Yohanes 3:16

3:16 For this is the way ¹  God loved the world: He gave his one and only ²  Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish ³  but have eternal life. ⁴ 

Yohanes 3:36

3:36 The one who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who rejects ⁵  the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath ⁶  remains ⁷  on him.

Yohanes 6:40

6:40 For this is the will of my Father – for everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him to have eternal life, and I will raise him up ⁸  at the last day.” ⁹ 

Yohanes 6:51

6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats from this bread he will live forever. The bread ¹⁰  that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

Yohanes 6:63

6:63 The Spirit is the one who gives life; human nature is of no help! ¹¹  The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. ¹² 

Yohanes 7:23

7:23 But if a male child ¹³  is circumcised ¹⁴  on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses is not broken, ¹⁵  why are you angry with me because I made a man completely well ¹⁶  on the Sabbath?

Yohanes 7:39

7:39 (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, ¹⁷  because Jesus was not yet glorified.) ¹⁸ 

Yohanes 10:34

10:34 Jesus answered, ¹⁹  “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? ²⁰ 

Yohanes 12:38

12:38 so that the word ²¹  of Isaiah the prophet would be fulfilled. He said, ²²  “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord ²³  been revealed?” ²⁴ 

Yohanes 13:26

13:26 Jesus replied, ²⁵  “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread ²⁶  after I have dipped it in the dish.” ²⁷  Then he dipped the piece of bread in the dish ²⁸  and gave it to Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son.

Yohanes 16:15

16:15 Everything that the Father has is mine; that is why I said the Spirit ²⁹  will receive from me what is mine ³⁰  and will tell it to you. ³¹ 

Yohanes 16:33

16:33 I have told you these things so that in me you may have peace. In the world you have trouble and suffering, ³²  but take courage ³³  – I have conquered the world.” ³⁴ 

Yohanes 18:11

18:11 But Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword back into its sheath! Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?” ³⁵ 

Yohanes 20:31

20:31 But these ³⁶  are recorded ³⁷  so that you may believe ³⁸  that Jesus is the Christ, ³⁹  the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. ⁴⁰ 

[3:16]  ¹ 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]  ² 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]  ³ 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]  ⁴ 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.

[3:36]  ⁵ tn Or “refuses to believe,” or “disobeys.”

[3:36]  ⁶ tn Or “anger because of evil,” or “punishment.”

[3:36]  ⁷ tn Or “resides.”

[6:40]  ⁸ tn Or “resurrect him,” or “make him live again.”

[6:40]  ⁹ sn Notice that here the result (having eternal life and being raised up at the last day) is produced by looking on the Son and believing in him. Compare John 6:54 where the same result is produced by eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood. This suggests that the phrase in 6:54 (eats my flesh and drinks my blood) is to be understood in terms of the phrase here (looks on the Son and believes in him).

[6:51]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “And the bread.”

[6:63]  ¹¹ tn Grk “the flesh counts for nothing.”

[6:63]  ¹² tn Or “are spirit-giving and life-producing.”

[7:23]  ¹³ tn Grk “a man.” See the note on “male child” in the previous verse.

[7:23]  ¹⁴ tn Grk “receives circumcision.”

[7:23]  ¹⁵ sn If a male child is circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses is not broken. The Rabbis counted 248 parts to a man’s body. In the Talmud (b. Yoma 85b) R. Eleazar ben Azariah (ca. a.d. 100) states: “If circumcision, which attaches to one only of the 248 members of the human body, suspends the Sabbath, how much more shall the saving of the whole body suspend the Sabbath?” So absolutely binding did rabbinic Judaism regard the command of Lev 12:3 to circumcise on the eighth day, that in the Mishnah m. Shabbat 18.3; 19.1, 2; and m. Nedarim 3.11 all hold that the command to circumcise overrides the command to observe the Sabbath.

[7:23]  ¹⁶ tn Or “made an entire man well.”

[7:39]  ¹⁷ tn Grk “for the Spirit was not yet.” Although only B and a handful of other NT mss supply the participle δεδομένον (dedomenon), this is followed in the translation to avoid misunderstanding by the modern English reader that prior to this time the Spirit did not exist. John’s phrase is expressed from a human standpoint and has nothing to do with the preexistence of the third Person of the Godhead. The meaning is that the era of the Holy Spirit had not yet arrived; the Spirit was not as yet at work in a way he later would be because Jesus had not yet returned to his Father. Cf. also Acts 19:2.

[7:39]  ¹⁸ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[10:34]  ¹⁹ tn Grk “answered them.”

[10:34]  ²⁰ sn A quotation from Ps 82:6. Technically the Psalms are not part of the OT “law” (which usually referred to the five books of Moses), but occasionally the term “law” was applied to the entire OT, as here. The problem in this verse concerns the meaning of Jesus’ quotation from Ps 82:6. It is important to look at the OT context: The whole line reads “I say, you are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.” Jesus will pick up on the term “sons of the Most High” in 10:36, where he refers to himself as the Son of God. The psalm was understood in rabbinic circles as an attack on unjust judges who, though they have been given the title “gods” because of their quasi-divine function of exercising judgment, are just as mortal as other men. What is the argument here? It is often thought to be as follows: If it was an OT practice to refer to men like the judges as gods, and not blasphemy, why did the Jewish authorities object when this term was applied to Jesus? This really doesn’t seem to fit the context, however, since if that were the case Jesus would not be making any claim for “divinity” for himself over and above any other human being – and therefore he would not be subject to the charge of blasphemy. Rather, this is evidently a case of arguing from the lesser to the greater, a common form of rabbinic argument. The reason the OT judges could be called gods is because they were vehicles of the word of God (cf. 10:35). But granting that premise, Jesus deserves much more than they to be called God. He is the Word incarnate, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world to save the world (10:36). In light of the prologue to the Gospel of John, it seems this interpretation would have been most natural for the author. If it is permissible to call men “gods” because they were the vehicles of the word of God, how much more permissible is it to use the word “God” of him who is the Word of God?

[12:38]  ²¹ tn Or “message.”

[12:38]  ²² tn Grk “who said.”

[12:38]  ²³ tn “The arm of the Lord” is an idiom for “God’s great power” (as exemplified through Jesus’ miraculous signs). This response of unbelief is interpreted by the author as a fulfillment of the prophetic words of Isaiah (Isa 53:1). The phrase ὁ βραχίων κυρίου (Jo braciwn kuriou) is a figurative reference to God’s activity and power which has been revealed in the sign-miracles which Jesus has performed (compare the previous verse).

[12:38]  ²⁴ sn A quotation from Isa 53:1.

[13:26]  ²⁵ tn Grk “Jesus answered.”

[13:26]  ²⁶ sn The piece of bread was a broken-off piece of bread (not merely a crumb).

[13:26]  ²⁷ tn Grk “after I have dipped it.” The words “in the dish” are not in the Greek text, but the presence of a bowl or dish is implied.

[13:26]  ²⁸ tn The words “in the dish” are not in the Greek text, but the presence of a bowl or dish is implied.

[16:15]  ²⁹ tn Grk “I said he”; the referent (the Spirit) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[16:15]  ³⁰ tn The words “what is mine” are not in the Greek text, but are implied. Direct objects were often omitted in Greek when clear from the context.

[16:15]  ³¹ tn Or “will announce it to you.”

[16:33]  ³² tn The one Greek term θλῖψις (qliyis) has been translated by an English hendiadys (two terms that combine for one meaning) “trouble and suffering.” For modern English readers “tribulation” is no longer clearly understandable.

[16:33]  ³³ tn Or “but be courageous.”

[16:33]  ³⁴ tn Or “I am victorious over the world,” or “I have overcome the world.”

[16:33]  sn The Farewell Discourse proper closes on the triumphant note I have conquered the world, which recalls 1:5 (in the prologue): “the light shines on in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it.” Jesus’ words which follow in chap. 17 are addressed not to the disciples but to his Father, as he prays for the consecration of the disciples.

[18:11]  ³⁵ tn Grk “The cup that the Father has given me to drink, shall I not drink it?” The order of the clauses has been rearranged to reflect contemporary English style.

[18:11]  sn Jesus continues with what most would take to be a rhetorical question expecting a positive reply: “Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” The cup is also mentioned in Gethsemane in the synoptics (Matt 26:39, Mark 14:36, and Luke 22:42). In connection with the synoptic accounts it is mentioned in Jesus’ prayer; this occurrence certainly complements the synoptic accounts if Jesus had only shortly before finished praying about this. Only here in the Fourth Gospel is it specifically said that the cup is given to Jesus to drink by the Father, but again this is consistent with the synoptic mention of the cup in Jesus’ prayer: It is the cup of suffering which Jesus is about to undergo.

[20:31]  ³⁶ tn Grk “these things.”

[20:31]  ³⁷ tn Grk “are written.”

[20:31]  ³⁸ tc ‡ A difficult textual variant is present at this point in the Greek text. Some mss (Ì^66vid א* B Θ 0250 pc) read the present subjunctive πιστεύητε (pisteuhte) after ἵνα (Jina; thus NEB text, “that you may hold the faith”) while others (א² A C D L W Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï) read the aorist subjunctive πιστεύσητε (pisteushte) after ἵνα (cf. NEB margin, “that you may come to believe”). As reflected by the renderings of the NEB text and margin, it is often assumed that the present tense would suggest ongoing belief (i.e., the Fourth Gospel primarily addressed those who already believed, and was intended to strengthen their faith), while the aorist tense would speak of coming to faith (i.e., John’s Gospel was primarily evangelistic in nature). Both textual variants enjoy significant ms support, although the present subjunctive has somewhat superior witnesses on its behalf. On internal grounds it is hard to decide which is more likely the original. Many resolve this issue on the basis of a reconstruction of the overall purpose of the Gospel, viz., whether it is addressed to unbelievers or believers. However, since elsewhere in the Gospel of John (1) the present tense can refer to both initial faith and continuation in the faith and (2) the aorist tense simply refrains from commenting on the issue, it is highly unlikely that the distinction here would be determinative for the purpose of the Fourth Gospel. The question of purpose cannot be resolved by choosing one textual variant over the other in 20:31, but must be decided on other factors. Nevertheless, if a choice has to be made, the present subjunctive is the preferred reading. NA²⁷ puts the aorist’s sigma in brackets, thus representing both readings virtually equally (so TCGNT 220).

[20:31]  ³⁹ tn Or “Jesus is the Messiah” (Both Greek “Christ” and Hebrew and Aramaic “Messiah” mean “one who has been anointed”).

[20:31]  sn See the note on Christ in 1:20.

[20:31]  ⁴⁰ sn 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.