Yohanes 1:21

1:21 So they asked him, “Then who are you? ¹  Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not!” ²  “Are you the Prophet?” ³  He answered, “No!”

Yohanes 1:26

1:26 John answered them, ⁴  “I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not recognize, ⁵ 

Yohanes 1:50

1:50 Jesus said to him, ⁶  “Because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” ⁷ 

Yohanes 3:3

3:3 Jesus replied, ⁸  “I tell you the solemn truth, ⁹  unless a person is born from above, ¹⁰  he cannot see the kingdom of God.” ¹¹ 

Yohanes 3:27

3:27 John replied, ¹²  “No one can receive anything unless it has been given to him from heaven.

Yohanes 4:17

4:17 The woman replied, ¹³  “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “Right you are when you said, ¹⁴  ‘I have no husband,’ ¹⁵ 

Yohanes 5:11

5:11 But he answered them, “The man who made me well said to me, ‘Pick up your mat ¹⁶  and walk.’”

Yohanes 6:29

6:29 Jesus replied, ¹⁷  “This is the deed ¹⁸  God requires ¹⁹  – to believe in the one whom he ²⁰  sent.”

Yohanes 6:70

6:70 Jesus replied, ²¹  “Didn’t I choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is the devil?” ²² 

Yohanes 7:16

7:16 So Jesus replied, ²³  “My teaching is not from me, but from the one who sent me. ²⁴ 

Yohanes 7:52

7:52 They replied, ²⁵  “You aren’t from Galilee too, are you? ²⁶  Investigate carefully and you will see that no prophet ²⁷  comes from Galilee!”

Yohanes 8:33-34

8:33 “We are descendants ²⁸  of Abraham,” they replied, ²⁹  “and have never been anyone’s slaves! How can you say, ³⁰  ‘You will become free’?” 8:34 Jesus answered them, “I tell you the solemn truth, ³¹  everyone who practices ³²  sin is a slave ³³  of sin.

Yohanes 8:48

8:48 The Judeans ³⁴  replied, ³⁵  “Aren’t we correct in saying ³⁶  that you are a Samaritan and are possessed by a demon?” ³⁷ 

Yohanes 9:3

9:3 Jesus answered, “Neither this man ³⁸  nor his parents sinned, but he was born blind so that ³⁹  the acts ⁴⁰  of God may be revealed ⁴¹  through what happens to him. ⁴² 

Yohanes 9:20

9:20 So his parents replied, ⁴³  “We know that this is our son and that he was born blind.

Yohanes 9:25

9:25 He replied, ⁴⁴  “I do not know whether he is a sinner. I do know one thing – that although I was blind, now I can see.”

Yohanes 9:27

9:27 He answered, ⁴⁵  “I told you already and you didn’t listen. ⁴⁶  Why do you want to hear it ⁴⁷  again? You people ⁴⁸  don’t want to become his disciples too, do you?”

Yohanes 9:34

9:34 They replied, ⁴⁹  “You were born completely in sinfulness, ⁵⁰  and yet you presume to teach us?” ⁵¹  So they threw him out.

Yohanes 10:32-34

10:32 Jesus said to them, ⁵²  “I have shown you many good deeds ⁵³  from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?” 10:33 The Jewish leaders ⁵⁴  replied, ⁵⁵  “We are not going to stone you for a good deed ⁵⁶  but for blasphemy, ⁵⁷  because ⁵⁸  you, a man, are claiming to be God.” ⁵⁹ 

10:34 Jesus answered, ⁶⁰  “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? ⁶¹ 

Yohanes 13:7

13:7 Jesus replied, ⁶²  “You do not understand ⁶³  what I am doing now, but you will understand ⁶⁴  after these things.”

Yohanes 13:36

13:36 Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going?” Jesus replied, ⁶⁵  “Where I am going, you cannot follow me now, but you will follow later.”

Yohanes 13:38

13:38 Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for me? ⁶⁶  I tell you the solemn truth, ⁶⁷  the rooster will not crow until you have denied me three times!

Yohanes 18:5

18:5 They replied, ⁶⁸  “Jesus the Nazarene.” He told them, “I am he.” (Now Judas, the one who betrayed him, was standing there with them.) ⁶⁹ 

Yohanes 18:22

18:22 When Jesus ⁷⁰  had said this, one of the high priest’s officers who stood nearby struck him on the face and said, ⁷¹  “Is that the way you answer the high priest?”

Yohanes 18:35

18:35 Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? ⁷²  Your own people ⁷³  and your chief priests handed you over ⁷⁴  to me. What have you done?”

Yohanes 19:7

19:7 The Jewish leaders ⁷⁵  replied, ⁷⁶  “We have a law, ⁷⁷  and according to our law he ought to die, because he claimed to be the Son of God!” ⁷⁸ 

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

[1:21]  ² 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]  ³ 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.

[1:26]  ⁴ tn Grk “answered them, saying.” The participle λέγων (legwn) is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.

[1:26]  ⁵ tn Or “know.”

[1:50]  ⁶ tn Grk “answered and said to him.” This has been simplified in the translation to “said to him.”

[1:50]  ⁷ 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.

[3:3]  ⁸ tn Grk “answered and said to him.”

[3:3]  ⁹ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

[3:3]  ¹⁰ 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]  sn Or born again. The Greek word ἄνωθεν (anwqen) can mean both “again” and “from above,” giving rise to Nicodemus’ misunderstanding about a second physical birth (v. 4).

[3:3]  ¹¹ 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.

[3:27]  ¹² tn Grk “answered and said.”

[4:17]  ¹³ tn Grk “answered and said to him.”

[4:17]  ¹⁴ tn Grk “Well have you said.”

[4:17]  ¹⁵ tn The word order in Jesus’ reply is reversed from the woman’s original statement. The word “husband” in Jesus’ reply is placed in an emphatic position.

[5:11]  ¹⁶ tn Or “pallet,” “mattress,” “cot,” or “stretcher.” See the note on “mat” in v. 8.

[6:29]  ¹⁷ tn Grk “answered and said to them.”

[6:29]  ¹⁸ tn Grk “the work.”

[6:29]  ¹⁹ tn Grk “This is the work of God.”

[6:29]  ²⁰ tn Grk “that one” (i.e., God).

[6:70]  ²¹ tn Grk “Jesus answered them.”

[6:70]  ²² tn Although most translations render this last phrase as “one of you is a devil,” such a translation presupposes that there is more than one devil. This finds roots in the KJV in which the Greek word for demon was often translated “devil.” In fact, the KJV never uses the word “demon.” (Sixty-two of the 63 NT instances of δαιμόνιον [daimonion] are translated “devil” [in Acts 17:18 the plural has been translated “gods”]. This can get confusing in places where the singular “devil” is used: Is Satan or one of the demons in view [cf. Matt 9:33 (demon); 13:39 (devil); 17:18 (demon); Mark 7:26 (demon); Luke 4:2 (devil); etc.]?) Now regarding John 6:70, both the construction in Greek and the technical use of διάβολος (diabolos) indicate that the one devil is in view. To object to the translation “the devil” because it thus equates Judas with Satan does not take into consideration that Jesus often spoke figuratively (e.g., “destroy this temple” [John 2:19]; “he [John the Baptist] is Elijah” [Matt 11:14]), even equating Peter with the devil on one occasion (Mark 8:33). According to ExSyn 249, “A curious phenomenon has occurred in the English Bible with reference to one particular monadic noun, διάβολος. The KJV translates both διάβολος and δαιμόνιον as ‘devil.’ Thus in the AV translators’ minds, ‘devil’ was not a monadic noun. Modern translations have correctly rendered δαιμόνιον as ‘demon’ and have, for the most part, recognized that διάβολος is monadic (cf., e.g., 1 Pet 5:8; Rev 20:2). But in John 6:70 modern translations have fallen into the error of the King James translators. The KJV has ‘one of you is a devil.’ So does the RSV, NRSV, ASV, NIV, NKJV, and the JB [Jerusalem Bible]. Yet there is only one devil…The legacy of the KJV still lives on, then, even in places where it ought not.”

[7:16]  ²³ tn Grk “So Jesus answered and said to them.”

[7:16]  ²⁴ tn The phrase “the one who sent me” refers to God.

[7:52]  ²⁵ tn Grk “They answered and said to him.”

[7:52]  ²⁶ tn Questions prefaced with μή (mh) in Greek anticipate a negative answer. This can sometimes be indicated by using a “tag” at the end in English (here the tag is “are you?”).

[7:52]  ²⁷ tc At least one early and important ms (Ì^66*) places the article before “prophet” (ὁ προφήτης, Jo profhths), making this a reference to the “prophet like Moses” mentioned in Deut 18:15.

[7:52]  tn This claim by the leaders presents some difficulty, because Jonah had been from Gath Hepher, in Galilee (2 Kgs 14:25). Also the Babylonian Talmud later stated, “There was not a tribe in Israel from which there did not come prophets” (b. Sukkah 27b). Two explanations are possible: (1) In the heat of anger the members of the Sanhedrin overlooked the facts (this is perhaps the easiest explanation). (2) This anarthrous noun is to be understood as a reference to the prophet of Deut 18:15 (note the reading of Ì⁶⁶ which is articular), by this time an eschatological figure in popular belief. This would produce in the text of John’s Gospel a high sense of irony indeed, since the religious authorities by their insistence that “the Prophet” could not come from Galilee displayed their true ignorance of where Jesus came from on two levels at once (Bethlehem, his birthplace, the fulfillment of Mic 5:2, but also heaven, from which he was sent by the Father). The author does not even bother to refute the false attestation of Jesus’ place of birth as Galilee (presumably Christians knew all too well where Jesus came from).

[8:33]  ²⁸ tn Grk “We are the seed” (an idiom).

[8:33]  ²⁹ tn Grk “They answered to him.”

[8:33]  ³⁰ tn Or “How is it that you say.”

[8:34]  ³¹ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

[8:34]  ³² tn Or “who commits.” This could simply be translated, “everyone who sins,” but the Greek is more emphatic, using the participle ποιῶν (poiwn) in a construction with πᾶς (pas), a typical Johannine construction. Here repeated, continuous action is in view. The one whose lifestyle is characterized by repeated, continuous sin is a slave to sin. That one is not free; sin has enslaved him. To break free from this bondage requires outside (divine) intervention. Although the statement is true at the general level (the person who continually practices a lifestyle of sin is enslaved to sin) the particular sin of the Jewish authorities, repeatedly emphasized in the Fourth Gospel, is the sin of unbelief. The present tense in this instance looks at the continuing refusal on the part of the Jewish leaders to acknowledge who Jesus is, in spite of mounting evidence.

[8:34]  ³³ tn See the note on the word “slaves” in 4:51.

[8:48]  ³⁴ tn Grk “the Jews.” See the note on this term in v. 31. Here the phrase refers to the Jewish people in Jerusalem (“Judeans”; cf. BDAG 479 s.v. ᾿Ιουδαῖος 2.e) who had been listening to Jesus’ teaching in the temple courts (8:20) and had initially believed his claim to be the Messiah (cf. 8:31). They had become increasingly hostile as Jesus continued to teach. Now they were ready to say that Jesus was demon-possessed.

[8:48]  ³⁵ tn Grk “answered and said to him.”

[8:48]  ³⁶ tn Grk “Do we not say rightly.”

[8:48]  ³⁷ tn Grk “and have a demon.” It is not clear what is meant by the charge Σαμαρίτης εἶ σὺ καὶ δαιμόνιον ἔχεις (Samarith" ei su kai daimonion ecei"). The meaning could be “you are a heretic and are possessed by a demon.” Note that the dual charge gets one reply (John 8:49). Perhaps the phrases were interchangeable: Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24) and in later traditions Dositheus, the two Samaritans who claimed to be sons of God, were regarded as mad, that is, possessed by demons.

[9:3]  ³⁸ tn Grk “this one.”

[9:3]  ³⁹ tn Grk “but so that.” There is an ellipsis that must be supplied: “but [he was born blind] so that” or “but [it happened to him] so that.”

[9:3]  ⁴⁰ tn Or “deeds”; Grk “works.”

[9:3]  ⁴¹ tn Or “manifested,” “brought to light.”

[9:3]  ⁴² tn Grk “in him.”

[9:20]  ⁴³ tn Grk “So his parents answered and said.”

[9:25]  ⁴⁴ tn Grk “Then that one answered.”

[9:27]  ⁴⁵ tn Grk “He answered them.” The indirect object αὐτοῖς (autois) has not been translated for stylistic reasons.

[9:27]  ⁴⁶ tn Grk “you did not hear.”

[9:27]  ⁴⁷ tn “It” is not in the Greek text but has been supplied. Direct objects in Greek were often omitted when they were clearly implied in the context.

[9:27]  ⁴⁸ tn The word “people” is supplied in the translation to clarify the plural Greek pronoun and verb.

[9:34]  ⁴⁹ tn Grk “They answered and said to him.” This has been simplified in the translation to “They replied.”

[9:34]  ⁵⁰ tn Or “From birth you have been evil.” The implication of this insult, in the context of John 9, is that the man whom Jesus caused to see had not previously adhered rigorously to all the conventional requirements of the OT law as interpreted by the Pharisees. Thus he had no right to instruct them about who Jesus was.

[9:34]  ⁵¹ tn Grk “and are you teaching us?”

[10:32]  ⁵² tn Grk “Jesus answered them.”

[10:32]  ⁵³ tn Or “good works.”

[10:33]  ⁵⁴ tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” Here again the phrase refers to the Jewish leaders. See the notes on the phrase “Jewish people” in v. 19 and “Jewish leaders” in vv. 24, 31.

[10:33]  ⁵⁵ tn Grk “answered him.”

[10:33]  ⁵⁶ tn Or “good work.”

[10:33]  ⁵⁷ sn This is the first time the official charge of blasphemy is voiced openly in the Fourth Gospel (although it was implicit in John 8:59).

[10:33]  ⁵⁸ tn Grk “and because.”

[10:33]  ⁵⁹ tn Grk “you, a man, make yourself to be God.”

[10:34]  ⁶⁰ tn Grk “answered them.”

[10:34]  ⁶¹ sn A quotation from Ps 82:6. Technically the Psalms are not part of the OT “law” (which usually referred to the five books of Moses), but occasionally the term “law” was applied to the entire OT, as here. The problem in this verse concerns the meaning of Jesus’ quotation from Ps 82:6. It is important to look at the OT context: The whole line reads “I say, you are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.” Jesus will pick up on the term “sons of the Most High” in 10:36, where he refers to himself as the Son of God. The psalm was understood in rabbinic circles as an attack on unjust judges who, though they have been given the title “gods” because of their quasi-divine function of exercising judgment, are just as mortal as other men. What is the argument here? It is often thought to be as follows: If it was an OT practice to refer to men like the judges as gods, and not blasphemy, why did the Jewish authorities object when this term was applied to Jesus? This really doesn’t seem to fit the context, however, since if that were the case Jesus would not be making any claim for “divinity” for himself over and above any other human being – and therefore he would not be subject to the charge of blasphemy. Rather, this is evidently a case of arguing from the lesser to the greater, a common form of rabbinic argument. The reason the OT judges could be called gods is because they were vehicles of the word of God (cf. 10:35). But granting that premise, Jesus deserves much more than they to be called God. He is the Word incarnate, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world to save the world (10:36). In light of the prologue to the Gospel of John, it seems this interpretation would have been most natural for the author. If it is permissible to call men “gods” because they were the vehicles of the word of God, how much more permissible is it to use the word “God” of him who is the Word of God?

[13:7]  ⁶² tn Grk “answered and said to him.”

[13:7]  ⁶³ tn Grk “You do not know.”

[13:7]  ⁶⁴ tn Grk “you will know.”

[13:36]  ⁶⁵ tn Grk “Jesus answered him.”

[13:38]  ⁶⁶ tn Or “Will you die willingly for me?”

[13:38]  ⁶⁷ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

[18:5]  ⁶⁸ tn Grk “They answered.”

[18:5]  sn The author does not state precisely who from the group of soldiers and temple police replied to Jesus at this point. It may have been the commander of the Roman soldiers, although his presence is not explicitly mentioned until 18:12. It may also have been one of the officers of the chief priests. To the answer given, “Jesus the Nazarene,” Jesus replies “I am [he].”

[18:5]  ⁶⁹ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author. Before he states the response to Jesus’ identification of himself, the author inserts a parenthetical note that Judas, again identified as the one who betrayed him (cf. 18:2), was standing with the group of soldiers and officers of the chief priests. Many commentators have considered this to be an awkward insertion, but in fact it heightens considerably the dramatic effect of the response to Jesus’ self-identification in the following verse, and has the added effect of informing the reader that along with the others the betrayer himself ironically falls down at Jesus’ feet (18:6).

[18:22]  ⁷⁰ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[18:22]  ⁷¹ tn Grk “one of the high priest’s servants standing by gave Jesus a strike, saying.” For the translation of ῥάπισμα (rJapisma), see L&N 19.4.

[18:35]  ⁷² sn Many have seen in Pilate’s reply “I am not a Jew, am I?” the Roman contempt for the Jewish people. Some of that may indeed be present, but strictly speaking, all Pilate affirms is that he, as a Roman, has no firsthand knowledge of Jewish custom or belief. What he knows of Jesus must have come from the Jewish authorities. They are the ones (your own people and your chief priests) who have handed Jesus over to Pilate.

[18:35]  ⁷³ tn Or “your own nation.”

[18:35]  ⁷⁴ tn Or “delivered you over.”

[19:7]  ⁷⁵ tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” In NT usage the term ᾿Ιουδαῖοι (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. (For further information see R. G. Bratcher, “‘The Jews’ in the Gospel of John,” BT 26 [1975]: 401-9.) Here the phrase refers to the Jewish leaders, especially members of the Sanhedrin, and their servants (mentioned specifically as “the chief priests and their servants” in John 19:6).

[19:7]  ⁷⁶ tn Grk “answered him.”

[19:7]  ⁷⁷ sn This law is not the entire Pentateuch, but Lev 24:16.

[19:7]  ⁷⁸ tn Grk “because he made himself out to be the Son of God.”