NOTES

Introduction

1. Cf. Köste

nberger, Theology, pp. 152–155; Ito, ‘Irony’, pp. 361–371.

2. Cf. Keener 1, pp. 3–52; Witherington, pp. 2–4; Köstenberger, Theology, pp. 103–124; Lincoln, pp. 14–17.

3. See ‘“The Jews” in the Gospel of John’, pp. 40–41.

4. See Keener 1, pp. 95–98, for a discussion of the reliability of the claims of Eusebius that there were two Johns in Ephesus, John the apostle and John the Elder, leading some (e.g. Hengel, Question, p. 80) to argue that the latter was the author of the Fourth Gospel.

5. Brown 1, p. xcii. However, in his later work, Community, pp. 33–34, he changed his mind, saying: ‘Cullman, then, may be right in his long-held theory that we cannot know the name of the Beloved Disciple, even though we can suspect: “He is a former disciple of John the Baptist.”’

6. Morris, p. 12.

7. These and others are discussed in detail in Blomberg, Historical, pp. 31–41.

8. Cf. e.g. Morris, pp. 29–30; Tasmuth, ‘Authority’, pp. 26–42; Köstenberger and Stout, ‘Disciple’, pp. 209–231; Keener 1, pp. 81–139.

9. Lincoln, ‘Beloved Disciple’, pp. 3–26, argues that ‘the beloved disciple’ is a literary device.

10. Davis, ‘Identity’, pp. 230–231, says that Lazarus is the strongest contender for the identity of the beloved disciple.

11. Brown, Community, pp. 59–91.

12. Robinson, Redating, pp. 310–311.

13. Robinson, Priority, pp. 33–35.

14. Westcott, pp. v–xl.

15. Cited in Neill and Wright, Interpretation, p. 338.

16. Gardner-Smith, St John, pp. 96f., cited in Smalley, Evangelist, pp. 6–7.

17. Dodd, Interpretation, p. 449.

18. Dodd, Historical Tradition, p. 423.

19. Robinson, Twelve, pp. 94–106.

20. Smalley, Evangelist, p. 32.

21. Keener 1, pp. 42–47, cites Charlesworth with approval, saying that ‘today nearly all John scholars “have concluded that John may contain some of the oldest traditions . . . in the Gospels”’. Cf. Blomberg, Historical, pp. 283–294.

22. Edwards, Discovering, pp. 19–23.

23. Fortna, Fourth Gospel, pp. 1–11; cf. Fortna, Gospel of Signs.

24. Klink, ‘Expulsion’, pp. 99–118, cautions against reading the Fourth Gospel against the background of the Johannine community while minimizing the importance of the conflict between the followers of Jesus and unbelieving Jews in the time of Jesus’ ministry, something the Gospel clearly implies.

25. Martyn, History, pp. 15–21.

26. Cf. Bauckham, Gospel for All Christians, pp. 9–48.

27. Culpepper, Anatomy, pp. 15–49.

28. Culpepper, Anatomy, p. 4.

29. Cf. Ashton, Studying John, pp. 155–165.

30. Stibbe, Storyteller, pp.1, 9–12.

31. Talbert, Reading, pp. 63–64.

32. Brodie, Gospel, pp. 11–13.

33. Patte, Structural, pp. 21–25.

34. Patte, Structural, p. 25.

35. See Ashton, Studying John, pp. 148–155, for an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of structural exegesis.

36. Cf. Moloney, ‘Reader’, pp. 20–33.

37. See Staley, ‘Reading’, pp. 59–104, for an example of a reader-response interpretation of the Johannine Passion narrative; and Ashton, Studying John, pp. 196–199, for a critical evaluation of this approach.

38. Schüssler Fiorenza, Memory, p. 333.

39. Kitzberger, ‘Mary’, p. 585.

40. Schneiders, ‘John 20:11–18’, p. 168.

41. Kitzberger, ‘How Can This Be?’, p. 33.

42. Segovia, ‘The Gospel’, pp. 186–192.

43. Cowan, ‘Father and Son’, p. 135, recognizing the essential unity of Father and Son in the Gospel of John, argues nevertheless for a functional subordination of the Son to the Father on three grounds: that he was ‘sent’ by the Father, that he was unilaterally dependent upon and obedient to the Father, and the evangelist’s repeated use of ‘“Father” and “Son” terminology for God and Jesus’.

44. The way the evangelist speaks of the Holy Spirit clearly implies his personality: evident in the Spirit’s activities and in the use of the relative pronoun ekeinos in 14:26; 15:26; 16:13–14, which can be construed either as masculine or neuter, but is clearly intended to be understood as masculine here, as examination of the context indicates. Cf. Naselli and Gons, ‘Prooftexting’, pp. 65–89.

45. Bultmann, Theology 2, pp. 37–40.

46. Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, p. 66.

47. Pryor, Covenant, pp. 157–158.

48. Bultmann, Theology 2, pp. 58–59.

49. Barrett, p. 82.

50. Brown 1, p. cxiv.

51. Kysar, Maverick, pp. 122–126.

52. Smalley, Evangelist, pp. 232–238.

53. Carson, pp. 276–280.

54. Mlakuzhyil, Christocentric Literary Structure, pp. 299–347.

Chapter 1

1. Barrett, p. 156.

2. Cf. Culpepper, ‘Pivot’, pp.1—31.

3. Keener 1, p. 364.

4. The preposition used (pros) has, as one of its meanings, ‘orientation towards’ someone or something.

5. Barrett, p. 156, explains it succinctly: ‘Theos, being without the article, is predicative and describes the nature of the Word. The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have been implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity.’

6. Moloney, p. 35. Similarly, reb.

7. Michaels, pp. 55–56, says: ‘“the light of humans” refers to a capacity for love and understanding given to every human being at birth.’

8. Bruner, p. 23.

9. This view is adopted by Calvin 1, pp. 14–15; by Bruner, pp. 25–26; and in the sense that it was available to all, by Köstenberger, pp. 35–36.

10. Cyril of Jerusalem highlights the distinction: ‘But in the former case [of Jesus], he was a son by nature, a true son – not as you, who are to be illuminated, are now becoming sons of God: for you also become sons but [do so] by adoption of grace, [not by nature]’ (ACCSJ 4a, p. 38).

11. The verb used in the expression ‘born of God’ is egennēthēsan, the aorist passive of the verb gennaō, which can be translated as either ‘to be born’ or ‘to be begotten’ (i.e. ‘to be fathered’). Menken, ‘Born of God’, p. 367, points out that unlike ‘to be born’ the expression ‘to be begotten’ implies ‘divine agency: God is the one who initiates the new life of the believer’.

12. Köstenberger, p. 40.

13. Jerome wisely commented: ‘The Word became flesh, but how he was made flesh, we do not know. The doctrine from God, I have; the science of it, I do not have. I know that the Word was made flesh; how it was done, I do not know’ (ACCSJ 4a, p. 40).

14. The Synoptic Gospels speak of Jesus’ public ministry taking place after John had been thrown into prison (Matt. 4:12; Mark 1:14); only John’s Gospel lets us know there had been an earlier ministry of Jesus which overlapped John’s ministry.

15. This is so except where it is used in the expression anth’ hōn to mean ‘because’. Cf. BDAG s.v. anti 1.

16. For a detailed discussion of these matters, see Malone, ‘Invisibility’, pp. 311–329.

17. There is a variant which reads the ‘one and only Son’ (monogenēs hyios) instead of ‘God the one and only’ (monogenēs theos), but the latter has stronger manuscript support (cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, p. 170).

18. Its cognate is exēgēsis, which in its anglicized form is used to mean ‘exegesis/exposition’.

19. Köstenberger, p. 50.

Chapter 2

1. Kim, ‘John’, p. 337.

2. Contemporary Jews were expecting the Messiah to appear at any time (Luke 3:15; John 7:31). He would be a son of David (Matt. 22:41–42), born in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:3–6; John 7:40–42), though some believed his origins would be unknown (John 7:27) and that he would live for ever (John 12:32–34). Jesus appears to have been reluctant to declare publicly that he was the Messiah, probably because his understanding of messiahship was very different from that of the Jews who expected him to deliver them from Roman oppression (Luke 24:19–21). Nevertheless, in certain situations he acknowledged that he was the long-awaited Messiah (Matt. 16:13–17; 26:62–65; John 4:25–26), but explained that as the Messiah, rather than delivering the Jews from Roman oppression, he would have to suffer, die and rise from the dead so that repentance for the forgiveness of sins could be preached in his name to all nations (Luke 24:46–47).

3. Morris, pp. 134–135.

4. There are no accounts of John actually baptizing people in the Fourth Gospel. In this respect this Gospel differs from the Synoptics. Nevertheless, such a ministry is assumed and alluded to in numerous places (1:25, 26, 28, 31, 33; 3:23; 4:1; 10:40).

5. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi (c. ad 250) said: ‘All work which a slave performs for his master, a pupil is to do for his teacher, except the loosening of his footwear’ (Str-B 1, 121).

6. ACCSJ 4a, p. 66.

7. Cf. Khouri, ‘Where’, pp. 35–43. Brown, ‘Bethany’, pp. 497–516, notes that Jordanian archaeologists ‘have discovered Bethany beyond the Jordan at the head of the Wadi Kharrar (Tell el-Kharrar), a site opposite (and just over 1 km south of) Jericho, 7.3 km north of the Dead Sea and 1.5 km east of the river. It is between the two fords across from Jericho, a little closer to the Makhadat Hajla ford. The ongoing excavation of the site has “uncovered a 1st Century ad settlement with plastered pools and water systems that were used almost certainly for baptism, and a 5th–6th Century ad late Byzantine settlement with churches, a monastery, and other structures probably catering to religious pilgrims”’.

8. Another word, arnion, is used twenty-eight times in Revelation to denote Jesus as the Lamb.

9. In Luke 1:36, John’s mother Elizabeth is described as a relative (syngenis = relative or kinswoman) of Jesus’ mother Mary.

10. Cf. 1 Enoch 49:3; Pss. Sol. 17:37; T. Levi 18:2–14; T. Jud. 24:2f.

11. Cf. 4Q246 II, 1; see also 4Q174 I, 10–14; 1Q28a II, 11–12.

12. Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, p. 127, argues that the other one was the beloved disciple.

13. Jesus addresses Peter as ‘Simon son of John’ again in 21:17.

14. Excavations at what is now believed to be the site of Bethsaida were begun in 1987 at et-Tell, about 1.5 miles (2.4 km) north-east of the Sea of Galilee.

15. It has been suggested that Nathanael is to be identified with Bartholomew, seeing that his name is linked with that of Philip in three of the lists of the twelve disciples (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14).

16. Michaels, p. 129, says, ‘Nathanael’s scepticism about Jesus probably does not arise out of small-town rivalries (Nathanael was from Cana, according to 21:2), but out of a stubborn provincialism in reverse that refuses to see anything great or glorious in that which is familiar or close to home.’

17. In Rom. 9:4–5 Paul says of Israelites: ‘Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, for ever praised! Amen.’

18. 1:51; 3:3, 5, 11; 5:19, 24, 25; 6:26, 32, 47, 53; 8:34, 51, 58; 10:1, 7; 12:24; 13:16, 20, 21, 38; 14:12; 16:20, 23; 21:18.

19. The ‘non-responsive amēn’ is not found in contemporary Jewish sources and implies Jesus’ sense of the authority of the statements that he makes.

20. There are three references to ‘a son of man’ (without the definite article), meaning simply a human being, in Heb. 2:6; Rev. 1:13; 14:14.

21. Moloney, pp. 63–64.

22. Hoppe, ‘Cana’, pp. 161–167, discusses the evidence for the two main possible identifications, Cana, Khirbet Cana and Kfar Kenna, before concluding that Khirbet Cana is the most likely. Cf. Richardson, ‘Cana’, p. 331.

23. Keener 1, p. 500.

24. Morris, p. 177, refers to Duncan M. Derrett, who ‘points out that in the ancient Near East there was a strong element of reciprocity about weddings, and that, for example, it was possible to take legal action in certain circumstances against a man who had failed to provide the appropriate wedding gift . . . But it means that when the supply of wine failed more than social embarrassment was involved. The bridegroom and his family may well have become involved in a heavy pecuniary liability. The gift made by Jesus was thus doubly important.’

25. See Wesley, Son of Mary, pp. 83–139, for a comprehensive examination of the relationship between mothers and sons in Greek, Roman and Jewish literature, and in particular between Jesus and his mother.

26. Cf. nrsv: ‘What concern is that to you and to me?’; rv: ‘What have I do with thee?’; rsv: ‘What have you to do with me?’

27. Cf. Mark 5:7/Luke 8:28, where a demon (-possessed person) confronts Jesus; Judg. 11:12, where Jephthah confronts the Ammonites; 1 Kgs 17:18; 2 Kgs 3:13; 2 Chr. 35:21; 1 Esdras 1:26, where kings and prophets confront one another.

28. Chrysostom, ACCSJ 4a, p. 95, says: ‘There was a reason why the evangelist says, “after the manner of the purifying of the Jews.” [He said this] so that none of the unbelievers might suspect that lees had been left in the vessel and then water was poured upon them and mixed with them in order to make very weak wine.’

29. Köstenberger, p. 97.

30. The niv translation ‘had too much to drink’ softens the force of the verb used here, which actually means ‘to be drunk’ or ‘intoxicated’.

31. Sick, ‘Architriklinos’, p. 526, argues that, by involving slaves in the provision of wine of exquisite quality without the knowledge of the master of the banquet and to his amazement, Jesus nullifies the hierarchy and makes a comment on ‘one of the greatest social hypocrisies of his day’.

32. Michaels, p. 150.

33. Cf. Morris, pp. 187–188; Michaels, p. 156, fn. 54; Köstenberger, p. 101.

34. Changing water into wine (2:1–11), healing the royal official’s son (4:46–54), healing the man who had been crippled for thirty-eight years (5:1–9), feeding the multitude (6:1–14), walking on the water and the miraculous landing (6:15–25), healing the man born blind (9:1–8) and raising Lazarus (11:30–46).

35. Cf. Richards, ‘Temple Clearings’, pp. 41–42. Carson, pp. 177–178, argues for two events.

36. This was not because other coins bore the emperor’s image or heathen symbols, because the Tyrian coins also did so. Cf. Morris, pp. 193–194.

37. The expression ‘a whip out of cords’ translates phragellion ek schoiniōn. The noun phragellion (‘whip’) is found only here in the NT. The cognate verb phragelloō is found in Mark 15:15; Matt. 27:26, where it is used in reference to Jesus being scourged on the orders of Pilate. It refers to a whip made of leather thongs embedded with metal or bone pieces that was used to inflict severe punishment. Even though the evangelist uses the term phragellion here, the fact that he says Jesus made a whip ‘out of cords’ (ek schoiniōn) suggests it was not like the Roman instrument of torture, but was rather a quickly fashioned implement made from available ropes to drive out the sheep and cattle. Cf. Croy, ‘Whippersnapper’, pp. 556–557.

38. Beasley-Murray, p. 39.

39. Bryan, ‘Consumed’, p. 481, argues for a different understanding of this text: ‘In John’s view, the psalmist of Ps. 69 suffers at the hands of pious enemies motivated by their zeal for the temple and thus corresponds to Jesus, the righteous sufferer, attacked by “righteous” enemies whose zeal for Herod’s temple will ultimately lead to Jesus’ death.’

40. The reconstruction of the temple was begun by Herod the Great in 20 bc, and the temple proper completed in 18–17 bc, but the entire temple precincts were not completed until ad 63–64, shortly before the outbreak of the Jewish–Roman war of ad 66–70.

41. The evangelist’s account of the exchange between Nicodemus and Jesus begins at 3:2, and throughout 3:2–12 he uses second person forms, indicating direct speech. In 3:13 the use of the second person forms gives way to third person forms, which continue to be used throughout 3:13–21. This might suggest that the evangelist’s comments begin at 3:13. However, wherever the evangelist presents Jesus’ own statements involving the use of the expression ‘the Son of Man’ (1:51; 3:13, 14; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23; 13:31), they are always couched in third person forms. It would appear, then, that 3:13–15 continues the account of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus, and that the evangelist’s comments begin at 3:16.

42. Elsewhere in the Gospel the word ‘night’ has negative connotations: in 9:4 Jesus urges people to work in the ‘day’, for the ‘night’ is coming when no-one can work; in 11:10 he says that those who walk in the ‘night’ stumble because they have no light; and in 13:30, after receiving the bread from Jesus’ hand, Judas goes out into the ‘night’ to betray him. Bearing these things in mind, it has been suggested that the statement in 3:2 that Nicodemus came ‘at night’ could suggest he was in a state of spiritual darkness when he approached Jesus.

43. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, pp. 280–281, suggest that Nicodemus uses the first plural ‘we’ because he was accompanied by his students.

44. The theme of ‘signs’ is pervasive in this Gospel and is closely related to the whole purpose of the evangelist (see ‘Additional note: signs’, pp. 101–103).

45. Of its thirteen uses in the NT there are only three exceptions: Luke 1:3, ‘from the beginning’; Acts 26:5, ‘for a long time’; and Gal. 4:9, ‘again’.

46. Cf. Titus 3:5: ‘He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit’, where ‘the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit’ is also a hendiadys.

47. Pneuma is used in the lxx to translate the Hebrew ruach, which likewise means ‘wind’,’ breath’ or ‘spirit’.

48. Similar teaching is found in Eccl. 11:5: ‘As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things.’

49. There have been various interpretations of ‘earthly things’ (epigeia), including (1) Jesus’ wider teaching given throughout his earthly ministry; (2) the wind blowing and natural birth; (3) events in the physical universe pointing metaphorically to God’s activity (Michaels, pp. 193–194; Lincoln, p. 152); and (4) what is adopted here, being born of the Spirit – something experienced in this world (cf. Carson, p. 199; van der Watt, ‘Earthly’, pp. 291–295) and spoken of in a ‘homely way’ (Calvin 1, p. 71).

50. The word ‘heavenly’ (epouranios) is found only here in the Gospels, but occurs another eighteen times in the Pauline letters and Hebrews (1 Cor. 15:40 [2x], 48 [2x], 49; Eph. 1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12; Phil. 2:10; 2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 3:1; 6:4; 8:5; 9:23; 11:16; 12:22), always in contexts where the heavenly realm is in view, and nearly always contrasting the heavenly world with this world.

51. The lifting up of Jesus on the cross denotes, paradoxically, not only his suffering, but also the means of his departure from this world and his return to glory.

52. There is only one exception to this (21:1), but in this case the context makes it clear that houtōs refers to what follows.

53. So, too, Witherington, pp. 101–102; Keener 1, p. 566. See, especially, Gundry and Howell, ‘Syntax’, pp. 24–39.

54. Chrysostom, ACCSJ 4a, p. 127.

55. Morris, p. 237, says, ‘one suggestion for Aenon is a site about seven miles south of Beisan. If this is correct there is a striking accuracy in the statement that there was “much water”, or better “many waters”, there, for in this locality there were seven springs within a radius of a quarter of a mile.’

56. Michaels, p. 216.

57. Keener 1, pp. 579–580, comments: ‘The bridegroom’s “friend” here may be the shoshbin (sometimes compared with our modern “best man”), a highly honored position that involved much joy . . . The shoshbins of bride and groom functioned as witnesses in the wedding, normally contributed financially to the wedding, and would be intimately concerned with the success of the wedding. Some have linked the shoshbin with the marriage negotiator.’

58. Cf. Jeremias, ‘nymphē’, p. 1101.

59. Calvin 1, pp. 81–82.

60. Some see this as further evidence that the evangelist was combating a Baptist cult by highlighting the fact that John the Baptist was merely a human being. However, the attitude of the evangelist towards John is elsewhere quite positive – he is one of the true witnesses to Jesus. See commentary on 1:8.

61. Elsewhere in the NT sphragizō is used literally of sealing things so that they cannot be seen (Rev. 10:4); not sealing things so that they can be read (Rev. 22:10); and sealing something up so that it cannot escape (Rev. 20:3). It is used figuratively of marking people with a sign of identification or ownership (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13; 4:30; Rev. 7:3, 4, 5) or approval (John 6:27).

62. The word ‘limit’/‘measure’ (metron) is found only here in the Fourth Gospel, but occurs another thirteen times in the rest of the NT, where it is used both literally (Rev. 21:15, 17) and metaphorically (Matt. 7:2; 23:32; Mark 4:24; Luke 6:38; Rom. 12:3; 2 Cor. 10:13; Eph. 4:7, 13, 16) as here.

63. Carson, p. 214, comments: ‘This [the fact that God’s wrath remains on those who reject the Son] does not collapse the notion of eschatological judgment into present, spiritual experience, since the future judgment remains (5:28–29). Rather, it is in line with the New Testament insistence that the age to come can no longer be set off absolutely from the present age now that Jesus the Messiah has come.’

64. Morris, pp. 249–250.

65. Carson, p. 211.

66. Keener 1, p. 584.

67. One route was along the Jordan valley, bypassing Samaria to the east; the other involved cutting across to the Mediterranean Sea coast and bypassing Samaria to the west. The route Jesus took was the central ridge road passing through the middle of the land and thus through Samaria.

68. BDAG s.v. pēgē 1 describes the Greek word translated ‘well’ as ‘a source of someth. that gushes out or flows, spring, fountain, flow’, which differs from the more usual word, phrear, used by the woman in vv. 11, 12 and which BDAG, s.v. phrear 1 describes as a ‘construction consisting of a vertical shaft, covered with a stone, for water supply, a well’.

69. Schnackenburg 1, p. 424.

70. Köstenberger, p. 147.

71. Witherington, p. 118.

72. Coloe, ‘The Woman of Samaria’, pp. 189, 195–196.

73. Arterbury, ‘Hospitality’, pp. 76–80.

74. Davidson, ‘Another Look’, p. 164, questions this widespread view, arguing that ‘well use was not restricted to the evening hours, except by rural shepherds’.

75. Cf. Keener 1, p. 595.

76. Among Jews the name ‘Samaritan’ was used as a term of abuse for fellow Jews (cf. 8:48). The Samaritan woman was, therefore, amazed that Jesus asked her for a drink. To drink from a Samaritan vessel was thought by Jews to invite ritual contamination.

77. See Voorwinde, ‘Jews’, pp. 33–55, for a detailed discussion of the evidence.

78. It is also found in Rom. 5:15, 17, where it refers to the gift of justification; in 2 Cor. 9:15, where it refers to what God has done for us in Christ; and in Eph. 3:7; 4:7; Heb. 6:4, where the gift is related to the (work of) the Holy Spirit.

79. Augustine, ACCSJ 4a, pp. 149–150, comments: ‘Water collected from rain in pools and cisterns is not called living water. It may have originally flowed from a spring; yet if it collects in some place and is left to stand without any connection to its source, separated, as it were, from the channel of the spring, it is not called “living water”.’

80. Michaels, p. 247.

81. Lincoln, p. 175, notes: ‘Sometimes it is suggested that perhaps she is trapped in the custom of levirate marriage and the last male in the family has refused to marry her . . . Anyone in the woman’s situation would be bound to have been viewed as morally suspect.’

82. Keener 1, p. 84, says ‘the true “place” of worship is in Spirit and in truth (possibly a hendiadys for, “in the Spirit of truth”). That is, no physical location defines where God is to be worshiped; what matters is Spirit-empowered worship (4:24).’ Morris, pp. 270–271, adopts a different view: ‘It is not likely that “spirit” refers to the Holy Spirit . . . It is the human spirit that Jesus means. A man must worship, not simply outwardly by being in the right place and taking up the right attitude, but in his spirit.’

83. Cf. Davidson, ‘Another Look’, p. 164.

84. It is possible the disciples thought that Jesus’ contact with the Samaritan woman would render him ‘unclean’. The Mishnah says: ‘The daughters of the Samaritans are [deemed unclean as] menstruants from their cradle’ (m. Nid. 4:1), but then it goes on to say, ‘The daughters of the Sadducees, if they follow after the ways of their fathers, are deemed like to the women of the Samaritans; but if they have separated themselves and follow after the ways of the Israelites, they are deemed to be like to the women of the Israelites’ (m. Nid. 4:2). All this suggests that the attitude of the rabbis towards Samaritan women and Sadducean women was rather extreme and may not at all have been accepted by other people.

85. These questions may also be rendered, ‘What do you want?’ and ‘What are you talking to her about?’

86. Jesus’ words here should not be used as a marker for establishing a chronology of his ministry. If it were, this Samaritan episode would have taken place four months before the beginning of the grain harvest in March–April, which would place it about December–January. However, other indications in this section of the Gospel (2:1 – 4:54) place the incident shortly after the conclusion of the Passover festival in March–April (cf. 2:13, 23; 3:22–26; 4:1–3, 40, 43, 45, 46–47, 54). It has been suggested that Jesus’ words reflect an agricultural proverb, which Keener 1, p. 625, says might mean: ‘Labour hard in sowing now, and in four months we shall reap.’

87. So e.g. Origen, ACCSJ 4a, pp. 168–169.

88. E.g. Lincoln, p. 180.

89. See Koester, ‘Saviour’, pp. 666–667.

90. Lincoln, p. 181.

91. Lincoln, pp. 184–185.

92. Bauckham, Gospel Women, pp. 137–138, notes the suggestion that the royal official was Chuza, the husband of Joanna. Cf. Virgil R. L. Fry, ‘Chuza’, ABD, 1:1022.

93. Calvin 1, pp. 113–114.

94. Witherington, p. 134.

95. In other manuscripts the pool is called ‘Bethzatha’ (‘house of olive oil’) or ‘Bethsaida’ (‘house of fishermen’). ‘Bethesda’ is widely supported, but Metzger, Textual Commentary, pp. 178–179, notes that it is suspect ‘because of its edifying etymology’, and regards ‘Bethzatha’ as the ‘least unsatisfactory reading’.

96. Köstenberger, p. 180, describes the ‘mat’ (krabatton) as ‘the bedding of the impoverished. Normally made of straw, it was light and could be rolled up and carried about by any healthy person.’

97. Michaels, p. 294.

98. Michaels, p. 295.

99. Bruce, ‘Healing’, pp. 48–49, questions whether the fact that the man ‘told’ the Jewish leaders that it was Jesus who had made him well is to be construed negatively. She points out that the verb translated ‘told’ (anēngeilen) occurs in four other places in the Fourth Gospel and always with positive connotations (4:25; 16:13, 14, 15). And according to 20:31 the evangelist records signs to elicit belief, and therefore it would be strange for him to record one that did not do so. Calvin 1, p. 123, likewise interprets the man’s actions positively. Lincoln, p. 196, and Morris, pp. 307–308, construe it negatively.

100. Chrysostom, ACCSJ 4a, p. 188. Cf. Augustine, ACCSJ 4a, p. 188: ‘So the Jews understood what the Arians do not. For the Arians say that the Son is not equal to the Father, and hence sprang up that heresy that afflicts the church.’

101. ACCSJ 4a, p. 191.

102. See Kruse, Foundations, pp. 29–31, for a treatment of the background to the Jewish concept of agency.

103. Köstenberger, p. 190.

104. Köstenberger, p. 192, lists the following examples of those who heard God’s voice: ‘Noah (Gen. 7:1–4), Abraham (Gen. 12:1–3), Moses (Exod. 3:4 – 4:17; 19:3–6, 9–13; 33:11), Samuel (1 Sam. 3:4, 6, 8, 11–14), and Elijah (1 Kings 19:13, 15–18)’; and the following examples of those who had in some sense ‘seen’ God: ‘Abraham (Gen. 18:1–2), Jacob (Gen. 32:24–30), Moses (Exod. 33:11), and Isaiah (Isa. 6:1–5)’.

105. For a discussion of the apparent contradiction between this statement and the records of people in the OT ‘seeing God’, see commentary on 1:18.

106. This has led some scholars to argue that chs. 5 and 6 have been displaced, and that ch. 5 should be placed between chs. 6 and 7. But there is no textual evidence to support such a rearrangement, and it would not make for a smooth transition from the end of ch. 5 to the beginning of ch. 7, so not much is gained.

107. Some have suggested that the words epi tēs thalassēs, which the niv translates as ‘on the water’, should be translated as ‘by the side of the sea’. This is grammatically possible but not appropriate in the context, for there is nothing terrifying about seeing a person walking ‘by the side of the sea’.

108. Köstenberger, p. 205, disagrees: ‘The walking on water constitutes a private manifestation of Jesus’ messianic glory to his inner circle (similar to the transfiguration) and therefore does not qualify as a Johannine sign; nor is it identified as such by the fourth Evangelist.’

109. Michaels, p. 358.

110. Calvin 1, p. 153.

111. The author of 1 John sums up what God demands of humanity: ‘And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us’ (1 John 3:23).

112. There is no place in the OT/lxx where the exact words of the quotation can be found. Those which are close are Exod. 16:15; Neh. 9:15; and Ps. 78:24 (lxx 77:24), the last appearing to be the closest.

113. In 7:22 Jesus (or the evangelist) corrects a statement about Moses and circumcision in a similar way: ‘Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a boy on the Sabbath.’

114. Sirach 24:21, speaking of the Torah, says: ‘Whoever feeds on me will be hungry for more, and whoever drinks from me will thirst for more.’ While the terminology is similar, the difference between the statements in Sirach and the Gospel of John is obvious.

115. See commentary on 1:18 for a discussion of the apparent contradictions between this statement and the OT references to people ‘seeing’ God.

116. Here in 6:54 a different word for eating is introduced. Previously, the usual word for eating (esthiō) was used, but here, and also in 6:56, 57, 58, the word trōgō is used. Often it is said that the word trōgō carries the idea of chewing or gnawing on Jesus’ flesh, which would make his statement even more repulsive. However, the word trōgō does appear to be used as a simple synonym for esthiō elsewhere (13:18; cf. Matt. 24:38), as it is in 6:54, where both words are found.

117. Cf. Gibson, ‘Eating is Believing?’, pp. 5–15.

118. Bauckham, Gospel of Glory, p. 98, sees in Jesus’ mention of his flesh and blood allusions to his incarnation (flesh) and violent death (blood).

119. Köstenberger, p. 217.

120. Morris, p. 387.

121. Michaels, p. 417, comments: ‘there is no evidence in the Gospels (unless this is it) that any of the Twelve were ever demon possessed. If “devil” (or diabolos) is indefinite, the meaning would have to be “one of you is slanderous” or “an accuser”, not “one of you is a devil”. Even when it is read as definite, the etymological meaning, “the accuser”, lies very close to the surface, for Judas indeed became Jesus’ “accuser” to the religious authorities.’

122. Less likely is the view that ‘Iscariot’ means one of the sicarii, the Jewish assassins who resisted the Roman occupation of Israel.

123. Wesley, Son of Mary, pp. 197–211, describes the obligations and expectations between brothers in the first-century Mediterranean world in preparation for an examination of Jesus’ encounter with his brothers reported in John 7:1–9.

124. See commentary on 2:12 for a discussion of the meaning of the expression ‘Jesus’ brothers’.

125. Where the niv (and most other recent translations, e.g. rsv, nrsv, reb) has ‘not’ (ouk), the kjv has ‘not yet’ (oupō), reflecting a variant reading in the Greek manuscripts. Those who think the text should read ‘not’ (ouk) do so on the basis of the text-critical rule that the harder reading is more likely to be original because a scribe would have changed a reading to make it easier, not more difficult. Caragounis, ‘Jesus’, pp. 177–187, provides arguments in favour of ‘not yet’ (oupō).

126. Cf. Waltke, ‘Joshua’, p. 239, commenting on the deception employed by Rahab and the spies, says: ‘So also the OT recognizes that in war intelligence, counter-intelligence and decoys are all part of “the game”. Joshua set an ambush (Jos. 8:9), and David used Hushai as a mole in conjunction with a network of spies (2 Sa. 15:32–37; 16:15–22). In the NT Paul escaped the Jews under the cover of night (Acts 9:23–26), and the angel took advantage of the sleeping soldiers to release Peter from Herod’s clutches (Acts 12:6–10). In most situations, however, lies are wrong (Pr. 30:7–8), and truth is required (Eph. 4:15). The believer must listen to God’s Spirit through Scripture and conscience so as not to rationalize the situation.’

127. See Wesley, Son of Mary, pp. 212–255.

128. Lincoln, pp. 244–245. Witherington, p. 171, suggests: ‘What he had said to the brothers he sincerely meant, but he received a late word from God shortly thereafter that changed his plans.’

129. Keener 1, p. 708.

130. In 6:32 Jesus corrects a loose statement which attributed the gift of manna to Moses, which strictly speaking should have been attributed to God. Here he does a similar thing, insisting that the rite of circumcision dates from the time of the patriarchs, not from that of Moses.

131. ‘If circumcision, which affects one of man’s two hundred and forty-eight members, supersedes the sabbath, how much more must his whole body (if his life is in danger of death) supersede the sabbath?’ (m. Yoma 85b).

132. Keener 1, p. 717.

133. This is the only literal use of the word ‘Diaspora’ in the NT. There are two other uses which appear to refer to Christians scattered in the world (Jas 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1).

134. Adopted e.g. by Witherington, p. 174; Morris, pp. 423–425; Köstenberger, p. 240; Michaels, pp. 462–465.

135. Adopted e.g. by Lincoln, pp. 254–255; Keener 1, pp. 728–730.

136. Metzger, Textual Commentary, p. 188.

137. The one exception appears to have been that the Jews were allowed to execute Gentiles who entered the forecourt around the temple sanctuary (see commentary on 2:14–16).

138. ACCSJ 4a, p. 274.

139. ACCSJ 4a, p.277.

140. Witherington, p. 365.

141. Morris, pp. 445–446.

142. The words ‘I am he’ translate egō eimi, a phrase which carries various meanings when used by Jesus in this Gospel. In this context it is ambiguous. It could mean, as the niv translation suggests, that Jesus was simply saying that he was the one he claimed to be, the Messiah, sent from God. However, it is possible that, in these words, Jesus was applying the self-designation of Yahweh to himself, as he does later (8:58). See ‘Additional note: egō eimi’, pp. 153–154.

143. The difficulty arises because of the obscurity of the original, tēn archēn ho ti lalō hymin, in which tēn archēn could be construed as an accusative noun (‘the beginning’), or as an adverbial phrase (‘at all’). The difficulty increases when it is realized that ho ti (‘what’) could also be read as hoti (‘why’). Caragounis, ‘What Did Jesus Mean?’, p. 147, argues that tēn archēn ho ti lalō hymin should be translated as ‘[I am] From the beginning! – precisely what I have been saying (speaking) to you.’

144. Hunn, ‘“They” in John 8:33’, pp. 387–399, argues that ‘they’ here is not a reference to those who believed, but that its antecedent is ill-defined, and is best taken to refer to Jesus’ antagonists.

145. The Christian apologist Justin Martyr made the same point in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew: ‘And you deceive yourselves while you fancy that, because you are the seed of Abraham after the flesh, therefore you shall fully inherit the good things announced to be bestowed by God through Christ’ (Dial. Tryph. 44.1).

146. Köstenberger, p. 262.

147. This did not satisfy all Jews. The Zealots would acknowledge no lord but Yahweh and were involved in a violent struggle for independence.

148. In the Fourth Gospel the word ‘son’ (hyios) is reserved for Jesus; believers are referred to as ‘children of God’ (ta tekna tou theou).

149. Morris, p. 459, notes the possible allusion here to the promise made to David in 1 Chr. 17:13–14: ‘I will be his father, and he will be my son. I will never take my love away from him, as I took it away from your predecessor. I will set him over my house and my kingdom for ever; his throne will be established for ever.’

150. Witherington, p. 178.

151. Lincoln, p. 272.

152. ACCSJ 4a, p. 316.

153. ACCSJ 4a, p. 316.

154. Morris, p. 472.

155. Michaels, p. 531.

156. In Numbers 4, only Levite men ‘from thirty to fifty years of age’ were permitted to carry out work in relation to the tabernacle.

157. There is a minority variant reading which has ‘Abraham has seen you’ instead of ‘you have seen Abraham’, which, if adopted would remove this problem.

158. Michaels, pp. 534–535, comments: ‘The formula in the Greek Bible as in the Hebrew is interchangeable with “I am the Lord”, or “I am God”. Occasionally, when the Hebrew repeats the first-person pronoun “I” for emphasis (as in Isa 43:25 and 45:19), the Greek treats “I am” as the divine name, yielding the construction “I am ‘I am’” (as in Isa 43:25 and 51:12), or “I am ‘I am’, the Lord” (in Isa 45:19 . . .).’

159. It has been asked where the Jews would have obtained stones to throw at Jesus in the temple grounds. One possibility is that there were stones lying about in the temple grounds because the process of building the temple initiated by Herod the Great had not yet been completed.

160. Cf. Keener 1, pp. 778–779.

161. Michaels, p. 545.

162. Cf. m. Nid. 5:6, which also says that a girl comes of age at twelve years and one day and then her vows are valid.

163. This is reflected in the synagogue prayer known as the Eighteen Benedictions, the twelfth of which (now arguably dated before ad 70 and which later was used as a test of orthodoxy; see Instone-Brewer, ‘Eighteeen Benedictions’, pp. 25–44) said: ‘For the renegades let there be no hope, and may the arrogant kingdom soon be rooted out in our days, and the Nazarenes and the minim perish as in a moment, be blotted out from the book of life, and with the righteous may they not be inscribed. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who humblest the arrogant’ (cited by Michaels, p. 555).

164. Keener 1, p. 790.

165. Michaels, p. 561.

166. There are a few extra-biblical reports of the blind being healed. One such account is found in Tacitus, Historia, 4.81.

167. Some early manuscripts omit ‘Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshipped him.’ However, as it has overwhelming support in most manuscripts, its omission is best regarded as either accidental or the result of later editorial adjustment. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, p. 195; Steegen, ‘Worship’, pp. 534–554.

168. For fuller details and documentation, see Bailey, ‘Shepherd Poems’, pp. 2–17; Good Shepherd, pp. 210–249.

169. ACCSJ 4a, p. 346.

170. And so would be fulfilled the ancient prophecy of Zech. 8:23: ‘This is what the Lord Almighty says: “In those days ten people from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, ‘Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you.’”’

171. Morris, p. 521.

172. Other ancient manuscripts support an alternative reading: ‘that which my Father has given to me is greater than all things’, which emphasizes the value the Lord places on those who believe, rather than the Father’s own greatness (see e.g. Michaels, p. 599).

173. Calvin 1, p. 273, comments: ‘The ancients misused this passage to prove that Christ is homoousios [of the same substance] with the Father. Christ is not discussing the unity of substance, but the concord He has with the Father; so that whatever Christ does will be confirmed by His Father’s power.’

174. Bock, Blasphemy, p. 234.

175. ACCSJ 4a, p. 392. Keener 1, p. 827, comments: ‘Jesus is “not a human making himself God, but God already made human”, as the reader knows from 1:14.’

176. Beasley-Murray, p. 176, comments: ‘Abod. Zar. 5a and Midr. Rab. Exod. 32:7 make it plain that it was at the giving of the Law that the people were declared to be gods, and that had they remained obedient to it they would not have died; their disobedience, however, was almost immediately manifested in the making of the golden calf and so they became subject to death.’

177. See commentary on 12:3 for a treatment of the apparent discrepancies between the various accounts.

178. ACCSJ 4b, p. 4.

179. Cf. Lev. Rab. 18.1; Eccl. Rab. 12.6.

180. Köstenberger, pp. 328–329.

181. Some have suggested that when Thomas spoke of dying ‘with him’, he was referring to Lazarus (e.g. Michaels, p. 624). This is unlikely in view of what the disciples had said to Jesus earlier: ‘Rabbi . . . a short while ago the Jews there tried to stone you, and yet you are going back?’ (11:8).

182. Keener 2, pp. 842–843.

183. Michaels, p. 636, comments: ‘This is an act thoroughly characteristic of Mary of Bethany, for wherever she meets Jesus in the Gospel tradition she is at his feet (see v. 2; 12:3; Lk 10:39). Here it is her wordless confession of faith, one that she will later repeat (see 12:3–8).’

184. There is only one other place in the Gospels where it is recorded that Jesus wept: that is when he wept over Jerusalem and its impending judgment (Luke 19:41). On that occasion, the common Greek word klaiō is used of Jesus’ weeping.

185. ACCSJ 4b, p. 20.

186. Peter Chrysologus, ACCSJ 4b, p. 3, contrasts the restoration to life of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:41–42) and the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:14) with that of Lazarus: ‘His death and resurrection to life had nothing in common with the other two. Death had already exerted its full power over him, so that in him the sign of the resurrection shone out in all its fullness.’

187. ACCSJ 4b, p. 34.

188. Craddock, p. 89, says: ‘In a beautiful stroke of sarcasm, the Evangelist calls Caiaphas “high priest that year” (vv. 49, 51). In Jewish tradition the high priest was such for life, but now, under Rome, a breath could make or unmake a high priest . . . He was not God’s man; he was not even his own man; he was Rome’s man.’

189. John Hyrcanus is described as having three great roles: ‘the supreme control of the nation, the high priesthood and the gift of prophecy’ (Josephus, Wars 1.68; Ant. 13.299). Philo says that ‘the true priest is necessarily a prophet . . . and to a prophet nothing is unknown’ (Spec. Leg. 4.192).

190. References to ceremonial cleansing in preparation for the Passover are found in Num. 9:6–13; 2 Chr. 30:15–19; Josephus, Wars 1.229; 6.290; and m. Pesah. 9:1. References to Paul cleansing himself are found in Acts 21:24, 26; 24:18.

191. Cf. Schnackenburg 2, p. 364.

192. Matt. 26:6–13/Mark 14:3–9 record the same event, but differ in some details: the woman is not named, she anoints Jesus’ head, not his feet, and the action takes place in the house of Simon the Leper. Luke has an account of a different anointing: it is Jesus’ feet that have perfume poured over them, and his feet are wiped by the woman with her hair (like Mary in the Johannine account). In the Lukan account, the woman is one ‘who lived a sinful life’, and the anointing took place in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:36–50). The Matthean and Marcan accounts most likely refer to the same anointing as that in the Johannine account, while the Lukan account occurs on a different occasion, involving a different woman. That the Matthean and Marcan accounts refer to the woman anointing Jesus’ head while the Johannine account speaks of her anointing his feet need not pose a problem. The large amount of perfume used would be enough to anoint both his head and his feet.

193. Köstenberger, pp. 361–362. Lincoln, p. 338, interprets Mary’s action as a ‘sign of her deep grief’, presumably in the light of Jesus’ imminent death and burial (see 12:7).

194. Cf. Josephus, Wars 6.422–425: ‘That the city could contain so many is clear from the count taken under Cestius. For he, being anxious to convince Nero, who held the nation in contempt, of the city’s strength, instructed the chief priests, if by any means possible, to take a census of the population. Accordingly, on the occasion of the feast called Passover, at which they sacrifice from the ninth to the eleventh hour, and a little fraternity, as it were, gathers round each sacrifice, of not fewer than ten persons (feasting alone not being permitted), while the companies often included as many as twenty, the victims were counted and amounted to two hundred and fifty-five thousand six hundred; allowing an average of ten diners to each victim, we obtain a total of two million seven hundred thousand, all pure and holy.’

195. The niv translation here modifies the original. Literally translated, it would read, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the king of Israel.’

196. The evangelist’s quotation of Zech. 9:9 does not correspond exactly with any known version of this text. It is possible that he was quoting from memory or using a version of the lxx no longer extant.

197. Strictly speaking, Bethsaida was not in Galilee, ruled by Herod Antipas, but in the Tetrarchy of Philip, in Gaulanitis. Bethsaida was, however, close to the border with Galilee.

198. See Köstenberger, p. 379.

199. There are other NT and early Christian writings that imply that the pre-incarnate Christ appeared in OT times. Paul speaks of the rock in the wilderness from which the water gushed as Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Justin Martyr says that when Moses ‘was tending the flocks of his maternal uncle in the land of Arabia, our Christ conversed with him under the appearance of fire from a bush’ (Apol. I 62.3–4; cf. Dial. Tryph. 128).

Chapter 3

1. That the evangelist says that ‘It was just before the Passover Festival’ that the foot-washing took place has led some to conclude that the meal Jesus shared with his disciples was not a Passover meal but was instead, perhaps, an anticipatory meal (cf. e.g. Keener 2, p. 899; Lincoln, p. 365; Witherington, pp. 231–232; contra e.g. Carson, pp. 455–458; Köstenberger, pp. 401–402).

2. An alternative translation of 13:2b is: ‘the devil had already made up his mind that Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, should betray him’ – i.e. the intention to have Jesus betrayed originated in the heart of the devil, and Judas was to be the instrument of betrayal. In 13:27, and after Judas accepted the morsel from Jesus, we are told that ‘Satan entered into him’. Cf. Coloe, ‘Foot washing’, pp. 402, 407.

3. Lincoln, p. 368, comments: ‘The term meros, translated here as “participation” [niv “part”], has the force in similar contexts elsewhere of lot, share, inheritance, with particular reference to a person’s eschatological destiny (cf. Matt. 24.51; Luke 11.36; Rev. 20.6; 21.8; 22.19; Ignatius, Pol. 6.1; Mart. Pol. 14.2).’

4. ACCSJ 4b, pp. 90–91.

5. See Bede, ACCSJ 4b, p. 93: ‘The person who has been cleansed in the baptismal font and has received pardon for all his sins has no need to be cleansed again. Moreover, he cannot be cleansed again in the same way. He finds it necessary only to have the daily defilement of his worldly life wiped away by the daily forgiveness of his Redeemer.’

6. The word ‘example’ (hypodeigma) found here is used often in the lxx of an exemplary death (see e.g. 2 Maccabees 6:28, 31; 4 Maccabees 17:22–23). Perhaps, then, there may not be such a big break between 13:1–11 and 13:12–17. The idea of Jesus’ death may continue into the latter passage. It may not have been merely humble service Jesus was speaking about as an example for his disciples to follow, but his death which the foot-washing foreshadowed. If this was the case, it adds another dimension to Jesus’ teaching. It was not just that people should be ready for humble service, but that they should be ready to sacrifice themselves for their fellow believers. This is something the writer of 1 John 3:16 understood: ‘This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.’

7. A good case can be made for the practice among the Jews of appointing šĕluḥîm at least from the time immediately following the exile. See discussion in Kruse, Foundations, pp. 29–31.

8. The wording of this quotation differs significantly from the lxx (from which John’s quotations normally come), but neither is it a literal rendering of the Hebrew text. The evangelist may have made his own translation from the Hebrew text, rather than using the lxx.

9. Zola, ‘One Who Eats’, pp. 409–412, 419, notes that Ps. 41:10 is also cited in 1QHa 13.22 – 15.8, apparently reflecting the anguish of the Teacher of righteousness, in the same way that its citation in John 13:18 reflects Jesus’ anguish in light of his imminent betrayal by Judas Iscariot.

10. ACCSJ 4b, p. 99.

11. There is some debate whether Judas was present at the institution of the Lord’s Supper. The Gospel of John has no account of the institution; Matthew and Mark could be read in a way that has Judas leaving before the institution; but Luke places the institution before Judas is identified as the betrayer. If Luke’s account is not taken as strictly chronological, then Judas may have departed before the institution; otherwise it appears that he was present.

12. John follows Matthew and Luke in saying that Peter will deny Jesus three times before the cock crows (Matt 26:34; Luke 22:34), but Mark says that Peter will deny Jesus three times ‘before the cock crows twice’ (Mark 14:30). This has led some to suggest that Peter denied Jesus six times, an expedient to overcome what might otherwise be thought to be an ‘error’ in the Gospel accounts. This is surely an unnecessary expedient as Matthew’s, Luke’s and John’s references to the cock crowing surely do not mean that it would crow only once, hence there is no real conflict between the accounts.

13. This is only one of four possible translations of Jesus’ words. The two words translated ‘believe’ (pisteuete) could be construed as either indicatives or imperatives, yielding the following four possible translations: (1) ‘believe in God; believe also in me’; (2) ‘you believe in God; believe also in me’; (3) ‘you believe in God; you also believe in me’; (4) ‘believe in God; you also believe in me’. While the third and fourth translations do not make good sense in the context, either the first or the second translation makes quite good sense. In a context where Jesus was urging his disciples not to let their hearts be troubled, it is one of the translations which urges them to maintain their belief in him which is most appropriate. It does not matter much whether that is prefaced with an exhortation to believe in God or with a reminder that they did believe in God.

14. The niv text, ‘if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?’, represents one textual variant according to which Jesus is asking a question. Another variant in which the word ‘that’ (hoti) is omitted would translate as a statement: ‘if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.’ There is no real difference in meaning between the two.

15. In 2:16 Jesus also speaks of his Father’s house: ‘To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”’ There the reference is to the Jerusalem temple (which in fact had many rooms). Here in 14:2 the imagery of the temple is used to depict God’s dwelling place, and when unpacked probably refers to God’s presence in which there is plenty of room for all Jesus’ disciples. For further discussion, see Bryan, ‘Eschatological’, pp. 187–198.

16. Some suggest that this should be construed as ‘I am the true and living way’, but the fact that each of these three elements (the way, the truth and the life) is preceded by the definite article militates against this.

17. Koester, ‘Jesus the Way’, pp. 360–369, shows how the Fourth Gospel presents Jesus as the ‘way’ for all people, something that is very important in a pluralistic world.

18. Köstenberger, pp. 428–429.

19. See Carson, pp. 495–496. Michaels, p. 780, comments: ‘It is important to recognize that Jesus is not settling for second place. The disciples’ works are, first of all, the same as “the works I am doing”, and only “greater than these” because “I am going to the Father” (italics added). The emphatic “I” is quite noticeable. The “greater” works are no less the works of Jesus than of his disciples, for it is he who makes them possible.’

20. Shelfer, ‘Paraklētos’, p. 147, documents the way this term was used in pagan and Jewish writings, showing that it denotes one ‘who interceded on behalf of a defendant, and whose influence existed by virtue of his elevated position’ (italics added).

21. There are two Greek words meaning ‘other’: allos and heteros. It is sometimes argued that the first means another of a similar kind, and the second, another of a different kind; and that because allos is used in 14:16, the other Advocate is of the same kind as Jesus himself. However, the way allos and heteros are used in the Fourth Gospel and the NT as a whole does not support this distinction. That the Advocate is another one like Jesus is determined by the context, not by the meaning of the word allos.

22. The expression ‘the Spirit of truth’ was current in Jesus’ time and is found in the Pseudepigrapha (T. Jud. 20:1–5) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QS 3:18–21). However, it is used dualistically in these contexts to contrast ‘the Spirit of truth’ with ‘the spirit of perversity’, a notion not found in the Gospel of John.

23. There are two other variant readings for this verse, in which the tenses of the key verbs differ from those in the variant represented by the niv translation. The first would read: ‘he will live with you and will be in you’; and the second: ‘he lives with you and is in you’. The variant adopted in the niv makes good sense and is also adopted in the reb, nrsv, kjv.

24. Calvin 2, p. 88.

25. Köstenberger, p. 445, comments: ‘Jesus’ statement that the Father is greater than he is not meant to indicate ontological inferiority on his part. Elsewhere, Jesus affirms that he and the Father are one (10:30). Rather, Jesus stresses his subordination to the Father, which as the NT makes clear, is not merely a part of his incarnate ministry but is rooted in his eternal sonship (cf. esp. 1 Cor 15:28).’

26. Michaels, p. 794.

27. In favour of this last explanation, it is noted that when Jesus begins to pray in 17:1 ‘he looked towards heaven and prayed’ – a statement that could indicate that he was outdoors when he prayed.

28. The important sources for our understanding of ancient practice are the P. Oxy. 1631, ‘Contract for Labor in a Vineyard’ (dated around ad 280); and Pliny (the Elder), Nat. Hist. 17.35. Cf. Derickson, ‘Viticulture’, pp. 44–46, 47–48. Caragounis, ‘Vine’, pp. 201–214, offers a modified reading of 15:1–8, arguing that there had been a semantic shift in the meaning of ampelos (usually translated ‘vine’) and klēma (usually translated ‘branch’) by the fourth and third centuries bc so that they came to denote ‘vineyard’ and ‘vine’ respectively. Applying this to 15:1–8, he says that Jesus is God’s vineyard and the vines are believers. So those believers/vines that do not bear fruit are removed from the vineyard.

29. Elsewhere in the NT, cutting off branches denotes the rejection of unbelieving Israelites (Rom. 11:17–21). Carson, p. 515, says that the view that ‘these dead branches are apostate Christians, must confront the strong evidence within John that true disciples are preserved to the end . . . It is more satisfactory to recognize that asking the in me language to settle such disputes is to push the vine imagery too far. The transparent purpose of the verse is to insist that there are no true Christians without some measure of fruit . . . Indeed, there is a persistent strand of New Testament witness that depicts men and women with some degree of connect with Jesus, or with the Christian church, who nevertheless by failing to display the grace of perseverance finally testify that the transforming life of Christ has never pulsated within them (e.g. Mt. 13:18–23; 24:12; Jn. 8:31ff.; Heb. 3:14–19; 1 Jn. 2:19; 2 Jn. 9).’

30. It has been suggested that the Father might clean/prune the disciples/branches by allowing them to experience trials and suffering, so that through this ‘discipline’ they might ‘share in his holiness’ (cf. Heb. 12:4–11). However, there is no support in the immediate context for this interpretation, adopted, e.g., by Justyn Martyr and Chrysostom (ACCSJ 4b, pp. 162–163).

31. Talbert, ‘Soteriology’, pp. 139–143, suggests that Jesus remaining in his disciples, and his disciples remaining in him, is best understood in covenant terms: ‘God’s presence seals the covenant between Yahweh and Israel, entitling the people to God’s protection, guidance, and provision, that is, Yahweh’s gracious enabling of their existence.’ Accordingly he suggests: ‘For Jesus to be “in” a disciple means that one is enabled by the deity. For a disciple to be “in” Jesus means that one is in Jesus’ hands.’

32. Köstenberger, p. 455.

33. Augustine, ACCSJ 4b, p. 174, comments: ‘In Christ we do find a greater love, seeing that he gave up his life not for his friends but for his enemies. How great must be God’s love for humanity and what extraordinary affection, so to love even sinners that he would die for love of them! “For God emphasizes his love towards us” – they are the apostle’s words – “because while we were still sinners Christ died for us.”’ Michaels, p. 812, comments: ‘Some readers of the New Testament might object that love for one’s enemies is an even “greater” love . . . It is important to remember that Jesus is not here comparing love for one’s “friends” to any other kind of love – whether for parents or spouse or children, or “neighbors” (however defined), or for one’s enemies – but simply making the point that there is no “greater” expression of love than giving one’s life for someone.’

34. See BDAG, s.v. philos 2: subst.

35. In the Synoptic Gospels, the Jews describe Jesus disparagingly as ‘a friend of tax collectors and sinners’ (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:34), but the implication is not that tax collectors and sinners can claim that they are his friends, but that Jesus befriended them.

36. Mark 3:14–15 speaks of Jesus’ appointment and sending of the disciples: ‘He appointed twelve that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach.’

37. So important is this command that in 1 John 3:23 the apostle includes it in his summary of what God requires of us: ‘And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he [Jesus] commanded us.’

38. Köstenberger, p. 464.

39. Lincoln, p. 413.

40. Michaels, p. 831.

41. It is found in two other places in the Gospel of John: in 3:20, where evil-doers do not come to the light, lest their deeds be ‘exposed’; and in 8:46, where Jesus asks who can ‘prove him guilty’ of sin. Elsewhere in the NT, it is used with a range of similar meanings: ‘to show or expose’ (Matt. 18:15; Eph. 5:11, 13), ‘to rebuke’ (Luke 3:19; 1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:13; 2:15; Heb. 12:5; Rev. 3:19), ‘to prove guilty or convict’ (Jas 2:9; Jude 15), ‘to convince’ (1 Cor. 14:24) and ‘to refute’ (Titus 1:9).

42. The word for ‘trouble’ is thlipsis, also used in 16:21 when Jesus referred to the ‘anguish’ of a woman in childbirth to depict the anguish the disciples would experience when he was betrayed and crucified – an anguish that would soon turn to joy when he was raised from the dead.

43. It has been suggested, in light of the third person reference to ‘Jesus Christ, whom you have sent’, that 17:3 is an editorial addition made by the evangelist and inserted into Jesus’ prayer to clarify what is meant by eternal life.

44. See discussion of vv. 11–12 in Carson, pp. 561–562.

45. Calvin 2, p. 143, comments: ‘It would be wrong for anyone to infer from this that Judas’s fall should be imputed to God rather than to himself, in that necessity was laid on him by the prophecy. For the course of events should not be ascribed to prophecies just because it was predicted in them . . . I acknowledge that nothing happens but what has been divinely ordained; but we are now only concerned with whether their being foretold and prophesied lays a necessity on men; which I have already shown to be false.’

46. Speira normally denoted a cohort consisting of 600 soldiers and sometimes a maniple of 200 soldiers, but here it is probably used less precisely to denote a smaller group of soldiers provided at the request of the Jewish leaders in case their temple officials encountered resistance when seeking to arrest Jesus.

47. In Acts 24:5 Paul is described as ‘a ringleader of the Nazarene sect’.

48. Lincoln, pp. 444–445.

49. Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, pp. 184–187, 194–195, uses Theissen’s concept of ‘protective anonymity’ to argue that, when John wrote, the names of Peter (as the ‘perpetrator’) and Malchus (Caiaphas’s slave) no longer needed to be kept quiet.

50. Michaels, p. 895.

51. The Mishnah says, ‘A High Priest in office differs from the priest that is passed [from his high-priesthood] only in the bullock that is offered on the Day of Atonement and the Tenth of the Ephah. Both are equal in the [Temple-]service of the Day of Atonement; and both are subject to the commandment to marry only a virgin, and both are forbidden to marry a widow, and neither may contract uncleanness because of their near of kin [that have died]; neither may unbind their hair or rend their clothes [in token of mourning]; and both [when they die] serve to bring back the manslayer [from the cities of refuge]’ (m. Hor. 3:4).

52. Calvin 2, p. 161, responds to those who claim an inconsistency between Jesus’ response to being struck on the face and his teaching about turning the other cheek: ‘He merely means that each of us should be more ready to bear a second injury than to retaliate for the first. There is nothing, therefore, to prevent a Christian man from expostulating when he has been unjustly treated, so long as his mind is free from anger and his hand clean from vindictiveness.’

53. Following the analysis of this passage by Brown 2, pp. 843–895.

54. E.g. the Old Sinaitic Syriac version arranges the verses in the following order: vv. 13, 24, 14–15, 19–23, 16–18, 25b–27.

55. For the implications of this statement for the timing of Jesus celebrating Passover with his disciples, and the apparent discrepancy between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics, see Marshall, Last Supper, pp. 57–75.

56. ACCSJ 4b, p. 290.

57. Mitchell, ‘My Kingdom’.

58. There are no explicit extra-biblical references to such a custom. Chapman and Schnabel, Trial and Crucifixion, pp. 255–269, document texts that ‘provide evidence for the possibility that Pilatus indeed wanted to release Jesus’, but not ‘for a regular practice of either Pilatus or other prefects of Judea releasing a prisoner on the occasion of the Jewish Passover festival’.

59. ‘Torture’ is defined in Roman law: ‘By torture we mean the infliction of anguish and agony on the body to elicit the truth.’ See Glancy, ‘Torture’, pp. 107–108.

60. Köstenberger, p. 532.

61. Messner, ‘No Friend’, pp. 50–57, questions the assumptions underlying the ‘Sejanus theory’, in particular, that Pilate was appointed by him. He argues that the Sejanus theory, ‘though attractive . . . is ultimately unnecessary’, stating that ‘in the politically charged, dangerous, and abnormal atmosphere of post October ad 31 Rome, Pilate would have had every reason to fear such a charge before Tiberius, even if no actual connection to Sejanus existed’.

62. ‘Calvary’ derives from the Latin calvaria, which translates ‘Golgotha’ in the Vulgate.

63. See Murphy-O’Connor, Holy Land, pp. 36–42, 104–106.

64. Köstenberger, p. 543.

65. Bauckham, Gospel Women, pp. 204–211, argues that ‘Mary of Clopas’ was the ‘wife’ of Clopas, who in turn was the son of Simon, the successor to James, the Lord’s brother, as the head of the Jerusalem church.

66. Calvin 2, pp. 180–181, comments: ‘From this we learn how dutifulness towards God and men should be practised. When God calls us to anything, it often happens that our parents, wife or children call us away in a different direction, so that we cannot satisfy all alike. If we make men equal to God our thinking is astray. We must therefore prefer God’s command, worship and honour. After this we must, so far as is lawful, give men their rights also . . . When we have obeyed God it will be right and proper to think about parents, wife and children; just as Christ cares for His mother, but from the cross to which He has been called by His Father’s decree.’

67. Wesley, Son of Mary, p. 284, argues that this is ‘no mere insult against brothers who had rejected him. It is an act of family creation.’ She argues: ‘This is a specifically Johannine contribution to ecclesiology. The Synoptic Gospels use kinship language to refer to the disciples throughout Jesus’ ministry, but in John it is not until after Jesus’ death and resurrection that the disciples are called adelphous mou [my brothers]’.

68. The suggestion that hyssōpō (‘on hyssop’) should be replaced with hyssō (‘on a javelin’), though attractive, is supported only by one eleventh-century manuscript (476). It is rendered less likely by the evangelist’s use of lonchē not hyssos for javelin or spear at 19:34.

69. Other meanings have been suggested: (1) he bestowed the Spirit on his disciples and his mother standing at the foot of the cross; (2) he returned the Spirit who came down upon him at his baptism to the Father. However, there is little that can be said to support these interpretations.

70. Carson, p. 623, provides details and documentation.

71. Michaels, pp. 970–975, discusses the matter at length, and the possibility that the anonymous witness was one of the Roman soldiers, possibly the one who pierced Jesus’ side with a spear.

72. Arimathea is a Jewish town located about 18 miles (29 km) north-east of Jerusalem and about 14 miles (23 km) east of Joppa (modern-day Jaffa).

73. Calvin 2, pp.177–178.

74. The preposition ‘to’ (pros) is repeated in the original language, suggesting perhaps that Peter and the other disciple were not in the same place.

75. So, e.g. Augustine, ACCSJ 4b, p. 341.

76. Carson, p. 638.

77. So e.g. Lincoln, pp. 490–491; Köstenberger, p. 564; Keener 2, p. 1184; Calvin 2, p. 194.

78. That Peter saw only grave clothes whereas Mary saw angels has led some commentators to see here the presence of two different traditions. A simpler solution would be that the angels appeared to Mary only after Peter had left.

79. Moloney, p. 525.

80. See Porter, Idioms, p. 227, for a discussion of whether the prohibition is not to begin to hold or to cease from holding. Porter opts for the former. However, elsewhere in John’s Gospel, the construction mē + second-person present imperative is used to mean to cease doing something (cf. 12:15; 19:21; 20:27).

81. Köstenberger, p. 569.

82. Keener 2, p. 1194.

83. Carson, p. 644.

84. ACCSJ 4b, p. 353.

85. Lincoln, p. 494.

86. Lincoln, p. 497, says: ‘It is usually held that crucifixion involved nailing through the wrists rather than through the hands as such, since the palms would not have borne the weight of a body for any length of time at all, unless ropes were employed in addition. The Greek term for “hand” can also include the sense of “lower arm” on some occasions. So it is probably best to see “hands” here also as actually meaning wrists.’

87. Calvin 2, p. 203, comments: ‘But should anyone infer from this that Christ still has the wounded side and pierced hands it would be ridiculous, for it is certain that the use of the wounds was temporary until the apostles were fully persuaded that He was risen from the dead.’

88. Lincoln, pp. 498–499.

89. So e.g. Burge, Anointed Community, pp. 123–131.

90. ACCSJ 4b, p. 361.

91. Calvin 2, p. 205.

92. Michaels, pp. 1011–1012.

93. So e.g. Carson, p. 655; Köstenberger, p. 574; Witherington, p. 340.

94. Davies, ‘Exegetical Analysis’, pp. 159–160, provides a helpful critique of this view.

95. For a more detailed discussion of these and other interpretations of 20:22, see e.g. Carson, pp. 649–655; Bennema, ‘Giving of the Spirit’, pp. 201–211.

96. Michaels, p. 1017.

97. It has been noted that the emperor Domitian demanded that people worship him as Lord and God (Dominus et Deus). Early readers of the Gospel may have recognized a polemic against such demands in Thomas’s confession of Jesus as ‘My Lord and my God’.

98. The purpose of the Fourth Gospel has been discussed in relation to the textual variants in 20:31: whether the better reading is the aorist subjunctive (pisteusēte – taken to mean ‘begin to believe’) or the present subjunctive (pisteuēte – taken to mean ‘continue to believe’). The former is adduced in support of an evangelistic purpose for the Gospel; the latter, of an edificatory purpose. However, this is to read too much into the choice of tense, because elsewhere in this Gospel the aorist tense is used to denote both initial faith (1:7; 4:48; 6:30; 8:24; 9:36; 11:42; 19:35) and ongoing faith (11:15, 40; 13:19; 14:29), and the present tense is likewise used to denote both initial faith (6:29; 10:38; 17:21) and continuing faith (6:35).

Chapter 4

1. Michaels, p. 1024. In each case, the following chapter begins with the words meta tauta (translated in the niv variously as ‘some time later’, ‘sometime after this’, and ‘after this’.

2. Köstenberger, pp. 583–584.

3. E.g. Jerome noted that Greek authors believed that 153 species of fish existed, so the allusion to the entire range of species of fish symbolized the universality of the Christian mission.

4. His appearance to Mary Magdalene (20:14–18) is not included.

5. E.g. Schnackenburg 3, p. 336; Moloney, p. 555. Cf. Culpepper, ‘Peter’, pp.176–177.

6. Michaels, p. 1047.

7. Theodore of Mopsuestia, ACCSJ 4b, p. 391, says: ‘When Nero ordered his execution on the cross, Peter asked his executioners to crucify him upside down, that is, with his head down and his feet up. He did this so that simple people might not worship him like they did Christ because of their, otherwise, identical passion.’ Cf. Acts of Peter 36–41; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.25.8; 3.1.2.

8. When ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ is mentioned in the Fourth Gospel, it is, with only one exception (19:26), in contexts where Peter is involved also (13:23–24; 21:7, 20).

9. Jackson, ‘Ancient’, pp. 1–34, puts forward another view – that ‘we’ means the author (the beloved disciple) and his readers, i.e. ‘you and I’.

10. So e.g. Köstenberger, p. 606.

11. Johanan ben Zakkai (d. ad 80), who was a near contemporary of the beloved disciple, said something similar: ‘If all heaven were parchment and all trees were pens and all seas were ink, it would not be enough to write down my wisdom which I have learnt from my teacher’ (Sop. 16.8; cited in Str-B, 2, p. 587).