of each text (UBS, N-A, and the Majority Text), their appendices did change. Thus, referencing several editions is useful: Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds., Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th–28th eds. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979–2012); Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds., The Greek New Testament, 1st–5th eds. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1966–2014); Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, 1st–2nd eds. (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1982–85). I may cite a specific edition of N-A or UBS because prefaces and appendices become more detailed in later editions. Shortened edition-specific references list the edition number (e.g., UBS^5th).

¹¹ Hodges and Farstad, Majority Text, xxi, explains that this symbol is used only if von Soden’s I-text (the so-called Western Text) aligns with the Majority; otherwise M appears.

¹² Wilbur N. Pickering, The Greek New Testament According to Family 35 (N.p.: n.p., 2014), 228, n. 5 (his apparatus for John 20:31).

¹³ N-A^28th, 54*, offers a more detailed explanation of brackets than its sister text UBS^5th does.

¹⁴ Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 219f.

¹⁵ I considered all 1,431 textual problems listed by UBS^4th and can (when only two variants appear) determine the Committee’s vote tally. Usually, when three or more readings appear, only two receive votes, so vote tallies are generally discernible there also.

¹⁶ Hodges and Farstad, Majority Text, xviii.

¹⁷ A photo of the section of P⁶⁶ appears in W. J. Elliott and D. C. Parker, eds., The Papyri, vol. 1 of The New Testament in Greek IV: The Gospel According to St. John, ed. by the American and British Committees of the IGNT, NTTS, vol. 20, ed. B. M. Metzger and B. D. Ehrman (Leiden and New York, NY: Brill, 1995), 409. A link (http:// nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/AnaServer?NTtranscripts+0+start.anv) shows the INTF’s transcription, after the reader selects the manuscript (P⁶⁶) and the passage (John 20:31).

¹⁸ The Majority Text has 248 uses. UBS and N-A have a few less, due to omission or substitution.

¹⁹ I consulted volumes 4 and 6 of A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, six vols. (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1932). He favored the Westcott-Hort text, so he omits some uses of hina.

²⁰ Robertson, Word Pictures, 4:261.

²¹ Ibid., 4:317.

²² Ibid.

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ Cf. pp. 77-81 above.

²⁵ Thirty-five uses refer to starting to do something before continuing to do it: John 3:15, 16; 4:36; 5:23, 40; 8:6; 9:39a; 10:10d-e; 13:15; 14:3, 16; 15:2, 16a-c; 16:4a, 24, 33; 17:11, 13, 19, 21b, 22-24 [four uses], 26; 20:31b; 1 John 1:4; 2:28; 2 John 12; Rev 3:18e; 12:6, 14.

²⁶ It is important to anticipate two possible objections: (1) some signs do not mention people who were present believing, (2) only the Twelve were present for Jesus walking on the Sea of Galilee (6:19-21).

1. The issue is not whether John mentioned people believing. Neither is the issue whether there were people who came to believe (unmentioned by John). If Jesus purposed a sign to present evidence to unbelievers that could conceivably persuade them, that sign had an evangelistic purpose. None of the signs was purposed to prevent believers from defecting from the faith.

2. John 6:19-21 might seem problematic, because only the disciples were present. However, it is important to note something miraculous besides Jesus walking on the water. Verse 21 says that He transported the disciples across the sea immediately to their destination (Capernaum). The next day kingmakers who crossed the sea and interrupted Jesus’ teaching were astounded that He had eluded them and reached Capernaum before them (6:25). Despite not seeing Jesus after He went up the mountain alone (6:15), they recognize that something unusual had happened. Jesus rebukes them for not seeing a vertical significance in His signs (6:26). Those who see no evangelistic purpose in the sign of 6:19-21 miss something significant (pardon the pun).

²⁷ Cf. John H. Niemelä, “Jesus Props Up Unfruitful Believers (John 15:2-3),” GIF 29 (Mar-Apr 2014). Cf. also Zane C. Hodges, “Introducing John’s Gospel [Part 1]: In The Upper Room with Jesus The Christ,” JOTGES (Spring 2008): 29-43; and Zane C. Hodges, “Introducing John’s Gospel [Part 2]: Miraculous Signs and Literary Structure in John’s Gospel,” JOTGES (Autumn 2008): 15-27.