John 4:20

4:20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, ¹  and you people ²  say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.” ³ 

John 5:13

5:13 But the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had slipped out, since there was a crowd in that place.

John 10:40

10:40 Jesus ⁴  went back across the Jordan River ⁵  again to the place where John ⁶  had been baptizing at an earlier time, ⁷  and he stayed there.

John 11:30

11:30 (Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still in the place where Martha had come out to meet him.)

John 11:48

11:48 If we allow him to go on in this way, ⁸  everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary ⁹  and our nation.”

John 14:2-3

14:2 There are many dwelling places ¹⁰  in my Father’s house. ¹¹  Otherwise, I would have told you, because ¹²  I am going away to make ready ¹³  a place for you. ¹⁴  14:3 And if I go and make ready ¹⁵  a place for you, I will come again and take you ¹⁶  to be with me, ¹⁷  so that where I am you may be too.

John 18:2

18:2 (Now Judas, the one who betrayed him, knew the place too, because Jesus had met there many times ¹⁸  with his disciples.) ¹⁹ 

John 19:13

19:13 When Pilate heard these words he brought Jesus outside and sat down on the judgment seat ²⁰  in the place called “The Stone Pavement” ²¹  (Gabbatha in ²²  Aramaic). ²³ 

John 19:41

19:41 Now at the place where Jesus ²⁴  was crucified ²⁵  there was a garden, ²⁶  and in the garden ²⁷  was a new tomb where no one had yet been buried. ²⁸ 

John 20:7

20:7 and the face cloth, ²⁹  which had been around Jesus’ head, not lying with the strips of linen cloth but rolled up in a place by itself. ³⁰ 

[4:20]  ¹ sn This mountain refers to Mount Gerizim, where the Samaritan shrine was located.

[4:20]  ² tn The word “people” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied to indicate that the Greek verb translated “say” is second person plural and thus refers to more than Jesus alone.

[4:20]  ³ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[10:40]  ⁴ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[10:40]  ⁵ tn The word “River” is not in the Greek text but is supplied for clarity.

[10:40]  ⁶ sn John refers to John the Baptist.

[10:40]  ⁷ tn Grk “formerly.”

[11:48]  ⁷ tn Grk “If we let him do thus.”

[11:48]  ⁸ tn Or “holy place”; Grk “our place” (a reference to the temple in Jerusalem).

[14:2]  ¹⁰ tn Many interpreters have associated μοναί (monai) with an Aramaic word that can refer to a stopping place or resting place for a traveler on a journey. This is similar to one of the meanings the word can have in secular Greek (Pausanius 10.31.7). Origen understood the use here to refer to stations on the road to God. This may well have been the understanding of the Latin translators who translated μονή (monh) by mansio, a stopping place. The English translation “mansions” can be traced back to Tyndale, but in Middle English the word simply meant “a dwelling place” (not necessarily large or imposing) with no connotation of being temporary. The interpretation put forward by Origen would have been well suited to Gnosticism, where the soul in its ascent passes through stages during which it is gradually purified of all that is material and therefore evil. It is much more likely that the word μονή should be related to its cognate verb μένω (menw), which is frequently used in the Fourth Gospel to refer to the permanence of relationship between Jesus and the Father and/or Jesus and the believer. Thus the idea of a permanent dwelling place, rather than a temporary stopping place, would be in view. Luther’s translation of μοναί by Wohnungen is very accurate here, as it has the connotation of a permanent residence.

[14:2]  ¹¹ sn Most interpreters have understood the reference to my Father’s house as a reference to heaven, and the dwelling places (μονή, monh) as the permanent residences of believers there. This seems consistent with the vocabulary and the context, where in v. 3 Jesus speaks of coming again to take the disciples to himself. However, the phrase in my Father’s house was used previously in the Fourth Gospel in 2:16 to refer to the temple in Jerusalem. The author in 2:19-22 then reinterpreted the temple as Jesus’ body, which was to be destroyed in death and then rebuilt in resurrection after three days. Even more suggestive is the statement by Jesus in 8:35, “Now the slave does not remain (μένω, menw) in the household forever, but the son remains (μένω) forever.” If in the imagery of the Fourth Gospel the phrase in my Father’s house is ultimately a reference to Jesus’ body, the relationship of μονή to μένω suggests the permanent relationship of the believer to Jesus and the Father as an adopted son who remains in the household forever. In this case the “dwelling place” is “in” Jesus himself, where he is, whether in heaven or on earth. The statement in v. 3, “I will come again and receive you to myself,” then refers not just to the parousia, but also to Jesus’ postresurrection return to the disciples in his glorified state, when by virtue of his death on their behalf they may enter into union with him and with the Father as adopted sons. Needless to say, this bears numerous similarities to Pauline theology, especially the concepts of adoption as sons and being “in Christ” which are prominent in passages like Eph 1. It is also important to note, however, the emphasis in the Fourth Gospel itself on the present reality of eternal life (John 5:24, 7:38-39, etc.) and the possibility of worshiping the Father “in the Spirit and in truth” (John 4:21-24) in the present age. There is a sense in which it is possible to say that the future reality is present now. See further J. McCaffrey, The House With Many Rooms (AnBib 114).

[14:2]  ¹² tc A number of important mss (Ì^66c א A B C* D K L W Ψ Ë¹³ 33 565 579 892 al lat) have ὅτι (Joti) here, while the majority lack it (Ì^66* C² Θ Ï). Should the ὅτι be included or omitted? The external evidence is significantly stronger for the longer reading. Most Alexandrian and Western mss favor inclusion (it is a little unusual for the Alexandrian to favor the longer reading), while most Byzantine mss favor omission (again, a little unusual). However, the reading of Ì^66*, which aligns with the Byzantine, needs to be given some value. At the same time, the scribe of this papyrus was known for freely omitting and adding words, and the fact that the ms was corrected discounts its testimony here. But because the shorter reading is out of character for the Byzantine text, the shorter reading (omitting the ὅτι) may well be authentic. Internally, the question comes down to whether the shorter reading is more difficult or not. And here, it loses the battle, for it seems to be a clarifying omission (so TCGNT 206). R. E. Brown is certainly right when he states: “all in all, the translation without ὅτι makes the best sense” (John [AB], 2:620). But this tacitly argues for the authenticity of the word. Thus, on both external and internal grounds, the ὅτι should be regarded as authentic.

[14:2]  ¹³ tn Or “to prepare.”

[14:2]  ¹⁴ tn Or “If not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you?” What is the meaning of the last clause with or without the ὅτι? One of the questions that must be answered here is whether or not τόπος (topos) is to be equated with μονή (monh). In Rev 12:8 τόπος is used to refer to a place in heaven, which would suggest that the two are essentially equal here. Jesus is going ahead of believers to prepare a place for them, a permanent dwelling place in the Father’s house (see the note on this phrase in v. 2).

[14:3]  ¹³ tn Or “prepare.”

[14:3]  ¹⁴ tn Or “bring you.”

[14:3]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “to myself.”

[18:2]  ¹⁶ tn Or “often.”

[18:2]  ¹⁷ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[19:13]  ¹⁹ tn Or “the judge’s seat.”

[19:13]  ²⁰ sn The precise location of the place called ‘The Stone Pavement’ is still uncertain, although a paved court on the lower level of the Fortress Antonia has been suggested. It is not certain whether it was laid prior to a.d. 135, however.

[19:13]  ²¹ tn Grk “in Hebrew.”

[19:13]  ²² sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[19:41]  ²² tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[19:41]  ²³ sn See the note on Crucify in 19:6.

[19:41]  ²⁴ tn Or “an orchard.”

[19:41]  ²⁵ tn Or “orchard.”

[19:41]  ²⁶ tn Grk “been placed.”

[20:7]  ²⁵ sn The word translated face cloth is a Latin loanword (sudarium). It was a small towel used to wipe off perspiration (the way a handkerchief would be used today). This particular item was not mentioned in connection with Jesus’ burial in John 19:40, probably because this was only a brief summary account. A face cloth was mentioned in connection with Lazarus’ burial (John 11:44) and was probably customary. R. E. Brown speculates that it was wrapped under the chin and tied on top of the head to prevent the mouth of the corpse from falling open (John [AB], 2:986), but this is not certain.

[20:7]  ²⁶ sn Much dispute and difficulty surrounds the translation of the words not lying with the strips of linen cloth but rolled up in a place by itself. Basically the issue concerns the positioning of the graveclothes as seen by Peter and the other disciple when they entered the tomb. Some have sought to prove that when the disciples saw the graveclothes they were arranged just as they were when around the body, so that when the resurrection took place the resurrected body of Jesus passed through them without rearranging or disturbing them. In this case the reference to the face cloth being rolled up does not refer to its being folded, but collapsed in the shape it had when wrapped around the head. Sometimes in defense of this view the Greek preposition μετά (meta, which normally means “with”) is said to mean “like” so that the comparison with the other graveclothes does not involve the location of the face cloth but rather its condition (rolled up rather than flattened). In spite of the intriguing nature of such speculations, it seems more probable that the phrase describing the face cloth should be understood to mean it was separated from the other graveclothes in a different place inside the tomb. This seems consistent with the different conclusions reached by Peter and the beloved disciple (vv. 8-10). All that the condition of the graveclothes indicated was that the body of Jesus had not been stolen by thieves. Anyone who had come to remove the body (whether the authorities or anyone else) would not have bothered to unwrap it before carrying it off. And even if one could imagine that they had (perhaps in search of valuables such as rings or jewelry still worn by the corpse) they would certainly not have bothered to take time to roll up the face cloth and leave the other wrappings in an orderly fashion.