Matius 10:42

10:42 And whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple, I tell you the truth, ¹  he will never lose his reward.”

Matius 10:2

10:2 Now these are the names of the twelve apostles: ²  first, Simon ³  (called Peter), and Andrew his brother; James son of Zebedee and John his brother;

1 Samuel 9:1

Samuel Meets with Saul

9:1 There was a Benjaminite man named Kish son of Abiel, the son of Zeror, the son of Becorath, the son of Aphiah of Benjamin. He was a prominent person.

1 Samuel 9:7

9:7 So Saul said to his servant, “All right, ⁴  we can go. But what can we bring the man, since the food in our bags is used up? We have no gift to take to the man of God. What do we have?”

Amsal 14:31

14:31 The one who oppresses ⁵  the poor insults ⁶  his Creator,

but whoever shows favor ⁷  to the needy honors him.

Amsal 19:17

19:17 The one who is gracious ⁸  to the poor lends ⁹  to the Lord,

and the Lord ¹⁰  will repay him ¹¹  for his good deed. ¹² 

Markus 9:41

9:41 For I tell you the truth, ¹³  whoever gives you a cup of water because ¹⁴  you bear Christ’s ¹⁵  name will never lose his reward.

Yohanes 19:26-27

19:26 So when Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, “Woman, ¹⁶  look, here is your son!” 19:27 He then said to his disciple, “Look, here is your mother!” From that very time ¹⁷  the disciple took her into his own home.

Yohanes 21:15-17

Peter’s Restoration

21:15 Then when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, ¹⁸  do you love me more than these do?” ¹⁹  He replied, ²⁰  “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” ²¹  Jesus ²²  told him, “Feed my lambs.” 21:16 Jesus ²³  said ²⁴  a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He replied, ²⁵  “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus ²⁶  told him, “Shepherd my sheep.” 21:17 Jesus ²⁷  said ²⁸  a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed ²⁹  that Jesus ³⁰  asked ³¹  him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, ³²  “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” Jesus ³³  replied, ³⁴  “Feed my sheep.

Yohanes 21:1

Jesus’ Appearance to the Disciples in Galilee

21:1 After this ³⁵  Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias. ³⁶  Now this is how he did so. ³⁷ 

Kolose 1:21-22

Paul’s Goal in Ministry

1:21 And you were at one time strangers and enemies in your ³⁸  minds ³⁹  as expressed through ⁴⁰  your evil deeds, 1:22 but now he has reconciled you ⁴¹  by his physical body through death to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before him –

Kolose 1:2

1:2 to the saints, the faithful ⁴²  brothers and sisters ⁴³  in Christ, at Colossae. Grace and peace to you ⁴⁴  from God our Father! ⁴⁵ 

Kolose 4:5

4:5 Conduct yourselves ⁴⁶  with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunities.

Kolose 1:14-15

1:14 in whom we have redemption, ⁴⁷  the forgiveness of sins.

The Supremacy of Christ

1:15 ⁴⁸ He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn ⁴⁹  over all creation, ⁵⁰ 

Kolose 1:7-9

1:7 You learned the gospel ⁵¹  from Epaphras, our dear fellow slave ⁵²  – a ⁵³  faithful minister of Christ on our ⁵⁴  behalf – 1:8 who also told us of your love in the Spirit.

Paul’s Prayer for the Growth of the Church

1:9 For this reason we also, from the day we heard about you, ⁵⁵  have not ceased praying for you and asking God ⁵⁶  to fill ⁵⁷  you with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding,

Galatia 5:6

5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision carries any weight – the only thing that matters is faith working through love. ⁵⁸ 

Galatia 5:13

Practice Love

5:13 For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; ⁵⁹  only do not use your freedom as an opportunity to indulge your flesh, ⁶⁰  but through love serve one another. ⁶¹ 

Galatia 5:22

5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit ⁶²  is love, ⁶³  joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, ⁶⁴ 

Galatia 5:1

Freedom of the Believer

5:1 For freedom ⁶⁵  Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not be subject again to the yoke ⁶⁶  of slavery.

Galatia 4:9-10

4:9 But now that you have come to know God (or rather to be known by God), how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless ⁶⁷  basic forces? ⁶⁸  Do you want to be enslaved to them all over again? ⁶⁹  4:10 You are observing religious ⁷⁰  days and months and seasons and years.

Galatia 4:1

4:1 Now I mean that the heir, as long as he is a minor, ⁷¹  is no different from a slave, though he is the owner ⁷²  of everything.

Pengkhotbah 1:1

Title

1:1 The words of the Teacher, ⁷³  the son ⁷⁴  of David, king ⁷⁵  in Jerusalem: ⁷⁶ 

Pengkhotbah 1:1

Title

1:1 The words of the Teacher, ⁷⁷  the son ⁷⁸  of David, king ⁷⁹  in Jerusalem: ⁸⁰ 

Yohanes 3:14-19

3:14 Just as ⁸¹  Moses lifted up the serpent ⁸²  in the wilderness, ⁸³  so must the Son of Man be lifted up, ⁸⁴  3:15 so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.” ⁸⁵ 

3:16 For this is the way ⁸⁶  God loved the world: He gave his one and only ⁸⁷  Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish ⁸⁸  but have eternal life. ⁸⁹  3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, ⁹⁰  but that the world should be saved through him. 3:18 The one who believes in him is not condemned. ⁹¹  The one who does not believe has been condemned ⁹²  already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only ⁹³  Son of God. 3:19 Now this is the basis for judging: ⁹⁴  that the light has come into the world and people ⁹⁵  loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil.

Yohanes 4:7-12

4:7 A Samaritan woman ⁹⁶  came to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give me some water ⁹⁷  to drink.” 4:8 (For his disciples had gone off into the town to buy supplies. ⁹⁸ ) ⁹⁹  4:9 So the Samaritan woman said to him, “How can you – a Jew ¹⁰⁰  – ask me, a Samaritan woman, for water ¹⁰¹  to drink?” (For Jews use nothing in common ¹⁰²  with Samaritans.) ¹⁰³ 

4:10 Jesus answered ¹⁰⁴  her, “If you had known ¹⁰⁵  the gift of God and who it is who said to you, ‘Give me some water ¹⁰⁶  to drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” ¹⁰⁷  4:11 “Sir,” ¹⁰⁸  the woman ¹⁰⁹  said to him, “you have no bucket and the well ¹¹⁰  is deep; where then do you get this ¹¹¹  living water? ¹¹²  4:12 Surely you’re not greater than our ancestor ¹¹³  Jacob, are you? For he gave us this well and drank from it himself, along with his sons and his livestock.” ¹¹⁴ 

Yohanes 4:20-21

4:20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, ¹¹⁵  and you people ¹¹⁶  say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.” ¹¹⁷  4:21 Jesus said to her, “Believe me, woman, ¹¹⁸  a time ¹¹⁹  is coming when you will worship ¹²⁰  the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.

Yohanes 5:1-2

Healing a Paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda

5:1 After this ¹²¹  there was a Jewish feast, ¹²²  and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. ¹²³  5:2 Now there is ¹²⁴  in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate ¹²⁵  a pool called Bethzatha ¹²⁶  in Aramaic, ¹²⁷  which has five covered walkways. ¹²⁸ 

[10:42]  ¹ tn Grk “Truly (ἀμήν, amhn), I say to you.”

[10:2]  ² sn The term apostles is rare in the gospels, found only here, Mark 3:14, and six more times in Luke (6:13; 9:10; 11:49; 17:5; 22:14; 24:10).

[10:2]  ³ sn In the various lists of the twelve, Simon (that is, Peter) is always mentioned first (see also Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:13-16; Acts 1:13) and the first four are always the same, though not in the same order after Peter.

[9:7]  ⁴ tn Heb “look.”

[14:31]  ⁵ tn The verb עָשַׁק (’ashaq) normally means “to oppress” (as in many English versions). However, here it might mean “to slander.” See J. A. Emerton, “Notes on Some Passages in the Book of Proverbs,” JTS 20 (1969): 202-22.

[14:31]  ⁶ sn In the Piel this verb has the meaning of “to reproach; to taunt; to say sharp things against” someone (cf. NIV “shows contempt for”). By oppressing the poor one taunts or mistreats God because that person is in the image of God – hence the reference to the “Creator.” To ridicule what God made is to ridicule God himself.

[14:31]  ⁷ sn The phrase “shows favor” is contrasted with the term “oppresses.” To “show favor” means to be gracious to (or treat kindly) those who do not deserve it or cannot repay it. It is treatment that is gratis. This honors God because he commanded it to be done (Prov 14:21; 17:5; 19:17).

[19:17]  ⁸ sn The participle חוֹנֵן (khonen, “shows favor to”) is related to the word for “grace.” The activity here is the kind favor shown poor people for no particular reason and with no hope of repayment. It is literally an act of grace.

[19:17]  ⁹ tn The form מַלְוֵה (malveh) is the Hiphil participle from לָוָה (lavah) in construct; it means “to cause to borrow; to lend.” The expression here is “lender of the Lord.” The person who helps the poor becomes the creditor of God.

[19:17]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “he.” The referent of the 3rd person masculine singular pronoun is “the Lord” in the preceding line, which has been supplied here in the translation for clarity.

[19:17]  ¹¹ sn The promise of reward does not necessarily mean that the person who gives to the poor will get money back; the rewards in the book of Proverbs involve life and prosperity in general.

[19:17]  ¹² tn Heb “and his good deed will repay him.” The word גְּמֻלוֹ (gÿmulo) could be (1) the subject or (2) part of a double accusative of the verb. Understanding it as part of the double accusative makes better sense, for then the subject of the verb is God. How “his deed” could repay him is not immediately obvious.

[9:41]  ¹³ tn Grk “Truly (ἀμήν, amhn), I say to you.”

[9:41]  ¹⁴ tn Grk “in [the] name that of Christ you are.”

[9:41]  ¹⁵ tn Or “bear the Messiah’s”; both “Christ” (Greek) and “Messiah” (Hebrew and Aramaic) mean “one who has been anointed.”

[9:41]  sn See the note on Christ in 8:29.

[19:26]  ¹⁶ sn 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.

[19:27]  ¹⁷ tn Grk “from that very hour.”

[21:15]  ¹⁸ tc The majority of mss (A C² Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï sy) read “Simon, the son of Jonah” here and in vv. 16 and 17, but these are perhaps assimilations to Matt 16:17. The reading “Simon, son of John” is better attested, being found in א¹ (א* only has “Simon” without mention of his father) B C* D L W lat co.

[21:15]  ¹⁹ tn To whom (or what) does “these” (τούτων, toutwn) refer? Three possibilities are suggested: (1) τούτων should be understood as neuter, “these things,” referring to the boats, nets, and fishing gear nearby. In light of Peter’s statement in 21:3, “I am going fishing,” some have understood Peter to have renounced his commission in light of his denials of Jesus. Jesus, as he restores Peter and forgives him for his denials, is asking Peter if he really loves his previous vocation more than he loves Jesus. Three things may be said in evaluation of this view: (a) it is not at all necessary to understand Peter’s statement in 21:3 as a renouncement of his discipleship, as this view of the meaning of τούτων would imply; (b) it would probably be more likely that the verb would be repeated in such a construction (see 7:31 for an example where the verb is repeated); and (c) as R. E. Brown has observed (John [AB], 2:1103) by Johannine standards the choice being offered to Peter between material things and the risen Jesus would seem rather ridiculous, especially after the disciples had realized whom it was they were dealing with (the Lord, see v. 12). (2) τούτων refers to the other disciples, meaning “Do you love me more than you love these other disciples?” The same objection mentioned as (c) under (1) would apply here: Could the author, in light of the realization of who Jesus is which has come to the disciples after the resurrection, and which he has just mentioned in 21:12, seriously present Peter as being offered a choice between the other disciples and the risen Jesus? This leaves option (3), that τούτων refers to the other disciples, meaning “Do you love me more than these other disciples do?” It seems likely that there is some irony here: Peter had boasted in 13:37, “I will lay down my life for you,” and the synoptics present Peter as boasting even more explicitly of his loyalty to Jesus (“Even if they all fall away, I will not,” Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29). Thus the semantic force of what Jesus asks Peter here amounts to something like “Now, after you have denied me three times, as I told you you would, can you still affirm that you love me more than these other disciples do?” The addition of the auxiliary verb “do” in the translation is used to suggest to the English reader the third interpretation, which is the preferred one.

[21:15]  ²⁰ tn Grk “He said to him.”

[21:15]  ²¹ tn Is there a significant difference in meaning between the two words for love used in the passage, ἀγαπάω and φιλέω (agapaw and filew)? Aside from Origen, who saw a distinction in the meaning of the two words, most of the Greek Fathers like Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, saw no real difference of meaning. Neither did Augustine nor the translators of the Itala (Old Latin). This was also the view of the Reformation Greek scholars Erasmus and Grotius. The suggestion that a distinction in meaning should be seen comes primarily from a number of British scholars of the 19th century, especially Trench, Westcott, and Plummer. It has been picked up by others such as Spicq, Lenski, and Hendriksen. But most modern scholars decline to see a real difference in the meaning of the two words in this context, among them Bernard, Moffatt, Bonsirven, Bultmann, Barrett, Brown, Morris, Haenchen, and Beasley-Murray. There are three significant reasons for seeing no real difference in the meaning of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in these verses: (1) the author has a habit of introducing slight stylistic variations in repeated material without any significant difference in meaning (compare, for example, 3:3 with 3:5, and 7:34 with 13:33). An examination of the uses of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in the Fourth Gospel seems to indicate a general interchangeability between the two. Both terms are used of God’s love for man (3:16, 16:27); of the Father’s love for the Son (3:35, 5:20); of Jesus’ love for men (11:5, 11:3); of the love of men for men (13:34, 15:19); and of the love of men for Jesus (8:42, 16:27). (2) If (as seems probable) the original conversation took place in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew), there would not have been any difference expressed because both Aramaic and Hebrew have only one basic word for love. In the LXX both ἀγαπάω and φιλέω are used to translate the same Hebrew word for love, although ἀγαπάω is more frequent. It is significant that in the Syriac version of the NT only one verb is used to translate vv. 15-17 (Syriac is very similar linguistically to Palestinian Aramaic). (3) Peter’s answers to the questions asked with ἀγαπάω are ‘yes’ even though he answers using the verb φιλέω. If he is being asked to love Jesus on a higher or more spiritual level his answers give no indication of this, and one would be forced to say (in order to maintain a consistent distinction between the two verbs) that Jesus finally concedes defeat and accepts only the lower form of love which is all that Peter is capable of offering. Thus it seems best to regard the interchange between ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in these verses as a minor stylistic variation of the author, consistent with his use of minor variations in repeated material elsewhere, and not indicative of any real difference in meaning. Thus no attempt has been made to distinguish between the two Greek words in the translation.

[21:15]  ²² tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:16]  ²³ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:16]  ²⁴ tn Grk “said again.” The word “again” (when used in connection with the phrase “a second time”) is redundant and has not been translated.

[21:16]  ²⁵ tn Grk “He said to him.”

[21:16]  ²⁶ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ²⁷ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ²⁸ tn Grk “said to him.” The words “to him” are clear from the context and slightly redundant in English.

[21:17]  ²⁹ tn Or “was sad.”

[21:17]  ³⁰ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ³¹ tn Grk “said to.”

[21:17]  ³² tn Grk “and said to him.” The words “to him” are clear from the context and slightly redundant in English.

[21:17]  ³³ tc ‡ Most witnesses, especially later ones (A Θ Ψ Ë¹³ Ï), read ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (Jo Ihsou", “Jesus”) here, while B C have ᾿Ιησοῦς without the article and א D W ˹ 33 565 al lat lack both. Because of the rapid verbal exchange in this pericope, “Jesus” is virtually required for clarity, providing a temptation to scribes to add the name. Further, the name normally occurs with the article. Although it is possible that B C accidentally omitted the article with the name, it is just as likely that they added the simple name to the text for clarity’s sake, while other witnesses added the article as well. The omission of ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς thus seems most likely to be authentic. NA²⁷ includes the words in brackets, indicating some doubts as to their authenticity.

[21:17]  tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ³⁴ tn Grk “Jesus said to him.”

[21:1]  ³⁵ tn The time reference indicated by μετὰ ταῦτα (meta tauta) is indefinite, in comparison with the specific “after eight days” (μεθ᾿ ἡμέρας ὀκτώ, meq’ Jhmera" oktw) between the two postresurrection appearances of Jesus in 20:26.

[21:1]  ³⁶ sn The Sea of Tiberias is another name for the Sea of Galilee (see 6:1).

[21:1]  ³⁷ tn Grk “how he revealed himself.”

[1:21]  ³⁸ tn The article τῇ (th) has been translated as a possessive pronoun (ExSyn 215).

[1:21]  ³⁹ tn Although διανοία (dianoia) is singular in Greek, the previous plural noun ἐχθρούς (ecqrous) indicates that all those from Colossae are in view here.

[1:21]  ⁴⁰ tn The dative ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς πονηροῖς (en toi" ergoi" toi" ponhroi") is taken as means, indicating the avenue through which hostility in the mind is revealed and made known.

[1:22]  ⁴¹ tc Some of the better representatives of the Alexandrian and Western texts have a passive verb here instead of the active ἀποκατήλλαξεν (apokathllaxen, “he has reconciled”): ἀποκατηλλάγητε (apokathllaghte) in (Ì⁴⁶) B, ἀποκατήλλακται [sic] (apokathllaktai) in 33, and ἀποκαταλλαγέντες (apokatallagente") in D* F G. Yet the active verb is strongly supported by א A C D² Ψ 048 075 [0278] 1739 1881 Ï lat sy. Internally, the passive creates an anacoluthon in that it looks back to the accusative ὑμᾶς (Juma", “you”) of v. 21 and leaves the following παραστῆσαι (parasthsai) dangling (“you were reconciled…to present you”). The passive reading is certainly the harder reading. As such, it may well explain the rise of the other readings. At the same time, it is possible that the passive was produced by scribes who wanted some symmetry between the ποτε (pote, “at one time”) of v. 21 and the νυνὶ δέ (nuni de, “but now”) of v. 22: Since a passive periphrastic participle is used in v. 21, there may have a temptation to produce a corresponding passive form in v. 22, handling the ὑμᾶς of v. 21 by way of constructio ad sensum. Since παραστῆσαι occurs ten words later, it may not have been considered in this scribal modification. Further, the Western reading (ἀποκαταλλαγέντες) hardly seems to have arisen from ἀποκατηλλάγητε (contra TCGNT 555). As difficult as this decision is, the preferred reading is the active form because it is superior externally and seems to explain the rise of all forms of the passive readings.

[1:22]  tn The direct object is omitted in the Greek text, but it is clear from context that “you” (ὑμᾶς, Jumas) is implied.

[1:2]  ⁴² tn Grk “and faithful.” The construction in Greek (as well as Paul’s style) suggests that the saints are identical to the faithful; hence, the καί (kai) is best left untranslated (cf. Eph 1:1). See ExSyn 281-82.

[1:2]  ⁴³ tn Grk “brothers,” but the Greek word may be used for “brothers and sisters” or “fellow Christians” as here (cf. BDAG 18 s.v. ἀδελφός 1, where considerable nonbiblical evidence for the plural ἀδελφοί [adelfoi] meaning “brothers and sisters” is cited).

[1:2]  ⁴⁴ tn Or “Grace to you and peace.”

[1:2]  ⁴⁵ tc Most witnesses, including some important ones (א A C F G I [P] 075 Ï it bo), read “and the Lord Jesus Christ” at the end of this verse, no doubt to conform the wording to the typical Pauline salutation. However, excellent and early witnesses (B D K L Ψ 33 81 1175 1505 1739 1881 al sa) lack this phrase. Since the omission is inexplicable as arising from the longer reading (otherwise, these mss would surely have deleted the phrase in the rest of the corpus Paulinum), it is surely authentic.

[4:5]  ⁴⁶ tn Grk “walk.” The verb περιπατέω (peripatew) is a common NT idiom for one’s lifestyle, behavior, or manner of conduct (L&N 41.11).

[1:14]  ⁴⁷ tc διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ (dia tou {aimato" autou, “through his blood”) is read at this juncture by several minuscule mss (614 630 1505 2464 al) as well as a few, mostly secondary, versional and patristic witnesses. But the reading was prompted by the parallel in Eph 1:7 where the wording is solid. If these words had been in the original of Colossians, why would scribes omit them here but not in Eph 1:7? Further, the testimony on behalf of the shorter reading is quite overwhelming: {א A B C D F G Ψ 075 0150 6 33 1739 1881 Ï latt co as well as several other versions and fathers}. The conviction that “through his blood” is not authentic in Col 1:14 is as strong as the conviction that these words are authentic in Eph 1:7.

[1:15]  ⁴⁸ sn This passage has been typeset as poetry because many scholars regard this passage as poetic or hymnic. These terms are used broadly to refer to the genre of writing, not to the content. There are two broad criteria for determining if a passage is poetic or hymnic: “(a) stylistic: a certain rhythmical lilt when the passages are read aloud, the presence of parallelismus membrorum (i.e., an arrangement into couplets), the semblance of some metre, and the presence of rhetorical devices such as alliteration, chiasmus, and antithesis; and (b) linguistic: an unusual vocabulary, particularly the presence of theological terms, which is different from the surrounding context” (P. T. O’Brien, Philippians [NIGTC], 188-89). Classifying a passage as hymnic or poetic is important because understanding this genre can provide keys to interpretation. However, not all scholars agree that the above criteria are present in this passage, so the decision to typeset it as poetry should be viewed as a tentative decision about its genre.

[1:15]  ⁴⁹ tn The Greek term πρωτότοκος (prwtotokos) could refer either to first in order of time, such as a first born child, or it could refer to one who is preeminent in rank. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (EGGNT), 43, expresses the meaning of the word well: “The ‘firstborn’ was either the eldest child in a family or a person of preeminent rank. The use of this term to describe the Davidic king in Ps 88:28 LXX (=Ps 89:27 EVV), ‘I will also appoint him my firstborn (πρωτότοκον), the most exalted of the kings of the earth,’ indicates that it can denote supremacy in rank as well as priority in time. But whether the πρωτό- element in the word denotes time, rank, or both, the significance of the -τοκος element as indicating birth or origin (from τίκτω, give birth to) has been virtually lost except in ref. to lit. birth.” In Col 1:15 the emphasis is on the priority of Jesus’ rank as over and above creation (cf. 1:16 and the “for” clause referring to Jesus as Creator).

[1:15]  ⁵⁰ tn The genitive construction πάσης κτίσεως (pash" ktisew") is a genitive of subordination and is therefore translated as “over all creation.” See ExSyn 103-4.

[1:7]  ⁵¹ tn Or “learned it.” The Greek text simply has “you learned” without the reference to “the gospel,” but “the gospel” is supplied to clarify the sense of the clause. Direct objects were frequently omitted in Greek when clear from the context.

[1:7]  ⁵² tn The Greek word translated “fellow slave” is σύνδουλος (sundoulo"); the σύν- prefix here denotes association. Though δοῦλος is normally translated “servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. BDAG notes that “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times…in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished” (BDAG 260 s.v.). The most accurate translation is “bondservant” (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος), in that it often indicates one who sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force.

[1:7]  ⁵³ tn The Greek text has “who (ὅς, Jos) is a faithful minister.” The above translation conveys the antecedent of the relative pronoun quite well and avoids the redundancy with the following substantival participle of v. 8, namely, “who told” (ὁ δηλώσας, Jo dhlwsa").

[1:7]  ⁵⁴ tc ‡ Judging by the superior witnesses for the first person pronoun ἡμῶν (Jhmwn, “us”; Ì⁴⁶ א* A B D* F G 326* 1505 al) vs. the second person pronoun ὑμῶν (Jumwn, “you”; found in א² C D¹ Ψ 075 33 1739 1881 Ï lat sy co), ἡμῶν should be regarded as original. Although it is possible that ἡμῶν was an early alteration of ὑμῶν (either unintentionally, as dittography, since it comes seventeen letters after the previous ἡμῶν; or intentionally, to conform to the surrounding first person pronouns), this supposition is difficult to maintain in light of the varied and valuable witnesses for this reading. Further, the second person is both embedded in the verb ἐμάθετε (emaqete) and is explicit in v. 8 (ὑμῶν). Hence, the motivation to change to the first person pronoun is counterbalanced by such evidence. The second person pronoun may have been introduced unintentionally via homoioarcton with the ὑπέρ (Juper) that immediately precedes it. As well, the second person reading is somewhat harder for it seems to address Epaphras’ role only in relation to Paul and his colleagues, rather than in relation to the Colossians. Nevertheless, the decision must be based ultimately on external evidence (because the internal evidence can be variously interpreted), and this strongly supports ἡμῶν.

[1:9]  ⁵⁵ tn Or “heard about it”; Grk “heard.” There is no direct object stated in the Greek (direct objects were frequently omitted in Greek when clear from the context). A direct object is expected by an English reader, however, so most translations supply one. Here, however, it is not entirely clear what the author “heard”: a number of translations supply “it” (so KJV, NASB, NRSV; NAB “this”), but this could refer back either to (1) “your love in the Spirit” at the end of v. 8, or (2) “your faith in Christ Jesus and the love that you have for all the saints” (v. 4). In light of this uncertainty, other translations supply “about you” (TEV, NIV, CEV, NLT). This is preferred by the present translation since, while it does not resolve the ambiguity entirely, it does make it less easy for the English reader to limit the reference only to “your love in the Spirit” at the end of v. 8.

[1:9]  ⁵⁶ tn The term “God” does not appear in the Greek text, but the following reference to “the knowledge of his will” makes it clear that “God” is in view as the object of the “praying and asking,” and should therefore be included in the English translation for clarity.

[1:9]  ⁵⁷ tn The ἵνα (Jina) clause has been translated as substantival, indicating the content of the prayer and asking. The idea of purpose may also be present in this clause.

[5:6]  ⁵⁸ tn Grk “but faith working through love.”

[5:13]  ⁵⁹ tn Grk “brothers.” See note on the phrase “brothers and sisters” in 1:11.

[5:13]  ⁶⁰ tn Grk “as an opportunity for the flesh”; BDAG 915 s.v. σάρξ 2.c.α states: “In Paul’s thought esp., all parts of the body constitute a totality known as σ. or flesh, which is dominated by sin to such a degree that wherever flesh is, all forms of sin are likew. present, and no good thing can live in the σάρξ…Gal 5:13, 24;…Opp. τὸ πνεῦμα…Gal 3:3; 5:16, 17ab; 6:8ab.”

[5:13]  ⁶¹ tn It is possible that the verb δουλεύετε (douleuete) should be translated “serve one another in a humble manner” here, referring to the way in which slaves serve their masters (see L&N 35.27).

[5:22]  ⁶² tn That is, the fruit the Spirit produces.

[5:22]  ⁶³ sn Another way to punctuate this is “love” followed by a colon (love: joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control). It is thus possible to read the eight characteristics following “love” as defining love.

[5:22]  ⁶⁴ tn Or “reliability”; see BDAG 818 s.v. πίστις 1.a.

[5:1]  ⁶⁵ tn Translating the dative as “For freedom” shows the purpose for Christ setting us free; however, it is also possible to take the phrase in the sense of means or instrument (“with [or by] freedom”), referring to the freedom mentioned in 4:31 and implied throughout the letter.

[5:1]  ⁶⁶ sn Here the yoke figuratively represents the burdensome nature of slavery.

[4:9]  ⁶⁷ tn Or “useless.” See L&N 65.16.

[4:9]  ⁶⁸ tn See the note on the phrase “basic forces” in 4:3.

[4:9]  ⁶⁹ tn Grk “basic forces, to which you want to be enslaved…” Verse 9 is a single sentence in the Greek text, but has been divided into two in the translation because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence.

[4:10]  ⁷⁰ tn The adjective “religious” has been supplied in the translation to make clear that the problem concerns observing certain days, etc. in a religious sense (cf. NIV, NRSV “special days”). In light of the polemic in this letter against the Judaizers (those who tried to force observance of the Mosaic law on Gentile converts to Christianity) this may well be a reference to the observance of Jewish Sabbaths, feasts, and other religious days.

[4:1]  ⁷¹ tn Grk “a small child.” The Greek term νήπιος (nhpios) refers to a young child, no longer a helpless infant but probably not more than three or four years old (L&N 9.43). The point in context, though, is that this child is too young to take any responsibility for the management of his assets.

[4:1]  ⁷² tn Grk “master” or “lord” (κύριος, kurios).

[1:1]  ⁷³ tn The meaning of קֹהֶלֶת (qohelet) is somewhat puzzling. The verb קָהַל (qahal) means “to assemble, summon” (HALOT 1078-79 s.v. קהל), and is derived from the noun קָהָל (qahal, “assembly”; HALOT 1079-80 s.v. קָהָל). Thus קֹהֶלֶת might mean: (1) convener of the assembly, (2) leader, speaker, teacher, or preacher of the assembly, or (3) member of the assembly. Elsewhere in the book, קֹהֶלֶת is used in collocation with statements about his position as king in Jerusalem (Eccl 1:12), his proclamations about life (Eccl 1:2; 7:27; 12:8), and his teaching of wisdom and writing wise sayings (Eccl 12:9-10). Thus, קֹהֶלֶת probably means “the leader of the assembly” or “speaker of the assembly.”(See also the following study note.) Rabbinic literature treats קֹהֶלֶת as a traditional surname for Solomon, that is, “Qoheleth,” relating it to the noun קָהָל. For example, this explanation is found in rabbinic literature (Qoheleth Rabbah 1:1): “Why was his name called Qoheleth [קֹהֶלֶת]? Because his words were proclaimed in public meeting [קָהַל], as it is written (1 Kgs 8:1).” The LXX rendered it ἐκκλησιαστής (ekklhsiasths, “member of the assembly,” LSJ 509), as was the custom of relating Greek ἐκκλησία (ekklhsia, “assembly”) to Hebrew קָהָל. The book’s English title, “Ecclesiastes,” is simply a transliteration of the Greek term from the LXX. Symmachus’ παροιμιαστής (paroimiasths, “author of proverbs,” LSJ 1342 s.v.) is not a translation of קֹהֶלֶת but refers to his authorship of many proverbs (Eccl 12:9-10). In terms of the participial form, קֹהֶלֶת is used substantively to designate the profession or title of the author. The term is used in 12:8 with the article, indicating that it is a professional title rather than a personal surname: הַקּוֹהֶלֶת (haqqohelet, “the Teacher”). Substantival participles often designate the title or profession of an individual: כֹּהֵן (kohen), “priest”; רֹזֵן (rozen), “ruler”; שֹׁטֵר (shoter), “officer”; נֹקֵד (noqed), “sheep-breeder”; שֹׁפֵט (shofet), “judge”; יֹצֵר (yotser), “potter”; כֹּרֵם (korem), “vine-dresser”; יֹגֵב (yogev), “farmer”; שׁוֹעֵר (sho’er), “gate-keeper”; צוֹרֵף (tsoref), “smelter”; and רֹפֵא (rofe’), “doctor” (IBHS 614-15 §37.2a). In terms of its feminine ending with a male referent, Joüon 1:266-67 §89.b suggests that it is intensive, e.g., מוֹדַעַת (moda’at) “close relative” from מוֹדָע (moda’) “kinsman.” The feminine ending is used similarly in Arabic in reference to a male referent, e.g., Arabic rawiyat “a great narrator” from rawi “narrator” (C. P. Caspari, A Grammar of the Arabic Language, 1:233c). So קֹהֶלֶת may mean “the leader/teacher of the assembly” from the noun קָהָל. When used in reference to a male referent, feminine forms denote a professional title or vocational office (as in Arabic, Ethiopic, and Aramaic), e.g., סֹפֶרֶת (soferet), “scribe”; פֹּכֶרֶת (pokheret), “gazelle-catcher”; פֶּחָה (pekhah), “provincial governor”; and פְּרָעוֹת (pÿra’ot), “princes” (GKC 393 §122.r). Occasionally, a professional name later became a personal name, e.g., the title סֹפֶרֶת (“scribe”) became the name “Sophereth” (Ezra 2:55; Neh 7:57), פֹּכֶרֶת (“gazelle-catcher”) became “Pokereth” (Ezra 2:57; Neh 7:59), and perhaps קֹהֶלֶת (“assembler”) became the surname “Qoheleth” (HALOT 926 s.v. פֹּכֶרֶת הַצְּבָיִים). Many translations render קֹהֶלֶת as a professional title: “the Speaker” (NEB, Moffatt), “the Preacher” (KJV, RSV, YLT, MLB, ASV, NASB), “the Teacher” (NIV, NRSV), “the Leader of the Assembly” (NIV margin), “the Assembler” (NJPS margin). Others render it as a personal surname: “Koheleth” (JPS, NJPS) and “Qoheleth” (NAB, NRSV margin).

[1:1]  sn The verbal root קהל means “to assemble; to summon” (HALOT 1078-79 s.v. קהל). It is used of assembling or summoning various groups of people: “all Israel” (1 Chr 13:5; 15:3), “the elders of Israel” (1 Kgs 8:1; 2 Chr 5:2), all the elders of their tribes” (Deut 31:28), “all the princes of Israel” (1 Chr 28:1), “your tribes” (Deut 31:28), “all the house of Judah” (1 Kgs 12:21; 2 Chr 11:1), “the people” (Deut 4:10; 31:12), “the whole congregation” (Lev 8:3; Num 1:18; 16:19; 20:8), “all the congregation of the sons of Israel” (Exod 35:1; Num 8:9), “the assembly” (Num 10:7; 20:10), and “your assembly” (Ezek 38:13). The verb is often used in reference to summoning/assembling people for a religious occasion (Exod 35:1; Lev 8:3-4; Num 8:9; Deut 4:10; Josh 18:1; 22:12; 1 Kgs 8:1; 2 Chr 5:2-3), a political occasion (2 Sam 20:14), a military occasion (Judg 20:11; 2 Chr 11:1), or a judicial occasion (Job 11:10). The Hiphil stem is used to describe the action of the leader (usually a single individual who possesses/commands authority) summoning the people, e.g., Moses (Exod 35:1; Lev 8:3; Num 20:10), Moses and Aaron (Num 1:18), Korah (Num 16:19), King David (1 Chr 13:5; 15:3; 28:1), King Solomon (1 Kgs 8:1; 12:21; 2 Chr 5:2), and King Rehoboam (2 Chr 11:1). In almost every case, he who assembles the people is a person invested with authority; he makes a public proclamation or leads the nation in an important action. The Niphal stem is most often used to describe the people assembling at the direction of the leader (e.g., Lev 8:4; Josh 18:1; 22:12; 1 Kgs 8:2; 2 Chr 5:3). The root קהל is a denominative derived from the noun קָהָל (qahal, “assembly, contingent”; HALOT 1079-80 s.v. קָהָל). The noun has numerous referents: the congregated nation as a whole in the wilderness, assembled for ceremonies and instruction (Exod 16:3; Lev 4:13, 21; 16:17, 33; Num 10:7; 14:5; 15:15; 16:3; 17:12; 19:20; 20:4, 6, 10, 12; Deut 9:10; 10:4; 18:16); the congregation of Israel assembled for divine worship (Pss 22:23, 26; 26:5; 35:18; 40:10; 107:32; 149:1; Lam 1:10); the postexilic community assembled to hear the Torah and instruction (Neh 13:1); a military contingent assembled for warfare (Num 16:3; 20:4; Judg 20:2; 21:5, 8; 1 Sam 17:47; 2 Chr 28:14); people summoned to court (Ezek 16:40; 23:46-47); judicial authorities (Jer 26:17; Prov 5:14; 26:26; Sir 7:7). The term is often used as a designation for Israel: “the assembly of Israel” (Lev 16:17; Deut 31:30; Josh 8:35; 1 Kgs 8:14, 22, 55; 12:3; 2 Chr 6:3, 12-13; Sir 50:13, 20), “the assembly of the congregation” (Exod 12:6); “the assembly of the congregation of the sons of Israel” (Num 14:5), and “the assembly of God” (Neh 13:1). The related noun קְהִלָּה (qÿhillah) means “assembly, community” (HALOT 1080 s.v. קְהִלָּה), e.g., in the idiom נָתַן קְהִלָּה (natan qÿhillah) “to hold an assembly”: “I called a great assembly to deal with them” (Neh 5:7).

[1:1]  ⁷⁴ tn Heb “son of David” or “a son of David.”

[1:1]  ⁷⁵ sn While 1:1 says only “king in Jerusalem” (מֶלֶךְ בִּירוּשָׁלָםִ, melekh birushalayim), 1:12 adds “king over Israel in Jerusalem” (בִּירוּשָׁלָםִ מֶלֶךְ עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵל, melekh ’al-yisra’el birushalayim). The LXX adds “Israel” in 1:1 to harmonize with 1:12; however, the MT makes sense as it stands. Apart from David, only Solomon was “king over Israel in Jerusalem” – unless the term “Israel” (יִשְׂרָאֵל, yisra’el) in 1:12 is used for Judah or the postexilic community. Solomon would fit the description of the author of this book, who is characterized by great wisdom (1:13, 16), great wealth (2:8), numerous servants (2:7), great projects (2:4-6), and the collection, editing and writings of many proverbs (12:9-10). All of this generally suggests Solomonic authorship. However, many scholars deny Solomonic authorship on the basis of linguistic and historical arguments.

[1:1]  ⁷⁶ sn The form of the title is typical: (1) “the words of [the writer],” (2) his family name or name of his father, and (3) his social/political position in Israel (e.g., Prov 22:17; 24:23; 30:1; 31:1). Sometimes, the writer’s qualifications are given in the introduction to an OT book (e.g., Jer 1:1; Amos 1:1). Qoheleth lists his qualifications at the end of the book (12:9-12).

[1:1]  map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[1:1]  ⁷⁷ tn The meaning of קֹהֶלֶת (qohelet) is somewhat puzzling. The verb קָהַל (qahal) means “to assemble, summon” (HALOT 1078-79 s.v. קהל), and is derived from the noun קָהָל (qahal, “assembly”; HALOT 1079-80 s.v. קָהָל). Thus קֹהֶלֶת might mean: (1) convener of the assembly, (2) leader, speaker, teacher, or preacher of the assembly, or (3) member of the assembly. Elsewhere in the book, קֹהֶלֶת is used in collocation with statements about his position as king in Jerusalem (Eccl 1:12), his proclamations about life (Eccl 1:2; 7:27; 12:8), and his teaching of wisdom and writing wise sayings (Eccl 12:9-10). Thus, קֹהֶלֶת probably means “the leader of the assembly” or “speaker of the assembly.”(See also the following study note.) Rabbinic literature treats קֹהֶלֶת as a traditional surname for Solomon, that is, “Qoheleth,” relating it to the noun קָהָל. For example, this explanation is found in rabbinic literature (Qoheleth Rabbah 1:1): “Why was his name called Qoheleth [קֹהֶלֶת]? Because his words were proclaimed in public meeting [קָהַל], as it is written (1 Kgs 8:1).” The LXX rendered it ἐκκλησιαστής (ekklhsiasths, “member of the assembly,” LSJ 509), as was the custom of relating Greek ἐκκλησία (ekklhsia, “assembly”) to Hebrew קָהָל. The book’s English title, “Ecclesiastes,” is simply a transliteration of the Greek term from the LXX. Symmachus’ παροιμιαστής (paroimiasths, “author of proverbs,” LSJ 1342 s.v.) is not a translation of קֹהֶלֶת but refers to his authorship of many proverbs (Eccl 12:9-10). In terms of the participial form, קֹהֶלֶת is used substantively to designate the profession or title of the author. The term is used in 12:8 with the article, indicating that it is a professional title rather than a personal surname: הַקּוֹהֶלֶת (haqqohelet, “the Teacher”). Substantival participles often designate the title or profession of an individual: כֹּהֵן (kohen), “priest”; רֹזֵן (rozen), “ruler”; שֹׁטֵר (shoter), “officer”; נֹקֵד (noqed), “sheep-breeder”; שֹׁפֵט (shofet), “judge”; יֹצֵר (yotser), “potter”; כֹּרֵם (korem), “vine-dresser”; יֹגֵב (yogev), “farmer”; שׁוֹעֵר (sho’er), “gate-keeper”; צוֹרֵף (tsoref), “smelter”; and רֹפֵא (rofe’), “doctor” (IBHS 614-15 §37.2a). In terms of its feminine ending with a male referent, Joüon 1:266-67 §89.b suggests that it is intensive, e.g., מוֹדַעַת (moda’at) “close relative” from מוֹדָע (moda’) “kinsman.” The feminine ending is used similarly in Arabic in reference to a male referent, e.g., Arabic rawiyat “a great narrator” from rawi “narrator” (C. P. Caspari, A Grammar of the Arabic Language, 1:233c). So קֹהֶלֶת may mean “the leader/teacher of the assembly” from the noun קָהָל. When used in reference to a male referent, feminine forms denote a professional title or vocational office (as in Arabic, Ethiopic, and Aramaic), e.g., סֹפֶרֶת (soferet), “scribe”; פֹּכֶרֶת (pokheret), “gazelle-catcher”; פֶּחָה (pekhah), “provincial governor”; and פְּרָעוֹת (pÿra’ot), “princes” (GKC 393 §122.r). Occasionally, a professional name later became a personal name, e.g., the title סֹפֶרֶת (“scribe”) became the name “Sophereth” (Ezra 2:55; Neh 7:57), פֹּכֶרֶת (“gazelle-catcher”) became “Pokereth” (Ezra 2:57; Neh 7:59), and perhaps קֹהֶלֶת (“assembler”) became the surname “Qoheleth” (HALOT 926 s.v. פֹּכֶרֶת הַצְּבָיִים). Many translations render קֹהֶלֶת as a professional title: “the Speaker” (NEB, Moffatt), “the Preacher” (KJV, RSV, YLT, MLB, ASV, NASB), “the Teacher” (NIV, NRSV), “the Leader of the Assembly” (NIV margin), “the Assembler” (NJPS margin). Others render it as a personal surname: “Koheleth” (JPS, NJPS) and “Qoheleth” (NAB, NRSV margin).

[1:1]  sn The verbal root קהל means “to assemble; to summon” (HALOT 1078-79 s.v. קהל). It is used of assembling or summoning various groups of people: “all Israel” (1 Chr 13:5; 15:3), “the elders of Israel” (1 Kgs 8:1; 2 Chr 5:2), all the elders of their tribes” (Deut 31:28), “all the princes of Israel” (1 Chr 28:1), “your tribes” (Deut 31:28), “all the house of Judah” (1 Kgs 12:21; 2 Chr 11:1), “the people” (Deut 4:10; 31:12), “the whole congregation” (Lev 8:3; Num 1:18; 16:19; 20:8), “all the congregation of the sons of Israel” (Exod 35:1; Num 8:9), “the assembly” (Num 10:7; 20:10), and “your assembly” (Ezek 38:13). The verb is often used in reference to summoning/assembling people for a religious occasion (Exod 35:1; Lev 8:3-4; Num 8:9; Deut 4:10; Josh 18:1; 22:12; 1 Kgs 8:1; 2 Chr 5:2-3), a political occasion (2 Sam 20:14), a military occasion (Judg 20:11; 2 Chr 11:1), or a judicial occasion (Job 11:10). The Hiphil stem is used to describe the action of the leader (usually a single individual who possesses/commands authority) summoning the people, e.g., Moses (Exod 35:1; Lev 8:3; Num 20:10), Moses and Aaron (Num 1:18), Korah (Num 16:19), King David (1 Chr 13:5; 15:3; 28:1), King Solomon (1 Kgs 8:1; 12:21; 2 Chr 5:2), and King Rehoboam (2 Chr 11:1). In almost every case, he who assembles the people is a person invested with authority; he makes a public proclamation or leads the nation in an important action. The Niphal stem is most often used to describe the people assembling at the direction of the leader (e.g., Lev 8:4; Josh 18:1; 22:12; 1 Kgs 8:2; 2 Chr 5:3). The root קהל is a denominative derived from the noun קָהָל (qahal, “assembly, contingent”; HALOT 1079-80 s.v. קָהָל). The noun has numerous referents: the congregated nation as a whole in the wilderness, assembled for ceremonies and instruction (Exod 16:3; Lev 4:13, 21; 16:17, 33; Num 10:7; 14:5; 15:15; 16:3; 17:12; 19:20; 20:4, 6, 10, 12; Deut 9:10; 10:4; 18:16); the congregation of Israel assembled for divine worship (Pss 22:23, 26; 26:5; 35:18; 40:10; 107:32; 149:1; Lam 1:10); the postexilic community assembled to hear the Torah and instruction (Neh 13:1); a military contingent assembled for warfare (Num 16:3; 20:4; Judg 20:2; 21:5, 8; 1 Sam 17:47; 2 Chr 28:14); people summoned to court (Ezek 16:40; 23:46-47); judicial authorities (Jer 26:17; Prov 5:14; 26:26; Sir 7:7). The term is often used as a designation for Israel: “the assembly of Israel” (Lev 16:17; Deut 31:30; Josh 8:35; 1 Kgs 8:14, 22, 55; 12:3; 2 Chr 6:3, 12-13; Sir 50:13, 20), “the assembly of the congregation” (Exod 12:6); “the assembly of the congregation of the sons of Israel” (Num 14:5), and “the assembly of God” (Neh 13:1). The related noun קְהִלָּה (qÿhillah) means “assembly, community” (HALOT 1080 s.v. קְהִלָּה), e.g., in the idiom נָתַן קְהִלָּה (natan qÿhillah) “to hold an assembly”: “I called a great assembly to deal with them” (Neh 5:7).

[1:1]  ⁷⁸ tn Heb “son of David” or “a son of David.”

[1:1]  ⁷⁹ sn While 1:1 says only “king in Jerusalem” (מֶלֶךְ בִּירוּשָׁלָםִ, melekh birushalayim), 1:12 adds “king over Israel in Jerusalem” (בִּירוּשָׁלָםִ מֶלֶךְ עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵל, melekh ’al-yisra’el birushalayim). The LXX adds “Israel” in 1:1 to harmonize with 1:12; however, the MT makes sense as it stands. Apart from David, only Solomon was “king over Israel in Jerusalem” – unless the term “Israel” (יִשְׂרָאֵל, yisra’el) in 1:12 is used for Judah or the postexilic community. Solomon would fit the description of the author of this book, who is characterized by great wisdom (1:13, 16), great wealth (2:8), numerous servants (2:7), great projects (2:4-6), and the collection, editing and writings of many proverbs (12:9-10). All of this generally suggests Solomonic authorship. However, many scholars deny Solomonic authorship on the basis of linguistic and historical arguments.

[1:1]  ⁸⁰ sn The form of the title is typical: (1) “the words of [the writer],” (2) his family name or name of his father, and (3) his social/political position in Israel (e.g., Prov 22:17; 24:23; 30:1; 31:1). Sometimes, the writer’s qualifications are given in the introduction to an OT book (e.g., Jer 1:1; Amos 1:1). Qoheleth lists his qualifications at the end of the book (12:9-12).

[1:1]  map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[3:14]  ⁸¹ tn Grk “And just as.”

[3:14]  ⁸² sn Or the snake, referring to the bronze serpent mentioned in Num 21:9.

[3:14]  ⁸³ sn An allusion to Num 21:5-9.

[3:14]  ⁸⁴ sn So must the Son of Man be lifted up. This is ultimately a prediction of Jesus’ crucifixion. Nicodemus could not have understood this, but John’s readers, the audience to whom the Gospel is addressed, certainly could have (compare the wording of John 12:32). In John, being lifted up refers to one continuous action of ascent, beginning with the cross but ending at the right hand of the Father. Step 1 is Jesus’ death; step 2 is his resurrection; and step 3 is the ascension back to heaven. It is the upward swing of the “pendulum” which began with the incarnation, the descent of the Word become flesh from heaven to earth (cf. Paul in Phil 2:5-11). See also the note on the title Son of Man in 1:51.

[3:15]  ⁸⁵ tn This is the first use of the term ζωὴν αἰώνιον (zwhn aiwnion) in the Gospel, although ζωή (zwh) in chap. 1 is to be understood in the same way without the qualifying αἰώνιος (aiwnios).

[3:15]  sn Some interpreters extend the quotation of Jesus’ words through v. 21.

[3:16]  ⁸⁶ tn Or “this is how much”; or “in this way.” The Greek adverb οὕτως (Joutws) can refer (1) to the degree to which God loved the world, that is, to such an extent or so much that he gave his own Son (see R. E. Brown, John [AB], 1:133-34; D. A. Carson, John, 204) or (2) simply to the manner in which God loved the world, i.e., by sending his own son (see R. H. Gundry and R. W. Howell, “The Sense and Syntax of John 3:14-17 with Special Reference to the Use of Οὕτως…ὥστε in John 3:16,” NovT 41 [1999]: 24-39). Though the term more frequently refers to the manner in which something is done (see BDAG 741-42 s.v. οὕτω/οὕτως), the following clause involving ὥστε (Jwste) plus the indicative (which stresses actual, but [usually] unexpected result) emphasizes the greatness of the gift God has given. With this in mind, then, it is likely (3) that John is emphasizing both the degree to which God loved the world as well as the manner in which He chose to express that love. This is in keeping with John’s style of using double entendre or double meaning. Thus, the focus of the Greek construction here is on the nature of God's love, addressing its mode, intensity, and extent.

[3:16]  ⁸⁷ tn Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant. 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (τέκνα θεοῦ, tekna qeou), Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).

[3:16]  ⁸⁸ tn In John the word ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi) can mean either (1) to be lost (2) to perish or be destroyed, depending on the context.

[3:16]  ⁸⁹ sn The alternatives presented are only two (again, it is typical of Johannine thought for this to be presented in terms of polar opposites): perish or have eternal life.

[3:17]  ⁹⁰ sn That is, “to judge the world to be guilty and liable to punishment.”

[3:18]  ⁹¹ tn Grk “judged.”

[3:18]  ⁹² tn Grk “judged.”

[3:18]  ⁹³ tn See the note on the term “one and only” in 3:16.

[3:19]  ⁹⁴ tn Or “this is the reason for God judging,” or “this is how judgment works.”

[3:19]  ⁹⁵ tn Grk “and men,” but in a generic sense, referring to people of both genders (as “everyone” in v. 20 makes clear).

[4:7]  ⁹⁶ tn Grk “a woman from Samaria.” According to BDAG 912 s.v. Σαμάρεια, the prepositional phrase is to be translated as a simple attributive: “γυνὴ ἐκ τῆς Σαμαρείας a Samaritan woman J 4:7.”

[4:7]  ⁹⁷ tn The phrase “some water” is supplied as the understood direct object of the infinitive πεῖν (pein).

[4:8]  ⁹⁸ tn Grk “buy food.”

[4:8]  ⁹⁹ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author, indicating why Jesus asked the woman for a drink (for presumably his disciples also took the water bucket with them).

[4:9]  ¹⁰⁰ tn Or “a Judean.” Here BDAG 478 s.v. ᾿Ιουδαίος 2.a states, “Judean (with respect to birth, nationality, or cult).” The same term occurs in the plural later in this verse. In one sense “Judean” would work very well in the translation here, since the contrast is between residents of the two geographical regions. However, since in the context of this chapter the discussion soon becomes a religious rather than a territorial one (cf. vv. 19-26), the translation “Jew” has been retained here and in v. 22.

[4:9]  ¹⁰¹ tn “Water” is supplied as the understood direct object of the infinitive πεῖν (pein).

[4:9]  ¹⁰² tn D. Daube (“Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: the Meaning of συγχράομαι [Jn 4:7ff],” JBL 69 [1950]: 137-47) suggests this meaning.

[4:9]  sn The background to the statement use nothing in common is the general assumption among Jews that the Samaritans were ritually impure or unclean. Thus a Jew who used a drinking vessel after a Samaritan had touched it would become ceremonially unclean.

[4:9]  ¹⁰³ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[4:10]  ¹⁰⁴ tn Grk “answered and said to her.”

[4:10]  ¹⁰⁵ tn Or “if you knew.”

[4:10]  ¹⁰⁶ tn The phrase “some water” is supplied as the understood direct object of the infinitive πεῖν (pein).

[4:10]  ¹⁰⁷ tn This is a second class conditional sentence in Greek.

[4:10]  sn The word translated living is used in Greek of flowing water, which leads to the woman’s misunderstanding in the following verse. She thought Jesus was referring to some unknown source of drinkable water.

[4:11]  ¹⁰⁸ tn Or “Lord.” The Greek term κύριος (kurios) means both “Sir” and “Lord.” In this passage there is probably a gradual transition from one to the other as the woman’s respect for Jesus grows throughout the conversation (4:11, 15, 19).

[4:11]  ¹⁰⁹ tc ‡ Two early and important Greek mss along with two versional witnesses (Ì⁷⁵ B sy^s ac²) lack ἡ γυνή (Jh gunh, “the woman”) here; א* has ἐκείνη (ekeinh, “that one” or possibly “she”) instead of ἡ γυνή. It is possible that no explicit subject was in the original text and scribes added either ἡ γυνή or ἐκείνη to make the meaning clear. It is also possible that the archetype of Ì⁷⁵ א B expunged the subject because it was not altogether necessary, with the scribe of א later adding the pronoun. However, ἡ γυνή is not in doubt in any other introduction to the woman’s words in this chapter (cf. vv. 9, 15, 17, 19, 25), suggesting that intentional deletion was not the motive for the shorter reading in v. 11 (or else why would they delete the words only here?). Thus, the fact that virtually all witnesses (Ì⁶⁶ א² A C D L W^s Θ Ψ 050 083 086 Ë^1,13 Ï latt sy^c,p,h sa bo) have ἡ γυνή here may suggest that it is a motivated reading, conforming this verse to the rest of the pericope. Although a decision is difficult, it is probably best to regard the shorter reading as authentic. NA²⁷ has ἡ γυνή in brackets, indicating doubts as to their authenticity. For English stylistic reasons, the translation also includes “the woman” here.

[4:11]  ¹¹⁰ tn The word for “well” has now shifted to φρέαρ (frear, “cistern”); earlier in the passage it was πηγή (phgh).

[4:11]  ¹¹¹ tn The anaphoric article has been translated “this.”

[4:11]  ¹¹² sn Where then do you get this living water? The woman’s reply is an example of the “misunderstood statement,” a technique appearing frequently in John’s Gospel. Jesus was speaking of living water which was spiritual (ultimately a Johannine figure for the Holy Spirit, see John 7:38-39), but the woman thought he was speaking of flowing (fresh drinkable) water. Her misunderstanding gave Jesus the opportunity to explain what he really meant.

[4:12]  ¹¹³ tn Or “our forefather”; Grk “our father.”

[4:12]  ¹¹⁴ tn Questions prefaced with μή (mh) in Greek anticipate a negative answer. This can sometimes be indicated by using a “tag” at the end. In this instance all of v. 12 is one question. It has been broken into two sentences for the sake of English style (instead of “for he” the Greek reads “who”).

[4:20]  ¹¹⁵ sn This mountain refers to Mount Gerizim, where the Samaritan shrine was located.

[4:20]  ¹¹⁶ tn The word “people” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied to indicate that the Greek verb translated “say” is second person plural and thus refers to more than Jesus alone.

[4:20]  ¹¹⁷ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[4:21]  ¹¹⁸ sn 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.

[4:21]  ¹¹⁹ tn Grk “an hour.”

[4:21]  ¹²⁰ tn The verb is plural.

[5:1]  ¹²¹ sn The temporal indicator After this is not specific, so it is uncertain how long after the incidents at Cana this occurred.

[5:1]  ¹²² tc The textual variants ἑορτή or ἡ ἑορτή (Jeorth or Jh Jeorth, “a feast” or “the feast”) may not appear significant at first, but to read ἑορτή with the article would almost certainly demand a reference to the Jewish Passover. The article is found in א C L Δ Ψ Ë¹ 33 892 1424 pm, but is lacking in {Ì^66,75 A B D T W^s Θ Ë¹³ 565 579 700 1241 pm}. Overall, the shorter reading has somewhat better support. Internally, the known proclivity of scribes to make the text more explicit argues compellingly for the shorter reading. Thus, the verse refers to a feast other than the Passover. The incidental note in 5:3, that the sick were lying outside in the porticoes of the pool, makes Passover an unlikely time because it fell toward the end of winter and the weather would not have been warm. L. Morris (John [NICNT], 299, n. 6) thinks it impossible to identify the feast with certainty.

[5:1]  sn A Jewish feast. Jews were obligated to go up to Jerusalem for 3 major annual feasts: Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. If the first is probably ruled out because of the time of year, the last is not as likely because it forms the central setting for chap. 7 (where there are many indications in the context that Tabernacles is the feast in view.) This leaves the feast of Pentecost, which at some point prior to this time in Jewish tradition (as reflected in Jewish intertestamental literature and later post-Christian rabbinic writings) became identified with the giving of the law to Moses on Mount Sinai. Such an association might explain Jesus’ reference to Moses in 5:45-46. This is uncertain, however. The only really important fact for the author is that the healing was done on a Sabbath. This is what provoked the controversy with the Jewish authorities recorded in 5:16-47.

[5:1]  ¹²³ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[5:2]  ¹²⁴ tn Regarding the use of the present tense ἐστιν (estin) and its implications for the dating of the Gospel of John, see the article by D. B. Wallace, “John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel,” Bib 71 (1990): 177-205.

[5:2]  ¹²⁵ tn The site of the miracle is also something of a problem: προβατικῇ (probatikh) is usually taken as a reference to the Sheep Gate near the temple. Some (R. E. Brown and others) would place the word κολυμβήθρα (kolumbhqra) with προβατικῇ to read “in Jerusalem, by the Sheep Pool, there is (another pool) with the Hebrew name.” This would imply that there is reference to two pools in the context rather than only one. This does not seem necessary (although it is a grammatical possibility). The gender of the words does not help since both are feminine (as is the participle ἐπιλεγομένη [epilegomenh]). Note however that Brown’s suggestion would require a feminine word to be supplied (for the participle ἐπιλεγομένη to modify). The traditional understanding of the phrase as a reference to the Sheep Gate near the temple appears more probably correct.

[5:2]  ¹²⁶ tc Some mss (א [L] 33 it) read Bethzatha, while others read Bethsaida (Ì^[66],75 B T W^s [Ψ] pc vg); codex D has Belzetha. A lot of controversy has surrounded the name of the pool itself: The reading of the Byzantine (or majority) text (A C Θ 078 Ë^1,13 Ï), Bethesda, has been virtually discarded by scholars in favor of what is thought to be the more primitive Bethzatha, even though many recent translations continue to employ Bethesda, the traditional reading. The latter is attested by Josephus as the name of a quarter of the city near the northeast corner of the temple area. He reports that the Syrian Legate Cestius burned this suburb in his attack on Jerusalem in October a.d. 68 (J. W. 2.19.4 [2.530]). However, there is some new archaeological evidence for this problem. 3Q15 (Copper Scroll) from Qumran seems to indicate that in the general area of the temple, on the eastern hill of Jerusalem, a treasure was buried in Bet áEsdatayin, in the pool at the entrance to the smaller basin. The name of the region or pool itself seems then to have been Bet ᾿Esda, “house of the flowing.” It appears with the dual ending in the scroll because there were two basins. Bethesda seems to be an accurate Greek rendition of the name, while J. T. Milik suggests Bethzatha is a rendition of the Aramaic intensive plural Bet áEsdata (DJDJ 3, 271). As for the text of John 5:2, the fundamental problems with the Bethesda reading are that it looks motivated (with an edifying Semitic etymology, meaning “House of Mercy” [TCGNT 178]), and is minimally attested. Apart from the Copper Scroll, the evidence for Bethesda is almost entirely shut up to the Byzantine text (C being the most notable exception, but it often has Byzantine encroachments). On the one hand, this argues the Byzantine reading here had ancient, semitic roots; on the other hand, since both readings are attested as historically accurate, a decision has to be based on the better witnesses. The fact that there are multiple readings here suggests that the original was not well understood. Which reading best explains the rise of the others? It seems that Bethzatha is the best choice.

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

[5:2]  ¹²⁷ tn Grk “in Hebrew.”

[5:2]  ¹²⁸ tn Or “porticoes,” or “colonnades”; Grk “stoas.”

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