John 3:33

3:33 The one who has accepted his testimony has confirmed clearly that God is truthful. ¹ 

John 13:32

13:32 If God is glorified in him, ²  God will also glorify him in himself, and he will glorify him right away. ³ 

John 20:28

20:28 Thomas replied to him, ⁴  “My Lord and my God!” ⁵ 

John 1:18

1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, ⁶  himself God, who is in closest fellowship with ⁷  the Father, has made God ⁸  known. ⁹ 

John 4:24

4:24 God is spirit, ¹⁰  and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

John 9:29

9:29 We know that God has spoken to Moses! We do not know where this man ¹¹  comes from!”

John 11:22

11:22 But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will grant ¹²  you.” ¹³ 

John 1:1

The Prologue to the Gospel

1:1 In the beginning ¹⁴  was the Word, and the Word was with God, ¹⁵  and the Word was fully God. ¹⁶ 

John 3:17

3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, ¹⁷  but that the world should be saved through him.

John 3:34

3:34 For the one whom God has sent ¹⁸  speaks the words of God, for he does not give the Spirit sparingly. ¹⁹ 

John 9:31

9:31 We know that God doesn’t listen to ²⁰  sinners, but if anyone is devout ²¹  and does his will, God ²²  listens to ²³  him. ²⁴ 

John 13:31

The Prediction of Peter’s Denial

13:31 When ²⁵  Judas ²⁶  had gone out, Jesus said, “Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in him.

John 3:16

3:16 For this is the way ²⁷  God loved the world: He gave his one and only ²⁸  Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish ²⁹  but have eternal life. ³⁰ 

John 6:27

6:27 Do not work for the food that disappears, ³¹  but for the food that remains to eternal life – the food ³²  which the Son of Man will give to you. For God the Father has put his seal of approval on him.” ³³ 

John 8:42

8:42 Jesus replied, ³⁴  “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come from God and am now here. ³⁵  I ³⁶  have not come on my own initiative, ³⁷  but he ³⁸  sent me.

John 8:54

8:54 Jesus replied, ³⁹  “If I glorify myself, my glory is worthless. ⁴⁰  The one who glorifies me is my Father, about whom you people ⁴¹  say, ‘He is our God.’

John 3:2

3:2 came to Jesus ⁴²  at night ⁴³  and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs ⁴⁴  that you do unless God is with him.”

[3:33]  ¹ tn Or “is true.”

[13:32]  ² tc A number of early mss (Ì⁶⁶ א* B C* D L W al as well as several versional witnesses) do not have the words “If God is glorified in him,” while the majority of mss have the clause (so א² A C² Θ Ψ Ë¹³ 33 Ï lat). Although the mss that omit the words are significantly better witnesses, the omission may have occurred because of an error of sight due to homoioteleuton (v. 31 ends in ἐν αὐτῷ [en autw, “in him”], as does this clause). Further, the typical step-parallelism found in John is retained if the clause is kept intact (TCGNT 205-6). At the same time, it is difficult to explain how such a wide variety of witnesses would have accidentally deleted this clause, and arguments for intentional deletion are not particularly convincing. NA²⁷ rightly places the words in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity.

[13:32]  ³ tn Or “immediately.”

[20:28]  ³ tn Grk “answered and said to him.”

[20:28]  ⁴ sn Should Thomas’ exclamation be understood as two subjects with the rest of the sentence omitted (“My Lord and my God has truly risen from the dead”), as predicate nominatives (“You are my Lord and my God”), or as vocatives (“My Lord and my God!”)? Probably the most likely is something between the second and third alternatives. It seems that the second is slightly more likely here, because the context appears confessional. Thomas’ statement, while it may have been an exclamation, does in fact confess the faith which he had previously lacked, and Jesus responds to Thomas’ statement in the following verse as if it were a confession. With the proclamation by Thomas here, it is difficult to see how any more profound analysis of Jesus’ person could be given. It echoes 1:1 and 1:14 together: The Word was God, and the Word became flesh (Jesus of Nazareth). The Fourth Gospel opened with many other titles for Jesus: the Lamb of God (1:29, 36); the Son of God (1:34, 49); Rabbi (1:38); Messiah (1:41); the King of Israel (1:49); the Son of Man (1:51). Now the climax is reached with the proclamation by Thomas, “My Lord and my God,” and the reader has come full circle from 1:1, where the author had introduced him to who Jesus was, to 20:28, where the last of the disciples has come to the full realization of who Jesus was. What Jesus had predicted in John 8:28 had come to pass: “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he” (Grk “I am”). By being lifted up in crucifixion (which led in turn to his death, resurrection, and exaltation with the Father) Jesus has revealed his true identity as both Lord (κύριος [kurios], used by the LXX to translate Yahweh) and God (θεός [qeos], used by the LXX to translate Elohim).

[1:18]  ⁴ 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]  ⁵ 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]  ⁶ tn Grk “him”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:18]  ⁷ 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.”

[4:24]  ⁵ tn Here πνεῦμα (pneuma) is understood as a qualitative predicate nominative while the articular θεός (qeos) is the subject.

[9:29]  ⁶ tn Grk “where this one.”

[11:22]  ⁷ tn Or “give.”

[11:22]  ⁸ sn The statement “whatever you ask from God, God will grant you” by Martha presents something of a dilemma, because she seems to be suggesting here (implicitly at least) the possibility of a resurrection for her brother. However, Martha’s statement in 11:39 makes it clear that she had no idea that a resurrection was still possible. How then are her words in 11:22 to be understood? It seems best to take them as a confession of Martha’s continuing faith in Jesus even though he was not there in time to help her brother. She means, in effect, “Even though you weren’t here in time to help, I still believe that God grants your requests.”

[1:1]  ⁸ 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]  ⁹ 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]  ¹⁰ 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.

[3:17]  ⁹ sn That is, “to judge the world to be guilty and liable to punishment.”

[3:34]  ¹⁰ tn That is, Christ.

[3:34]  ¹¹ tn Grk “for not by measure does he give the Spirit” (an idiom). Leviticus Rabbah 15:2 states: “The Holy Spirit rested on the prophets by measure.” Jesus is contrasted to this. The Spirit rests upon him without measure.

[9:31]  ¹¹ tn Grk “God does not hear.”

[9:31]  ¹² tn Or “godly.”

[9:31]  ¹³ tn Grk “he”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[9:31]  ¹⁴ tn Or “hears.”

[9:31]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “this one.”

[13:31]  ¹² tn Grk “Then when.”

[13:31]  ¹³ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Judas) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[3:16]  ¹³ tn Or “this is how much”; or “in this way.” The Greek adverb οὕτως (Joutws) can refer (1) to the degree to which God loved the world, that is, to such an extent or so much that he gave his own Son (see R. E. Brown, John [AB], 1:133-34; D. A. Carson, John, 204) or (2) simply to the manner in which God loved the world, i.e., by sending his own son (see R. H. Gundry and R. W. Howell, “The Sense and Syntax of John 3:14-17 with Special Reference to the Use of Οὕτως…ὥστε in John 3:16,” NovT 41 [1999]: 24-39). Though the term more frequently refers to the manner in which something is done (see BDAG 741-42 s.v. οὕτω/οὕτως), the following clause involving ὥστε (Jwste) plus the indicative (which stresses actual, but [usually] unexpected result) emphasizes the greatness of the gift God has given. With this in mind, then, it is likely (3) that John is emphasizing both the degree to which God loved the world as well as the manner in which He chose to express that love. This is in keeping with John’s style of using double entendre or double meaning. Thus, the focus of the Greek construction here is on the nature of God's love, addressing its mode, intensity, and extent.

[3:16]  ¹⁴ tn 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 Clement 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 (τέκνα θεοῦ, tekna qeou), 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).

[3:16]  ¹⁵ tn In John the word ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi) can mean either (1) to be lost (2) to perish or be destroyed, depending on the context.

[3:16]  ¹⁶ sn The alternatives presented are only two (again, it is typical of Johannine thought for this to be presented in terms of polar opposites): perish or have eternal life.

[6:27]  ¹⁴ tn Or “perishes” (this might refer to spoiling, but is more focused on the temporary nature of this kind of food).

[6:27]  ¹⁵ tn The referent (the food) has been specified for clarity by repeating the word “food” from the previous clause.

[6:27]  ¹⁶ tn Grk “on this one.”

[8:42]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “Jesus said to them.”

[8:42]  ¹⁶ tn Or “I came from God and have arrived.”

[8:42]  ¹⁷ tn Grk “For I.” Here γάρ (gar) has not been translated.

[8:42]  ¹⁸ tn Grk “from myself.”

[8:42]  ¹⁹ tn Grk “that one” (referring to God).

[8:54]  ¹⁶ tn Grk “Jesus answered.”

[8:54]  ¹⁷ tn Grk “is nothing.”

[8:54]  ¹⁸ tn The word “people” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied in English to clarify the plural Greek pronoun and verb.

[3:2]  ¹⁷ tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[3:2]  ¹⁸ tn Or “during the night.”

[3:2]  ¹⁹ sn The reference to signs (σημεῖα, shmeia) forms a link with John 2:23-25. Those people in Jerusalem believed in Jesus because of the signs he had performed. Nicodemus had apparently seen them too. But for Nicodemus all the signs meant is that Jesus was a great teacher sent from God. His approach to Jesus was well-intentioned but theologically inadequate; he had failed to grasp the messianic implications of the miraculous signs.