While he was still in Galilee looks back to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. So the point is that this was announced long ago, and should come as no surprise.


See the note on crucify in 23:21 .


On his words see Luke 9:22 .


Judas is now absent and “the twelve” have now become “ the eleven .” Other disciples are also gathered with the remaining eleven.


Mary Magdalene is always noted first in the appearance lists in the gospels. It is unusual that the first appearance would involve women as in this culture their role as witnesses would not be well accepted. It is a sign of the veracity of the account, because if an ancient were to create such a story he would never have it start with women.


On Joanna see Luke 8:1-3 .


The term pure nonsense can describe idle talk or a tale. The point is important, since the disciples reacted with disbelief that a resurrection was possible. Sometimes it is thought the ancients were gullible enough to believe anything. But these disciples needed convincing about the resurrection.


While the others dismissed the report of the women, Peter got up and ran to the tomb , for he had learned to believe in what the Lord had said.


In most instances the entrance to such tombs was less than 3 ft (1 m) high, so that an adult would have to bend down and practically crawl inside.


Peter’s wondering was not a lack of faith, but struggling in an attempt to understand what could have happened.


The two disciples will not be allowed to recognize Jesus until v. 31 .


This parenthetical remark by the author is necessary so the reader will understand the account.


There is irony and almost a sense of mocking disbelief as the question “ Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who doesn’t know the things that have happened there in these days? ” comes to Jesus; but, of course, the readers know what the travelers do not.


The role of Jesus as prophet is a function Luke frequently mentions: 4:25-27; 9:35; 13:31-35 .


Handed him over is another summary of the passion like Luke 9:22 .


Their messianic hope concerning Jesus is expressed by the phrase who was going to redeem Israel .


The account in 24:1-12 is repeated here, and it is clear that the other disciples were not convinced by the women, but could not explain the events either.


The men in dazzling attire mentioned in v. 4 are identified as angels here.


The rebuke is for failure to believe the promise of scripture, a theme that will appear in vv. 43-47 as well.


The statement Wasn’t it necessary is a reference to the design of God’s plan (see Luke 24:7 ). Suffering must precede glory (see Luke 17:25 ).


The reference to Moses and all the prophets is a way to say the promise of Messiah runs throughout OT scripture from first to last.


He acted as though he wanted to go farther. This is written in a way that gives the impression Jesus knew they would ask him to stay.


They recognized him. Other than this cryptic remark, it is not told how the two disciples were now able to recognize Jesus.


includes the words in brackets, indicating doubts as to their authenticity. Even though it is most likely not original (see tc note above), the phrase within us has been included in the translation for clarity.


The Lord…has appeared to Simon. Jesus had made another appearance besides the one on the road. The excitement was rising. Simon refers to Simon Peter.


Now with the recounting of what had happened on the road two sets of witnesses corroborate the women’s report.


The disciples were still not comfortable at this point thinking that this could be Jesus raised from the dead. Instead they thought they saw a spirit .


They still could not believe it. Is this a continued statement of unbelief? Or is it a rhetorical expression of their amazement? They are being moved to faith, so a rhetorical force is more likely here.


Amazement is the common response to unusual activity: 1:63; 2:18; 4:22; 7:9; 8:25; 9:43; 11:14; 20:26 .


Do you have anything here to eat? Eating would remove the idea that a phantom was present. Angelic spirits refused a meal in Jdt 13:16 and Tob 12:19, but accepted it in Gen 18:8; 19:3 and Tob 6:6.


Everything written about me. The divine plan, events, and scripture itself are seen here as being one.


For a similar threefold division of the OT scriptures, see the prologue to Sirach, lines 8-10, and from Qumran, the epilogue to 4QMMT, line 10.


Luke does not mention specific texts here, but it is likely that many of the scriptures he mentioned elsewhere in Luke-Acts would have been among those he had in mind.


This repentance has its roots in declarations of the Old Testament. It is the Hebrew concept of a turning of direction.


To all nations. The same Greek term ( τὰ ἔθνη , ta eqnh ) may be translated “the Gentiles” or “the nations.” The hope of God in Christ was for all the nations from the beginning.


Beginning from Jerusalem. See , which is where it all starts. map For location see Map5-B1 ; Map6-F3 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-F2 ; Map10-B3 ; JP1-F4 ; JP2-F4 ; JP3-F4 ; JP4-F4 .


You are witnesses. This becomes a key concept of testimony in Acts. See Acts 1:8 .


The city refers to Jerusalem.


Until you have been clothed with power refers to the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. What the Spirit supplies is enablement. See Luke 12:11-12; 21:12-15 . The difference the Spirit makes can be seen in Peter (compare Luke 22:54-62 with Acts 2:14-41 ).


Bethany was village on the Mount of Olives about 2 mi (3 km) from Jerusalem; see John 11:1, 18 .


Joy is another key theme for Luke: 1:14; 2:10; 8:13; 10:17; 15:7, 10; 24:41 .


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 are also found in John’s prologue: “life” ( 1:4 ) “light” ( 1:4 ) and “darkness” ( 1:5 ). describes the first (physical) creation; 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 with the changing of water into wine, in with the resurrection of Lazarus, and the emphasis of John 20-21 on the aftermath of Jesus’ own resurrection.)


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. 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.


John refers to John the Baptist.


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.


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.”


John’s refers to John the Baptist.


“ 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.


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).


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.


This call to “make straight” is probably an allusion to preparation through repentance.


A quotation from Isa 40:3 .


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.


This is a parenthetical note by the author.


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).


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 .


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.


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.”


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.


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.


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 .


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.


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).


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).


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.


Can anything good come out of Nazareth? may be a local proverb expressing jealousy among the towns. map For location see Map1-D3 ; Map2-C2 ; Map3-D5 ; Map4-C1 ; Map5-G3 .


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 .)


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.


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.


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.


Cana in Galilee was not a very well-known place. It is mentioned only here, in 4:46, and 21:2 , and nowhere else in the NT. Josephus ( Life 16 [86]) says he once had his quarters there. The probable location is present day Khirbet Cana, 8 mi (14 km) north of Nazareth, or Khirbet Kenna, 4 mi (7 km) northeast of Nazareth.


There is no clue to the identity of the bride and groom, but in all probability either relatives or friends of Jesus’ family were involved, since Jesus’ mother and both Jesus and his disciples were invited to the celebration. The attitude of Mary in approaching Jesus and asking him to do something when the wine ran out also suggests that familial obligations were involved.


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


Verse 12 is merely a transitional note in the narrative (although Capernaum does not lie on the direct route to Jerusalem from Cana). Nothing is mentioned in John’s Gospel at this point about anything Jesus said or did there (although later his teaching is mentioned, see 6:59 ). From the synoptics it is clear that Capernaum was a center of Jesus’ Galilean ministry and might even be called “his own town” ( Matt 9:1 ). The royal official whose son Jesus healed ( John 4:46-54 ) was from Capernaum. He may have heard Jesus speak there, or picked up the story about the miracle at Cana from one of Jesus’ disciples. map For location see Map1-D2 ; Map2-C3 ; Map3-B2 .


With respect to Jesus’ brothers , the so-called Helvidian view is to be preferred (named after Helvidius, a 4th-century theologian). This view holds that the most natural way to understand the phrase is as a reference to children of Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus. Other views are that of Epiphanius (they were children of Joseph by a former marriage) or Jerome (they were cousins). The tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity appeared in the 2nd century and is difficult to explain (as J. H. Bernard, St. John [ICC], 1:85, points out) if some of her other children were prominent members of the early church (e.g., James of Jerusalem). But this is outweighed by the natural sense of the words.


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.


Because of the imperial Roman portraits they carried, Roman denarii and Attic drachmas were not permitted to be used in paying the half-shekel temple-tax (the Jews considered the portraits idolatrous). The money changers exchanged these coins for legal Tyrian coinage at a small profit.


A quotation from Ps 69:9 .


The request “ What sign can you show us ” by Jesus’ adversaries was a request for a defense of his actions – a mark of divine authentication. Whether this was a request for a miracle is not entirely clear. Jesus never obliged such a request. Yet, ironically, the only sign the Jewish leadership will get is that predicted by Jesus in 2:19 – his crucifixion and resurrection. Cf. the “sign of Jonah” in the synoptics ( Matt 12:39, 40 ; Luke 11:29-32 ).


According to Josephus ( Ant. 15.11.1 [15.380]), work on this temple was begun in the 18th year of Herod the Great’s reign, which would have been ca. 19 b.c. (The reference in the Ant. is probably more accurate than the date given in J. W. 1.21.1 [1.401]). Forty-six years later would be around the Passover of a.d. 27/28.


They believed the scripture is probably an anaphoric reference to Ps 69:9 ( 69:10 LXX), quoted in John 2:17 above. Presumably the disciples did not remember Ps 69:9 on the spot, but it was a later insight.


Because they saw the miraculous signs he was doing. The issue here is not whether their faith was genuine or not, but what its object was. These individuals, after seeing the miracles, believed Jesus to be the Messiah. They most likely saw in him a political-eschatological figure of some sort. That does not, however, mean that their concept of “Messiah” was the same as Jesus’ own, or the author’s.


See the note on Pharisees in 1:24 .


The reference to signs ( σημεῖα , shmeia ) forms a link with John 2:23-25 . Those people in Jerusalem believed in Jesus because of the signs he had performed. Nicodemus had apparently seen them too. But for Nicodemus all the signs meant is that Jesus was a great teacher sent from God. His approach to Jesus was well-intentioned but theologically inadequate; he had failed to grasp the messianic implications of the miraculous signs.


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 , 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.


What is born of the flesh is flesh , i.e., what is born of physical heritage is physical. (It is interesting to compare this terminology with that of the dialogue in , especially 4:23, 24 .) For John the “flesh” ( σάρξ , sarx ) emphasizes merely the weakness and mortality of the creature – a neutral term, not necessarily sinful as in Paul. This is confirmed by the reference in John 1:14 to the Logos becoming “flesh.” The author avoids associating sinfulness with the incarnate Christ.


Again, the physical illustrates the spiritual, although the force is heightened by the word-play here on wind-spirit (see the note on wind at the beginning of this verse). By the end of the verse, however, the final usage of πνεύματος ( pneumatos ) refers to the Holy Spirit.


“ How can these things be? ” is Nicodemus’ answer. It is clear that at this time he has still not grasped what Jesus is saying. Note also that this is the last appearance of Nicodemus in the dialogue. Having served the purpose of the author, at this point he disappears from the scene. As a character in the narrative, he has served to illustrate the prevailing Jewish misunderstanding of Jesus’ teaching about the necessity of a new, spiritual birth from above. Whatever parting words Nicodemus might have had with Jesus, the author does not record them.


Jesus’ question “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you don’t understand these things?” implies that Nicodemus had enough information at his disposal from the OT scriptures to have understood Jesus’ statements about the necessity of being born from above by the regenerating work of the Spirit. Isa 44:3-5 and Ezek 37:9-10 are passages Nicodemus might have known which would have given him insight into Jesus’ words. Another significant passage which contains many of these concepts is Prov 30:4-5 .


Note the remarkable similarity of Jesus’ testimony to the later testimony of the Apostle John himself in 1 John 1:2 : “And we have seen and testify and report to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was revealed to us.” This is only one example of how thoroughly the author’s own thoughts were saturated with the words of Jesus (and also how difficult it is to distinguish the words of Jesus from the words of the author in the Fourth Gospel).


Obviously earthly things and heavenly things are in contrast, but what is the contrast? What are earthly things which Jesus has just spoken to Nicodemus? And through him to others – this is not the first instance of the plural pronoun, see v. 7 , you must all . Since Nicodemus began with a plural ( we know , v. 2 ) Jesus continues it, and through Nicodemus addresses a broader audience. It makes most sense to take this as a reference to the things Jesus has just said (and the things he is about to say, vv. 13-15 ). If this is the case (and it seems the most natural explanation) then earthly things are not necessarily strictly physical things, but are so called because they take place on earth, in contrast to things like v. 16 , which take place in heaven. Some have added the suggestion that the things are called earthly because physical analogies (birth, wind, water) are used to describe them. This is possible, but it seems more probable that Jesus calls these things earthly because they happen on earth (even though they are spiritual things). In the context, taking earthly things as referring to the words Jesus has just spoken fits with the fact that Nicodemus did not believe. And he would not after hearing heavenly things either, unless he first believed in the earthly things – which included the necessity of a regenerating work from above, by the Holy Spirit.


The verb ascended is a perfect tense in Greek ( ἀναβέβηκεν , anabebhken ) which seems to look at a past, completed event. (This is not as much of a problem for those who take Jesus’ words to end at v. 12 , and these words to be a comment by the author, looking back on Jesus’ ascension.) As a saying of Jesus, these words are a bit harder to explain. Note, however, the lexical similarities with 1:51 : “ascending,” “descending,” and “son of man.” Here, though, the ascent and descent is accomplished by the Son himself, not the angels as in 1:51 . There is no need to limit this saying to Jesus’ ascent following the resurrection, however; the point of the Jacob story (), which seems to be the background for 1:51 , is the freedom of communication and relationship between God and men (a major theme of John’s Gospel). This communication comes through the angels in (and John 1:51 ); but here (most appropriately) it comes directly through the Son of Man . Although Jesus could be referring to a prior ascent, after an appearance as the preincarnate Son of Man, more likely he is simply pointing out that no one from earth has ever gone up to heaven and come down again. The Son, who has come down from heaven, is the only one who has been ‘up’ there. In both Jewish intertestamental literature and later rabbinic accounts, Moses is portrayed as ascending to heaven to receive the Torah and descending to distribute it to men (e.g., Targum Ps 68:19 .) In contrast to these Jewish legends, the Son is the only one who has ever made the ascent and descent.


083 086 33 1241 pc co). On the one hand, if the reading ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is authentic it may suggest that while Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus he spoke of himself as in heaven even while he was on earth. If that is the case, one could see why variations from this hard saying arose: “who was in heaven,” “the one who is from heaven,” and omission of the clause. At the same time, such a saying could be interpreted (though with difficulty) as part of the narrator’s comments rather than Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus, alleviating the problem. And if v. 13 was viewed in early times as the evangelist’s statement, “the one who is in heaven” could have crept into the text through a marginal note. Other internal evidence suggests that this saying may be authentic. The adjectival participle, ὁ ὤν , is used in the Fourth Gospel more than any other NT book (though the Apocalypse comes in a close second), and frequently with reference to Jesus ( 1:18; 6:46; 8:47 ). It may be looking back to the LXX of Exod 3:14 ( ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν ). Especially since this exact construction is not necessary to communicate the location of the Son of Man, its presence in many witnesses here may suggest authenticity. Further, John uses the singular of οὐρανός ( ourano" , “heaven”) in all 18 instances of the word in this Gospel, and all but twice with the article (only 1:32 and 6:58 are anarthrous, and even in the latter there is significant testimony to the article). At the same time, the witnesses that lack this clause are very weighty and must not be discounted. Generally speaking, if other factors are equal, the reading of such mss should be preferred. And internally, it could be argued that ὁ ὤν is the most concise way to speak of the Son of Man in heaven at that time (without the participle the point would be more ambiguous). Further, the articular singular οὐρανός is already used twice in this verse, thus sufficiently prompting scribes to add the same in the longer reading. This combination of factors suggests that ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is not a genuine Johannism. Further intrinsic evidence against the longer reading relates to the evangelist’s purposes: If he intended v. 13 to be his own comments rather than Jesus’ statement, his switch back to Jesus’ words in v. 14 (for the lifting up of the Son of Man is still seen as in the future) seems inexplicable. The reading “who is in heaven” thus seems to be too hard. All things considered, as intriguing as the longer reading is, it seems almost surely to have been a marginal gloss added inadvertently to the text in the process of transmission. For an argument in favor of the longer reading, see David Alan Black, “The Text of John 3:13 ,” GTJ 6 (1985): 49-66. See the note on the title Son of Man in 1:51 .


Or the snake , referring to the bronze serpent mentioned in Num 21:9 .


An allusion to Num 21:5-9 .


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 .


The alternatives presented are only two (again, it is typical of Johannine thought for this to be presented in terms of polar opposites): perish or have eternal life .


That is, “to judge the world to be guilty and liable to punishment.”


John 3:16-21 provides an introduction to the (so-called) “realized” eschatology of the Fourth Gospel: Judgment has come; eternal life may be possessed now, in the present life, as well as in the future. The terminology “realized eschatology” was originally coined by E. Haenchen and used by J. Jeremias in discussion with C. H. Dodd, but is now characteristically used to describe Dodd’s own formulation. See L. Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament , 1:54, note 10, and R. E. Brown ( John [AB], 1:cxvii-cxviii) for further discussion. Especially important to note is the element of choice portrayed in John’s Gospel. If there is a twofold reaction to Jesus in John’s Gospel, it should be emphasized that that reaction is very much dependent on a person’s choice, a choice that is influenced by his way of life, whether his deeds are wicked or are done in God ( John 3:20-21 ). For John there is virtually no trace of determinism at the surface. Only when one looks beneath the surface does one find statements like “no one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him” ( John 6:44 ).


John refers to John the Baptist.


This is a parenthetical note by the author.


Some interpreters extend the quotation of John the Baptist’s words through v. 36 .


The one who comes from heaven refers to Christ. As in John 1:1 , the Word’s preexistence is indicated here.


See the note on Pharisees in 1:24 .


The author doesn’t tell why Jesus chose to set out once more for Galilee . Some have suggested that the Pharisees turned their attention to Jesus because John the Baptist had now been thrown into prison. But the text gives no hint of this. In any case, perhaps Jesus simply did not want to provoke a confrontation at this time (knowing that his “hour” had not yet come).


Travel through Samaria was not geographically necessary; the normal route for Jews ran up the east side of the Jordan River (Transjordan). Although some take the impersonal verb had to ( δεῖ , dei ) here to indicate logical necessity only, normally in John’s Gospel its use involves God’s will or plan ( 3:7, 3:14, 3:30, 4:4, 4:20, 4:24, 9:4, 10:16, 12:34, 20:9 ).


Samaria. The Samaritans were descendants of 2 groups: (1) The remnant of native Israelites who were not deported after the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 b.c. ; (2) Foreign colonists brought in from Babylonia and Media by the Assyrian conquerors to settle the land with inhabitants who would be loyal to Assyria. There was theological opposition between the Samaritans and the Jews because the former refused to worship in Jerusalem. After the exile the Samaritans put obstacles in the way of the Jewish restoration of Jerusalem, and in the 2nd century b.c. the Samaritans helped the Syrians in their wars against the Jews. In 128 b.c. the Jewish high priest retaliated and burned the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim.


Sychar was somewhere in the vicinity of Shechem, possibly the village of Askar, 1.5 km northeast of Jacob’s well.


Perhaps referred to in Gen 48:22 .


This is a parenthetical note by the author, indicating why Jesus asked the woman for a drink (for presumably his disciples also took the water bucket with them).


Where then do you get this living water? The woman’s reply is an example of the “misunderstood statement,” a technique appearing frequently in John’s Gospel. Jesus was speaking of living water which was spiritual (ultimately a Johannine figure for the Holy Spirit, see John 7:38-39 ), but the woman thought he was speaking of flowing (fresh drinkable) water. Her misunderstanding gave Jesus the opportunity to explain what he really meant.


This mountain refers to Mount Gerizim, where the Samaritan shrine was located.


Woman was a polite form of address (see BDAG 208-9 s.v. γυνή 1), similar to “Madam” or “Ma’am” used in English in different regions.


See also John 4:27 .


The imperfect tense is here rendered began coming for the author is not finished with this part of the story yet; these same Samaritans will appear again in v. 35 .


The one who sent me refers to the Father.


There is irony in the Samaritans’ declaration that Jesus was really the Savior of the world , an irony foreshadowed in the prologue to the Fourth Gospel ( 1:11 ): “He came to his own, and his own did not receive him.” Yet the Samaritans welcomed Jesus and proclaimed him to be not the Jewish Messiah only, but the Savior of the world .


All the things he had done in Jerusalem probably refers to the signs mentioned in John 2:23 . map For location see Map5-B1 ; Map6-F3 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-F2 ; Map10-B3 ; JP1-F4 ; JP2-F4 ; JP3-F4 ; JP4-F4 .


See John 2:23-25 .


John 4:44-45 . The last part of v. 45 is a parenthetical note by the author. The major problem in these verses concerns the contradiction between the proverb stated by Jesus in v. 44 and the reception of the Galileans in v. 45 . Origen solved the problem by referring his own country to Judea (which Jesus had just left) and not Galilee. But this runs counter to the thrust of John’s Gospel, which takes pains to identify Jesus with Galilee (cf. 1:46 ) and does not even mention his Judean birth. R. E. Brown typifies the contemporary approach: He regards v. 44 as an addition by a later redactor who wanted to emphasize Jesus’ unsatisfactory reception in Galilee. Neither expedient is necessary, though, if honor is understood in its sense of attributing true worth to someone. The Galileans did welcome him, but their welcome was to prove a superficial response based on what they had seen him do at the feast. There is no indication that the signs they saw brought them to place their faith in Jesus any more than Nicodemus did on the basis of the signs. But a superficial welcome based on enthusiasm for miracles is no real honor at all.


See John 2:1-11 .


Capernaum was a town on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee, 680 ft (204 m) below sea level. It was a major trade and economic center in the North Galilean region. map For location see Map1-D2 ; Map2-C3 ; Map3-B2 .


While he was on his way down. Going to Capernaum from Cana, one must go east across the Galilean hills and then descend to the Sea of Galilee. The 20 mi (33 km) journey could not be made in a single day. The use of the description on his way down shows the author was familiar with Palestinian geography.


The temporal indicator After this is not specific, so it is uncertain how long after the incidents at Cana this occurred.


565 579 700 1241 pm }. Overall, the shorter reading has somewhat better support. Internally, the known proclivity of scribes to make the text more explicit argues compellingly for the shorter reading. Thus, the verse refers to a feast other than the Passover. The incidental note in 5:3 , that the sick were lying outside in the porticoes of the pool, makes Passover an unlikely time because it fell toward the end of winter and the weather would not have been warm. L. Morris ( John [NICNT], 299, n. 6) thinks it impossible to identify the feast with certainty. A Jewish feast. Jews were obligated to go up to Jerusalem for 3 major annual feasts: Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. If the first is probably ruled out because of the time of year, the last is not as likely because it forms the central setting for chap. (where there are many indications in the context that Tabernacles is the feast in view.) This leaves the feast of Pentecost, which at some point prior to this time in Jewish tradition (as reflected in Jewish intertestamental literature and later post-Christian rabbinic writings) became identified with the giving of the law to Moses on Mount Sinai. Such an association might explain Jesus’ reference to Moses in 5:45-46 . This is uncertain, however. The only really important fact for the author is that the healing was done on a Sabbath. This is what provoked the controversy with the Jewish authorities recorded in 5:16-47 .


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 á Esdatayin , 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 á Esdata (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. 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.


Note the plural phrase these things which seems to indicate that Jesus healed on the Sabbath more than once (cf. John 20:30 ). The synoptic gospels show this to be true; the incident in 5:1-15 has thus been chosen by the author as representative.


“ My Father is working until now, and I too am working. ” What is the significance of Jesus’ claim? A preliminary understanding can be obtained from John 5:18 , noting the Jewish authorities’ response and the author’s comment. They sought to kill Jesus, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath , but he was also calling God his own Father , thus making himself equal with God. This must be seen in the context of the relation of God to the Sabbath rest. In the commandment ( Exod 20:11 ) it is explained that “In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth…and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Philo, based on the LXX translation of Exod 20:11 , denied outright that God had ever ceased his creative activity. And when Rabban Gamaliel II, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar ben Azariah, and R. Akiba were in Rome, ca. a.d. 95, they gave as a rebuttal to sectarian arguments evidence that God might do as he willed in the world without breaking the Sabbath because the entire world was his private residence. So even the rabbis realized that God did not really cease to work on the Sabbath: Divine providence remained active on the Sabbath, otherwise, all nature and life would cease to exist. As regards men, divine activity was visible in two ways: Men were born and men died on the Sabbath. Since only God could give life and only God could deal with the fate of the dead in judgment, this meant God was active on the Sabbath. This seems to be the background for Jesus’ words in 5:17 . He justified his work of healing on the Sabbath by reminding the Jewish authorities that they admitted God worked on the Sabbath. This explains the violence of the reaction. The Sabbath privilege was peculiar to God, and no one was equal to God. In claiming the right to work even as his Father worked, Jesus was claiming a divine prerogative. He was literally making himself equal to God, as 5:18 goes on to state explicitly for the benefit of the reader who might not have made the connection.


What works does the Son do likewise ? The same that the Father does – and the same that the rabbis recognized as legitimate works of God on the Sabbath (see note on working in v. 17 ). (1) Jesus grants life (just as the Father grants life) on the Sabbath. But as the Father gives physical life on the Sabbath, so the Son grants spiritual life ( John 5:21 ; note the “greater things” mentioned in v. 20 ). (2) Jesus judges (determines the destiny of people) on the Sabbath, just as the Father judges those who die on the Sabbath, because the Father has granted authority to the Son to judge ( John 5:22-23 ). But this is not all. Not only has this power been granted to Jesus in the present; it will be his in the future as well. In v. 28 there is a reference not to spiritually dead (only) but also physically dead. At their resurrection they respond to the Son as well.


To whom does another refer? To John the Baptist or to the Father? In the nearer context, v. 33 , it would seem to be John the Baptist. But v. 34 seems to indicate that Jesus does not receive testimony from men. Probably it is better to view v. 32 as identical to v. 37 , with the comments about the Baptist as a parenthetical digression.


John refers to John the Baptist.


He was a lamp that was burning and shining. Sir 48:1 states that the word of Elijah was “a flame like a torch.” Because of the connection of John the Baptist with Elijah (see John 1:21 and the note on John’s reply, “I am not”), it was natural for Jesus to apply this description to John.


You people have never heard his voice nor seen his form at any time. Compare Deut 4:12 . Also see Deut 5:24 ff., where the Israelites begged to hear the voice no longer – their request (ironically) has by this time been granted. How ironic this would be if the feast is Pentecost, where by the 1st century a.d. the giving of the law at Sinai was being celebrated.


In them you possess eternal life. Note the following examples from the rabbinic tractate Pirqe Avot (“The Sayings of the Fathers”): Pirqe Avot 2:8, “He who has acquired the words of the law has acquired for himself the life of the world to come”; Pirqe Avot 6:7, “Great is the law for it gives to those who practice it life in this world and in the world to come.”


The final condemnation will come from Moses himself – again ironic, since Moses is the very one the Jewish authorities have trusted in ( placed your hope ). This is again ironic if it is occurring at Pentecost, which at this time was being celebrated as the occasion of the giving of the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai. There is evidence that some Jews of the 1st century looked on Moses as their intercessor at the final judgment (see W. A. Meeks, The Prophet King [NovTSup], 161). This would mean the statement Moses, in whom you have placed your hope should be taken literally and relates directly to Jesus’ statements about the final judgment in John 5:28-29 .


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


Up on the mountainside does not necessarily refer to a particular mountain or hillside, but may simply mean “the hill country” or “the high ground,” referring to the high country east of the Sea of Galilee (known today as the Golan Heights).


Passover. According to John’s sequence of material, considerable time has elapsed since the feast of 5:1 . If the feast in 5:1 was Pentecost of a.d. 31, then this feast would be the Passover of a.d. 32, just one year before Jesus’ crucifixion.


This is a parenthetical note by the author.


This is a parenthetical note by the author (suggesting an eyewitness recollection).


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.


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


An allusion to Deut 18:15 .


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 18:33 ff.). 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 ).


John 6:25-31 . The previous miracle of the multiplication of the bread had taken place near the town of Tiberias (cf. John 6:23 ). Jesus’ disciples set sail for Capernaum ( 6:17 ) and were joined by the Lord in the middle of the sea. The next day boats from Tiberias picked up a few of those who had seen the multiplication (certainly not the whole 5,000) and brought them to Capernaum. It was to this group that Jesus spoke in 6:26-27 . But there were also people from Capernaum who had gathered to see Jesus, who had not witnessed the multiplication, and it was this group that asked Jesus for a miraculous sign like the manna ( 6:30-31 ). This would have seemed superfluous if it were the same crowd that had already seen the multiplication of the bread. But some from Capernaum had heard about it and wanted to see a similar miracle repeated.


A quotation from Ps 78:24 (referring to the events of Exod 16:4-36 ).


Notice that here the result (having eternal life and being raised up at the last day ) is produced by looking on the Son and believing in him. Compare John 6:54 where the same result is produced by eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood . This suggests that the phrase in 6:54 ( eats my flesh and drinks my blood ) is to be understood in terms of the phrase here ( looks on the Son and believes in him ).


A quotation from Isa 54:13 .


This is best taken as a parenthetical note by the author. Although some would attribute these words to Jesus himself, the switch from first person in Jesus’ preceding and following remarks to third person in v. 46 suggests that the author has added a clarifying comment here.


Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood. These words are at the heart of the discourse on the Bread of Life, and have created great misunderstanding among interpreters. Anyone who is inclined toward a sacramental viewpoint will almost certainly want to take these words as a reference to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or the Eucharist, because of the reference to eating and drinking. But this does not automatically follow: By anyone’s definition there must be a symbolic element to the eating which Jesus speaks of in the discourse, and once this is admitted, it is better to understand it here, as in the previous references in the passage, to a personal receiving of (or appropriation of) Christ and his work.


Notice that here the result ( has eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day ) is produced by eating (Jesus’) flesh and drinking his blood . Compare John 6:40 where the same result is produced by “looking on the Son and believing in him.” This suggests that the phrase here ( eats my flesh and drinks my blood ) is to be understood by the phrase in 6:40 ( looks on the Son and believes in him ).


Resides in me, and I in him. Note how in John 6:54 eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood produces eternal life and the promise of resurrection at the last day . Here the same process of eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood leads to a relationship of mutual indwelling ( resides in me, and I in him ). This suggests strongly that for the author (and for Jesus) the concepts of ‘possessing eternal life’ and of ‘residing in Jesus’ are virtually interchangeable.


A synagogue was a place for Jewish prayer and worship, with recognized leadership (cf. Luke 8:41 ). Though the origin of the synagogue is not entirely clear, it seems to have arisen in the postexilic community during the intertestamental period. A town could establish a synagogue if there were at least ten men. In normative Judaism of the NT period, the OT scripture was read and discussed in the synagogue by the men who were present (see the Mishnah, m. Megillah 3-4; m. Berakhot 2).


This is a parenthetical comment by the author.


See 1 John 4:16 .


א B C* D L W as well as versional witnesses. It appears that Peter’s confession in the Synoptic Gospels (especially Matt 16:16 ) supplied the motivation for the variations. Although the witnesses in Matt 16:16 ; Mark 8:29 ; and Luke 9:20 vary considerably, the readings are all intra-synoptic, that is, they do not pull in “the Holy One of God” but reflect various permutations of “Christ”/“Christ of God”/“Christ, the Son of God”/“Christ, the Son of the living God.” The wording “the Holy One of God” (without “Christ”) in important witnesses here is thus unique among Peter’s confessions, and best explains the rise of the other readings. You have the words of eternal life…you are the Holy One of God! In contrast to the response of some of his disciples, here is the response of the twelve, whom Jesus then questioned concerning their loyalty to him. This was the big test, and the twelve, with Peter as spokesman, passed with flying colors. The confession here differs considerably from the synoptic accounts ( Matt 16:16 , Mark 8:29 , and Luke 9:20 ) and concerns directly the disciples’ personal loyalty to Jesus, in contrast to those other disciples who had deserted him ( John 6:66 ).


At least six explanations for the name Iscariot have been proposed, but it is probably transliterated Hebrew with the meaning “man of Kerioth” (there are at least two villages that had that name). See D. A. Carson, John , 304.


This parenthetical statement by the author helps the reader understand Jesus’ statement one of you is the devil in the previous verse. This is the first mention of Judas in the Fourth Gospel, and he is immediately identified (as he is in the synoptic gospels, Matt 10:4 , Mark 3:19 , Luke 6:16 ) as the one who would betray Jesus.


Again, the transition is indicated by the imprecise temporal indicator After this . Clearly, though, the author has left out much of the events of Jesus’ ministry, because chap. took place near the Passover ( 6:4 ). This would have been the Passover between winter/spring of a.d. 32, just one year before Jesus’ crucifixion (assuming a date of a.d. 33 for the crucifixion), or the Passover of winter/spring a.d. 29, assuming a date of a.d. 30 for the crucifixion.


Since the present verse places these incidents at the feast of Tabernacles ( a.d. 29 or 32, depending on whether one dates the crucifixion in a.d. 30 or 33) there would have been a 6-month interval during which no events are recorded. The author is obviously selective in his approach; he is not recording an exhaustive history (as he will later tell the reader in John 21:25 ). After healing the paralytic on the Sabbath in Jerusalem ( John 5:1-47 ), Jesus withdrew again to Galilee because of mounting opposition. In Galilee the feeding of the 5,000 took place, which marked the end of the Galilean ministry for all practical purposes. John 7:1-9 thus marks Jesus’ final departure from Galilee.


No one who seeks to make a reputation for himself does anything in secret means, in effect: “if you’re going to perform signs to authenticate yourself as Messiah, you should do them at Jerusalem.” (Jerusalem is where mainstream Jewish apocalyptic tradition held that Messiah would appear.)


This is a parenthetical note by the author.


One always speaks of “going up ” to Jerusalem in Jewish idiom, even though in western thought it is more common to speak of south as “down” (Jerusalem lies south of Galilee). The reason for the idiom is that Jerusalem was identified with Mount Zion in the OT, so that altitude was the issue.


The “one miracle” that caused them all to be amazed was the last previous public miracle in Jerusalem recorded by the author, the healing of the paralyzed man in John 5:1-9 on the Sabbath. (The synoptic gospels record other Sabbath healings, but John does not mention them.)


If a male child is circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses is not broken. The Rabbis counted 248 parts to a man’s body. In the Talmud ( b. Yoma 85b) R. Eleazar ben Azariah (ca. a.d. 100) states: “If circumcision, which attaches to one only of the 248 members of the human body, suspends the Sabbath, how much more shall the saving of the whole body suspend the Sabbath?” So absolutely binding did rabbinic Judaism regard the command of Lev 12:3 to circumcise on the eighth day, that in the Mishnah m. Shabbat 18.3; 19.1, 2; and m. Nedarim 3.11 all hold that the command to circumcise overrides the command to observe the Sabbath.


They are saying nothing to him. Some people who had heard Jesus were so impressed with his teaching that they began to infer from the inactivity of the opposing Jewish leaders a tacit acknowledgment of Jesus’ claims.


We know where this man comes from. The author apparently did not consider this objection worth answering. The true facts about Jesus’ origins were readily available for any reader who didn’t know already. Here is an instance where the author assumes knowledge about Jesus that is independent from the material he records.


The view of these people regarding the Messiah that no one will know where he comes from reflects the idea that the origin of the Messiah is a mystery. In the Talmud ( b. Sanhedrin 97a) Rabbi Zera taught: “Three come unawares: Messiah, a found article, and a scorpion.” Apparently OT prophetic passages like Mal 3:1 and Dan 9:25 were interpreted by some as indicating a sudden appearance of Messiah. It appears that this was not a universal view: The scribes summoned by Herod at the coming of the Magi in knew that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. It is important to remember that Jewish messianic expectations in the early 1st century were not monolithic.


You both know me and know where I come from! Jesus’ response while teaching in the temple is difficult – it appears to concede too much understanding to his opponents. It is best to take the words as irony: “So you know me and know where I am from, do you?” On the physical, literal level, they did know where he was from: Nazareth of Galilee (at least they thought they knew). But on another deeper (spiritual) level, they did not: He came from heaven, from the Father. Jesus insisted that he has not come on his own initiative (cf. 5:37 ), but at the bidding of the Father who sent him.


See the note on Pharisees in 1:24 .


The Jewish people dispersed ( Grk “He is not going to the Diaspora ”). The Greek term diaspora (“dispersion”) originally meant those Jews not living in Palestine, but dispersed or scattered among the Gentiles.


There is a problem with the identification of this reference to the last day of the feast, the greatest day : It appears from Deut 16:13 that the feast went for seven days. Lev 23:36 , however, makes it plain that there was an eighth day, though it was mentioned separately from the seven. It is not completely clear whether the seventh or eighth day was the climax of the feast, called here by the author the “last great day of the feast.” Since according to the Mishnah ( m. Sukkah 4.1) the ceremonies with water and lights did not continue after the seventh day, it seems more probable that this is the day the author mentions.


An OT quotation whose source is difficult to determine; Isa 44:3, 55:1, 58:11 , and Zech 14:8 have all been suggested.


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


An allusion to Ps 89:4 .


An allusion to Mic 5:2 . map For location see Map5-B1 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-E2 ; Map10-B4 .


Compare John 7:30 regarding the attempt to seize Jesus.


The chief priests and Pharisees ( John 7:45 ) is a comprehensive term for the groups represented in the ruling council (the Sanhedrin) as in John 7:45; 18:3 ; Acts 5:22, 26 . Likewise the term ruler here denotes a member of the Sanhedrin, the highest legal, legislative, and judicial body among the Jews. Note the same word (“ruler”) is used to describe Nicodemus in John 3:1 , and Nicodemus also speaks up in this episode ( John 7:50 ).


) places the pericope after Luke 21:38 . Conclusion: In the final analysis, the weight of evidence in this case must go with the external evidence. The earliest and best mss do not contain the pericope. It is true with regard to internal evidence that an attractive case can be made for inclusion, but this is by nature subjective (as evidenced by the fact that strong arguments can be given against such as well). In terms of internal factors like vocabulary and style, the pericope does not stand up very well. The question may be asked whether this incident, although not an original part of the Gospel of John, should be regarded as an authentic tradition about Jesus. It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature. However, even that needs to be nuanced (see B. D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS 34 [1988]: 24–44). Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of John. In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation.


The Mount of Olives is a hill running north to south about 1.8 mi (3 km) long, lying east of Jerusalem across the Kidron Valley. It was named for the large number of olive trees that grew on it.


An allusion to Lev 20:10 and Deut 22:22-24 .


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 .


This is a parenthetical note by the author of 7:53 – 8:11 .


Woman was a polite form of address (see BDAG 208-9 s.v. γυνή 1), similar to “Madam” or “Ma’am” used in English in different regions.


The theory proposed by F. J. A. Hort ( The New Testament in the Original Greek, vol. 2, Introduction; Appendix , 87-88), that the backdrop of 8:12 is the lighting of the candelabra in the court of women, may offer a plausible setting to the proclamation by Jesus that he is the light of the world . The last time that Jesus spoke in the narrative (assuming 7:53-8:11 is not part of the original text, as the textual evidence suggests) is in 7:38 , where he was speaking to a crowd of pilgrims in the temple area. This is where he is found in the present verse, and he may be addressing the crowd again. Jesus’ remark has to be seen in view of both the prologue ( John 1:4, 5 ) and the end of the discourse with Nicodemus ( John 3:19-21 ). The coming of Jesus into the world provokes judgment: A choosing up of sides becomes necessary. The one who comes to the light, that is, who follows Jesus, will not walk in the darkness. The one who refuses to come, will walk in the darkness. In this contrast, there are only two alternatives. So it is with a person’s decision about Jesus. Furthermore, this serves as in implicit indictment of Jesus’ opponents, who still walk in the darkness, because they refuse to come to him. This sets up the contrast in chap. between the man born blind, who receives both physical and spiritual sight, and the Pharisees ( John 9:13, 15, 16 ) who have physical sight but remain in spiritual darkness.


Compare the charge You testify about yourself; your testimony is not true! to Jesus’ own statement about his testimony in 5:31 .


You people do not know where I came from or where I am going. The ignorance of the religious authorities regarding Jesus’ origin works on two levels at once: First, they thought Jesus came from Galilee (although he really came from Bethlehem in Judea) and second, they did not know that he came from heaven (from the Father), and this is where he would return. See further John 7:52 .


What is the meaning of Jesus’ statement “ I do not judge anyone ”? It is clear that Jesus did judge (even in the next verse). The point is that he didn’t practice the same kind of judgment that the Pharisees did. Their kind of judgment was condemnatory. They tried to condemn people. Jesus did not come to judge the world, but to save it ( 3:17 ). Nevertheless, and not contradictory to this, the coming of Jesus did bring judgment, because it forced people to make a choice. Would they accept Jesus or reject him? Would they come to the light or shrink back into the darkness? As they responded, so were they judged – just as 3:19-21 previously stated. One’s response to Jesus determines one’s eternal destiny.


An allusion to Deut 17:6 .


If you knew me you would know my Father too. Jesus’ reply is based on his identity with the Father (see also John 1:18; 14:9 ).


This is a parenthetical note by the author.


They did not understand…about his Father is a parenthetical note by the author. This type of comment, intended for the benefit of the reader, is typical of the “omniscient author” convention adopted by the author, who is writing from a postresurrection point of view. He writes with the benefit of later knowledge that those who originally heard Jesus’ words would not have had.


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 ).


We were not born as a result of immorality! is ironic, because Jesus’ opponents implied that it was not themselves but Jesus who had been born as a result of immoral behavior. This shows they did not know Jesus’ true origin and were not aware of the supernatural events surrounding his birth. The author does not even bother to refute the opponents’ suggestion but lets it stand, assuming his readers will know the true story.


I am! is an explicit claim to deity. Although each occurrence of the phrase “I am” in the Fourth Gospel needs to be examined individually in context to see if an association with Exod 3:14 is present, it seems clear that this is the case here (as the response of the Jewish authorities in the following verse shows).


Jesus’ Jewish listeners understood his claim to deity, rejected it, and picked up stones to throw at him for what they considered blasphemy.


Jesus’ statement I am the light of the world connects the present account with 8:12 . Here (seen more clearly than at 8:12 ) it is obvious what the author sees as the significance of Jesus’ statement. “Light” is not a metaphysical definition of the person of Jesus but a description of his effect on the world, forcing everyone in the world to ‘choose up sides’ for or against him (cf. 3:19-21 ).


This is a parenthetical note by the author. Why does he comment on the meaning of the name of the pool? Here, the significance is that the Father sent the Son, and the Son sent the man born blind. The name of the pool is applicable to the man, but also to Jesus himself, who was sent from heaven.


See the note on Pharisees in 1:24 .


The Jewish religious leaders considered the work involved in making the mud to be a violation of the Sabbath .


This reference to excommunication from the Jewish synagogue for those who had made some sort of confession about Jesus being the Messiah is dismissed as anachronistic by some (e.g., Barrett) and nonhistorical by others. In later Jewish practice there were at least two forms of excommunication: a temporary ban for thirty days, and a permanent ban. But whether these applied in NT times is far from certain. There is no substantial evidence for a formal ban on Christians until later than this Gospel could possibly have been written. This may be a reference to some form of excommunication adopted as a contingency to deal with those who were proclaiming Jesus to be the Messiah. If so, there is no other record of the procedure than here. It was probably local, limited to the area around Jerusalem. See also the note on synagogue in 6:59 .


This is a parenthetical note by the author explaining the parents’ response.


Assuming the authenticity of John 9:38-39 a (see the tc note following the bracket in v. 39 ), the man’s response after Jesus’ statement of v. 37 is extremely significant: He worshiped Jesus. In the Johannine context the word would connote its full sense: This was something due God alone. Note also that Jesus did not prevent the man from doing this. The verb προσκυνέω ( proskunew ) is used in John 4:20-25 of worshiping God, and again with the same sense in 12:20 . This would be the only place in John’s Gospel where anyone is said to have worshiped Jesus using this term. As such, it forms the climax of the story of the man born blind, but the uniqueness of the concept of worshiping Jesus at this point in John's narrative (which reaches its ultimate climax in the confession of Thomas in John 20:28 ) may suggest it is too early for such a response and it represents a later scribal addition.


Because you claim that you can see, your guilt remains. The blind man received sight physically, and this led him to see spiritually as well. But the Pharisees, who claimed to possess spiritual sight, were spiritually blinded. The reader might recall Jesus’ words to Nicodemus in 3:10 , “Are you the teacher of Israel and don’t understand these things?” In other words, to receive Jesus was to receive the light of the world, to reject him was to reject the light, close one’s eyes, and become blind. This is the serious sin of which Jesus had warned before ( 8:21-24 ). The blindness of such people was incurable since they had rejected the only cure that exists (cf. 12:39-41 ).


There was more than one type of sheepfold in use in Palestine in Jesus’ day. The one here seems to be a courtyard in front of a house (the Greek word used for the sheepfold here, αὐλή [ aulh ] frequently refers to a courtyard), surrounded by a stone wall (often topped with briars for protection).


He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. Some interpreters have suggested that there was more than one flock in the fold, and there would be a process of separation where each shepherd called out his own flock. This may also be suggested by the mention of a doorkeeper in v. 3 since only the larger sheepfolds would have such a guard. But the Gospel of John never mentions a distinction among the sheep in this fold; in fact ( 10:16 ) there are other sheep which are to be brought in, but they are to be one flock and one shepherd.


A parable is a fairly short narrative that has symbolic meaning. The Greek word παροιμίαν ( paroimian ) is used again in 16:25, 29 . This term does not occur in the synoptic gospels, where παραβολή ( parabolh ) is used. Nevertheless it is similar, denoting a short narrative with figurative or symbolic meaning.


That is, pasture land in contrast to cultivated land.


Jesus contrasts the behavior of the shepherd with that of the hired hand . This is a worker who is simply paid to do a job; he has no other interest in the sheep and is certainly not about to risk his life for them. When they are threatened, he simply runs away.


The statement I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold almost certainly refers to Gentiles. Jesus has sheep in the fold who are Jewish; there are other sheep which, while not of the same fold, belong to him also. This recalls the mission of the Son in 3:16-17 , which was to save the world – not just the nation of Israel. Such an emphasis would be particularly appropriate to the author if he were writing to a non-Palestinian and primarily non-Jewish audience.


It was winter. The feast began on 25 Kislev, in November-December of the modern Gregorian calendar.


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 ).


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?


The parenthetical note And the scripture cannot be broken belongs to Jesus’ words rather than the author’s. Not only does Jesus appeal to the OT to defend himself against the charge of blasphemy, but he also adds that the scripture cannot be “broken.” In this context he does not explain precisely what is meant by “broken,” but it is not too hard to determine. Jesus’ argument depended on the exact word used in the context of Ps 82:6 . If any other word for “judge” had been used in the psalm, his argument would have been meaningless. Since the scriptures do use this word in Ps 82:6 , the argument is binding, because they cannot be “broken” in the sense of being shown to be in error.


John refers to John the Baptist.


This is a parenthetical note by the author. It is a bit surprising that the author here identifies Mary as the one who anointed the Lord with perfumed oil and wiped his feet dry with her hair , since this event is not mentioned until later, in 12:3 . Many see this “proleptic” reference as an indication that the author expected his readers to be familiar with the story already, and go on to assume that in general the author in writing the Fourth Gospel assumed his readers were familiar with the other three gospels. Whether the author assumed actual familiarity with the synoptic gospels or not, it is probable that he did assume some familiarity with Mary’s anointing activity.


So that the Son of God may be glorified through it. These statements are highly ironic: For Lazarus, the sickness did not end in his death, because he was restored to life. But for Jesus himself, the miraculous sign he performed led to his own death, because it confirmed the authorities in their plan to kill Jesus ( 11:47-53 ). In the Gospel of John, Jesus’ death is consistently portrayed as his ‘glorification’ through which he accomplishes his return to the Father.


This is a parenthetical note by the author. It was necessary for the author to reaffirm Jesus’ love for Martha and her sister and Lazarus here because Jesus’ actions in the following verse appear to be contradictory.


The village of Bethany, where Lazarus was, lies in Judea , less than 2 mi (3 km) from Jerusalem (see 11:18 ).


What is the light of this world ? On one level, of course, it refers to the sun, but the reader of John’s Gospel would recall 8:12 and understand Jesus’ symbolic reference to himself as the light of the world. There is only a limited time left ( Are there not twelve hours in a day? ) until the Light will be withdrawn (until Jesus returns to the Father) and the one who walks around in the dark will trip and fall (compare the departure of Judas by night in 13:30 ).


So that you may believe. Why does Jesus make this statement? It seems necessary to understand the disciples’ belief here in a developmental sense, because there are numerous references to the disciples’ faith previous to this in John’s Gospel, notably 2:11 . Their concept of who Jesus really was is continually being expanded and challenged; they are undergoing spiritual growth; the climax is reached in the confession of Thomas in John 20:28 .


Didymus means “the twin” in Greek.


This is a parenthetical note by the author.


One gets the impression from Thomas’ statement “ Let us go too, so that we may die with him ” that he was something of a pessimist resigned to his fate. And yet his dedicated loyalty to Jesus and his determination to accompany him at all costs was truly commendable. Nor is the contrast between this statement and the confession of Thomas in 20:28 , which forms the climax of the entire Fourth Gospel, to be overlooked; certainly Thomas’ concept of who Jesus is has changed drastically between 11:16 and 20:28 .


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.


The statement “ whatever you ask from God, God will grant you ” by Martha presents something of a dilemma, because she seems to be suggesting here (implicitly at least) the possibility of a resurrection for her brother. However, Martha’s statement in 11:39 makes it clear that she had no idea that a resurrection was still possible. How then are her words in 11:22 to be understood? It seems best to take them as a confession of Martha’s continuing faith in Jesus even though he was not there in time to help her brother. She means, in effect, “Even though you weren’t here in time to help, I still believe that God grants your requests.”


Jesus wept. The Greek word used here for Jesus’ weeping ( ἐδάκρυσεν , edakrusen ) is different from the one used to describe the weeping of Mary and the Jews in v. 33 which indicated loud wailing and cries of lament. This word simply means “to shed tears” and has more the idea of quiet grief. But why did Jesus do this? Not out of grief for Lazarus, since he was about to be raised to life again. L. Morris ( John [NICNT] , 558) thinks it was grief over the misconception of those round about. But it seems that in the context the weeping is triggered by the thought of Lazarus in the tomb: This was not personal grief over the loss of a friend (since Lazarus was about to be restored to life) but grief over the effects of sin, death, and the realm of Satan. It was a natural complement to the previous emotional expression of anger ( 11:33 ). It is also possible that Jesus wept at the tomb of Lazarus because he knew there was also a tomb for himself ahead.


He has been buried four days. Although all the details of the miracle itself are not given, those details which are mentioned are important. The statement made by Martha is extremely significant for understanding what actually took place. There is no doubt that Lazarus had really died, because the decomposition of his body had already begun to take place, since he had been dead for four days.


The purpose of the loud voice was probably to ensure that all in the crowd could hear (compare the purpose of the prayer of thanksgiving in vv. 41-42 ).


Many have wondered how Lazarus got out of the tomb if his hands and feet were still tied up with strips of cloth . The author does not tell, and with a miracle of this magnitude, this is not an important fact to know. If Lazarus’ decomposing body was brought back to life by the power of God, then it could certainly have been moved out of the tomb by that same power. Others have suggested that the legs were bound separately, which would remove the difficulty, but the account gives no indication of this. What may be of more significance for the author is the comparison which this picture naturally evokes with the resurrection of Jesus, where the graveclothes stayed in the tomb neatly folded ( 20:6-7 ). Jesus, unlike Lazarus, would never need graveclothes again.


See the note on Pharisees in 1:24 .


In his own mind Caiaphas was no doubt giving voice to a common-sense statement of political expediency. Yet he was unconsciously echoing a saying of Jesus himself (cf. Mark 10:45 ). Caiaphas was right; the death of Jesus would save the nation from destruction. Yet Caiaphas could not suspect that Jesus would die, not in place of the political nation Israel, but on behalf of the true people of God; and he would save them, not from physical destruction, but from eternal destruction (cf. 3:16-17 ). The understanding of Caiaphas’ words in a sense that Caiaphas could not possibly have imagined at the time he uttered them serves as a clear example of the way in which the author understood that words and actions could be invested retrospectively with a meaning not consciously intended or understood by those present at the time.


The author in his comment expands the prophecy to include the Gentiles ( not for the Jewish nation only ), a confirmation that the Fourth Gospel was directed, at least partly, to a Gentile audience. There are echoes of Pauline concepts here (particularly Eph 2:11-22 ) in the stress on the unity of Jew and Gentile.


This is a parenthetical note by the author. With a note characteristic of someone who was there and remembered, the author adds that the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfumed oil . In the later rabbinic literature, Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7.1.1 states “The fragrance of good oil is diffused from the bedroom to the dining hall, but a good name is diffused from one end of the world to the other.” If such a saying was known in the 1st century, this might be the author’s way of indicating that Mary’s act of devotion would be spoken of throughout the entire world (compare the comment in Mark 14:9 ).


This is a parenthetical note by the author. This is one of the indications in the gospels that Judas was of bad character before the betrayal of Jesus. John states that he was a thief and had responsibility for the finances of the group. More than being simply a derogatory note about Judas’ character, the inclusion of the note at this particular point in the narrative may be intended to link the frustrated greed of Judas here with his subsequent decision to betray Jesus for money. The parallel accounts in Matthew and Mark seem to indicate that after this incident Judas went away immediately and made his deal with the Jewish authorities to deliver up Jesus. Losing out on one source of sordid gain, he immediately went out and set up another.


According to John 11:53 the Jewish leadership had already planned to kill Jesus. This plot against Lazarus apparently never got beyond the planning stage, however, since no further mention is made of it by the author.


The Mosaic law stated ( Lev 23:40 ) that branches of palm trees were to be used to celebrate the feast of Tabernacles. Later on they came to be used to celebrate other feasts as well (1 Macc. 13:51, 2 Macc. 10:7).


A quotation from Ps 118:25-26 .


The author does not repeat the detailed accounts of the finding of the donkey recorded in the synoptic gospels. He does, however, see the event as a fulfillment of scripture, which he indicates by quoting Zech 9:9 .


A quotation from Zech 9:9 .


When Jesus was glorified , that is, glorified through his resurrection, exaltation, and return to the Father. Jesus’ glorification is consistently portrayed this way in the Gospel of John.


The comment His disciples did not understand these things when they first happened (a parenthetical note by the author) informs the reader that Jesus’ disciples did not at first associate the prophecy from Zechariah with the events as they happened. This came with the later (postresurrection) insight which the Holy Spirit would provide after Jesus’ resurrection and return to the Father. Note the similarity with John 2:22 , which follows another allusion to a prophecy in Zechariah ( 14:21 ).


These Greeks ( ῞Ελληνές τινες , {ellhne" tine" ) who had come up to worship at the feast were probably “God-fearers” rather than proselytes in the strict sense. Had they been true proselytes, they would probably not have been referred to as Greeks any longer. Many came to worship at the major Jewish festivals without being proselytes to Judaism, for example, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:27 , who could not have been a proselyte if he were physically a eunuch.


These Greeks approached Philip , although it is not clear why they did so. Perhaps they identified with his Greek name (although a number of Jews from border areas had Hellenistic names at this period). By see it is clear they meant “speak with,” since anyone could “see” Jesus moving through the crowd. The author does not mention what they wanted to speak with Jesus about.


Jesus’ reply, the time has come for the Son of Man to be glorified , is a bit puzzling. As far as the author’s account is concerned, Jesus totally ignores these Greeks and makes no further reference to them whatsoever. It appears that his words are addressed to Andrew and Philip, but in fact they must have had a wider audience, including possibly the Greeks who had wished to see him in the first place. The words the time has come recall all the previous references to “the hour” throughout the Fourth Gospel (see the note on time in 2:4 ). There is no doubt, in light of the following verse, that Jesus refers to his death here. On his pathway to glorification lies the cross, and it is just ahead.


The ruler of this world is a reference to Satan.


This is a parenthetical note by the author.


The warning Walk while you have the light, so that the darkness may not overtake you operates on at least two different levels: (1) To the Jewish people in Jerusalem to whom Jesus spoke, the warning was a reminder that there was only a little time left for them to accept him as their Messiah. (2) To those later individuals to whom the Fourth Gospel was written, and to every person since, the words of Jesus are also a warning: There is a finite, limited time in which each individual has opportunity to respond to the Light of the world (i.e., Jesus); after that comes darkness. One’s response to the Light decisively determines one’s judgment for eternity.


A quotation from Isa 53:1 .


The author explicitly states here that Jesus’ Jewish opponents could not believe , and quotes Isa 6:10 to show that God had in fact blinded their eyes and hardened their heart . This OT passage was used elsewhere in the NT to explain Jewish unbelief: Paul’s final words in Acts ( 28:26-27 ) are a quotation of this same passage, which he uses to explain why the Jewish people have not accepted the gospel he has preached. A similar passage ( Isa 29:10 ) is quoted in a similar context in Rom 11:8 .


A quotation from Isa 6:10 .


The term rulers here denotes members of the Sanhedrin, the highest legal, legislative, and judicial body among the Jews. Note the same word (“ruler”) is used to describe Nicodemus in 3:1 .


See the note on Pharisees in 1:24 .


Compare John 9:22 . See the note on synagogue in 6:59 .


The one who sent me refers to God.


Cf. John 1:18 and 14:9 .


Cf. John 3:17 .


At this point the devil had already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, that he should betray Jesus . C. K. Barrett ( St. John , 365) thought this was a reference to the idea entering the devil’s own heart, but this does not seem likely. It is more probable that Judas’ heart is meant, since the use of the Greek article (rather than a possessive pronoun) is a typical idiom when a part of one’s own body is indicated. Judas’ name is withheld until the end of the sentence for dramatic effect (emphasis). This action must be read in light of 13:27 , and appears to refer to a preliminary idea or plan.


The one who has bathed needs only to wash his feet. A common understanding is that the “bath” Jesus referred to is the initial cleansing from sin, which necessitates only “lesser, partial” cleansings from sins after conversion. This makes a fine illustration from a homiletic standpoint, but is it the meaning of the passage? This seems highly doubtful. Jesus stated that the disciples were completely clean except for Judas (vv. 10 b, 11). What they needed was to have their feet washed by Jesus. In the broader context of the Fourth Gospel, the significance of the foot-washing seems to point not just to an example of humble service (as most understand it), but something more – Jesus’ self-sacrificial death on the cross. If this is correct, then the foot-washing which they needed to undergo represented their acceptance of this act of self-sacrifice on the part of their master. This makes Peter’s initial abhorrence of the act of humiliation by his master all the more significant in context; it also explains Jesus’ seemingly harsh reply to Peter (above, v. 8 ; compare Matt 16:21-23 where Jesus says to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan”).


I have given you an example. Jesus tells his disciples after he has finished washing their feet that what he has done is to set an example for them. In the previous verse he told them they were to wash one another’s feet . What is the point of the example? If it is simply an act of humble service, as most interpret the significance, then Jesus is really telling his disciples to serve one another in humility rather than seeking preeminence over one another. If, however, the example is one of self-sacrifice up to the point of death, then Jesus is telling them to lay down their lives for one another (cf. 15:13 ).


Here for the first time the one Jesus loved , the ‘beloved disciple,’ is introduced. This individual also is mentioned in 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, and 21:20 . Some have suggested that this disciple is to be identified with Lazarus, since the Fourth Gospel specifically states that Jesus loved him ( 11:3, 5, 36 ). From the terminology alone this is a possibility; the author is certainly capable of using language in this way to indicate connections. But there is nothing else to indicate that Lazarus was present at the last supper; Mark 14:17 seems to indicate it was only the twelve who were with Jesus at this time, and there is no indication in the Fourth Gospel to the contrary. Nor does it appear that Lazarus ever stood so close to Jesus as the later references in chaps. 19, 20 and 21 seem to indicate. When this is coupled with the omission of all references to John son of Zebedee from the Fourth Gospel, it seems far more likely that the references to the beloved disciple should be understood as references to him.