Matthew 14:16-21

14:16 But he ¹  replied, “They don’t need to go. You ²  give them something to eat.” 14:17 They ³  said to him, “We have here only five loaves and two fish.” 14:18 “Bring them here to me,” he replied. 14:19 Then ⁴  he instructed the crowds to sit down on the grass. He took the five loaves and two fish, and looking up to heaven he gave thanks and broke the loaves. He gave them to the disciples, ⁵  who in turn gave them to the crowds. ⁶  14:20 They all ate and were satisfied, and they picked up the broken pieces left over, twelve baskets full. 14:21 Not counting women and children, there were about five thousand men who ate.

Exodus 16:8

16:8 Moses said, “You will know this ⁷  when the Lord gives you ⁸  meat to eat in the evening and bread in the morning to satisfy you, because the Lord has heard your murmurings that you are murmuring against him. As for us, what are we? ⁹  Your murmurings are not against us, ¹⁰  but against the Lord.”

Exodus 16:15

16:15 When ¹¹  the Israelites saw it, they said to one another, ¹²  “What is it?” because they did not know what it was. ¹³  Moses said to them, “It is the bread ¹⁴  that the Lord has given you for food. ¹⁵ 

Exodus 16:35

16:35 Now the Israelites ate manna forty years, until they came to a land that was inhabited; they ate manna until they came to the border of the land of Canaan.

Exodus 23:15

23:15 You are to observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread; seven days ¹⁶  you must eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you, at the appointed time of the month of Abib, for at that time ¹⁷  you came out of Egypt. No one may appear before ¹⁸  me empty-handed.

Exodus 23:1

Justice

23:1 ¹⁹ “You must not give ²⁰  a false report. ²¹  Do not make common cause ²²  with the wicked ²³  to be a malicious ²⁴  witness.

Exodus 17:12-16

17:12 When ²⁵  the hands of Moses became heavy, ²⁶  they took a stone and put it under him, and Aaron and Hur held up his hands, one on one side and one on the other, ²⁷  and so his hands were steady ²⁸  until the sun went down. 17:13 So Joshua destroyed ²⁹  Amalek and his army ³⁰  with the sword. ³¹ 

17:14 The Lord said to Moses, “Write this as a memorial in the ³²  book, and rehearse ³³  it in Joshua’s hearing; ³⁴  for I will surely wipe out ³⁵  the remembrance ³⁶  of Amalek from under heaven. 17:15 Moses built an altar, and he called it “The Lord is my Banner,” ³⁷  17:16 for he said, “For a hand was lifted up to the throne of the Lord ³⁸  – that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.” ³⁹ 

Exodus 17:2

17:2 So the people contended ⁴⁰  with Moses, and they said, “Give us water to drink!” ⁴¹  Moses said to them, “Why do you contend ⁴²  with me? Why do you test ⁴³  the Lord?”

Exodus 4:1

The Source of Sufficiency

4:1 ⁴⁴ Moses answered again, ⁴⁵  “And if ⁴⁶  they do not believe me or pay attention to me, ⁴⁷  but say, ‘The Lord has not appeared to you’?”

Exodus 7:1-2

7:1 So the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God ⁴⁸  to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. ⁴⁹  7:2 You are to speak ⁵⁰  everything I command you, ⁵¹  and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh that he must release ⁵²  the Israelites from his land.

Haggai 2:16-19

2:16 From that time ⁵³  when one came expecting a heap of twenty measures, there were only ten; when one came to the wine vat to draw out fifty measures from it, there were only twenty. 2:17 I struck all the products of your labor ⁵⁴  with blight, disease, and hail, and yet you brought nothing to me,’ ⁵⁵  says the Lord. 2:18 ‘Think carefully about the past: ⁵⁶  from today, the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, ⁵⁷  to the day work on the temple of the Lord was resumed, ⁵⁸  think about it. ⁵⁹  2:19 The seed is still in the storehouse, isn’t it? And the vine, fig tree, pomegranate, and olive tree have not produced. Nevertheless, from today on I will bless you.’”

Malachi 3:9-11

3:9 You are bound for judgment ⁶⁰  because you are robbing me – this whole nation is guilty. ⁶¹ 

3:10 “Bring the entire tithe into the storehouse ⁶²  so that there may be food in my temple. Test me in this matter,” says the Lord who rules over all, “to see if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until there is no room for it all. 3:11 Then I will stop the plague ⁶³  from ruining your crops, ⁶⁴  and the vine will not lose its fruit before harvest,” says the Lord who rules over all.

Mark 6:38-44

6:38 He said to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go and see.” When they found out, they said, “Five – and two fish.” 6:39 Then he directed them all to sit down in groups on the green grass. 6:40 So they reclined in groups of hundreds and fifties. 6:41 He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. He ⁶⁵  gave them to his ⁶⁶  disciples to serve the people, and he divided the two fish among them all. 6:42 They all ate and were satisfied, 6:43 and they picked up the broken pieces and fish that were left over, twelve baskets full. 6:44 Now ⁶⁷  there were five thousand men ⁶⁸  who ate the bread. ⁶⁹ 

Mark 8:4-9

8:4 His disciples answered him, “Where can someone get enough bread in this desolate place to satisfy these people?” 8:5 He asked them, “How many loaves do you have?” They replied, “Seven.” 8:6 Then ⁷⁰  he directed the crowd to sit down on the ground. After he took the seven loaves and gave thanks, he broke them and began giving them to the disciples to serve. So ⁷¹  they served the crowd. 8:7 They also had a few small fish. After giving thanks for these, he told them to serve these as well. 8:8 Everyone ⁷²  ate and was satisfied, and they picked up the broken pieces left over, seven baskets full. 8:9 There were about four thousand ⁷³  who ate. ⁷⁴  Then he dismissed them. ⁷⁵ 

John 6:5-15

6:5 Then Jesus, when he looked up ⁷⁶  and saw that a large crowd was coming to him, said to Philip, “Where can we buy bread so that these people may eat?” 6:6 (Now Jesus ⁷⁷  said this to test him, for he knew what he was going to do.) ⁷⁸  6:7 Philip replied, ⁷⁹  “Two hundred silver coins worth ⁸⁰  of bread would not be enough for them, for each one to get a little.” 6:8 One of Jesus’ disciples, ⁸¹  Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him, 6:9 “Here is a boy who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what good ⁸²  are these for so many people?”

6:10 Jesus said, “Have ⁸³  the people sit down.” (Now there was a lot of grass in that place.) ⁸⁴  So the men ⁸⁵  sat down, about five thousand in number. 6:11 Then Jesus took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed the bread to those who were seated. He then did the same with the fish, ⁸⁶  as much as they wanted. 6:12 When they were all satisfied, Jesus ⁸⁷  said to his disciples, “Gather up the broken pieces that are left over, so that nothing is wasted.” 6:13 So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with broken pieces from the five barley loaves ⁸⁸  left over by the people who had eaten.

6:14 Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus ⁸⁹  performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet ⁹⁰  who is to come into the world.” ⁹¹  6:15 Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone. ⁹² 

John 1:1-51

The Prologue to the Gospel

1:1 In the beginning ⁹³  was the Word, and the Word was with God, ⁹⁴  and the Word was fully God. ⁹⁵  1:2 The Word ⁹⁶  was with God in the beginning. 1:3 All things were created ⁹⁷  by him, and apart from him not one thing was created ⁹⁸  that has been created. ⁹⁹  1:4 In him was life, ¹⁰⁰  and the life was the light of mankind. ¹⁰¹  1:5 And the light shines on ¹⁰²  in the darkness, ¹⁰³  but ¹⁰⁴  the darkness has not mastered it. ¹⁰⁵ 

1:6 A man came, sent from God, whose name was John. ¹⁰⁶  1:7 He came as a witness ¹⁰⁷  to testify ¹⁰⁸  about the light, so that everyone ¹⁰⁹  might believe through him. 1:8 He himself was not the light, but he came to testify ¹¹⁰  about the light. 1:9 The true light, who gives light to everyone, ¹¹¹  was coming into the world. ¹¹²  1:10 He was in the world, and the world was created ¹¹³  by him, but ¹¹⁴  the world did not recognize ¹¹⁵  him. 1:11 He came to what was his own, ¹¹⁶  but ¹¹⁷  his own people ¹¹⁸  did not receive him. ¹¹⁹  1:12 But to all who have received him – those who believe in his name ¹²⁰  – he has given the right to become God’s children 1:13 – children not born ¹²¹  by human parents ¹²²  or by human desire ¹²³  or a husband’s ¹²⁴  decision, ¹²⁵  but by God.

1:14 Now ¹²⁶  the Word became flesh ¹²⁷  and took up residence ¹²⁸  among us. We ¹²⁹  saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, ¹³⁰  full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. 1:15 John ¹³¹  testified ¹³²  about him and shouted out, ¹³³  “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, ¹³⁴  because he existed before me.’” 1:16 For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another. ¹³⁵  1:17 For the law was given through Moses, but ¹³⁶  grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ. 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, ¹³⁷  himself God, who is in closest fellowship with ¹³⁸  the Father, has made God ¹³⁹  known. ¹⁴⁰ 

The Testimony of John the Baptist

1:19 Now ¹⁴¹  this was ¹⁴²  John’s ¹⁴³  testimony ¹⁴⁴  when the Jewish leaders ¹⁴⁵  sent ¹⁴⁶  priests and Levites from Jerusalem ¹⁴⁷  to ask him, “Who are you?” ¹⁴⁸  1:20 He confessed – he did not deny but confessed – “I am not the Christ!” ¹⁴⁹  1:21 So they asked him, “Then who are you? ¹⁵⁰  Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not!” ¹⁵¹  “Are you the Prophet?” ¹⁵²  He answered, “No!” 1:22 Then they said to him, “Who are you? Tell us ¹⁵³  so that we can give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”

1:23 John ¹⁵⁴  said, “I am the voice of one shouting in the wilderness, ‘Make straight ¹⁵⁵  the way for the Lord,’ ¹⁵⁶  as Isaiah the prophet said.” 1:24 (Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. ¹⁵⁷ ) ¹⁵⁸  1:25 So they asked John, ¹⁵⁹  “Why then are you baptizing if you are not the Christ, ¹⁶⁰  nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”

1:26 John answered them, ¹⁶¹  “I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not recognize, ¹⁶²  1:27 who is coming after me. I am not worthy ¹⁶³  to untie the strap ¹⁶⁴  of his sandal!” 1:28 These things happened in Bethany ¹⁶⁵  across the Jordan River ¹⁶⁶  where John was baptizing.

1:29 On the next day John ¹⁶⁷  saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God ¹⁶⁸  who takes away the sin of the world! 1:30 This is the one about whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who is greater than I am, ¹⁶⁹  because he existed before me.’ 1:31 I did not recognize ¹⁷⁰  him, but I came baptizing with water so that he could be revealed to Israel.” ¹⁷¹ 

1:32 Then ¹⁷²  John testified, ¹⁷³  “I saw the Spirit descending like a dove ¹⁷⁴  from heaven, ¹⁷⁵  and it remained on him. ¹⁷⁶  1:33 And I did not recognize him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining – this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 1:34 I have both seen and testified that this man is the Chosen One of God.” ¹⁷⁷ 

1:35 Again the next day John ¹⁷⁸  was standing there ¹⁷⁹  with two of his disciples. 1:36 Gazing at Jesus as he walked by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!” ¹⁸⁰  1:37 When John’s ¹⁸¹  two disciples heard him say this, ¹⁸²  they followed Jesus. ¹⁸³  1:38 Jesus turned around and saw them following and said to them, “What do you want?” ¹⁸⁴  So they said to him, “Rabbi” (which is translated Teacher), ¹⁸⁵  “where are you staying?” 1:39 Jesus ¹⁸⁶  answered, ¹⁸⁷  “Come and you will see.” So they came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. Now it was about four o’clock in the afternoon. ¹⁸⁸ 

Andrew’s Declaration

1:40 Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two disciples who heard what John said ¹⁸⁹  and followed Jesus. ¹⁹⁰  1:41 He first ¹⁹¹  found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah!” ¹⁹²  (which is translated Christ). ¹⁹³  1:42 Andrew brought Simon ¹⁹⁴  to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon, the son of John. ¹⁹⁵  You will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter). ¹⁹⁶ 

The Calling of More Disciples

1:43 On the next day Jesus ¹⁹⁷  wanted to set out for Galilee. ¹⁹⁸  He ¹⁹⁹  found Philip and said ²⁰⁰  to him, “Follow me.” 1:44 (Now Philip was from Bethsaida, ²⁰¹  the town of ²⁰²  Andrew and Peter.) 1:45 Philip found Nathanael ²⁰³  and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the law, and the prophets also ²⁰⁴  wrote about – Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 1:46 Nathanael ²⁰⁵  replied, ²⁰⁶  “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” ²⁰⁷  Philip replied, ²⁰⁸  “Come and see.”

1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and exclaimed, ²⁰⁹  “Look, a true Israelite in whom there is no deceit!” ²¹⁰  1:48 Nathanael asked him, “How do you know me?” Jesus replied, ²¹¹  “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, ²¹²  I saw you.” 1:49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king ²¹³  of Israel!” ²¹⁴  1:50 Jesus said to him, ²¹⁵  “Because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” ²¹⁶  1:51 He continued, ²¹⁷  “I tell all of you the solemn truth ²¹⁸  – you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” ²¹⁹ 

John 1:1-51

The Prologue to the Gospel

1:1 In the beginning ²²⁰  was the Word, and the Word was with God, ²²¹  and the Word was fully God. ²²²  1:2 The Word ²²³  was with God in the beginning. 1:3 All things were created ²²⁴  by him, and apart from him not one thing was created ²²⁵  that has been created. ²²⁶  1:4 In him was life, ²²⁷  and the life was the light of mankind. ²²⁸  1:5 And the light shines on ²²⁹  in the darkness, ²³⁰  but ²³¹  the darkness has not mastered it. ²³² 

1:6 A man came, sent from God, whose name was John. ²³³  1:7 He came as a witness ²³⁴  to testify ²³⁵  about the light, so that everyone ²³⁶  might believe through him. 1:8 He himself was not the light, but he came to testify ²³⁷  about the light. 1:9 The true light, who gives light to everyone, ²³⁸  was coming into the world. ²³⁹  1:10 He was in the world, and the world was created ²⁴⁰  by him, but ²⁴¹  the world did not recognize ²⁴²  him. 1:11 He came to what was his own, ²⁴³  but ²⁴⁴  his own people ²⁴⁵  did not receive him. ²⁴⁶  1:12 But to all who have received him – those who believe in his name ²⁴⁷  – he has given the right to become God’s children 1:13 – children not born ²⁴⁸  by human parents ²⁴⁹  or by human desire ²⁵⁰  or a husband’s ²⁵¹  decision, ²⁵²  but by God.

1:14 Now ²⁵³  the Word became flesh ²⁵⁴  and took up residence ²⁵⁵  among us. We ²⁵⁶  saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, ²⁵⁷  full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. 1:15 John ²⁵⁸  testified ²⁵⁹  about him and shouted out, ²⁶⁰  “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, ²⁶¹  because he existed before me.’” 1:16 For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another. ²⁶²  1:17 For the law was given through Moses, but ²⁶³  grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ. 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, ²⁶⁴  himself God, who is in closest fellowship with ²⁶⁵  the Father, has made God ²⁶⁶  known. ²⁶⁷ 

The Testimony of John the Baptist

1:19 Now ²⁶⁸  this was ²⁶⁹  John’s ²⁷⁰  testimony ²⁷¹  when the Jewish leaders ²⁷²  sent ²⁷³  priests and Levites from Jerusalem ²⁷⁴  to ask him, “Who are you?” ²⁷⁵  1:20 He confessed – he did not deny but confessed – “I am not the Christ!” ²⁷⁶  1:21 So they asked him, “Then who are you? ²⁷⁷  Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not!” ²⁷⁸  “Are you the Prophet?” ²⁷⁹  He answered, “No!” 1:22 Then they said to him, “Who are you? Tell us ²⁸⁰  so that we can give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”

1:23 John ²⁸¹  said, “I am the voice of one shouting in the wilderness, ‘Make straight ²⁸²  the way for the Lord,’ ²⁸³  as Isaiah the prophet said.” 1:24 (Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. ²⁸⁴ ) ²⁸⁵  1:25 So they asked John, ²⁸⁶  “Why then are you baptizing if you are not the Christ, ²⁸⁷  nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”

1:26 John answered them, ²⁸⁸  “I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not recognize, ²⁸⁹  1:27 who is coming after me. I am not worthy ²⁹⁰  to untie the strap ²⁹¹  of his sandal!” 1:28 These things happened in Bethany ²⁹²  across the Jordan River ²⁹³  where John was baptizing.

1:29 On the next day John ²⁹⁴  saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God ²⁹⁵  who takes away the sin of the world! 1:30 This is the one about whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who is greater than I am, ²⁹⁶  because he existed before me.’ 1:31 I did not recognize ²⁹⁷  him, but I came baptizing with water so that he could be revealed to Israel.” ²⁹⁸ 

1:32 Then ²⁹⁹  John testified, ³⁰⁰  “I saw the Spirit descending like a dove ³⁰¹  from heaven, ³⁰²  and it remained on him. ³⁰³  1:33 And I did not recognize him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining – this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 1:34 I have both seen and testified that this man is the Chosen One of God.” ³⁰⁴ 

1:35 Again the next day John ³⁰⁵  was standing there ³⁰⁶  with two of his disciples. 1:36 Gazing at Jesus as he walked by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!” ³⁰⁷  1:37 When John’s ³⁰⁸  two disciples heard him say this, ³⁰⁹  they followed Jesus. ³¹⁰  1:38 Jesus turned around and saw them following and said to them, “What do you want?” ³¹¹  So they said to him, “Rabbi” (which is translated Teacher), ³¹²  “where are you staying?” 1:39 Jesus ³¹³  answered, ³¹⁴  “Come and you will see.” So they came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. Now it was about four o’clock in the afternoon. ³¹⁵ 

Andrew’s Declaration

1:40 Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two disciples who heard what John said ³¹⁶  and followed Jesus. ³¹⁷  1:41 He first ³¹⁸  found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah!” ³¹⁹  (which is translated Christ). ³²⁰  1:42 Andrew brought Simon ³²¹  to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon, the son of John. ³²²  You will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter). ³²³ 

The Calling of More Disciples

1:43 On the next day Jesus ³²⁴  wanted to set out for Galilee. ³²⁵  He ³²⁶  found Philip and said ³²⁷  to him, “Follow me.” 1:44 (Now Philip was from Bethsaida, ³²⁸  the town of ³²⁹  Andrew and Peter.) 1:45 Philip found Nathanael ³³⁰  and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the law, and the prophets also ³³¹  wrote about – Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 1:46 Nathanael ³³²  replied, ³³³  “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” ³³⁴  Philip replied, ³³⁵  “Come and see.”

1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and exclaimed, ³³⁶  “Look, a true Israelite in whom there is no deceit!” ³³⁷  1:48 Nathanael asked him, “How do you know me?” Jesus replied, ³³⁸  “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, ³³⁹  I saw you.” 1:49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king ³⁴⁰  of Israel!” ³⁴¹  1:50 Jesus said to him, ³⁴²  “Because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” ³⁴³  1:51 He continued, ³⁴⁴  “I tell all of you the solemn truth ³⁴⁵  – you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” ³⁴⁶ 

[14:16]  ¹ tc ‡ The majority of witnesses read ᾿Ιησοῦς (Ihsous, “Jesus”) here, perhaps to clarify the subject. Although only a few Greek mss, along with several versional witnesses (א* D Z^vid 579 1424 pc e k sy^s,c,p sa bo), lack the name of Jesus, the omission does not seem to be either accidental or malicious and is therefore judged to be most likely the original reading. Nevertheless, a decision is difficult. NA²⁷ has the word in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

[14:16]  ² tn Here the pronoun ὑμεῖς (Jumeis) is used, making “you” in the translation emphatic.

[14:17]  ³ tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

[14:19]  ⁴ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “Then.”

[14:19]  ⁵ tn Grk “And after instructing the crowds to recline for a meal on the grass, after taking the five loaves and the two fish, after looking up to heaven, he gave thanks, and after breaking the loaves he gave them to the disciples.” Although most of the participles are undoubtedly attendant circumstance, there are but two indicative verbs – “he gave thanks” and “he gave.” The structure of the sentence thus seems to focus on these two actions and has been translated accordingly.

[14:19]  ⁶ tn Grk “to the disciples, and the disciples to the crowds.”

[16:8]  ⁷ tn “You will know this” has been added to make the line smooth. Because of the abruptness of the lines in the verse, and the repetition with v. 7, B. S. Childs (Exodus [OTL], 273) thinks that v. 8 is merely a repetition by scribal error – even though the versions render it as the MT has it. But B. Jacob (Exodus, 447) suggests that the contrast with vv. 6 and 7 is important for another reason – there Moses and Aaron speak, and it is smooth and effective, but here only Moses speaks, and it is labored and clumsy. “We should realize that Moses had properly claimed to be no public speaker.”

[16:8]  ⁸ tn Here again is an infinitive construct with the preposition forming a temporal clause.

[16:8]  ⁹ tn The words “as for us” attempt to convey the force of the Hebrew word order, which puts emphasis on the pronoun: “and we – what?” The implied answer to the question is that Moses and Aaron are nothing, merely the messengers.

[16:8]  ¹⁰ tn The word order is “not against us [are] your murmurings.”

[16:15]  ¹¹ tn The preterite with vav consecutive is here subordinated to the next verb as a temporal clause. The main point of the verse is what they said.

[16:15]  ¹² tn Heb “a man to his brother.”

[16:15]  ¹³ tn The text has: מָן הוּא כִּי לאֹ יָדְעוּ מַה־הוּא (man hu’ ki lo’ yadÿ’u mah hu’). From this statement the name “manna” was given to the substance. מָן for “what” is not found in Hebrew, but appears in Syriac as a contraction of ma den, “what then?” In Aramaic and Arabic man is “what?” The word is used here apparently for the sake of etymology. B. S. Childs (Exodus [OTL], 274) follows the approach that any connections to words that actually meant “what?” are unnecessary, for it is a play on the name (whatever it may have been) and therefore related only by sound to the term being explained. This, however, presumes that a substance was known prior to this account – a point that Deuteronomy does not seem to allow. S. R. Driver says that it is not known how early the contraction came into use, but that this verse seems to reflect it (Exodus, 149). Probably one must simply accept that in the early Israelite period man meant “what?” There seems to be sufficient evidence to support this. See EA 286,5; UT 435; DNWSI 1:157.

[16:15]  ¹⁴ sn B. Jacob (Exodus, 454-55) suggests that Moses was saying to them, “It is not manna. It is the food Yahweh has given you.” He comes to this conclusion based on the strange popular etymology from the interrogative word, noting that people do not call things “what?”

[16:15]  ¹⁵ sn For other views see G. Vermès, “‘He Is the Bread’ Targum Neofiti Ex. 16:15,” SJLA 8 (1975): 139-46; and G. J. Cowling, “Targum Neofiti Ex. 16:15,” AJBA (1974-75): 93-105.

[23:15]  ¹⁶ tn This is an adverbial accusative of time.

[23:15]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “in it.”

[23:15]  ¹⁸ tn The verb is a Niphal imperfect; the nuance of permission works well here – no one is permitted to appear before God empty (Heb “and they will not appear before me empty”).

[23:1]  ¹⁹ sn People who claim to worship and serve the righteous judge of the universe must preserve equity and justice in their dealings with others. These verses teach that God’s people must be honest witnesses (1-3); God’s people must be righteous even with enemies (4-5); and God’s people must be fair in dispensing justice (6-9).

[23:1]  ²⁰ tn Heb “take up, lift, carry” (נָשָׂא, nasa’). This verb was also used in the prohibition against taking “the name of Yahweh in vain.” Sometimes the object of this verb is physical, as in Jonah 1:12 and 15. Used in this prohibition involving speech, it covers both originating and repeating a lie.

[23:1]  ²¹ tn Or “a groundless report” (see Exod 20:7 for the word שָׁוְא, shav’).

[23:1]  ²² tn Heb “do not put your hand” (cf. KJV, ASV); NASB “join your hand.”

[23:1]  ²³ tn The word “wicked” (רָשָׁע, rasha’) refers to the guilty criminal, the person who is doing something wrong. In the religious setting it describes the person who is not a member of the covenant and may be involved in all kinds of sin, even though there is the appearance of moral and spiritual stability.

[23:1]  ²⁴ tn The word חָמָס (khamas) often means “violence” in the sense of social injustices done to other people, usually the poor and needy. A “malicious” witness would do great harm to others. See J. W. McKay, “Exodus 23:1-43, 6-8: A Decalogue for Administration of Justice in the City Gate,” VT 21 (1971): 311-25.

[17:12]  ²⁵ tn Literally “now the hands of Moses,” the disjunctive vav (ו) introduces a circumstantial clause here – of time.

[17:12]  ²⁶ tn The term used here is the adjective כְּבֵדִים (kÿvedim). It means “heavy,” but in this context the idea is more that of being tired. This is the important word that was used in the plague stories: when the heart of Pharaoh was hard, then the Israelites did not gain their freedom or victory. Likewise here, when the staff was lowered because Moses’ hands were “heavy,” Israel started to lose.

[17:12]  ²⁷ tn Heb “from this, one, and from this, one.”

[17:12]  ²⁸ tn The word “steady” is אֱמוּנָה (’emuna) from the root אָמַן (’aman). The word usually means “faithfulness.” Here is a good illustration of the basic idea of the word – firm, steady, reliable, dependable. There may be a double entendre here; on the one hand it simply says that his hands were stayed so that Israel might win, but on the other hand it is portraying Moses as steady, firm, reliable, faithful. The point is that whatever God commissioned as the means or agency of power – to Moses a staff, to the Christians the Spirit – the people of God had to know that the victory came from God alone.

[17:13]  ²⁹ tn The verb means “disabled, weakened, prostrated.” It is used a couple of times in the Bible to describe how man dies and is powerless (see Job 14:10; Isa 14:12).

[17:13]  ³⁰ tn Or “people.”

[17:13]  ³¹ tn Heb “mouth of the sword.” It means as the sword devours – without quarter (S. R. Driver, Exodus, 159).

[17:14]  ³² tn The presence of the article does not mean that he was to write this in a book that was existing now, but in one dedicated to this purpose (book, meaning scroll). See GKC 408 §126.s.

[17:14]  ³³ tn The Hebrew word is “place,” meaning that the events were to be impressed on Joshua.

[17:14]  ³⁴ tn Heb “in the ears of Joshua.” The account should be read to Joshua.

[17:14]  ³⁵ tn The construction uses the infinitive absolute and the imperfect tense to stress the resolution of Yahweh to destroy Amalek. The verb מָחָה (makhah) is often translated “blot out” – but that is not a very satisfactory image, since it would not remove completely what is the object. “Efface, erase, scrape off” (as in a palimpsest, a manuscript that is scraped clean so it can be reused) is a more accurate image.

[17:14]  ³⁶ sn This would seem to be defeated by the preceding statement that the events would be written in a book for a memorial. If this war is recorded, then the Amalekites would be remembered. But here God was going to wipe out the memory of them. But the idea of removing the memory of a people is an idiom for destroying them – they will have no posterity and no lasting heritage.

[17:15]  ³⁷ sn Heb “Yahweh-nissi” (so NAB), which means “Yahweh is my banner.” Note that when Israel murmured and failed God, the name commemorated the incident or the outcome of their failure. When they were blessed with success, the naming praised God. Here the holding up of the staff of God was preserved in the name for the altar – God gave them the victory.

[17:16]  ³⁸ tn The line here is very difficult. The Hebrew text has כִּי־יָד עַל־כֵּס יָהּ (ki yad ’al kes yah, “for a hand on the throne of Yah”). If the word is “throne” (and it is not usually spelled like this), then it would mean Moses’ hand was extended to the throne of God, showing either intercession or source of power. It could not be turned to mean that the hand of Yah was taking an oath to destroy the Amalekites. The LXX took the same letters, but apparently saw the last four (כסיה) as a verbal form; it reads “with a secret hand.” Most scholars have simply assumed that the text is wrong, and כֵּס should be emended to נֵס (nes) to fit the name, for this is the pattern of naming in the OT with popular etymologies – some motif of the name must be found in the sentiment. This would then read, “My hand on the banner of Yah.” It would be an expression signifying that the banner, the staff of God, should ever be ready at hand when the Israelites fight the Amalekites again.

[17:16]  ³⁹ sn The message of this short narrative, then, concerns the power of God to protect his people. The account includes the difficulty, the victory, and the commemoration. The victory must be retained in memory by the commemoration. So the expositional idea could focus on that: The people of God must recognize (both for engaging in warfare and for praise afterward) that victory comes only with the power of God. In the NT the issue is even more urgent, because the warfare is spiritual – believers do not wrestle against flesh and blood. So only God’s power will bring victory.

[17:2]  ⁴⁰ tn The verb וַיָּרֶב (vayyarev) is from the root רִיב (riv); it forms the basis of the name “Meribah.” The word means “strive, quarrel, be in contention” and even “litigation.” A translation “quarrel” does not appear to capture the magnitude of what is being done here. The people have a legal dispute – they are contending with Moses as if bringing a lawsuit.

[17:2]  ⁴¹ tn The imperfect tense with the vav (ו) follows the imperative, and so it carries the nuance of the logical sequence, showing purpose or result. This may be expressed in English as “give us water so that we may drink,” but more simply with the English infinitive, “give us water to drink.”

[17:2]  ⁴² tn In this case and in the next clause the imperfect tenses are to be taken as progressive imperfects – the action is in progress.

[17:2]  ⁴³ tn The verb נָסָה (nasah) means “to test, tempt, try, prove.” It can be used of people simply trying to do something that they are not sure of (such as David trying on Saul’s armor), or of God testing people to see if they will obey (as in testing Abraham, Gen 22:1), or of people challenging others (as in the Queen of Sheba coming to test Solomon), and of the people in the desert in rebellion putting God to the test. By doubting that God was truly in their midst, and demanding that he demonstrate his presence, they tested him to see if he would act. There are times when “proving” God is correct and required, but that is done by faith (as with Gideon); when it is done out of unbelief, then it is an act of disloyalty.

[4:1]  ⁴⁴ sn In chap. 3, the first part of this extensive call, Yahweh promises to deliver his people. At the hesitancy of Moses, God guarantees his presence will be with him, and that assures the success of the mission. But with chap. 4, the second half of the call, the tone changes sharply. Now Moses protests his inadequacies in view of the nature of the task. In many ways, these verses address the question, “Who is sufficient for these things?” There are three basic movements in the passage. The first nine verses tell how God gave Moses signs in case Israel did not believe him (4:1-9). The second section records how God dealt with the speech problem of Moses (4:10-12). And finally, the last section records God’s provision of a helper, someone who could talk well (4:13-17). See also J. E. Hamlin, “The Liberator’s Ordeal: A Study of Exodus 4:1-9,” Rhetorical Criticism [PTMS], 33-42.

[4:1]  ⁴⁵ tn Heb “and Moses answered and said.”

[4:1]  ⁴⁶ tn Or “What if.” The use of הֵן (hen) is unusual here, introducing a conditional idea in the question without a following consequence clause (see Exod 8:22 HT [8:26 ET]; Jer 2:10; 2 Chr 7:13). The Greek has “if not” but adds the clause “what shall I say to them?”

[4:1]  ⁴⁷ tn Heb “listen to my voice,” so as to respond positively.

[7:1]  ⁴⁸ tn The word “like” is added for clarity, making explicit the implied comparison in the statement “I have made you God to Pharaoh.” The word אֱלֹהִים (’elohim) is used a few times in the Bible for humans (e.g., Pss 45:6; 82:1), and always clearly in the sense of a subordinate to GOD – they are his representatives on earth. The explanation here goes back to 4:16. If Moses is like God in that Aaron is his prophet, then Moses is certainly like God to Pharaoh. Only Moses, then, is able to speak to Pharaoh with such authority, giving him commands.

[7:1]  ⁴⁹ tn The word נְבִיאֶךָ (nÿvi’ekha, “your prophet”) recalls 4:16. Moses was to be like God to Aaron, and Aaron was to speak for him. This indicates that the idea of a “prophet” was of one who spoke for God, an idea with which Moses and Aaron and the readers of Exodus are assumed to be familiar.

[7:2]  ⁵⁰ tn The imperfect tense here should have the nuance of instruction or injunction: “you are to speak.” The subject is singular (Moses) and made emphatic by the presence of the personal pronoun “you.”

[7:2]  ⁵¹ tn The phrase translated “everything I command you” is a noun clause serving as the direct object of the verb “speak.” The verb in the clause (אֲצַוֶּךָ, ’atsavvekha) is the Piel imperfect. It could be classified as a future: “everything that I will command you.” A nuance of progressive imperfect also fits well: “everything that I am commanding you.”

[7:2]  ⁵² tn The form is וְשִׁלַּח (vÿshillakh), a Piel perfect with vav (ו) consecutive. Following the imperfects of injunction or instruction, this verb continues the sequence. It could be taken as equal to an imperfect expressing future (“and he will release”) or subordinate to express purpose (“to release” = “in order that he may release”).

[2:16]  ⁵³ tn Heb “from their being,” idiomatic for “from the time they were then,” or “since the time.” Cf. KJV “Since those days were.”

[2:17]  ⁵⁴ tn Heb “you, all the work of your hands”; NRSV “you and all the products of your toil”; NIV “all the work of your hands.”

[2:17]  ⁵⁵ tn Heb “and there was not with you.” The context favors the idea that the harvests were so poor that the people took care of only themselves, leaving no offering for the Lord. Cf. KJV and many English versions “yet ye turned not to me,” understanding the phrase to refer to the people’s repentance rather than their failure to bring offerings.

[2:18]  ⁵⁶ tn Heb “set your heart.” A similar expression occurs in v. 15.

[2:18]  ⁵⁷ sn The twenty-fourth day of the ninth month was Kislev 24 or December 18, 520. See v. 10. Here the reference is to “today,” the day the oracle is being delivered.

[2:18]  ⁵⁸ sn The day work…was resumed. This does not refer to the initial founding of the Jerusalem temple in 536 b.c. but to the renewal of construction three months earlier (see 1:15). This is clear from the situation described in v. 19 which accords with the food scarcities of that time already detailed in Hag 1:10-11.

[2:18]  ⁵⁹ tn Heb “set your heart.” A similar expression occurs in v. 15 and at the beginning of this verse.

[3:9]  ⁶⁰ tn Heb “cursed with a curse” that is, “under a curse” (so NIV, NLT, CEV).

[3:9]  ⁶¹ tn The phrase “is guilty” is not present in the Hebrew text but is implied, and has been supplied in the translation for clarification and stylistic reasons.

[3:10]  ⁶² tn The Hebrew phrase בֵּית הָאוֹצָר (bet ha’otsar, here translated “storehouse”) refers to a kind of temple warehouse described more fully in Nehemiah (where the term לִשְׁכָּה גְדוֹלָה [lishkah gÿdolah, “great chamber”] is used) as a place for storing grain, frankincense, temple vessels, wine, and oil (Neh 13:5). Cf. TEV “to the Temple.”

[3:11]  ⁶³ tn Heb “the eater” (אֹכֵל, ’okhel), a general term for any kind of threat to crops and livelihood. This is understood as a reference to a locust plague by a number of English versions: NAB, NRSV “the locust”; NIV “pests”; NCV, TEV “insects.”

[3:11]  ⁶⁴ tn Heb “and I will rebuke for you the eater and it will not ruin for you the fruit of the ground.”

[6:41]  ⁶⁵ tn Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

[6:41]  ⁶⁶ tc ‡ Most mss (Ì⁴⁵ A D W Θ Ë^1,13 Ï lat sy) have αὐτοῦ (autou, “his”) after τοῖς μαθηταῖς (toi" maqhtai", “the disciples”), but several excellent witnesses (א B L Δ 33 579 892 1241 1424 2427 pc) lack the pronoun. This kind of variant is often a predictable expansion of the text; further, that many important mss lack the pronoun gives support for the shorter reading. For these reasons, the pronoun is considered to be secondary. NA²⁷ puts αὐτοῦ in brackets, indicating some doubts as to its authenticity.

[6:44]  ⁶⁷ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate a somewhat parenthetical remark by the author.

[6:44]  ⁶⁸ tn The Greek word here is ἀνήρ, meaning “adult male” (BDAG 79 s.v. 1). According to Matt 14:21, Jesus fed not only five thousand men, but also an unspecified number of women and children.

[6:44]  ⁶⁹ tc Many good mss (Ì⁴⁵ א D W Θ Ë^1,13 28 565 700 2542 lat sa) lack τοὺς ἄρτους (tous artous, lit. “the loaves” [here translated “the bread”]). On the other hand, just as weighty mss (A B L 33 2427 Ï) have the words. Although a decision is not easy, the most satisfactory explanation seems to be that scribes were more prone to delete than to add the words here. They may have been puzzled as to why “the bread” should be mentioned without a corresponding mention of “fish.” Since neither Matt 14:21 or Luke 9:17 explicitly mention the bread, a desire for harmonization may have motivated the copyists as well. On the other hand, D and W are prone to longer, explanatory readings. Since they both lack the words here, it is likely that their archetypes also lacked the words. But given Mark’s pleonastic style, the good witnesses with “the bread,” and a reasonable explanation for the omission, “the bread” is most likely part of the original text of Mark.

[8:6]  ⁷⁰ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

[8:6]  ⁷¹ tn Grk “And.” Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the implied result of previous action(s) in the narrative.

[8:8]  ⁷² tn Grk “They.”

[8:9]  ⁷³ sn The parallel in Matt 15:32-39 notes that the four thousand were only men, a point not made explicit in Mark.

[8:9]  ⁷⁴ tn The words “who ate” are not in the Greek text but have been supplied for clarity.

[8:9]  ⁷⁵ sn Mark 8:1-10. Many commentators, on the basis of similarities between this account of the feeding of the multitude (8:1-10) and that in 6:30-44, have argued that there is only one event referred to in both passages. While there are similarities in language and in the response of the disciples, there are also noticeable differences, including the different number present on each occasion (i.e., 5,000 in chap. 6 and 4,000 here). In the final analysis, the fact that Jesus refers to two distinct feedings in 8:18-20 settles the issue; this passage represents another very similar incident to that recorded in 6:30-44.

[6:5]  ⁷⁶ tn Grk “when he lifted up his eyes” (an idiom).

[6:6]  ⁷⁷ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[6:6]  ⁷⁸ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[6:7]  ⁷⁹ tn Grk “Philip answered him.”

[6:7]  ⁸⁰ tn Grk “two hundred denarii.” The denarius was a silver coin worth about a day’s wage for a laborer; this would be an amount worth about eight months’ pay.

[6:8]  ⁸¹ tn Grk “one of his disciples.”

[6:9]  ⁸² tn Grk “but what are these”; the word “good” is not in the Greek text, but is implied.

[6:10]  ⁸³ tn Grk “Make.”

[6:10]  ⁸⁴ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author (suggesting an eyewitness recollection).

[6:10]  ⁸⁵ tn Here “men” has been used in the translation because the following number, 5,000, probably included only adult males (see the parallel in Matt 14:21).

[6:11]  ⁸⁶ tn Grk “likewise also (he distributed) from the fish.”

[6:12]  ⁸⁷ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[6:13]  ⁸⁸ sn Note that the fish mentioned previously (in John 6:9) are not emphasized here, only the five barley loaves. This is easy to understand, however, because the bread is of primary importance for the author in view of Jesus’ upcoming discourse on the Bread of Life.

[6:14]  ⁸⁹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[6:14]  ⁹⁰ sn The Prophet is a reference to the “prophet like Moses” of Deut 18:15, by this time an eschatological figure in popular belief.

[6:14]  ⁹¹ sn An allusion to Deut 18:15.

[6:15]  ⁹² sn Jesus, knowing that his “hour” had not yet come (and would not, in this fashion) withdrew again up the mountainside alone. The ministry of miracles in Galilee, ending with this, the multiplication of the bread (the last public miracle in Galilee recorded by John) aroused such a popular response that there was danger of an uprising. This would have given the authorities a legal excuse to arrest Jesus. The nature of Jesus’ kingship will become an issue again in the passion narrative of the Fourth Gospel (John 18:33ff.). Furthermore, the volatile reaction of the Galileans to the signs prepares for and foreshadows the misunderstanding of the miracle itself, and even the misunderstanding of Jesus’ explanation of it (John 6:22-71).

[1:1]  ⁹³ sn In the beginning. The search for the basic “stuff” out of which things are made was the earliest one in Greek philosophy. It was attended by the related question of “What is the process by which the secondary things came out of the primary one (or ones)?,” or in Aristotelian terminology, “What is the ‘beginning’ (same Greek word as beginning, John 1:1) and what is the origin of the things that are made?” In the New Testament the word usually has a temporal sense, but even BDAG 138 s.v. ἀρχή 3 lists a major category of meaning as “the first cause.” For John, the words “In the beginning” are most likely a conscious allusion to the opening words of Genesis – “In the beginning.” Other concepts which occur prominently in Gen 1 are also found in John’s prologue: “life” (1:4) “light” (1:4) and “darkness” (1:5). Gen 1 describes the first (physical) creation; John 1 describes the new (spiritual) creation. But this is not to play off a false dichotomy between “physical” and “spiritual”; the first creation was both physical and spiritual. The new creation is really a re-creation, of the spiritual (first) but also the physical. (In spite of the common understanding of John’s “spiritual” emphasis, the “physical” re-creation should not be overlooked; this occurs in John 2 with the changing of water into wine, in John 11 with the resurrection of Lazarus, and the emphasis of John 20-21 on the aftermath of Jesus’ own resurrection.)

[1:1]  ⁹⁴ tn The preposition πρός (pros) implies not just proximity, but intimate personal relationship. M. Dods stated, “Πρός …means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another” (“The Gospel of St. John,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1:684). See also Mark 6:3, Matt 13:56, Mark 9:19, Gal 1:18, 2 John 12.

[1:1]  ⁹⁵ tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

[1:2]  ⁹⁶ tn Grk “He”; the referent (the Word) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:3]  ⁹⁷ tn Or “made”; Grk “came into existence.”

[1:3]  ⁹⁸ tn Or “made”; Grk “nothing came into existence.”

[1:3]  ⁹⁹ 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.

[1:4]  ¹⁰⁰ tn John uses ζωή (zwh) 37 times: 17 times it occurs with αἰώνιος (aiwnios), and in the remaining occurrences outside the prologue it is clear from context that “eternal” life is meant. The two uses in 1:4, if they do not refer to “eternal” life, would be the only exceptions. (Also 1 John uses ζωή 13 times, always of “eternal” life.)

[1:4]  ¹⁰¹ tn Or “humanity”; Grk “of men” (but ἄνθρωπος [anqrwpo"] is used in a generic sense here, not restricted to males only, thus “mankind,” “humanity”).

[1:5]  ¹⁰² tn To this point the author has used past tenses (imperfects, aorists); now he switches to a present. The light continually shines (thus the translation, “shines on”). Even as the author writes, it is shining. The present here most likely has gnomic force (though it is possible to take it as a historical present); it expresses the timeless truth that the light of the world (cf. 8:12, 9:5, 12:46) never ceases to shine.

[1:5]  ¹⁰³ sn The author now introduces what will become a major theme of John’s Gospel: the opposition of light and darkness. The antithesis is a natural one, widespread in antiquity. Gen 1 gives considerable emphasis to it in the account of the creation, and so do the writings of Qumran. It is the major theme of one of the most important extra-biblical documents found at Qumran, the so-called War Scroll, properly titled The War of the Sons of Light with the Sons of Darkness. Connections between John and Qumran are still an area of scholarly debate and a consensus has not yet emerged. See T. A. Hoffman, “1 John and the Qumran Scrolls,” BTB 8 (1978): 117-25.

[1:5]  ¹⁰⁴ tn Grk “and,” but the context clearly indicates a contrast, so this has been translated as an adversative use of καί (kai).

[1:5]  ¹⁰⁵ tn Or “comprehended it,” or “overcome it.” The verb κατέλαβεν (katelaben) is not easy to translate. “To seize” or “to grasp” is possible, but this also permits “to grasp with the mind” in the sense of “to comprehend” (esp. in the middle voice). This is probably another Johannine double meaning – one does not usually think of darkness as trying to “understand” light. For it to mean this, “darkness” must be understood as meaning “certain people,” or perhaps “humanity” at large, darkened in understanding. But in John’s usage, darkness is not normally used of people or a group of people. Rather it usually signifies the evil environment or ‘sphere’ in which people find themselves: “They loved darkness rather than light” (John 3:19). Those who follow Jesus do not walk in darkness (8:12). They are to walk while they have light, lest the darkness “overtake/overcome” them (12:35, same verb as here). For John, with his set of symbols and imagery, darkness is not something which seeks to “understand (comprehend)” the light, but represents the forces of evil which seek to “overcome (conquer)” it. The English verb “to master” may be used in both sorts of contexts, as “he mastered his lesson” and “he mastered his opponent.”

[1:6]  ¹⁰⁶ sn John refers to John the Baptist.

[1:7]  ¹⁰⁷ tn Grk “came for a testimony.”

[1:7]  ¹⁰⁸ tn Or “to bear witness.”

[1:7]  ¹⁰⁹ tn Grk “all.”

[1:8]  ¹¹⁰ tn Or “to bear witness.”

[1:9]  ¹¹¹ tn Grk “every man” (but in a generic sense, “every person,” or “every human being”).

[1:9]  ¹¹² 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.

[1:10]  ¹¹³ tn Or “was made”; Grk “came into existence.”

[1:10]  ¹¹⁴ tn Grk “and,” but in context this is an adversative use of καί (kai) and is thus translated “but.”

[1:10]  ¹¹⁵ tn Or “know.”

[1:11]  ¹¹⁶ tn Grk “to his own things.”

[1:11]  ¹¹⁷ tn Grk “and,” but in context this is an adversative use of καί (kai) and is thus translated “but.”

[1:11]  ¹¹⁸ tn “People” is not in the Greek text but is implied.

[1:11]  ¹¹⁹ 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.

[1:12]  ¹²⁰ 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]  ¹²¹ tn The Greek term translated “born” here also involves conception.

[1:13]  ¹²² 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]  ¹²³ 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]  ¹²⁴ tn Or “man’s.”

[1:13]  ¹²⁵ 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).

[1:14]  ¹²⁶ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic, the incarnation of the Word. Greek style often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” but English style generally does not.

[1:14]  ¹²⁷ tn This looks at the Word incarnate in humility and weakness; the word σάρξ (sarx) does not carry overtones of sinfulness here as it frequently does in Pauline usage. See also John 3:6.

[1:14]  ¹²⁸ tn Grk “and tabernacled.”

[1:14]  ¹²⁹ tn Grk “and we saw.”

[1:14]  ¹³⁰ tn Or “of the unique one.” Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God, Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).

[1:15]  ¹³¹ sn John refers to John the Baptist.

[1:15]  ¹³² tn Or “bore witness.”

[1:15]  ¹³³ tn Grk “and shouted out saying.” The participle λέγων (legwn) is redundant is English and has not been translated.

[1:15]  ¹³⁴ tn Or “has a higher rank than I.”

[1:16]  ¹³⁵ tn Grk “for from his fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.” The meaning of the phrase χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος (carin anti carito") could be: (1) love (grace) under the New Covenant in place of love (grace) under the Sinai Covenant, thus replacement; (2) grace “on top of” grace, thus accumulation; (3) grace corresponding to grace, thus correspondence. The most commonly held view is (2) in one sense or another, and this is probably the best explanation. This sense is supported by a fairly well-known use in Philo, Posterity 43 (145). Morna D. Hooker suggested that Exod 33:13 provides the background for this expression: “Now therefore, I pray you, if I have found χάρις (LXX) in your sight, let me know your ways, that I may know you, so that I may find χάρις (LXX) in your sight.” Hooker proposed that it is this idea of favor given to one who has already received favor which lies behind 1:16, and this seems very probable as a good explanation of the meaning of the phrase (“The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret,” NTS 21 [1974/75]: 53).

[1:17]  ¹³⁶ tn “But” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the implied contrast between the Mosaic law and grace through Jesus Christ. John 1:17 seems to indicate clearly that the Old Covenant (Sinai) was being contrasted with the New. In Jewish sources the Law was regarded as a gift from God (Josephus, Ant. 3.8.10 [3.223]; Pirqe Avot 1.1; Sifre Deut 31:4 §305). Further information can be found in T. F. Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel (SBT).

[1:18]  ¹³⁷ tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh" qeo", “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh" Juio", “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C³ Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì⁷⁵ א¹ 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì⁶⁶ א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo" hn Jo logo") means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

[1:18]  ¹³⁸ tn Grk “in the bosom of” (an idiom for closeness or nearness; cf. L&N 34.18; BDAG 556 s.v. κόλπος 1).

[1:18]  ¹³⁹ tn Grk “him”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:18]  ¹⁴⁰ sn Has made God known. In this final verse of the prologue, the climactic and ultimate statement of the earthly career of the Logos, Jesus of Nazareth, is reached. The unique One (John 1:14), the One who has taken on human form and nature by becoming incarnate (became flesh, 1:14), who is himself fully God (the Word was God, 1:1c) and is to be identified with the ever-living One of the Old Testament revelation (Exod 3:14), who is in intimate relationship with the Father, this One and no other has fully revealed what God is like. As Jesus said to Philip in John 14:9, “The one who has seen me has seen the Father.”

[1:19]  ¹⁴¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic. Greek style often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” but English style generally does not.

[1:19]  ¹⁴² tn Grk “is.”

[1:19]  ¹⁴³ sn John’s refers to John the Baptist.

[1:19]  ¹⁴⁴ tn Or “witness.”

[1:19]  ¹⁴⁵ tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” In NT usage the term ᾿Iουδαῖοι (Ioudaioi) may refer to the entire Jewish people, the residents of Jerusalem and surrounding territory, the authorities in Jerusalem, or merely those who were hostile to Jesus. Here the author refers to the authorities or leaders in Jerusalem. (For further information see R. G. Bratcher, “‘The Jews’ in the Gospel of John,” BT 26 [1975]: 401-9.)

[1:19]  ¹⁴⁶ tc ‡ Several important witnesses have πρὸς αὐτόν (pro" auton, “to him”) either here (B C* 33 892^c al it) or after “Levites” (Ì^{66c vid} A Θ Ψ Ë¹³ 579 al lat), while the earliest mss as well as the majority of mss (Ì^66*,75 א C³ L W^s ˹ Ï) lack the phrase. On the one hand, πρὸς αὐτόν could be perceived as redundant since αὐτόν is used again later in the verse, thus prompting scribes to omit the phrase. On the other hand, both the variation in placement of πρὸς αὐτόν and the fact that this phrase rather than the latter αὐτόν is lacking in certain witnesses (cf. John 11:44; 14:7; 18:31), suggests that scribes felt that the sentence needed the phrase to make the sense clearer. Although a decision is difficult, the shorter reading is slightly preferred. NA²⁷ has πρὸς αὐτόν in brackets, indicating doubt as to the phrase’s authenticity.

[1:19]  ¹⁴⁷ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[1:19]  ¹⁴⁸ sn “Who are you?” No uniform Jewish expectation of a single eschatological figure existed in the 1st century. A majority expected the Messiah. But some pseudepigraphic books describe God’s intervention without mentioning the anointed Davidic king; in parts of 1 Enoch, for example, the figure of the Son of Man, not the Messiah, embodies the expectations of the author. Essenes at Qumran seem to have expected three figures: a prophet, a priestly messiah, and a royal messiah. In baptizing, John the Baptist was performing an eschatological action. It also seems to have been part of his proclamation (John 1:23, 26-27). Crowds were beginning to follow him. He was operating in an area not too far from the Essene center on the Dead Sea. No wonder the authorities were curious about who he was.

[1:20]  ¹⁴⁹ tn Or “the Messiah” (Both Greek “Christ” and Hebrew and Aramaic “Messiah” mean “one who has been anointed”).

[1:21]  ¹⁵⁰ tn Grk “What then?” (an idiom).

[1:21]  ¹⁵¹ sn According to the 1st century rabbinic interpretation of 2 Kgs 2:11, Elijah was still alive. In Mal 4:5 it is said that Elijah would be the precursor of Messiah. How does one reconcile John the Baptist’s denial here (“I am not”) with Jesus’ statements in Matt 11:14 (see also Mark 9:13 and Matt 17:12) that John the Baptist was Elijah? Some have attempted to remove the difficulty by a reconstruction of the text in the Gospel of John which makes the Baptist say that he was Elijah. However, external support for such emendations is lacking. According to Gregory the Great, John was not Elijah, but exercised toward Jesus the function of Elijah by preparing his way. But this avoids the real difficulty, since in John’s Gospel the question of the Jewish authorities to the Baptist concerns precisely his function. It has also been suggested that the author of the Gospel here preserves a historically correct reminiscence – that John the Baptist did not think of himself as Elijah, although Jesus said otherwise. Mark 6:14-16 and Mark 8:28 indicate the people and Herod both distinguished between John and Elijah – probably because he did not see himself as Elijah. But Jesus’ remarks in Matt 11:14, Mark 9:13, and Matt 17:12 indicate that John did perform the function of Elijah – John did for Jesus what Elijah was to have done for the coming of the Lord. C. F. D. Moule pointed out that it is too simple to see a straight contradiction between John’s account and that of the synoptic gospels: “We have to ask by whom the identification is made, and by whom refused. The synoptic gospels represent Jesus as identifying, or comparing, the Baptist with Elijah, while John represents the Baptist as rejecting the identification when it is offered him by his interviewers. Now these two, so far from being incompatible, are psychologically complementary. The Baptist humbly rejects the exalted title, but Jesus, on the contrary, bestows it on him. Why should not the two both be correct?” (The Phenomenon of the New Testament [SBT], 70).

[1:21]  ¹⁵² sn The Prophet is a reference to the “prophet like Moses” of Deut 18:15, by this time an eschatological figure in popular belief. Acts 3:22 identifies Jesus as this prophet.

[1:22]  ¹⁵³ tn The words “Tell us” are not in the Greek but are implied.

[1:23]  ¹⁵⁴ tn Grk “He”; the referent (John the Baptist) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:23]  ¹⁵⁵ sn This call to “make straight” is probably an allusion to preparation through repentance.

[1:23]  ¹⁵⁶ sn A quotation from Isa 40:3.

[1:24]  ¹⁵⁷ sn Pharisees were members of one of the most important and influential religious and political parties of Judaism in the time of Jesus. There were more Pharisees than Sadducees (according to Josephus, Ant. 17.2.4 [17.42] there were more than 6,000 Pharisees at about this time). Pharisees differed with Sadducees on certain doctrines and patterns of behavior. The Pharisees were strict and zealous adherents to the laws of the OT and to numerous additional traditions such as angels and bodily resurrection.

[1:24]  ¹⁵⁸ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[1:25]  ¹⁵⁹ tn Grk “And they asked him, and said to him”; the referent (John) has been specified in the translation for clarity, and the phrase has been simplified in the translation to “So they asked John.”

[1:25]  ¹⁶⁰ tn Or “the Messiah” (Both Greek “Christ” and Hebrew and Aramaic “Messiah” mean “one who has been anointed”).

[1:26]  ¹⁶¹ tn Grk “answered them, saying.” The participle λέγων (legwn) is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.

[1:26]  ¹⁶² tn Or “know.”

[1:27]  ¹⁶³ tn Grk “of whom I am not worthy.”

[1:27]  ¹⁶⁴ tn The term refers to the leather strap or thong used to bind a sandal. This is often viewed as a collective singular and translated as a plural, “the straps of his sandals,” but it may be more emphatic to retain the singular here.

[1:28]  ¹⁶⁵ tc Many witnesses ([א²] C² K T Ψ^c 083 Ë^1,13 33 pm sa Or) read Βηθαβαρᾷ (Bhqabara, “Bethabara”) instead of Βηθανίᾳ (Bhqania, “Bethany”). But the reading Βηθανίᾳ is strongly supported by {Ì^66,75 A B C* L W^s Δ Θ Ψ* 565 579 700 1241 1424 pm latt bo as well as several fathers}. Since there is no known Bethany “beyond the Jordan,” it is likely that the name would have been changed to a more etymologically edifying one (Origen mistakenly thought the name Bethabara meant “house of preparation” and for this reason was appropriate in this context; see TCGNT 171 for discussion). On the other hand, both since Origen’s understanding of the Semitic etymology of Bethabara was incorrect, and because Bethany was at least a well-known location in Palestine, mentioned in the Gospels about a dozen times, one has to wonder whether scribes replaced Βηθαβαρᾷ with Βηθανίᾳ. However, if Origen’s understanding of the etymology of the name was representative, scribes may have altered the text in the direction of Bethabara. And even if most scribes were unfamiliar with what the name might signify, that a reading which did not contradict the Gospels’ statements of a Bethany near Jerusalem was already at hand may have been sufficient reason for them to adopt Bethabara. Further, in light of the very strong testimony for Βηθανίᾳ, this reading should be regarded as authentic.

[1:28]  ¹⁶⁶ tn “River” is not in the Greek text but is supplied for clarity.

[1:29]  ¹⁶⁷ tn Grk “he”; the referent (John) has been supplied in the translation for clarity.

[1:29]  ¹⁶⁸ sn Gen 22:8 is an important passage in the background of the title Lamb of God as applied to Jesus. In Jewish thought this was held to be a supremely important sacrifice. G. Vermès stated: “For the Palestinian Jew, all lamb sacrifice, and especially the Passover lamb and the Tamid offering, was a memorial of the Akedah with its effects of deliverance, forgiveness of sin and messianic salvation” (Scripture and Tradition in Judaism [StPB], 225).

[1:30]  ¹⁶⁹ tn Or “has a higher rank than I.”

[1:31]  ¹⁷⁰ tn Or “know.”

[1:31]  ¹⁷¹ sn John the Baptist, who has been so reluctant to elaborate his own role, now more than willingly gives his testimony about Jesus. For the author, the emphasis is totally on John the Baptist as a witness to Jesus. No attention is given to the Baptist’s call to national repentance and very little to his baptizing. Everything is focused on what he has to say about Jesus: so that he could be revealed to Israel.

[1:32]  ¹⁷² tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events in the narrative. Greek style often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” but English style generally does not.

[1:32]  ¹⁷³ tn Grk “testified, saying.” The participle λέγων (legwn) is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.

[1:32]  ¹⁷⁴ sn The phrase like a dove is a descriptive comparison. The Spirit is not a dove, but descended like one in some sort of bodily representation.

[1:32]  ¹⁷⁵ tn Or “from the sky.” The Greek word οὐρανός (ouranos) may be translated “sky” or “heaven,” depending on the context.

[1:32]  ¹⁷⁶ sn John says the Spirit remained on Jesus. The Greek verb μένω (menw) is a favorite Johannine word, used 40 times in the Gospel and 27 times in the Epistles (67 together) against 118 times total in the NT. The general significance of the verb μένω for John is to express the permanency of relationship between Father and Son and Son and believer. Here the use of the word implies that Jesus permanently possesses the Holy Spirit, and because he does, he will dispense the Holy Spirit to others in baptism. Other notes on the dispensation of the Spirit occur at John 3:5 and following (at least implied by the wordplay), John 3:34, 7:38-39, numerous passages in John 14-16 (the Paraclete passages) and John 20:22. Note also the allusion to Isa 42:1 – “Behold my servant…my chosen one in whom my soul delights. I have put my Spirit on him.”

[1:34]  ¹⁷⁷ tc ‡ What did John the Baptist declare about Jesus on this occasion? Did he say, “This is the Son of God” (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, |outo" estin Jo Juio" tou qeou), or “This is the Chosen One of God” (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, outo" estin Jo eklekto" tou qeou)? The majority of the witnesses, impressive because of their diversity in age and locales, read “This is the Son of God” (so {Ì^66,75 A B C L Θ Ψ 0233^vid Ë^1,13 33 1241 aur c f l g bo as well as the majority of Byzantine minuscules and many others}). Most scholars take this to be sufficient evidence to regard the issue as settled without much of a need to reflect on internal evidence. On the other hand, one of the earliest mss for this verse, {Ì⁵} (3rd century), evidently read οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. (There is a gap in the ms at the point of the disputed words; it is too large for υἱός especially if written, as it surely would have been, as a nomen sacrum [uMs]. The term ἐκλεκτός was not a nomen sacrum and would have therefore taken up much more space [eklektos]. Given these two variants, there is hardly any question as to what Ì⁵ read.) This papyrus has many affinities with א*, which here also has ὁ ἐκλεκτός. In addition to their combined testimony Ì^106vid b e ff^2* sy^s,c also support this reading. ̹⁰⁶ is particularly impressive, for it is a second third-century papyrus in support of ὁ ἐκλεκτός. A third reading combines these two: “the elect Son” (electus filius in ff^2c sa and a [with slight variation]). Although the evidence for ἐκλεκτός is not as impressive as that for υἱός, the reading is found in early Alexandrian and Western witnesses. Turning to the internal evidence, “the Chosen One” clearly comes out ahead. “Son of God” is a favorite expression of the author (cf. 1:49; 3:18; 5:25; 10:36; 11:4, 27; 19:7; 20:31); further, there are several other references to “his Son,” “the Son,” etc. Scribes would be naturally motivated to change ἐκλεκτός to υἱός since the latter is both a Johannine expression and is, on the surface, richer theologically in 1:34. On the other hand, there is not a sufficient reason for scribes to change υἱός to ἐκλεκτός. The term never occurs in John; even its verbal cognate (ἐκλέγω, eklegw) is never affirmed of Jesus in this Gospel. ἐκλεκτός clearly best explains the rise of υἱός. Further, the third reading (“Chosen Son of God”) is patently a conflation of the other two. It has all the earmarks of adding υἱός to ἐκλεκτός. Thus, ὁ υἱός τοῦ θεοῦ is almost certainly a motivated reading. As R. E. Brown notes (John [AB], 1:57), “On the basis of theological tendency…it is difficult to imagine that Christian scribes would change ‘the Son of God’ to ‘God’s chosen one,’ while a change in the opposite direction would be quite plausible. Harmonization with the Synoptic accounts of the baptism (‘You are [This is] my beloved Son’) would also explain the introduction of ‘the Son of God’ into John; the same phenomenon occurs in vi 69. Despite the weaker textual evidence, therefore, it seems best – with Lagrange, Barrett, Boismard, and others – to accept ‘God’s chosen one’ as original.”

[1:35]  ¹⁷⁸ sn John refers to John the Baptist.

[1:35]  ¹⁷⁹ tn “There” is not in the Greek text but is implied by current English idiom.

[1:36]  ¹⁸⁰ sn This section (1:35-51) is joined to the preceding by the literary expedient of repeating the Baptist’s testimony about Jesus being the Lamb of God (1:36, cf. 1:29). This repeated testimony (1:36) no longer has revelatory value in itself, since it has been given before; its purpose, instead, is to institute a chain reaction which will bring John the Baptist’s disciples to Jesus and make them Jesus’ own disciples.

[1:37]  ¹⁸¹ tn Grk “his”; the referent (John) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:37]  ¹⁸² tn Grk “And the two disciples heard him speaking.”

[1:37]  ¹⁸³ sn The expression followed Jesus pictures discipleship, which means that to learn from Jesus is to follow him as the guiding priority of one’s life.

[1:38]  ¹⁸⁴ tn Grk “What are you seeking?”

[1:38]  ¹⁸⁵ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[1:39]  ¹⁸⁶ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:39]  ¹⁸⁷ tn Grk “said to them.”

[1:39]  ¹⁸⁸ tn Grk “about the tenth hour.”

[1:40]  ¹⁸⁹ tn Grk “who heard from John.”

[1:40]  ¹⁹⁰ tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:41]  ¹⁹¹ tc Most witnesses (א* L W^s Ï) read πρῶτος (prwtos) here instead of πρῶτον (prwton). The former reading would be a predicate adjective and suggest that Andrew “was the first” person to proselytize another regarding Jesus. The reading preferred, however, is the neuter πρῶτον, used as an adverb (BDAG 893 s.v. πρῶτος 1.a.β.), and it suggests that the first thing that Andrew did was to proselytize Peter. The evidence for this reading is early and weighty: Ì^66,75 א² A B Θ Ψ 083 Ë^1,13 892 al lat.

[1:41]  ¹⁹² sn Naturally part of Andrew’s concept of the Messiah would have been learned from John the Baptist (v. 40). However, there were a number of different messianic expectations in 1st century Palestine (see the note on “Who are you?” in v. 19), and it would be wrong to assume that what Andrew meant here is the same thing the author means in the purpose statement at the end of the Fourth Gospel, 20:31. The issue here is not whether the disciples’ initial faith in Jesus as Messiah was genuine or not, but whether their concept of who Jesus was grew and developed progressively as they spent time following him, until finally after his resurrection it is affirmed in the climactic statement of John’s Gospel, the affirmation of Thomas in 20:28.

[1:41]  ¹⁹³ tn Both Greek “Christ” and Hebrew and Aramaic “Messiah” mean “the one who has been anointed.”

[1:42]  ¹⁹⁴ tn Grk “He brought him”; both referents (Andrew, Simon) have been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:42]  ¹⁹⁵ tc The reading “Simon, son of John” is well attested in Ì^66,75,106 א B* L 33 pc it co. The majority of mss (A B² Ψ Ë^1,13 Ï) read “Simon, the son of Jonah” here instead, but that is perhaps an assimilation to Matt 16:17.

[1:42]  ¹⁹⁶ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author. The change of name from Simon to Cephas is indicative of the future role he will play. Only John among the gospel writers gives the Greek transliteration (Κηφᾶς, Khfas) of Simon’s new name, Qéphâ (which is Galilean Aramaic). Neither Πέτρος (Petros) in Greek nor Qéphâ in Aramaic is a normal proper name; it is more like a nickname.

[1:43]  ¹⁹⁷ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity. Jesus is best taken as the subject of εὑρίσκει (Jeuriskei), since Peter would scarcely have wanted to go to Galilee.

[1:43]  ¹⁹⁸ sn No explanation is given for why Jesus wanted to set out for Galilee, but probably he wanted to go to the wedding at Cana (about a two day trip).

[1:43]  ¹⁹⁹ tn Grk “and he.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

[1:43]  ²⁰⁰ tn Grk “and Jesus said.”

[1:44]  ²⁰¹ sn Although the author thought of the town as in Galilee (12:21), Bethsaida technically was in Gaulanitis (Philip the Tetrarch’s territory) across from Herod’s Galilee. There may have been two places called Bethsaida, or this may merely reflect popular imprecision – locally it was considered part of Galilee, even though it was just east of the Jordan river. This territory was heavily Gentile (which may explain why Andrew and Philip both have Gentile names).

[1:44]  ²⁰² tn Probably ἀπό (apo) indicates “originally from” in the sense of birthplace rather than current residence; Mark 1:21, 29 seems to locate the home of Andrew and Peter at Capernaum. The entire remark (v. 44) amounts to a parenthetical comment by the author.

[1:45]  ²⁰³ sn Nathanael is traditionally identified with Bartholomew (although John never describes him as such). He appears here after Philip, while in all lists of the twelve except in Acts 1:13, Bartholomew follows Philip. Also, the Aramaic Bar-tolmai means “son of Tolmai,” the surname; the man almost certainly had another name.

[1:45]  ²⁰⁴ tn “Also” is not in the Greek text, but is implied.

[1:46]  ²⁰⁵ tn Grk “And Nathanael.”

[1:46]  ²⁰⁶ tn Grk “said to him.”

[1:46]  ²⁰⁷ sn Can anything good come out of Nazareth? may be a local proverb expressing jealousy among the towns.

[1:46]  ²⁰⁸ tn Grk “And Philip said to him.”

[1:47]  ²⁰⁹ tn Grk “said about him.”

[1:47]  ²¹⁰ tn Or “treachery.”

[1:48]  ²¹¹ tn Grk “answered and said to him.” This is somewhat redundant in English and has been simplified in the translation to “replied.”

[1:48]  ²¹² sn Many have speculated about what Nathanael was doing under the fig tree. Meditating on the Messiah who was to come? A good possibility, since the fig tree was used as shade for teaching or studying by the later rabbis (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 5:11). Also, the fig tree was symbolic for messianic peace and plenty (Mic 4:4, Zech 3:10.)

[1:49]  ²¹³ tn Although βασιλεύς (basileus) lacks the article it is definite due to contextual and syntactical considerations. See ExSyn 263.

[1:49]  ²¹⁴ sn Nathanael’s confession – You are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel – is best understood as a confession of Jesus’ messiahship. It has strong allusions to Ps 2:6-7, a well-known messianic psalm. What Nathanael’s exact understanding was at this point is hard to determine, but “son of God” was a designation for the Davidic king in the OT, and Nathanael parallels it with King of Israel here.

[1:50]  ²¹⁵ tn Grk “answered and said to him.” This has been simplified in the translation to “said to him.”

[1:50]  ²¹⁶ sn What are the greater things Jesus had in mind? In the narrative this forms an excellent foreshadowing of the miraculous signs which began at Cana of Galilee.

[1:51]  ²¹⁷ tn Grk “and he said to him.”

[1:51]  ²¹⁸ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

[1:51]  ²¹⁹ sn The title Son of Man appears 13 times in John’s Gospel. It is associated especially with the themes of crucifixion (3:14; 8:28), revelation (6:27; 6:53), and eschatological authority (5:27; 9:35). The title as used in John’s Gospel has for its background the son of man figure who appears in Dan 7:13-14 and is granted universal regal authority. Thus for the author, the emphasis in this title is not on Jesus’ humanity, but on his heavenly origin and divine authority.

[1:1]  ²²⁰ sn In the beginning. The search for the basic “stuff” out of which things are made was the earliest one in Greek philosophy. It was attended by the related question of “What is the process by which the secondary things came out of the primary one (or ones)?,” or in Aristotelian terminology, “What is the ‘beginning’ (same Greek word as beginning, John 1:1) and what is the origin of the things that are made?” In the New Testament the word usually has a temporal sense, but even BDAG 138 s.v. ἀρχή 3 lists a major category of meaning as “the first cause.” For John, the words “In the beginning” are most likely a conscious allusion to the opening words of Genesis – “In the beginning.” Other concepts which occur prominently in Gen 1 are also found in John’s prologue: “life” (1:4) “light” (1:4) and “darkness” (1:5). Gen 1 describes the first (physical) creation; John 1 describes the new (spiritual) creation. But this is not to play off a false dichotomy between “physical” and “spiritual”; the first creation was both physical and spiritual. The new creation is really a re-creation, of the spiritual (first) but also the physical. (In spite of the common understanding of John’s “spiritual” emphasis, the “physical” re-creation should not be overlooked; this occurs in John 2 with the changing of water into wine, in John 11 with the resurrection of Lazarus, and the emphasis of John 20-21 on the aftermath of Jesus’ own resurrection.)

[1:1]  ²²¹ tn The preposition πρός (pros) implies not just proximity, but intimate personal relationship. M. Dods stated, “Πρός …means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another” (“The Gospel of St. John,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1:684). See also Mark 6:3, Matt 13:56, Mark 9:19, Gal 1:18, 2 John 12.

[1:1]  ²²² tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

[1:2]  ²²³ tn Grk “He”; the referent (the Word) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:3]  ²²⁴ tn Or “made”; Grk “came into existence.”

[1:3]  ²²⁵ tn Or “made”; Grk “nothing came into existence.”

[1:3]  ²²⁶ 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.

[1:4]  ²²⁷ tn John uses ζωή (zwh) 37 times: 17 times it occurs with αἰώνιος (aiwnios), and in the remaining occurrences outside the prologue it is clear from context that “eternal” life is meant. The two uses in 1:4, if they do not refer to “eternal” life, would be the only exceptions. (Also 1 John uses ζωή 13 times, always of “eternal” life.)

[1:4]  ²²⁸ tn Or “humanity”; Grk “of men” (but ἄνθρωπος [anqrwpo"] is used in a generic sense here, not restricted to males only, thus “mankind,” “humanity”).

[1:5]  ²²⁹ tn To this point the author has used past tenses (imperfects, aorists); now he switches to a present. The light continually shines (thus the translation, “shines on”). Even as the author writes, it is shining. The present here most likely has gnomic force (though it is possible to take it as a historical present); it expresses the timeless truth that the light of the world (cf. 8:12, 9:5, 12:46) never ceases to shine.

[1:5]  ²³⁰ sn The author now introduces what will become a major theme of John’s Gospel: the opposition of light and darkness. The antithesis is a natural one, widespread in antiquity. Gen 1 gives considerable emphasis to it in the account of the creation, and so do the writings of Qumran. It is the major theme of one of the most important extra-biblical documents found at Qumran, the so-called War Scroll, properly titled The War of the Sons of Light with the Sons of Darkness. Connections between John and Qumran are still an area of scholarly debate and a consensus has not yet emerged. See T. A. Hoffman, “1 John and the Qumran Scrolls,” BTB 8 (1978): 117-25.

[1:5]  ²³¹ tn Grk “and,” but the context clearly indicates a contrast, so this has been translated as an adversative use of καί (kai).

[1:5]  ²³² tn Or “comprehended it,” or “overcome it.” The verb κατέλαβεν (katelaben) is not easy to translate. “To seize” or “to grasp” is possible, but this also permits “to grasp with the mind” in the sense of “to comprehend” (esp. in the middle voice). This is probably another Johannine double meaning – one does not usually think of darkness as trying to “understand” light. For it to mean this, “darkness” must be understood as meaning “certain people,” or perhaps “humanity” at large, darkened in understanding. But in John’s usage, darkness is not normally used of people or a group of people. Rather it usually signifies the evil environment or ‘sphere’ in which people find themselves: “They loved darkness rather than light” (John 3:19). Those who follow Jesus do not walk in darkness (8:12). They are to walk while they have light, lest the darkness “overtake/overcome” them (12:35, same verb as here). For John, with his set of symbols and imagery, darkness is not something which seeks to “understand (comprehend)” the light, but represents the forces of evil which seek to “overcome (conquer)” it. The English verb “to master” may be used in both sorts of contexts, as “he mastered his lesson” and “he mastered his opponent.”

[1:6]  ²³³ sn John refers to John the Baptist.

[1:7]  ²³⁴ tn Grk “came for a testimony.”

[1:7]  ²³⁵ tn Or “to bear witness.”

[1:7]  ²³⁶ tn Grk “all.”

[1:8]  ²³⁷ tn Or “to bear witness.”

[1:9]  ²³⁸ tn Grk “every man” (but in a generic sense, “every person,” or “every human being”).

[1:9]  ²³⁹ 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.

[1:10]  ²⁴⁰ tn Or “was made”; Grk “came into existence.”

[1:10]  ²⁴¹ tn Grk “and,” but in context this is an adversative use of καί (kai) and is thus translated “but.”

[1:10]  ²⁴² tn Or “know.”

[1:11]  ²⁴³ tn Grk “to his own things.”

[1:11]  ²⁴⁴ tn Grk “and,” but in context this is an adversative use of καί (kai) and is thus translated “but.”

[1:11]  ²⁴⁵ tn “People” is not in the Greek text but is implied.

[1:11]  ²⁴⁶ 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.

[1:12]  ²⁴⁷ 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]  ²⁴⁸ tn The Greek term translated “born” here also involves conception.

[1:13]  ²⁴⁹ 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]  ²⁵⁰ 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]  ²⁵¹ tn Or “man’s.”

[1:13]  ²⁵² 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).

[1:14]  ²⁵³ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic, the incarnation of the Word. Greek style often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” but English style generally does not.

[1:14]  ²⁵⁴ tn This looks at the Word incarnate in humility and weakness; the word σάρξ (sarx) does not carry overtones of sinfulness here as it frequently does in Pauline usage. See also John 3:6.

[1:14]  ²⁵⁵ tn Grk “and tabernacled.”

[1:14]  ²⁵⁶ tn Grk “and we saw.”

[1:14]  ²⁵⁷ tn Or “of the unique one.” Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God, Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).

[1:15]  ²⁵⁸ sn John refers to John the Baptist.

[1:15]  ²⁵⁹ tn Or “bore witness.”

[1:15]  ²⁶⁰ tn Grk “and shouted out saying.” The participle λέγων (legwn) is redundant is English and has not been translated.

[1:15]  ²⁶¹ tn Or “has a higher rank than I.”

[1:16]  ²⁶² tn Grk “for from his fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.” The meaning of the phrase χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος (carin anti carito") could be: (1) love (grace) under the New Covenant in place of love (grace) under the Sinai Covenant, thus replacement; (2) grace “on top of” grace, thus accumulation; (3) grace corresponding to grace, thus correspondence. The most commonly held view is (2) in one sense or another, and this is probably the best explanation. This sense is supported by a fairly well-known use in Philo, Posterity 43 (145). Morna D. Hooker suggested that Exod 33:13 provides the background for this expression: “Now therefore, I pray you, if I have found χάρις (LXX) in your sight, let me know your ways, that I may know you, so that I may find χάρις (LXX) in your sight.” Hooker proposed that it is this idea of favor given to one who has already received favor which lies behind 1:16, and this seems very probable as a good explanation of the meaning of the phrase (“The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret,” NTS 21 [1974/75]: 53).

[1:17]  ²⁶³ tn “But” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the implied contrast between the Mosaic law and grace through Jesus Christ. John 1:17 seems to indicate clearly that the Old Covenant (Sinai) was being contrasted with the New. In Jewish sources the Law was regarded as a gift from God (Josephus, Ant. 3.8.10 [3.223]; Pirqe Avot 1.1; Sifre Deut 31:4 §305). Further information can be found in T. F. Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel (SBT).

[1:18]  ²⁶⁴ tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh" qeo", “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh" Juio", “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C³ Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì⁷⁵ א¹ 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì⁶⁶ א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo" hn Jo logo") means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

[1:18]  ²⁶⁵ tn Grk “in the bosom of” (an idiom for closeness or nearness; cf. L&N 34.18; BDAG 556 s.v. κόλπος 1).

[1:18]  ²⁶⁶ tn Grk “him”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:18]  ²⁶⁷ sn Has made God known. In this final verse of the prologue, the climactic and ultimate statement of the earthly career of the Logos, Jesus of Nazareth, is reached. The unique One (John 1:14), the One who has taken on human form and nature by becoming incarnate (became flesh, 1:14), who is himself fully God (the Word was God, 1:1c) and is to be identified with the ever-living One of the Old Testament revelation (Exod 3:14), who is in intimate relationship with the Father, this One and no other has fully revealed what God is like. As Jesus said to Philip in John 14:9, “The one who has seen me has seen the Father.”

[1:19]  ²⁶⁸ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic. Greek style often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” but English style generally does not.

[1:19]  ²⁶⁹ tn Grk “is.”

[1:19]  ²⁷⁰ sn John’s refers to John the Baptist.

[1:19]  ²⁷¹ tn Or “witness.”

[1:19]  ²⁷² tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” In NT usage the term ᾿Iουδαῖοι (Ioudaioi) may refer to the entire Jewish people, the residents of Jerusalem and surrounding territory, the authorities in Jerusalem, or merely those who were hostile to Jesus. Here the author refers to the authorities or leaders in Jerusalem. (For further information see R. G. Bratcher, “‘The Jews’ in the Gospel of John,” BT 26 [1975]: 401-9.)

[1:19]  ²⁷³ tc ‡ Several important witnesses have πρὸς αὐτόν (pro" auton, “to him”) either here (B C* 33 892^c al it) or after “Levites” (Ì^{66c vid} A Θ Ψ Ë¹³ 579 al lat), while the earliest mss as well as the majority of mss (Ì^66*,75 א C³ L W^s ˹ Ï) lack the phrase. On the one hand, πρὸς αὐτόν could be perceived as redundant since αὐτόν is used again later in the verse, thus prompting scribes to omit the phrase. On the other hand, both the variation in placement of πρὸς αὐτόν and the fact that this phrase rather than the latter αὐτόν is lacking in certain witnesses (cf. John 11:44; 14:7; 18:31), suggests that scribes felt that the sentence needed the phrase to make the sense clearer. Although a decision is difficult, the shorter reading is slightly preferred. NA²⁷ has πρὸς αὐτόν in brackets, indicating doubt as to the phrase’s authenticity.

[1:19]  ²⁷⁴ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[1:19]  ²⁷⁵ sn “Who are you?” No uniform Jewish expectation of a single eschatological figure existed in the 1st century. A majority expected the Messiah. But some pseudepigraphic books describe God’s intervention without mentioning the anointed Davidic king; in parts of 1 Enoch, for example, the figure of the Son of Man, not the Messiah, embodies the expectations of the author. Essenes at Qumran seem to have expected three figures: a prophet, a priestly messiah, and a royal messiah. In baptizing, John the Baptist was performing an eschatological action. It also seems to have been part of his proclamation (John 1:23, 26-27). Crowds were beginning to follow him. He was operating in an area not too far from the Essene center on the Dead Sea. No wonder the authorities were curious about who he was.

[1:20]  ²⁷⁶ tn Or “the Messiah” (Both Greek “Christ” and Hebrew and Aramaic “Messiah” mean “one who has been anointed”).

[1:21]  ²⁷⁷ tn Grk “What then?” (an idiom).

[1:21]  ²⁷⁸ sn According to the 1st century rabbinic interpretation of 2 Kgs 2:11, Elijah was still alive. In Mal 4:5 it is said that Elijah would be the precursor of Messiah. How does one reconcile John the Baptist’s denial here (“I am not”) with Jesus’ statements in Matt 11:14 (see also Mark 9:13 and Matt 17:12) that John the Baptist was Elijah? Some have attempted to remove the difficulty by a reconstruction of the text in the Gospel of John which makes the Baptist say that he was Elijah. However, external support for such emendations is lacking. According to Gregory the Great, John was not Elijah, but exercised toward Jesus the function of Elijah by preparing his way. But this avoids the real difficulty, since in John’s Gospel the question of the Jewish authorities to the Baptist concerns precisely his function. It has also been suggested that the author of the Gospel here preserves a historically correct reminiscence – that John the Baptist did not think of himself as Elijah, although Jesus said otherwise. Mark 6:14-16 and Mark 8:28 indicate the people and Herod both distinguished between John and Elijah – probably because he did not see himself as Elijah. But Jesus’ remarks in Matt 11:14, Mark 9:13, and Matt 17:12 indicate that John did perform the function of Elijah – John did for Jesus what Elijah was to have done for the coming of the Lord. C. F. D. Moule pointed out that it is too simple to see a straight contradiction between John’s account and that of the synoptic gospels: “We have to ask by whom the identification is made, and by whom refused. The synoptic gospels represent Jesus as identifying, or comparing, the Baptist with Elijah, while John represents the Baptist as rejecting the identification when it is offered him by his interviewers. Now these two, so far from being incompatible, are psychologically complementary. The Baptist humbly rejects the exalted title, but Jesus, on the contrary, bestows it on him. Why should not the two both be correct?” (The Phenomenon of the New Testament [SBT], 70).

[1:21]  ²⁷⁹ sn The Prophet is a reference to the “prophet like Moses” of Deut 18:15, by this time an eschatological figure in popular belief. Acts 3:22 identifies Jesus as this prophet.

[1:22]  ²⁸⁰ tn The words “Tell us” are not in the Greek but are implied.

[1:23]  ²⁸¹ tn Grk “He”; the referent (John the Baptist) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:23]  ²⁸² sn This call to “make straight” is probably an allusion to preparation through repentance.

[1:23]  ²⁸³ sn A quotation from Isa 40:3.

[1:24]  ²⁸⁴ sn Pharisees were members of one of the most important and influential religious and political parties of Judaism in the time of Jesus. There were more Pharisees than Sadducees (according to Josephus, Ant. 17.2.4 [17.42] there were more than 6,000 Pharisees at about this time). Pharisees differed with Sadducees on certain doctrines and patterns of behavior. The Pharisees were strict and zealous adherents to the laws of the OT and to numerous additional traditions such as angels and bodily resurrection.

[1:24]  ²⁸⁵ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[1:25]  ²⁸⁶ tn Grk “And they asked him, and said to him”; the referent (John) has been specified in the translation for clarity, and the phrase has been simplified in the translation to “So they asked John.”

[1:25]  ²⁸⁷ tn Or “the Messiah” (Both Greek “Christ” and Hebrew and Aramaic “Messiah” mean “one who has been anointed”).

[1:26]  ²⁸⁸ tn Grk “answered them, saying.” The participle λέγων (legwn) is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.

[1:26]  ²⁸⁹ tn Or “know.”

[1:27]  ²⁹⁰ tn Grk “of whom I am not worthy.”

[1:27]  ²⁹¹ tn The term refers to the leather strap or thong used to bind a sandal. This is often viewed as a collective singular and translated as a plural, “the straps of his sandals,” but it may be more emphatic to retain the singular here.

[1:28]  ²⁹² tc Many witnesses ([א²] C² K T Ψ^c 083 Ë^1,13 33 pm sa Or) read Βηθαβαρᾷ (Bhqabara, “Bethabara”) instead of Βηθανίᾳ (Bhqania, “Bethany”). But the reading Βηθανίᾳ is strongly supported by {Ì^66,75 A B C* L W^s Δ Θ Ψ* 565 579 700 1241 1424 pm latt bo as well as several fathers}. Since there is no known Bethany “beyond the Jordan,” it is likely that the name would have been changed to a more etymologically edifying one (Origen mistakenly thought the name Bethabara meant “house of preparation” and for this reason was appropriate in this context; see TCGNT 171 for discussion). On the other hand, both since Origen’s understanding of the Semitic etymology of Bethabara was incorrect, and because Bethany was at least a well-known location in Palestine, mentioned in the Gospels about a dozen times, one has to wonder whether scribes replaced Βηθαβαρᾷ with Βηθανίᾳ. However, if Origen’s understanding of the etymology of the name was representative, scribes may have altered the text in the direction of Bethabara. And even if most scribes were unfamiliar with what the name might signify, that a reading which did not contradict the Gospels’ statements of a Bethany near Jerusalem was already at hand may have been sufficient reason for them to adopt Bethabara. Further, in light of the very strong testimony for Βηθανίᾳ, this reading should be regarded as authentic.

[1:28]  ²⁹³ tn “River” is not in the Greek text but is supplied for clarity.

[1:29]  ²⁹⁴ tn Grk “he”; the referent (John) has been supplied in the translation for clarity.

[1:29]  ²⁹⁵ sn Gen 22:8 is an important passage in the background of the title Lamb of God as applied to Jesus. In Jewish thought this was held to be a supremely important sacrifice. G. Vermès stated: “For the Palestinian Jew, all lamb sacrifice, and especially the Passover lamb and the Tamid offering, was a memorial of the Akedah with its effects of deliverance, forgiveness of sin and messianic salvation” (Scripture and Tradition in Judaism [StPB], 225).

[1:30]  ²⁹⁶ tn Or “has a higher rank than I.”

[1:31]  ²⁹⁷ tn Or “know.”

[1:31]  ²⁹⁸ sn John the Baptist, who has been so reluctant to elaborate his own role, now more than willingly gives his testimony about Jesus. For the author, the emphasis is totally on John the Baptist as a witness to Jesus. No attention is given to the Baptist’s call to national repentance and very little to his baptizing. Everything is focused on what he has to say about Jesus: so that he could be revealed to Israel.

[1:32]  ²⁹⁹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events in the narrative. Greek style often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” but English style generally does not.

[1:32]  ³⁰⁰ tn Grk “testified, saying.” The participle λέγων (legwn) is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.

[1:32]  ³⁰¹ sn The phrase like a dove is a descriptive comparison. The Spirit is not a dove, but descended like one in some sort of bodily representation.

[1:32]  ³⁰² tn Or “from the sky.” The Greek word οὐρανός (ouranos) may be translated “sky” or “heaven,” depending on the context.

[1:32]  ³⁰³ sn John says the Spirit remained on Jesus. The Greek verb μένω (menw) is a favorite Johannine word, used 40 times in the Gospel and 27 times in the Epistles (67 together) against 118 times total in the NT. The general significance of the verb μένω for John is to express the permanency of relationship between Father and Son and Son and believer. Here the use of the word implies that Jesus permanently possesses the Holy Spirit, and because he does, he will dispense the Holy Spirit to others in baptism. Other notes on the dispensation of the Spirit occur at John 3:5 and following (at least implied by the wordplay), John 3:34, 7:38-39, numerous passages in John 14-16 (the Paraclete passages) and John 20:22. Note also the allusion to Isa 42:1 – “Behold my servant…my chosen one in whom my soul delights. I have put my Spirit on him.”

[1:34]  ³⁰⁴ tc ‡ What did John the Baptist declare about Jesus on this occasion? Did he say, “This is the Son of God” (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, |outo" estin Jo Juio" tou qeou), or “This is the Chosen One of God” (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, outo" estin Jo eklekto" tou qeou)? The majority of the witnesses, impressive because of their diversity in age and locales, read “This is the Son of God” (so {Ì^66,75 A B C L Θ Ψ 0233^vid Ë^1,13 33 1241 aur c f l g bo as well as the majority of Byzantine minuscules and many others}). Most scholars take this to be sufficient evidence to regard the issue as settled without much of a need to reflect on internal evidence. On the other hand, one of the earliest mss for this verse, {Ì⁵} (3rd century), evidently read οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. (There is a gap in the ms at the point of the disputed words; it is too large for υἱός especially if written, as it surely would have been, as a nomen sacrum [uMs]. The term ἐκλεκτός was not a nomen sacrum and would have therefore taken up much more space [eklektos]. Given these two variants, there is hardly any question as to what Ì⁵ read.) This papyrus has many affinities with א*, which here also has ὁ ἐκλεκτός. In addition to their combined testimony Ì^106vid b e ff^2* sy^s,c also support this reading. ̹⁰⁶ is particularly impressive, for it is a second third-century papyrus in support of ὁ ἐκλεκτός. A third reading combines these two: “the elect Son” (electus filius in ff^2c sa and a [with slight variation]). Although the evidence for ἐκλεκτός is not as impressive as that for υἱός, the reading is found in early Alexandrian and Western witnesses. Turning to the internal evidence, “the Chosen One” clearly comes out ahead. “Son of God” is a favorite expression of the author (cf. 1:49; 3:18; 5:25; 10:36; 11:4, 27; 19:7; 20:31); further, there are several other references to “his Son,” “the Son,” etc. Scribes would be naturally motivated to change ἐκλεκτός to υἱός since the latter is both a Johannine expression and is, on the surface, richer theologically in 1:34. On the other hand, there is not a sufficient reason for scribes to change υἱός to ἐκλεκτός. The term never occurs in John; even its verbal cognate (ἐκλέγω, eklegw) is never affirmed of Jesus in this Gospel. ἐκλεκτός clearly best explains the rise of υἱός. Further, the third reading (“Chosen Son of God”) is patently a conflation of the other two. It has all the earmarks of adding υἱός to ἐκλεκτός. Thus, ὁ υἱός τοῦ θεοῦ is almost certainly a motivated reading. As R. E. Brown notes (John [AB], 1:57), “On the basis of theological tendency…it is difficult to imagine that Christian scribes would change ‘the Son of God’ to ‘God’s chosen one,’ while a change in the opposite direction would be quite plausible. Harmonization with the Synoptic accounts of the baptism (‘You are [This is] my beloved Son’) would also explain the introduction of ‘the Son of God’ into John; the same phenomenon occurs in vi 69. Despite the weaker textual evidence, therefore, it seems best – with Lagrange, Barrett, Boismard, and others – to accept ‘God’s chosen one’ as original.”

[1:35]  ³⁰⁵ sn John refers to John the Baptist.

[1:35]  ³⁰⁶ tn “There” is not in the Greek text but is implied by current English idiom.

[1:36]  ³⁰⁷ sn This section (1:35-51) is joined to the preceding by the literary expedient of repeating the Baptist’s testimony about Jesus being the Lamb of God (1:36, cf. 1:29). This repeated testimony (1:36) no longer has revelatory value in itself, since it has been given before; its purpose, instead, is to institute a chain reaction which will bring John the Baptist’s disciples to Jesus and make them Jesus’ own disciples.

[1:37]  ³⁰⁸ tn Grk “his”; the referent (John) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:37]  ³⁰⁹ tn Grk “And the two disciples heard him speaking.”

[1:37]  ³¹⁰ sn The expression followed Jesus pictures discipleship, which means that to learn from Jesus is to follow him as the guiding priority of one’s life.

[1:38]  ³¹¹ tn Grk “What are you seeking?”

[1:38]  ³¹² sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[1:39]  ³¹³ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:39]  ³¹⁴ tn Grk “said to them.”

[1:39]  ³¹⁵ tn Grk “about the tenth hour.”

[1:40]  ³¹⁶ tn Grk “who heard from John.”

[1:40]  ³¹⁷ tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:41]  ³¹⁸ tc Most witnesses (א* L W^s Ï) read πρῶτος (prwtos) here instead of πρῶτον (prwton). The former reading would be a predicate adjective and suggest that Andrew “was the first” person to proselytize another regarding Jesus. The reading preferred, however, is the neuter πρῶτον, used as an adverb (BDAG 893 s.v. πρῶτος 1.a.β.), and it suggests that the first thing that Andrew did was to proselytize Peter. The evidence for this reading is early and weighty: Ì^66,75 א² A B Θ Ψ 083 Ë^1,13 892 al lat.

[1:41]  ³¹⁹ sn Naturally part of Andrew’s concept of the Messiah would have been learned from John the Baptist (v. 40). However, there were a number of different messianic expectations in 1st century Palestine (see the note on “Who are you?” in v. 19), and it would be wrong to assume that what Andrew meant here is the same thing the author means in the purpose statement at the end of the Fourth Gospel, 20:31. The issue here is not whether the disciples’ initial faith in Jesus as Messiah was genuine or not, but whether their concept of who Jesus was grew and developed progressively as they spent time following him, until finally after his resurrection it is affirmed in the climactic statement of John’s Gospel, the affirmation of Thomas in 20:28.

[1:41]  ³²⁰ tn Both Greek “Christ” and Hebrew and Aramaic “Messiah” mean “the one who has been anointed.”

[1:42]  ³²¹ tn Grk “He brought him”; both referents (Andrew, Simon) have been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:42]  ³²² tc The reading “Simon, son of John” is well attested in Ì^66,75,106 א B* L 33 pc it co. The majority of mss (A B² Ψ Ë^1,13 Ï) read “Simon, the son of Jonah” here instead, but that is perhaps an assimilation to Matt 16:17.

[1:42]  ³²³ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author. The change of name from Simon to Cephas is indicative of the future role he will play. Only John among the gospel writers gives the Greek transliteration (Κηφᾶς, Khfas) of Simon’s new name, Qéphâ (which is Galilean Aramaic). Neither Πέτρος (Petros) in Greek nor Qéphâ in Aramaic is a normal proper name; it is more like a nickname.

[1:43]  ³²⁴ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity. Jesus is best taken as the subject of εὑρίσκει (Jeuriskei), since Peter would scarcely have wanted to go to Galilee.

[1:43]  ³²⁵ sn No explanation is given for why Jesus wanted to set out for Galilee, but probably he wanted to go to the wedding at Cana (about a two day trip).

[1:43]  ³²⁶ tn Grk “and he.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

[1:43]  ³²⁷ tn Grk “and Jesus said.”

[1:44]  ³²⁸ sn Although the author thought of the town as in Galilee (12:21), Bethsaida technically was in Gaulanitis (Philip the Tetrarch’s territory) across from Herod’s Galilee. There may have been two places called Bethsaida, or this may merely reflect popular imprecision – locally it was considered part of Galilee, even though it was just east of the Jordan river. This territory was heavily Gentile (which may explain why Andrew and Philip both have Gentile names).

[1:44]  ³²⁹ tn Probably ἀπό (apo) indicates “originally from” in the sense of birthplace rather than current residence; Mark 1:21, 29 seems to locate the home of Andrew and Peter at Capernaum. The entire remark (v. 44) amounts to a parenthetical comment by the author.

[1:45]  ³³⁰ sn Nathanael is traditionally identified with Bartholomew (although John never describes him as such). He appears here after Philip, while in all lists of the twelve except in Acts 1:13, Bartholomew follows Philip. Also, the Aramaic Bar-tolmai means “son of Tolmai,” the surname; the man almost certainly had another name.

[1:45]  ³³¹ tn “Also” is not in the Greek text, but is implied.

[1:46]  ³³² tn Grk “And Nathanael.”

[1:46]  ³³³ tn Grk “said to him.”

[1:46]  ³³⁴ sn Can anything good come out of Nazareth? may be a local proverb expressing jealousy among the towns.

[1:46]  ³³⁵ tn Grk “And Philip said to him.”

[1:47]  ³³⁶ tn Grk “said about him.”

[1:47]  ³³⁷ tn Or “treachery.”

[1:48]  ³³⁸ tn Grk “answered and said to him.” This is somewhat redundant in English and has been simplified in the translation to “replied.”

[1:48]  ³³⁹ sn Many have speculated about what Nathanael was doing under the fig tree. Meditating on the Messiah who was to come? A good possibility, since the fig tree was used as shade for teaching or studying by the later rabbis (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 5:11). Also, the fig tree was symbolic for messianic peace and plenty (Mic 4:4, Zech 3:10.)

[1:49]  ³⁴⁰ tn Although βασιλεύς (basileus) lacks the article it is definite due to contextual and syntactical considerations. See ExSyn 263.

[1:49]  ³⁴¹ sn Nathanael’s confession – You are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel – is best understood as a confession of Jesus’ messiahship. It has strong allusions to Ps 2:6-7, a well-known messianic psalm. What Nathanael’s exact understanding was at this point is hard to determine, but “son of God” was a designation for the Davidic king in the OT, and Nathanael parallels it with King of Israel here.

[1:50]  ³⁴² tn Grk “answered and said to him.” This has been simplified in the translation to “said to him.”

[1:50]  ³⁴³ sn What are the greater things Jesus had in mind? In the narrative this forms an excellent foreshadowing of the miraculous signs which began at Cana of Galilee.

[1:51]  ³⁴⁴ tn Grk “and he said to him.”

[1:51]  ³⁴⁵ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

[1:51]  ³⁴⁶ sn The title Son of Man appears 13 times in John’s Gospel. It is associated especially with the themes of crucifixion (3:14; 8:28), revelation (6:27; 6:53), and eschatological authority (5:27; 9:35). The title as used in John’s Gospel has for its background the son of man figure who appears in Dan 7:13-14 and is granted universal regal authority. Thus for the author, the emphasis in this title is not on Jesus’ humanity, but on his heavenly origin and divine authority.