The Historical-Political Background of the New Testament

Russell H. Dunaway Jr.

Beginning in 606 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon launched the first of three

successive attacks upon the city of Jerusalem and the people of Judah. During the

second attack (597 B.C.) Ezekiel, Daniel, and about 10,000 other inhabitants of

Jerusalem were carried into captivity. During the third attack (587-586 B.C.)

Jerusalem was completely destroyed. Her walls were broken down. The gates were

burned. The temple was destroyed. The city was left desolate in shambles.

While in captivity Daniel foretold that the Babylonian Empire would be overtaken

by the Medes and the Persians, the Medes and the Persians would be conquered by

the Greeks, and the Greeks would be conquered by the Romans. He further

foretold that the establishment of the kingdom of God would take place during the

days of the Roman kings (Dan. 2:41-44).

Under the leadership of Cyrus, the Medes took control of Babylon (539 B.C.). It

was during the reign of Cyrus that the first remnant of the Jews, under the

leadership of Zerubbabel, returned to Jerusalem with instructions to rebuild the

temple (536 B.C.). They began to rebuild the temple, but due to apathy and

opposition the work soon stalled (Ezra 4:4-5). For a period of nearly twenty years,

nothing was accomplished, until the prophets Zechariah and Haggai, during the

reign of Darius I (522-486 B.C.), motivated the people to finish the task. The

Temple was rebuilt in 516 B.C.

During the reign of Artaxerxes I (464-423 B.C.) a second remnant of Jews returned

under the leadership of Ezra to restore the worship (458 B.C.). A third remnant

returned under Nehemiah in order to rebuild the walls of the city (445 B.C.).

The Medo-Persian dominion continued until 334 B.C. Alexander the Great, one of

the greatest military leaders in history, became the king of Macedonia (Greece)

when his father, Philip of Macedonia, was killed (336 B.C.). He immediately made

plans to lay siege against Persia and expand the borders of his kingdom. In 334

B.C. he led his troops into Asia Minor where they won a series of victories over

the Persians. He continued his victorious military march into Syria and Egypt.
From victories there, he led his troops into Persia, Media, and as far east as

northern India. He returned to Babylon, where he died in 323 B.C. at the age of

thirty-three.

Upon the death of Alexander the Great chaos resulted in his empire. Five of his

prominent generals established themselves over different parts of his empire.

Ptolemy chose the land of Egypt, Cyrenaica, Palestine, Phoenicia, Cyprus and

some parts of western Asia Minor and the Aegean Sea. Seleucus took control of

Babylonia. Antigonus became ruler of Asia Minor and northern Syria. The other

two ruled in Europe and did not have direct influence over events in Palestine.

From the beginning, however, Ptolemy and Seleucus struggled over the control of

Palestine.

Ptolemy treated Judea as a Temple state, given over by the king, in trust, to the

high priest at Jerusalem. Authority in religious and most civil matters was granted

the high priest in lieu of a yearly tax. The Jews fared well under the Ptolemies.

They enjoyed a great degree of liberty and self-rule. Their religious practices were

not hampered. Greek customs gradually became more common among the people.
The translation of the Old Testament into Greek (the Septuagent) began during the

reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, 285-246 B.C.

During the reign of Ptolemy II, the first of five wars with the Seleucids over

possession of Palestine broke out. Egypt successfully resisted the Seleucid

challenge under the first three Ptolemaic rulers. However, Ptolemaic power began

to wane under Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-204 B.C.). In 200 B.C., Antiochus III

defeated the Egyptian army at Banyas (Caesarea Philippi) and seized control of

Palestine.

Antiochus was succeeded by his son Seleucus IV (187-175 B.C.). When he was

murdered, his younger brother, Antiochus IV, became ruler (175-163 B.C.).

Antiochus IV is often referred to as Antiochus Epiphanes (“manifest” or

“splendid”), though some called him Epimenes (“mad”). During the early years of

his reign, the situation of the Jews became worse. Part of it was due to their being

divided, especially over the priesthood. The office of high priest had been

hereditary and held for life. However, Jason, the brother of the high priest, offered

the king a large sum of money to be appointed high priest. Antiochus needed the

money and made the appointment. Within a few years, Menelaus, a priest not of
the high priestly line, offered the king more money to be named high priest in

place of Jason. At this point, the office of high priest became a political office

awarded to various individuals not according to Zadok lineage but according to

political favor. Menelaus stole vessels from the Temple in order to pay what he had

promised.

Antiochus IV sought to add Egypt to his territory. He was proclaimed king of

Egypt; but when he went to Egypt to take control of the land, the Romans

confronted him and told him to leave. Knowing the power of Rome, he returned to

Jerusalem (167 B.C.), only to discover that Jason had driven Menelaus out of the

city. He saw this as full revolt. He allowed his troops to kill many of the Jews and

determined to put an end to the Jewish religion. He sacrificed a pig on the altar of

the Temple. Parents were forbidden to circumcise their children. The Sabbath was

no longer to be observed. All copies of the law were to be burned, and it was, in

fact, made a capital offense to have a copy of the law. The zeal of Antiochus to

destroy Judaism was a major factor in its salvation.

When the Seleucids sent officers throughout the land to compel leading citizens to

offer sacrifice to Zeus, open conflict flared. In the village of Modein, about
halfway between Jerusalem and Joppa, an aged priest named Mattathias was

chosen to offer the sacrifice. He refused to do so, but a young Jew volunteered to

do it. Angered by this display of infidelity to Jehovah, Mattathias killed both the

Jew and the officer. He then fled to the hills with his five sons and others who

supported his action. The Maccabean revolt had begun.

Leadership fell to Judas, the third son of Mattathias. Nicknamed Maccabeus, the

hammerer, probably because of his success in battle, Judas was the ideal rebel

leader. He fought successful battles against much larger forces. Under his

leadership, the office of high priest was combined with that of military leader. A

group called the Hasidim (later giving rise to the sect known as the Pharisees)

made up the major part of his army. These men were devoutly committed to

religious freedom. They were dedicated to obedience to the law and to the worship

of God. Judas was able to gain control of Jerusalem within three years. The

Temple was cleansed and rededicated exactly three years after it had been polluted

by the king (164 B.C.). The Hasidim were satisfied with this conquest and left the

army. Judas, however, wanted complete political freedom for the Jews. In 160

B.C., with a force of 800 men, Judas Maccabeus engaged a vastly superior

Seleucid army and was killed in battle at Elasa.

Four years later (160 B.C.), Jonathan Maccabeus was awarded the position of High

Priest. Jonathan too was a brilliant military leader, but was seized through

treachery and later murdered (143 B.C.). His brother, Simon, was chosen by the

people to be their new high priest and governor. Simon ruled as high priest and

governor until he was murdered by his son-in-law (134 B.C.). With Simon,

however, the office of high priest was restored to a hereditary office. His son, John

Hyrcanus, became the high priest and civil ruler (134-104 B.C.). Under the

leadership of Hyrcanus the Jews broke free from the control of the Seleucids.

Hyrcanus began to expand the territory of the Jews. In the north he destroyed the

temple of the Samaritans on Mount Gerizim. He moved southeast and conquered

the land of the Idumeans, the ancient kingdom of Edom. The residents were forced

to either emigrate or convert to Judaism.

The oldest son of Hyrcanus, Aristobulus I (104-103 B.C.), succeeded him. He had

his mother and three brothers put in prison. One brother was allowed to remain

free, but he was later murdered. He allowed his mother to starve to death in prison.

He extended his rule to include part of the territory of Iturea, north of Galilee. He

was the first to take the title of king.

When Hyrcanus died, his wife, Alexandra, released his brothers from prison and

married the oldest of them, Alexander Jannaeus. He became high priest and king

(103-76 B.C.). He made many enemies by marrying the widow of his brother. The

Old Testament stated that a high priest must marry a virgin (Lev. 21:14).

Alexander was an ambitious warrior and conducted campaigns by which he

enlarged his kingdom. He used foreign soldiers because he could not trust Jews in

his army. As high priest, he did not always follow prescribed ritual. On one

occasion, when the people reacted to his improper actions by throwing citrons at

him, he allowed his soldiers to kill six thousand of them. At another time he had

eight hundred of his enemies crucified. As they hung on the crosses, he had their

wives and children brought out and slain before their eyes.

Alexandra succeeded her husband as ruler (76-67 B.C.). Being a woman, she could

not serve as high priest, so the two functions were separated. Her oldest son,

Hyrcanus II, became high priest. He was not ambitious. Her younger son,

Aristobulus II, was just the opposite. He was waiting for his mother to die so he

could become king and high priest. When Salome died, civil war broke out and

lasted until 63 B.C. Aristobulus easily defeated Hyrcanus, who was content to
retire. This might have been the end of the story were it not for Antipater, an

Idumean. He persuaded Hyrcanus to seek the help of the king of Nabatea to regain

his position. Aristobulus was driven back to Jerusalem.

At this point Rome arrived on the scene. Both Aristobulus and Hyrcanus appealed

to Scaurus, the Roman general charged with the administration of Palestine. He

sided with Aristobulus. When Pompey, the Roman commander, arrived, both

brothers appealed to him. Aristobulus tried to fight the Romans. He was defeated

and taken to Rome as a prisoner. The Romans, took control over Palestine in 63

B.C.

Under the Romans, the Jews paid heavy taxes; but their religious practices were

not changed. Several Roman Emperors touch the New Testament narrative,

especially these: Augustus (27 B.C.-A.D. 14), during whose reign the birth of Jesus

occurred (Luke 2:1), and the census connected with his birth, as well as the

beginning of emperor-worship; Tiberius (A.D. 14-37), under whose reign the

preaching of John the Baptist (Luke 3:1-2) and Jesus Christ, as well as the

crucifixion, burial, resurrection and ascension took place; Caligula (A.D. 37-41),

who demanded worship of himself and ordered his statue placed in the temple at
Jerusalem, but who died before the order was carried out; Claudius (A.D. 41-54),

who reigned during much of Paul’s preaching journeys, and who, due to civil

disturbance, expelled Jewish residents from Rome, Aquila and Priscilla being

among those thus expelled (Acts 18:2); Vespasian (A.D. 69-79), who as a general

began to crush a Jewish revolt, returned to Rome to become emperor, and left

completion of the military task to his son Titus, whose army destroyed Jerusalem

and the temple in A.D. 70; Nero (A.D. 54-68), the Caesar to whom Paul appealed

(Acts 25); and Domitian (A.D. 81-96), whose persecution of the church probably

provides the background for Revelation, written to encourage oppressed Christians.

Beginning in 63 B.C., Roman power was exercised in Judea through Antipater,

who was named governor of Palestine. Antipater had one of his sons, Phasael,

named governor of Judea, and another, Herod, made governor of Galilee.

Antipater was murdered in 43 B.C. In 40 B.C. the Parthians invaded Palestine and

made Antigonus, the last surviving son of Aristobulus, king of Palestine. Hyrcanus

was mutilated by having his ears cut or bitten off so that he could not serve as high

priest again. Phasael was captured and while in prison committed suicide. Herod

barely escaped with his family. He went to Rome to have his future brother-in-law,
Aristobulus, made king, hoping to rule through him as his father had ruled through

Antipater. However, the Roman Senate, at the urging of Antony and Octavian

(Augustus), made Herod king (40 B.C.). It took him three years to drive the

Parthians out of the country and establish his rule. He was king until his death in 4

B.C.

The years of Herod’s rule were a time of turmoil for the Jewish people. He was an

Idumean. His ancestors had been forced to convert to Judaism, but the Jews never

accepted Herod. In fact, they resented him. He was the representative of a foreign

power. Scheming, jealous, and cruel, he killed two of his own wives and at least

three of his own sons. Just five days before his own death, Herod had his oldest

son, Antipater, put to death. Augustus once said that it was better to be Herod’s pig

than his son (a wordplay, since the Greek words for pig, hus, and for son, huios,

sound very much alike). His relations with Rome were sometimes troubled due to

the unsettled conditions in the empire. Herod was a strong supporter of Antony,

though he could not tolerate Cleopatra with whom Antony had become enamored.

When Antony was defeated by Octavian (31 B.C.), Herod pledged his full support

to Octavian.
Herod proved himself an efficient administrator on behalf of Rome. He kept the

peace among a people who were hard to rule. He was a cruel and merciless man.

Yet, during a time of great famine, he used his own funds to feed the people.

Among his many building projects in Jerusalem, his greatest contribution to the

Jews was the beautification of the temple in Jerusalem. This beautification seems

to have largely been an attempt to conciliate his subjects. The temple, decorated

with white marble, gold, and jewels, became proverbial for its splendor: “Whoever

has not seen the temple of Herod has seen nothing beautiful.”

It was during the reign of Herod that Jesus was born (Matt. 2:1-18; Luke 1:5).

Herod was the king who ordered the execution of the male babies in Bethlehem

(Matt. 2:16-18).

At his death (4 B.C.), Herod left his kingdom to three of his sons. Antipas became

tetrarch (“ruler of a fourth”) of Galilee and Perea (4 B.C.—A.D. 39). Philip

became tetrarch of the Gentile regions to the northeast of the Sea of Galilee (4 B.C.

—A.D. 34). Archelaus was to be king of Judea and Samaria, but Rome refused to

give him the title of king. He was ethnarch (“ruler of the people”) of these two

territories. He proved to be a poor ruler and was deposed (6 A.D.). His territories
were placed under the direct rule of Roman procurators under the control of the

governor of Syria.

John the Baptist rebuked Antipas for divorcing his wife in order to marry Herodias,

the wife of Philip, his half brother. In retaliation, Herodias induced her dancing

daughter to demand the head of John the Baptist. Antipas yielded to the grisly

request (Mark 6:17-29; Matt. 14:3-12). Jesus once referred to Antipas as “that fox”

(Luke 13:32). Later Jesus stood trial before him (Luke 23:7-12).

Except for brief periods, Roman governors ruled Archelaus’s former territory. The

fifth procurator appointed to rule over Judea was Pontius Pilate, before whom

Jesus stood trial prior to his crucifixion. Interesting, three times Pilate pronounced

Jesus innocent, yet he lacked the courage to set him free (John 18).

Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great, executed James, the Apostle and

son of Zebedee, and imprisoned Peter (Acts 12:1-5). He was smitten of God when

he accepted the praise of the people, “It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.”

Luke tells us that because “he gave not God the glory,” “the angel of the Lord

smote him . . . and he was eaten of worms and died” (Acts 12:21-23).
The governor Felix heard the Apostle Paul preach the gospel and trembled at the

word, yet postponed obeying the gospel (Acts 24-25). He hoped that Paul would

bribe him with money, but Paul never did and remained a prisoner for two years

under the governor Felix.

Festus, who took the place of Felix, also heard Paul’s case (Acts 25). Willing to do

the Jews a favor, Festus suggested that Paul return to Jerusalem to stand trial.

Being a Roman citizen, and knowing that the Jews intended to kill him, Paul

appealed his case to Caesar.

This presented a problem for Festus. He had no choice but to send Paul to Rome.

The problem was that he did not have any charges to write in the papers to

accompany Paul to Rome. Thus, he asked Herod Agrippa II, great-grandson of

Herod the Great, to listen to Paul’s self-defense and see if he could determine what

charges should be written against Paul before sending his case to Rome. Agrippa

heard Paul’s self-defense and was “almost” persuaded to become a Christian

himself (Acts 26:28).

Upon the death of Festus, Albinis and then Florus were appointed governors of

Judea. It was the raiding of the temple treasury by Florus that ignited the Jewish

revolt of A.D. 66-70 which ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple

in A.D. 70. The clean-up operations of this revolt lasted till the capture of Masada,

a fortress on the west side of the Dead Sea, where the last rebels and their families,

numbering more than nine hundred, committed mass suicide just before the

Romans entered. The Jews suffered even greater loss of life at the destruction of

Jerusalem. Both the destruction of Jerusalem and the capture of Masada were

preceded by long sieges. Apart from such events, and in spite of the Herods and the

Roman governors, however, Jewish priests and Jewish courts controlled most local

matters of daily life.

Worship at the temple and its sacrificial system ceased with the destruction of

Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Jewish rabbis established a school in the Mediterranean

coastal town of Jamnia (or Yavneh) to expound the Torah, the Old Testament law,

more intensively. Unsettled conditions continued in Palestine until Emperor

Hadrian erected a temple to the Roman god Jupiter on the site where the Jewish

temple had stood. Hadrian also prohibited the rite of circumcision. The Jews

revolted again, this time under the leadership of Bar Cochba, proclaimed by many

Jews to be the Messiah (A.D. 132). The Romans crushed this uprising in A.D. 135,
rebuilt Jerusalem as a Roman city, and banned Jews from entering the city. Thus

the Jewish state ceased to exist until its revival in 1948.

(For a more detailed discussion of the history of the Jews from the Babylonian

Captivity through the intertestamental period, I highly recommend Old Testament

History by Charles Pfieffer, as well as Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Books

10-20, which cover the history of the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity on into

the New Testament Period, to the governorship of Florus. For a detailed discussion

of the destruction of the Jerusalem, see Josephus.

Truth Magazine Vol. XLIV: 9 p14 May 4, 2000

Home Page | Top of Page | Archives Home | © Guardian of Truth Foundation

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

2. Major Differences Between John and the Synoptic Gospels

Introduction: The Relationship of John's Gospel to the Synoptics.

Two basic positions on the relationship of John’s Gospel to the Synoptics are possible:

If John knew of the synoptics, then he wrote to supplement them. (To say John knew of one or more of
the synoptics is not to say, however, that he wrote his gospel with copies of Matthew, Mark, and/or Luke
in front of him. John may have been aware of the existence of other written accounts of Jesus’ life and
ministry without actually having seen them.)
If John’s Gospel is totally independent from the synoptics, he had enough material to choose from that
much of it does not overlap with the synoptics (cf. Jn 20:30 and 21:25). This point is strengthened
considerably if one accepts the Fourth Gospel’s claim to reflect eyewitness testimony about the life and
ministry of Jesus (John 21:23-24).

Major Differences:

1. Omission by John of material found in the synoptics.

John’s Gospel omits a large amount of material found in the synoptic Gospels, including some
surprisingly important episodes: the temptation of Jesus, Jesus’ transfiguration, and the institution of the
Lord’s supper are not mentioned by John. John mentions no examples of Jesus casting out demons. The
sermon on the mount and the Lord’s prayer are not found in the Fourth Gospel. There are no narrative
parables in John’s Gospel (most scholars do not regard John 15:1-8 [“the Vine and the Branches”] as a
parable in the strict sense).

2. Inclusion by John of material not found in the synoptics.

John also includes a considerable amount of material not found in the synoptics. All the material in John 2
—4, Jesus’ early Galilean ministry, is not found in the synoptics. Prior visits of Jesus to Jerusalem before
the passion week are mentioned in John but not found in the synoptics. The seventh sign-miracle, the
resurrection of Lazarus (John 11) is not mentioned in the synoptics. The extended Farewell Discourse
(John 13—17) is not found in the synoptic Gospels.

3. Different length of Jesus' public ministry.

According to John, Jesus’ public ministry extended over a period of at least three and possibly four years.
During this time Jesus goes several times from Galilee to Jerusalem. The synoptics appear to describe
only one journey of Jesus to Jerusalem (the final one), with most of Jesus’ ministry taking place within
one year.

4. 'High' Christology as opposed to the synoptics.

The Prologue to John’s Gospel (1:1-18) presents Jesus as the Lovgo" become flesh (1:14). John begins
his Gospel with an affirmation of Jesus’ preexistence and full deity, which climaxes in John 20:28 with
Thomas’ confession “My Lord and my God!” The non-predicated ejgw eijmi sayings in the Fourth
Gospel as allusions to Exod 3:14 also point to Jesus’ deity (John 8:24, 28, 58). Compare Mark who begins
his Gospel with Jesus’ baptism and Matthew and Luke who begin theirs with Jesus’ birth. John begins
with eternity past (“In the beginning the Word already was…”).
 5. Literary Point of View: John versus the synoptics.

The synoptics are written from a third person point of view, describing the events as if the authors had
personally observed all of them and were reporting what they saw at the time. Thus they are basically
descriptive in their approach. John’s Gospel, on the other hand, although also written from a third person
point of view, is more reflective, clearly later than the events he describes. The author of the Fourth
Gospel very carefully separates himself from the events he describes (cf. the role of the Beloved Disciple
in the Fourth Gospel). However clear it is that he was an eyewitness of the life of Jesus, it is no less clear
that he looks back upon it from a temporal distance. While we see the events through his eyes, we are
carefully guided to see the events of Jesus’ life not as John saw them when they happened but as he now
sees them. We understand more of the significance of the events described from the position the writer
now holds than an eyewitness could have understood at the time the events took place. In this sense
John’s Gospel is much more reflective.

There are numerous passages in John’s Gospel which could serve as an example of this later perspective.
Four will serve as examples:

(a) John 2:17—ejmnhvsqhsan oiJ maqhtaiV aujtou' o{ti gegrammevnon ejstivn…

(b) John 2:22—o{te ou hjgevrqh ejk nekrw'n…

(c) John 12:16—tau'ta oujk e[gnwsan aujtou' oiJ maqhtaiV toV prw'ton…

(d) John 20:9—oujdevpw gaVr h[/deisan thVn grafhVn…

In each of these passages it may be easily seen that John has adopted the “post-resurrection” point of
view. He looks back on the events and emphasizes the inability of the apostles to understand the things
that were happening in their true perspective at the time they occurred. It is only possible for us to
understand these things when we consider the resurrection of Jesus and its significance in God’s plan.

6. Extended dialogues or discourses rather than proverbial sayings.

John presents his material in the form of extended dialogues or discourses rather than the ‘proverbial’ or
‘pithy’ sayings found often in the synoptics: John 3 (with Nicodemus); John 4 (with the Samaritan
woman); John 6 (the Bread of Life Discourse); John 13—17 (the Farewell Discourse with the disciples).
As L. Goppelt observed:
The Gospel of John passed on the words of Jesus predominantly in another genre than the synoptics; it
did not do so in sayings, parables, and controversy dialogues, but in connected or dialogical discourses.25

7. Use of symbolism and double meaning.

John makes more frequent use of these literary techniques than the synoptics. Examples: John 2:25
(temple/body); John 7:37-38 (water/Spirit); John 12:32 (lifted up/exalted).

Much of this symbolism takes the form of dualistic antitheses: light/darkness (1:4; 3:19; 8:12; 11:9;
12:35, 46); truth/falsehood (8:44); life/death (5:24; 11:25); above/below (8:23); freedom/slavery (8:33,
36). Much of this antithetical dualism is also found in the Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) texts. See J. H.
Charlesworth, “A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3:13-4:26 and the ‘Dualism’ Contained in
the Gospel of John”, in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J. H. Charlesworth (New York: Crossroad,
1990).

8. Use of the “misunderstood statement.”

John makes frequent use of the “misunderstood statement” as a literary technique. Jesus says something
to someone which is misunderstood, thus giving Jesus a further opportunity to clarify what he really
meant. Examples: John 3 (Nicodemus’ misunderstanding of the new birth as a second physical birth; John
4 (the Samaritan woman’s misunderstanding of the living water as drinkable water).

9. Ipsissima verba versus ipsissima vox.

The long discourses in John’s Gospel do not necessarily represent Jesus’ exact words (ipsissima verba) as
long as they give a faithful summary and interpretive paraphrase (ipsissima vox) of what he actually said.
Jesus’ teaching in the Fourth Gospel may be couched in distinctively Johannine style. On the other hand,
some of John’s style may have been either directly or indirectly inspired by Jesus’ own manner of
speaking: in Mt 11:25-27 + Lk 10:21-22 Jesus uses language almost identical to that which characterizes
his speeches in John’s Gospel— “all things have been given to me by my Father, and no one knows the
Son except the Father, nor the Father except the Son and the one to whom the Son wishes to reveal him.”

10. “Kingdom of God” versus “eternal life.”

The emphasis on the Kingdom of God found in the synoptics is largely missing in John (the phrase
basileiva tou' qeou' occurs only twice in John’s Gospel (3:3, 5) and the noun basileiva only three times
(all in 18:36). Instead we find John’s emphasis on ‘eternal life’ as a present reality (John 5:24 etc.). The
emphasis on ‘eternal life’ in John’s Gospel is closer to the letters of Paul than to the synoptic gospels, as
the following chart shows:
 11. Realized eschatology in the Gospel of John.

The problem of so-called ‘realized’ eschatology in the Gospel of John (the term was popularized by C. H.
Dodd) can be seen in microcosm in John 5:20b-30. On the one hand there are statements that speak of the
parousia (second advent) as a future event in the traditional sense: “…for an hour is coming when all who
are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good to a resurrection of life,
and those who have done evil to a resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28-29 NASB). Alongside these on
the other hand are statements that seem to speak of the full realization for believers of salvation in the
present (5:20-27): “Truly, truly, I say to you he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has
eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life” (John 5:24 NASB). There
is an obvious tension between these statements that must be reconciled; judgment cannot be both present
and future at the same time. Related to John’s emphasis on ‘eternal life’ as a present reality is the stress
on judgment as realized in a person’s response to Jesus (John 3:19). In addition John’s Gospel does not
emphasize the second advent of Christ as a future eschatological event (John 14:3 is about the only clear
reference).

12. Differences in grammatical style from the synoptic gospels.

The Gospel of John is written in a style of Greek quite different from the synoptics. The range of
vocabulary is smaller. There is frequent parataxis (use of coordinate clauses rather than subordinate
clauses). Asyndeton frequently occurs. Related to paragraph (7) above, there is little difference between
the words that are ascribed to Jesus and the words of the Evangelist. Example: try to determine in John
3:1-21 where the words of Jesus to Nicodemus end and the interpretive comments of the Evangelist
begin.

W. Hall Harris III

W. Hall Harris III is Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and is also the
Project Director and Managing Editor for the NET Bible (New English Translation). For over thirty years
Hall has