John 11:50-52

11:50 You do not realize ¹  that it is more to your advantage to have one man ²  die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.” ³  11:51 (Now he did not say this on his own, ⁴  but because he was high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the Jewish nation, ⁵  11:52 and not for the Jewish nation ⁶  only, ⁷  but to gather together ⁸  into one the children of God who are scattered.) ⁹ 

John 14:3

14:3 And if I go and make ready ¹⁰  a place for you, I will come again and take you ¹¹  to be with me, ¹²  so that where I am you may be too.

John 14:28

14:28 You heard me say to you, ¹³  ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad ¹⁴  that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am. ¹⁵ 

Romans 8:28

8:28 And we know that all things work together ¹⁶  for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose,

Romans 8:2

8:2 For the law of the life-giving Spirit ¹⁷  in Christ Jesus has set you ¹⁸  free from the law of sin and death.

Colossians 4:17

4:17 And tell Archippus, “See to it that you complete the ministry you received in the Lord.”

[11:50]  ¹ tn Or “you are not considering.”

[11:50]  ² tn Although it is possible to argue that ἄνθρωπος (anqrwpo") should be translated “person” here since it is not necessarily masculinity that is in view in Caiaphas’ statement, “man” was retained in the translation because in 11:47 “this man” (οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, outo" Jo anqrwpo") has as its referent a specific individual, Jesus, and it was felt this connection should be maintained.

[11:50]  ³ sn In his own mind Caiaphas was no doubt giving voice to a common-sense statement of political expediency. Yet he was unconsciously echoing a saying of Jesus himself (cf. Mark 10:45). Caiaphas was right; the death of Jesus would save the nation from destruction. Yet Caiaphas could not suspect that Jesus would die, not in place of the political nation Israel, but on behalf of the true people of God; and he would save them, not from physical destruction, but from eternal destruction (cf. 3:16-17). The understanding of Caiaphas’ words in a sense that Caiaphas could not possibly have imagined at the time he uttered them serves as a clear example of the way in which the author understood that words and actions could be invested retrospectively with a meaning not consciously intended or understood by those present at the time.

[11:51]  ⁴ tn Grk “say this from himself.”

[11:51]  ⁵ tn The word “Jewish” is not in the Greek text, but is clearly implied by the context (so also NIV; TEV “the Jewish people”).

[11:52]  ⁶ tn See the note on the word “nation” in the previous verse.

[11:52]  ⁷ sn The author in his comment expands the prophecy to include the Gentiles (not for the Jewish nation only), a confirmation that the Fourth Gospel was directed, at least partly, to a Gentile audience. There are echoes of Pauline concepts here (particularly Eph 2:11-22) in the stress on the unity of Jew and Gentile.

[11:52]  ⁸ tn Grk “that he might gather together.”

[11:52]  ⁹ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[14:3]  ¹⁰ tn Or “prepare.”

[14:3]  ¹¹ tn Or “bring you.”

[14:3]  ¹² tn Grk “to myself.”

[14:28]  ¹³ tn Or “You have heard that I said to you.”

[14:28]  ¹⁴ tn Or “you would rejoice.”

[14:28]  ¹⁵ sn Jesus’ statement the Father is greater than I am has caused much christological and trinitarian debate. Although the Arians appealed to this text to justify their subordinationist Christology, it seems evident that by the fact Jesus compares himself to the Father, his divine nature is taken for granted. There have been two orthodox interpretations: (1) The Son is eternally generated while the Father is not: Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius, Hilary, etc. (2) As man the incarnate Son was less than the Father: Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose, Augustine. In the context of the Fourth Gospel the second explanation seems more plausible. But why should the disciples have rejoiced? Because Jesus was on the way to the Father who would glorify him (cf. 17:4-5); his departure now signifies that the work the Father has given him is completed (cf. 19:30). Now Jesus will be glorified with that glory that he had with the Father before the world was (cf. 17:5). This should be a cause of rejoicing to the disciples because when Jesus is glorified he will glorify his disciples as well (17:22).

[8:28]  ¹⁶ tc ὁ θεός (Jo qeos, “God”) is found after the verb συνεργεῖ (sunergei, “work”) in v. 28 by Ì⁴⁶ A B 81 sa; the shorter reading is found in א C D F G Ψ 33 1739 1881 Ï latt sy bo. Although the inclusion is supported by a significant early papyrus, the alliance of significant Alexandrian and Western witnesses favors the shorter reading. As well, the longer reading is evidently motivated by a need for clarification. Since ὁ θεός is textually suspect, it is better to read the text without it. This leaves two good translational options: either “he works all things together for good” or “all things work together for good.” In the first instance the subject is embedded in the verb and “God” is clearly implied (as in v. 29). In the second instance, πάντα (panta) becomes the subject of an intransitive verb. In either case, “What is expressed is a truly biblical confidence in the sovereignty of God” (C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans [ICC], 1:427).

[8:2]  ¹⁷ tn Grk “for the law of the Spirit of life.”

[8:2]  ¹⁸ tc Most mss read the first person singular pronoun με (me) here (A D 1739^c 1881 Ï lat sa). The second person singular pronoun σε (se) is superior because of external support (א B {F which reads σαι} G 1506* 1739*) and internal support (it is the harder reading since ch. 7 was narrated in the first person). At the same time, it could have arisen via dittography from the final syllable of the verb preceding it (ἠλευθέρωσεν, hleuqerwsen; “has set free”). But for this to happen in such early and diverse witnesses is unlikely, especially as it depends on various scribes repeatedly overlooking either the nu or the nu-bar at the end of the verb.