John 8:37

8:37 I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. ¹  But you want ²  to kill me, because my teaching ³  makes no progress among you. ⁴ 

John 8:43

8:43 Why don’t you understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot accept ⁵  my teaching. ⁶ 

John 8:45

8:45 But because I am telling you ⁷  the truth, you do not believe me.

John 1:12-13

1:12 But to all who have received him – those who believe in his name ⁸  – he has given the right to become God’s children 1:13 – children not born ⁹  by human parents ¹⁰  or by human desire ¹¹  or a husband’s ¹²  decision, ¹³  but by God.

John 6:45-46

6:45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ ¹⁴  Everyone who hears and learns from the Father ¹⁵  comes to me. 6:46 (Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God – he ¹⁶  has seen the Father.) ¹⁷ 

John 6:65

6:65 So Jesus added, ¹⁸  “Because of this I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has allowed him to come.” ¹⁹ 

John 10:26-27

10:26 But you refuse to believe because you are not my sheep. 10:27 My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

John 17:6-8

Jesus Prays for the Disciples

17:6 “I have revealed ²⁰  your name to the men ²¹  you gave me out of the world. They belonged to you, ²²  and you gave them to me, and they have obeyed ²³  your word. 17:7 Now they understand ²⁴  that everything ²⁵  you have given me comes from you, 17:8 because I have given them the words you have given me. They ²⁶  accepted ²⁷  them ²⁸  and really ²⁹  understand ³⁰  that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me.

John 17:1

Jesus Prays for the Father to Glorify Him

17:1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he looked upward ³¹  to heaven ³²  and said, “Father, the time ³³  has come. Glorify your Son, so that your ³⁴  Son may glorify you –

John 3:10

3:10 Jesus answered, ³⁵  “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you don’t understand these things? ³⁶ 

John 4:1-6

Departure From Judea

4:1 Now when Jesus ³⁷  knew that the Pharisees ³⁸  had heard that he ³⁹  was winning ⁴⁰  and baptizing more disciples than John 4:2 (although Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples were), ⁴¹  4:3 he left Judea and set out once more for Galilee. ⁴² 

Conversation With a Samaritan Woman

4:4 But he had ⁴³  to pass through Samaria. ⁴⁴  4:5 Now he came to a Samaritan town ⁴⁵  called Sychar, ⁴⁶  near the plot of land that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. ⁴⁷  4:6 Jacob’s well was there, so Jesus, since he was tired from the journey, sat right down beside ⁴⁸  the well. It was about noon. ⁴⁹ 

John 5:1-2

Healing a Paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda

5:1 After this ⁵⁰  there was a Jewish feast, ⁵¹  and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. ⁵²  5:2 Now there is ⁵³  in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate ⁵⁴  a pool called Bethzatha ⁵⁵  in Aramaic, ⁵⁶  which has five covered walkways. ⁵⁷ 

John 1:9

1:9 The true light, who gives light to everyone, ⁵⁸  was coming into the world. ⁵⁹ 

John 1:3

1:3 All things were created ⁶⁰  by him, and apart from him not one thing was created ⁶¹  that has been created. ⁶² 

John 1:11

1:11 He came to what was his own, ⁶³  but ⁶⁴  his own people ⁶⁵  did not receive him. ⁶⁶ 

[8:37]  ¹ tn Grk “seed” (an idiom).

[8:37]  ² tn Grk “you are seeking.”

[8:37]  ³ tn Grk “my word.”

[8:37]  ⁴ tn Or “finds no place in you.” The basic idea seems to be something (in this case Jesus’ teaching) making headway or progress where resistance is involved. See BDAG 1094 s.v. χωρέω 2.

[8:43]  ⁵ tn Grk “you cannot hear,” but this is not a reference to deafness, but rather hearing in the sense of listening to something and responding to it.

[8:43]  ⁶ tn Grk “my word.”

[8:45]  ⁹ tn Or “because I tell you.”

[1:12]  ¹³ tn On the use of the πιστεύω + εἰς (pisteuw + ei") construction in John: The verb πιστεύω occurs 98 times in John (compared to 11 times in Matthew, 14 times in Mark [including the longer ending], and 9 times in Luke). One of the unsolved mysteries is why the corresponding noun form πίστις (pistis) is never used at all. Many have held the noun was in use in some pre-Gnostic sects and this rendered it suspect for John. It might also be that for John, faith was an activity, something that men do (cf. W. Turner, “Believing and Everlasting Life – A Johannine Inquiry,” ExpTim 64 [1952/53]: 50-52). John uses πιστεύω in 4 major ways: (1) of believing facts, reports, etc., 12 times; (2) of believing people (or the scriptures), 19 times; (3) of believing “in” Christ” (πιστεύω + εἰς + acc.), 36 times; (4) used absolutely without any person or object specified, 30 times (the one remaining passage is 2:24, where Jesus refused to “trust” himself to certain individuals). Of these, the most significant is the use of πιστεύω with εἰς + accusative. It is not unlike the Pauline ἐν Χριστῷ (en Cristw) formula. Some have argued that this points to a Hebrew (more likely Aramaic) original behind the Fourth Gospel. But it probably indicates something else, as C. H. Dodd observed: “πιστεύειν with the dative so inevitably connoted simple credence, in the sense of an intellectual judgment, that the moral element of personal trust or reliance inherent in the Hebrew or Aramaic phrase – an element integral to the primitive Christian conception of faith in Christ – needed to be otherwise expressed” (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 183).

[1:13]  ¹⁷ tn The Greek term translated “born” here also involves conception.

[1:13]  ¹⁸ tn Grk “of blood(s).” The plural αἱμάτων (Jaimatwn) has seemed a problem to many interpreters. At least some sources in antiquity imply that blood was thought of as being important in the development of the fetus during its time in the womb: thus Wis 7:1: “in the womb of a mother I was molded into flesh, within the period of 10 months, compacted with blood, from the seed of a man and the pleasure of marriage.” In John 1:13, the plural αἱμάτων may imply the action of both parents. It may also refer to the “genetic” contribution of both parents, and so be equivalent to “human descent” (see BDAG 26 s.v. αἷμα 1.a). E. C. Hoskyns thinks John could not have used the singular here because Christians are in fact ‘begotten’ by the blood of Christ (The Fourth Gospel, 143), although the context would seem to make it clear that the blood in question is something other than the blood of Christ.

[1:13]  ¹⁹ tn Or “of the will of the flesh.” The phrase οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός (oude ek qelhmato" sarko") is more clearly a reference to sexual desire, but it should be noted that σάρξ (sarx) in John does not convey the evil sense common in Pauline usage. For John it refers to the physical nature in its weakness rather than in its sinfulness. There is no clearer confirmation of this than the immediately following verse, where the λόγος (logos) became σάρξ.

[1:13]  ²⁰ tn Or “man’s.”

[1:13]  ²¹ tn The third phrase, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός (oude ek qelhmato" andros), means much the same as the second one. The word here (ἀνηρ, anhr) is often used for a husband, resulting in the translation “or a husband’s decision,” or more generally, “or of any human volition whatsoever.” L. Morris may be right when he sees here an emphasis directed at the Jewish pride in race and patriarchal ancestry, although such a specific reference is difficult to prove (John [NICNT], 101).

[6:45]  ²¹ sn A quotation from Isa 54:13.

[6:45]  ²² tn Or “listens to the Father and learns.”

[6:46]  ²⁵ tn Grk “this one.”

[6:46]  ²⁶ sn This is best taken as a parenthetical note by the author. Although some would attribute these words to Jesus himself, the switch from first person in Jesus’ preceding and following remarks to third person in v. 46 suggests that the author has added a clarifying comment here.

[6:65]  ²⁹ tn Grk “And he said”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[6:65]  ³⁰ tn Grk “unless it has been permitted to him by the Father.”

[17:6]  ³³ tn Or “made known,” “disclosed.”

[17:6]  ³⁴ tn Here “men” is retained as a translation for ἀνθρώποις (anqrwpoi") rather than the more generic “people” because in context it specifically refers to the eleven men Jesus had chosen as apostles (Judas had already departed, John 13:30). If one understands the referent here to be the broader group of Jesus’ followers that included both men and women, a translation like “to the people” should be used here instead.

[17:6]  ³⁵ tn Grk “Yours they were.”

[17:6]  ³⁶ tn Or “have kept.”

[17:7]  ³⁷ tn Or “they have come to know,” or “they have learned.”

[17:7]  ³⁸ tn Grk “all things.”

[17:8]  ⁴¹ tn Grk And they.” The conjunction καί (kai, “and”) has not been translated here in keeping with the tendency of contemporary English style to use shorter sentences.

[17:8]  ⁴² tn Or “received.”

[17:8]  ⁴³ tn The word “them” is not in the Greek text, but is implied. Direct objects were often omitted in Greek when clear from the context.

[17:8]  ⁴⁴ tn Or “truly.”

[17:8]  ⁴⁵ tn Or have come to know.”

[17:1]  ⁴⁵ tn Grk “he raised his eyes” (an idiom).

[17:1]  ⁴⁶ tn Or “to the sky.” The Greek word οὐρανός (ouranos) may be translated “sky” or “heaven” depending on the context.

[17:1]  ⁴⁷ tn Grk “the hour.”

[17:1]  ⁴⁸ tc The better witnesses (א B C* W 0109 0301) have “the Son” (ὁ υἱός, Jo Juios) here, while the majority (C³ L Ψ Ë¹³ 33 Ï) read “your Son also” (καὶ ὁ υἱὸς σου, kai Jo Juio" sou), or “your Son” (ὁ υἱὸς σου; A D Θ 0250 1 579 pc lat sy); the second corrector of C has καὶ ὁ υἱός (“the Son also”). The longer readings appear to be predictable scribal expansions and as such should be considered secondary.

[3:10]  ⁴⁹ tn Grk “Jesus answered and said to him.”

[3:10]  ⁵⁰ sn Jesus’ question “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you don’t understand these things?” implies that Nicodemus had enough information at his disposal from the OT scriptures to have understood Jesus’ statements about the necessity of being born from above by the regenerating work of the Spirit. Isa 44:3-5 and Ezek 37:9-10 are passages Nicodemus might have known which would have given him insight into Jesus’ words. Another significant passage which contains many of these concepts is Prov 30:4-5.

[4:1]  ⁵³ tc Several early and important witnesses, along with the majority of later ones (Ì^66c,75 A B C L W^s Ψ 083 ˹³ 33 Ï sa), have κύριος (kurio", “Lord”) here instead of ᾿Ιησοῦς (Ihsou", “Jesus”). As significant as this external support is, the internal evidence seems to be on the side of ᾿Ιησοῦς. “Jesus” is mentioned two more times in the first two verses of chapter four in a way that is stylistically awkward (so much so that the translation has substituted the pronoun for the first one; see tn note below). This seems to be sufficient reason to motivate scribes to change the wording to κύριος. Further, the reading ᾿Ιησοῦς is not without decent support, though admittedly not as strong as that for κύριος (Ì^66* א D Θ 086 ˹ 565 1241 al lat bo). On the other hand, this Gospel speaks of Jesus as Lord in the evangelist’s narrative descriptions elsewhere only in 11:2; 20:18, 20; 21:12; and probably 6:23, preferring ᾿Ιησοῦς most of the time. This fact could be used to argue that scribes, acquainted with John’s style, changed κύριος to ᾿Ιησοῦς. But the immediate context generally is weighed more heavily than an author’s style. It is possible that neither word was in the original text and scribes supplied what they thought most appropriate (see TCGNT 176). But without ms evidence to this effect coupled with the harder reading ᾿Ιησοῦς, this conjecture must remain doubtful. All in all, it is best to regard ᾿Ιησοῦς as the original reading here.

[4:1]  ⁵⁴ sn See the note on Pharisees in 1:24.

[4:1]  ⁵⁵ tn Grk “Jesus”; the repetition of the proper name is somewhat redundant in English (see the beginning of the verse) and so the pronoun (“he”) has been substituted here.

[4:1]  ⁵⁶ tn Grk “was making.”

[4:2]  ⁵⁷ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[4:3]  ⁶¹ sn The author doesn’t tell why Jesus chose to set out once more for Galilee. Some have suggested that the Pharisees turned their attention to Jesus because John the Baptist had now been thrown into prison. But the text gives no hint of this. In any case, perhaps Jesus simply did not want to provoke a confrontation at this time (knowing that his “hour” had not yet come).

[4:4]  ⁶⁵ 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]  ⁶⁶ 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.

[4:5]  ⁶⁹ tn Grk “town of Samaria.” The noun Σαμαρείας (Samareias) has been translated as an attributive genitive.

[4:5]  ⁷⁰ sn Sychar was somewhere in the vicinity of Shechem, possibly the village of Askar, 1.5 km northeast of Jacob’s well.

[4:5]  ⁷¹ sn Perhaps referred to in Gen 48:22.

[4:6]  ⁷³ tn Grk “on (ἐπί, epi) the well.” There may have been a low stone rim encircling the well, or the reading of Ì⁶⁶ (“on the ground”) may be correct.

[4:6]  ⁷⁴ tn Grk “the sixth hour.”

[5:1]  ⁷⁷ sn The temporal indicator After this is not specific, so it is uncertain how long after the incidents at Cana this occurred.

[5:1]  ⁷⁸ tc The textual variants ἑορτή or ἡ ἑορτή (Jeorth or Jh Jeorth, “a feast” or “the feast”) may not appear significant at first, but to read ἑορτή with the article would almost certainly demand a reference to the Jewish Passover. The article is found in א C L Δ Ψ Ë¹ 33 892 1424 pm, but is lacking in {Ì^66,75 A B D T W^s Θ Ë¹³ 565 579 700 1241 pm}. Overall, the shorter reading has somewhat better support. Internally, the known proclivity of scribes to make the text more explicit argues compellingly for the shorter reading. Thus, the verse refers to a feast other than the Passover. The incidental note in 5:3, that the sick were lying outside in the porticoes of the pool, makes Passover an unlikely time because it fell toward the end of winter and the weather would not have been warm. L. Morris (John [NICNT], 299, n. 6) thinks it impossible to identify the feast with certainty.

[5:1]  ⁷⁹ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[5:2]  ⁸¹ tn Regarding the use of the present tense ἐστιν (estin) and its implications for the dating of the Gospel of John, see the article by D. B. Wallace, “John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel,” Bib 71 (1990): 177-205.

[5:2]  ⁸² tn The site of the miracle is also something of a problem: προβατικῇ (probatikh) is usually taken as a reference to the Sheep Gate near the temple. Some (R. E. Brown and others) would place the word κολυμβήθρα (kolumbhqra) with προβατικῇ to read “in Jerusalem, by the Sheep Pool, there is (another pool) with the Hebrew name.” This would imply that there is reference to two pools in the context rather than only one. This does not seem necessary (although it is a grammatical possibility). The gender of the words does not help since both are feminine (as is the participle ἐπιλεγομένη [epilegomenh]). Note however that Brown’s suggestion would require a feminine word to be supplied (for the participle ἐπιλεγομένη to modify). The traditional understanding of the phrase as a reference to the Sheep Gate near the temple appears more probably correct.

[5:2]  ⁸³ tc Some mss (א [L] 33 it) read Bethzatha, while others read Bethsaida (Ì^[66],75 B T W^s [Ψ] pc vg); codex D has Belzetha. A lot of controversy has surrounded the name of the pool itself: The reading of the Byzantine (or majority) text (A C Θ 078 Ë^1,13 Ï), Bethesda, has been virtually discarded by scholars in favor of what is thought to be the more primitive Bethzatha, even though many recent translations continue to employ Bethesda, the traditional reading. The latter is attested by Josephus as the name of a quarter of the city near the northeast corner of the temple area. He reports that the Syrian Legate Cestius burned this suburb in his attack on Jerusalem in October a.d. 68 (J. W. 2.19.4 [2.530]). However, there is some new archaeological evidence for this problem. 3Q15 (Copper Scroll) from Qumran seems to indicate that in the general area of the temple, on the eastern hill of Jerusalem, a treasure was buried in Bet áEsdatayin, in the pool at the entrance to the smaller basin. The name of the region or pool itself seems then to have been Bet ᾿Esda, “house of the flowing.” It appears with the dual ending in the scroll because there were two basins. Bethesda seems to be an accurate Greek rendition of the name, while J. T. Milik suggests Bethzatha is a rendition of the Aramaic intensive plural Bet áEsdata (DJDJ 3, 271). As for the text of John 5:2, the fundamental problems with the Bethesda reading are that it looks motivated (with an edifying Semitic etymology, meaning “House of Mercy” [TCGNT 178]), and is minimally attested. Apart from the Copper Scroll, the evidence for Bethesda is almost entirely shut up to the Byzantine text (C being the most notable exception, but it often has Byzantine encroachments). On the one hand, this argues the Byzantine reading here had ancient, semitic roots; on the other hand, since both readings are attested as historically accurate, a decision has to be based on the better witnesses. The fact that there are multiple readings here suggests that the original was not well understood. Which reading best explains the rise of the others? It seems that Bethzatha is the best choice.

[5:2]  ⁸⁴ tn Grk “in Hebrew.”

[5:2]  ⁸⁵ tn Or “porticoes,” or “colonnades”; Grk “stoas.”

[1:9]  ⁸⁵ tn Grk “every man” (but in a generic sense, “every person,” or “every human being”).

[1:9]  ⁸⁶ tn Or “He was the true light, who gives light to everyone who comes into the world.” The participle ἐρχόμενον (ercomenon) may be either (1) neuter nominative, agreeing with τὸ φῶς (to fw"), or (2) masculine accusative, agreeing with ἄνθρωπον (anqrwpon). Option (1) results in a periphrastic imperfect with ἦν (hn), ἦν τὸ φῶς… ἐρχόμενον, referring to the incarnation. Option (2) would have the participle modifying ἄνθρωπον and referring to the true light as enlightening “every man who comes into the world.” Option (2) has some rabbinic parallels: The phrase “all who come into the world” is a fairly common expression for “every man” (cf. Leviticus Rabbah 31.6). But (1) must be preferred here, because: (a) In the next verse the light is in the world; it is logical for v. 9 to speak of its entering the world; (b) in other passages Jesus is described as “coming into the world” (6:14, 9:39, 11:27, 16:28) and in 12:46 Jesus says: ἐγὼ φῶς εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐλήλυθα (egw fw" ei" ton kosmon elhluqa); (c) use of a periphrastic participle with the imperfect tense is typical Johannine style: 1:28, 2:6, 3:23, 10:40, 11:1, 13:23, 18:18 and 25. In every one of these except 13:23 the finite verb is first and separated by one or more intervening words from the participle.

[1:3]  ⁸⁹ tn Or “made”; Grk “came into existence.”

[1:3]  ⁹⁰ tn Or “made”; Grk “nothing came into existence.”

[1:3]  ⁹¹ tc There is a major punctuation problem here: Should this relative clause go with v. 3 or v. 4? The earliest mss have no punctuation (Ì^66,75* א* A B Δ al). Many of the later mss which do have punctuation place it before the phrase, thus putting it with v. 4 (Ì^75c C D L W^s 050* pc). NA²⁵ placed the phrase in v. 3; NA²⁶ moved the words to the beginning of v. 4. In a detailed article K. Aland defended the change (“Eine Untersuchung zu Johannes 1, 3-4. Über die Bedeutung eines Punktes,” ZNW 59 [1968]: 174-209). He sought to prove that the attribution of ὃ γέγονεν (}o gegonen) to v. 3 began to be carried out in the 4th century in the Greek church. This came out of the Arian controversy, and was intended as a safeguard for doctrine. The change was unknown in the West. Aland is probably correct in affirming that the phrase was attached to v. 4 by the Gnostics and the Eastern Church; only when the Arians began to use the phrase was it attached to v. 3. But this does not rule out the possibility that, by moving the words from v. 4 to v. 3, one is restoring the original reading. Understanding the words as part of v. 3 is natural and adds to the emphasis which is built up there, while it also gives a terse, forceful statement in v. 4. On the other hand, taking the phrase ὃ γέγονεν with v. 4 gives a complicated expression: C. K. Barrett says that both ways of understanding v. 4 with ὃ γέγονεν included “are almost impossibly clumsy” (St. John, 157): “That which came into being – in it the Word was life”; “That which came into being – in the Word was its life.” The following stylistic points should be noted in the solution of this problem: (1) John frequently starts sentences with ἐν (en); (2) he repeats frequently (“nothing was created that has been created”); (3) 5:26 and 6:53 both give a sense similar to v. 4 if it is understood without the phrase; (4) it makes far better Johannine sense to say that in the Word was life than to say that the created universe (what was made, ὃ γέγονεν) was life in him. In conclusion, the phrase is best taken with v. 3. Schnackenburg, Barrett, Carson, Haenchen, Morris, KJV, and NIV concur (against Brown, Beasley-Murray, and NEB). The arguments of R. Schnackenburg, St. John, 1:239-40, are particularly persuasive.

[1:11]  ⁹³ tn Grk “to his own things.”

[1:11]  ⁹⁴ tn Grk “and,” but in context this is an adversative use of καί (kai) and is thus translated “but.”

[1:11]  ⁹⁵ tn “People” is not in the Greek text but is implied.

[1:11]  ⁹⁶ sn His own people did not receive him. There is a subtle irony here: When the λόγος (logos) came into the world, he came to his own (τὰ ἴδια, ta idia, literally “his own things”) and his own people (οἱ ἴδιοι, Joi idioi), who should have known and received him, but they did not. This time John does not say that “his own” did not know him, but that they did not receive him (παρέλαβον, parelabon). The idea is one not of mere recognition, but of acceptance and welcome.