Yohanes 1:13

1:13 – children not born ¹  by human parents ²  or by human desire ³  or a husband’s ⁴  decision, ⁵  but by God.

Yohanes 1:17

1:17 For the law was given through Moses, but ⁶  grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ.

Yohanes 1:25

1:25 So they asked John, ⁷  “Why then are you baptizing if you are not the Christ, ⁸  nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”

Yohanes 3:13

3:13 No one ⁹  has ascended ¹⁰  into heaven except the one who descended from heaven – the Son of Man. ¹¹ 

Yohanes 4:17

4:17 The woman replied, ¹²  “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “Right you are when you said, ¹³  ‘I have no husband,’ ¹⁴ 

Yohanes 5:17

5:17 So he ¹⁵  told ¹⁶  them, “My Father is working until now, and I too am working.” ¹⁷ 

Yohanes 5:21

5:21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, ¹⁸  so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes. ¹⁹ 

Yohanes 5:26

5:26 For just as the Father has life in himself, thus he has granted the Son to have life in himself,

Yohanes 5:47

5:47 But if you do not believe what Moses ²⁰  wrote, how will you believe my words?”

Yohanes 6:33

6:33 For the bread of God is the one who ²¹  comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

Yohanes 8:49

8:49 Jesus answered, “I am not possessed by a demon, ²²  but I honor my Father – and yet ²³  you dishonor me.

Yohanes 8:59

8:59 Then they picked up ²⁴  stones to throw at him, ²⁵  but Jesus hid himself and went out from the temple area. ²⁶ 

Yohanes 10:20

10:20 Many of them were saying, “He is possessed by a demon and has lost his mind! ²⁷  Why do you listen to him?”

Yohanes 13:4

13:4 he got up from the meal, removed ²⁸  his outer clothes, ²⁹  took a towel and tied it around himself. ³⁰ 

Yohanes 13:15

13:15 For I have given you an example ³¹  – you should do just as I have done for you.

Yohanes 13:25

13:25 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved ³²  leaned back against Jesus’ chest and asked him, “Lord, who is it?”

Yohanes 19:36

19:36 For these things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled, “Not a bone of his will be broken.” ³³ 

Yohanes 20:9

20:9 (For they did not yet understand ³⁴  the scripture that Jesus ³⁵  must rise from the dead.) ³⁶ 

[1:13]  ¹ tn The Greek term translated “born” here also involves conception.

[1:13]  ² tn Grk “of blood(s).” The plural αἱμάτων (Jaimatwn) has seemed a problem to many interpreters. At least some sources in antiquity imply that blood was thought of as being important in the development of the fetus during its time in the womb: thus Wis 7:1: “in the womb of a mother I was molded into flesh, within the period of 10 months, compacted with blood, from the seed of a man and the pleasure of marriage.” In John 1:13, the plural αἱμάτων may imply the action of both parents. It may also refer to the “genetic” contribution of both parents, and so be equivalent to “human descent” (see BDAG 26 s.v. αἷμα 1.a). E. C. Hoskyns thinks John could not have used the singular here because Christians are in fact ‘begotten’ by the blood of Christ (The Fourth Gospel, 143), although the context would seem to make it clear that the blood in question is something other than the blood of Christ.

[1:13]  ³ tn Or “of the will of the flesh.” The phrase οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός (oude ek qelhmato" sarko") is more clearly a reference to sexual desire, but it should be noted that σάρξ (sarx) in John does not convey the evil sense common in Pauline usage. For John it refers to the physical nature in its weakness rather than in its sinfulness. There is no clearer confirmation of this than the immediately following verse, where the λόγος (logos) became σάρξ.

[1:13]  ⁴ tn Or “man’s.”

[1:13]  ⁵ tn The third phrase, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός (oude ek qelhmato" andros), means much the same as the second one. The word here (ἀνηρ, anhr) is often used for a husband, resulting in the translation “or a husband’s decision,” or more generally, “or of any human volition whatsoever.” L. Morris may be right when he sees here an emphasis directed at the Jewish pride in race and patriarchal ancestry, although such a specific reference is difficult to prove (John [NICNT], 101).

[1:17]  ⁶ tn “But” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the implied contrast between the Mosaic law and grace through Jesus Christ. John 1:17 seems to indicate clearly that the Old Covenant (Sinai) was being contrasted with the New. In Jewish sources the Law was regarded as a gift from God (Josephus, Ant. 3.8.10 [3.223]; Pirqe Avot 1.1; Sifre Deut 31:4 §305). Further information can be found in T. F. Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel (SBT).

[1:25]  ⁷ tn Grk “And they asked him, and said to him”; the referent (John) has been specified in the translation for clarity, and the phrase has been simplified in the translation to “So they asked John.”

[1:25]  ⁸ tn Or “the Messiah” (Both Greek “Christ” and Hebrew and Aramaic “Messiah” mean “one who has been anointed”).

[1:25]  sn See the note on Christ in 1:20.

[3:13]  ⁹ tn Grk “And no one.”

[3:13]  ¹⁰ sn The verb ascended is a perfect tense in Greek (ἀναβέβηκεν, anabebhken) which seems to look at a past, completed event. (This is not as much of a problem for those who take Jesus’ words to end at v. 12, and these words to be a comment by the author, looking back on Jesus’ ascension.) As a saying of Jesus, these words are a bit harder to explain. Note, however, the lexical similarities with 1:51: “ascending,” “descending,” and “son of man.” Here, though, the ascent and descent is accomplished by the Son himself, not the angels as in 1:51. There is no need to limit this saying to Jesus’ ascent following the resurrection, however; the point of the Jacob story (Gen 28), which seems to be the background for 1:51, is the freedom of communication and relationship between God and men (a major theme of John’s Gospel). This communication comes through the angels in Gen 28 (and John 1:51); but here (most appropriately) it comes directly through the Son of Man. Although Jesus could be referring to a prior ascent, after an appearance as the preincarnate Son of Man, more likely he is simply pointing out that no one from earth has ever gone up to heaven and come down again. The Son, who has come down from heaven, is the only one who has been ‘up’ there. In both Jewish intertestamental literature and later rabbinic accounts, Moses is portrayed as ascending to heaven to receive the Torah and descending to distribute it to men (e.g., Targum Ps 68:19.) In contrast to these Jewish legends, the Son is the only one who has ever made the ascent and descent.

[3:13]  ¹¹ tc Most witnesses, including a few important ones (A^[*^] Θ Ψ 050 Ë^1,13 Ï latt sy^c,p,h), have at the end of this verse “the one who is in heaven” (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, Jo wn en tw ouranw). A few others have variations on this phrase, such as “who was in heaven” (e sy^c), or “the one who is from heaven” (0141 pc sy^s). The witnesses normally considered the best, along with several others, lack the phrase in its entirety (Ì^66,75 א B L T W^s 083 086 33 1241 pc co). On the one hand, if the reading ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is authentic it may suggest that while Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus he spoke of himself as in heaven even while he was on earth. If that is the case, one could see why variations from this hard saying arose: “who was in heaven,” “the one who is from heaven,” and omission of the clause. At the same time, such a saying could be interpreted (though with difficulty) as part of the narrator’s comments rather than Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus, alleviating the problem. And if v. 13 was viewed in early times as the evangelist’s statement, “the one who is in heaven” could have crept into the text through a marginal note. Other internal evidence suggests that this saying may be authentic. The adjectival participle, ὁ ὤν, is used in the Fourth Gospel more than any other NT book (though the Apocalypse comes in a close second), and frequently with reference to Jesus (1:18; 6:46; 8:47). It may be looking back to the LXX of Exod 3:14 (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν). Especially since this exact construction is not necessary to communicate the location of the Son of Man, its presence in many witnesses here may suggest authenticity. Further, John uses the singular of οὐρανός (ourano", “heaven”) in all 18 instances of the word in this Gospel, and all but twice with the article (only 1:32 and 6:58 are anarthrous, and even in the latter there is significant testimony to the article). At the same time, the witnesses that lack this clause are very weighty and must not be discounted. Generally speaking, if other factors are equal, the reading of such mss should be preferred. And internally, it could be argued that ὁ ὤν is the most concise way to speak of the Son of Man in heaven at that time (without the participle the point would be more ambiguous). Further, the articular singular οὐρανός is already used twice in this verse, thus sufficiently prompting scribes to add the same in the longer reading. This combination of factors suggests that ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is not a genuine Johannism. Further intrinsic evidence against the longer reading relates to the evangelist’s purposes: If he intended v. 13 to be his own comments rather than Jesus’ statement, his switch back to Jesus’ words in v. 14 (for the lifting up of the Son of Man is still seen as in the future) seems inexplicable. The reading “who is in heaven” thus seems to be too hard. All things considered, as intriguing as the longer reading is, it seems almost surely to have been a marginal gloss added inadvertently to the text in the process of transmission. For an argument in favor of the longer reading, see David Alan Black, “The Text of John 3:13,” GTJ 6 (1985): 49-66.

[3:13]  sn See the note on the title Son of Man in 1:51.

[4:17]  ¹² tn Grk “answered and said to him.”

[4:17]  ¹³ tn Grk “Well have you said.”

[4:17]  ¹⁴ tn The word order in Jesus’ reply is reversed from the woman’s original statement. The word “husband” in Jesus’ reply is placed in an emphatic position.

[5:17]  ¹⁵ tc ‡ Most witnesses (Ì⁶⁶ A D L Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï latt co) have ᾿Ιησοῦς (Ihsou", “Jesus”) here, while generally better witnesses (Ì⁷⁵ א B W {0141} 892 1241 pbo) lack the name. Although it is possible that Alexandrian scribes deleted the name due to proclivities to prune, this is not as likely as other witnesses adding it for clarification, especially since multiple strands of the Alexandrian text are represented in the shorter reading. NA²⁷ places the word in brackets, indicating some doubts as to authenticity.

[5:17]  ¹⁶ tn Grk “answered.”

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

[5:21]  ¹⁸ tn Grk “and makes them live.”

[5:21]  ¹⁹ tn Grk “the Son makes whomever he wants to live.”

[5:47]  ²⁰ tn Grk “that one” (“he”); the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[6:33]  ²¹ tn Or “he who.”

[8:49]  ²² tn Grk “I do not have a demon.”

[8:49]  ²³ tn “Yet” is supplied to show the contrastive element present in the context.

[8:59]  ²⁴ tn Grk “they took up.”

[8:59]  ²⁵ sn Jesus’ Jewish listeners understood his claim to deity, rejected it, and picked up stones to throw at him for what they considered blasphemy.

[8:59]  ²⁶ tc Most later witnesses (A Θ^c Ë^1,13 Ï) have at the end of the verse “passing through their midst, he went away in this manner” (διελθὼν διὰ μέσου καὶ παρῆγεν οὕτως, dielqwn dia mesou kai parhgen {outw"), while many others have similar permutations (so א^1,2 C L N Ψ 070 33 579 892 1241 al). The wording is similar to two other texts: Luke 4:30 (διελθὼν διὰ μέσου; in several mss αὐτῶν ἐπορεύετο καί [autwn eporeueto kai] is found between this phrase and παρῆγεν, strengthening the parallel with Luke 4:30) and John 9:1 (παρῆγεν; cf. παράγων [paragwn] there). The effect is to signal Jesus’ departure as a miraculous cloaking. As such, the additional statement has all the earmarks of scribal amplification. Further, the best and earliest witnesses (Ì^66,75 א* B D W Θ* lat sa) lack these words, rendering the shorter text virtually certain.

[8:59]  tn Grk “from the temple.”

[10:20]  ²⁷ tn Or “is insane.” To translate simply “he is mad” (so KJV, ASV, RSV; “raving mad” NIV) could give the impression that Jesus was angry, while the actual charge was madness or insanity.

[13:4]  ²⁸ tn Grk “and removed”; the conjunction καί (kai, “and”) has been left untranslated here for improved English style.

[13:4]  ²⁹ tn The plural τὰ ἱμάτια (ta Jimatia) is probably a reference to more than one garment (cf. John 19:23-24). If so, this would indicate that Jesus stripped to a loincloth, like a slave. The translation “outer clothes” is used to indicate that Jesus was not completely naked, since complete nudity would have been extremely offensive to Jewish sensibilities in this historical context.

[13:4]  ³⁰ tn Grk “taking a towel he girded himself.” Jesus would have wrapped the towel (λέντιον, lention) around his waist (διέζωσεν ἑαυτόν, diezwsen Jeauton) for use in wiping the disciples’ feet. The term λέντιον is a Latin loanword (linteum) which is also found in the rabbinic literature (see BDAG 592 s.v.). It would have been a long piece of linen cloth, long enough for Jesus to have wrapped it about his waist and still used the free end to wipe the disciples’ feet.

[13:15]  ³¹ sn I have given you an example. Jesus tells his disciples after he has finished washing their feet that what he has done is to set an example for them. In the previous verse he told them they were to wash one another’s feet. What is the point of the example? If it is simply an act of humble service, as most interpret the significance, then Jesus is really telling his disciples to serve one another in humility rather than seeking preeminence over one another. If, however, the example is one of self-sacrifice up to the point of death, then Jesus is telling them to lay down their lives for one another (cf. 15:13).

[13:25]  ³² tn Grk “he”; the referent (the disciple Jesus loved) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[19:36]  ³³ sn 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.

[20:9]  ³⁴ tn Or “yet know.”

[20:9]  ³⁵ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[20:9]  ³⁶ sn 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.