Luke 14:26

14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate ¹  his own father and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters, and even his own life, ²  he cannot be my disciple.

Isaiah 55:3

55:3 Pay attention and come to me!

Listen, so you can live! ³ 

Then I will make an unconditional covenantal promise to ⁴  you,

just like the reliable covenantal promises I made to David. ⁵ 

Matthew 11:28

11:28 Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.

John 5:40

5:40 but you are not willing to come to me so that you may have life.

John 6:35

6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. The one who comes to me will never go hungry, and the one who believes in me will never be thirsty. ⁶ 

John 6:37

6:37 Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will never send away. ⁷ 

John 6:44-45

6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, ⁸  and I will raise him up at the last day. 6:45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ ⁹  Everyone who hears and learns from the Father ¹⁰  comes to me.

John 6:1

The Feeding of the Five Thousand

6:1 After this ¹¹  Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee (also called the Sea of Tiberias). ¹² 

John 2:4

2:4 Jesus replied, ¹³  “Woman, ¹⁴  why are you saying this to me? ¹⁵  My time ¹⁶  has not yet come.”

[14:26]  ¹ tn This figurative use operates on a relative scale. God is to be loved more than family or self.

[14:26]  ² tn Grk “his own soul,” but ψυχή (yuch) is frequently used of one’s physical life. It clearly has that meaning in this context.

[55:3]  ³ tn The jussive with vav (ו) conjunctive following the imperative indicates purpose/result.

[55:3]  ⁴ tn Or “an eternal covenant with.”

[55:3]  ⁵ tn Heb “the reliable expressions of loyalty of David.” The syntactical relationship of חַסְדֵי (khasde, “expressions of loyalty”) to the preceding line is unclear. If the term is appositional to בְּרִית (bÿrit, “covenant”), then the Lord here transfers the promises of the Davidic covenant to the entire nation. Another option is to take חַסְדֵי (khasde) as an adverbial accusative and to translate “according to the reliable covenantal promises.” In this case the new covenantal arrangement proposed here is viewed as an extension or perhaps fulfillment of the Davidic promises. A third option, the one reflected in the above translation, is to take the last line as comparative. In this case the new covenant being proposed is analogous to the Davidic covenant. Verses 4-5, which compare David’s international prominence to what Israel will experience, favors this view. In all three of these interpretations, “David” is an objective genitive; he is the recipient of covenantal promises. A fourth option would be to take David as a subjective genitive and understand the line as giving the basis for the preceding promise: “Then I will make an unconditional covenantal promise to you, because of David’s faithful acts of covenantal loyalty.”

[6:35]  ⁶ tn Grk “the one who believes in me will not possibly thirst, ever.”

[6:37]  ⁷ tn Or “drive away”; Grk “cast out.”

[6:44]  ⁸ tn Or “attracts him,” or “pulls him.” The word is used of pulling or dragging, often by force. It is even used once of magnetic attraction (A. Oepke, TDNT 2:503).

[6:45]  ⁹ sn A quotation from Isa 54:13.

[6:45]  ¹⁰ tn Or “listens to the Father and learns.”

[6:1]  ¹¹ tn Again, μετὰ ταῦτα (meta tauta) is a vague temporal reference. How Jesus got from Jerusalem to Galilee is not explained, which has led many scholars (e.g., Bernard, Bultmann, and Schnackenburg) to posit either editorial redaction or some sort of rearrangement or dislocation of material (such as reversing the order of chaps. 5 and 6, for example). Such a rearrangement of the material would give a simple and consistent connection of events, but in the absence of all external evidence it does not seem to be supportable. R. E. Brown (John [AB], 1:236) says that such an arrangement is attractive in some ways but not compelling, and that no rearrangement can solve all the geographical and chronological problems in John.

[6:1]  ¹² sn This is a parenthetical note by the author. Only John in the New Testament refers to the Sea of Galilee by the name Sea of Tiberias (see also John 21:1), but this is correct local usage. In the mid-20’s Herod completed the building of the town of Tiberias on the southwestern shore of the lake; after this time the name came into use for the lake itself.

[2:4]  ¹³ tn Grk “and Jesus said to her.”

[2:4]  ¹⁴ sn The term Woman is Jesus’ normal, polite way of addressing women (Matt 15:28, Luke 13:12; John 4:21; 8:10; 19:26; 20:15). But it is unusual for a son to address his mother with this term. The custom in both Hebrew (or Aramaic) and Greek would be for a son to use a qualifying adjective or title. Is there significance in Jesus’ use here? It probably indicates that a new relationship existed between Jesus and his mother once he had embarked on his public ministry. He was no longer or primarily only her son, but the “Son of Man.” This is also suggested by the use of the same term in 19:26 in the scene at the cross, where the beloved disciple is “given” to Mary as her “new” son.

[2:4]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “Woman, what to me and to you?” (an idiom). The phrase τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι (ti emoi kai soi, gunai) is Semitic in origin. The equivalent Hebrew expression in the Old Testament had two basic meanings: (1) When one person was unjustly bothering another, the injured party could say “What to me and to you?” meaning, “What have I done to you that you should do this to me?” (Judg 11:12, 2 Chr 35:21, 1 Kgs 17:18). (2) When someone was asked to get involved in a matter he felt was no business of his, he could say to the one asking him, “What to me and to you?” meaning, “That is your business, how am I involved?” (2 Kgs 3:13, Hos 14:8). Option (1) implies hostility, while option (2) implies merely disengagement. Mere disengagement is almost certainly to be understood here as better fitting the context (although some of the Greek Fathers took the remark as a rebuke to Mary, such a rebuke is unlikely).

[2:4]  ¹⁶ tn Grk “my hour” (referring to the time of Jesus’ crucifixion and return to the Father).