Yohanes 1:5

1:5 And the light shines on ¹  in the darkness, ²  but ³  the darkness has not mastered it. ⁴ 

Yohanes 1:10

1:10 He was in the world, and the world was created ⁵  by him, but ⁶  the world did not recognize ⁷  him.

Yohanes 2:14

2:14 ⁸ He found in the temple courts ⁹  those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers sitting at tables. ¹⁰ 

Yohanes 2:19

2:19 Jesus replied, ¹¹  “Destroy ¹²  this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.”

Yohanes 3:14

3:14 Just as ¹³  Moses lifted up the serpent ¹⁴  in the wilderness, ¹⁵  so must the Son of Man be lifted up, ¹⁶ 

Yohanes 4:24

4:24 God is spirit, ¹⁷  and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Yohanes 4:37

4:37 For in this instance the saying is true, ¹⁸  ‘One sows and another reaps.’

Yohanes 4:44

4:44 (For Jesus himself had testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country.) ¹⁹ 

Yohanes 5:2

5:2 Now there is ²⁰  in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate ²¹  a pool called Bethzatha ²²  in Aramaic, ²³  which has five covered walkways. ²⁴ 

Yohanes 5:5

5:5 Now a man was there who had been disabled for thirty-eight years. ²⁵ 

Yohanes 7:10-11

7:10 But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, then Jesus ²⁶  himself also went up, not openly but in secret. 7:11 So the Jewish leaders ²⁷  were looking for him at the feast, asking, “Where is he?” ²⁸ 

Yohanes 8:3

8:3 The experts in the law ²⁹  and the Pharisees ³⁰  brought a woman who had been caught committing adultery. They made her stand in front of them

Yohanes 8:5

8:5 In the law Moses commanded us to stone to death ³¹  such women. ³²  What then do you say?”

Yohanes 8:17

8:17 It is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. ³³ 

Yohanes 8:35

8:35 The slave does not remain in the family ³⁴  forever, but the son remains forever. ³⁵ 

Yohanes 9:14

9:14 (Now the day on which Jesus made the mud ³⁶  and caused him to see ³⁷  was a Sabbath.) ³⁸ 

Yohanes 11:6

11:6 So when he heard that Lazarus ³⁹  was sick, he remained in the place where he was for two more days.

Yohanes 11:17

Speaking with Martha and Mary

11:17 When ⁴⁰  Jesus arrived, ⁴¹  he found that Lazarus ⁴²  had been in the tomb four days already. ⁴³ 

Yohanes 11:20

11:20 So when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, but Mary was sitting in the house. ⁴⁴ 

Yohanes 15:8-9

15:8 My Father is honored ⁴⁵  by this, that ⁴⁶  you bear ⁴⁷  much fruit and show that you are ⁴⁸  my disciples.

15:9 “Just as the Father has loved me, I have also loved you; remain ⁴⁹  in my love.

Yohanes 15:11

15:11 I have told you these things ⁵⁰  so that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be complete.

Yohanes 15:25

15:25 Now this happened ⁵¹  to fulfill the word that is written in their law, ‘They hated me without reason.’ ⁵² 

Yohanes 16:29

16:29 His disciples said, “Look, now you are speaking plainly ⁵³  and not in obscure figures of speech! ⁵⁴ 

Yohanes 17:10

17:10 Everything ⁵⁵  I have belongs to you, ⁵⁶  and everything you have belongs to me, ⁵⁷  and I have been glorified by them. ⁵⁸ 

[1:5]  ¹ 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]  sn The light shines on. The question of whether John has in mind here the preincarnate Christ or the incarnate Christ is probably too specific. The incarnation is not really introduced until v. 9, but here the point is more general: It is of the very nature of light, that it shines.

[1:5]  ² 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]  ³ tn Grk “and,” but the context clearly indicates a contrast, so this has been translated as an adversative use of καί (kai).

[1:5]  ⁴ 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.”

[1:10]  ⁵ tn Or “was made”; Grk “came into existence.”

[1:10]  ⁶ tn Grk “and,” but in context this is an adversative use of καί (kai) and is thus translated “but.”

[1:10]  ⁷ tn Or “know.”

[2:14]  ⁸ sn John 2:14-22. Does John’s account of the temple cleansing describe the same event as the synoptic gospels describe, or a separate event? The other accounts of the cleansing of the temple are Matt 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; and Luke 19:45-46. None are as long as the Johannine account. The fullest of the synoptic accounts is Mark’s. John’s account differs from Mark’s in the mention of sheep and oxen, the mention of the whip of cords, the Greek word κερματιστῆς (kermatisths) for money changer (the synoptics use κολλυβιστῆς [kollubisths], which John mentions in 2:15), the scattering of the coins (2:15), and the command by Jesus, “Take these things away from here!” The word for overturned in John is ἀναστρεφω (anastrefw), while Matthew and Mark use καταστρεφω (katastrefw; Luke does not mention the moneychangers at all). The synoptics all mention that Jesus quoted Isa 56:7 followed by Jer 7:11. John mentions no citation of scripture at all, but says that later the disciples remembered Ps 69:9. John does not mention, as does Mark, Jesus’ prohibition on carrying things through the temple (i.e., using it for a shortcut). But the most important difference is one of time: In John the cleansing appears as the first great public act of Jesus’ ministry, while in the synoptics it is virtually the last. The most common solution of the problem, which has been endlessly discussed among NT scholars, is to say there was only one cleansing, and that it took place, as the synoptics record it, at the end of Jesus’ ministry. In the synoptics it appears to be the event that finalized the opposition of the high priest, and precipitated the arrest of Jesus. According to this view, John’s placing of the event at the opening of Jesus’ ministry is due to his general approach; it was fitting ‘theologically’ for Jesus to open his ministry this way, so this is the way John records it. Some have overstated the case for one cleansing and John’s placing of it at the opening of Jesus’ public ministry, however. For example W. Barclay stated: “John, as someone has said, is more interested in the truth than in the facts. He was not interested to tell men when Jesus cleansed the Temple; he was supremely interested in telling men that Jesus did cleanse the Temple” (John [DSBS], 94). But this is not the impression one gets by a reading of John’s Gospel: The evangelist seems to go out of his way to give details and facts, including notes of time and place. To argue as Barclay does that John is interested in truth apart from the facts is to set up a false dichotomy. Why should one have to assume, in any case, that there could have been only one cleansing of the temple? This account in John is found in a large section of nonsynoptic material. Apart from the work of John the Baptist – and even this is markedly different from the references in the synoptics – nothing else in the first five chapters of John’s Gospel is found in any of the synoptics. It is certainly not impossible that John took one isolated episode from the conclusion of Jesus’ earthly ministry and inserted it into his own narrative in a place which seemed appropriate according to his purposes. But in view of the differences between John and the synoptics, in both wording and content, as well as setting and time, it is at least possible that the event in question actually occurred twice (unless one begins with the presupposition that the Fourth Gospel is nonhistorical anyway). In support of two separate cleansings of the temple, it has been suggested that Jesus’ actions on this occasion were not permanent in their result, and after (probably) 3 years the status quo in the temple courts had returned to normal. And at this time early in Jesus’ ministry, he was virtually unknown. Such an action as he took on this occasion would have created a stir, and evoked the response John records in 2:18-22, but that is probably about all, especially if Jesus’ actions met with approval among part of the populace. But later in Jesus’ ministry, when he was well-known, and vigorously opposed by the high-priestly party in Jerusalem, his actions might have brought forth another, harsher response. It thus appears possible to argue for two separate cleansings of the temple as well as a single one relocated by John to suit his own purposes. Which then is more probable? On the whole, more has been made of the differences between John’s account and the synoptic accounts than perhaps should have been. After all, the synoptic accounts also differ considerably from one another, yet few scholars would be willing to posit four cleansings of the temple as an explanation for this. While it is certainly possible that the author did not intend by his positioning of the temple cleansing to correct the synoptics’ timing of the event, but to highlight its significance for the course of Jesus’ ministry, it still appears somewhat more probable that John has placed the event he records in the approximate period of Jesus’ public ministry in which it did occur, that is, within the first year or so of Jesus’ public ministry. The statement of the Jewish authorities recorded by the author (this temple has been under construction for forty-six years) would tend to support an earlier rather than a later date for the temple cleansing described by John, since 46 years from the beginning of construction on Herod’s temple in ca. 19 b.c. (the date varies somewhat in different sources) would be around a.d. 27. This is not conclusive proof, however.

[2:14]  ⁹ tn Grk “in the temple.”

[2:14]  sn The merchants (those who were selling) would have been located in the Court of the Gentiles.

[2:14]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “the money changers sitting”; the words “at tables” are not in the Greek text, but are implied.

[2:19]  ¹¹ tn Grk “answered and said to them.”

[2:19]  ¹² tn The imperative here is really more than a simple conditional imperative (= “if you destroy”); its semantic force here is more like the ironical imperative found in the prophets (Amos 4:4, Isa 8:9) = “Go ahead and do this and see what happens.”

[3:14]  ¹³ tn Grk “And just as.”

[3:14]  ¹⁴ sn Or the snake, referring to the bronze serpent mentioned in Num 21:9.

[3:14]  ¹⁵ sn An allusion to Num 21:5-9.

[3:14]  ¹⁶ sn So must the Son of Man be lifted up. This is ultimately a prediction of Jesus’ crucifixion. Nicodemus could not have understood this, but John’s readers, the audience to whom the Gospel is addressed, certainly could have (compare the wording of John 12:32). In John, being lifted up refers to one continuous action of ascent, beginning with the cross but ending at the right hand of the Father. Step 1 is Jesus’ death; step 2 is his resurrection; and step 3 is the ascension back to heaven. It is the upward swing of the “pendulum” which began with the incarnation, the descent of the Word become flesh from heaven to earth (cf. Paul in Phil 2:5-11). See also the note on the title Son of Man in 1:51.

[4:24]  ¹⁷ tn Here πνεῦμα (pneuma) is understood as a qualitative predicate nominative while the articular θεός (qeos) is the subject.

[4:37]  ¹⁸ tn The recitative ὅτι (Joti) after ἀληθινός (alhqino") has not been translated.

[4:44]  ¹⁹ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[5:2]  ²⁰ tn Regarding the use of the present tense ἐστιν (estin) and its implications for the dating of the Gospel of John, see the article by D. B. Wallace, “John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel,” Bib 71 (1990): 177-205.

[5:2]  ²¹ tn The site of the miracle is also something of a problem: προβατικῇ (probatikh) is usually taken as a reference to the Sheep Gate near the temple. Some (R. E. Brown and others) would place the word κολυμβήθρα (kolumbhqra) with προβατικῇ to read “in Jerusalem, by the Sheep Pool, there is (another pool) with the Hebrew name.” This would imply that there is reference to two pools in the context rather than only one. This does not seem necessary (although it is a grammatical possibility). The gender of the words does not help since both are feminine (as is the participle ἐπιλεγομένη [epilegomenh]). Note however that Brown’s suggestion would require a feminine word to be supplied (for the participle ἐπιλεγομένη to modify). The traditional understanding of the phrase as a reference to the Sheep Gate near the temple appears more probably correct.

[5:2]  ²² tc Some mss (א [L] 33 it) read Bethzatha, while others read Bethsaida (Ì^[66],75 B T W^s [Ψ] pc vg); codex D has Belzetha. A lot of controversy has surrounded the name of the pool itself: The reading of the Byzantine (or majority) text (A C Θ 078 Ë^1,13 Ï), Bethesda, has been virtually discarded by scholars in favor of what is thought to be the more primitive Bethzatha, even though many recent translations continue to employ Bethesda, the traditional reading. The latter is attested by Josephus as the name of a quarter of the city near the northeast corner of the temple area. He reports that the Syrian Legate Cestius burned this suburb in his attack on Jerusalem in October a.d. 68 (J. W. 2.19.4 [2.530]). However, there is some new archaeological evidence for this problem. 3Q15 (Copper Scroll) from Qumran seems to indicate that in the general area of the temple, on the eastern hill of Jerusalem, a treasure was buried in Bet áEsdatayin, in the pool at the entrance to the smaller basin. The name of the region or pool itself seems then to have been Bet ᾿Esda, “house of the flowing.” It appears with the dual ending in the scroll because there were two basins. Bethesda seems to be an accurate Greek rendition of the name, while J. T. Milik suggests Bethzatha is a rendition of the Aramaic intensive plural Bet áEsdata (DJDJ 3, 271). As for the text of John 5:2, the fundamental problems with the Bethesda reading are that it looks motivated (with an edifying Semitic etymology, meaning “House of Mercy” [TCGNT 178]), and is minimally attested. Apart from the Copper Scroll, the evidence for Bethesda is almost entirely shut up to the Byzantine text (C being the most notable exception, but it often has Byzantine encroachments). On the one hand, this argues the Byzantine reading here had ancient, semitic roots; on the other hand, since both readings are attested as historically accurate, a decision has to be based on the better witnesses. The fact that there are multiple readings here suggests that the original was not well understood. Which reading best explains the rise of the others? It seems that Bethzatha is the best choice.

[5:2]  sn On the location of the pool called Bethzatha, the double-pool of St. Anne is the probable site, and has been excavated; the pools were trapezoidal in shape, 165 ft (49.5 m) wide at one end, 220 ft (66 m) wide at the other, and 315 ft (94.5 m) long, divided by a central partition. There were colonnades (rows of columns) on all 4 sides and on the partition, thus forming the five covered walkways mentioned in John 5:2. Stairways at the corners permitted descent to the pool.

[5:2]  ²³ tn Grk “in Hebrew.”

[5:2]  ²⁴ tn Or “porticoes,” or “colonnades”; Grk “stoas.”

[5:2]  sn The pool had five porticoes. These were covered walkways formed by rows of columns supporting a roof and open on the side facing the pool. People could stand, sit, or walk on these colonnaded porches, protected from the weather and the heat of the sun.

[5:5]  ²⁵ tn Grk “who had had thirty-eight years in his disability.”

[7:10]  ²⁶ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[7:11]  ²⁷ tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” Here the phrase refers to the Jewish authorities or leaders who were Jesus’ primary opponents. See the note on the phrase “the Jewish leaders” in v. 1.

[7:11]  ²⁸ tn Grk “Where is that one?”

[8:3]  ²⁹ tn Or “The scribes.” The traditional rendering of γραμματεύς (grammateu") as “scribe” does not communicate much to the modern English reader, for whom the term might mean “professional copyist,” if it means anything at all. The people referred to here were recognized experts in the law of Moses and in traditional laws and regulations. Thus “expert in the law” comes closer to the meaning for the modern reader.

[8:3]  ³⁰ sn See the note on Pharisees in 1:24.

[8:5]  ³¹ sn An allusion to Lev 20:10 and Deut 22:22-24.

[8:5]  ³² sn The accusers themselves subtly misrepresented the law. The Mosaic law stated that in the case of adultery, both the man and woman must be put to death (Lev 20:10, Deut 22:22), but they mentioned only such women.

[8:17]  ³³ sn An allusion to Deut 17:6.

[8:35]  ³⁴ tn Or “household.” The Greek work οἰκία (oikia) can denote the family as consisting of relatives by both descent and marriage, as well as slaves and servants, living in the same house (more the concept of an “extended family”).

[8:35]  ³⁵ sn Jesus’ point is that while a slave may be part of a family or household, the slave is not guaranteed a permanent place there, while a son, as a descendant or blood relative, will always be guaranteed a place in the family (remains forever).

[9:14]  ³⁶ tn Or “clay” (moistened earth of a clay-like consistency).

[9:14]  ³⁷ tn Grk “and opened his eyes” (an idiom referring to restoration of sight).

[9:14]  ³⁸ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[11:6]  ³⁹ tn Grk “that he”; the referent (Lazarus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[11:17]  ⁴⁰ tn Grk “Then when.”

[11:17]  ⁴¹ tn Grk “came.”

[11:17]  ⁴² tn Grk “he”; the referent (Lazarus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[11:17]  ⁴³ tn Grk “he had already had four days in the tomb” (an idiom).

[11:17]  sn There is no description of the journey itself. The author simply states that when Jesus arrived, he found that Lazarus had been in the tomb four days already. He had died some time before this but probably not very long (cf. Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:6,10 who were buried immediately after they died, as was the common practice of the time). There is some later evidence (early 3rd century) of a rabbinic belief that the soul hovered near the body of the deceased for three days, hoping to be able to return to the body. But on the fourth day it saw the beginning of decomposition and finally departed (Leviticus Rabbah 18.1). If this belief is as old as the 1st century, it might suggest the significance of the four days: After this time, resurrection would be a first-order miracle, an unequivocal demonstration of the power of God. It is not certain if the tradition is this early, but it is suggestive. Certainly the author does not appear to attach any symbolic significance to the four days in the narrative.

[11:20]  ⁴⁴ sn Notice the difference in the response of the two sisters: Martha went out to meet Jesus, while Mary remains sitting in the house. It is similar to the incident in Luke 10:38-42. Here again one finds Martha occupied with the responsibilities of hospitality; she is the one who greets Jesus.

[15:8]  ⁴⁵ tn Grk “glorified.”

[15:8]  ⁴⁶ tn The ἵνα (Jina) clause is best taken as substantival in apposition to ἐν τούτῳ (en toutw) at the beginning of the verse. The Father is glorified when the disciples bring forth abundant fruit. Just as Jesus has done the works which he has seen his Father doing (5:19-29) so also will his disciples.

[15:8]  ⁴⁷ tn Or “yield.”

[15:8]  ⁴⁸ tc Most mss (א A Ψ Ë¹³ 33 Ï) read the future indicative γενήσεσθε (genhsesqe; perhaps best rendered as “[and show that] you will become”), while some early and good witnesses (Ì^66vid B D L Θ 0250 1 565 al) have the aorist subjunctive γένησθε (genhsqe; “[and show that] you are”). The original reading is difficult to determine because the external evidence is fairly evenly divided. On the basis of the external evidence alone the first reading has some credibility because of א and 33, but it is not enough to overthrow the Alexandrian and Western witnesses for the aorist. Some who accept the future indicative see a consecutive (or resultative) sequence between φέρητε (ferhte) in the ἵνα (Jina) clause and γενήσεσθε, so that the disciples’ bearing much fruit results in their becoming disciples. This alleviates the problem of reading a future indicative within a ἵνα clause (a grammatical solecism that is virtually unattested in Attic Greek), although such infrequently occurs in the NT, particularly in the Apocalypse (cf. Gal 2:4; Rev 3:9; 6:4, 11; 8:3; 9:4, 5, 20; 13:12; 14:13; 22:14; even here, however, the Byzantine mss, with א occasionally by their side, almost always change the future indicative to an aorist subjunctive). It seems more likely, however, that the second verb (regardless of whether it is read as aorist or future) is to be understood as coordinate in meaning with the previous verb φέρητε (So M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek §342). Thus the two actions are really one and the same: Bearing fruit and being Jesus’ disciple are not two different actions, but a single action. The first is the outward sign or proof of the second – in bearing fruit the disciples show themselves to be disciples indeed (cf. 15:5). Thus the translation followed here is, “that you bear much fruit and show that you are my disciples.” As far as the textual reading is concerned, it appears somewhat preferable to accept the aorist subjunctive reading (γένησθε) on the basis of better external testimony.

[15:9]  ⁴⁹ tn Or “reside.”

[15:11]  ⁵⁰ tn Grk “These things I have spoken to you.”

[15:25]  ⁵¹ tn The words “this happened” are not in the Greek text but are supplied to complete an ellipsis.

[15:25]  ⁵² sn A quotation from Ps 35:19 and Ps 69:4. As a technical term law (νόμος, nomos) is usually restricted to the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT), but here it must have a broader reference, since the quotation is from Ps 35:19 or Ps 69:4. The latter is the more likely source for the quoted words, since it is cited elsewhere in John’s Gospel (2:17 and 19:29, in both instances in contexts associated with Jesus’ suffering and death).

[16:29]  ⁵³ tn Or “openly.”

[16:29]  ⁵⁴ tn Or “not in parables.” or “not in metaphors.”

[16:29]  sn How is the disciples’ reply to Jesus now you are speaking plainly and not in obscure figures of speech to be understood? Their claim to understand seems a bit impulsive. It is difficult to believe that the disciples have really understood the full implications of Jesus’ words, although it is true that he spoke to them plainly and not figuratively in 16:26-28. The disciples will not fully understand all that Jesus has said to them until after his resurrection, when the Holy Spirit will give them insight and understanding (16:13).

[17:10]  ⁵⁵ tn Grk And all things.” The conjunction καί (kai, “and”) has not been translated here in keeping with the tendency of contemporary English style to use shorter sentences.

[17:10]  ⁵⁶ tn Or “Everything I have is yours.”

[17:10]  ⁵⁷ tn Or “everything you have is mine.”

[17:10]  ⁵⁸ tn Or “I have been honored among them.”

[17:10]  sn The theme of glory with which Jesus began this prayer in 17:1-5 now recurs. Jesus said that he had been glorified by his disciples, but in what sense was this true? Jesus had manifested his glory to them in all of the sign-miracles which he had performed, beginning with the miracle at the wedding feast in Cana (2:11). He could now say that he had been glorified by them in the light of what he had already said in vv. 7-8, that the disciples had come to know that he had come from the Father and been sent by the Father. He would, of course, be glorified by them further after the resurrection, as they carried on his ministry after his departure.