Matthew 5:20

5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law ¹  and the Pharisees, ²  you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 18:3

18:3 and said, “I tell you the truth, ³  unless you turn around and become like little children, ⁴  you will never ⁵  enter the kingdom of heaven!

Matthew 21:31

21:31 Which of the two did his father’s will?” They said, “The first.” ⁶  Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, ⁷  tax collectors ⁸  and prostitutes will go ahead of you into the kingdom of God!

John 3:3

3:3 Jesus replied, ⁹  “I tell you the solemn truth, ¹⁰  unless a person is born from above, ¹¹  he cannot see the kingdom of God.” ¹² 

John 3:5

3:5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, ¹³  unless a person is born of water and spirit, ¹⁴  he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Acts 14:22

14:22 They strengthened ¹⁵  the souls of the disciples and encouraged them to continue ¹⁶  in the faith, saying, “We must enter the kingdom ¹⁷  of God through many persecutions.” ¹⁸ 

[5:20]  ¹ tn Or “that of the scribes.” See the note on the phrase “experts in the law” in 2:4.

[5:20]  ² sn See the note on Pharisees in 3:7.

[18:3]  ³ tn Grk “Truly (ἀμήν, amhn), I say to you.”

[18:3]  ⁴ sn The point of the comparison become like little children has more to do with a child’s trusting spirit, as well as willingness to be dependent and receive from others, than any inherent humility the child might possess.

[18:3]  ⁵ tn The negation in Greek (οὐ μή, ou mh) is very strong here.

[21:31]  ⁶ tc Verses 29-31 involve a rather complex and difficult textual problem. The variants cluster into three different groups: (1) The first son says “no” and later has a change of heart, and the second son says “yes” but does not go. The second son is called the one who does his father’s will. This reading is found in the Western mss (D it). But the reading is so hard as to be nearly impossible. One can only suspect some tampering with the text, extreme carelessness on the part of the scribe, or possibly a recognition of the importance of not shaming one’s parent in public. (Any of these reasons is not improbable with this texttype, and with codex D in particular.) The other two major variants are more difficult to assess. Essentially, the responses make sense (the son who does his father’s will is the one who changes his mind after saying “no”): (2) The first son says “no” and later has a change of heart, and the second son says “yes” but does not go. But here, the first son is called the one who does his father’s will (unlike the Western reading). This is the reading found in (א) C L W (Z) 0102 0281 ˹ 33 Ï and several versional witnesses. (3) The first son says “yes” but does not go, and the second son says “no” but later has a change of heart. This is the reading found in B Θ Ë¹³ 700 and several versional witnesses. Both of these latter two readings make good sense and have significantly better textual support than the first reading. The real question, then, is this: Is the first son or the second the obedient one? If one were to argue simply from the parabolic logic, the second son would be seen as the obedient one (hence, the third reading). The first son would represent the Pharisees (or Jews) who claim to obey God, but do not (cf. Matt 23:3). This accords well with the parable of the prodigal son (in which the oldest son represents the unbelieving Jews). Further, the chronological sequence of the second son being obedient fits well with the real scene: Gentiles and tax collectors and prostitutes were not, collectively, God’s chosen people, but they did repent and come to God, while the Jewish leaders claimed to be obedient to God but did nothing. At the same time, the external evidence is weaker for this reading (though stronger than the first reading), not as widespread, and certainly suspect because of how neatly it fits. One suspects scribal manipulation at this point. Thus the second reading looks to be superior to the other two on both external and transcriptional grounds. But what about intrinsic evidence? One can surmise that Jesus didn’t always give predictable responses. In this instance, he may well have painted a picture in which the Pharisees saw themselves as the first son, only to stun them with his application (v. 32).

[21:31]  ⁷ tn Grk “Truly (ἀμήν, amhn), I say to you.”

[21:31]  ⁸ sn See the note on tax collectors in 5:46.

[3:3]  ⁹ tn Grk “answered and said to him.”

[3:3]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

[3:3]  ¹¹ tn The word ἄνωθεν (anwqen) has a double meaning, either “again” (in which case it is synonymous with παλίν [palin]) or “from above” (BDAG 92 s.v. ἄνωθεν). This is a favorite technique of the author of the Fourth Gospel, and it is lost in almost all translations at this point. John uses the word 5 times, in 3:3, 7; 3:31; 19:11 and 23. In the latter 3 cases the context makes clear that it means “from above.” Here (3:3, 7) it could mean either, but the primary meaning intended by Jesus is “from above.” Nicodemus apparently understood it the other way, which explains his reply, “How can a man be born when he is old? He can’t enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born, can he?” The author uses the technique of the “misunderstood question” often to bring out a particularly important point: Jesus says something which is misunderstood by the disciples or (as here) someone else, which then gives Jesus the opportunity to explain more fully and in more detail what he really meant.

[3:3]  ¹² sn What does Jesus’ statement about not being able to see the kingdom of God mean within the framework of John’s Gospel? John uses the word kingdom (βασιλεία, basileia) only 5 times (3:3, 5; 18:36 [3x]). Only here is it qualified with the phrase of God. The fact that John does not stress the concept of the kingdom of God does not mean it is absent from his theology, however. Remember the messianic implications found in John 2, both the wedding and miracle at Cana and the cleansing of the temple. For Nicodemus, the term must surely have brought to mind the messianic kingdom which Messiah was supposed to bring. But Nicodemus had missed precisely this point about who Jesus was. It was the Messiah himself with whom Nicodemus was speaking. Whatever Nicodemus understood, it is clear that the point is this: He misunderstood Jesus’ words. He over-literalized them, and thought Jesus was talking about repeated physical birth, when he was in fact referring to new spiritual birth.

[3:5]  ¹³ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

[3:5]  ¹⁴ tn Or “born of water and wind” (the same Greek word, πνεύματος [pneumatos], may be translated either “spirit/Spirit” or “wind”).

[14:22]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “to Antioch, strengthening.” Due to the length of the Greek sentence and the tendency of contemporary English to use shorter sentences, a new sentence was started here. This participle (ἐπιστηρίζοντες, episthrizonte") and the following one (παρακαλοῦντες, parakalounte") have been translated as finite verbs connected by the coordinating conjunction “and.”

[14:22]  ¹⁶ sn And encouraged them to continue. The exhortations are like those noted in Acts 11:23; 13:43. An example of such a speech is found in Acts 20:18-35. Christianity is now characterized as “the faith.”

[14:22]  ¹⁷ sn This reference to the kingdom of God clearly refers to its future arrival.

[14:22]  ¹⁸ tn Or “sufferings.”