Discovery BoxJohn 7:23
Context7:23 But if a male child 1 is circumcised 2 on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses is not broken, 3 why are you angry with me because I made a man completely well 4 on the Sabbath?
John 9:34
Context9:34 They replied, 5 “You were born completely in sinfulness, 6 and yet you presume to teach us?” 7 So they threw him out.
John 11:50
Context11:50 You do not realize 8 that it is more to your advantage to have one man 9 die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.” 10
John 4:53
Context4:53 Then the father realized that it was the very time 11 Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live,” and he himself believed along with his entire household.
John 13:10
Context13:10 Jesus replied, 12 “The one who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, 13 but is completely 14 clean. 15 And you disciples 16 are clean, but not every one of you.”
John 19:23
Context19:23 Now when the soldiers crucified 17 Jesus, they took his clothes and made four shares, one for each soldier, 18 and the tunic 19 remained. (Now the tunic 20 was seamless, woven from top to bottom as a single piece.) 21
[7:23] 1 tn Grk “a man.” See the note on “male child” in the previous verse.
[7:23] 2 tn Grk “receives circumcision.”
[7:23] 3 sn If a male child is circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses is not broken. The Rabbis counted 248 parts to a man’s body. In the Talmud (b. Yoma 85b) R. Eleazar ben Azariah (ca.
[7:23] 4 tn Or “made an entire man well.”
[9:34] 5 tn Grk “They answered and said to him.” This has been simplified in the translation to “They replied.”
[9:34] 6 tn Or “From birth you have been evil.” The implication of this insult, in the context of John 9, is that the man whom Jesus caused to see had not previously adhered rigorously to all the conventional requirements of the OT law as interpreted by the Pharisees. Thus he had no right to instruct them about who Jesus was.
[9:34] 7 tn Grk “and are you teaching us?”
[11:50] 9 tn Or “you are not considering.”
[11:50] 10 tn Although it is possible to argue that ἄνθρωπος (anqrwpo") should be translated “person” here since it is not necessarily masculinity that is in view in Caiaphas’ statement, “man” was retained in the translation because in 11:47 “this man” (οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, outo" Jo anqrwpo") has as its referent a specific individual, Jesus, and it was felt this connection should be maintained.
[11:50] 11 sn In his own mind Caiaphas was no doubt giving voice to a common-sense statement of political expediency. Yet he was unconsciously echoing a saying of Jesus himself (cf. Mark 10:45). Caiaphas was right; the death of Jesus would save the nation from destruction. Yet Caiaphas could not suspect that Jesus would die, not in place of the political nation Israel, but on behalf of the true people of God; and he would save them, not from physical destruction, but from eternal destruction (cf. 3:16-17). The understanding of Caiaphas’ words in a sense that Caiaphas could not possibly have imagined at the time he uttered them serves as a clear example of the way in which the author understood that words and actions could be invested retrospectively with a meaning not consciously intended or understood by those present at the time.
[4:53] 13 tn Grk “at that hour.”
[13:10] 17 tn Grk “Jesus said to him.”
[13:10] 18 tn Grk “has no need except to wash his feet.”
[13:10] 20 sn The one who has bathed needs only to wash his feet. A common understanding is that the “bath” Jesus referred to is the initial cleansing from sin, which necessitates only “lesser, partial” cleansings from sins after conversion. This makes a fine illustration from a homiletic standpoint, but is it the meaning of the passage? This seems highly doubtful. Jesus stated that the disciples were completely clean except for Judas (vv. 10b, 11). What they needed was to have their feet washed by Jesus. In the broader context of the Fourth Gospel, the significance of the foot-washing seems to point not just to an example of humble service (as most understand it), but something more – Jesus’ self-sacrificial death on the cross. If this is correct, then the foot-washing which they needed to undergo represented their acceptance of this act of self-sacrifice on the part of their master. This makes Peter’s initial abhorrence of the act of humiliation by his master all the more significant in context; it also explains Jesus’ seemingly harsh reply to Peter (above, v. 8; compare Matt 16:21-23 where Jesus says to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan”).
[13:10] 21 tn The word “disciples” is supplied in English to clarify the plural Greek pronoun and verb. Peter is not the only one Jesus is addressing here.
[19:23] 21 sn See the note on Crucify in 19:6.
[19:23] 22 sn Four shares, one for each soldier. The Gospel of John is the only one to specify the number of soldiers involved in the crucifixion. This was a quaternion, a squad of four soldiers. It was accepted Roman practice for the soldiers who performed a crucifixion to divide the possessions of the person executed among themselves.
[19:23] 23 tn Or “shirt” (a long garment worn under the cloak next to the skin). The name for this garment (χιτών, citwn) presents some difficulty in translation. Most modern readers would not understand what a ‘tunic’ was any more than they would be familiar with a ‘chiton.’ On the other hand, attempts to find a modern equivalent are also a problem: “Shirt” conveys the idea of a much shorter garment that covers only the upper body, and “undergarment” (given the styles of modern underwear) is more misleading still. “Tunic” was therefore employed, but with a note to explain its nature.
[19:23] 24 tn Or “shirt” (a long garment worn under the cloak next to the skin). See the note on the same word earlier in this verse.
