This morning is both exciting (and a bit daunting) as we look forward to a new corporate study. I briefly mentioned last week that I was leaning toward a particular book, and I wanted to share some about how I arrived at this point and why we need this.

I’ve been thinking and praying and talking with others about this for a while. This choice wasn’t something default or mechanical; there is no assigned curriculum. The following are some of the questions I worked through that peel off the layers to my choice.

What type of study should we do? From a general perspective, there are many benefits to a book study, that is, a line upon line (cf. Isaiah 28:10) meditation. Preaching through a book of the Bible isn’t the only acceptable style. I hope so, since I haven’t preached a truly expository sermon so far at Trinity. Yet sequential study and sermons make it hard(er) to miss the context of any given statement, and context is key to proper understanding. Besides, God wrote His Word the way He did on purpose (as did the human authors). The flow of an argument helps to make the argument; repetition aims to make us think about something again; the amount of detail included (or omitted) forms our thinking.

I may say something in a letter that could be separated from the letter and still be understandable, but isolated from its original context it may not be as comprehendible or significant. Someone who really understands a complete book may be better able to speak accurately about a part of it, but that assumes having worked through the whole at some point.

I love working through entire books of the Bible, not only because it makes choosing next week’s sermon text easier, but also because the work builds on and informs itself as the study continues. There is a very important place for other kinds of messages, but most of our diet at Trinity will probably be line upon line through books of the Bible.

So, should it be an Old Testament or New Testament book? The answer is, Yes. Nevertheless, we can only take one step at a time. I’m eager for more OT study. It took me the greater part of three years to stumble through Ecclesiastes and, though I didn’t always enjoy the process, it radically altered my understanding of wise living under the sun. For the past few years I’ve been in Genesis and, likewise, am not the same image-bearer as when I started. The NT authors lived on the OT, and it’s a shame we don’t spend more time in it.

Of course, the NT has some good stuff, too. I’m excited to get my Greek on again; work some line diagrams. We are a NT church, so let’s take our first expository step in the NT and then we’ll take some breaks every so often on Sunday mornings and throw some OT in on various Sunday evenings as well.

So, which NT book should it be? I’ve taught through a few epistles before and, no doubt, an apostolic letter would edify us well. But I’m intrigued by the gospels. I’ve never studied a gospel before; I’ve read them multiple times and studied various passages within them, but never studied an entire gospel.

The gospels are their own unique kind of book, their own genre. They aren’t only narrative or history, but they do tell an historically accurate story. They include much of Jesus’ teaching, but they aren’t only propositions and arguments (like, say, Romans). The most defining feature of a gospel is that it focuses on Jesus, but each gospel is more than mere biography. They are like long gospel tracts intended to provoke belief in Jesus as God’s Son, as the promised Messiah, as Lord and Savior.

”God gave us what we know about Jesus’ earthly ministry in this way” (Stuart and Fee, 128). I’m more ready to try a gospel after Genesis narrative, and looking forward to the challenge of being faithful to the gospel genre and the gospel content.

I always appreciate the genuine affections John MacArthur expresses when talking about the many years he’s spent with Jesus in the gospels; preaching for multiple years through each of them and then writing commentaries later. In some sense, all of the Bible, let alone the NT, is about Jesus, but there is something special and intentional about Jesus in the gospels.

So, which gospel should it be? Obviously, there are four of them: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The choice between them wasn’t particularly hard for me. All of them have a place, they all have a unique perspective or emphasis that forms our understanding about Jesus. That said, the first three have the most overlap, usually called the Synoptic Gospels, meaning that they present more of a common view, they “see"" (optic) “together” (sun). Matthew is first because, regardless of what liberal, evolution-steeped “scholars’ maintain, Mark and Luke had Matthew’s gospel and used it when writing theirs.

John does his own thing; he wrote his own gospel. That fact alone draws me to John. Many key events in Jesus’ life are not included in the fourth gospel: no genealogy, no birth story, no temptation account, no transfiguration, etc. For that matter, there is no reference to the Sermon on the Mount, no disciples’ prayer, no Olivet Discourse, or even one parable. Yet some of my personal favorites are in John, including the Bread of Life (chapter 6), the Good Shepherd (ch. 10), the True Vine (ch. 15), and the high priestly prayer (ch. 177). I’m sure there are some of your favorites, too.

And that’s a CHALLENGE, because let’s be honest, we know Jesus, we know the gospel, and we know the gospel according to John. Sure, we can spend time rehearsing the truth, retelling the old stories. Who would say, out loud, that we shouldn’t spend more time with Jesus? But is this this the best use of our time?

Maybe not, but here are some compelling reasons that I think the challenge of covering old material in the gospel of John is worth it.

1. The Author’s Credentials

I’m referring to the human author because the other 65 books have the same divine Author and His deity is credential enough. Even on the human level, a case could be made for paying attention to any of them. Let me make the case for John anyway.

In the middle of the second century, book-bound (sewn or glued) copies of four gospels were created and circulated, known as ‘The Gospel.’ They were divided by Kata …, “According to …” to distinguish the authors. Imagine if such a volume was produced today along with a book jacket that included short bios of all four contributors. John’s list is unlike, and in may ways is more impressive than, the others.

John was a son of Zebedee, brother of James, the other “son of thunder” (Mark 3:17). That means John was an Israelite with understanding of the Jewish Scripture and traditions.

More than that, John was a disciple of Jesus, one of the original 12 followers (Luke 6:12-16), and one of Christ’s apostles who represented Christ after His ascension.

That means John was an eye-witness. He refers to his first hand witness in John 19:35 and 21:24, and also in 1 John 1:1-4. He describes what he saw for himself. He heard both Jesus’ public and private discourses. While association with a disciple is good and reliable, John’s testimony came from being up close and personal.

In fact, it was very personal to John. John, along with Peter and James, is always included in the “three”; the inner circle of men went more places with Jesus than the other nine. More than that, the typical way John refers to himself is as the “disciple whom Jesus loved” (five times: 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). John was a follower and a friend, a close one.

After Jesus ascended John had such a major role in the Jerusalem church that Paul referred to him as one of the “pillars” (Galatians 2:9). John was actively engaged in the development of the church from its inception.

And later, John’s bold witness for Christ got him exiled on the island of Patmos.

Putting all of that together into an author’s blurb, we might read something like this:

This “son of thunder” provides an eye-witness account of the Lord’s life and ministry from an insider’s perspective. With the authority of an apostle and the intimacy of a beloved friend, John writes this gospel as a faithful pastor and pillar in the First Christian Church. His other inspired books include First, Second, and Third John as well as The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ.

My point is, John’s credentials make his book worth the re-read.

2. The Publication Timing

The fact that this gospel was written and published at all is significant. Today, if a person hopes to have something published, they typically need to send a query letter to a potential publisher. A query letter should include knowledge of other works on the subject and what gap the proposed book would fill. John fills an important gap.

Matthew was perhaps written as early as AD 50, Mark sometime in the 50s, and Luke around 60. John wrote last around AD 85. Not only does that put John long after the other gospels, it means John was also composed after most of the New Testament. Only the epistles of John and Revelation were written after the gospel of John.

The church was well on her way by this point and she, along with John himself, already had three gospel accounts and teaching by James, Peter, and Paul. Why another gospel?

Since John leaves out a number of things recorded in the Synoptics and adds material they don’t, it’s reasonable to suppose that John’s gospel intends to supplement the others. By some estimations, 92% of John is unique to John. But, if he only meant to supplement, why not say that? Why create his own gospel rather than write a gospel addendum? He knew how to write letters. Why not include Jesus’ teaching in more of a systematic treatment?

D.A. Carson said,

John gives his own witness. Years of preaching to Jews, both in Palestine and in the diaspora, had given him some ideas about how it should be done. Here he puts his ideas on paper; the result is the Gospel of John. (93)

In addition to some supplemental material and adding his own eye-witness perspective, I think John was eager to provide the church community with another Great Commission resource. Writing some 50 years after Jesus’ ascension, John was a seasoned ministry veteran. As he neared the end of his life, no doubt he desired to record his own thoughts. But more than that, he wanted to proclaim Jesus after he was gone.

Merrill Tenney said,

This Gospel was probably written at a time when the church was composed of second-and third-generation Christians who needed more detailed instruction about Jesus and new defenses for the apologetic problems raised by apostasy within the church and by growing opposition from without.

The resource works for us, too. It provides content for our Great Commission disciple-making work today, and it also provides a better model than only learning a few verses or a simple outline. Those things have their place, and comparatively, this is quite a long tract. But it is a good one. The fact that the apostle John thought there was a need, and that the church recognized its value even though possessing most of the NT, suggests that we haven’t matured beyond it ourselves. This book does indeed fill a gap that we have.

3. The Stated Purpose

Along with Luke (cf. Luke 1:1-4), John makes his purpose for writing unmistakeable.

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30-31)

Verse 21 contains a textual variant that has caused some to question whether John wrote for believers or non-believers. If “so that you may believe” is present tense, some argue, John writes so that believers would keep on believing (edification). If “that you may believe” is aorist tense, others argue, John refers to a time of belief, and his book provides evidence that would help one become a believer (evangelism).

This is big, because I could totally try to argue that Christians need the gospel of John because John says so by the present tense. That would preach. We could present the offering and go home and I could justify being in John for the next 10 years and you’d have to love/endure it because John says so. But there isn’t any air in that balloon. I believe the gospel of John hopes to make Christians, not instruct them. His purpose statement in 1 John 5:13 serves as a helpful comparison. We could say that 1 John helps a person know that they believe; John helps a person believe in the first place.

That’s why we recommended John to those considering reading something in the Bible. We probably have some among us who don’t believe that the Son of God, the Christ, is Jesus. This study should be good for them. We know others who don’t believe—friends, family—who we could tell these things to, too.

But, Christian, how is your belief? You believe, do you have any unbelief? You have faith in Christ, is it strong? The original disciples lived with Christ and they had trouble believing.

[T]he best evangelistic literature not only explains why one should become a Christian, and how to become a Christian, but what it means to be a Christian. (Carson, 92)

When confronted with Christ, will a man believe or won’t he? The signs John includes are intended to substantiate belief. While that has evangelism application, can we really say our belief is where it needs to be? Does belief drive you? Is your understanding of what the Christian life means complete? Is your practice?

Before you answer, the answer is, No. Let me say why I believe our belief isn’t where it needs to be. Look again at John’s purpose.

these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:31)

Also unlike any gospel, life is at stake in John, in particular, eternal life. No matter how much we plead that eternal life is quality not quantity, a kind of life not just a long time, we have trouble when someone looks underneath the table. We have trouble because we have weak faith that shows in weak life.

Consider just some of Jesus’ comments about life in John.

God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (3:16)

Whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life. (4:14)

Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life… (6:53)

Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. (8:12)

I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. (10:10)

This is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (17:2)

The word “life” isn’t used in John 15, but certainly abiding in the vine refers to living in the vine.

As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. (15:4-5)

So, Christian, how is your life? You profess faith, are you living by faith? You know Christ is the Vine, are you abiding in Him for fruit’s sake? For joy’s sake? Jesus is the way; we know which direction to go. He is the truth; we have instructions for going along the way. And He is the life; in Him is our breath and our every step. This is why we need the gospel according to John.

Conclusion

I really don’t know what sort of pace we’ll keep through this study. I don’t intend to prove preaching faithfulness by how long I can spend on a verse.

But I am eager to help drag our corporate soul through the gospel of John for sake of our belief, for sake of our life, and for sake of our worship and witness to the only begotten Son of God.