Genesis 18:1-33

Three Special Visitors

18:1 The Lord appeared to Abraham ¹  by the oaks ²  of Mamre while ³  he was sitting at the entrance ⁴  to his tent during the hottest time of the day. 18:2 Abraham ⁵  looked up ⁶  and saw ⁷  three men standing across ⁸  from him. When he saw them ⁹  he ran from the entrance of the tent to meet them and bowed low ¹⁰  to the ground. ¹¹ 

18:3 He said, “My lord, ¹²  if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by and leave your servant. ¹³  18:4 Let a little water be brought so that ¹⁴  you may all ¹⁵  wash your feet and rest under the tree. 18:5 And let me get ¹⁶  a bit of food ¹⁷  so that you may refresh yourselves ¹⁸  since you have passed by your servant’s home. After that you may be on your way.” ¹⁹  “All right,” they replied, “you may do as you say.”

18:6 So Abraham hurried into the tent and said to Sarah, “Quick! Take ²⁰  three measures ²¹  of fine flour, knead it, and make bread.” ²²  18:7 Then Abraham ran to the herd and chose a fine, tender calf, and gave it to a servant, ²³  who quickly prepared it. ²⁴  18:8 Abraham ²⁵  then took some curds and milk, along with the calf that had been prepared, and placed the food ²⁶  before them. They ate while ²⁷  he was standing near them under a tree.

18:9 Then they asked him, “Where is Sarah your wife?” He replied, “There, ²⁸  in the tent.” 18:10 One of them ²⁹  said, “I will surely return ³⁰  to you when the season comes round again, ³¹  and your wife Sarah will have a son!” ³²  (Now Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, not far behind him. ³³  18:11 Abraham and Sarah were old and advancing in years; ³⁴  Sarah had long since passed menopause.) ³⁵  18:12 So Sarah laughed to herself, thinking, ³⁶  “After I am worn out will I have pleasure, ³⁷  especially when my husband is old too?” ³⁸ 

18:13 The Lord said to Abraham, “Why ³⁹  did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Will I really ⁴⁰  have a child when I am old?’ 18:14 Is anything impossible ⁴¹  for the Lord? I will return to you when the season comes round again and Sarah will have a son.” ⁴²  18:15 Then Sarah lied, saying, “I did not laugh,” because she was afraid. But the Lord said, “No! You did laugh.” ⁴³ 

Abraham Pleads for Sodom

18:16 When the men got up to leave, ⁴⁴  they looked out over ⁴⁵  Sodom. (Now ⁴⁶  Abraham was walking with them to see them on their way.) ⁴⁷  18:17 Then the Lord said, “Should I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? ⁴⁸  18:18 After all, Abraham ⁴⁹  will surely become ⁵⁰  a great and powerful nation, and all the nations on the earth will pronounce blessings on one another ⁵¹  using his name. 18:19 I have chosen him ⁵²  so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep ⁵³  the way of the Lord by doing ⁵⁴  what is right and just. Then the Lord will give ⁵⁵  to Abraham what he promised ⁵⁶  him.”

18:20 So the Lord said, “The outcry against ⁵⁷  Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so blatant ⁵⁸  18:21 that I must go down ⁵⁹  and see if they are as wicked as the outcry suggests. ⁶⁰  If not, ⁶¹  I want to know.”

18:22 The two men turned ⁶²  and headed ⁶³  toward Sodom, but Abraham was still standing before the Lord. ⁶⁴  18:23 Abraham approached and said, “Will you sweep away the godly along with the wicked? 18:24 What if there are fifty godly people in the city? Will you really wipe it out and not spare ⁶⁵  the place for the sake of the fifty godly people who are in it? 18:25 Far be it from you to do such a thing – to kill the godly with the wicked, treating the godly and the wicked alike! Far be it from you! Will not the judge ⁶⁶  of the whole earth do what is right?” ⁶⁷ 

18:26 So the Lord replied, “If I find in the city of Sodom fifty godly people, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

18:27 Then Abraham asked, “Since I have undertaken to speak to the Lord ⁶⁸  (although I am but dust and ashes), ⁶⁹  18:28 what if there are five less than the fifty godly people? Will you destroy ⁷⁰  the whole city because five are lacking?” ⁷¹  He replied, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.”

18:29 Abraham ⁷²  spoke to him again, ⁷³  “What if forty are found there?” He replied, “I will not do it for the sake of the forty.”

18:30 Then Abraham ⁷⁴  said, “May the Lord not be angry ⁷⁵  so that I may speak! ⁷⁶  What if thirty are found there?” He replied, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

18:31 Abraham ⁷⁷  said, “Since I have undertaken to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty are found there?” He replied, “I will not destroy it for the sake of the twenty.”

18:32 Finally Abraham ⁷⁸  said, “May the Lord not be angry so that I may speak just once more. What if ten are found there?” He replied, “I will not destroy it for the sake of the ten.”

18:33 The Lord went on his way ⁷⁹  when he had finished speaking ⁸⁰  to Abraham. Then Abraham returned home. ⁸¹ 

Genesis 1:13

1:13 There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.

Genesis 6:1

God’s Grief over Humankind’s Wickedness

6:1 When humankind ⁸²  began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born ⁸³  to them, ⁸⁴ 

Genesis 15:14

15:14 But I will execute judgment on the nation that they will serve. ⁸⁵  Afterward they will come out with many possessions.

Genesis 15:1

The Cutting of the Covenant

15:1 After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram! I am your shield ⁸⁶  and the one who will reward you in great abundance.” ⁸⁷ 

Genesis 2:8

2:8 The Lord God planted an orchard ⁸⁸  in the east, ⁸⁹  in Eden; ⁹⁰  and there he placed the man he had formed. ⁹¹ 

Matthew 25:46

25:46 And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

John 1:1-18

The Prologue to the Gospel

1:1 In the beginning ⁹²  was the Word, and the Word was with God, ⁹³  and the Word was fully God. ⁹⁴  1:2 The Word ⁹⁵  was with God in the beginning. 1:3 All things were created ⁹⁶  by him, and apart from him not one thing was created ⁹⁷  that has been created. ⁹⁸  1:4 In him was life, ⁹⁹  and the life was the light of mankind. ¹⁰⁰  1:5 And the light shines on ¹⁰¹  in the darkness, ¹⁰²  but ¹⁰³  the darkness has not mastered it. ¹⁰⁴ 

1:6 A man came, sent from God, whose name was John. ¹⁰⁵  1:7 He came as a witness ¹⁰⁶  to testify ¹⁰⁷  about the light, so that everyone ¹⁰⁸  might believe through him. 1:8 He himself was not the light, but he came to testify ¹⁰⁹  about the light. 1:9 The true light, who gives light to everyone, ¹¹⁰  was coming into the world. ¹¹¹  1:10 He was in the world, and the world was created ¹¹²  by him, but ¹¹³  the world did not recognize ¹¹⁴  him. 1:11 He came to what was his own, ¹¹⁵  but ¹¹⁶  his own people ¹¹⁷  did not receive him. ¹¹⁸  1:12 But to all who have received him – those who believe in his name ¹¹⁹  – he has given the right to become God’s children 1:13 – children not born ¹²⁰  by human parents ¹²¹  or by human desire ¹²²  or a husband’s ¹²³  decision, ¹²⁴  but by God.

1:14 Now ¹²⁵  the Word became flesh ¹²⁶  and took up residence ¹²⁷  among us. We ¹²⁸  saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, ¹²⁹  full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. 1:15 John ¹³⁰  testified ¹³¹  about him and shouted out, ¹³²  “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, ¹³³  because he existed before me.’” 1:16 For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another. ¹³⁴  1:17 For the law was given through Moses, but ¹³⁵  grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ. 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, ¹³⁶  himself God, who is in closest fellowship with ¹³⁷  the Father, has made God ¹³⁸  known. ¹³⁹ 

Romans 8:17

8:17 And if children, then heirs (namely, heirs of God and also fellow heirs with Christ) ¹⁴⁰  – if indeed we suffer with him so we may also be glorified with him.

Hebrews 10:34

10:34 For in fact you shared the sufferings of those in prison, ¹⁴¹  and you accepted the confiscation of your belongings with joy, because you knew that you certainly ¹⁴²  had a better and lasting possession.

Hebrews 10:1

Concluding Exposition: Old and New Sacrifices Contrasted

10:1 For the law possesses a shadow of the good things to come but not the reality itself, and is therefore completely unable, by the same sacrifices offered continually, year after year, to perfect those who come to worship. ¹⁴³ 

Hebrews 1:4

1:4 Thus he became ¹⁴⁴  so far better than the angels as ¹⁴⁵  he has inherited a name superior to theirs.

[18:1]  ¹ tn Heb “him”; the referent (Abraham) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[18:1]  ² tn Or “terebinths.”

[18:1]  ³ tn The disjunctive clause here is circumstantial to the main clause.

[18:1]  ⁴ tn The Hebrew noun translated “entrance” is an adverbial accusative of place.

[18:2]  ⁵ tn Heb “he”; the referent (Abraham) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[18:2]  ⁶ tn Heb “lifted up his eyes.”

[18:2]  ⁷ tn Heb “and saw, and look.” The particle הִנֵּה (hinneh) draws attention to what he saw. The drawn-out description focuses the reader’s attention on Abraham’s deliberate, fixed gaze and indicates that what he is seeing is significant.

[18:2]  ⁸ tn The Hebrew preposition עַל (’al) indicates the three men were nearby, but not close by, for Abraham had to run to meet them.

[18:2]  ⁹ tn The pronoun “them” has been supplied in the translation for clarification. In the Hebrew text the verb has no stated object.

[18:2]  ¹⁰ tn The form וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ (vayyishtakhu, “and bowed low”) is from the verb הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה (hishtakhavah, “to worship, bow low to the ground”). It is probably from a root חָוָה (khavah), though some derive it from שָׁחָה (shakhah).

[18:2]  ¹¹ sn The reader knows this is a theophany. The three visitors are probably the Lord and two angels (see Gen 19:1). It is not certain how soon Abraham recognized the true identity of the visitors. His actions suggest he suspected this was something out of the ordinary, though it is possible that his lavish treatment of the visitors was done quite unwittingly. Bowing down to the ground would be reserved for obeisance of kings or worship of the Lord. Whether he was aware of it or not, Abraham’s action was most appropriate.

[18:3]  ¹² tc The MT has the form אֲדֹנָי (’adonay, “Master”) which is reserved for God. This may reflect later scribal activity. The scribes, knowing it was the Lord, may have put the proper pointing with the word instead of the more common אֲדֹנִי (’adoni, “my master”).

[18:3]  ¹³ tn Heb “do not pass by from upon your servant.”

[18:4]  ¹⁴ tn The imperative after the jussive indicates purpose here.

[18:4]  ¹⁵ tn The word “all” has been supplied in the translation because the Hebrew verb translated “wash” and the pronominal suffix on the word “feet” are plural, referring to all three of the visitors.

[18:5]  ¹⁶ tn The Qal cohortative here probably has the nuance of polite request.

[18:5]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “a piece of bread.” The Hebrew word לֶחֶם (lekhem) can refer either to bread specifically or to food in general. Based on Abraham’s directions to Sarah in v. 6, bread was certainly involved, but v. 7 indicates that Abraham had a more elaborate meal in mind.

[18:5]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “strengthen your heart.” The imperative after the cohortative indicates purpose here.

[18:5]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “so that you may refresh yourselves, after [which] you may be on your way – for therefore you passed by near your servant.”

[18:6]  ²⁰ tn The word “take” is supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons. In the Hebrew text the sentence lacks a verb other than the imperative “hurry.” The elliptical structure of the language reflects Abraham’s haste to get things ready quickly.

[18:6]  ²¹ sn Three measures (Heb “three seahs”) was equivalent to about twenty quarts (twenty-two liters) of flour, which would make a lot of bread. The animal prepared for the meal was far more than the three visitors needed. This was a banquet for royalty. Either it had been a lonely time for Abraham and the presence of visitors made him very happy, or he sensed this was a momentous visit.

[18:6]  ²² sn The bread was the simple, round bread made by bedouins that is normally prepared quickly for visitors.

[18:7]  ²³ tn Heb “the young man.”

[18:7]  ²⁴ tn The construction uses the Piel preterite, “he hurried,” followed by the infinitive construct; the two probably form a verbal hendiadys: “he quickly prepared.”

[18:8]  ²⁵ tn Heb “he”; the referent (Abraham) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[18:8]  ²⁶ tn The words “the food” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons. In the Hebrew text the verb has no stated object.

[18:8]  ²⁷ tn The disjunctive clause is a temporal circumstantial clause subordinate to the main verb.

[18:9]  ²⁸ tn The particle הִנֵּה (hinneh) often accompanies a gesture of pointing or a focused gaze.

[18:10]  ²⁹ tn Heb “he”; the referent (one of the three men introduced in v. 2) has been specified in the translation for clarity. Some English translations have specified the referent as the Lord (cf. RSV, NIV) based on vv. 1, 13, but the Hebrew text merely has “he said” at this point, referring to one of the three visitors. Aside from the introductory statement in v. 1, the incident is narrated from Abraham’s point of view, and the suspense is built up for the reader as Abraham’s elaborate banquet preparations in the preceding verses suggest he suspects these are important guests. But not until the promise of a son later in this verse does it become clear who is speaking. In v. 13 the Hebrew text explicitly mentions the Lord.

[18:10]  ³⁰ tn The Hebrew construction is emphatic, using the infinitive absolute with the imperfect tense.

[18:10]  ³¹ tn Heb “as/when the time lives” or “revives,” possibly referring to the springtime.

[18:10]  ³² tn Heb “and there will be (הִנֵּה, hinneh) a son for Sarah.”

[18:10]  ³³ tn This is the first of two disjunctive parenthetical clauses preparing the reader for Sarah’s response (see v. 12).

[18:11]  ³⁴ tn Heb “days.”

[18:11]  ³⁵ tn Heb “it had ceased to be for Sarah [after] a way like women.”

[18:12]  ³⁶ tn Heb “saying.”

[18:12]  ³⁷ tn It has been suggested that this word should be translated “conception,” not “pleasure.” See A. A. McIntosh, “A Third Root ‘adah in Biblical Hebrew,” VT 24 (1974): 454-73.

[18:12]  ³⁸ tn The word “too” has been added in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[18:13]  ³⁹ tn Heb “Why, this?” The demonstrative pronoun following the interrogative pronoun is enclitic, emphasizing the Lord’s amazement: “Why on earth did Sarah laugh?”

[18:13]  ⁴⁰ tn The Hebrew construction uses both הַאַף (ha’af) and אֻמְנָם (’umnam): “Indeed, truly, will I have a child?”

[18:14]  ⁴¹ tn The Hebrew verb פָּלָא (pala’) means “to be wonderful, to be extraordinary, to be surpassing, to be amazing.”

[18:14]  ⁴² sn Sarah will have a son. The passage brings God’s promise into clear focus. As long as it was a promise for the future, it really could be believed without much involvement. But now, when it seemed so impossible from the human standpoint, when the Lord fixed an exact date for the birth of the child, the promise became rather overwhelming to Abraham and Sarah. But then this was the Lord of creation, the one they had come to trust. The point of these narratives is that the creation of Abraham’s offspring, which eventually became Israel, is no less a miraculous work of creation than the creation of the world itself.

[18:15]  ⁴³ tn Heb “And he said, ‘No, but you did laugh.’” The referent (the Lord) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[18:16]  ⁴⁴ tn Heb “And the men arose from there.”

[18:16]  ⁴⁵ tn Heb “toward the face of.”

[18:16]  ⁴⁶ tn The disjunctive parenthetical clause sets the stage for the following speech.

[18:16]  ⁴⁷ tn The Piel of שָׁלַח (shalakh) means “to lead out, to send out, to expel”; here it is used in the friendly sense of seeing the visitors on their way.

[18:17]  ⁴⁸ tn The active participle here refers to an action that is imminent.

[18:18]  ⁴⁹ tn Heb “And Abraham.” The disjunctive clause is probably causal, giving a reason why God should not hide his intentions from Abraham. One could translate, “Should I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, seeing that Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation?”

[18:18]  ⁵⁰ tn The infinitive absolute lends emphasis to the finite verb that follows.

[18:18]  ⁵¹ tn Theoretically the Niphal can be translated either as passive or reflexive/reciprocal. (The Niphal of “bless” is only used in formulations of the Abrahamic covenant. See Gen 12:2; 18:18; 28:14.) Traditionally the verb is taken as passive here, as if Abram were going to be a channel or source of blessing. But in later formulations of the Abrahamic covenant (see Gen 22:18; 26:4) the Hitpael replaces this Niphal form, suggesting a translation “will bless [i.e., “pronounce blessings upon”] themselves [or “one another”].” The Hitpael of “bless” is used with a reflexive/reciprocal sense in Deut 29:18; Ps 72:17; Isa 65:16; Jer 4:2. Gen 18:18 (like 12:2) predicts that Abraham will be held up as a paradigm of divine blessing and that people will use his name in their blessing formulae. For examples of blessing formulae utilizing an individual as an example of blessing see Gen 48:20 and Ruth 4:11.

[18:19]  ⁵² tn Heb “For I have known him.” The verb יָדַע (yada’) here means “to recognize and treat in a special manner, to choose” (see Amos 3:2). It indicates that Abraham stood in a special covenantal relationship with the Lord.

[18:19]  ⁵³ tn Heb “and they will keep.” The perfect verbal form with vav consecutive carries on the subjective nuance of the preceding imperfect verbal form (translated “so that he may command”).

[18:19]  ⁵⁴ tn The infinitive construct here indicates manner, explaining how Abraham’s children and his household will keep the way of the Lord.

[18:19]  ⁵⁵ tn Heb “bring on.” The infinitive after לְמַעַן (lÿma’an) indicates result here.

[18:19]  ⁵⁶ tn Heb “spoke to.”

[18:20]  ⁵⁷ tn Heb “the outcry of Sodom,” which apparently refers to the outcry for divine justice from those (unidentified persons) who observe its sinful ways.

[18:20]  ⁵⁸ tn Heb “heavy.”

[18:21]  ⁵⁹ tn The cohortative indicates the Lord’s resolve.

[18:21]  ⁶⁰ tn Heb “[if] according to the outcry that has come to me they have done completely.” Even the Lord, who is well aware of the human capacity to sin, finds it hard to believe that anyone could be as bad as the “outcry” against Sodom and Gomorrah suggests.

[18:21]  ⁶¹ sn The short phrase if not provides a ray of hope and inspires Abraham’s intercession.

[18:22]  ⁶² tn Heb “And the men turned from there.” The word “two” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied here for clarity. Gen 19:1 mentions only two individuals (described as “angels”), while Abraham had entertained three visitors (18:2). The implication is that the Lord was the third visitor, who remained behind with Abraham here. The words “from there” are not included in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[18:22]  ⁶³ tn Heb “went.”

[18:22]  ⁶⁴ tc An ancient Hebrew scribal tradition reads “but the Lord remained standing before Abraham.” This reading is problematic because the phrase “standing before” typically indicates intercession, but the Lord would certainly not be interceding before Abraham.

[18:24]  ⁶⁵ tn Heb “lift up,” perhaps in the sense of “bear with” (cf. NRSV “forgive”).

[18:25]  ⁶⁶ tn Or “ruler.”

[18:25]  ⁶⁷ sn Will not the judge of the whole earth do what is right? For discussion of this text see J. L. Crenshaw, “Popular Questioning of the Justice of God in Ancient Israel,” ZAW 82 (1970): 380-95, and C. S. Rodd, “Shall Not the Judge of All the Earth Do What Is Just?” ExpTim 83 (1972): 137-39.

[18:27]  ⁶⁸ tn The Hebrew term translated “Lord” here and in vv. 30, 31, 32 is אֲדֹנָי (’adonay).

[18:27]  ⁶⁹ tn The disjunctive clause is a concessive clause here, drawing out the humility as a contrast to the Lord.

[18:28]  ⁷⁰ tn The Hebrew verb שָׁחַת (shakhat, “to destroy”) was used earlier to describe the effect of the flood.

[18:28]  ⁷¹ tn Heb “because of five.”

[18:29]  ⁷² tn Heb “he”; the referent (Abraham) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[18:29]  ⁷³ tn The construction is a verbal hendiadys – the preterite (“he added”) is combined with an adverb “yet” and an infinitive “to speak.”

[18:30]  ⁷⁴ tn Heb “he”; the referent (Abraham) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[18:30]  ⁷⁵ tn Heb “let it not be hot to the Lord.” This is an idiom which means “may the Lord not be angry.”

[18:30]  ⁷⁶ tn After the jussive, the cohortative indicates purpose/result.

[18:31]  ⁷⁷ tn Heb “he”; the referent (Abraham) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[18:32]  ⁷⁸ tn Heb “he”; the referent (Abraham) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[18:33]  ⁷⁹ tn Heb “And the Lord went.”

[18:33]  ⁸⁰ tn The infinitive construct (“speaking”) serves as the direct object of the verb “finished.”

[18:33]  ⁸¹ tn Heb “to his place.”

[6:1]  ⁸² tn The Hebrew text has the article prefixed to the noun. Here the article indicates the generic use of the word אָדָם (’adam): “humankind.”

[6:1]  ⁸³ tn This disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) is circumstantial to the initial temporal clause. It could be rendered, “with daughters being born to them.” For another example of such a disjunctive clause following the construction וַיְהִיכִּי (vayÿhiki, “and it came to pass when”), see 2 Sam 7:1.

[6:1]  ⁸⁴ tn The pronominal suffix is third masculine plural, indicating that the antecedent “humankind” is collective.

[15:14]  ⁸⁵ tn The participle דָּן (dan, from דִּין, din) is used here for the future: “I am judging” = “I will surely judge.” The judgment in this case will be condemnation and punishment. The translation “execute judgment on” implies that the judgment will certainly be carried out.

[15:1]  ⁸⁶ sn The noun “shield” recalls the words of Melchizedek in 14:20. If God is the shield, then God will deliver. Abram need not fear reprisals from those he has fought.

[15:1]  ⁸⁷ tn Heb “your reward [in] great abundance.” When the phrase הַרְבּה מְאֹדֵ (harbeh mÿod) follows a noun it invariably modifies the noun and carries the nuance “very great” or “in great abundance.” (See its use in Gen 41:49; Deut 3:5; Josh 22:8; 2 Sam 8:8; 12:2; 1 Kgs 4:29; 10:10-11; 2 Chr 14:13; 32:27; Jer 40:12.) Here the noun “reward” is in apposition to “shield” and refers by metonymy to God as the source of the reward. Some translate here “your reward will be very great” (cf. NASB, NRSV), taking the statement as an independent clause and understanding the Hiphil infinitive absolute as a substitute for a finite verb. However, the construction הַרְבּה מְאֹדֵ is never used this way elsewhere, where it either modifies a noun (see the texts listed above) or serves as an adverb in relation to a finite verb (see Josh 13:1; 1 Sam 26:21; 2 Sam 12:30; 2 Kgs 21:16; 1 Chr 20:2; Neh 2:2).

[2:8]  ⁸⁸ tn Traditionally “garden,” but the subsequent description of this “garden” makes it clear that it is an orchard of fruit trees.

[2:8]  ⁸⁹ tn Heb “from the east” or “off east.”

[2:8]  ⁹⁰ sn The name Eden (עֵדֶן, ’eden) means “pleasure” in Hebrew.

[2:8]  ⁹¹ tn The perfect verbal form here requires the past perfect translation since it describes an event that preceded the event described in the main clause.

[1:1]  ⁹² sn In the beginning. The search for the basic “stuff” out of which things are made was the earliest one in Greek philosophy. It was attended by the related question of “What is the process by which the secondary things came out of the primary one (or ones)?,” or in Aristotelian terminology, “What is the ‘beginning’ (same Greek word as beginning, John 1:1) and what is the origin of the things that are made?” In the New Testament the word usually has a temporal sense, but even BDAG 138 s.v. ἀρχή 3 lists a major category of meaning as “the first cause.” For John, the words “In the beginning” are most likely a conscious allusion to the opening words of Genesis – “In the beginning.” Other concepts which occur prominently in Gen 1 are also found in John’s prologue: “life” (1:4) “light” (1:4) and “darkness” (1:5). Gen 1 describes the first (physical) creation; John 1 describes the new (spiritual) creation. But this is not to play off a false dichotomy between “physical” and “spiritual”; the first creation was both physical and spiritual. The new creation is really a re-creation, of the spiritual (first) but also the physical. (In spite of the common understanding of John’s “spiritual” emphasis, the “physical” re-creation should not be overlooked; this occurs in John 2 with the changing of water into wine, in John 11 with the resurrection of Lazarus, and the emphasis of John 20-21 on the aftermath of Jesus’ own resurrection.)

[1:1]  ⁹³ tn The preposition πρός (pros) implies not just proximity, but intimate personal relationship. M. Dods stated, “Πρός …means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another” (“The Gospel of St. John,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1:684). See also Mark 6:3, Matt 13:56, Mark 9:19, Gal 1:18, 2 John 12.

[1:1]  ⁹⁴ tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

[1:2]  ⁹⁵ tn Grk “He”; the referent (the Word) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:3]  ⁹⁶ tn Or “made”; Grk “came into existence.”

[1:3]  ⁹⁷ tn Or “made”; Grk “nothing came into existence.”

[1:3]  ⁹⁸ tc There is a major punctuation problem here: Should this relative clause go with v. 3 or v. 4? The earliest mss have no punctuation (Ì^66,75* א* A B Δ al). Many of the later mss which do have punctuation place it before the phrase, thus putting it with v. 4 (Ì^75c C D L W^s 050* pc). NA²⁵ placed the phrase in v. 3; NA²⁶ moved the words to the beginning of v. 4. In a detailed article K. Aland defended the change (“Eine Untersuchung zu Johannes 1, 3-4. Über die Bedeutung eines Punktes,” ZNW 59 [1968]: 174-209). He sought to prove that the attribution of ὃ γέγονεν (}o gegonen) to v. 3 began to be carried out in the 4th century in the Greek church. This came out of the Arian controversy, and was intended as a safeguard for doctrine. The change was unknown in the West. Aland is probably correct in affirming that the phrase was attached to v. 4 by the Gnostics and the Eastern Church; only when the Arians began to use the phrase was it attached to v. 3. But this does not rule out the possibility that, by moving the words from v. 4 to v. 3, one is restoring the original reading. Understanding the words as part of v. 3 is natural and adds to the emphasis which is built up there, while it also gives a terse, forceful statement in v. 4. On the other hand, taking the phrase ὃ γέγονεν with v. 4 gives a complicated expression: C. K. Barrett says that both ways of understanding v. 4 with ὃ γέγονεν included “are almost impossibly clumsy” (St. John, 157): “That which came into being – in it the Word was life”; “That which came into being – in the Word was its life.” The following stylistic points should be noted in the solution of this problem: (1) John frequently starts sentences with ἐν (en); (2) he repeats frequently (“nothing was created that has been created”); (3) 5:26 and 6:53 both give a sense similar to v. 4 if it is understood without the phrase; (4) it makes far better Johannine sense to say that in the Word was life than to say that the created universe (what was made, ὃ γέγονεν) was life in him. In conclusion, the phrase is best taken with v. 3. Schnackenburg, Barrett, Carson, Haenchen, Morris, KJV, and NIV concur (against Brown, Beasley-Murray, and NEB). The arguments of R. Schnackenburg, St. John, 1:239-40, are particularly persuasive.

[1:4]  ⁹⁹ tn John uses ζωή (zwh) 37 times: 17 times it occurs with αἰώνιος (aiwnios), and in the remaining occurrences outside the prologue it is clear from context that “eternal” life is meant. The two uses in 1:4, if they do not refer to “eternal” life, would be the only exceptions. (Also 1 John uses ζωή 13 times, always of “eternal” life.)

[1:4]  ¹⁰⁰ tn Or “humanity”; Grk “of men” (but ἄνθρωπος [anqrwpo"] is used in a generic sense here, not restricted to males only, thus “mankind,” “humanity”).

[1:5]  ¹⁰¹ tn To this point the author has used past tenses (imperfects, aorists); now he switches to a present. The light continually shines (thus the translation, “shines on”). Even as the author writes, it is shining. The present here most likely has gnomic force (though it is possible to take it as a historical present); it expresses the timeless truth that the light of the world (cf. 8:12, 9:5, 12:46) never ceases to shine.

[1:5]  ¹⁰² sn The author now introduces what will become a major theme of John’s Gospel: the opposition of light and darkness. The antithesis is a natural one, widespread in antiquity. Gen 1 gives considerable emphasis to it in the account of the creation, and so do the writings of Qumran. It is the major theme of one of the most important extra-biblical documents found at Qumran, the so-called War Scroll, properly titled The War of the Sons of Light with the Sons of Darkness. Connections between John and Qumran are still an area of scholarly debate and a consensus has not yet emerged. See T. A. Hoffman, “1 John and the Qumran Scrolls,” BTB 8 (1978): 117-25.

[1:5]  ¹⁰³ tn Grk “and,” but the context clearly indicates a contrast, so this has been translated as an adversative use of καί (kai).

[1:5]  ¹⁰⁴ tn Or “comprehended it,” or “overcome it.” The verb κατέλαβεν (katelaben) is not easy to translate. “To seize” or “to grasp” is possible, but this also permits “to grasp with the mind” in the sense of “to comprehend” (esp. in the middle voice). This is probably another Johannine double meaning – one does not usually think of darkness as trying to “understand” light. For it to mean this, “darkness” must be understood as meaning “certain people,” or perhaps “humanity” at large, darkened in understanding. But in John’s usage, darkness is not normally used of people or a group of people. Rather it usually signifies the evil environment or ‘sphere’ in which people find themselves: “They loved darkness rather than light” (John 3:19). Those who follow Jesus do not walk in darkness (8:12). They are to walk while they have light, lest the darkness “overtake/overcome” them (12:35, same verb as here). For John, with his set of symbols and imagery, darkness is not something which seeks to “understand (comprehend)” the light, but represents the forces of evil which seek to “overcome (conquer)” it. The English verb “to master” may be used in both sorts of contexts, as “he mastered his lesson” and “he mastered his opponent.”

[1:6]  ¹⁰⁵ sn John refers to John the Baptist.

[1:7]  ¹⁰⁶ tn Grk “came for a testimony.”

[1:7]  ¹⁰⁷ tn Or “to bear witness.”

[1:7]  ¹⁰⁸ tn Grk “all.”

[1:8]  ¹⁰⁹ tn Or “to bear witness.”

[1:9]  ¹¹⁰ tn Grk “every man” (but in a generic sense, “every person,” or “every human being”).

[1:9]  ¹¹¹ tn Or “He was the true light, who gives light to everyone who comes into the world.” The participle ἐρχόμενον (ercomenon) may be either (1) neuter nominative, agreeing with τὸ φῶς (to fw"), or (2) masculine accusative, agreeing with ἄνθρωπον (anqrwpon). Option (1) results in a periphrastic imperfect with ἦν (hn), ἦν τὸ φῶς… ἐρχόμενον, referring to the incarnation. Option (2) would have the participle modifying ἄνθρωπον and referring to the true light as enlightening “every man who comes into the world.” Option (2) has some rabbinic parallels: The phrase “all who come into the world” is a fairly common expression for “every man” (cf. Leviticus Rabbah 31.6). But (1) must be preferred here, because: (a) In the next verse the light is in the world; it is logical for v. 9 to speak of its entering the world; (b) in other passages Jesus is described as “coming into the world” (6:14, 9:39, 11:27, 16:28) and in 12:46 Jesus says: ἐγὼ φῶς εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐλήλυθα (egw fw" ei" ton kosmon elhluqa); (c) use of a periphrastic participle with the imperfect tense is typical Johannine style: 1:28, 2:6, 3:23, 10:40, 11:1, 13:23, 18:18 and 25. In every one of these except 13:23 the finite verb is first and separated by one or more intervening words from the participle.

[1:10]  ¹¹² tn Or “was made”; Grk “came into existence.”

[1:10]  ¹¹³ tn Grk “and,” but in context this is an adversative use of καί (kai) and is thus translated “but.”

[1:10]  ¹¹⁴ tn Or “know.”

[1:11]  ¹¹⁵ tn Grk “to his own things.”

[1:11]  ¹¹⁶ tn Grk “and,” but in context this is an adversative use of καί (kai) and is thus translated “but.”

[1:11]  ¹¹⁷ tn “People” is not in the Greek text but is implied.

[1:11]  ¹¹⁸ sn His own people did not receive him. There is a subtle irony here: When the λόγος (logos) came into the world, he came to his own (τὰ ἴδια, ta idia, literally “his own things”) and his own people (οἱ ἴδιοι, Joi idioi), who should have known and received him, but they did not. This time John does not say that “his own” did not know him, but that they did not receive him (παρέλαβον, parelabon). The idea is one not of mere recognition, but of acceptance and welcome.

[1:12]  ¹¹⁹ tn On the use of the πιστεύω + εἰς (pisteuw + ei") construction in John: The verb πιστεύω occurs 98 times in John (compared to 11 times in Matthew, 14 times in Mark [including the longer ending], and 9 times in Luke). One of the unsolved mysteries is why the corresponding noun form πίστις (pistis) is never used at all. Many have held the noun was in use in some pre-Gnostic sects and this rendered it suspect for John. It might also be that for John, faith was an activity, something that men do (cf. W. Turner, “Believing and Everlasting Life – A Johannine Inquiry,” ExpTim 64 [1952/53]: 50-52). John uses πιστεύω in 4 major ways: (1) of believing facts, reports, etc., 12 times; (2) of believing people (or the scriptures), 19 times; (3) of believing “in” Christ” (πιστεύω + εἰς + acc.), 36 times; (4) used absolutely without any person or object specified, 30 times (the one remaining passage is 2:24, where Jesus refused to “trust” himself to certain individuals). Of these, the most significant is the use of πιστεύω with εἰς + accusative. It is not unlike the Pauline ἐν Χριστῷ (en Cristw) formula. Some have argued that this points to a Hebrew (more likely Aramaic) original behind the Fourth Gospel. But it probably indicates something else, as C. H. Dodd observed: “πιστεύειν with the dative so inevitably connoted simple credence, in the sense of an intellectual judgment, that the moral element of personal trust or reliance inherent in the Hebrew or Aramaic phrase – an element integral to the primitive Christian conception of faith in Christ – needed to be otherwise expressed” (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 183).

[1:13]  ¹²⁰ tn The Greek term translated “born” here also involves conception.

[1:13]  ¹²¹ tn Grk “of blood(s).” The plural αἱμάτων (Jaimatwn) has seemed a problem to many interpreters. At least some sources in antiquity imply that blood was thought of as being important in the development of the fetus during its time in the womb: thus Wis 7:1: “in the womb of a mother I was molded into flesh, within the period of 10 months, compacted with blood, from the seed of a man and the pleasure of marriage.” In John 1:13, the plural αἱμάτων may imply the action of both parents. It may also refer to the “genetic” contribution of both parents, and so be equivalent to “human descent” (see BDAG 26 s.v. αἷμα 1.a). E. C. Hoskyns thinks John could not have used the singular here because Christians are in fact ‘begotten’ by the blood of Christ (The Fourth Gospel, 143), although the context would seem to make it clear that the blood in question is something other than the blood of Christ.

[1:13]  ¹²² tn Or “of the will of the flesh.” The phrase οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός (oude ek qelhmato" sarko") is more clearly a reference to sexual desire, but it should be noted that σάρξ (sarx) in John does not convey the evil sense common in Pauline usage. For John it refers to the physical nature in its weakness rather than in its sinfulness. There is no clearer confirmation of this than the immediately following verse, where the λόγος (logos) became σάρξ.

[1:13]  ¹²³ tn Or “man’s.”

[1:13]  ¹²⁴ tn The third phrase, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός (oude ek qelhmato" andros), means much the same as the second one. The word here (ἀνηρ, anhr) is often used for a husband, resulting in the translation “or a husband’s decision,” or more generally, “or of any human volition whatsoever.” L. Morris may be right when he sees here an emphasis directed at the Jewish pride in race and patriarchal ancestry, although such a specific reference is difficult to prove (John [NICNT], 101).

[1:14]  ¹²⁵ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic, the incarnation of the Word. Greek style often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” but English style generally does not.

[1:14]  ¹²⁶ tn This looks at the Word incarnate in humility and weakness; the word σάρξ (sarx) does not carry overtones of sinfulness here as it frequently does in Pauline usage. See also John 3:6.

[1:14]  ¹²⁷ tn Grk “and tabernacled.”

[1:14]  ¹²⁸ tn Grk “and we saw.”

[1:14]  ¹²⁹ tn Or “of the unique one.” Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God, Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).

[1:15]  ¹³⁰ sn John refers to John the Baptist.

[1:15]  ¹³¹ tn Or “bore witness.”

[1:15]  ¹³² tn Grk “and shouted out saying.” The participle λέγων (legwn) is redundant is English and has not been translated.

[1:15]  ¹³³ tn Or “has a higher rank than I.”

[1:16]  ¹³⁴ tn Grk “for from his fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.” The meaning of the phrase χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος (carin anti carito") could be: (1) love (grace) under the New Covenant in place of love (grace) under the Sinai Covenant, thus replacement; (2) grace “on top of” grace, thus accumulation; (3) grace corresponding to grace, thus correspondence. The most commonly held view is (2) in one sense or another, and this is probably the best explanation. This sense is supported by a fairly well-known use in Philo, Posterity 43 (145). Morna D. Hooker suggested that Exod 33:13 provides the background for this expression: “Now therefore, I pray you, if I have found χάρις (LXX) in your sight, let me know your ways, that I may know you, so that I may find χάρις (LXX) in your sight.” Hooker proposed that it is this idea of favor given to one who has already received favor which lies behind 1:16, and this seems very probable as a good explanation of the meaning of the phrase (“The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret,” NTS 21 [1974/75]: 53).

[1:17]  ¹³⁵ tn “But” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the implied contrast between the Mosaic law and grace through Jesus Christ. John 1:17 seems to indicate clearly that the Old Covenant (Sinai) was being contrasted with the New. In Jewish sources the Law was regarded as a gift from God (Josephus, Ant. 3.8.10 [3.223]; Pirqe Avot 1.1; Sifre Deut 31:4 §305). Further information can be found in T. F. Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel (SBT).

[1:18]  ¹³⁶ tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh" qeo", “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh" Juio", “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C³ Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì⁷⁵ א¹ 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì⁶⁶ א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo" hn Jo logo") means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

[1:18]  ¹³⁷ tn Grk “in the bosom of” (an idiom for closeness or nearness; cf. L&N 34.18; BDAG 556 s.v. κόλπος 1).

[1:18]  ¹³⁸ tn Grk “him”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:18]  ¹³⁹ sn Has made God known. In this final verse of the prologue, the climactic and ultimate statement of the earthly career of the Logos, Jesus of Nazareth, is reached. The unique One (John 1:14), the One who has taken on human form and nature by becoming incarnate (became flesh, 1:14), who is himself fully God (the Word was God, 1:1c) and is to be identified with the ever-living One of the Old Testament revelation (Exod 3:14), who is in intimate relationship with the Father, this One and no other has fully revealed what God is like. As Jesus said to Philip in John 14:9, “The one who has seen me has seen the Father.”

[8:17]  ¹⁴⁰ tn Grk “on the one hand, heirs of God; on the other hand, fellow heirs with Christ.” Some prefer to render v. 17 as follows: “And if children, then heirs – that is, heirs of God. Also fellow heirs with Christ if indeed we suffer with him so we may also be glorified with him.” Such a translation suggests two distinct inheritances, one coming to all of God’s children, the other coming only to those who suffer with Christ. The difficulty of this view, however, is that it ignores the correlative conjunctions μέν…δέ (men…de, “on the one hand…on the other hand”): The construction strongly suggests that the inheritances cannot be separated since both explain “then heirs.” For this reason, the preferred translation puts this explanation in parentheses.

[10:34]  ¹⁴¹ tc Most witnesses, including some important ones (א D² 1881 Ï), read δεσμοῖς μου (desmoi" mou, “my imprisonment”) here, a reading that is probably due to the widespread belief in the early Christian centuries that Paul was the author of Hebrews (cf. Phil 1:7; Col 4:18). It may have been generated by the reading δεσμοῖς without the μου (so Ì⁴⁶ Ψ 104 pc), the force of which is so ambiguous (lit., “you shared the sufferings with the bonds”) as to be virtually nonsensical. Most likely, δεσμοῖς resulted when a scribe made an error in copying δεσμίοις (desmioi"), a reading which makes excellent sense (“[of] those in prison”) and is strongly supported by early and significant witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texttypes (A D* H 6 33 81 1739 lat sy co). Thus, δεσμίοις best explains the rise of the other readings on both internal and external grounds and is strongly preferred.

[10:34]  ¹⁴² tn Grk “you yourselves.”

[10:1]  ¹⁴³ tn Grk “those who approach.”

[1:4]  ¹⁴⁴ tn Grk “having become.” This is part of the same sentence that extends from v. 1 through v. 4 in the Greek text.

[1:4]  ¹⁴⁵ tn Most modern English translations attempt to make the comparison somewhat smoother by treating “name” as if it were the subject of the second element: “as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs” (cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV, CEV). However, the Son is the subject of both the first and second elements: “he became so far better”; “he has inherited a name.” The present translation maintains this parallelism even though it results in a somewhat more awkward rendering.