John 4:4

Conversation With a Samaritan Woman

4:4 But he had ¹  to pass through Samaria. ² 

John 4:12

4:12 Surely you’re not greater than our ancestor ³  Jacob, are you? For he gave us this well and drank from it himself, along with his sons and his livestock.” ⁴ 

John 4:30

4:30 So ⁵  they left the town and began coming ⁶  to him.

John 4:41

4:41 and because of his word many more ⁷  believed.

John 7:43

7:43 So there was a division in the crowd ⁸  because of Jesus. ⁹ 

John 7:53

A Woman Caught in Adultery

7:53 ¹⁰ [[And each one departed to his own house.

John 8:27

8:27 (They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father.) ¹¹ 

John 9:13

The Pharisees’ Reaction to the Healing

9:13 They brought the man who used to be blind ¹²  to the Pharisees. ¹³ 

John 10:18

10:18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down ¹⁴  of my own free will. ¹⁵  I have the authority ¹⁶  to lay it down, and I have the authority ¹⁷  to take it back again. This commandment ¹⁸  I received from my Father.”

John 11:44

11:44 The one who had died came out, his feet and hands tied up with strips of cloth, ¹⁹  and a cloth wrapped around his face. ²⁰  Jesus said to them, “Unwrap him ²¹  and let him go.”

John 12:25

12:25 The one who loves his life ²²  destroys ²³  it, and the one who hates his life in this world guards ²⁴  it for eternal life.

John 14:23

14:23 Jesus replied, ²⁵  “If anyone loves me, he will obey ²⁶  my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and take up residence with him. ²⁷ 

John 16:31

16:31 Jesus replied, ²⁸  “Do you now believe?

John 18:31

18:31 Pilate told them, ²⁹  “Take him yourselves and pass judgment on him ³⁰  according to your own law!” ³¹  The Jewish leaders ³²  replied, ³³  “We cannot legally put anyone to death.” ³⁴ 

John 19:6

19:6 When the chief priests and their officers saw him, they shouted out, “Crucify ³⁵  him! Crucify him!” ³⁶  Pilate said, ³⁷  “You take him and crucify him! ³⁸  Certainly ³⁹  I find no reason for an accusation ⁴⁰  against him!”

John 20:10

Jesus’ Appearance to Mary Magdalene

20:10 So the disciples went back to their homes.

[4:4]  ¹ sn Travel through Samaria was not geographically necessary; the normal route for Jews ran up the east side of the Jordan River (Transjordan). Although some take the impersonal verb had to (δεῖ, dei) here to indicate logical necessity only, normally in John’s Gospel its use involves God’s will or plan (3:7, 3:14, 3:30, 4:4, 4:20, 4:24, 9:4, 10:16, 12:34, 20:9).

[4:4]  ² sn Samaria. The Samaritans were descendants of 2 groups: (1) The remnant of native Israelites who were not deported after the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 b.c.; (2) Foreign colonists brought in from Babylonia and Media by the Assyrian conquerors to settle the land with inhabitants who would be loyal to Assyria. There was theological opposition between the Samaritans and the Jews because the former refused to worship in Jerusalem. After the exile the Samaritans put obstacles in the way of the Jewish restoration of Jerusalem, and in the 2nd century b.c. the Samaritans helped the Syrians in their wars against the Jews. In 128 b.c. the Jewish high priest retaliated and burned the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim.

[4:12]  ³ tn Or “our forefather”; Grk “our father.”

[4:12]  ⁴ tn Questions prefaced with μή (mh) in Greek anticipate a negative answer. This can sometimes be indicated by using a “tag” at the end. In this instance all of v. 12 is one question. It has been broken into two sentences for the sake of English style (instead of “for he” the Greek reads “who”).

[4:30]  ⁵ tn “So” is supplied for transitional smoothness in English.

[4:30]  ⁶ sn The imperfect tense is here rendered began coming for the author is not finished with this part of the story yet; these same Samaritans will appear again in v. 35.

[4:41]  ⁷ tn Or “and they believed much more.”

[7:43]  ⁹ tn Or “among the common people” (as opposed to the religious authorities like the chief priests and Pharisees).

[7:43]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[7:53]  ¹¹ tc This entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187). External evidence is as follows. For the omission of 7:53-8:11: Ì^66,75 א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope 7:53-8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the mss that include 7:53-8:11 are D Ï lat. In addition E S Λ 1424^mg al include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, ˹ places it after John 21:25, {115} after John 8:12, ˹³ after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53. (For a more complete discussion of the locations where this “floating” text has ended up, as well as a minority opinion on the authenticity of the passage, see M. A. Robinson, “Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 [2000]: 35-59, especially 41-42.) In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the Gospels A is considered to be of Byzantine texttype (unlike in the epistles and Revelation, where it is Alexandrian), as are E F G (mss with the same designation are of Western texttype in the epistles). This leaves D as the only major Western uncial witness in the Gospels for the inclusion. Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early mss of the Alexandrian texttype omit the pericope, while most mss of the Western and Byzantine texttype include it. But it must be remembered that “Western mss” here refers only to D, a single witness (as far as Greek mss are concerned). Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best mss extant omit the pericope; it is found only in mss of secondary importance. But before one can conclude that the passage was not originally part of the Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well. Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) 7:53 fits in the context. If the “last great day of the feast” (7:37) refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in “booths” for the week while visiting Jerusalem. (2) There may be an allusion to Isa 9:1-2 behind this text: John 8:12 is the point when Jesus describes himself as the Light of the world. But the section in question mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at “early dawn” (῎Ορθρου, Orqrou, in 8:2). This is the “dawning” of the Light of the world (8:12) mentioned by Isa 9:2. (3) Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: Just prior to presenting Jesus’ statement that he is the Light of the world, John presents the reader with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Here the woman “came to the light” while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds were evil (cf. 3:19-21). Internal evidence against the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) In reply to the claim that the introduction to the pericope, 7:53, fits the context, it should also be noted that the narrative reads well without the pericope, so that Jesus’ reply in 8:12 is directed against the charge of the Pharisees in 7:52 that no prophet comes from Galilee. (2) The assumption that the author “must” somehow work Isa 9:1-2 into the narrative is simply that – an assumption. The statement by the Pharisees in 7:52 about Jesus’ Galilean origins is allowed to stand without correction by the author, although one might have expected him to mention that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem. And 8:12 does directly mention Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world. The author may well have presumed familiarity with Isa 9:1-2 on the part of his readers because of its widespread association with Jesus among early Christians. (3) The fact that the pericope deals with the light/darkness motif does not inherently strengthen its claim to authenticity, because the motif is so prominent in the Fourth Gospel that it may well have been the reason why someone felt that the pericope, circulating as an independent tradition, fit so well here. (4) In general the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar (see D. B. Wallace, “Reconsidering ‘The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered’,” NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96). According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically to Lukan material (John [AB], 1:336). Interestingly one important family of mss (˹³) places the pericope after Luke 21:38. Conclusion: In the final analysis, the weight of evidence in this case must go with the external evidence. The earliest and best mss do not contain the pericope. It is true with regard to internal evidence that an attractive case can be made for inclusion, but this is by nature subjective (as evidenced by the fact that strong arguments can be given against such as well). In terms of internal factors like vocabulary and style, the pericope does not stand up very well. The question may be asked whether this incident, although not an original part of the Gospel of John, should be regarded as an authentic tradition about Jesus. It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature. However, even that needs to be nuanced (see B. D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS 34 [1988]: 24–44).

[8:27]  ¹³ sn They did not understand…about his Father is a parenthetical note by the author. This type of comment, intended for the benefit of the reader, is typical of the “omniscient author” convention adopted by the author, who is writing from a postresurrection point of view. He writes with the benefit of later knowledge that those who originally heard Jesus’ words would not have had.

[9:13]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “who was formerly blind.”

[9:13]  ¹⁶ sn See the note on Pharisees in 1:24.

[10:18]  ¹⁷ tn Or “give it up.”

[10:18]  ¹⁸ tn Or “of my own accord.” “Of my own free will” is given by BDAG 321 s.v. ἐμαυτοῦ c.

[10:18]  ¹⁹ tn Or “I have the right.”

[10:18]  ²⁰ tn Or “I have the right.”

[10:18]  ²¹ tn Or “order.”

[11:44]  ¹⁹ sn Many have wondered how Lazarus got out of the tomb if his hands and feet were still tied up with strips of cloth. The author does not tell, and with a miracle of this magnitude, this is not an important fact to know. If Lazarus’ decomposing body was brought back to life by the power of God, then it could certainly have been moved out of the tomb by that same power. Others have suggested that the legs were bound separately, which would remove the difficulty, but the account gives no indication of this. What may be of more significance for the author is the comparison which this picture naturally evokes with the resurrection of Jesus, where the graveclothes stayed in the tomb neatly folded (20:6-7). Jesus, unlike Lazarus, would never need graveclothes again.

[11:44]  ²⁰ tn Grk “and his face tied around with cloth.”

[11:44]  ²¹ tn Grk “Loose him.”

[12:25]  ²¹ tn Or “soul.”

[12:25]  ²² tn Or “loses.” Although the traditional English translation of ἀπολλύει (apolluei) in John 12:25 is “loses,” the contrast with φυλάξει (fulaxei, “keeps” or “guards”) in the second half of the verse favors the meaning “destroy” here.

[12:25]  ²³ tn Or “keeps.”

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

[14:23]  ²⁴ tn Or “will keep.”

[14:23]  ²⁵ 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.

[16:31]  ²⁵ tn Grk “Jesus answered them.”

[18:31]  ²⁷ tn Grk “Then Pilate said to them.”

[18:31]  ²⁸ tn Or “judge him.” For the translation “pass judgment on him” see R. E. Brown (John [AB], 2:848).

[18:31]  ²⁹ sn Pilate, as the sole representative of Rome in a troubled area, was probably in Jerusalem for the Passover because of the danger of an uprising (the normal residence for the Roman governor was in Caesarea as mentioned in Acts 23:35). At this time on the eve of the feast he would have been a busy and perhaps even a worried man. It is not surprising that he offered to hand Jesus back over to the Jewish authorities to pass judgment on him. It may well be that Pilate realized when no specific charge was mentioned that he was dealing with an internal dispute over some religious matter. Pilate wanted nothing to do with such matters, as the statement “Pass judgment on him according to your own law!” indicates. As far as the author is concerned, this points out who was really responsible for Jesus’ death: The Roman governor Pilate would have had nothing to do with it if he had not been pressured by the Jewish religious authorities, upon whom the real responsibility rested.

[18:31]  ³⁰ tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” Here the phrase refers to the Jewish leaders, especially members of the Sanhedrin. See the note on the phrase “Jewish leaders” in v. 12.

[18:31]  ³¹ tn Grk “said to him.”

[18:31]  ³² tn Grk “It is not permitted to us to kill anyone.”

[19:6]  ²⁹ sn Crucifixion was the cruelest form of punishment practiced by the Romans. Roman citizens could not normally undergo it. It was reserved for the worst crimes, like treason and evasion of due process in a capital case. The Roman statesman and orator Cicero (106-43 b.c.) called it “a cruel and disgusting penalty” (Against Verres 2.5.63-66 §§163-70); Josephus (J. W. 7.6.4 [7.203]) called it the worst of deaths.

[19:6]  ³⁰ tn The word “him” is not in the Greek text. Direct objects were often omitted in Greek when clear from context.

[19:6]  ³¹ tn Grk “said to them.” The words “to them” are not translated because they are unnecessary in contemporary English style.

[19:6]  ³² sn How are Pilate’s words “You take him and crucify him” to be understood? Was he offering a serious alternative to the priests who wanted Jesus crucified? Was he offering them an exception to the statement in 18:31 that the Jewish authorities did not have the power to carry out a death penalty? Although a few scholars have suggested that the situation was at this point so far out of Pilate’s control that he really was telling the high priests they could go ahead and crucify a man he had found to be innocent, this seems unlikely. It is far more likely that Pilate’s statement should be understood as one of frustration and perhaps sarcasm. This seems to be supported by the context, for the Jewish authorities make no attempt at this point to seize Jesus and crucify him. Rather they continue to pester Pilate to order the crucifixion.

[19:6]  ³³ tn On this use of γάρ (gar) used in exclamations and strong affirmations, see BDAG 190 s.v. γάρ 3.

[19:6]  ³⁴ tn Or “find no basis for an accusation”; Grk “find no cause.”