1. First they were “a large crowd” (ὄχλος πολύς, vv. 2, 5), then “the people” (οἱ ἄνθρωποι, vv. 10, 14), finally again “the crowd” (ὁ ὄχλος, vv. 22, 24).

2. Gr. οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι.

3. See Exodus 16:1–12, where the Lord gave the manna in response to the “murmuring” of the people (in the LXX, γογγύζειν, as here, or διαγογγύζειν), and Exodus 17:3, where the people “murmured” again and the Lord gave them water from the rock (see also Num 11:1; 14:27, 29; 16:41; 17:5; Ps 106[105]:25, and in the New Testament, 1 Cor 10:10).

4. See, for example, v. 52, where they “quarreled [ἐμάχοντο] with each other”; also 7:12 and 32, where γογγυσμός and γογγύζειν are used in contexts of sharply divided opinion about Jesus.

5. On strictly grammatical grounds, the antecedent of “whose” (οὗ) could be either Jesus or Joseph. But the speakers are clearly not claiming knowledge of Joseph’s “father and mother” (that is, of Jesus’ genealogy). The antecedent has to be Jesus. This makes their words sound redundant, in that they first identify Jesus as “the son of Joseph,” and then add that they know Jesus’ father. Yet Jesus could have been known by reputation as “son of Joseph,” even by those not personally acquainted with his father or mother (see 1:45).

6. The absence of Jesus’ father, Joseph, at the Cana wedding (2:1) and at Capernaum afterward (2:12) suggests that he was probably dead by this time, and yet “the Jews” claim to “know” (ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν) both the father and the mother, as if both are still alive. This could account for the omission of the words “and mother” (καὶ τὴν μητέρα) by certain ancient witnesses (including the first hand of א, W, and the old Syriac). The omission accents the redundancy, yet avoids implying that Jesus’ mother and father are “known” in the same sense, that is, as living acquaintances of those speaking. The weight of evidence favors retaining the mention of Jesus’ mother (with Mark and Matthew, and against Luke; see below, n. 7). See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 213.

7. As we have seen, the only reference to Jesus’ “hometown,” or πατρίς in John’s Gospel (4:44), gives the term no precise identification, and Jesus never comes to Nazareth.

8. The question, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph,” parallels almost exactly the question asked at Nazareth in Luke, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” (Lk 4:22), while the inclusion of Jesus’ mother agrees with Matthew (13:55) and Mark (6:3).

9. The manuscript tradition is almost evenly divided between “How does he say now? (with νῦν, as in P75, B, C, T, W, Θ, and others) and “So how does he say?” (with οὖν, as in P66, א, A, D, L, Ψ, much of the Latin, and the majority of later manuscripts). Οὖν is so frequent in Johannine discourse that scribes may well have misread it by default in place of νῦν, which is used not temporally here (as it is more commonly is in John’s Gospel) but rhetorically (see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 213).

10. Gr. ἀπεκρίνατο. Instead we find here the more common aorist passive used as a middle, ἀπεκρίθη.

11. Gr. μετʼ ἀλλήλων.

12. Later, recalling this pronouncement, Jesus will tell his disciples, “That is why I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is given him from the Father” (6:65; for the italicized words, compare 3:27).

13. Gr. ἐλκύσῃ.

14. Later, when Jesus claims that he himself (κἀγώ) will “draw them all [παντὰς ἐλκύσω] to myself” (12:32), the reader will have to decide whether he refers to the work of “drawing” assigned here to the Father, or to the work of “raising up at the last day” which he has repeatedly claimed for himself (6:39, 40, 44, 54), or to something else entirely.

15. Gr. ἐστιν γεγραμμένον.

16. Jesus will quote what is “written” (γεγραμμένον) two more times in the Gospel (10:34; 15:25), and twice more “the Scripture” (ἡ γραφή, 7:38 and 13:18).

17. For the metaphorical use of this verb, see Jeremiah 38(31):3, LXX, “I have loved you with an eternal love, and I have drawn you [εἴλκυσά σε] into compassion.” Also, perhaps 2 Sam 22:17, LXX, “He sent from on high; he took me. He drew me [εἴλκυσεν] from many waters.” A fragmentary Greek papyrus from Oxyrhynchus speaks of “those who draw us” (οἱ ἔλκοντες ἡμᾶς) and “those who draw you” (οἱ ἔλκοντες ὑμᾶς), but in the Gospel of Thomas 3 (which appears to be a Coptic equivalent), the expression is simply “your leaders.” See Apocrypha, II: Evangelien (ed. E. Klostermann; 3d ed.; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1929), 20–21.

18. Gr. διδακτοὶ θεοῦ.

19. In the LXX, καὶ πάντας τοὺς υἱούς σου διδακτοὺς θεοῦ.

20. The verb ἀκούειν with the preposition παρά, literally “to hear from,” means to learn something by hearing (see 1:40, where John’s disciples “heard from” John—that is, learned from him—about Jesus; also 7:51; 8:26, 38, 40; 15:15). This means that καὶ μαθών, “and learned,” is almost redundant, merely making explicit what is already implicit in having “heard” (see BDAG, 38 [3d]).

21. See Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel, 257–58: “The paradox is this: no one can come to the Son without having received the teaching from the Father; no one can hear and learn from the Father except through the Son.” Schnackenburg (2.51) tries (not altogether successfully) to combine “the inward voice of God” or “inward ‘attraction’ of the Father” with “the external hearing of his Son, in whom he reveals himself.”

22. Gr. ὁ ὢν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ.

23. “Seeing the Father” will later be redefined, when Philip asks Jesus, “Lord, show us the Father,” and Jesus replies, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (14:8–9).

24. This is true also of 13:38, where even though Jesus continues to speak, he changes the subject so completely that v. 38 stands alone.

25. Gr. φαγεῖν. This observation has since become a commonplace, often in connection with viewing Jesus’ discourse as a type of synagogue homily, focusing first on one and then another word or phrase in the biblical text. See, for example, P. Borgen, Bread from Heaven (Supplement to Novum Testamentum 11; Leiden: Brill, 1965), 87 (this is in keeping with v. 59, where the discourse is explicitly located at the synagogue in Capernaum).

26. It is possible to argue that Jesus, by saying “your fathers,” is distancing himself from Jewish traditions, as he does in speaking of “your law” (8:17; 10:34), or “their law” (15:25), or “your father Abraham” (8:56): that is, “yours, not mine.” Brown, for example (1.273), sees “a deep cleavage between Church and Synagogue at the time when the evangelist is writing.” But more likely, “your” (ὑμῶν) is neutral here, for when he repeats himself later he mentions merely “the fathers” (v. 58).

27. Gr. ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν.

28. This is not surprising in light of v. 35, where Jesus as “the Bread of life” promises to satisfy not only hunger but thirst. But Jesus never claims to be “the living Water” (7:37 is where he might have done so, and he does not). Nor does the phrase “water of life” even occur in John’s Gospel (though see Rev 21:6; 22:1, 17).

29. Gr. ἡ σάρξ μου.

30. See Brown, 1.272–74, who also comments that “if 51–58 are a later addition, they were added not to introduce a eucharistic theme but to bring out more clearly the eucharistic elements that were already there” (1.286).

31. For a classic statement of this position, see Bultmann, 218–19. For a survey of arguments both pro and con, see Schnackenburg, 2.56–59, and for a measured response to Bultmann’s hypothesis, P. N. Anderson, Christology of the Fourth Gospel, 110–36.

32. Even Bultmann agrees: “At this point the editor, employing the style and language of the foregoing discussion, has added or inserted a secondary interpretation of the bread of life in terms of the Lord’s Supper” (234, my italics), and “From a stylistic point of view the sentence could have been written by the Evangelist” (234, n. 4).

33. Another difference is that in the encounter in Samaria “this water” (τοῦτο τὸ ὕδωρ) was the water from the well which quenched only physical thirst and that only temporarily (4:13, 15), whereas “this bread” in the present passage is “the living bread that came down from heaven.”

34. Gr. ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς.

35. Gr. ὑπέρ, literally “on behalf of.”

36. “Give” in such texts is either δίδοναι, as here (Gal 1:4; 1 Tim 2:6; Tit 2:14), or παραδίδοναι (Gal 2:20; Eph 5:2, 25), and it can be “for our sins” (Gal 1:4), “for me” (Gal 2:20), “for us” (Eph 5:2; Tit 2:14) “for her” (that is, the church, Eph 5:25), or “for all” (1 Tim 2:6).

37. See Romans 7:4, “You have been put to death to the law through the body of Christ” (that is, through Christ’s death); Ephesians 2:13–14, “But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far away have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made both one and destroyed the middle wall of partition, the enmity, in his flesh” (here “in the blood of Christ” and “in his flesh” mean virtually the same thing, his death); see also Colossians 1:22, “in the body of his flesh through death”; Hebrews 10:5, “a body you have prepared for me”; 10:10, “through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once,” and 10:19, “through the veil, that is, his flesh” (italics added).

38. BDAG, 1030 (b) identifies ὑπέρ τῆς ζωῆς as a construction expressing purpose, in this case “to bring life to the world” (compare 11:4: “for the glory of God,” meaning “to reveal the glory of God”).

39. Gr. πρὸς ἀλλήλους (compare μετʼ ἀλλήλων, v. 43).

40. “His” (αὐτοῦ) is omitted in some manuscripts, including א, C, D, L, W, Θ, Ψ, and the majority of later Greek manuscripts, but P66, B, and the Latin and Syriac versions retain it (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 214). Internal evidence favors retention because the offense seems to be directed at Jesus personally (as in v. 42) rather than at the abstract idea of eating “flesh” (which would not even have to be human flesh).

41. Gr. οὗτος. See BDAG, 740 (1a). For more examples, see 7:15, 27, 35; 9:29; 18:40; 19:12 (also οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, 9:16, 24; 11:47). In the present context, some readers may sense in this disdainful use of οὗτος a jarring contrast to the accent on “this” bread in Jesus’ speech (vv. 50, 51).

42. Gr. ἐὰν μή.

43. Strictly speaking, even the language of verse 51, “the bread I will give,” is more explicitly “eucharistic” than that of verses 53–58.

44. See, for example, the English translation of verses 53–59 in the bilingual Codex Bezae (D) from the sixth century (with variants shown in italics): “So Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, Unless you receive [λαβητε] the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves. The person who eats his flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food [omitting “and my blood is real drink”]. The person who eats my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in me and I in him, just as the Father is in me and I in the Father. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you receive [λαβητε] the body [το σωμα] of the Son of man as the bread of life, you do not have life in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the person who receives me [ὁ λαμβανων με], even that person lives because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as your fathers ate and died, the person who eats this bread will live forever.’ These things he said in the synagogue, teaching in Capernaum on a Sabbath” (for the Greek and Latin, see F. H. Scrivener, Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis [Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, 1864], 112–13). The repeated substitution of “receive” (or “take”) for “eat,” the omission of “and my blood is real drink,” and the addition of a new “Amen, amen” pronouncement about receiving “the body of the Son of man as the bread of life,” all point to a softening, or domestication, of John’s harsh language in the interest of adapting it to the language of the Eucharist.

45. See 5:26, where, in the case of both the Father and the Son, to have “life in oneself” is simply to have life.

46. See Ezekiel 39:17–18, where birds and wild animals are summoned to a “sacrificial feast” and told, “you shall eat flesh and drink blood. You shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth” (NRSV; compare Rev 19:17–18); also Isaiah 49:26 (NRSV): “I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine” (compare Rev 16:6).

47. For modern interpretations along this line, see P. Minear, John: The Martyr’s Gospel, 77 (“To drink his blood, therefore, is to receive life from him and to share in his vicarious dying”), and P. Anderson, Christology of the Fourth Gospel, 213 (“Jesus was sent to give his ‘flesh for the life of the world’ … and solidarity with him implies the same for his followers”); also Michaels, John, 115–17.

48. Paul seems to express a similar notion in connection with Christian baptism: “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, so we shall be in that of his resurrection” (Rom 6:5).

49. In the case of Nicodemus, Jesus did not set forth the way to “eternal life” positively until he began to speak of “heavenly things” (3:12–21, especially vv. 14–16).

50. Gr. ὁ τρώγων.

51. BDAG, 1019. So too Bultmann, 236: “It is a matter of real eating and not simply of some sort of spiritual participation”; also Moloney, 224. Morris, however, comments, “Some suggest that it points to a literal feeding and therefore to the sacrament. But this does not follow. There is no logic in saying: ‘The verb is used of literal eating. Therefore eating the flesh of Jesus must mean eating the communion bread’ ” (336). As we have seen (n. 44), eucharistic language is apt to be less literal or physical than that of John’s Gospel, not more.

52. Brown, 1.281–82; so too Anderson, Christology of the Fourth Gospel, 208: “ ‘to feed upon,’ or ‘to draw nourishment from’ ”; others, in a different vein, read it as the “eating of delicacies, or eating with enjoyment” (Bernard, 1.210; see Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, 200).

53. That is, in the aorist indicative or subjunctive the Gospel writer prefers φαγεῖν, and in the present tense the verb τρώγειν (in addition to 6:54, 56–58, see 13:18; the “normal” present tense ἐσθίειν never occurs in this Gospel). To the Gospel writer, φαγεῖν and τρώγειν are the same verb, just as to most ancient writers φαγεῖν and ἐσθίειν are the same verb. BDF, §101 identifies τρώγειν as simply “a popular substitution for ἐσθίειν” (so Barrett, 299; Lindars, 269; Beasley-Murray, 95; Morris, 336). Schnackenburg (2.62) straddles the fence.

54. Bultmann (219) attributes this promise to his so-called “ecclesiastical editor,” although he admits that it “has its proper place in v. 54; in the other places, particularly in v. 44, it disturbs the line of thought.” As we have seen, this is by no means evident.

55. The possessive pronouns are emphasized by placing them before the nouns “flesh” (μου τὴν σάρκα) and “blood” (μου τὸ αἷμα) respectively, both here and in verse 56 (compare αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα, with reference to “the Son of man” in v. 53). The emphasis on “I” and “my” in the present verse is weakened slightly in Codex D, where αὐτοῦ (still referring to “the Son of man”) replaces μου (see n. 44).

56. See 11:25–26, “even if he die, he will live,” so that “everyone who lives and believes … will never ever die.”

57. See Westcott, 232: “So far from the Resurrection being, as has been asserted, inconsistent with St. John’s teaching on the present reality of eternal life, it would be rather true to say that this doctrine makes the necessity of the Resurrection obvious.”

58. That is, βρῶσις, “food,” and πόσις, “drink.”

59. Gr. ἀληθής.

60. The cognate word for “real” or “true” (ἀληθινός) can have such an implication, as in 4:23, where the reference to “true worshippers” implies that worship not “in Spirit and in truth” is unreal or false worship, and in 17:3, where the phrase “the only true God” implies that other gods are false or unreal (see also 1 Jn 5:20–21).

61. In much the same way, Jesus can call himself “the good” (ὁ καλός) Shepherd (10:11, 14) without implying that human shepherds who care for their sheep are necessarily false or evil, and “the true” (ἡ ἀληθινή) Vine (15:1) without denying the reality or value of literal vines or vineyards.

62. This would be even more evident if the adverb ἀληθῶς (“truly” or “really”) were accepted in one or both instances as the correct reading in place of ἀληθής (with the first hand of P66 and of א, and with D, Θ, the majority of later Greek manuscripts, and the Latin and Syriac versions). See, for example, the expression ἀληθῶς λέγω ὑμῖν, used in Luke’s Gospel as a virtual equivalent to “Amen, I say to you” (Lk 12:44; 21:3; also 9:27). A slight preponderance of manuscript evidence (including P75, B, the corrector of P66, C, K, L, T, W, Ψ, and a number of important minuscules) favors the adjective ἀληθής (see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 214), yet the persistent occurrence of the adverb in the manuscript tradition may preserve a sense of testimony or solemn declaration in keeping with the writer’s intent.

63. Bengel puts it concisely, his only comment on verse 56 being, “He who eateth, and that which is eaten, in very deed are intimately joined together” (Gnomon, 2.323).

64. Gr. μένει.

65. See 14:20, 17:21 and 23, and especially the repeated uses of “dwell” or “remain” (μένειν) in 15:4–10. Only once in the first half of the Gospel does Jesus even begin to invite “the Jews” into such a relationship. Significantly the invitation is directed to “Jews” who have believed in him (8:30–31): “If you remain [μείνητε] in my word, you are truly [ἀληθῶς] my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (8:31–32; compare 15:7–8). Just as significantly, the invitation is refused (8:33).

66. Possibly verse 56 appeared unfinished, leading a scribe to insert an additional καθώς-clause to complete the analogy between the mutual indwelling of the Father and Jesus, and that of Jesus with his disciples.

67. This strategy is not as evident in Codex D, because D has inserted another lengthy “Amen, amen” pronouncement (possibly reflecting a distinctly eucharistic interpretation of Jesus’ words) between verses 56 and 57: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you receive the body of the Son of man as the bread of life, you do not have life in him” (again, see n. 44).

68. See Abbott’s discussion (Johannine Grammar, 128–29) of the “suspensive” use of καθώς (so called because it “keeps the reader’s attention in suspense till he reaches the principal verb later on”). Abbott finds this more characteristic of John’s Gospel than the “explanatory” or “supplementary” usage in which καθώς follows the verb, and notes several instances (including this one) where καθώς is “followed by καί or κἀγώ in apodosis.” In a footnote he considers briefly the notion that verse 57 is simply a continuation of verse 56, the two being separated only by a comma, but concludes that this “would be against the suspensive use of καθώς, and is in other respects improbable” (129).

69. Gr. ὁ ζῶν πατήρ. This term is not paralleled elsewhere, but is hardly surprising, given the wide currency of the term “the living God” (if “the living God” has a “Son,” as in Mt 16:16 and 1 Thess 1:9–10, does it make him a “living Father”?), and given the mention of “living water” and “living bread” as gifts of God in this Gospel (see 4:10; 6:32, 51).

70. Καί is ambiguous in conditional sentences, as here with καθώς, for it can mean either “and” or “so.” Thus, verse 57 could be translated either “Just as the living Father sent me, so [κἀγώ] I live because of the Father, and [καί] the person who eats me, even that person will live because of me,” or “Just as the living Father sent me, and [κἀγώ] I live because of the Father, so [καί] the person who eats me, even that person will live because of me” (again, see Abbott, 129). We have opted for the latter because of the additional emphasis supplied by “even that person” (κἀκεῖνος) in the last clause.

71. Gr. ζήσει διʼ ἐμέ, corresponding to “I live because of the Father” (κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα).

72. In John Wesley’s words, “I live by the Father—being one with him—He shall live by me—being one with me. Amazing Union!” Explanatory Notes on the New Testament (London: Bowyer, 1755), 241.

73. See, for example, 14:19, ‘because I live, you too will live’ (ὅτι ἐγὼ ζῶ καὶ ὑμεῖς ζήσετε), referring to the hope of resurrection.

74. “Your fathers” (v. 49) and “the fathers” (v. 58) seem to be used interchangeably (see above, n. 26).

75. Codex D adds “on the Sabbath” (see n. 44), in keeping with other passages where Jesus taught in synagogue “on the Sabbath” at Capernaum (Mk 1:21; Lk 4:31), or Nazareth (Lk 4:16, “as was his custom”). In the better manuscripts this is not stated but perhaps assumed.

76. This is in keeping with the thesis of Peder Borgen (see n. 25) and others, that the entire discourse be viewed as a kind of synagogue homily developing the theme of manna in the desert from Exodus 16.

77. See also Luke 4:16–30, at the synagogue in Nazareth. Barrett (300) comments that the discourse in John, “with its interruptions suggests a less formal occasion than a synagogue sermon,” yet the “interruptions” (vv. 41–42, 52) are, as we have seen, disputes “with each other” rather than with Jesus, and in any case far less dramatic than the interruptions by the demoniac in Mark 1:23–26, and by the hostile crowd at the synagogue in Nazareth in Luke 4:22–23, 28–29. As we have seen (n. 7), even the question, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” is common to Luke (4:22) and to John (6:42).

78. The absence of the definite article with “synagogue,” both here and in 18:20, does not mean that the word should be translated simply as an indefinite “assembly” or “gathering,” for the Capernaum synagogue was well known. It simply corresponds to the expression “in church” (rather than “in the church”) when referring to Christian public worship and preaching (see Brown, 1.284; Schnackenburg, 2.455).

79. The two notices belong to a larger category of narrative asides in John’s Gospel introduced by “these” (ταῦτα) or “this (τοῦτο), either setting a scene (as here), or terminating an incident (2:11; 4:54; 21:14), or commenting on something said or done (7:39; 11:51; 12:16, 33, 41), or providing a transition from discourse either to narrative (13:21; 18:1), or further discourse (11:11; 17:1), or the Gospel writer’s reflections (12:36b).

1. Gr. ἀκούσαντες.

2. This would be in keeping with 18:21, where Jesus, on being asked about his “disciples” (v. 19, as if looking for a list of names), replies, “Ask those who have heard [τοὺς ἀκηκοότας] what I said to them,” implying that they were not a fixed group, but that anyone who “heard” Jesus was at least potentially a “disciple.”

3. As in the case of those who “believed” and to whom Jesus did not “entrust himself” at the first Passover (2:23), it was the “signs” Jesus performed that attracted their attention.

4. Gr. σκληρός.

5. The language recalls that of Mark’s Gospel, when Jesus came to know “in his spirit” (τῷ πνεύματι αὐτοῦ) that certain scribes were questioning “in themselves” or “in their hearts” his authority to forgive sins (Mk 2:8), and when he knew “within himself” (ἐν ἑαυτῷ) that power had gone out from his body to heal the woman with the issue of blood (Mk 5:30).

6. The point of this verb “stumble” (σκανδαλίζει) is not so much that they were angry (BDAG, 926 [2]), as that out of fear they were tempted to turn away from any commitment to him (as in 16:1; see BDAG, 926 [1]), which in fact they did (see v. 66).

7. The meaning of “stumbling block” (σκάνδαλον) is the same as here (see n. 6): Peter was attempting to turn Jesus away from that to which God had called him.

8. Gr. ἀναβαίνοντα.

9. The construction is one kind of ellipsis, “the omission of the apodosis to a conditional subordinate clause” (BDF, §482); also Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 175).

10. For example, Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel, 267–68; Hoskyns, 300–301; Lindars, 273; also Moloney, but with the proviso that he has no need to prove himself by ascending visibly to heaven because he came from there in the first place (228, 231; also The Johannine Son of Man, 122–23).

11. So Bultmann (445), who interprets “going up” not as resurrection or ascension but as crucifixion, confusing ἀναβαίνειν (“going up,” see 3:13) with ὑψωθῆναι (being “lifted up,” 3:14). As Bernard points out, the former “never refers to the Crucifixion, but to the Ascension” (1.217).

12. So Westcott, 1.247; Schnackenburg, 2.71; Barrett, 303; and with some hesitation Morris, 339.

13. The expression “where he was at first” (ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον, v. 62) need not prompt an explicit connection between “this word” (ὁ λόγος οὗτος, v. 60) and the opening verses of the Gospel is uncertain. The one explicitly in view here is the preexistent “Son of man” (3:13), not the preexistent “Word,” or λόγος, even though the reader knows they are the same person.

14. Gr. τὸ πνεῦμα ἐστιν τὸ ζωοποιοῦν. For a similar construction, see 1 John 5:6: “The Spirit is that which testifies” (τὸ πνεῦμα ἐστιν τὸ μαρτυροῦν). In keeping with Johannine usage generally, we have capitalized “Spirit.”

15. See 20:22, however, where “Holy Spirit” coming as breath from Jesus’ mouth (like the breath of God in Gen 2:7) becomes the evidence that Jesus is alive, risen from the dead, and able to give life to his disciples. Moreover, a comparison of 4:14 with 7:37–39 suggests that “life eternal” and “Spirit” are (or can be) equivalent terms in this Gospel.

16. See 2 Cor 3:6, “For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ); 1 Cor 15:45, where Christ himself (“the last Adam”) is identified as “life-giving Spirit” (εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν); Rom 8:10–11, “If Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life [τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωή] because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also bring to life [ζῳοποιήσει] your mortal bodies through the Spirit that dwells in you” (also 1 Pet 3:18, “put to death in the flesh, made alive [ζῳοποιηθείς] in the Spirit”).

17. Gr. ἡ σάρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν. The form of the pronouncement recalls Mk 14:38, “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον, ἡ δὲ σὰρξ ἀσθενής), and it may well be traditional. Yet the meaning here is quite different.

18. See, for example, Schnackenburg (2.72), who explains that “the statement about the πνεῦμα receives all the emphasis, and the remark about the σάρξ is added to highlight the statement about the πνεῦμα.” See also Barrett, 284, 304; Moloney, 231; Beasley-Murray, 96.

19. On this point Brown, following G. Bornkamm, “Die eucharistische Rede im Johannes-Evangelium,” ZNW 47 (1956), 161–69, comments further that “51–58 is a later editorial insertion of Johannine material breaking up the unity that once existed between 35–50 and 60–71,” without “any real attempt to give a new orientation to 60–71 in light of this addition” (1.302–3). Bultmann, even though he shares much the same assessment of verses 51–58, also entertains the possibility that verse 63a was something Jesus’ disciples were saying. Thus, “You say, ‘The Spirit is that which makes alive; the flesh accomplishes nothing,’ but I say, ‘The words I have spoken to you are spirit, and they are life’ ” (446). At the same time he weakens the case by citing 4:35, where Jesus, quoting something said by others, makes it very explicit: “Do you not say?… Look, I say to you.”

20. Gr. τὰ ῥήματα.

21. Here we have not capitalized “spirit” (πνεῦμα, without the article), because it appears not to refer to the Holy Spirit per se, as at the beginning of the verse (τὸ πνεῦμα), but to Jesus’ words as the Spirit’s instrument.

22. That Jesus “knew” (ᾔδει γάρ) who would hand him over to death is echoed in 13:11 (ᾔδει γάρ τὸν παραδιδόντα αὐτόν; see also the repeated use of the participle “knowing” (εἰδώς) in relation to the events of Jesus’ passion (13:1, 3; 18:4; 19:28).

23. Origen cites a Jewish objection (introduced by the pagan Celsus) that must have been current already in the first century, to the effect that “he who was a God could neither flee nor be led away a prisoner; and least of all could he be deserted and delivered up by those who had been his associates, and had shared all things in common, and had had him for their teacher” (Against Celsus 2.9; ANF, 4.433).

24. See 16:4, where Jesus himself introduces the same term, ἐξ ἀρχῆς, to refer to the whole time during which “I was with you” (also, perhaps, ἀπʼ αρχῆς, “from the beginning,” in 15:27; 1 Jn 1:1; 2:7; 3:11; Lk 1:2).

25. Gr. εἰσίν (present tense).

26. Consequently, it has no relation to the Gospel’s opening phrase, “in the beginning” (ἐν ἀρχῄ, 1:1–2).

27. Gr. ὁ παραδώσων, a rare future participle.

28. According to BDAG (762), borrowing the language of Raymond Brown (Death of the Messiah, 1.211–13), the translation “betray” tends to “blur the parallelism of Judas’ action to the agency of others in the passion narrative.”

29. Gr. καὶ ἔλεγεν. For this translation of the imperfect, see Abbott, Johannine Grammar, who cites this as one of two instances (the other being 8:31) in which “ἔλεγε appears to be used by John as in Mark to mean ‘began to say,’ or ‘went on to say,’ or ‘used to say’ ” (341). Abbott renders it here as “began to say” (342), but “went on to say” is more appropriate because Jesus is resuming (and in fact concluding) a speech already begun (at v. 61) and momentarily interrupted by the Gospel writer’s narrative aside (v. 64b).

30. Gr. ἐκ τούτου.

31. See BDAG, 297; also 19:12, the only other occurrence of this phrase in John’s Gospel: “From this [ἐκ τούτου], Pilate kept seeking to release him.” The language of the context is curiously similar to that of the present passage. Jesus had just told Pilate, “You would not have any authority against me unless it were given you from above [εἰ μὴ ἦν δεδομένον σοι ἄνωθεν]. That is why [διὰ τοῦτο] the one who handed me over to you [ὁ παραδούς μέ σοι] has greater sin” (19:11; compare v. 65).

32. So Bultmann (448, n. 1): “It comes to the same thing whether is interpreted as ‘consequently’ (so 19.12) or as ‘from now on.’ At all events it is not a gradual development that is in mind, but an apostasy that is now taking place.”

33. Gr. ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω.

34. “Walk” is περιεπάτουν. The imperfect here has a futuristic cast to it (see BDF, 323[4]), describing what would be the practice of these failed disciples from this point on. The translation “would no longer walk with him” brings out this future aspect, while at the same time hinting that it was a matter of their conscious choice.

35. Only “possibly” because Jesus’ disciples were not explicitly mentioned between 4:38 and 6:3.

36. See BDAG, 803.

37. In much the same way, as we have seen (pp. 150–51), “coming to Jesus” and “coming to the Light” (see 3:20–21) are equivalent expressions in this Gospel.

38. What was not true of Jesus’ disciples in the boat (v. 17) was true of them: “the darkness overtook them.”

39. Some manuscripts of Mark 3:14 add the same words found in Luke, “whom he also named as apostles.”

40. If one took the bold step of including such “friends” as Lazarus, Mary, and Martha, as well as Mary Magdalene and “secret” disciples such as Joseph of Arimathea, one would have too many names instead of too few. Still, because there is no list, this Gospel does not exclude women from “the Twelve” quite so explicitly as the others do.

41. This is the case in the other Gospels as well (see Mt 14:20; Mk 6:43; Lk 9:17), but in every case the notice comes well after the twelve apostles have been clearly identified.

42. The deliberative question with μή expects a negative answer (see Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 193;also BDF, §427[2]), yet a translation such as “You do not want to go away too, do you?” goes too far toward making the reply a foregone conclusion.

43. Besides new converts such as the man born blind (see 9:38), and devoted friends such as Lazarus, Mary, Martha, and Mary Magalene, Jesus speaks of “other sheep” (10:16) and “the scattered children of God” (11:52).

44. Gr. κύριε.

45. See 4:11, 15, 19; 5:7; 6:34, where we have translated it as “Sir,” and 4:49, where because of its prayer-like quality we have rendered it as “Lord.” Jesus’ disciples have more characteristically addressed him as “Rabbi” (see 1:38, 49; 4:31; also 9:2 and 11:8).

46. See 9:38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14:5, 8, 22; 21:15, 16, 17, 20, 21; the two exceptions where “Sir” is appropriate are 9:36 (because the former blind man does not know to whom he is speaking) and 20:15 (because Mary Magdalene mistakes the risen Jesus for the gardener). Jesus explicitly recognizes and accepts his disciples’ confessional use of “Lord” in 13:13, “You call me ‘Teacher,’ and ‘Lord,’ and you say well, for I am.”

47. Gr. ῥήματα ζωῆς αἰωνίου.

48. “Words” (ῥήματα, without the article) is indefinite because the comment is not limited to “the words” (τὰ ῥήματα) Jesus has spoken here at Capernaum promising resurrection and life (see v. 63), but includes as well all that he will say from now on.

49. Compare and contrast Martha’s confession, speaking for herself: “Yes, Lord, I believe [ἐγὼ πεπίστεύκα] that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world” (11:27, my italics).

50. This is the case in the other Gospels as well, where Jesus asks “them” (αὐτούς or αὐτοῖς), “Who do you [ὑμεῖς] say that I am?” (Mt 16:15; Mk 8:29; Lk 9:20), and then charges “them” (αὐτοῖς, Mk 8:30; Lk 9:21) or “the disciples” (Mt 16:20) not to tell anyone. Only Matthew (16:17–19) singles Peter out for special notice or commendation.

51. The perfect tenses of the verbs “believe” (πεπιστεύκαμεν) and “know” (ἐγνώκαμεν) are translated as presents, suggesting a settled conviction and an assured knowledge respectively (see BDF, §341; also Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, 125; Johannine Grammar, 345, although his renderings “perfect belief” and “perfect knowledge” are somewhat overstated).

52. Gr. σὺ εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.

53. Textual witnesses for the reading “the Holy One of God” include P75, B, א, C*, D, L, W, Ψ, and others. Of the other alternatives, only “the Christ, the Holy One of God” (with P66 and certain Coptic versions) has any claim at all to consideration, but looks very much like a partial assimilation to one of the less likely options, such as “the Christ, the Son of God” (with most old Latin and Syriac versions), and “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (with the majority of later manuscripts). See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 215.

54. Gr. ἡγίασεν.

55. See Bultmann, 450: “It must be said that the title ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ also denotes Jesus as the one who has consecrated himself as a sacrifice for the world; vv. 70f. especially have reference to the story of the Passion.”

56. In Mark as well the “unclean spirits” further identify Jesus as “the Son of God” (3:11) or “Son of the Most High God” (5:7; see also Lk 4:41; Mt 8:29, Lk 8:28). In John’s Gospel, the title is similar to “the Chosen One of God” (ὁ ἐκλέκτος τοῦ θεοῦ), found in some ancient manuscripts of 1:34.

57. The double accusatives ὑμᾶς and τοὺς δώδεκα represent “the predicate accusative, really a sort of apposition” (A. T. Robertson, Grammar, 480; also BDF, §157): “I have chosen you as the Twelve,” or “to be the Twelve.”

58. Gr. ἐξελεξάμην.

59. The only other instance is the passing notice that Thomas, “one of the Twelve,” was not “with them” (μετʼ αὐτῶν) when the risen Jesus appeared to the disciples behind locked doors (20:24), with its possible implication that “them” (even without Judas present) may refer to “the Twelve.”

60. Gr. καὶ ἐξ ὑμῶν εἷς διάβολός ἐστιν. “And” (καί) is really “and yet,” heightening the irony (see BDF, §442[1]).

61. See above, on 1:1. Here the predicate noun διάβολος precedes the verb ἐστιν, and may therefore be read as definite.

62. See BDAG, 226, who lists first the adjectival meaning, “slanderous” (see 1 Tim 3:11; 2 Tim 3:3; Tit 2:3).

63. Flannery O’Connor refers to a character in one of her novels and another in one of her short stories as being “of the Devil because nothing in him resists the Devil. There’s not much use to distinguish between them” (The Habit of Being [New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1979], 367).

64. See BDAG, 916.

65. See, for example, m. Berakot 5.5; and in the Babylonian Talmud, Baba Meṣiʿa 96a; Ḥagigah 10b; Qiddušin 42b; 43a, Baba Qamma 113b; etc. This principle has been studied mainly for its bearing on the relation between God and Jesus (see K. Rengstorf, TDNT, 1.414–20; also P. Borgen, “God’s Agent in the Fourth Gospel,” 83–95), and it is important in John’s Gospel for this reason, yet it is no less applicable to the devil and those who do the devil’s work on earth

66. In John’s Gospel, see also 8:44 (in relation to “Jews” who had “believed in him,” vv. 30–31) and 13:2 (in relation to Judas); also 1 Jn 3:8, 10, and Acts 13:10, where Paul addresses Elymas as “son of the devil” (υἱὲ διαβόλου).

67. Gr. ἔλεγεν. More literally, Jesus “was saying” or “was talking about” Judas (for ἔλεγεν as “meant,” see 2:22).

68. It is difficult to say whether or not the name “Judas” (Ἰούδαν, v. 71) is intended to suggest a spiritual kinship with Jesus’ interlocutors “the Jews” (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, vv. 41, 52), who will themselves eventually be called children of “the devil” (8:44). Clearly, Judas was a Jew, but so were Jesus’ other disciples, and one even shared the name “Judas” (see 14:22).

69. “Judas of Simon Iscariot” means “Judas, son of Simon Iscariot,” just as in the case of Simon Peter, “Simon the son of John” (1:42) is equivalent to “Simon of John” (21:15, 16, 17). In the case of Peter it was an open question whether “John” was the name of Peter’s actual father or whether Jesus was identifying him as a disciple or “son” of John the baptizer. Here, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is likely that this otherwise unknown “Simon” was Judas’s literal father. Judas is identified in this way again in 13:2 and 26.

70. In the best ancient manuscripts (P66, P75, B, C, L, W, etc.), “Iscariot” is in the genitive case (Ἰσκαριώτου), agreeing with “Simon” (Σίμωνος); that is, strictly speaking, Simon (Judas’s father) is the one called “Iscariot.” This tends to rule out various theories that “Iscariot” was a term of reproach applied to Judas after the fact, in light of his betrayal of Jesus (for example, in relation to assassins known as the sicarii, who carried daggers, or to a Hebrew root verb meaning “falsehood” or “deceit”). Judas himself, however, was also called “Iscariot” (ὁ Ἰσκαριώτης, 12:4; see also Mk 14:10; Mt 26:14; Lk 22:3), because his father’s home was obviously thought to identify his place of orgin as well. There is fairly wide agreement that “Iscariot” means in Hebrew “a man [] of Kerioth,” probably a place in Moab, across the Dead Sea, mentioned in Jeremiah 48:24, 41 and Amos 2:2. This is reflected in the variant reading, απο Καρυωτου, in certain manuscripts here (including א* and Θ), and in Codex D at 12:4; 13:2, 26; 14:22 (here, in place of Ἰσκαριώτου, D has Σκαριωθ, making it simply a rather obscure proper name).

71. See 17:12, “and not one of them is lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.”

1. Gr. μετὰ ταῦτα.

2. Those who want to reverse the order of chapters 5 and 6 can appeal to the fact that if chapter 5 immediately preceded chapter 7, the thought that “the Judeans were seeking to kill him” would have been relatively fresh in the writer’s mind (see 5:18). Yet if chapters 5 and 6 were reversed, then there would have to be a change of scene. Instead of “Jesus was walking in Galilee,” we would expect “Jesus withdrew into Galilee” (from Jerusalem, the scene of the events in chapter 5). In short, the same problem that now exists in the transition from chapters 5 to 6 would appear in the supposed transition from chapter 5 to chapter 7. Nothing is gained by rearrangement (contra Schnackenburg, 2.138).

3. Instead of “chose not to” (οὐ γὰρ ἤθελεν), some ancient witnesses (including W, some of the old Latin, the Curetonian Syriac, and Chrysostom) have it that Jesus “had no authority” (οὐ γὰρ εἴχεν ἐξουσίαν) to “walk in Judea.” But the most important ancient manuscripts (including א, B, P66, and P75) have the more familiar ἤθελεν (“chose”), which is probably to be preferred (see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 215–16).

4. The verb “chose” (ἤθελεν) is imperfect, pointing not to a momentary decision but to a fixed policy (see Morris, 348–49, who paraphrases it, “purposely stayed away”).

5. This posed a problem for John Chrysostom, whose text had this reading: “What sayest thou, O blessed John? Had not He ‘power,’ who was able to do all that He would?” Chrysostom concluded, “For when he saith that ‘He had not power,’ he speaketh of Him as a man, doing many things after the manner of men; but when he saith, that He stood in the midst of them, and they seized Him not, he showeth to us the power of the Godhead” (Homilies on St. John 48; NPNF, 1st ser., 14.173).

6. See, for example, Barrett, 309–10; Lindars, 281; and Schnackenburg, 2.138.

7. Gr. οὐ γὰρ ἤθελεν.

8. For a similar instance in which a rejected variant reading appears to belong to John’s source, and therefore to be earlier than John’s “original” text, see 1:34, where the reading “Son of God” is to be preferred over “Chosen One of God.”

9. The notice is linked to what precedes by a mild adversative (δέ, “but”): Jesus did not want to go to Jerusalem, but a reason for going now presented itself.

10. See Deuteronomy 16:16, NRSV: “Three times a year all your males shall appear before the LORD your God at the place that he will choose: at the festival of unleavened bread, at the festival of weeks, and at the festival of booths.” Or as Josephus explained it centuries later: “Moreover, when they should have won their fatherland, they were to repair to that city which they would in honour of the temple regard as their metropolis, and there for eight days keep festival” (Antiquities 3.245; LCL, 4.435).

11. Gr. ἡ ἑορτὴ … ἡ σκηνοπηγία. This festival was known in Hebrew simply as (“tents” or “booths”).

12. The Passover was to take place “on the fourteenth day of the first month” (Lev 23:4), and the Tent festival on “the fifteenth day of the seventh month” (Lev 23:34). It appears, therefore, that Jesus has by this time been “walking in Galilee” for at least six months (see 6:4, “the Passover … was near”).

13. For a detailed glimpse how these instructions were to be carried out in practice in New Testament times and (especially) later, see the tractate Sukkah in the Mishnah (Danby, 172–81).

14. See, for example, Moloney, 232–36. He writes, “The celebration of Tabernacles forms the background for 7:1–10:21. However, Jesus’ departure from the Temple in 8:59 divides the account of the events that took place during the feast into two parts, 7:1–8:59 and 9:1–10:21” (233).

15. See Moloney, 234–35.

16. As in 2:12, the question of whether “brothers” (ἄδελφοι) included sisters as well remains an open one.

17. That Jesus did in fact have disciples in or around Jerusalem is of course a distinct possibility even apart from the present reference. Mary, Martha, and Lazarus are, of course, primary examples (see 11:5). But also (in addition to 3:22 and 4:1, and leaving aside 2:23–25 and 8:30–31), there is mention of a garden across the Kedron where Jesus had “often gathered … with his disciples” (18:2), and one of his unnamed disciples is said to have been “known to the High Priest” (18:15).

18. Chrysostom’s comment points in the same direction: “But who are those that they call disciples here? The crowd that followed Him, not the twelve” (Homilies on St. John 48; NPNF, 1st ser., 14.174).

19. Because “signs” (σημεῖα) and “works” (ἔργα) are less important to the Gospel writer than the verb “to do” (ποιεῖν), the request of Jesus’ brothers could almost be paraphrased, “Go to Judea, so that your disciples may see what you do” (my italics; see v. 4, “As long as you are doing these things …”).

20. Gr. ἐν κρυπτῷ.

21. Gr. ἐν παρρησίᾳ, literally “in the open,” or “boldly.”

22. Gr. φανέρωσον σεαυτὸν.

23. Instead of “he himself” (αὐτός), some ancient manuscripts (including B and P66) have “it” (αὐτό), yielding the translation, “For no one does anything in secret and seeks for it to be in the public eye” (my italics). But αὐτός has wider support, including P66c, P75, א, and the majority of ancient witnesses, and should probably be retained (see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 216; Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 564).

24. Abbott (Johannine Grammar, 564) comments that “there is probably a contrast between the ‘works’ mentioned in 7:3 … and the worker (‘himself’)—as in 10:38 (‘Even if ye believe not me, believe the works,’ and comp. 14:11).”

25. See, for example, v. 26, “And look, he is speaking publicly [παρρησίᾳ], and they are saying nothing to him”; also 18:20, “I have spoken publicly [παρρησίᾳ] to the world [τῷ κόσμῳ]; I always taught in synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and I spoke nothing in secret” (ἐν κρυπτῷ).

26. Not surprisingly, one ancient manuscript (D), and several old Latin and Syriac versions, add “then” (τότε), on the grounds that at least two of Jesus’ brothers, James (see Gal 1:19) and Jude (Jude 1), were known to have been believers after Jesus’ resurrection (see 1 Cor 15:7, “then he appeared to James”).

27. One could infer this from the contrast to chapter 11, where his disciples did not want him to go to Judea because “the Judeans are now seeking to stone you” (11:8).

28. Gr. ὁ κόσμος.

29. Gr. καιρός.

30. In each of the latter two instances, Jesus is very conscious of time (without using the word καιρός). In the first he justifies his urgency with the comment, “We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day. Night is coming when no one can work” (9:4). In the second he tells his disciples, “Are there not twelve hours in a day? If anyone walks during the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if anyone walks at night, he stumbles because the light is not in him” (11:9–10; see also 12:35–36).

31. The pronouns “you” (ὑμεῖς) and “I” (ἐγώ) are emphatic. Instead of “not” (οὐκ), a number of significant ancient manuscripts (including P66, P75, B, L, W, and the majority of later manuscripts) have “not yet” (οὔπω), yielding the translation, “I am not yet going up to this festival.” This is obviously an “easier” reading than the text our translation has followed, in view of Jesus’ abrupt change of plan two verses later, but for that very reason it is suspect. While the textual support for the reading, “I am not going up to this festival,” is slightly less strong (with א, D, K, most of the Latin versions, and the earliest Syriac versions), it is more likely original because it is easy to see why scribes might have changed it to “not yet” (in light of v. 10). On the other hand, if “not yet” (οὔπω) were original, it is difficult to see why scribes would have changed it. Even if it was not inserted to alleviate a difficulty, οὔπω could have been inserted simply to correspond to οὔπω in the latter half of the verse (“because my time is not yet fulfilled”) (see P66, which calls attention to the parallel by using οὔπω in the first instance and οὐδέπω in the second). See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 216; Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 210.

32. For example, 1:39 (“that day”), 2:12 (“a few days”), 4:40 (“two days”), 10:40 (unspecified), 11:6 (“two days”), and 11:54 (unspecified).

33. Gr. ἀναβαίνειν.

34. See, for example, Brown, 1.308; Hoskyns, 313. They might plausibly have appealed to Luke 9:51 (“when the days had been fulfilled for him to be taken up, he himself set his face to go to Jerusalem”), but they do not.

35. So Schnackenburg (2.143), who recognizes that ἀναβαίνω “must mean the same as Jesus’ brothers going up to the feast (vv. 8a, 10). There is no room for a double meaning in this instance.” It can be added that ἀναβαίνειν (“to go up”) is no more evocative of Jesus’ death and resurrection than is the simple verb “to go” that his brothers used previously (ὑπάγε, v. 3; see, for example, v. 33; also 8:21, 22; 13:33; 14:4, 28; 16:10, 17). It is less so, in fact, for, as Lindars notices, “John’s usual language for the Passion is that of ‘going,’ ” not of “going up” (285). Even when Jesus’ death is viewed as an ascent, the classic Johannine term is not “going up” (ἀναβαίνειν) but being “lifted up” (ὑψωθῆναι; see 3:14, 8:28; 12:23, 32).

36. That is, there is no real difference between “My time is not yet here” (οὔπω πάρεστιν, v. 6) and “my time is not yet fulfilled” (οὔπω πεπλήρωται, v. 8); see Mark 1:15, “the time is fulfilled [πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρός] and the kingdom of God has come near.” The passive πεπλήρωται points to God as the One who brings to completion or “fulfills” the time (see G. Delling in TDNT, 6.294–95).

37. Gr. οὐ φανερῶς.

38. Gr. ὡς ἐν κρύπτῷ.

39. “As it were” (ὡς) is omitted in certain ancient manuscripts (including א, D, and some of the old Latin and Syriac versions), but its presence in P66, P75, B, L, and other Latin and Syriac versions, plus the majority of later manuscripts, argues strongly for its retention. “As it were” tacitly acknowledges that the reader is not expected to know exactly what Jesus’ “secrecy” may have entailed. Regarding ὡς, Abbott comments, “The particle may be a short way of saying ‘people might call it so,’ and it is perhaps inserted with a view to the vindication of the Johannine view of the publicity of Christ’s life, as in 18:20, ‘In secret spake I nothing’; and in this very feast Christ is described as (7:26) ‘speaking openly (παρρησίᾳ),’ and (7:28) ‘he cried aloud in the temple teaching’ ” (Johannine Grammar, 171).

40. The designation “that man” (ἐκεῖνος) recalls the situation in chapter 5 when the man Jesus had healed at the pool first identified Jesus as “that man” (ἐκεῖνος) who had told him to “Pick up your mat and walk” (5:11), leading the authorities to begin pursuing Jesus. While Jesus and the Gospel writer consistently use the pronoun ἐκεῖνος in a neutral or even favorable sense, on the lips of Jesus’ enemies it becomes (along with οὕτος) almost a term of derision (see 9:12, 28; 19:21). Chrysostom went so far as to say, “Through their excessive hatred and enmity they would not even call Him by name” (Homilies on St. John 49; NPNF, 1st ser., 14.176).

41. Gr. οἱ ὄχλοι.

42. The notion that Jesus is “good” (ἀγαθός) does not of course necessarily mean that they gave him their allegiance (see Mk 10:17–18 and Lk 18:18–19, where calling Jesus “good” falls short of genuine discipleship). Possibly those who regarded Jesus as “good” were using the term in the sense of “kind” or “benevolent” (see BDAG, 4, and Mt 20:15), remembering what he had done for the sick man by the Bethsaida pool.

43. The expression is odd, because some in “the crowds” are talking about “the crowd” as if they did not belong to it. The notion of Jesus as “deceiver” (see v. 47; Mt 27:63) seems to anticipate charges later brought against him at his trial (see Lk 23:5, 14).

44. The phrase, “for fear of the Jews”, (διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν Ἰουδαίων), is used elsewhere of Jesus’ disciples and their fear of the religious authorities in Jerusalem (see 19:38; 20:19), while a similar expression, “because they feared the Jews,” is used of the parents of the man born blind (9:22). In each instance fear leads to either secrecy, privacy behind locked doors, or reticence to speak.

45. Gr. παρρησίᾳ (compare v. 4).

46. For the contrast between “publicly” and “in secret,” see verse 4 and 18:20.

1. Whether I coined the term or not, I made it the title of my article, “The Temple Discourse in John,” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, 200–213. It becomes the title of keener’s whole chapter on 7:1–8:59 (Keener, 1.703–74).

2. The verb “went up” (ἀνέβη) is the same here as in v. 10, and is used in the same idiomatic sense for a pilgrimage to the Holy City and its temple.

3. The imperfect ἐδίδασκεν here signals the beginning of an action (see Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 336–37).

4. Contrast Mark 4:2, where we are told explicitly: “And he began teaching them in parables, and he said to them in his teaching, ‘Listen. See, a sower went out to sow,’ ” etc. (my italics; see also Mk 12:38).

5. See Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (New York: Scribner’s, 1955), 2.66.

6. The reader is by now familiar with the notion of “the Jews,” or religious leaders, being “amazed” (ἐθαύμαζον); see 3:7; 5:20, 28. The expression may, but does not have to, imply that they took offense (BDAG, 444). Here it probably does not, particularly if, as we will argue, they do not at this point know Jesus’ identity. The “offense” comes later (see v. 21).

7. Gr. γράμματα.

8. See BDAG, 206: “γράμματα without the article used with a verb like ἐπίστασθαι, εἰδέναι means elementary knowledge, especially reading and writing.” In the added story of the woman caught in adultery Jesus (whatever his intention may have been) demonstrates his ability to write by writing with his finger on the ground (see 8:6, 8).

9. According to a rearrangement of the text proposed by Bernard (1.71), Bultmann (209), and Schnackenburg (2.5–9), the comment of “the Jews” in 7:15 follows right on the heels of Jesus’ words in 5:46–47. This “new and improved” version of the Gospel, however, destroys the author’s intended connection between Jesus’ “teaching” (v. 14), and “the Jews’ ” reaction to that teaching (v. 15).

10. Gr. μὴ μεμαθηκώς. In a curious way, the scene recalls another, presumably unrelated, incident in another Gospel, when Jesus, twelve years old and literally “uninstructed,” sat among the Jewish teachers in this same temple, “listening to them and asking them questions,” and “all who heard him marveled [ἐξίσταντο] at his understanding and his answers” (Lk 2:46–47).

11. Their comment recalls Jesus’ reception at his hometown in the synoptic Gospels (see especially Mk 6:2; Lk 4:22), but with the conspicuous difference that they neither speak his name nor mention his family background. (as they did in Jn 6:42, the closer parallel to the synoptic passages).

12. Most commentators fail to notice the incongruity. R. A. Whitacre (183n.) does notice it, but explains it differently, theorizing that “the Jews” in v. 15 are not the same as “the Jews” in v. 13: “Two verses earlier the term clearly referred to Jesus’ opponents among the leaders of Israel, but this meaning does not fit verse 15 since they would have already known what Jesus’ teaching was like. Here the Jews either must refer to Judeans or Jerusalemites or must be a very general term for those who had come to Jerusalem for the feast from throughout the diaspora.” As we have seen, however, when “the Jews” are Jesus’ interlocutors in this Gospel, they are portrayed rather consistently as the Jewish religious authorities and as Jesus’ enemies.

13. Here again (as in 5:17 and 19), Jesus is not answering a direct question but making a more general statement, and because of this the aorist middle ἀπεκρίνατο might have been expected. But this time the author uses the more common aorist passive ἀπεκρίθη, possibly because what follows is not a monologue but a real dialogue of sorts (see v. 21, where ἀπεκρίθη is repeated; also 8:14, 19, 34, 49, 54).

14. These links obviously contribute to the rearrangements proposed by Bernard, Bultmann, and Schnackenburg (see above, n. 9)

15. Gr. ἡ ἐμὴ διδαχή.

16. Jesus seems to enjoy accenting the paradox. As Augustine noticed (see Tractates on John 29.3; NPNF, 1st ser., 7.183), he does not say, “This teaching is not mine,” but “My teaching is not mine.”

17. Gr. ἐάν τις θέλῃ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν.

18. Gr. θεοσεβής.

19. That is, not like “the work of God” in 6:29, defined as “believing in him whom that One sent.” For the opposite view, see Augustine: “It is the same thing as to believe” (Tractates on John 29.6; NPNF, 1st ser., 7.185); so also Bultmann, for whom doing the will of God means “no more and no less than believing,” rejecting what he calls “the popular but crude misunderstanding of v. 17 which suggests that it wants to make the way of faith easier by advising that a man should first take seriously the ethical demands, which are universally evident, and that this will lead him to an understanding of the dogmatic teaching” (274; so too Barrett, 318; all three cite Jn 6:29).

20. D. A. Carson offers a valuable clarification, which (intentionally or not) speaks to Bultmann’s objection: “The point is not that the seeker must attain a certain God-approved level of ethical achievement before venturing an assessment as to whether or not Jesus’ teaching comes from God, but that a seeker must be fundamentally committed to doing God’s will. This is a faith commitment” (312).

21. So Chrysostom: “What meaneth, ‘If any man do His will’? If any man be a lover of the life which is according to virtue, he shall know the power of the sayings.” He then adds, “If any man will give heed to the prophecies, to see whether I speak according to them or not” (Homilies 49.1; NPNF, 1st ser., 14.177).

22. It is tempting to conjecture that this “teaching” may have been more akin to what we know of Jesus from the synoptic Gospels—Matthew in particular—than from the Gospel of John. It is Matthew, after all, who records a long discourse involving Jesus’ interpretation of “the law and the prophets” (Mt 5:17), and the necessity of “doing” and “teaching” the commandments of God (5:19) so as to attain a righteousness exceeding that of the scribes and Pharisees (5:20), ending with stern admonitions to “do the will of my Father who is in the heavens” (Mt 7:21; also 12:50), or to “hear my words and do them” (7:24). It is Matthew too who concludes that Jesus “was teaching them as having authority and not as their scribes” (7:29), a notice fully in keeping with the present context in John. Interestingly, Bultmann (274, n. 4) cites Martin Dibelius to the effect that “Jesus’ διδαχή contains an allusion to the Sermon on the Mount,” a notion Bultmann himself rejects.

23. Gr. ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ.

24. For example, 3:13, 16–21; 4:22; 6:27, 33, 46, 50, and 58, where the speaker is Jesus; 3:31–36, where the speaker is John; and 4:9, where the speaker is the Samaritan woman. See the comments on those passages; also Michaels, “The Johannine Words of Jesus and Christian Prophecy,” SBL 1975 Seminar Papers, 251–60.

25. So Bultmann, 275, n. 3: “The article in v. 18 is in both cases generic. The way it is phrased leaves open the question whether the principle could, in fact, be applied to others apart from Jesus.”

26. “Glory” (δόξα), means praise, honor, or prestige here, just as in 5:41 and 44 (BDAG, 257). Yet here it is less a matter of seeking God’s approval (as in 5:44, “the glory that comes from [παρά] the Only God”) than of seeing to it that all the honor goes to God and not the messenger.

27. “True” (ἀληθής) includes both the idea of “truthful” (in the sense of speaking the truth) and “honest” or “reliable” (in the sense of being worth of trust; see BDAG, 43). In this instance, the messenger is “true” because God is “true” (see 3:33; 8:26; and compare 7:28).

28. Ἀδικία (“wrong” or “falsehood”) occurs only here in John’s Gospel (although see 1 Jn 1:9; 5:17), and the phrase “nothing false is in him” should not be overinterpreted. It is simply a corollary of “true” (ἀληθής), implying honesty, and faithfulness to the Sender. “True” messengers” (aside from Jesus, see 8:46, 1 Jn 3:5) are not necessarily sinless but simply honest or reliable. For a similar use of a negative to reinforce a positive, see 1:47, “a true Israelite, in whom is no deceit”; also 1 John 2:27, where God’s “anointing ‘is true and is no lie’ ” (see Bultmann, 276: “when contrasted with ἀληθής, ἀδικία has the specific meaning of ‘lie, deceit’ ”).

29. See also 3:33, where it was John first of all who confirmed “that God is true” (ἀληθής).

30. See, for example, 8:5 (“in the law, Moses commanded us …”).

31. That is, οὐ Μωϋσῆς δέδωκεν ὑμῖν τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (6:32), and οὐ Μωϋσῆς δέδωκεν ὑμῖν τὸν νόμον (7:19).

32. Such a reading would be strangely reminiscent of the second-century Gnostic treatise, Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora (preserved by Epiphanius, Panarion 33.4.1–2: “The words of the Saviour teach us this triple division. The first part must be attributed to God himself and his legislating; the second to Moses (not in the sense that God legislates through him, but in the sense that Moses gave some legislation under the influence of his own ideas); and the third to the elders of the people” (R. M. Grant, Gnosticism, 185; see also B. Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, 309).

33. This is also in keeping with the synoptic Gospels, where both Jesus and the Gospel writers customarily refer to the law as “the law of Moses,” or as that which “Moses” said or commanded (see, for example, Mk 1:44; 7:10; 10:3–4 and Par.; also Lk 2:22; 24:44).

34. See Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 200.

35. Ironically, in 18:31 “the Jews” themselves confirm what Jesus says here: “It is not lawful [οὐκ ἔξεστιν] for us to kill anyone”; see J. R. Michaels, “John 18.31 and the ‘Trial’ of Jesus,” NTS 36.3 (1990), 474–79.

36. The rhetorical force of the words, “Why are you seeking to kill me?” is not to ask them seriously to give a reason for wanting to kill him (as, for example, in 10:32), but simply to level the charge that this is in fact their intention. The attempt of Lindars to spiritualize the charge on the grounds that “to refuse to accept Jesus is to seek to kill him” (289), and that “the real charge is that of spiritual murder incurred by the rejection of divine truth embodied in Jesus” (290) is not at all convincing.

37. Bultmann, 277; see also Westcott, 1.268: “The multitude, made up chiefly of pilgrims, not the people of Jerusalem (v. 25) and therefore unacquainted with the full designs of the hierarchy”; Bernard, 1.262: “This is a lifelike touch. It was not the ‘people,’ but the ‘Jews’, who had begun the plot; the people knew nothing of it”; Moloney, 245: “The people know nothing of this, and thus act as a foil both to Jesus’ knowledge of the decision to kill him and to the duplicity of ‘the Jews,’ who are attempting to debate with Jesus.” Morris (361) is more guarded: “This multitude professes to know nothing of the plot” (my italics).

38. There is wide agreement on this point, perhaps in part on the basis of 10:20 (“He has a demon, and is mad!”). See, for example, Lindars, 290; Bultmann, 277, n. 11; Brown, 1.312; Barrett, 319; Carson, 314. In the Synoptics, compare Matthew 11:18 and Luke 7:33, where the charge is leveled against John the Baptist simply because of his ascetic lifestyle.

39. This would be even more clearly the case if 8:48 (“Do we not say well that you are a Samaritan, and have a demon”) were read as referring back to something “the Jews” had said a chapter earlier (see Lindars, 290). This is unlikely, however.

40. It is difficult to say whether or not Morris (361; above, n. 37) is hinting as some such scenario.

41. See Michaels, “Temple Discourse,” 204–6.

42. Hoskyns (315) points out that that the distinction between “the Jews” and “the crowd” is “not maintained (v. 25), and the phrase the Jews seems often to be simply equivalent to the crowd (8:31 sqq., 12:9, &c.).” But it does not necessarily follow, as Hoskyns claims, that if this is the case, “their ignorance is simply a lie.”

43. To be sure, the author has implied that this “one work” was typical of Jesus’ behavior in a number of instances (see above, on 5:16), yet this was the one instance which in the narrative is said to have triggered the resolve of the Jewish authorities to “pursue” Jesus (5:16), and finally to seek his life (5:18). Moreover, the contrast between “one work” (emphasized by being placed first) and “you are all amazed” is rhetorically effective.

44. “That is why” (διὰ τοῦτο, literally “because of this”) is taken by some with the preceding verse: “One work I did, and you all were amazed because of this.” This makes good sense, but is unlikely here because John’s Gospel rarely if ever places διὰ τοῦτο anywhere but at the beginning of a clause or sentence (see Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 288–89). As translated here the connection is vaguer. Jesus is saying that God instituted the priority of circumcision over the Sabbath in order to convince the Jewish authorities that the welfare of “a whole man” takes precedence over the Sabbath all the more.

45. “Abolish” is λύειν, in the sense of “annul” or “destroy” (see 2:19). As with the Sabbath in 5:18, it is not simply a matter of failing to keep the law, but of ignoring its validity, and in effect annulling it.

46. Still, Bultmann overstates the case when he says, “The note is clearly of only academic interest, for it is of no importance in this context and only disturbs the line of argument” (278, n. 3). At the other extreme, Chrysostom argued that circumcision was “not of the Law, but of ‘the fathers,’ ” proving that “there are many things more authoritative than the Law” (Homilies 49.1; NPNF, 1st ser., 14.179). Rather, the Gospel writer wants to emphasize that whoever the human mediators may have been, the law (including both circumcision and the Sabbath) is from God, and God alone (see 1:17; 6:32).

47. See m. Shabbat 18.3 and 19.2: “They may perform on the Sabbath all things that are needful for circumcision” (Danby, The Mishnah, 116); also m. Nedarim 3.11: “R. Jose says, ‘Great is circumcision, which overrides even the rigour of the Sabbath’ ” (Danby, 268; for additional evidence, see Keener, 1.716, n. 128).

48. See Keener, 1.716, n. 126.

49. Gr. ὅλον ἄθρωπον. In this case the translation “man” is obviously justified.

50. The analogy between circumcision and healing seems to imply not a polemic against circumcision in the Johannine community, but on the contrary a respect for the practice as a form of healing (see, for example, Haenchen, 2.15, citing Numbers Rabbah 12, “the foreskin is a bodily blemish”). This is in keeping with Chrysostom’s remark (in Homilies 49.1; NPNF, 1st ser., 14.179) that “circumcision was ‘partial’ health. And what was the health procured by circumcision? ‘Every soul,’ it saith, ‘that is not circumcised, shall be utterly destroyed’ (Gen. 17:14).” In any event, the issue of imposing circumcision on Gentile Christians was not on John’s radar screen, and apparently not on Chrysostom’s.

51. See, for example, b. Shabbat 132a: “If circumcision, which is [performed on but] one of the limbs of a man, supersedes the Sabbath, the saving of life, a minori, must supersede the Sabbath”; also b. Yoma 85b: “If circumcision, which attaches to one only of the two hundred and forty-eight members of the human body, suspends the Sabbath, how much more shall [the saving of] the whole body suspend the Sabbath!” (Babylonian Talmud, Seder Moʾed [London: Soncino, 1938], 1.660, 3.421). See also Keener, 717, n. 139.

52. Paul too makes the point that “the whole body” is greater than any one of its parts (see 1 Cor 12:17). In at least one instance, the synoptic Jesus makes use of a different formula in which a single member becomes the indicator or index to the state of one’s “whole body” (Mt 6:22–23; Lk 11:34; see also Jas 3:3, 6).

53. This verb for being angry (χολᾶν), which occurs only here in the New Testament, is related to a word for bitter “gall” (χολή), which appears in Matthew’s account of the crucifixion (Mt 27:34), but the connection should not be pressed.

54. For similar words of self-defense from Jesus, see 8:40 (“But now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken to you the truth which I heard from God”), and 10:32 (“I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of these works do you stone me?”).

55. Gr. τὴν δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνετε. The negative present imperative (μὴ κρίνετε) could be rendered, “Stop judging,” implying that they were already “judging by appearance.” But the translation, “Don’t judge,” carries this nuance just as well. Some ancient manuscripts (including א, Θ, and the majority of later manuscripts) have the second imperative as aorist (κρίνατε), implying something like “hand down the right verdict.” But the present κρίνετε (supported by P66, P75, B, D, L, W, Ψ, and others) is probably to be preferred. The two verbs appear to be the same.

56. See, for example, Zechariah 7:9, LXX (Κρίμα δίκαιον κρίνατε); also Deuteronomy 16:18, LXX, where the judges in Israel are to “judge the people a right judgment” (κρινοῦσιν τὸν λαὸν κρίσιν δικαίαν).

57. Gr. κατʼ ὄψιν.

58. The phrase, “by what his eyes see,” in this passage is rendered in the LXX not by κατʼ ὄψιν, but by κατὰ τὴν δόξαν (probably not “according to glory” in this instance, but “according to [his] opinion,” or according to what seems right). See also 1 Samuel 16:7 (NRSV), “for the LORD does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” Perhaps significantly, the leader chosen on this principle was David (16:11–13), the original “stump of Jesse” and prototype of the Jewish Messiah (see Lindars, 292, who finds messianic significance in the possible allusion to Isa 11:3). Yet a similar principle is attested in the Hellenistic world (see, for example, Lysias, Orations 16.19: “It is appropriate neither to love or hate anyone because of appearance [απʼ ὄψεως], but to take account of deeds”; see Bultmann, 278, n. 4; Barrett, 321).

59. If 7:53–8:11 is read as part of John’s Gospel, it illustrates the point perfectly.

60. See Michaels, “Temple Discourse,” 206.

61. Gr. παρρησίᾳ.

62. Gr. ἐν παρρησίᾳ.

63. Gr. οἱ ἄρχοντες (evidently the same group as “the Jews” who were seeking his life).

64. The apparent question-and-answer format suggests this reading. Another possibility is that “some” (τίνες) in the group proposed that Jesus was “the Christ,” while “others” (ἄλλοι, unexpressed but implied) raised an objection (compare the various “schisms” in this Gospel, and the uses of ἄλλοι in vv. 12, 41; 9:16, and 10:21).

65. The Samaritans (though not necessarily the Jews) seem to have expected as well that when the Messiah came, he would “tell us all things” (4:25).

66. See, for example, 3:2; 9:31; also Mark 12:14; Romans 2:2; 3:19; 7:14; 8:22, 28; 2 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Timothy 1:8.

67. It remains unclear how either these “Jerusalemites” or “the rulers” in Jerusalem would have known Jesus’ origins. His first disciples (1:45, 46) and “the Jews” in Capernaum 6:42) knew where he was from, presumably, because they themselves were Galileans, but he has not so identified himself in Jerusalem either here or in chapters 2 or 5 (see, however 18:5, 8 and 19:19). The writer’s assumption in telling the story is that Jesus’ hostile interlocutors are in some sense everywhere the same, so that what is known of him in one place (6:42) can apply elsewhere as well.

68. As, for example, in 1 Enoch 48:6; 4 Ezra 12:32 and 13:52; and Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 8.4 and 110.1.

69. As Barrett puts it (322), “This however does not amount to much more than saying: ‘The Messiah will not be known until he is known,’ and is not a full parallel to the words in John, which imply that when the Messiah is known to be Messiah it will still not be known whence he has come.”

70. Gr. πόθεν ἐστίν.

71. If this is true of “everyone born of the Spirit,” readers can surely infer that it is true of Jesus, as he will soon make explicit (see 8:14).

72. Gr. ἔκραξεν.

73. In John’s Gospel, this idea is conveyed by κραυγάζειν (see 11:43; 12:13; 18:40; 19:6, 12, 15) rather than κράζειν.

74. That is, κηρύσσειν, “to proclaim” or preach.

75. Gr. ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ, as in v. 17.

76. For “True,” a very few ancient manuscripts (including P66 and א) have ἀληθής (probably under the influence of 3:33 and 8:26), while the great majority of manuscripts, both early and late, have ἀληθινός, almost certainly the original reading. There is little if any difference in meaning. I have capitalized “True” in translation because ἀληθινός here becomes something close to a title for God (as in 1 Jn 5:20; see also Jn 17:3). This was not the case in 3:33, not because ἀληθής was used there instead of ἀληθινός, but because “God” was already explicitly the subject of the clause, whereas here “True” actually defines who “the One who sent me” is.

77. Possibly Jesus’ use of ἀληθινός intentionally echoes the adverb ἀληθῶς. “truly,” in the Jerusalemites’ question, “Do the rulers truly know that he is the Christ?” (v. 26; see Keener, 1.719, n. 153).

78. Gr. παρʼ αὐτοῦ.

79. In almost the same breath, Jesus is deferential toward “the One who sent me,” acknowledging that “I have not come on my own” (v. 28), yet strongly assertive toward those challenging him (ἐγώ … εἰμι, v. 29).

80. Moreover, the verb “sought” (ἐζήτουν) is by this time familiar as an almost technical term for the efforts of “the Jews” to arrest or kill Jesus (see 5:18; 7:1, 11, 19, 20).

81. The few commentators who address the issue tend toward the contrary view, that “this attempt seems to be distinct from that of the authorities in vs. 32” (Brown, 1.313; also Barrett, 323: “a popular movement to seize Jesus, to be distinguished from the formal attempt at an arrest”). To be sure, the expression, “no one laid a hand on him,” could suggest a merely physical act of trying to lay hold of Jesus, but the the repetition of the same verb, which can mean either “to seize” or “to arrest,” in vv. 30 (πιάσαι) and 32 (ἵνα πιάσωσιν αὐτόν) suggests that the two initiatives are the same. Even Barrett admits (somewhat paradoxically) that “it would be unwise to suppose that John meant the distinction seriously” (323).

82. As we have seen, the pronouncement, “My time [καιρός] is not yet here” (7:6), has a different meaning.

83. See Luke 22:53, where Jesus tells “the chief priests and the temple guards and the elders” who had come to arrest him, “this is your hour, and the authority of the darkness” (my italics).

84. See (among many others) Keener, 1.719; Barrett, 323; Brown, 1.313; Bultmann, 306, n. 3. It is commonly suggested that miracles were more closely linked to certain messianic figures other than the anointed king from the line of David, above all “the Prophet” like Moses (see v. 40; also 1:21), or the Elijah figure thought to precede the day of the Lord. Possibly the notion that “John did no sign” (10:41) was intended to reinforce John’s own insistence that he himself was not “the Christ,” or “the Prophet,” or “Elijah” (see 1:21).

85. Schnackenburg, 2.149.

86. See especially Matthew 11:2–5, where the “works of the Christ” of which John heard in prison turn out to be such miracles of Jesus as healing the blind, the deaf, and the lame, cleansing lepers, and raising the dead (see also Lk 7:18–22); also Mark 13:22, where “false Christs” and “false prophets” try to gain acceptance by performing “signs and wonders,” and a number of passages both in John (2:18; 6:30) and in the Synoptics (Mt 12:38; Mk 8:11) where Jesus is challenged to perform signs in order to validate his authority.

87. The notice is phrased in such a way as to leave this impression. “The Pharisees heard the crowd murmuring” implies more than that they (mistakenly) interpreted their words as “murmuring.” The Gospel writer’s own use of “murmur” and “murmuring” (see v. 12; 6:41, 43, 61), suggests that he views matters in much the same way

88. Gr. ὑπηρέτας. While the word can be used very generally of any kind of helper or messenger, it is used here and elsewhere (see 18:3, 12, 18, 22; 19:6; also Mt 5:25; Mk 14:54, 65; Acts 5:22, 26) of “officers of the court” (perhaps in this case the Sanhedrin, or Jewish ruling council; see BDAG, 1035).

89. “I am” (εἰμί), both here and in verse 36, can also be read as εἶμι, an Attic future of ἔρχεσθαι (hence as “I shall go”; see v. 35, “Where will this man go?”). As Danker points out (BDAG, 286), this is a possible reading in 12:26, 14:3, and 17:24 as well (see also BDF, §99[1]). I have left it “I am” in order to acknowledge that a different verb is used here than the ὑπάγω of v. 33, of 8:21, 22, and of 13:33.

90. The verbs, according to 2 Kgs 2:17, LXX, are ζητεῖν and εὑρίσκειν respectively, as here. The “three days” is of interest to readers of John’s Gospel in light of 2:19, “Destroy this sanctuary, and in three days I will raise it up.” Also intriguing is Elijah’s repeated statement (familiar to Paul; see Rom 11:3) that “the Israelites have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword. I alone am left, and they are seeking my life” (1 Kgs 19:10, 14, NRSV, my italics; in the LXX, ζητοῦσι τὴν ψυχήν μου λαβεῖν αὐτήν (literally, “seeking my life to take it”).

91. See Acts of Pilate 15.1, where Nicodemus tells the Jewish council, “Just as the holy scriptures tell us that Elijah was also taken up into heaven.… And they searched for him for three days and did not find him, and they knew that he had been taken up (2 Kgs 2). And now listen to me, and let us send to every mountain in Israel and see whether the Christ was taken up by a spirit and cast upon a mountain.” This proposal “pleased them all,” we are told, “and they sent to every mountain of Israel, and searched [ἐζήτησαν] for Jesus and did not find him [οὐχ εὗρον]” (Hennecke-Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 1.464).

92. “I” (ἐγώ) and “you” (ὑμεῖς) ae both emphatic. Compare 8:23: “You [ὑμεῖς] are from below; I [ἐγώ] am from above. You [ὑμεῖς] are of this world; I [ἐγώ] am not of this world.” Moreover, the expression “you cannot come” (οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν) recalls the accent on “impossibility” (often wrapped up in the phrase οὐ δύναται) in Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus (see 3:1–6) and elsewhere (see, for example, 3:27; 6:44). Here the dualism is not tempered with an “unless” (ἐὰν μή) clause, as it is in most other examples.

93. On v. 34 (along with 8:21 and 13:33) as a riddle, see T. Thatcher, The Riddles of Jesus in John: A Study in Tradition and Folklore (Atlanta: Society for Biblical Literature, 2000), 257–60.

94. See 18:12, “the officers of the Jews” (οἱ ὐπηρέται τῶν Ἰουδαίων). Jesus applies the same principle (that is, that messengers are equivalent to those who send them) to himself in relation to the Father, and to his disciples in relation to himself (see 13:16, 20; 15:20).

95. See also 6:62: where Jesus spoke of seeing “the Son of man going up where he was at first.”

96. Gr. τὴν διασπορὰν τῶν Ἑλλήνων.

97. See BDF, §166, “Genitive of direction and purpose.” See Barrett, 325; Brown, 1.314; also Schnackenburg, who comments, “The expression ἡ διασπορά had already become a technical term, followed by a genitive to indicate the region concerned” (2.150; see also 2.476, n. 51, and the evidence given there).

98. This view is associated especially with J. A. T. Robinson in his article, “The Destination and Purpose of St. John’s Gospel,” in Twelve New Testament Studies (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1962), 107–25. Yet in dealing with this particular text, even Robinson is quite cautious, admitting that the words “are unfortunately ambiguous.” After setting forth the two alternatives, he states that “The decision between them can in fact only be made in the light of the Johannine context as a whole.” He then defends his view on the basis of his assumption (which few others will grant) that “there is no other reference in the Gospel or Epistles to a Gentile mission” (112, n. 7).

99. Gr. (τὰ ἔθνη). It uses only the singular (τὸ ἔθνος), and that in relation to “the nation” of Israel (see 11:48, 50, 51, 52).

100. In similar fashion, bewilderment and repetition work together to highlight a later pronouncement of Jesus, this time to his own disciples: “A short time, and you no longer see me, and again a short time, and you shall see me” (16:16; see vv. 17–19).

1. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 220–21; also the extended discussion in Barrett, 589–92.

2. By itself the phrase, “Now on the last day,” could evoke for the reader the expression, “at [or on] the last day,” used repeatedly in the preceding chapter in connection with the hope of future resurrection (see 6:39, 40, 44, 54). While this is obviously not the reference here, the effect is to give Jesus’ words from here to the end of chapter 8 a certain urgency (even though tempered somewhat by the notice shortly to follow, that “the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified,” v. 39).

3. Sukkah 4.8 (see Danby, 179). The ritual of this eighth day (at least as it took place at a later time) is discussed at length in the fifth-century midrash, Pesikta de-Rab Kahana 28 (ed. W. G. Braude and I. J. Kapstein [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1975], 424–44).

4. See Antiquities 3.245–47 (LCL, 4.435).

5. See Sukkah 4.1: “[The rites of] the Lulab and the Willow-branch [continue] six and sometimes seven days; the Hallel and the Rejoicing eight days; the Sukkah and the Water-libation, seven days; the Flute-playing, sometimes five and sometimes six days” (Danby, 178). Water libation is described in more detail in Sukkah 4.9.

6. Here, however, the tradition is not unanimous, for according to R. Judah the water libation went on for all eight days (see the Babylonian Talmud, b. Sukkah 48b).

7. See Hoskyns, 320: “The argument presupposes that the words of Jesus were occasioned by the ceremony. But it should be noted, first, that the evidence for the ceremony is wholly Rabbinic, there being no allusion to it in the Old Testament; secondly that, if there was such a ceremony, it was concerned with the drawing of water, not with the drinking of it; and thirdly that the theme reappears constantly in the gospel in passages where there is no connection with the feast of Tabernacles (4:14sqq., 6:35, 19:34; 1 John 5:6–8).” While few interpreters have followed Hoskyns at this point, his arguments have never been fully answered. His third point is particularly telling (even though “constantly” is a bit of an exaggeration!).

8. See Morris, 374; Carson, 321.

9. Gr. εἱστήκει. As in 1:35 (“John was there again”) and 3:29 (“the friend of the bridegroom who stands by”), this verb (literally, “stood” or “was standing”) emphasizes not so much a standing position as simply Jesus’ continuing presence at the festival. His mere presence was noteworthy in view of the attempt of the priests and Pharisees to arrest him (vv. 32–36).

10. Gr. ἔκραξεν. Here too the verb signals a solemn proclamation, not a mere shout. But Bultmann’s repeated characterization of it as “inspired speech” (75, n. 1; 297, 302) is overdrawn if taken to mean that these pronouncements are more “inspired” than other words of Jesus. The verb calls attention to the pronouncement to about the same extent as the “Amen, amen” formula does.

11. That at some point in the tradition the title “Rock” may have been linked to a saying similar to this can be seen from Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho 114.4, where Justin speaks of Christian believers being “willing to die for the name of the good Rock [τῆς καλῆς πέτρας], which causes living water [ζῶν ὕδωρ] to burst forth for the hearts of those who by Him have loved the Father of all, and which gives those who are willing to drink of the water of life” (ANF, 1.256).

12. Gr. πινέτω.

13. Gr. ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ. The “suspended nominative” (that is, a noun or pronoun standing alone in the nominative case, followed by an explanatory clause; see BDF, §466[4]; Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 308–9) is a common stylistic feature of John’s Gospel (see, for example, 1:12; 6:39; 8:45; 10:29; 15:2; 17:2, 24).

14. Gr. ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ, literally “from his stomach.”

15. This is the punctuation adopted by some of our earliest manuscripts (for example, P66), and many of the church fathers, especially in the Eastern Mediterranean area (see also most editions of the Greek text, and many English translations, for example, the KJV, Douay, RSV, NIV, NAB, and REB). Among commentators, see Barrett, 327; Morris, 395; Carson, 322–25; Lindars, 298–301; Hoskyns, 321–23; Bernard, 1.282; Lightfoot, 183.

16. Gr. λαμβάνειν (compare 1:16).

17. Schnackenburg (2.154) attempts to resolve the problem with this punctuation by translating, “If anyone believes in me, for him—as the Scripture says—rivers of living water will flow from his [Jesus’] heart.” This is a strained translation, first because of the need to supply “for him,” and second because when Jesus applies Scripture to himself in John’s Gospel, it is always with “me” or “my” (2:17; 13:18; 15:25), never with “him” or “his.”

18. Gr. ἐρχέσθω πρός με.

19. For this punctuation, see, for example, the NRSV, NEB, JB, GNB, NLT, and, among the commentators, Brown, 1.319; Dodd, Interpretation, 349; Bultmann, 303; Keener, 1.728–29; Whitacre, 195.

20. The NEB, for example, places quotation marks after “let him drink,” implying that Jesus’ pronouncement is over, and that the Scripture citation that follows is supplied by the Gospel writer. Bultmann (303, n. 5) attributes the quotation to a later “ecclesiastical editor.”

21. Gr. ἐν αὐτῷ.

22. In 4:14, the translation “never ever thirst” is based on the addition of εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (“to the age,” or “forever”) to the already emphatic οὐ μή (“by no means”) construction, while in 6:35 it is based on the addition of πωπότε (“at any time”). There is no discernible difference in meaning between the two expressions.

23. See Westcott, 1.178: “He who drinks of the Spiritual Rock becomes in turn himself a rock from within which the waters flow to slake the thirst of others. He is not only satisfied himself: he overflows. The Christian, in some sense, becomes a Christ (1 John 2.)”—yet an accompanying note tells us that “Bishop Westcott … ‘now inclines’ to interpret αὐτοῦ of Christ” (!). For the view that the believer becomes a channel to others, see also Morris, 375; Hoskyns, 322; Barrett, 328; Bernard, 1.282.

24. See Michaels, 139: “That the believer in Jesus will become a channel of God’s life to others is implicit in the total message of John’s Gospel, but is not the point of either 4:14 or 7:37–38 in particular.” See also Carson, 323–24. The point is made already in Isa 58:11, “You will be like a well-watered garden, like a spring whose waters never fail” (NIV; see also Sirach 24:31).

25. The reader of John’s Gospel may also remember at this point the extravagant quantity of water changed to wine at Cana (2:6), not to mention the abundance of expensive perfume when Mary of Bethany anointed Jesus (12:3), the enormous weight of spices brought to embalm Jesus after his crucifixion (19:39), and the catch of 153 fish after the resurrection (21:11).

26. See, for example, R. H. Lightfoot, who comments that “whereas to come to the Lord and to drink of Him are synonymous, the believer on Him is by no means in the same case as he who thirsts” (183); also Barrett, 327; Carson, 324.

27. These include Psalm 78:16; 114:8; Isaiah 43:20; 44:3; 55:1; Ezekiel 47:1–12; Joel 3:18. In such texts God is the giver of water, whether from a rock (as in Exod 17:6; Num 20:7–11) or from the city of Jerusalem.

28. Gr. (LXX): ὕδωρ ζῶν.

29. Gr. (LXX): σκηνοπηγία, just as in John 7:2.

30. The phrase “on that day” is repeated over and over again in the chapter (Zech 14:1, “a day is coming,” and 14:4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 20, 21). “That day” was to Zechariah what the day of Jesus’ utterance is to the Gospel of John: “the last day, the great day of the festival.”

31. Gr. ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

32. See ANF, 1.267.

33. Gr. λατομηθέντες.

34. Gr. ἡ γραφή.

35. See Romans 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:8, “rock of offense” (πέτρα σκανδάλου), based on Isa 8:14). Notice also that in Justin’s Dialogue (135.3), the point being made is that Christians are “the true Israelite race.”

36. Schnackenburg, 2.155–56. Also J. Grelot, “Jean VII, 38: Eau de Rocher Ou Source du Temple?” RB 70 (1963), 43–53, which he cites.

37. Gr. τοῦτο δὲ εἴπεν.

38. See G. D. Fee, “Once More—John 7:37–39,” Expository Times 89 (1977–78), 116–18. This point is not altogether conclusive because here (in contrast to other Scripture citations in John’s Gospel) “the Scripture” has just been represented as having “spoken” almost as a person would speak (for even clearer examples of this tendency to personify “the Scripture” see Gal 3:8 and 22).

39. That is, the δέ in τοῦτο δὲ εἴπεν, which can be rendered either as “and” or “but.”

40. Gr. ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν.

41. Gr. οὔπω.

42. As commentators have been careful to point out, “the Spirit was not yet” does not mean that the Holy Spirit did not yet exist. Jesus had obviously stated that “God is Spirit” (4:24), and “the Spirit is that which makes alive” (6:63, my italics). The point is rather that the Holy Spirit had not yet come, or been given. This is properly clarified in certain textual witnesses (including B) that define “the Spirit” as “the Holy Spirit” and add the participle “given” (δεδόμενον), and in others (including D) that expand the text to read, “the Holy Spirit was not yet upon them” (ἐπʼ αὐτούς). But the overwhelming textual evidence omits both the participle and the prepositional phrase, allowing readers to fill in the gaps and supply the right meaning for themselves (see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 218).

43. Gr. ἐδοξάσθη.

44. “Some” (which would have been τινές) is not in the Greek text, but is implied by the partitive genitive with the preposition ἐκ: literally, “from the crowd, when they heard” (see BDF, §164[2]).

45. The agreement extends even to the repetition of the adverb “truly” (ἀληθῶς). All that is missing is the participial phrase, “who is coming into the world.”

46. The comparable confession by the Samaritans at Sychar, “This is truly [ἀληθῶς] the Savior of the world” (4:42) is different, in that it is preceded by an explicit claim that they “believed” (4:39, 41–42).

47. The definite article (οἱ) functions here as a demonstrative pronoun, “these” or “they” (see BDAG, 686; BDF, §249). Some important manuscripts (including the first hand of P66, א, D, Ψ, and the majority of later manuscripts) settle the matter in favor of a third voice by substituting ἄλλοι (“others”) for οἱ. But the latter (supported by P75, B, L, N, T, W, Θ, and the Latin tradition) is the more difficult reading, and probably original.

48. See Brown, 1.319.

49. See verse 52, where much the same objection seems to be raised against Jesus as “prophet” that is raised here against his being “the Christ.”

50. That David’s line would continue forever, and consequently that the Messiah would be David’s descendant, was a notion widely attested in the Hebrew Bible (for example, 2 Sam 7:12; Ps 89:4, 29, 36; Isa 11:1–2; Jer 23:5; see also Psalms of Solomon 17:21); that he would come from Bethlehem, the city of David, much less so.

51. Curiously but perhaps coincidentally, the rhetorical question, “Did not the Scripture say?” (οὐχ ἡ γραφὴ εἶπεν) echoes Jesus’ own words, “just as the Scripture said” (καθὼς εἶπεν ἡ γραφή) in verse 38. In the first instance, as we saw, “the Scripture” was virtually unidentifiable, while here it is unmistakably clear. What they appear to have in common is that both are paraphrases rather than word-for-word quotations. Their similarity may also suggest that to the Gospel writer the second is just as true and just as important as the first.

52. Surprisingly, this text is not attested in Jewish sources in connection with messianic expectations before the fourth century, and some have suggested that it may have been introduced first by Christians in light of the fact that Bethlehem was in fact Jesus’ birthplace (see, for example, Dodd, Interpretation, 90–91). But this is unlikely because both in Matthew and in John it is attributed to Jesus’ opponents, not to Jesus or the Gospel writer. Even Dodd (91) allows for “the possibility that interpretations of the Old Testament which seemed to favour Christian claims may have been deliberately abandoned in the rabbinic schools” (see Schnackenburg, 2.158).

53. As Schnackenburg puts it, “one might ask whether the evangelist would have dismissed so easily an objection formulated on the basis of Scripture” (2.159). The matter can be put even more strongly. “The Scripture” (ἡ γραφή) is always authoritative in John’s Gospel (see 2:11; 5:39; 7:38; 20:9), and destined to be “fulfilled” (see 13:18; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36, 37). In only one other instance do Jesus’ opponents appeal to Scripture (6:31), and there Jesus is careful not to question what “is written,” but simply to clarify its meaning (6:32–33). Nor is it likely that either Jesus or the Gospel writer took issue with the assertion of the crowd that “We have heard out of the law that the Christ remains forever” (12:34; compare 8:35). Even the claim that “the Christ, when he comes, no one knows where he is from,” which is not backed up by Scripture, is allowed to go unchallenged.

54. In addition to Schnackenburg (see n. 41), see, for example, Bernard, 1.286; Barrett, 330; Brown, 1.330; Keener, 1.730. According to Bultmann, by contrast (306, n. 6), “The Jews, of course, are as little mistaken in this as they were in 6:42; 7:27. That is to say, the Evangelist knows nothing, or wants to know nothing of the birth in Bethlehem.”

55. Gr. σχίσμα.

56. Gr. πιάσαι, as in verse 30.

57. Predictably, Rudolf Bultmann (see 302–9) rearranged the text so that the attempt to arrest Jesus here and the attempt in vv. 32–36 coincide (thus, v. 30 is followed by vv. 37–44, then by v. 31 and vv. 32–36, finally by vv. 45–52). There are still two attempts. The better procedure is to link the attempt in verse 30 to verses 31–36, as we have done and as the Johannine order seems to require.

58. The simple words, “No man ever spoke like that” (οὐδέποτε … οὕτως), recall the reaction in Mark to the healing of the paralytic, “We have never seen such a thing” (οὕτως οὐδέποτε, Mk 2:12), and in Matthew to the healing of a deaf mute, “Never has such a thing been seen in Israel” (οὐδέποτε … οὕτως, Mt 9:33; italics added). The vocabulary is different in John 9:32, but the point is much the same: “Not since time began was it ever heard that anyone opened the eyes of someone born blind.”

59. Heb. . The text most often cited is the statement of Hillel, “A brutish man dreads not sin, and an ignorant man [or ʿam haʾaretz] cannot be saintly” (m. Abot 2.6; see Danby, 448). A similar outlook probably underlies the amazement of “the Jews,” who mistook Jesus for such a person when they asked, “How does this man know letters, being uninstructed?” (v. 15). On such attitudes among the Jewish elite generally, see Keener, 1.731–33.

60. Bultmann (310, n. 4) comments that this verse’s “conjunction with the previous clause (ἀλλά) implies the idea, ‘What if the ὄχλος does believe in him!’ ”

61. Barrett suggests the opposite, that “Possibly John means that for all his good will and fair-mindedness, Nicodemus remains one of the Jews, not one of the disciples” (332). On the contrary, the notice that he was “one of them” lends weight to his words (mild as they are) on Jesus’ behalf, and gives the lie to the implication that none of the rulers or Pharisees have believed in Jesus.

62. The law is personified here, much as “the Scripture” was personified (v. 38), as the subject of the verb “to judge” (κρίνει). Whether “the man” (τὸν ἄνθρωπον) is any accused person or Jesus in particular is difficult to say. The definite article is surprising, and it is worth noting that Jesus will be designated as “the man” (ὁ ἄνθρωπος) precisely at the moment of his condemnation (19:5).

63. Jesus himself, by contrast, consistently speaks of “your” law (8:17; 10:34), or “their” law (15:25). See also 7:19, “Has Moses not given you the law?” (my italics).

64. That is, with μή, expecting a negative answer. See Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 193, who comments that μή is “used interrogatively in the Fourth Gospel more frequently than in all the Three Gospels taken together.”

65. For yet another deliberative question with μή, see v. 35, “Will he go to the dispersion of the Greeks?”

66. Gr. γνῷ τὶ ποιεῖ. See Chrysostom, Homily 52, “For the meaning of, ‘know what he doeth,’ is, ‘what he intendeth,’ ‘on what account,’ ‘for what purpose,’ ‘whether for the subversion of the order of things and as an enemy’ ” (NPNF, n.s., 14.187).

67. See also 2:23, “many believed in his name, for they could see the signs he was doing” (ἃ ἐποίει).

68. See above, n. 58.

69. So Bultmann: “for them the matter was already closed!” (311).

70. This is, of course, even more conspicuous if “the Jews” (vv. 11, 15, 35) are understood as “the Judeans,” but that is doubtful, as we have seen, given the presence of “the Jews” in Galilee as well (see 6:41, 52).

71. See 5:39, “You search the Scriptures.” In Jesus’ pronouncement, “search” (ἐραυνᾶτε) could have been read as either imperative or indicative, but was more likely indicative. Here, “search” (ἐραύνησον) is unmistakably imperative. A few ancient manuscripts (D and others) actually add “the Scriptures” (τὰς γραφάς) here, but this is unlikely. For a similar expression using different vocabulary, see Matthew 9:13, where Jesus tells the Pharisees, “Go, learn what it is, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ ”

72. Also, the often-quoted b. Sukkah 27b, “There was not a tribe in Israel from which there did not come prophets,” and one or two late rabbinic references specifying every town or city in Israel (see Keener, 1.734, n. 298).

73. That is, ὁ προφήτης, as in v. 40.

74. See Bultmann, 312, n. 1, a suggestion that he made even in the first German edition, before the publication of P66. The conjecture goes back to a Dr. Owen in the eighteenth century (see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 219).

75. See my article, “Some Notable Readings of Papyrus Bodmer II,” 8 (1957), 150–54. Since then, “the Prophet” seems also to be supported by a second Bodmer manuscript, P75. At the same time, it must be admitted that the weight of textual evidence supports the anarthrous προφήτης.

76. This raises the question of whether “the Prophet” may have been a more characteristically Galilean expectation, but there is no way to be certain of that. The parallelism between “the Prophet who is coming into the world” (6:14) and “the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world” (11:27) further supports the interchangeability of the two titles, at least in the eyes of some Jews at the time.

77. Here, with the earliest and most important manuscripts, we move directly from 7:52 to 8:12, on the assumption that 7:53–8:11 is a later addition to the text. After dealing with 8:12–20, we will go back and look at the narrative with 7:53–8:11 included.

78. It has often been suggested (see Keener, 1.739) that this pronouncement was especially appropriate in the setting of the Tent festival (see m. Sukkah 5.2–3, describing the lighting of four giant candlesticks “at the close of the first Festival-day” in the “Court of the Women” in the Jerusalem temple, so that “there was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that did not reflect the light of the Beth ha-Sheʾubah”—that is, “The place of the Water-drawing”). The place is right, for “the treasury” where this discourse was said to take place (see v. 20) was in fact near or within “the Court of the Women,” but the time (“at the close of the first Festival-day”) is obviously wrong (see 7:37). There is no more reason (less in fact) to believe that this tradition is determinative for understanding Jesus’ pronouncement here than there was in 7:37–38. As Keener admits, “John does not restrict his light imagery to this feast” (also C. H. Dodd, who mentions the Tent festival’s light celebration but cautions that “no stress is laid upon it” (Interpretation, 349).

79. For an anticipation of this note of hope, see 3:21, “but whoever does the truth comes to the Light, so that his works will be revealed as works wrought in God.” Here too, as we have seen, Jesus was speaking, but not yet in the magisterial first person (ἐγώ εἰμι) as the Revealer of God.

80. See also 10:9 (“I am the Door. Through me if anyone enter he will be saved, and will go in and go out and will find pasture”), 11:25–26 (“I am the Resurrection and the Life. The person who believes in me, even though he die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die forever”), and 15:5 (“I am the Vine, you are the branches; the person who dwells in me and I in him, this person bears much fruit”). In such instances, the invitation is expressed either by an “if” clause (as in 6:51 and 10:9) or by a participle (“whoever,” or “the person who,” as in 6:35, 8:12, 11:25–26, and 15:5), but with little difference in meaning.

81. He does so only implicitly: “If anyone walk in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world” (that is, the sun, 11:9).

82. For the imagery of Jesus’ life as “walking,” see 1:36; 6:60; 7:1; 10:23; 11:54; and for discipleship as “following” him, see 1:37–38, 40, 43; 6:2; 10:4, 5, 27; 12:26; 13:36–37; 21:19, 22.

83. An analogy comes to mind with the “pillar of fire” that led the Israelites in the desert “to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night” (Exod 13:21, NIV). Yet even though some have linked the lighting celebration at the Tent festival to those Exodus events (see Keener, 1.739), the parallel is probably unintended. The imagery is more appropriately interpreted from within John’s Gospel itself.

84. Note such expressions as “with each other” (πρὸς ἀλλήλους, 6:52) and “to themselves” (πρὸς ἑαυτούς, 7:35), and “this man” (οὗτος, 6:41, 52; 7:15, 35) or “that man” (ἐκεῖνος, 7:11) with reference to Jesus. This phenomenon occurs in the other Gospels as well (see, for example, Mt 21:38; Mk 2:6–8; 11:31; 14:4; Lk 4:36; 7:39, 49), and in John’s Gospel even among Jesus’ disciples (6:60; 16:17–18; see also Mk 4:41; 8:16–17; 10:26).

85. See, for example, m. Ketubbot 2.9, “But none may be believed when he testifies of himself” (Danby, 247).

86. In invoking this principle in 5:31, as we have seen, Jesus put himself in the position of prosecutor and “the Jews” as defendants. Here his interlocutors, by parroting his words, turn the tables, but in doing so fail to take the responsibility of calling witnesses, insisting instead that he do so.

87. Gr. ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ (see 5:19; 7:17–18).

88. Gr. ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ οἴδατε.

89. For a similar shift, but in the reverse direction, see 5:30–31.

90. While the verb κρίνειν (“to judge”) does not occur in that story, the compound καταρίνειν (“to condemn”) does occur twice (8:10 and 11).

91. See, for example, 1:11–12 (“his own did not receive him, … to as many as did receive him”); 3:19–21 (“human beings loved the dark and not the Light, … but whoever does the Truth comes to the Light”), and 3:32–33 (“no one receives his testimony. The person who did receive his testimony confirmed thereby that God is true”). And for a different kind of apparent contradiction, see 12:44, “The person who believes in me does not believe in me, but in the One who sent me.”

92. Gr. μόνος.

93. Some ancient manuscripts (including א*, D, and the old Syriac versions) omit “Father” so as to read simply “the One who sent me” (as more commonly in John’s Gospel), but virtually all other important witnesses (including P66 and P75) include “Father,” making its appearance in v. 18 less abrupt (see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 223).

94. For a partial analogy, see Hebrews 2:13, where the author (speaking as if it were Jesus speaking) quotes Isaiah 8:17, “I [ἐγώ] will be confident in him” (that is, in God), and then in words drawn from the very next verse, Isaiah 8:18, immediately defines “I” as “I and the children which God gave me.”

95. Both here and in v. 16 (“And yet if I judge …”), the combination of καί and δέ, and the placement of δέ rather late in its clause, gives emphasis to the pronouncement, as if to say, “and what’s more,” or “and especially” (see Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 106–7; Barrett, 339)

96. Gr. γέγραπται. More common in John’s Gospel is the form ἐστὶν γεγράμμενον, but the meaning is the same (see 2:17; 6:31, 45; 10:34; 12:14; and compare 12:16, 15:25). In 10:34, Jesus goes on to say explicitly, “The Scripture cannot be broken” (v. 35).

97. See, for example, Dodd, Interpretation, 82; Brown, 1.341; Schnackenburg, 2.487.

98. See Keener’s discussion (1.741).

99. The form of this pronouncement (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ μαρτυρῶν) resembles (probably intentionally) the form of Jesus’ classic “I am” sayings (as in v. 12, and earlier in 6:35, 47). Yet as Bultmann noted (282, n. 5), it is not the same because “I” is actually the predicate and not the subject of the sentence (as if to say, “It is I who testify”).

100. Gr. δύο ἀνθρώπων. The biblical texts say merely “witnesses.” Whether or not “two men” is intended to exclude women is uncertain. According to Josephus, Moses said, “Put not trust in a single witness, but let there be three or at the least two, whose evidence shall be accredited by their past lives. From women let no evidence be accepted, because of the levity and temerity of their sex” (Antiquities 4.219; LCL, 4.581). Yet on women’s testimony in the Gospel of John, see 4:39 and 42.

101. Bultmann (282) calls it a “satirical reply,” and “not an argument at all but an expression of scorn.” But while scorn is surely present (see v. 19b), from the Gospel writer’s perspective the argument is very real and quite compelling.

102. “Father” is capitalized in the Douay, KJV, ERV, ASV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, Moffatt, and Knox (among others), but is left lower case in most modern English versions, including Confraternity, NIV, NEB, REB, NAB, TEV, and NLT (Richmond Lattimore’s translation leaves all references to “the father” in lower case).

103. Something like this could be inferred from 8:41, “We [ἡμεῖς] are not born of immorality,” or from 8:48, “You are a Samaritan, and you have a demon” (see Hoskyns, 332–33).

104. As Westcott remarks (2:7), their question was not “Who is your father?” but “Where is your father?”

105. See Whitacre, 213: “Since the two witnesses required by the law do not include the accused, this would not be a valid legal argument. So Jesus seems to use the law in a nonlegal way to bear witness to his relationship with the Father” (also Brown, 1.341).

106. For both an echo and a striking contrast to this sharp exchange, see 14:7, where Jesus first tells his disciples, “If you have known me, you will know my Father too,” to which Philip replies, “Lord, show us the Father” (v. 8), and Jesus tells Philip, “Such a long time I have been with you, and you have not known me, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father” (v. 9).

107. Gr. ἐν τῷ γαζοφυλακείῳ.

108. See BDAG, 186.

109. See George Adam Smith, Jerusalem (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1907–8), 2.510. Smith implies that this may have been the case in 2 Maccabees 3:24 and 28 as well, in connection with Heliodorus’s ill-fated attempt to “enter” and pillage “the treasury” (also singular).

110. Origen commented that the notice “is to show that if all contribute the things to support the needy into the treasury of the temple on behalf of the common good, Jesus, more than all others, should have brought things that were beneficial. These were the words of eternal life and his teaching about God and himself” (Commentary on John 19.53; FC, 89.180).

111. Gr. εἶπεν οὖν πάλιν αὐτοῖς.

112. Origen bluntly writes, “perhaps, if I may put it this way, Jesus killed himself in a more divine manner” (Commentary on John 19.98; FC, 89.190).

113. Gr. ἐκ τῶν κάτω.

114. Gr. ἐκ τῶν ἄνω.

115. Gr. ἐκ τούτου τοῦ κόσμου.

116. See also 18:36, “My kingdom is not from this world.” For the kindred phrase “from the world” (ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου), see 15:19; 17:14, 16. In the book of Revelation, the phrase “the inhabitants of the earth” carries much the same negative connotation that “the world” carries in the Gospel of John (see Rev 3:10; 6:10; 8:13; 11:10; 13:6, 12, 14; 17:2, 8).

117. There is probably no significant difference between “die in your sin” (ἐν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ὑμῶν, v. 21) and “die in your sins” (ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν, v. 24).

118. Gr. ἐὰν μή.

119. Nor have we heard the last of it (see vv. 28, 53; 13:19; 18:5–6, 8).

120. Interpretation, 93–96; also Brown, 1.533–38; Harner, The “I Am” of the Fourth Gospel.

121. In the Greek LXX, ἐγώ εἰμι, and in the Hebrew, ; literally (“I—He”).

122. See, for example, Isaiah 41:4; 43:10, 25; 45:18, 19; 48:12; 51:12; 52:6; also Deuteronomy 32:39.

123. As we will see, 8:58 is quite another matter. According to Keener (1.770), “Given the absolute use in 8:58 and John’s propensity for double entendres, however, the implications of deity may carry over to the other uses as well. The implied deity of such ‘I am’ statements would recall the implied reader to the introduction (1:1–18).” Yet while the reader does know in a general way that “the Word was God” (1:1), it is by no means evident as yet that this is what Jesus is telling the Jews they must believe. Rather, his focus continues to be on the Father (see vv. 26–29).

124. This is not the last time the question will be asked. See 10:24, where “the Jews encircled Jesus and said to him, ‘How long will you take away our soul? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.’ ”

125. Gr. τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅ τι [or ὅτι] καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν.

126. See BDAG, 138; BDF, §300; also Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 142–44; Bultmann, 352–53.

127. The sense requires rather “What I told you—or have been telling you—from the beginning.” A variant reading in the margin of one ancient witness (P66) tries to help by adding the words εἶπον ὑμῖν before τὴν ἀρχήν, yielding the translation, “I told you in the beginning what I am telling you [now].” But the manuscript evidence is too weak, and the added words are clearly a scribal attempt to clarify a difficult text.

128. With τὴν ἀρχήν understood adverbially, equivalent to the adverb ὅλως, “entirely” or “at all.” For examples of this usage (which requires reading ὅτι as “that”), see Bultmann, 352, n. 1.

129. As, for example, in the third-century Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 6.11 (GCS, 110): “If you do not follow the things I am saying, why do I speak at all?” (τὶ καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν διαλέγομαι). Or, according to Chrysostom, “What He saith, is of this kind; ‘Ye are not worthy to hear My words at all, much less to learn who I am’ ” (Homilies on John 53; NPNF, 1st ser., 14.191);

130. The close connection between the two verses is supported by the threefold repetition of the verb λαλεῖν, “to speak” or “to say”: λαλῶ (“I say,” v. 25), λαλεῖν (“to say,” v. 26), and λαλῶ (“I say,” v. 26).

131. Or more literally, “To begin with [τὴν ἀρχήν], what do I even say to you?” (reading ὅ τι as “what” or “something which”).

132. That is, “on my own” (ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ, as in v. 28; also 5:30; 7:17, 28; and see 5:19; 7:18).

133. The strong adversative ἀλλά is crucial to the meaning of the sentence. The Father’s directive sets limits to what Jesus is free to say or not say to the world.

134. See 7:28, “I have not come on my own, but the One who sent me is True, whom you do not know” (“True” deserves capitalization here as well).

135. In two other narrative asides (10:6; 12:16), the Gospel writer similarly explains that certain characters in the story “did not know” (οὐκ ἔγνωσαν) what was being said or done.

136. A second “that” is supplied because the conjunction “that” (ὅτι) should be understood as governing not just the expression “I am,” but the entire clause that follows (so Schnackenburg, 2.203, and most English versions). Carson, however, argues for a full stop after “I am,” commenting that “nothing in the Greek text corresponds to NIV’s ‘that.’ Rather, Jesus goes on to say, ‘And I do nothing on my own …’, recapitulating the argument” (345; see also Westcott, 2.11). Yet “I do” (ποιῶ) in the second clause is probably to be understood as having the ἐγώ of the preceding ἐγώ εἰμι clause as its subject as well (compare εγὼ … ποιῶ, v. 29). The full stop and the new beginning come rather with the change of subject in verse 29, “And the One who sent me is with me.”

137. Gr. ὅταν ὑψώσητε.

138. There were exceptions. According to Josephus, the Hasmonean Jewish king Alexander Jannaeus “ordered some eight hundred of the Jews to be crucified, and slaughtered their children and wives before the eyes of the still living wretches” (Antiquities 13.380; LCL, 7.417).

139. It is, however, consistent with the Johannine passion narrative, in which Pilate handed Jesus over “to them [that is, to ‘the Jews’] to be crucified” (ἵνα σταυρωθῇ, 19:16; see vv. 12, 15).

140. Gr. τότε γνώσεσθε.

141. See Schnackenburg, 2.202, who asks, “How should this announcement by Jesus be understood? From the point of view of damnation (‘Then it will be too late’), or from the point of view of salvation (‘Then they will be given the knowledge’)?” After a nuanced discussion, he concludes that “it is left open where this recognition will lead, to faith and salvation or to total obduracy and final destruction. But: ‘they shall look upon him whom they have pierced.’ The exalted one, the pierced one, is a sign from God which no-one can ignore” (2.203).

142. It would be a mere tautology to say they would know that “I am the Son of man.” It would mean only that they realized that the “Son of man” whom they had just crucified was Jesus—hardly a new revelation.

143. Or on the previous day, if 7:53–8:11 is read into the Gospel.

144. See (perhaps) 19:37; Revelation 1:7; also Schnackenburg’s comment above, n. 141. For a possible example of such knowledge coming too late, see 2 Clement 17.5, where “the unbelievers” (οἱ ἄπιστοι, though not identified as “Jews”) exclaim at the last day, “Woe to us, for it was you [ὅτι σὺ ῇς], and we did not know” (see J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989], 2.255: “The preacher seems to be alluding to this language of our Lord, as recorded by St. John”).

145. It is doubtful that any of these pronouncements has anything at all to do with Jesus’ cry of dereliction according to Mark (15:34) and Matthew (27:46), “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.”

146. Gr. τὰ ἀρεστὰ αὐτῷ. In this respect Jesus becomes an example to believers (see 1 Jn 3:22, “And whatever we ask from him we receive, because we keep his commands, and we do the things that are pleasing [τὰ ἀρεστά] before him”). The passage may also have influenced Ignatius in the early second century, who wrote “that there is one God, who made himself known through Jesus Christ his Son, who is his Word proceeding from silence, who in all things [κατὰ πάντα] was well pleasing [εὐηρέστησεν] to the One who sent him” (To the Magnesians 8.2).

147. It also bears comparison also with certain traditions about Jesus as God’s “beloved” or “only” Son in whom the Father is “well pleased” (εὐδόκησα, Mk 1:11; Mt 3:17; 17:5).

148. To Chrysostom, the Sabbath was still the issue, for Jesus was here “continually setting Himself against that which they asserted, that He was not of God, and that He kept not the Sabbath. To this He replieth, ‘I do always those things that are pleasing to Him’; showing that it was pleasing unto Him even that the Sabbath should be broken” (Homilies on John 53; NPNF, 1st ser., 14.191).

149. The placement of the passage at the very end of John’s Gospel, after 21:25 (in a number of later manuscripts known as Family 1), seems to have been a counsel of despair, without attention to context, motivated simply by a concern that the story not be lost.

150. One has only to put them side by side (with the verbal similarities in italics) to sense the redundancy: “Days he was teaching in the temple, and nights he would go out and lodge on the Mount that was called Olives, and all the people would come to him in the morning in the temple to hear him (Luke). And they went off, each to his house, while Jesus went off to the Mount of Olives. In the morning he again showed up at the temple, and all the people were coming to him, and he sat and began teaching them” (Woman caught in adultery). While Luke describes Jesus’ customary or repeated practice during his last week on earth, the story preserved here describes one particular night and morning. The redundancy is alleviated somewhat if it is assumed that Luke 21:37–38 was “composed to fill the gap caused by the removal of this paragraph” (Barrett, 589), that is, that it originally followed 21:36, so that those who “went off, each to his house” are those to whom he was speaking in 21:5–36, presumably his own disciples.

151. Gr. πᾶς ὁ λαός.

152. As for Luke’s Gospel, while Luke knows and uses the expression “the scribes and the Pharisees” (see Lk 5:21, 30; 6:7; 11:53; 15:2), the Lukan passion narrative consistently prefers “the scribes and the chief priests” (Lk 19:47; 20:1, 19; 22:2, 66; 23:10; see also 9:22).

153. Gr. διδάσκαλε.

154. Among many instances in all three synoptic Gospels, see Matthew 8:19 (“a scribe”); 12:38 (“scribes and Pharisees”); 22:16 (“the Pharisees”), 24 (“Sadducees”), 36 (“one of the Pharisees”); Lk 10:25 (“a legal scholar”), 18:18 (“a certain ruler”).

155. Among others, see Keener, 1.737; Barrett, 591–92; Morris, 782; Whitacre, 206; also Brown, 1.337 (though with some caution as to whether the Jewish Sanhedrin in fact had this power).

156. See my article, “John 18:31 and the ‘Trial’ of Jesus,” NTS 36.3 (1990), 475–76.

157. See Leviticus 20:10, “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death” (NIV); Deuteronomy 22:22–24, “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel. If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in the town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you” (NIV).

158. See above, on 1:38.

159. See, for example, Keener, 1.737; Schnackenburg, 2.165–66; Brown, 1.333–34. A common view is that the action has something to do with Jeremiah 17:13, “those who turn away from thee shall be written in the earth, for they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living water” (RSV), the point being not that those were the actual words written, but that Jesus was acting out that prophecy. It is remotely possible that Jesus wrote down what he would shortly say to the woman’s accusers (v. 7), with the implication that what is “written” is of greater authority than what is merely spoken (see Jesus’ citations of Scripture as “written”; also Pilate’s comment in 19:22). But this is very doubtful in light of Jesus’ repeated emphasis on the authority of the spoken words his Father has given him (as, for example, in 8:26, 28, and 38), and in any case does not adequately explain why he wrote on the ground a second time (v. 8).

160. The Greek expressions are κάτω κύψας and ἀνέκυψεν respectively.

161. The Greek expressions are κατακύψας and ἀνακύψας respectively.

162. The reader is almost led to expect the storyteller’s adverb οὕτως, “like this,” as in 4:6, but it does not occur, and the story achieves the desired effect quite nicely without it.

163. Gr. ἐν πρώτοις (LXX).

164. Gr. ἀναμάρτητος.

165. See K. H. Rengstorf, ἀναμάρτητος, TDNT, 1.333–35. See, for example, Epistle of Aristeas 252, where the Egyptian king asks one of the translators of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, “How can one be without fault [ἀναμάρτητος]?” The reply was, “By doing everything with considered judgment, not influenced by misrepresentations, but being your own judge of what was said, and in your judgment directing aright matters concerned with petitions made to you, and through your judgment bringing them to pass—that is how you would be without fault [ἀναμάρτητος], O King” (OTP, 2.29). Philo uses the word in a context in which he has just written, “Should we then seek to find in the medley of life one who is perfectly just or wise or temperate or good in general? Be satisfied, if you do but find one who is not unjust, is not foolish, is not licentious, is not cowardly, is not altogether evil. We may be content with the overthrow of vices, [but] the complete acquisition of virtues is impossible for man, as we know him.” Only then does he add that “freedom from sin [τὸ ἀναμάρτητον] and guilt is a great furtherance towards a happy life” (On the Change of Names 50–51; LCL, 5.167–69).

166. As Schnackenburg admits, “The word need not mean total sinlessness, merely not guilty” (2.481, n. 120). So too Brown, who comments that Jesus “is dealing here with zealots who have taken on themselves the indignant enforcement of the Law, and he has every right to demand that their case be thoroughly lawful and their motives be honest” (1.338).

167. Some later scribes, unsatisfied with such an unvarnished description, felt compelled to add details no eyewitness could have seen: “Those who heard and were convicted by the conscience went out one by one” (my italics; see, for example, E, G, and H, from the eighth and ninth centuries).

168. Gr. ἀρξάμενοι ἀπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων.

169. See also 1 Peter 4:17; 5:1.

170. Gr. ἐν μέσῳ. Even though there is no longer a group of accusers to be “in the center” of, she is still the center of the reader’s attention in a touching final scene.

171. The address κύριε must almost certainly be translated here as “sir” (as in NIV, NRSV, NAB, NEB, and REB), not “Lord” (as in KJV, ASV, NASB, and RSV).