John 12:14

12:14 Jesus found a young donkey ¹  and sat on it, just as it is written,

John 2:17

2:17 His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal ²  for your house will devour me.” ³ 

John 6:31

6:31 Our ancestors ⁴  ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” ⁵ 

John 6:45

6:45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ ⁶  Everyone who hears and learns from the Father ⁷  comes to me.

John 10:34

10:34 Jesus answered, ⁸  “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? ⁹ 

John 19:19-20

19:19 Pilate also had a notice ¹⁰  written and fastened to the cross, ¹¹  which read: ¹²  “Jesus the Nazarene, the king of the Jews.” 19:20 Thus many of the Jewish residents of Jerusalem ¹³  read this notice, ¹⁴  because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the notice was written in Aramaic, ¹⁵  Latin, and Greek.

[12:14]  ¹ sn The author does not repeat the detailed accounts of the finding of the donkey recorded in the synoptic gospels. He does, however, see the event as a fulfillment of scripture, which he indicates by quoting Zech 9:9.

[2:17]  ² tn Or “Fervent devotion to your house.”

[2:17]  ³ sn A quotation from Ps 69:9.

[6:31]  ³ tn Or “forefathers”; Grk “fathers.”

[6:31]  ⁴ sn A quotation from Ps 78:24 (referring to the events of Exod 16:4-36).

[6:45]  ⁴ sn A quotation from Isa 54:13.

[6:45]  ⁵ tn Or “listens to the Father and learns.”

[10:34]  ⁵ tn Grk “answered them.”

[10:34]  ⁶ sn A quotation from Ps 82:6. Technically the Psalms are not part of the OT “law” (which usually referred to the five books of Moses), but occasionally the term “law” was applied to the entire OT, as here. The problem in this verse concerns the meaning of Jesus’ quotation from Ps 82:6. It is important to look at the OT context: The whole line reads “I say, you are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.” Jesus will pick up on the term “sons of the Most High” in 10:36, where he refers to himself as the Son of God. The psalm was understood in rabbinic circles as an attack on unjust judges who, though they have been given the title “gods” because of their quasi-divine function of exercising judgment, are just as mortal as other men. What is the argument here? It is often thought to be as follows: If it was an OT practice to refer to men like the judges as gods, and not blasphemy, why did the Jewish authorities object when this term was applied to Jesus? This really doesn’t seem to fit the context, however, since if that were the case Jesus would not be making any claim for “divinity” for himself over and above any other human being – and therefore he would not be subject to the charge of blasphemy. Rather, this is evidently a case of arguing from the lesser to the greater, a common form of rabbinic argument. The reason the OT judges could be called gods is because they were vehicles of the word of God (cf. 10:35). But granting that premise, Jesus deserves much more than they to be called God. He is the Word incarnate, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world to save the world (10:36). In light of the prologue to the Gospel of John, it seems this interpretation would have been most natural for the author. If it is permissible to call men “gods” because they were the vehicles of the word of God, how much more permissible is it to use the word “God” of him who is the Word of God?

[19:19]  ⁶ tn Or “an inscription.”

[19:19]  ⁷ tn Grk “Pilate also wrote a notice and placed it on the cross.” The two verbs should be read as causatives, since it is highly unlikely that the Roman governor would perform either of these actions himself. He ordered them to be done.

[19:19]  ⁸ tn Grk “Now it was written.”

[19:20]  ⁷ tn Grk “the Jews.” Here the phrase refers to the residents of Jerusalem in general. See also the note on the phrase Jewish religious leaders” in v. 7.

[19:20]  ⁸ tn Or “this inscription.”

[19:20]  ⁹ tn Grk “in Hebrew.”