John 1:1-2

The Prologue to the Gospel

1:1 In the beginning ¹  was the Word, and the Word was with God, ²  and the Word was fully God. ³  1:2 The Word ⁴  was with God in the beginning.

John 5:17

5:17 So he ⁵  told ⁶  them, “My Father is working until now, and I too am working.” ⁷ 

John 5:23

5:23 so that all people ⁸  will honor the Son just as they honor the Father. The one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

John 8:58

8:58 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, ⁹  before Abraham came into existence, ¹⁰  I am!” ¹¹ 

John 14:9

14:9 Jesus replied, ¹²  “Have I been with you for so long, and you have not known ¹³  me, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

John 14:23

14:23 Jesus replied, ¹⁴  “If anyone loves me, he will obey ¹⁵  my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and take up residence with him. ¹⁶ 

John 16:15

16:15 Everything that the Father has is mine; that is why I said the Spirit ¹⁷  will receive from me what is mine ¹⁸  and will tell it to you. ¹⁹ 

John 17:10

17:10 Everything ²⁰  I have belongs to you, ²¹  and everything you have belongs to me, ²²  and I have been glorified by them. ²³ 

John 17:21

17:21 that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray ²⁴  that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me.

Matthew 11:27

11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father. ²⁵  No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son decides ²⁶  to reveal him.

Matthew 28:19

28:19 Therefore go ²⁷  and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, ²⁸ 

Matthew 28:1

The Resurrection

28:1 Now after the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

Matthew 3:16

3:16 After ²⁹  Jesus was baptized, just as he was coming up out of the water, the ³⁰  heavens ³¹  opened ³²  and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove ³³  and coming on him.

Titus 2:13

2:13 as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing ³⁴  of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. ³⁵ 

Titus 2:1

Conduct Consistent with Sound Teaching

2:1 But as for you, communicate the behavior that goes with ³⁶  sound teaching.

Titus 1:7

1:7 For the overseer ³⁷  must be blameless as one entrusted with God’s work, ³⁸  not arrogant, not prone to anger, not a drunkard, not violent, not greedy for gain.

Titus 1:1

Salutation

1:1 From Paul, ³⁹  a slave ⁴⁰  of God and apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith ⁴¹  of God’s chosen ones and the knowledge of the truth that is in keeping with godliness,

[1:1]  ¹ 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]  ² 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]  ³ 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]  ⁴ tn Grk “He”; the referent (the Word) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[5:17]  ⁵ tc ‡ Most witnesses (Ì⁶⁶ A D L Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï latt co) have ᾿Ιησοῦς (Ihsou", “Jesus”) here, while generally better witnesses (Ì⁷⁵ א B W {0141} 892 1241 pbo) lack the name. Although it is possible that Alexandrian scribes deleted the name due to proclivities to prune, this is not as likely as other witnesses adding it for clarification, especially since multiple strands of the Alexandrian text are represented in the shorter reading. NA²⁷ places the word in brackets, indicating some doubts as to authenticity.

[5:17]  ⁶ tn Grk “answered.”

[5:17]  ⁷ sn “My Father is working until now, and I too am working.” What is the significance of Jesus’ claim? A preliminary understanding can be obtained from John 5:18, noting the Jewish authorities’ response and the author’s comment. They sought to kill Jesus, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God. This must be seen in the context of the relation of God to the Sabbath rest. In the commandment (Exod 20:11) it is explained that “In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth…and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Philo, based on the LXX translation of Exod 20:11, denied outright that God had ever ceased his creative activity. And when Rabban Gamaliel II, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar ben Azariah, and R. Akiba were in Rome, ca. a.d. 95, they gave as a rebuttal to sectarian arguments evidence that God might do as he willed in the world without breaking the Sabbath because the entire world was his private residence. So even the rabbis realized that God did not really cease to work on the Sabbath: Divine providence remained active on the Sabbath, otherwise, all nature and life would cease to exist. As regards men, divine activity was visible in two ways: Men were born and men died on the Sabbath. Since only God could give life and only God could deal with the fate of the dead in judgment, this meant God was active on the Sabbath. This seems to be the background for Jesus’ words in 5:17. He justified his work of healing on the Sabbath by reminding the Jewish authorities that they admitted God worked on the Sabbath. This explains the violence of the reaction. The Sabbath privilege was peculiar to God, and no one was equal to God. In claiming the right to work even as his Father worked, Jesus was claiming a divine prerogative. He was literally making himself equal to God, as 5:18 goes on to state explicitly for the benefit of the reader who might not have made the connection.

[5:23]  ⁸ tn Grk “all.” The word “people” is not in the Greek text but is supplied for stylistic reasons and for clarity (cf. KJV “all men”).

[8:58]  ⁹ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

[8:58]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “before Abraham was.”

[8:58]  ¹¹ sn I am! is an explicit claim to deity. Although each occurrence of the phrase “I am” in the Fourth Gospel needs to be examined individually in context to see if an association with Exod 3:14 is present, it seems clear that this is the case here (as the response of the Jewish authorities in the following verse shows).

[14:9]  ¹² tn Grk “Jesus said to him.”

[14:9]  ¹³ tn Or “recognized.”

[14:23]  ¹⁴ tn Grk “answered and said to him.”

[14:23]  ¹⁵ tn Or “will keep.”

[14:23]  ¹⁶ tn Grk “we will come to him and will make our dwelling place with him.” The context here is individual rather than corporate indwelling, so the masculine singular pronoun has been retained throughout v. 23. It is important to note, however, that the pronoun is used generically here and refers equally to men, women, and children.

[16:15]  ¹⁷ tn Grk “I said he”; the referent (the Spirit) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[16:15]  ¹⁸ tn The words “what is mine” are not in the Greek text, but are implied. Direct objects were often omitted in Greek when clear from the context.

[16:15]  ¹⁹ tn Or “will announce it to you.”

[17:10]  ²⁰ tn Grk And all things.” The conjunction καί (kai, “and”) has not been translated here in keeping with the tendency of contemporary English style to use shorter sentences.

[17:10]  ²¹ tn Or “Everything I have is yours.”

[17:10]  ²² tn Or “everything you have is mine.”

[17:10]  ²³ tn Or “I have been honored among them.”

[17:21]  ²⁴ tn The words “I pray” are repeated from the first part of v. 20 for clarity.

[11:27]  ²⁵ sn This verse has been noted for its conceptual similarity to teaching in John’s Gospel (10:15; 17:2). The authority of the Son and the Father are totally intertwined.

[11:27]  ²⁶ tn Or “wishes”; or “intends”; or “plans” (cf. BDAG 182 s.v. βούλομαι 2.b). Here it is the Son who has sovereignty.

[28:19]  ²⁷ tn “Go…baptize…teach” are participles modifying the imperative verb “make disciples.” According to ExSyn 645 the first participle (πορευθέντες, poreuqentes, “Go”) fits the typical structural pattern for the attendant circumstance participle (aorist participle preceding aorist main verb, with the mood of the main verb usually imperative or indicative) and thus picks up the mood (imperative in this case) from the main verb (μαθητεύσατε, maqhteusate, “make disciples”). This means that semantically the action of “going” is commanded, just as “making disciples” is. As for the two participles that follow the main verb (βαπτίζοντες, baptizontes, “baptizing”; and διδάσκοντες, didaskontes, “teaching”), these do not fit the normal pattern for attendant circumstance participles, since they are present participles and follow the aorist main verb. However, some interpreters do see them as carrying additional imperative force in context. Others regard them as means, manner, or even result.

[28:19]  ²⁸ tc Although some scholars have denied that the trinitarian baptismal formula in the Great Commission was a part of the original text of Matthew, there is no ms support for their contention. F. C. Conybeare, “The Eusebian Form of the Text of Mt. 28:19,” ZNW 2 (1901): 275-88, based his view on a faulty reading of Eusebius’ quotations of this text. The shorter reading has also been accepted, on other grounds, by a few other scholars. For discussion (and refutation of the conjecture that removes this baptismal formula), see B. J. Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning (SBLDS 19), 163-64, 167-75; and Jane Schaberg, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (SBLDS 61), 27-29.

[3:16]  ²⁹ tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

[3:16]  ³⁰ tn Grk “behold the heavens.” The Greek word ἰδού (idou) has not been translated because it has no exact English equivalent here, but adds interest and emphasis (BDAG 468 s.v. 1).

[3:16]  ³¹ tn Or “sky.” The Greek word οὐρανός (ourano") may be translated “sky” or “heaven,” depending on the context. The same word is used in v. 17.

[3:16]  ³² tc ‡ αὐτῷ (autw, “to/before him”) is found in the majority of witnesses (א¹ C D^s L W 0233 Ë^1,13 33 Ï lat), perhaps added as a point of clarification or emphasis. NA²⁷ includes the word in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

[3:16]  ³³ sn The phrase like a dove is a descriptive comparison. The Spirit is not a dove, but descended like one in some sort of bodily representation.

[2:13]  ³⁴ tn Grk “the blessed hope and glorious appearing.”

[2:13]  ³⁵ tn The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on Sharp’s rule see ExSyn 270-78, esp. 276. See also 2 Pet 1:1 and Jude 4.

[2:1]  ³⁶ tn Grk “say what is fitting for sound teaching” (introducing the behavior called for in this chapter.).

[1:7]  ³⁷ sn The overseer is another term for the same official position of leadership as the “elder.” This is seen in the interchange of the two terms in this passage and in Acts 20:17, 28, as well as in the parallels between these verses and 1 Tim 3:1-7.

[1:7]  ³⁸ tn Grk “as God’s steward.”

[1:1]  ³⁹ tn Grk “Paul.” The word “from” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the sender of the letter.

[1:1]  ⁴⁰ tn Traditionally, “servant” or “bondservant.” Though δοῦλος (doulos) is normally translated “servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. BDAG notes that “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times…in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished” (BDAG 260 s.v.). The most accurate translation is “bondservant” (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος), in that it often indicates one who sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force.

[1:1]  ⁴¹ tn Grk “for the faith,” possibly, “in accordance with the faith.”