It is not clear where Simon Peter was seated. If he were on Jesus’ other side, it is difficult to see why he would not have asked the question himself. It would also have been difficult to beckon to the beloved disciple, on Jesus’ right, from such a position. So apparently Peter was seated somewhere else. It is entirely possible that Judas was seated to Jesus’ left. Matt 26:25 seems to indicate that Jesus could speak to him without being overheard by the rest of the group. Judas is evidently in a position where Jesus can hand him the morsel of food ( 13:26 ).


That is, who would betray him (v. 21 ).


The piece of bread was a broken-off piece of bread (not merely a crumb).


This is a parenthetical note by the author.


Now it was night is a parenthetical note by the author. The comment is more than just a time indicator, however. With the departure of Judas to set in motion the betrayal, arrest, trials, crucifixion, and death of Jesus, daytime is over and night has come (see John 9:5; 11:9-10; 12:35-36 ). Judas had become one of those who walked by night and stumbled, because the light was not in him ( 11:10 ).


See John 7:33-34 .


The idea that love is a commandment is interesting. In the OT the ten commandments have a setting in the covenant between God and Israel at Sinai; they were the stipulations that Israel had to observe if the nation were to be God’s chosen people. In speaking of love as the new commandment for those whom Jesus had chosen as his own ( John 13:1, 15:16 ) and as a mark by which they could be distinguished from others ( 13:35 ), John shows that he is thinking of this scene in covenant terminology. But note that the disciples are to love “ Just as I have loved you ” ( 13:34 ). The love Jesus has for his followers cannot be duplicated by them in one sense, because it effects their salvation, since he lays down his life for them: It is an act of love that gives life to people. But in another sense, they can follow his example (recall to the end, 13:1; also 1 John 3:16, 4:16 and the interpretation of Jesus’ washing of the disciples’ feet). In this way Jesus’ disciples are to love one another: They are to follow his example of sacrificial service to one another, to death if necessary.


The same verb is used to describe Jesus’ own state in John 11:33, 12:27, and 13:21 . Jesus is looking ahead to the events of the evening and the next day, his arrest, trials, crucifixion, and death, which will cause his disciples extreme emotional distress.


Most interpreters have understood the reference to my Father’s house as a reference to heaven, and the dwelling places ( μονή , monh ) as the permanent residences of believers there. This seems consistent with the vocabulary and the context, where in v. 3 Jesus speaks of coming again to take the disciples to himself. However, the phrase in my Father’s house was used previously in the Fourth Gospel in 2:16 to refer to the temple in Jerusalem. The author in 2:19-22 then reinterpreted the temple as Jesus’ body, which was to be destroyed in death and then rebuilt in resurrection after three days. Even more suggestive is the statement by Jesus in 8:35 , “Now the slave does not remain ( μένω , menw ) in the household forever, but the son remains ( μένω ) forever.” If in the imagery of the Fourth Gospel the phrase in my Father’s house is ultimately a reference to Jesus’ body, the relationship of μονή to μένω suggests the permanent relationship of the believer to Jesus and the Father as an adopted son who remains in the household forever. In this case the “dwelling place” is “in” Jesus himself, where he is, whether in heaven or on earth. The statement in v. 3 , “I will come again and receive you to myself,” then refers not just to the parousia, but also to Jesus’ postresurrection return to the disciples in his glorified state, when by virtue of his death on their behalf they may enter into union with him and with the Father as adopted sons. Needless to say, this bears numerous similarities to Pauline theology, especially the concepts of adoption as sons and being “in Christ” which are prominent in passages like . It is also important to note, however, the emphasis in the Fourth Gospel itself on the present reality of eternal life ( John 5:24, 7:38-39 , etc.) and the possibility of worshiping the Father “in the Spirit and in truth” ( John 4:21-24 ) in the present age. There is a sense in which it is possible to say that the future reality is present now. See further J. McCaffrey, The House With Many Rooms (AnBib 114).


א B C* L Q W 33 579 pc ) is the addition of καί before τὴν ὁδόν and οἴδατε after. Either assertion on the part of Jesus would be understandable: “you know the way where I am going” or “you know where I am going and you know the way,” although the shorter reading is a bit more awkward syntactically. In light of this, and in light of the expansion already at hand in v. 5 , the longer reading appears to be a motivated reading. The shorter reading is thus preferred because of its superior external and internal evidence. Where I am going. Jesus had spoken of his destination previously to the disciples, most recently in John 13:33 . Where he was going was back to the Father, and they could not follow him there, but later he would return for them and they could join him then. The way he was going was via the cross. This he had also mentioned previously (e.g., 12:32 ) although his disciples did not understand at the time (cf. 12:33 ). As Jesus would explain in v. 6 , although for him the way back to the Father was via the cross, for his disciples the “way” to where he was going was Jesus himself.


Jesus’ statement If you love me, you will obey my commandments provides the transition between the promises of answered prayer which Jesus makes to his disciples in vv. 13-14 and the promise of the Holy Spirit which is introduced in v. 16 . Obedience is the proof of genuine love.


I will come to you. Jesus had spoken in 14:3 of going away and coming again to his disciples. There the reference was both to the parousia (the second coming of Christ) and to the postresurrection appearances of Jesus to the disciples. Here the postresurrection appearances are primarily in view, since Jesus speaks of the disciples “seeing” him after the world can “see” him no longer in the following verse. But many commentators have taken v. 18 as a reference to the coming of the Spirit, since this has been the topic of the preceding verses. Still, vv. 19-20 appear to contain references to Jesus’ appearances to the disciples after his resurrection. It may well be that another Johannine double meaning is found here, so that Jesus ‘returns’ to his disciples in one sense in his appearances to them after his resurrection, but in another sense he ‘returns’ in the person of the Holy Spirit to indwell them.


Peace I leave with you. In spite of appearances, this verse does not introduce a new subject (peace). Jesus will use the phrase as a greeting to his disciples after his resurrection ( 20:19, 21, 26 ). It is here a reflection of the Hebrew shalom as a farewell. But Jesus says he leaves peace with his disciples. This should probably be understood ultimately in terms of the indwelling of the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, who has been the topic of the preceding verses. It is his presence, after Jesus has left the disciples and finally returned to the Father, which will remain with them and comfort them.


Jesus’ statement the Father is greater than I am has caused much christological and trinitarian debate. Although the Arians appealed to this text to justify their subordinationist Christology, it seems evident that by the fact Jesus compares himself to the Father, his divine nature is taken for granted. There have been two orthodox interpretations: (1) The Son is eternally generated while the Father is not: Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius, Hilary, etc. (2) As man the incarnate Son was less than the Father: Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose, Augustine. In the context of the Fourth Gospel the second explanation seems more plausible. But why should the disciples have rejoiced? Because Jesus was on the way to the Father who would glorify him (cf. 17:4-5 ); his departure now signifies that the work the Father has given him is completed (cf. 19:30 ). Now Jesus will be glorified with that glory that he had with the Father before the world was (cf. 17:5 ). This should be a cause of rejoicing to the disciples because when Jesus is glorified he will glorify his disciples as well ( 17:22 ).


Jesus tells the disciples that he has told them all these things before they happen, so that when they do happen the disciples may believe . This does not mean they had not believed prior to this time; over and over the author has affirmed that they have (cf. 2:11 ). But when they see these things happen, their level of trust in Jesus will increase and their concept of who he is will expand. The confession of Thomas in 20:28 is representative of this increased understanding of who Jesus is. Cf. John 13:19 .


The ruler of this world is a reference to Satan.


Some have understood Jesus’ statement Get up, let us go from here to mean that at this point Jesus and the disciples got up and left the room where the meal was served and began the journey to the garden of Gethsemane. If so, the rest of the Farewell Discourse took place en route . Others have pointed to this statement as one of the “seams” in the discourse, indicating that the author used preexisting sources. Both explanations are possible, but not really necessary. Jesus could simply have stood up at this point (the disciples may or may not have stood with him) to finish the discourse before finally departing (in 18:1 ). In any case it may be argued that Jesus refers not to a literal departure at this point, but to preparing to meet the enemy who is on the way already in the person of Judas and the soldiers with him.


I am the true vine. There are numerous OT passages which refer to Israel as a vine: Ps 80:8-16 , Isa 5:1-7 , Jer 2:21 , Ezek 15:1-8, 17:5-10, 19:10-14 , and Hos 10:1 . The vine became symbolic of Israel, and even appeared on some coins issued by the Maccabees. The OT passages which use this symbol appear to regard Israel as faithless to Yahweh (typically rendered as “Lord” in the OT) and/or the object of severe punishment. Ezek 15:1-8 in particular talks about the worthlessness of wood from a vine (in relation to disobedient Judah). A branch cut from a vine is worthless except to be burned as fuel. This fits more with the statements about the disciples ( John 15:6 ) than with Jesus’ description of himself as the vine. Ezek 17:5-10 contains vine imagery which refers to a king of the house of David, Zedekiah, who was set up as king in Judah by Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah allied himself to Egypt and broke his covenant with Nebuchadnezzar (and therefore also with God), which would ultimately result in his downfall ( 17:20-21 ). Ezek 17:22-24 then describes the planting of a cedar sprig which grows into a lofty tree, a figurative description of Messiah. But it is significant that Messiah himself is not described in as a vine, but as a cedar tree. The vine imagery here applies to Zedekiah’s disobedience. Jesus’ description of himself as the true vine in John 15:1 ff. is to be seen against this background, but it differs significantly from the imagery surveyed above. It represents new imagery which differs significantly from OT concepts; it appears to be original with Jesus. The imagery of the vine underscores the importance of fruitfulness in the Christian life and the truth that this results not from human achievement, but from one’s position in Christ. Jesus is not just giving some comforting advice, but portraying to the disciples the difficult path of faithful service. To some degree the figure is similar to the head-body metaphor used by Paul, with Christ as head and believers as members of the body. Both metaphors bring out the vital and necessary connection which exists between Christ and believers.


The phrase you are clean already occurs elsewhere in the Gospel of John only at the washing of the disciples’ feet in 13:10 , where Jesus had used it of the disciples being cleansed from sin. This further confirms the proposed understanding of John 15:2 and 15:6 since Judas was specifically excluded from this statement ( but not all of you ).


The branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it remains connected to the vine, from which its life and sustenance flows. As far as the disciples were concerned, they would produce no fruit from themselves if they did not remain in their relationship to Jesus, because the eternal life which a disciple must possess in order to bear fruit originates with Jesus; he is the source of all life and productivity for the disciple.


Such branches are gathered up and thrown into the fire. The author does not tell who it is who does the gathering and throwing into the fire. Although some claim that realized eschatology is so prevalent in the Fourth Gospel that no references to final eschatology appear at all, the fate of these branches seems to point to the opposite. The imagery is almost certainly that of eschatological judgment, and recalls some of the OT vine imagery which involves divine rejection and judgment of disobedient Israel ( Ezek 15:4-6, 19:12 ).


Once again Jesus promises the disciples ask whatever you want, and it will be done for you . This recalls 14:13-14 , where the disciples were promised that if they asked anything in Jesus’ name it would be done for them. The two thoughts are really quite similar, since here it is conditioned on the disciples’ remaining in Jesus and his words remaining in them. The first phrase relates to the genuineness of their relationship with Jesus. The second phrase relates to their obedience. When both of these qualifications are met, the disciples would in fact be asking in Jesus’ name and therefore according to his will.


Now the reference to the commandments (plural) in 15:10 have been reduced to a singular commandment : The disciples are to love one another, just as Jesus has loved them. This is the ‘new commandment’ of John 13:34 , and it is repeated in 15:17 . The disciples’ love for one another is compared to Jesus’ love for them. How has Jesus shown his love for the disciples? This was illustrated in 13:1-20 in the washing of the disciples’ feet, introduced by the statement in 13:1 that Jesus loved them “to the end.” In context this constitutes a reference to Jesus’ self-sacrificial death on the cross on their behalf; the love they are to have for one another is so great that it must include a self-sacrificial willingness to die for one another if necessary. This is exactly what Jesus is discussing here, because he introduces the theme of his sacrificial death in the following verse. In John 10:18 and 14:31 Jesus spoke of his death on the cross as a commandment he had received from his Father, which also links the idea of commandment and love as they are linked here. One final note: It is not just the degree or intensity of the disciples’ love for one another that Jesus is referring to when he introduces by comparison his own death on the cross (that they must love one another enough to die for one another) but the very means of expressing that love: It is to express itself in self-sacrifice for one another, sacrifice up to the point of death, which is what Jesus himself did on the cross (cf. 1 John 3:16 ).


This verse really explains John 15:10 in another way. Those who keep Jesus’ commandments are called his friends , those friends for whom he lays down his life (v. 13 ). It is possible to understand this verse as referring to a smaller group within Christianity as a whole, perhaps only the apostles who were present when Jesus spoke these words. Some have supported this by comparing it to the small group of associates and advisers to the Roman Emperor who were called “Friends of the Emperor.” Others would see these words as addressed only to those Christians who as disciples were obedient to Jesus. In either case the result would be to create a sort of “inner circle” of Christians who are more privileged than mere “believers” or average Christians. In context, it seems clear that Jesus’ words must be addressed to all true Christians, not just some narrower category of believers, because Jesus’ sacrificial death, which is his act of love toward his friends (v. 13 ) applies to all Christians equally (cf. John 13:1 ).


You did not choose me, but I chose you. If the disciples are now elevated in status from slaves to friends, they are friends who have been chosen by Jesus, rather than the opposite way round. Again this is true of all Christians, not just the twelve, and the theme that Christians are “chosen” by God appears frequently in other NT texts (e.g., Rom 8:33 ; Eph 1:4 ff.; Col 3:12 ; and 1 Pet 2:4 ). Putting this together with the comments on 15:14 one may ask whether the author sees any special significance at all for the twelve. Jesus said in John 6:70 and 13:18 that he chose them, and 15:27 makes clear that Jesus in the immediate context is addressing those who have been with him from the beginning. In the Fourth Gospel the twelve, as the most intimate and most committed followers of Jesus, are presented as the models for all Christians, both in terms of their election and in terms of their mission.


The purpose for which the disciples were appointed (“commissioned”) is to go and bear fruit, fruit that remains . The introduction of the idea of “going” at this point suggests that the fruit is something more than just character qualities in the disciples’ own lives, but rather involves fruit in the lives of others, i.e., Christian converts. There is a mission involved (cf. John 4:36 ). The idea that their fruit is permanent, however, relates back to vv. 7-8 , as does the reference to asking the Father in Jesus’ name. It appears that as the imagery of the vine and the branches develops, the “fruit” which the branches produce shifts in emphasis from qualities in the disciples’ own lives in John 15:2, 4, 5 to the idea of a mission which affects the lives of others in John 15:16 . The point of transition would be the reference to fruit in 15:8 .


I chose you out of the world…the world hates you. Two themes are brought together here. In 8:23 Jesus had distinguished himself from the world in addressing his Jewish opponents: “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.” In 15:16 Jesus told the disciples “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you.” Now Jesus has united these two ideas as he informs the disciples that he has chosen them out of the world. While the disciples will still be “in” the world after Jesus has departed, they will not belong to it, and Jesus prays later in John 17:15-16 to the Father, “I do not ask you to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” The same theme also occurs in 1 John 4:5-6 : “ They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them . We are from God; he who knows God listens to us ; he who is not from God does not listen to us .” Thus the basic reason why the world hates the disciples (as it hated Jesus before them) is because they are not of the world. They are born from above, and are not of the world. For this reason the world hates them.


A slave is not greater than his master. Jesus now recalled a statement he had made to the disciples before, in John 13:16 . As the master has been treated, so will the slaves be treated also. If the world had persecuted Jesus, then it would also persecute the disciples. If the world had kept Jesus’ word, it would likewise keep the word of the disciples. In this statement there is the implication that the disciples would carry on the ministry of Jesus after his departure; they would in their preaching and teaching continue to spread the message which Jesus himself had taught while he was with them. And they would meet with the same response, by and large, that he encountered.


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


See the note on synagogue in 6:59 .


Jesus now refers not to the time of his return to the Father, as he has frequently done up to this point, but to the disciples’ time of persecution. They will be excommunicated from Jewish synagogues . There will even be a time when those who kill Jesus’ disciples will think that they are offering service to God by putting the disciples to death. Because of the reference to service offered to God, it is almost certain that Jewish opposition is intended here in both cases rather than Jewish opposition in the first instance (putting the disciples out of synagogues) and Roman opposition in the second (putting the disciples to death). Such opposition materializes later and is recorded in Acts: The stoning of Stephen in 7:58-60 and the slaying of James the brother of John by Herod Agrippa I in Acts 12:2-3 are notable examples.


Ignorance of Jesus and ignorance of the Father are also linked in 8:19 ; to know Jesus would be to know the Father also, but since the world does not know Jesus, neither does it know his Father. The world’s ignorance of the Father is also mentioned in 8:55, 15:21, and 17:25 .


This verse serves as a transition between the preceding discussion of the persecutions the disciples will face in the world after the departure of Jesus, and the following discussion concerning the departure of Jesus and the coming of the Spirit-Paraclete. Jesus had not told the disciples these things from the beginning because he was with them.


Now the theme of Jesus’ impending departure is resumed ( I am going to the one who sent me ). It will also be mentioned in 16:10, 17, and 28 . Jesus had said to his opponents in 7:33 that he was going to the one who sent him; in 13:33 he had spoken of going where the disciples could not come. At that point Peter had inquired where he was going, but it appears that Peter did not understand Jesus’ reply at that time and did not persist in further questioning. In 14:5 Thomas had asked Jesus where he was going.


Now none of the disciples asks Jesus where he is going, and the reason is given in the following verse: They have been overcome with sadness as a result of the predictions of coming persecution that Jesus has just spoken to them in 15:18-25 and 16:1-4 a. Their shock at Jesus’ revelation of coming persecution is so great that none of them thinks to ask him where it is that he is going.


Here (v. 9 ) the world is proven guilty concerning sin, and the reason given is their refusal to believe in Jesus. In 3:19 the effect of Jesus coming into the world as the Light of the world was to provoke judgment, by forcing people to choose up sides for or against him, and they chose darkness rather than light. In 12:37 , at the very end of Jesus’ public ministry in John’s Gospel, people were still refusing to believe in him.


The world is proven wrong concerning judgment , because the ruler of this world has been judged. Jesus’ righteousness before the Father, as proven by his return to the Father, his glorification, constitutes a judgment against Satan. This is parallel to the judgment of the world which Jesus provokes in 3:19-21 : Jesus’ presence in the world as the Light of the world provokes the judgment of those in the world, because as they respond to the light (either coming to Jesus or rejecting him) so are they judged. That judgment is in a sense already realized. So it is here, where the judgment of Satan is already realized in Jesus’ glorification. This does not mean that Satan does not continue to be active in the world, and to exercise some power over it, just as in 3:19-21 the people in the world who have rejected Jesus and thus incurred judgment continue on in their opposition to Jesus for a time. In both cases the judgment is not immediately executed. But it is certain.


The ruler of this world is a reference to Satan.


In what sense does Jesus have many more things to say to the disciples? Does this imply the continuation of revelation after his departure? This is probably the case, especially in light of v. 13 and following, which describe the work of the Holy Spirit in guiding the disciples into all truth . Thus Jesus was saying that he would continue to speak (to the twelve, at least) after his return to the Father. He would do this through the Holy Spirit whom he was going to send. It is possible that an audience broader than the twelve is addressed, and in the Johannine tradition there is evidence that later other Christians (or perhaps, professed Christians) claimed to be recipients of revelation through the Spirit-Paraclete ( 1 John 4:1-6 ).


Three important points must be noted here. (1) When the Holy Spirit comes, he will guide the disciples into all truth . What Jesus had said in 8:31-32 , “If you continue to follow my teaching you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free,” will ultimately be realized in the ongoing ministry of the Holy Spirit to the disciples after Jesus’ departure. (2) The things the Holy Spirit speaks to them will not be things which originate from himself ( he will not speak on his own authority ), but things he has heard. This could be taken to mean that no new revelation is involved, as R. E. Brown does ( John [AB], 2:714-15). This is a possible but not a necessary inference. The point here concerns the source of the things the Spirit will say to the disciples and does not specifically exclude originality of content. (3) Part at least of what the Holy Spirit will reveal to the disciples will concern what is to come , not just fuller implications of previous sayings of Jesus and the like. This does seem to indicate that at least some new revelation is involved. But the Spirit is not the source or originator of these things – Jesus is the source, and he will continue to speak to his disciples through the Spirit who has come to indwell them. This does not answer the question, however, whether these words are addressed to all followers of Jesus, or only to his apostles. Different modern commentators will answer this question differently. Since in the context of the Farewell Discourse Jesus is preparing the twelve to carry on his ministry after his departure, it is probably best to take these statements as specifically related only to the twelve. Some of this the Holy Spirit does directly for all believers today; other parts of this statement are fulfilled through the apostles (e.g., in giving the Book of Revelation the Spirit speaks through the apostles to the church today of things to come). One of the implications of this is that a doctrine does not have to be traced back to an explicit teaching of Jesus to be authentic; all that is required is apostolic authority.


The phrase after a little while, you will see me is sometimes taken to refer to the coming of the Holy Spirit after Jesus departs, but (as at 14:19 ) it is much more probable that it refers to the postresurrection appearances of Jesus to the disciples. There is no indication in the context that the disciples will see Jesus only with “spiritual” sight, as would be the case if the coming of the Spirit is in view.


These fragmentary quotations of Jesus’ statements are from 16:16 and 16:10 , and indicate that the disciples heard only part of what Jesus had to say to them on this occasion.


The same word translated distress here has been translated sadness in the previous verse (a wordplay that is not exactly reproducible in English).


Jesus now compares the situation of the disciples to a woman in childbirth. Just as the woman in the delivery of her child experiences real pain and anguish ( has distress ), so the disciples will also undergo real anguish at the crucifixion of Jesus. But once the child has been born, the mother’s anguish is turned into joy , and she forgets the past suffering. The same will be true of the disciples, who after Jesus’ resurrection and reappearance to them will forget the anguish they suffered at his death on account of their joy.


An allusion to Isa 66:14 LXX, which reads: “Then you will see, and your heart will be glad, and your bones will flourish like the new grass; and the hand of the Lord will be made known to his servants, but he will be indignant toward his enemies.” The change from “you will see [me]” to I will see you places more emphasis on Jesus as the one who reinitiates the relationship with the disciples after his resurrection, but v. 16 ( you will see me ) is more like Isa 66:14 . Further support for seeing this allusion as intentional is found in Isa 66:7 , which uses the same imagery of the woman giving birth found in John 16:21 . In the context of the passages refer to the institution of the messianic kingdom, and in fact the last clause of 66:14 along with the following verses (15-17) have yet to be fulfilled. This is part of the tension of present and future eschatological fulfillment that runs throughout the NT, by virtue of the fact that there are two advents. Some prophecies are fulfilled or partially fulfilled at the first advent, while other prophecies or parts of prophecies await fulfillment at the second.


This statement is also found in John 15:16 .


The statement I am leaving the world and going to the Father is a summary of the entire Gospel of John. It summarizes the earthly career of the Word made flesh, Jesus of Nazareth, on his mission from the Father to be the Savior of the world, beginning with his entry into the world as he came forth from God and concluding with his departure from the world as he returned to the Father.


The proof of Jesus’ negative evaluation of the disciples’ faith is now given: Jesus foretells their abandonment of him at his arrest, trials, and crucifixion ( I will be left alone ). This parallels the synoptic accounts in Matt 26:31 and Mark 14:27 when Jesus, after the last supper and on the way to Gethsemane, foretold the desertion of the disciples as a fulfillment of Zech 13:7 : “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.” Yet although the disciples would abandon Jesus, he reaffirmed that he was not alone, because the Father was still with him.


This is eternal life. The author here defines eternal life for the readers, although it is worked into the prayer in such a way that many interpreters do not regard it as another of the author’s parenthetical comments. It is not just unending life in the sense of prolonged duration. Rather it is a quality of life, with its quality derived from a relationship with God. Having eternal life is here defined as being in relationship with the Father, the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom the Father sent. Christ ( Χριστός , Cristos ) is not characteristically attached to Jesus’ name in John’s Gospel; it occurs elsewhere primarily as a title and is used with Jesus’ name only in 1:17 . But that is connected to its use here: The statement here in 17:3 enables us to correlate the statement made in 1:18 of the prologue, that Jesus has fully revealed what God is like, with Jesus’ statement in 10:10 that he has come that people might have life, and have it abundantly. These two purposes are really one, according to 17:3 , because (abundant) eternal life is defined as knowing (being in relationship with) the Father and the Son. The only way to gain this eternal life, that is, to obtain this knowledge of the Father, is through the Son (cf. 14:6 ). Although some have pointed to the use of know ( γινώσκω , ginwskw ) here as evidence of Gnostic influence in the Fourth Gospel, there is a crucial difference: For John this knowledge is not intellectual, but relational. It involves being in relationship.


A possible allusion to Ps 41:9 or Prov 24:22 LXX. The exact passage is not specified here, but in John 13:18 , Ps 41:9 is explicitly quoted by Jesus with reference to the traitor, suggesting that this is the passage to which Jesus refers here. The previous mention of Ps 41:9 in John 13:18 probably explains why the author felt no need for an explanatory parenthetical note here. It is also possible that the passage referred to here is Prov 24:22 LXX, where in the Greek text the phrase “son of destruction” appears.


Jesus now compared the mission on which he was sending the disciples to his own mission into the world , on which he was sent by the Father. As the Father sent Jesus into the world (cf. 3:17 ), so Jesus now sends the disciples into the world to continue his mission after his departure. The nature of this prayer for the disciples as a consecratory prayer is now emerging: Jesus was setting them apart for the work he had called them to do. They were, in a sense, being commissioned.


When he had said these things appears to be a natural transition at the end of the Farewell Discourse (the farewell speech of Jesus to his disciples in John 13:31-17:26 , including the final prayer in 17:1-26 ). The author states that Jesus went out with his disciples , a probable reference to their leaving the upper room where the meal and discourse described in chaps. 13-17 took place (although some have seen this only as a reference to their leaving the city, with the understanding that some of the Farewell Discourse, including the concluding prayer, was given en route , cf. 14:31 ). They crossed the Kidron Valley and came to a garden, or olive orchard, identified in Matt 26:36 and Mark 14:32 as Gethsemane. The name is not given in Luke’s or John’s Gospel, but the garden must have been located somewhere on the lower slopes of the Mount of Olives.


This is a parenthetical note by the author.


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


When Jesus said to those who came to arrest him “I am,” they retreated and fell to the ground . L. Morris says that “it is possible that those in front recoiled from Jesus’ unexpected advance, so that they bumped those behind them, causing them to stumble and fall” ( John [NICNT], 743-44). Perhaps this is what in fact happened on the scene; but the theological significance given to this event by the author implies that more is involved. The reaction on the part of those who came to arrest Jesus comes in response to his affirmation that he is indeed the one they are seeking, Jesus the Nazarene. But Jesus makes this affirmation of his identity using a formula which the reader has encountered before in the Fourth Gospel, e.g., 8:24, 28, 58 . Jesus has applied to himself the divine Name of Exod 3:14 , “I AM.” Therefore this amounts to something of a theophany which causes even his enemies to recoil and prostrate themselves, so that Jesus has to ask a second time, “Who are you looking for?” This is a vivid reminder to the reader of the Gospel that even in this dark hour, Jesus holds ultimate power over his enemies and the powers of darkness, because he is the one who bears the divine Name.


A second time Jesus replied, “ I told you that I am he ,” identifying himself as the one they are seeking. Jesus also added, “ If you are looking for me, let these men go .” Jesus successfully diverted attention from his disciples by getting the soldiers and officers of the chief priests to admit (twice) that it is only him they were after. Even in this hour Jesus still protected and cared for his own, giving himself up on their behalf. By handing himself over to his enemies, Jesus ensured that his disciples went free. From the perspective of the author, this is acting out beforehand what Jesus will actually do for his followers when he goes to the cross.


This expression is similar to John 6:39 and John 17:12 .


The account of the attack on the high priest’s slave contains details which suggest eyewitness testimony. It is also mentioned in all three synoptic gospels, but only John records that the disciple involved was Peter, whose impulsive behavior has already been alluded to ( John 13:37 ). Likewise only John gives the name of the victim, Malchus , who is described as the high priest’s slave . John and Mark (14:47) both use the word ὠτάριον ( wtarion , a double diminutive) to describe what was cut off, and this may indicate only part of the right ear (for example, the earlobe).


Jesus was taken first to Annas . Only the Gospel of John mentions this pretrial hearing before Annas, and that Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who is said to be high priest in that year. Caiaphas is also mentioned as being high priest in John 11:49 . But in 18:15, 16, 19, and 22 Annas is called high priest. Annas is also referred to as high priest by Luke in Acts 4:6 . Many scholars have dismissed these references as mistakes on the part of both Luke and John, but as mentioned above, John 11:49 and 18:13 indicate that John knew that Caiaphas was high priest in the year that Jesus was crucified. This has led others to suggest that Annas and Caiaphas shared the high priesthood, but there is no historical evidence to support this view. Annas had been high priest from a.d. 6 to a.d. 15 when he was deposed by the Roman prefect Valerius Gratus (according to Josephus, Ant. 18.2.2 [18.34]). His five sons all eventually became high priests. The family was noted for its greed, wealth, and power. There are a number of ways the references in both Luke and John to Annas being high priest may be explained. Some Jews may have refused to recognize the changes in high priests effected by the Roman authorities, since according to the Torah the high priesthood was a lifetime office ( Num 25:13 ). Another possibility is that it was simply customary to retain the title after a person had left the office as a courtesy, much as retired ambassadors are referred to as “Mr. Ambassador” or ex-presidents as “Mr. President.” Finally, the use of the title by Luke and John may simply be a reflection of the real power behind the high priesthood of the time: Although Annas no longer technically held the office, he may well have managed to control those relatives of his who did hold it from behind the scenes. In fact this seems most probable and would also explain why Jesus was brought to him immediately after his arrest for a sort of “pretrial hearing” before being sent on to the entire Sanhedrin.


The nature of this hearing seems to be more that of a preliminary investigation; certainly normal legal procedure was not followed, for no indication is given that any witnesses were brought forth at this point to testify against Jesus. True to what is known of Annas’ character, he was more interested in Jesus’ disciples than in the precise nature of Jesus’ teaching , since he inquired about the followers first. He really wanted to know just how influential Jesus had become and how large a following he had gathered. This was of more concern to Annas that the truth or falsity of Jesus’ teaching.


See the note on synagogue in 6:59 .


Where was Caiaphas the high priest located? Did he have a separate palace, or was he somewhere else with the Sanhedrin? Since Augustine (4th century) a number of scholars have proposed that Annas and Caiaphas resided in different wings of the same palace, which were bound together by a common courtyard through which Jesus would have been led as he was taken from Annas to Caiaphas. This seems a reasonable explanation, although there is no conclusive evidence.


This incident is recounted in v. 10 .


] in Matt 26:34 ) which would have been sounded at 3 a.m.; in this case Jesus would have prophesied a precise time by which the denials would have taken place. For more details see J. H. Bernard, St. John (ICC), 2:604. However, in light of the fact that Mark mentions the rooster crowing twice ( Mark 14:72 ) and in Luke 22:60 the words are reversed ( ἐφώνησεν ἀλέκτωρ , efwnhsen alektwr ), it is more probable that a real rooster is in view. In any event natural cockcrow would have occurred at approximately 3 a.m. in Palestine at this time of year (March-April) anyway. No indication is given of Peter’s emotional state at this third denial (as in Matt 26:74 and Mark 14:71 ) or that he remembered that Jesus had foretold the denials ( Matt 26:75 , Mark 14:72 and Luke 22:61 ), or the bitter remorse Peter felt afterward ( Matt 26:75 , Mark 14:72 , and Luke 22:62 ).


In light of the fact that Pilate had cooperated with them in Jesus’ arrest by providing Roman soldiers, the Jewish authorities were probably expecting Pilate to grant them permission to carry out their sentence on Jesus without resistance (the Jews were not permitted to exercise capital punishment under the Roman occupation without official Roman permission, cf. v. 31 ). They must have been taken somewhat by surprise by Pilate’s question “ What accusation do you bring against this man ,” because it indicated that he was going to try the prisoner himself. Thus Pilate was regarding the trial before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin as only an inquiry and their decision as merely an accusation.


Pilate, as the sole representative of Rome in a troubled area, was probably in Jerusalem for the Passover because of the danger of an uprising (the normal residence for the Roman governor was in Caesarea as mentioned in Acts 23:35 ). At this time on the eve of the feast he would have been a busy and perhaps even a worried man. It is not surprising that he offered to hand Jesus back over to the Jewish authorities to pass judgment on him. It may well be that Pilate realized when no specific charge was mentioned that he was dealing with an internal dispute over some religious matter. Pilate wanted nothing to do with such matters, as the statement “ Pass judgment on him according to your own law! ” indicates. As far as the author is concerned, this points out who was really responsible for Jesus’ death: The Roman governor Pilate would have had nothing to do with it if he had not been pressured by the Jewish religious authorities, upon whom the real responsibility rested.


A reference to John 12:32 .


It is difficult to discern Pilate’s attitude when he asked, “ Are you the king of the Jews? ” Some have believed the remark to be sarcastic or incredulous as Pilate looked at this lowly and humble prisoner: “So you ’ re the king of the Jews, are you?” Others have thought the Roman governor to have been impressed by Jesus’ regal disposition and dignity, and to have sincerely asked, “Are you really the king of the Jews?” Since it will later become apparent (v. 38 ) that Pilate considered Jesus innocent (and therefore probably also harmless) an attitude of incredulity is perhaps most likely, but this is far from certain in the absence of clear contextual clues.


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


With his reply “ What is truth? ” Pilate dismissed the matter. It is not clear what Pilate’s attitude was at this point, as in 18:33 . He may have been sarcastic, or perhaps somewhat reflective. The author has not given enough information in the narrative to be sure. Within the narrative, Pilate’s question serves to make the reader reflect on what truth is, and that answer (in the narrative) has already been given ( 14:6 ).


Pilate then offered to release Jesus, reminding the Jewish authorities that they had a custom that he release one prisoner for them at the Passover. There is no extra-biblical evidence alluding to the practice. It is, however, mentioned in Matthew and Mark, described either as a practice of Pilate ( Mark 15:6 ) or of the Roman governor ( Matt 27:15 ). These references may explain the lack of extra-biblical attestation: The custom to which Pilate refers here ( 18:39 ) is not a permanent one acknowledged by all the Roman governors, but one peculiar to Pilate as a means of appeasement, meant to better relations with his subjects. Such a limited meaning is certainly possible and consistent with the statement here.


The name Barabbas in Aramaic means “son of abba,” that is, “son of the father,” and presumably the man in question had another name (it may also have been Jesus, according to the textual variant in Matt 27:16 , although this is uncertain). For the author this name held ironic significance: The crowd was asking for the release of a man called Barabbas, “son of the father,” while Jesus, who was truly the Son of the Father, was condemned to die instead.


This is a parenthetical note by the author.


The crown of thorns was a crown plaited of some thorny material, intended as a mockery of Jesus’ “kingship.” Traditionally it has been regarded as an additional instrument of torture, but it seems more probable the purpose of the thorns was not necessarily to inflict more physical suffering but to imitate the spikes of the “radiant corona,” a type of crown portrayed on ruler’s heads on many coins of the period; the spikes on this type of crown represented rays of light pointing outward (the best contemporary illustration is the crown on the head of the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor).


The purple color of the robe indicated royal status. This was further mockery of Jesus, along with the crown of thorns.


See the note on the purple robe in 19:2 .


Look, here is the man! Pilate may have meant no more than something like “Here is the accused!” or in a contemptuous way, “Here is your king!” Others have taken Pilate’s statement as intended to evoke pity from Jesus’ accusers: “Look at this poor fellow!” (Jesus would certainly not have looked very impressive after the scourging). For the author, however, Pilate’s words constituted an unconscious allusion to Zech 6:12 , “ Look, here is the man whose name is the Branch.” In this case Pilate (unknowingly and ironically) presented Jesus to the nation under a messianic title.


Crucifixion was the cruelest form of punishment practiced by the Romans. Roman citizens could not normally undergo it. It was reserved for the worst crimes, like treason and evasion of due process in a capital case. The Roman statesman and orator Cicero (106-43 b.c. ) called it “a cruel and disgusting penalty” ( Against Verres 2.5.63-66 §§163-70); Josephus ( J. W. 7.6.4 [7.203]) called it the worst of deaths.


How are Pilate’s words “ You take him and crucify him ” to be understood? Was he offering a serious alternative to the priests who wanted Jesus crucified? Was he offering them an exception to the statement in 18:31 that the Jewish authorities did not have the power to carry out a death penalty? Although a few scholars have suggested that the situation was at this point so far out of Pilate’s control that he really was telling the high priests they could go ahead and crucify a man he had found to be innocent, this seems unlikely. It is far more likely that Pilate’s statement should be understood as one of frustration and perhaps sarcasm. This seems to be supported by the context, for the Jewish authorities make no attempt at this point to seize Jesus and crucify him. Rather they continue to pester Pilate to order the crucifixion.


This law is not the entire Pentateuch, but Lev 24:16 .


Is the author using the phrase Friend of Caesar in a technical sense, as a title bestowed on people for loyal service to the Emperor, or in a more general sense merely describing a person as loyal to the Emperor? L. Morris ( John [NICNT], 798) thinks it is “unlikely” that the title is used in the technical sense, and J. H. Bernard ( St. John [ICC], 2:621) argues that the technical sense of the phrase as an official title was not used before the time of Vespasian ( a.d. 69-79). But there appears to be significant evidence for much earlier usage. Some of this is given in BDAG 498-99 s.v. Καῖσαρ . E. Bammel (“ φίλος τοῦ καίσαρος ( John 19:12 ),” TLZ 77 [1952]: 205-10) listed significant and convincing arguments that the official title was indeed in use at the time. Granting that the title was in use during this period, what is the likelihood that it had been bestowed on Pilate? Pilate was of the equestrian order, that is, of lower nobility as opposed to senatorial rank. As such he would have been eligible to receive such an honor. It also appears that the powerful Sejanus was his patron in Rome, and Sejanus held considerable influence with Tiberius. Tacitus ( Annals 6.8) quotes Marcus Terentius in his defense before the Senate as saying that close friendship with Sejanus “was in every case a powerful recommendation to the Emperor’s friendship.” Thus it is possible that Pilate held this honor. Therefore it appears that the Jewish authorities were putting a good deal of psychological pressure on Pilate to convict Jesus. They had, in effect, finally specified the charge against Jesus as treason: “Everyone who makes himself to be king opposes Caesar.” If Pilate now failed to convict Jesus the Jewish authorities could complain to Rome that Pilate had released a traitor. This possibility carried more weight with Pilate than might at first be evident: (1) Pilate’s record as governor was not entirely above reproach; (2) Tiberius, who lived away from Rome as a virtual recluse on the island of Capri, was known for his suspicious nature, especially toward rivals or those who posed a political threat; and (3) worst of all, Pilate’s patron in Rome, Sejanus, had recently come under suspicion of plotting to seize the imperial succession for himself. Sejanus was deposed in October of a.d. 31. It may have been to Sejanus that Pilate owed his appointment in Judea. Pilate was now in a very delicate position. The Jewish authorities may have known something of this and deliberately used it as leverage against him. Whether or not they knew just how potent their veiled threat was, it had the desired effect. Pilate went directly to the judgment seat to pronounce his judgment.


The precise location of the place called ‘The Stone Pavement’ is still uncertain, although a paved court on the lower level of the Fortress Antonia has been suggested. It is not certain whether it was laid prior to a.d. 135, however.


The term day of preparation ( παρασκευή , paraskeuh ) appears in all the gospels as a description of the day on which Jesus died. It could refer to any Friday as the day of preparation for the Sabbath (Saturday), and this is the way the synoptic gospels use the term ( Matt 27:62 , Mark 15:42 , and Luke 23:54 ). John, however, specifies in addition that this was not only the day of preparation of the Sabbath, but also the day of preparation of the Passover, so that the Sabbath on the following day was the Passover (cf. 19:31 ).


See the note on Crucify in 19:6 .


Jesus was led out to the place called “The Place of the Skull” where he was to be crucified. It is clear from v. 20 that this was outside the city. The Latin word for the Greek κρανίον ( kranion ) is calvaria . Thus the English word “Calvary” is a transliteration of the Latin rather than a NT place name (cf. Luke 23:33 in the KJV).


Four shares, one for each soldier. The Gospel of John is the only one to specify the number of soldiers involved in the crucifixion. This was a quaternion , a squad of four soldiers. It was accepted Roman practice for the soldiers who performed a crucifixion to divide the possessions of the person executed among themselves.


Several women are mentioned, but it is not easy to determine how many. It is not clear whether his mother’s sister and Mary the wife of Clopas are to be understood as the same individual (in which case only three women are mentioned: Jesus’ mother, her sister Mary, and Mary Magdalene) or as two different individuals (in which case four women are mentioned: Jesus’ mother, her sister, Mary Clopas’ wife, and Mary Magdalene). It is impossible to be certain, but when John’s account is compared to the synoptics it is easier to reconcile the accounts if four women were present than if there were only three. It also seems that if there were four women present, this would have been seen by the author to be in juxtaposition to the four soldiers present who performed the crucifixion, and this may explain the transition from the one incident in 23-24 to the other in 25-27. Finally, if only three were present, this would mean that both Jesus’ mother and her sister were named Mary, and this is highly improbable in a Jewish family of that time. If there were four women present, the name of the second, the sister of Jesus’ mother, is not mentioned. It is entirely possible that the sister of Jesus’ mother mentioned here is to be identified with the woman named Salome mentioned in Mark 15:40 and also with the woman identified as “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” mentioned in Matt 27:56 . If so, and if John the Apostle is to be identified as the beloved disciple, then the reason for the omission of the second woman’s name becomes clear; she would have been John’s own mother, and he consistently omitted direct reference to himself or his brother James or any other members of his family in the Fourth Gospel.


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 ; see BDAG 208-9 s.v. γυνή 1). 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? Jesus probably used the term here to help establish Mary and the beloved disciple in a new “mother-son” relationship. Someone would soon need to provide for Mary since Jesus, her oldest son, would no longer be alive. By using this term Jesus distanced himself from Mary so the beloved disciple could take his place as her earthly son (cf. John 2:4 ). See D. A. Carson, John , 617-18, for discussion about symbolic interpretations of this relationship between Mary and the beloved disciple.


A reference to Ps 69:21 or Ps 22:15 .


In order to fulfill ( τελειωθῇ [ teleiwqh ], a wordplay on the previous statement that everything was completed [ τετέλεσται , tetelestai ]) the scripture , he said, “ I am thirsty .” The scripture referred to is probably Ps 69:21 , “They also gave me gall for my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” Also suggested, however, is Ps 22:15 , “My tongue cleaves to the roof of my mouth, and you [God] lay me in the dust of death.” Ps 22:1 reads “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?,” a statement Jesus makes from the cross in both Matt 27:46 and Mark 15:34 . In light of the connection in the Fourth Gospel between thirst and the living water which Jesus offers, it is highly ironic that here Jesus himself, the source of that living water, expresses his thirst. And since 7:39 associates the living water with the Holy Spirit, Jesus’ statement here in 19:28 amounts to an admission that at this point he has been forsaken by God (cf. Ps 22:1 , Matt 27:46 , and Mark 15:34 ).


The cheap sour wine was called in Latin posca , and referred to a cheap vinegar wine diluted heavily with water. It was the drink of slaves and soldiers, and was probably there for the soldiers who had performed the crucifixion.


Hyssop was a small aromatic bush; exact identification of the plant is uncertain. The hyssop used to lift the wet sponge may have been a form of reed ( κάλαμος , kalamo" , “reed,” is used in Matt 27:48 and Mark 15:36 ); the biblical name can refer to several different species of plant (at least eighteen different plants have been suggested).


The Jewish authorities, because this was the day of preparation for the Sabbath and the Passover (cf. 19:14 ), requested Pilate to order the legs of the three who had been crucified to be broken. This would hasten their deaths, so that the bodies could be removed before the beginning of the Sabbath at 6 p.m. This was based on the law of Deut 21:22-23 and Josh 8:29 that specified the bodies of executed criminals who had been hanged on a tree should not remain there overnight. According to Josephus this law was interpreted in the 1st century to cover the bodies of those who had been crucified ( J. W. 4.5.2 [4.317]). Philo of Alexandria also mentions that on occasion, especially at festivals, the bodies were taken down and given to relatives to bury ( Flaccus 10 [83]). The normal Roman practice would have been to leave the bodies on the crosses, to serve as a warning to other would-be offenders.


This is a parenthetical note by the author.


To have the legs…broken. Breaking the legs of a crucified person was a way of speeding up his death, since the victim could no longer use his legs to push upward in order to be able to draw a breath. This breaking of the legs was called in Latin crurifragium , and was done with a heavy mallet.


If it was obvious to the soldiers that the victim was already dead it is difficult to see why one of them would try to inflict a wound. The Greek verb pierced ( νύσσω , nussw ) can indicate anything from a slight prod to a mortal wound. Probably one of the soldiers gave an exploratory stab to see if the body would jerk. If not, he was really dead. This thrust was hard enough to penetrate the side, since the author states that blood and water flowed out immediately .


How is the reference to the blood and water that flowed out from Jesus’ side to be understood? This is probably to be connected with the statements in 1 John 5:6-8 . In both passages water , blood , and testimony are mentioned. The Spirit is also mentioned in 1 John 5:7 as the source of the testimony, while here the testimony comes from one of the disciples ( 19:35 ). The connection between the Spirit and the living water with Jesus’ statement of thirst just before he died in the preceding context has already been noted (see 19:28 ). For the author, the water which flowed out of Jesus’ side was a symbolic reference to the Holy Spirit who could now be given because Jesus was now glorified (cf. 7:39 ); Jesus had now departed and returned to that glory which he had with the Father before the creation of the world (cf. 17:5 ). The mention of blood recalls the motif of the Passover lamb as a sacrificial victim. Later references to sacrificial procedures in the Mishnah appear to support this: m. Pesahim 5:3 and 5:5 state that the blood of the sacrificial animal should not be allowed to congeal but should flow forth freely at the instant of death so that it could be used for sprinkling; m. Tamid 4:2 actually specifies that the priest is to pierce the heart of the sacrificial victim and cause the blood to come forth.


A parenthetical note by the author.


A quotation from Exod 12:46 , Num 9:12 , and Ps 34:20 . A number of different OT passages lie behind this quotation: Exod 12:10 LXX, Exod 12:46 , Num 9:12 , or Ps 34:20 . Of these, the first is the closest in form to the quotation here. The first three are all more likely candidates than the last, since the first three all deal with descriptions of the Passover lamb.


A quotation from Zech 12:10 . Here a single phrase is quoted from , but the entire context is associated with the events surrounding the crucifixion. The “Spirit of grace and of supplication” is poured out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the first part of v. 10 . A few verses later in 13:1 Yahweh (typically rendered as “Lord” in the OT) says “In that day a fountain will be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for impurity.” The blood which flowed from Jesus’ pierced side may well be what the author saw as the connection here, since as the shedding of the blood of the sacrificial victim it represents cleansing from sin. Although the Jewish authorities and Roman soldiers certainly “ looked on the one whom they have pierced ” as he hung on the cross, the author may also have in mind the parousia (second coming) here. The context in Zech 12-14 is certainly the second coming, so that these who crucified Jesus will look upon him in another sense when he returns in judgment.


See John 3:1-21 .


Aloes refers to an aromatic resin from a plant similar to a lily, used for embalming a corpse.


The Roman pound ( λίτρα , litra ) weighed twelve ounces or 325 grams. Thus 100 Roman pounds would be about 32.5 kilograms or 75 pounds.


See the note on Crucify in 19:6 .


The day of preparation was the day before the Sabbath when everything had to be prepared for it, as no work could be done on the Sabbath.


The tomb was nearby. The Passover and the Sabbath would begin at 6 p.m., so those who had come to prepare and bury the body could not afford to waste time.


The first day of the week would be early Sunday morning. The Sabbath (and in this year the Passover) would have lasted from 6 p.m. Friday until 6 p.m. Saturday. Sunday would thus mark the first day of the following week.


John does not mention that Mary Magdalene was accompanied by any of the other women who had been among Jesus’ followers. The synoptic accounts all mention other women who accompanied her (although Mary Magdalene is always mentioned first). Why John does not mention the other women is not clear, but Mary probably becomes the focus of the author’s attention because it was she who came and found Peter and the beloved disciple and informed them of the empty tomb ( 20:2 ). Mary’s use of the plural in v. 2 indicates there were others present, in indirect agreement with the synoptic accounts.


The other disciple (the ‘beloved disciple’) ran on ahead more quickly than Peter, so he arrived at the tomb first. This verse has been a chief factor in depictions of John as a young man (especially combined with traditions that he wrote last of all the gospel authors and lived into the reign of Domitian). But the verse does not actually say anything about John’s age, nor is age always directly correlated with running speed.


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.


Presumably by the time the beloved disciple reached the tomb there was enough light to penetrate the low opening and illuminate the interior of the tomb sufficiently for him to see the strips of linen cloth lying there . The author does not state exactly where the linen wrappings were lying. Sometimes the phrase has been translated “lying on the ground,” but the implication is that the wrappings were lying where the body had been. The most probable configuration for a tomb of this sort would be to have a niche carved in the wall where the body would be laid lengthwise, or a low shelf like a bench running along one side of the tomb, across the back or around all three sides in a U-shape facing the entrance. Thus the graveclothes would have been lying on this shelf or in the niche where the body had been.


The word translated face cloth is a Latin loanword ( sudarium ). It was a small towel used to wipe off perspiration (the way a handkerchief would be used today). This particular item was not mentioned in connection with Jesus’ burial in John 19:40 , probably because this was only a brief summary account. A face cloth was mentioned in connection with Lazarus’ burial ( John 11:44 ) and was probably customary. R. E. Brown speculates that it was wrapped under the chin and tied on top of the head to prevent the mouth of the corpse from falling open ( John [AB], 2:986), but this is not certain.


Much dispute and difficulty surrounds the translation of the words not lying with the strips of linen cloth but rolled up in a place by itself . Basically the issue concerns the positioning of the graveclothes as seen by Peter and the other disciple when they entered the tomb. Some have sought to prove that when the disciples saw the graveclothes they were arranged just as they were when around the body, so that when the resurrection took place the resurrected body of Jesus passed through them without rearranging or disturbing them. In this case the reference to the face cloth being rolled up does not refer to its being folded, but collapsed in the shape it had when wrapped around the head. Sometimes in defense of this view the Greek preposition μετά ( meta , which normally means “with”) is said to mean “like” so that the comparison with the other graveclothes does not involve the location of the face cloth but rather its condition (rolled up rather than flattened). In spite of the intriguing nature of such speculations, it seems more probable that the phrase describing the face cloth should be understood to mean it was separated from the other graveclothes in a different place inside the tomb. This seems consistent with the different conclusions reached by Peter and the beloved disciple (vv. 8-10 ). All that the condition of the graveclothes indicated was that the body of Jesus had not been stolen by thieves. Anyone who had come to remove the body (whether the authorities or anyone else) would not have bothered to unwrap it before carrying it off. And even if one could imagine that they had (perhaps in search of valuables such as rings or jewelry still worn by the corpse) they would certainly not have bothered to take time to roll up the face cloth and leave the other wrappings in an orderly fashion.


What was it that the beloved disciple believed (since v. 7 describes what he saw )? Sometimes it is suggested that what he believed was Mary Magdalene’s report that the body had been stolen. But this could hardly be the case; the way the entire scene is narrated such a trivial conclusion would amount to an anticlimax. It is true that the use of the plural “ they ” in the following verse applied to both Peter and the beloved disciple, and this appears to be a difficulty if one understands that the beloved disciple believed at this point in Jesus’ resurrection. But it is not an insuperable difficulty, since all it affirms is that at this time neither Peter nor the beloved disciple had understood the scripture concerning the resurrection. Thus it appears the author intends his reader to understand that when the beloved disciple entered the tomb after Peter and saw the state of the graveclothes, he believed in the resurrection, i.e., that Jesus had risen from the dead.


Verse 9 is a parenthetical note by the author. The author does not explicitly mention what OT scripture is involved (neither does Paul in 1 Cor 15:4 , for that matter). The resurrection of the Messiah in general terms may have been seen in Isa 53:10-12 and Ps 16:10 . Specific references may have been understood in Jonah 1:17 and Hos 6:2 because of the mention of “the third day.” Beyond this it is not possible to be more specific.


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. This occurs again in v. 15 .


The Aramaic Rabboni means “my teacher” (a title of respect).


This is a parenthetical note by the author.


When the disciples recognized Jesus (now referred to as the Lord , cf. Mary’s words in v. 18 ) they were suddenly overcome with joy. This was a fulfillment of Jesus’ words to the disciples in the Farewell Discourse ( 16:20-22 ) that they would have sorrow while the world rejoiced, but that their sorrow would be turned to lasting joy when they saw him again.


He breathed on them and said, “ Receive the Holy Spirit. ” The use of the Greek verb breathed on ( ἐμφυσάω , emfusaw ) to describe the action of Jesus here recalls Gen 2:7 in the LXX, where “the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” This time, however, it is Jesus who is breathing the breath-Spirit of eternal life, life from above, into his disciples (cf. 3:3-10 ). Furthermore there is the imagery of Ezek 37:1-14 , the prophecy concerning the resurrection of the dry bones: In 37:9 the Son of Man is told to prophesy to the “wind-breath-Spirit” to come and breathe on the corpses, so that they will live again. In 37:14 the Lord promised, “I will put my Spirit within you, and you will come to life, and I will place you in your own land.” In terms of ultimate fulfillment the passage in looks at the regeneration of Israel immediately prior to the establishment of the messianic kingdom. The author saw in what Jesus did for the disciples at this point a partial and symbolic fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy, much as Peter made use of the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 in his sermon on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2:17-21 . What then did Jesus do for the disciples in John 20:22 ? It appears that in light of the symbolism of the new creation present here, as well as the regeneration symbolism from the passage, that Jesus at this point breathed into the disciples the breath of eternal life. This was in the form of the Holy Spirit, who was to indwell them. It is instructive to look again at 7:38-39 , which states, “Just as the scripture says, ‘Out from within him will flow rivers of living water.’ (Now he said this about the Spirit whom those who believed in him were going to receive; for the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”) But now in 20:22 Jesus was glorified, so the Spirit could be given. Had the disciples not believed in Jesus before? It seems clear that they had, since their belief is repeatedly affirmed, beginning with 2:11 . But it also seems clear that even on the eve of the crucifixion, they did not understand the necessity of the cross ( 16:31-33 ). And even after the crucifixion, the disciples had not realized that there was going to be a resurrection ( 20:9 ). Ultimate recognition of who Jesus was appears to have come to them only after the postresurrection appearances (note the response of Thomas, who was not present at this incident, in v. 28 ). Finally, what is the relation of this incident in 20:22 to the account of the coming of the Holy Spirit in ? It appears best to view these as two separate events which have two somewhat different purposes. This was the giving of life itself, which flowed out from within (cf. 7:38-39 ). The giving of power would occur later, on the day of Pentecost – power to witness and carry out the mission the disciples had been given. (It is important to remember that in the historical unfolding of God’s program for the church, these events occurred in a chronological sequence which, after the church has been established, is not repeatable today.)


The statement by Jesus about forgive or retaining anyone’s sins finds its closest parallel in Matt 16:19 and 18:18 . This is probably not referring to apostolic power to forgive or retain the sins of individuals (as it is sometimes understood), but to the “power” of proclaiming this forgiveness which was entrusted to the disciples. This is consistent with the idea that the disciples are to carry on the ministry of Jesus after he has departed from the world and returned to the Father, a theme which occurred in the Farewell Discourse (cf. 15:27, 16:1-4, and 17:18 ).


This is a parenthetical note by the author; Didymus means “the twin” in Greek.


Should Thomas’ exclamation be understood as two subjects with the rest of the sentence omitted (“ My Lord and my God has truly risen from the dead”), as predicate nominatives (“You are my Lord and my God ”), or as vocatives (“ My Lord and my God! ”)? Probably the most likely is something between the second and third alternatives. It seems that the second is slightly more likely here, because the context appears confessional. Thomas’ statement, while it may have been an exclamation, does in fact confess the faith which he had previously lacked, and Jesus responds to Thomas’ statement in the following verse as if it were a confession. With the proclamation by Thomas here, it is difficult to see how any more profound analysis of Jesus’ person could be given. It echoes 1:1 and 1:14 together: The Word was God, and the Word became flesh (Jesus of Nazareth). The Fourth Gospel opened with many other titles for Jesus: the Lamb of God ( 1:29, 36 ); the Son of God ( 1:34, 49 ); Rabbi ( 1:38 ); Messiah ( 1:41 ); the King of Israel ( 1:49 ); the Son of Man ( 1:51 ). Now the climax is reached with the proclamation by Thomas, “My Lord and my God,” and the reader has come full circle from 1:1 , where the author had introduced him to who Jesus was, to 20:28 , where the last of the disciples has come to the full realization of who Jesus was. What Jesus had predicted in John 8:28 had come to pass: “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he” ( Grk “I am”). By being lifted up in crucifixion (which led in turn to his death, resurrection, and exaltation with the Father) Jesus has revealed his true identity as both Lord ( κύριος [ kurios ], used by the LXX to translate Yahweh ) and God ( θεός [ qeos ], used by the LXX to translate Elohim ).


The author mentions many other miraculous signs performed by Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in the Gospel. What are these signs the author of the Gospel has in mind? One can only speculate. The author says they were performed in the presence of the disciples, which emphasizes again their role as witnesses (cf. 15:27 ). The point here is that the author has been selective in his use of material. He has chosen to record those incidents from the life and ministry of Jesus which supported his purpose in writing the Gospel. Much which might be of tremendous interest, but does not directly contribute to that purpose in writing, he has omitted. The author explains his purpose in writing in the following verse.


John 20:31 . A major question concerning this verse, the purpose statement of the Gospel of John, is whether the author is writing primarily for an audience of unbelievers, with purely evangelistic emphasis, or whether he envisions an audience of believers, whom he wants to strengthen in their faith. Several points are important in this discussion: (1) in the immediate context ( 20:30 ), the other signs spoken of by the author were performed in the presence of disciples; (2) in the case of the first of the signs, at Cana, the author makes a point of the effect the miracle had on the disciples ( 2:11 ); (3) if the primary thrust of the Gospel is toward unbelievers, it is difficult to see why so much material in chaps. 13-17 (the last meal and Farewell Discourse, concluding with Jesus’ prayer for the disciples), which deals almost exclusively with the disciples, is included; (4) the disciples themselves were repeatedly said to have believed in Jesus throughout the Gospel, beginning with 2:11 , yet they still needed to believe after the resurrection (if Thomas’ experience in 20:27-28 is any indication); and (5) the Gospel appears to be written with the assumption that the readers are familiar with the basic story (or perhaps with one or more of the synoptic gospel accounts, although this is less clear). Thus no account of the birth of Jesus is given at all, and although he is identified as being from Nazareth, the words of the Pharisees and chief priests to Nicodemus ( 7:52 ) are almost certainly to be taken as ironic, assuming the reader knows where Jesus was really from. Likewise, when Mary is identified in 11:2 as the one who anointed Jesus’ feet with oil, it is apparently assumed that the readers are familiar with the story, since the incident involved is not mentioned in the Fourth Gospel until 12:3 . These observations must be set over against the clear statement of purpose in the present verse, 20:31 , which seems to have significant evangelistic emphasis. In addition to this there is the repeated emphasis on witness throughout the Fourth Gospel (cf. the witness of John the Baptist in 1:7, 8, 15, 32, and 34 , along with 5:33 ; the Samaritan woman in 4:39 ; Jesus’ own witness, along with that of the Father who sent him, in 8:14, 18, and 18:37 ; the disciples themselves in 15:27 ; and finally the testimony of the author himself in 19:35 and 21:24 ). In light of all this evidence it seems best to say that the author wrote with a dual purpose: (1) to witness to unbelievers concerning Jesus, in order that they come to believe in him and have eternal life; and (2) to strengthen the faith of believers, by deepening and expanding their understanding of who Jesus is.


The Sea of Tiberias is another name for the Sea of Galilee (see 6:1 ).


Didymus means “the twin” in Greek.


The sons of Zebedee were James and John.


The two other disciples who are not named may have been Andrew and Philip, who are mentioned together in John 6:7-8 and 12:22 .


On the disciple whom Jesus loved see 13:23-26 .


Here the author makes two further points about the catch of fish: (1) there were one hundred fifty-three large fish in the net, and (2) even with so many, the net was not torn . Many symbolic interpretations have been proposed for both points (unity, especially, in the case of the second), but the reader is given no explicit clarification in the text itself. It seems better not to speculate here, but to see these details as indicative of an eyewitness account. Both are the sort of thing that would remain in the mind of a person who had witnessed them firsthand. For a summary of the symbolic interpretations proposed for the number of fish in the net, see R. E. Brown ( John [AB], 2:1074-75), where a number are discussed at length. Perhaps the reader is simply to understand this as the abundance which results from obedience to Jesus, much as with the amount of wine generated in the water jars in Cana at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry ( 2:6 ).


This is a parenthetical note by the author. The phrase by what kind of death Peter was going to glorify God almost certainly indicates martyrdom (cf. 1 Pet 4:16 ), and it may not predict anything more than that. But the parallelism of this phrase to similar phrases in John 12:33 and 18:32 which describe Jesus’ own death by crucifixion have led many to suggest that the picture Jesus is portraying for Peter looks not just at martyrdom but at death by crucifixion. This seems to be confirmed by the phrase you will stretch out your hands in the preceding verse. There is some evidence that the early church understood this and similar phrases (one of them in Isa 65:2 ) to refer to crucifixion (for a detailed discussion of the evidence see L. Morris, John [NICNT], 876, n. 52). Some have objected that if this phrase does indeed refer to crucifixion, the order within v. 18 is wrong, because the stretching out of the hands in crucifixion precedes the binding and leading where one does not wish to go. R. E. Brown ( John [AB], 2:1108) sees this as a deliberate reversal of the normal order ( hysteron proteron ) intended to emphasize the stretching out of the hands. Another possible explanation for the unusual order is the Roman practice in crucifixions of tying the condemned prisoner’s arms to the crossbeam ( patibulum ) and forcing him to carry it to the place of execution (W. Bauer as cited by O. Cullmann in Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr [LHD], 88).


D W 1 33 pc it), lack the particle, rendering no doubt as to how this Gospel originally ended. The author concludes the Gospel with a note concerning his selectivity of material. He makes it plain that he has not attempted to write an exhaustive account of the words and works of Jesus, for if one attempted to do so, “ the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written .” This is clearly hyperbole, and as such bears some similarity to the conclusion of the Book of Ecclesiastes ( 12:9-12 ). As it turns out, the statement seems more true of the Fourth Gospel itself, which is the subject of an ever-lengthening bibliography. The statement in v. 25 serves as a final reminder that knowledge of Jesus, no matter how well-attested it may be, is still partial. Everything that Jesus did during his three and one-half years of earthly ministry is not known. This supports the major theme of the Fourth Gospel: Jesus is repeatedly identified as God, and although he may be truly known on the basis of his self-disclosure, he can never be known exhaustively. There is far more to know about Jesus than could ever be written down, or even known. On this appropriate note the Gospel of John ends.


After his suffering is a reference to Jesus’ crucifixion and the abuse which preceded it.


The Mount of Olives is the traditional name for this mountain, also called Olivet. The Mount of Olives is really a ridge running north to south about 1.8 mi (3 km) long, east of Jerusalem across the Kidron Valley. Its central elevation is about 100 ft (30 m) higher than Jerusalem. It was named for the large number of olive trees which grew on it.


The phrase a Sabbath day ’ s journey refers to the distance the rabbis permitted a person to travel on the Sabbath without breaking the Sabbath, specified in tractate Sotah 5:3 of the Mishnah as 2,000 cubits (a cubit was about 18 inches). In this case the distance was about half a mile (1 km).


In the various lists of the twelve, Peter (also called Simon) is always mentioned first (see also Matt 10:1-4 ; Mark 3:16-19 ; Luke 6:13-16 ) and the first four are always the same, though not in the same order after Peter.


Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in Matt 13:55 and John 7:3 .


Their own language refers to Aramaic, the primary language spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day.


A quotation from Ps 69:25 .


To go to his own place. This may well be a euphemism for Judas’ judged fate. He separated himself from them, and thus separated he would remain.


Proselytes refers to Gentile (i.e., non-Jewish) converts to Judaism.


Note how in the quotation that follows all genders, ages, and classes are included. The event is like a hope Moses expressed in Num 11:29 .


The phrase in the last days is not quoted from Joel, but represents Peter’s interpretive explanation of the current events as falling “in the last days.”


The words and they will prophesy in Acts 2:18 are not quoted from Joel 2:29 at this point but are repeated from earlier in the quotation ( Acts 2:17 ) for emphasis. Tongues speaking is described as prophecy, just like intelligible tongues are described in 1 Cor 14:26-33 .


A quotation from Joel 2:28-32 .


The term translated pains is frequently used to describe pains associated with giving birth (see Rev 12:2 ). So there is irony here in the mixed metaphor.


A quotation from Ps 16:8-11 .


Peter’s certainty is based on well-known facts.


An allusion to Ps 132:11 and 2 Sam 7:12-13 , the promise in the Davidic covenant.


An allusion to Ps 16:10 .


The expression the right hand of God represents supreme power and authority. Its use here sets up the quotation of Ps 110:1 in v. 34 .


The use of the verb poured out looks back to 2:17-18 , where the same verb occurs twice.


Sit at my right hand. The word “sit” alludes back to the promise of “seating one on his throne” in v. 30 .


The metaphor make your enemies a footstool portrays the complete subjugation of the enemies.


A quotation from Ps 110:1 , one of the most often-cited OT passages in the NT, pointing to the exaltation of Jesus.


Lord. This looks back to the quotation of Ps 110:1 and the mention of “calling on the Lord” in 2:21 . Peter’s point is that the Lord on whom one calls for salvation is Jesus, because he is the one mediating God’s blessing of the Spirit as a sign of the presence of salvation and the last days.


The promise refers to the promise of the Holy Spirit that Jesus received from the Father in 2:33 and which he now pours out on others. The promise consists of the Holy Spirit (see note in 2:33 ). Jesus is the active mediator of God’s blessing.


Fellowship refers here to close association involving mutual involvement and relationships.


The term glad ( Grk “gladness”) often refers to joy brought about by God’s saving acts ( Luke 1:14, 44 ; also the related verb in 1:47; 10:21 ).


Going up to the temple at the time for prayer. The earliest Christians, being of Jewish roots, were still participating in the institutions of Judaism at this point. Their faith in Christ did not make them non-Jewish in their practices.


In the name. Note the authority in the name of Jesus the Messiah. His presence and power are at work for the man. The reference to “the name” is not like a magical incantation, but is designed to indicate the agent who performs the healing. The theme is quite frequent in Acts ( 2:38 plus 21 other times).


At once the man’s feet and ankles were made strong. Note that despite the past lameness, the man is immediately able to walk. The restoration of his ability to walk pictures the presence of a renewed walk, a fresh start at life; this was far more than money would have given him.


Amazement is a frequent response to miracles of Jesus or the apostles. These took the ancients by as much surprise as they would people today. But in terms of response to what God is doing, amazement does not equal faith ( Luke 4:36; 5:9, 26; 7:16 ).


Solomon ’ s Portico was a covered walkway formed by rows of columns supporting a roof and open on the inner side facing the center of the temple complex. It was located on the east side of the temple (Josephus, Ant. 15.11.3-5 [15.391-420], 20.9.7 [20.221]) and was a place of commerce and conversation.


Has glorified. Jesus is alive, raised and active, as the healing illustrates so dramatically how God honors him.


His servant. The term servant has messianic connotations given the context of the promise, the note of suffering, and the titles and functions noted in vv. 14-15 .


Whom God raised. God is the main actor here, as he testifies to Jesus and vindicates him.


Here is another example of appeal to the person by mentioning the name. See the note on the word name in 3:6 .


The ignorance Peter mentions here does not excuse them from culpability. It was simply a way to say “you did not realize the great mistake you made.”


God foretold. Peter’s topic is the working out of God’s plan and promise through events the scriptures also note.


The term must used here ( δεῖ , dei , “it is necessary”) is a key Lukan term to point to the plan of God and what must occur.


A quotation from Deut 18:15 . By quoting Deut 18:1 5 Peter declared that Jesus was the eschatological “ prophet like [Moses]” mentioned in that passage, who reveals the plan of God and the way of God.


A quotation from Deut 18:19 , also Lev 23:29 . The OT context of Lev 23:29 discusses what happened when one failed to honor atonement. One ignored the required sacrifice of God at one’s peril.


A quotation from Gen 22:18 .


The picture of turning is again seen as the appropriate response to the message. See v. 19 above. In v. 19 it was “turning to,” here it is “turning away from.” The direction of the two metaphors is important.


The Sadducees controlled the official political structures of Judaism at this time, being the majority members of the Sanhedrin. They were known as extremely strict on law and order issues (Josephus, J. W. 2.8.2 [2.119], 2.8.14 [2.164-166]; Ant. 13.5.9 [13.171-173], 13.10.6 [13.293-298], 18.1.2 [18.11], 18.1.4 [18.16-17], 20.9.1 [20.199]; Life 2 [10-11]). See also Matt 3:7; 16:1-12; 22:23-34 ; Mark 12:18-27 ; Luke 20:27-38 ; Acts 5:17; 23:6-8 .


The high priest’s family. This family controlled the high priesthood as far back as a.d. 6. Annas, Caiaphas, and Alexander were all high priests at one time (though Alexander held that office after this event).


By what name. The issue of the “ name ” comes up again here. This question, meaning “by whose authority,” surfaces an old dispute (see Luke 20:1-8 ). Who speaks for God about the ancient faith?


Filled with the Holy Spirit. The narrator’s remark about the Holy Spirit indicates that Peter speaks as directed by God and for God. This fulfills Luke 12:11-12 ( 1 Pet 3:15 ).


A quotation from Ps 118:22 which combines the theme of rejection with the theme of God’s vindication/exaltation.


Must be saved. The term used here ( δεῖ , dei , “it is necessary”) reflects the necessity set up by God’s directive plan.


Uneducated does not mean “illiterate,” that is, unable to read or write. Among Jews in NT times there was almost universal literacy, especially as the result of widespread synagogue schools. The term refers to the fact that Peter and John had no formal rabbinic training and thus, in the view of their accusers, were not qualified to expound the law or teach publicly. The objection is like Acts 2:7 .


In the name of Jesus. Once again, the “ name ” reflects the person. The person of Jesus and his authority is the “troubling” topic that, as far as the Jewish leadership is concerned, needs controlling.


With one mind. Compare Acts 1:14 .


The Greek word translated rage includes not only anger but opposition, both verbal and nonverbal. See L&N 88.185.


A quotation from Ps 2:1-2 .


The application of Ps 2:1-2 is that Jews and Gentiles are opposing Jesus. The surprise of the application is that Jews are now found among the enemies of God’s plan.


A wordplay on “Christ,” v. 26 , which means “one who has been anointed.”


Grant to your servants to speak your message with great courage. The request is not for a stop to persecution or revenge on the opponents, but for boldness ( great courage ) to carry out the mission of proclaiming the message of what God is doing through Jesus.


The place where they were assembled…was shaken. This signifies that God is in their midst. See Acts 16:26 ; Exod 19:18 ; Ps 114:7 ; Isa 6:4 .


This is a parenthetical note by the author. Note how the actions of Barnabas are in keeping with the meaning of his nickname. He stands in contrast to Ananias and Sapphira in 5:1-11 .


This is a good example of the Greek verb fill ( πληρόω , plhrow ) meaning “to exercise control over someone’s thought and action” (cf. Eph 5:18 ).


Buried. Same day burial was a custom in the Jewish world of the first century (cf. also Deut 21:23 ).


This is the first occurrence of the term church ( ἐκκλησία , ekklhsia ) in Acts. It refers to an assembly of people.


Unclean spirits refers to evil spirits.


They were all being healed. Note how the healings that the apostles provided were comprehensive in their consistency.


See the note on Sadducees in 4:1 .


This is a parenthetical note by the author.


Filled with jealousy. In Acts, the term “jealousy” ( ζήλος , zhlos ) occurs only here and in Acts 13:45 . It is a key term in Judaism for religiously motivated rage (1 Macc 2:24; 1QH 14:13-15 ; m. Sanhedrin 9:5). It was a zeal motivated by a desire to maintain the purity of the faith.


Obeying God (see v. 29 ), the apostles were teaching again ( 4:18-20; 5:20 ). They did so despite the risk.


The name (i.e., person) of Jesus is the constant issue of debate.


To bring this man’s blood on us is an idiom meaning “you intend to make us guilty of this man’s death.”


Obey. See 4:19 . This response has Jewish roots ( Dan 3:16-18 ; 2 Macc 7:2; Josephus, Ant. 17.6.3 [17.159].


Those who obey. The implication, of course, is that the leadership is disobeying God.


The only other use of this verb for anger ( furious ) is Acts 7:54 after Stephen’s speech.


Wanted to execute them. The charge would surely be capital insubordination ( Exod 22:28 ).


A Pharisee was a member 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.


Gamaliel was a famous Jewish scholar and teacher mentioned here in v. 34 and in Acts 22:3 . He had a grandson of the same name and is referred to as “Gamaliel the Elder” to avoid confusion. He is quoted a number of times in the Mishnah, was given the highest possible title for Jewish teachers, Rabba (cf. John 20:16 ), and was highly regarded in later rabbinic tradition.


Had them beaten. The punishment was the “forty lashes minus one,” see also Acts 22:19 ; 2 Cor 11:24 ; Mark 13:9 . The apostles had disobeyed the religious authorities and took their punishment for their “disobedience” ( Deut 25:2-3 ; m. Makkot 3:10-14). In Acts 4:18 they were warned. Now they are beaten . The hostility is rising as the narrative unfolds.


That is, considered worthy by God. They “gloried in their shame” of honoring Jesus with their testimony ( Luke 6:22-23 ; 2 Macc 6:30).


The name refers to the name of Jesus (cf. 3 John 7 ).


The care of widows is a major biblical theme: Deut 10:18; 16:11, 14; 24:17, 19-21; 26:12-13; 27:19 ; Isa 1:17-23 ; Jer 7:6 ; Mal 3:5 .


The twelve refers to the twelve apostles.


Seven. Jewish town councils often had seven members (Josephus, Ant. 4.18.14 [4.214]).


Philip. Note how many of the names in this list are Greek. This suggests that Hellenists were chosen to solve the problem they had been so sensitive about fixing (cf. 6:1 ).


A s ynagogue 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).


They were not able to resist. This represents another fulfillment of Luke 12:11-12; 21:15 .


This holy place is a reference to the temple.


The law refers to the law of Moses. It elaborates the nature of the blasphemy in v. 11 . To speak against God’s law in Torah was to blaspheme God ( Deut 28:15-19 ). On the Jewish view of false witnesses, see Exod 19:16-18; 20:16 ; m. Sanhedrin 3.6; 5.1-5. Stephen’s speech in may indicate why the temple was mentioned.


His face was like the face of an angel. This narrative description of Stephen’s face adds to the mood of the passage. He had the appearance of a supernatural, heavenly messenger.


A quotation from Gen 12:1 .


An allusion to Gen 12:7; 13:15; 15:2, 18; 17:8; 24:7; 48:4 . On the theological importance of the promise and to his descendants after him , see and .


A quotation from Gen 15:13 . Exod 12:40 specifies the sojourn as 430 years.


An allusion to Exod 3:12 .


God gave…the covenant. Note how the covenant of promise came before Abraham’s entry into the land and before the building of the temple.


The twelve patriarchs refers to the twelve sons of Jacob, the famous ancestors of the Jewish race (see Gen 35:23-26 ).


Our. Stephen spoke of “ our ” ancestors ( Grk “fathers”) in an inclusive sense throughout the speech until his rebuke in v. 51 , where the nation does what “your” ancestors did, at which point an exclusive pronoun is used. This serves to emphasize the rebuke.


See Gen 49:29-32 .


A quotation from Exod 1:8 .


They did not understand. Here is the theme of the speech. The people did not understand what God was doing through those he chose. They made the same mistake with Joseph at first. See Acts 3:17; 13:27 . There is good precedent for this kind of challenging review of history in the ancient scriptures: Ps 106:6-46 ; ; and Neh 9:6-38 .


An allusion to Exod 3:2 .


A quotation from Exod 3:6 . The phrase suggests the God of promise, the God of the nation.


A quotation from Exod 3:5 . The phrase holy ground points to the fact that God is not limited to a particular locale. The place where he is active in revealing himself is a holy place.


A quotation from Exod 3:7-8, 10 .


This same. The reference to “this one” occurs five times in this speech. It is the way the other speeches in Acts refer to Jesus (e.g., Acts 2:23 ).


A quotation from Exod 2:14 (see Acts 7:27 ). God saw Moses very differently than the people of the nation did. The reference to a ruler and a judge suggests that Stephen set up a comparison between Moses and Jesus, but he never finished his speech to make the point. The reader of Acts, however, knowing the other sermons in the book, recognizes that the rejection of Jesus is the counterpoint.


A quotation from Deut 18:15 . This quotation sets up Jesus as the “leader-prophet” like Moses ( Acts 3:22 ; Luke 9:35 ).


To obey. Again the theme of the speech is noted. The nation disobeyed the way of God and opted for Egypt over the promised land.


Pushed him aside. This is the second time Moses is “pushed aside” in Stephen’s account (see v. 27 ).


A quotation from Exod 32:1, 23 . Doubt ( we do not know what has happened to him ) expresses itself in unfaithful action. The act is in contrast to God’s promise in Exod 23:20 .


The expression and gave them over suggests similarities to the judgment on the nations described by Paul in Rom 1:18-32 .


Moloch was a Canaanite deity who was believed to be the god of the sky and the sun.


Rephan ( ῾Ραιφάν , RJaifan ) was a pagan deity. The term was a name for Saturn. It was variously spelled in the mss (BDAG 903 s.v. has Rompha as an alternate spelling). The references cover a range of deities and a history of unfaithfulness.


A quotation from Amos 5:25-27 . This constituted a prediction of the exile.


See 1 Kgs 8:1-21 .


The title the Most High points to God’s majesty ( Heb 7:1 ; Luke 1:32, 35 ; Acts 16:7 ).


The phrase made by human hands is negative in the NT: Mark 14:58 ; Acts 17:24 ; Eph 2:11 ; Heb 9:11, 24 . It suggests “man-made” or “impermanent.” The rebuke is like parts of the Hebrew scripture where the rebuke is not of the temple, but for making too much of it ( 1 Kgs 8:27 ; Isa 57:15 ; 1 Chr 6:8 ; Jer 7:1-34 ).


What kind…resting place? The rhetorical questions suggest mere human beings cannot build a house to contain God.


Traditionally, “stiff-necked people.” Now the critique begins in earnest.


Which…persecute. The rhetorical question suggests they persecuted them all.


The Righteous One is a reference to Jesus Christ.


Whose betrayers and murderers you have now become. The harsh critique has OT precedent ( 1 Kgs 19:10-14 ; Neh 9:26 ; 2 Chr 36:16 ).