[3:1]  ¹ sn The LXX introduces this chapter with the following chronological note: “in the eighteenth year of.” Such a date would place these events at about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. (cf. 2 Kgs 25:8). However, there seems to be no real basis for associating the events of Daniel 3 with this date.

[3:1]  ² sn There is no need to think of Nebuchadnezzar’s image as being solid gold. No doubt the sense is that it was overlaid with gold (cf. Isa 40:19; Jer 10:3-4), with the result that it presented a dazzling self-compliment to the greatness of Nebuchadnezzar’s achievements.

[3:1]  ³ sn According to a number of patristic authors, the image represented a deification of Nebuchadnezzar himself. This is not clear from the biblical text, however.

[3:1]  ⁴ tn Aram “sixty cubits.” Assuming a length of 18 inches for the standard cubit, the image would be 90 feet (27.4 m) high.

[3:1]  ⁵ tn Aram “six cubits.” Assuming a length of 18 inches for the standard cubit, the image would be 9 feet (2.74 m) wide.

[3:1]  sn The dimensions of the image (ninety feet high and nine feet wide) imply that it did not possess normal human proportions, unless a base for the image is included in the height dimension. The ancient world knew of other tall statues. For example, the Colossus of Rhodes – the huge statue of Helios which stood (ca. 280-224 B.C.) at the entrance to the harbor at Rhodes and was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world – was said to be seventy cubits (105 ft or 32 m) in height, which would make it even taller than Nebuchadnezzar’s image.

[3:2]  ⁶ sn The specific duties of the seven types of officials listed here (cf. vv. 3, 27) are unclear. The Aramaic words that are used are transliterations of Akkadian or Persian technical terms whose exact meanings are uncertain. The translations given here follow suggestions set forth in BDB.

[3:2]  ⁷ tn Aram “Nebuchadnezzar the king.” The proper name and title have been replaced by the relative pronoun (“he”) in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[3:3]  ⁸ tc The LXX and Theodotion lack the words “that Nebuchadnezzar had erected.”

[3:4]  ⁹ tn According to BDB 1097 s.v. כָּרוֹז the Aramaic word used here is a Greek loanword, but other scholars have argued instead for a Persian derivation (HALOT 1902 s.v. *כָּרוֹז).

[3:4]  ¹⁰ tn Aram “in strength.”

[3:4]  ¹¹ tn Aram “they are saying.”

[3:5]  ¹² sn The word zither (Aramaic קִיתָרוֹס [qitaros]), and the words for harp (Aramaic פְּסַנְתֵּרִין [pÿsanterin]) and pipes (Aramaic סוּמְפֹּנְיָה [sumponÿyah]), are of Greek derivation. Though much has been made of this in terms of suggesting a date in the Hellenistic period for the writing of the book, it is not surprising that a few Greek cultural terms, all of them the names of musical instruments, should appear in this book. As a number of scholars have pointed out, the bigger surprise (if, in fact, the book is to be dated to the Hellenistic period) may be that there are so few Greek loanwords in Daniel.

[3:5]  ¹³ tn The imperfect Aramaic verbs have here an injunctive nuance.

[3:6]  ¹⁴ tn Aram “in that hour.”

[3:7]  ¹⁵ tn Aram “all the peoples.”

[3:7]  ¹⁶ tc Though not in the Aramaic text of BHS, this word appears in many medieval Hebrew MSS, some LXX MSS, and Vulgate. Cf. vv. 5, 10, 15.

[3:8]  ¹⁷ tc This expression is absent in Theodotion.

[3:8]  ¹⁸ tn Aram “men.”

[3:8]  ¹⁹ tn Aram “ate the pieces of.” This is a rather vivid idiom for slander.

[3:9]  ²⁰ tn Aram “answered and said,” a common Aramaic idiom that occurs repeatedly in this chapter.

[3:9]  ²¹ sn O king, live forever! is a comment of typical court courtesy that is not necessarily indicative of the real sentiments of the speaker. Ancient oriental court protocol could sometimes require a certain amount of hypocrisy.

[3:12]  ²² sn Daniel’s absence from this scene has sparked the imagination of commentators, some of whom have suggested that perhaps he was unable to attend the dedication due to sickness or due to being away on business. Hippolytus supposed that Daniel may have been watching from a distance.

[3:13]  ²³ tn Aram “in anger and wrath”; NASB “in rage and anger.” The expression is a hendiadys.

[3:13]  ²⁴ tn The Aramaic infinitive is active.

[3:13]  ²⁵ tn Aram “these men.” The pronoun is used in the translation to avoid undue repetition.

[3:15]  ²⁶ tn Aram “hand.” So also in v. 17.

[3:16]  ²⁷ tc In the MT this word is understood to begin the following address (“answered and said to the king, ‘O Nebuchadnezzar’”). However, it seems unlikely that Nebuchadnezzar’s subordinates would address the king in such a familiar way, particularly in light of the danger that they now found themselves in. The present translation implies moving the atnach from “king” to “Nebuchadnezzar.”

[3:16]  ²⁸ tn Aram “to return a word to you.”

[3:17]  ²⁹ tc The ancient versions typically avoid the conditional element of v. 17.

[3:17]  ³⁰ tn The Aramaic expression used here is very difficult to interpret. The question concerns the meaning and syntax of אִיתַי (’itay, “is” or “exist”). There are several possibilities. (1) Some interpreters take this word closely with the participle later in the verse יָכִל (yakhil, “able”), understanding the two words to form a periphrastic construction (“if our God is…able”; cf. H. Bauer and P. Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen, 365, §111b). But the separation of the two elements from one another is not an argument in favor of this understanding. (2) Other interpreters take the first part of v. 17 to mean “If it is so, then our God will deliver us” (cf. KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB). However, the normal sense of ’itay is existence; on this point see F. Rosenthal, Grammar, 45, §95. The present translation maintains the sense of existence for the verb (“If our God…exists”), even though the statement is admittedly difficult to understand in this light. The statement may be an implicit reference back to Nebuchadnezzar’s comment in v. 15, which denies the existence of a god capable of delivering from the king’s power.

[3:19]  ³¹ tn Aram “the appearance of his face was altered”; cf. NLT “his face became distorted with rage”; NAB “[his] face became livid with utter rage.”

[3:19]  ³² tn Aram “he answered and said.”

[3:20]  ³³ tn This is sometimes taken as a comparative: “[some of the] strongest.”

[3:21]  ³⁴ sn There is a great deal of uncertainty with regard to the specific nature of these items of clothing.

[3:21]  ³⁵ tn Aram “into the midst of the furnace.” For stylistic reasons the words “the midst of” have been left untranslated.

[3:22]  ³⁶ tn Aram “caused to go up.”

[3:22]  ³⁷ tn The Aramaic verb is active.

[3:22]  ³⁸ tn Aram “the flame of the fire” (so KJV, ASV, NASB); NRSV “the raging flames.”

[3:23]  ³⁹ tn Aram “into the midst of the furnace.” For stylistic reasons the words “the midst of” have been left untranslated.

[3:23]  ⁴⁰ sn The deuterocanonical writings known as The Prayer of Azariah and The Song of the Three present at this point a confession and petition for God’s forgiveness and a celebration of God’s grace for the three Jewish youths in the fiery furnace. Though not found in the Hebrew/Aramaic text of Daniel, these compositions do appear in the ancient Greek versions.

[3:24]  ⁴¹ tn Aram “we threw…bound.”

[3:24]  ⁴² tn Aram “into the midst of.”

[3:25]  ⁴³ sn The phrase like that of a god is in Aramaic “like that of a son of the gods.” Many patristic writers understood this phrase in a christological sense (i.e., “the Son of God”). But it should be remembered that these are words spoken by a pagan who is seeking to explain things from his own polytheistic frame of reference; for him the phrase “like a son of the gods” is equivalent to “like a divine being.”

[3:26]  ⁴⁴ tn Aram “answered and said.”

[3:26]  ⁴⁵ tn Aram “from the midst of the fire.” For stylistic reasons the words “the midst of” have been left untranslated.

[3:27]  ⁴⁶ tn Aram “in their bodies.”

[3:27]  ⁴⁷ tn Aram “the fire did not have power.”

[3:28]  ⁴⁸ tn Aram “answered and said.”

[3:28]  ⁴⁹ sn The king identifies the “son of the gods” (v. 25) as an angel. Comparable Hebrew expressions are used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible for the members of God’s angelic assembly (see Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Pss 29:1; 89:6). An angel later comes to rescue Daniel from the lions (Dan 6:22).

[3:28]  ⁵⁰ tn Aram “they changed” or “violated.”

[3:28]  ⁵¹ tn Aram “so that they might not.”

[3:29]  ⁵² tn Aram “from me is placed an edict.”

[3:29]  ⁵³ tn Aram “speaks negligence.”

[3:30]  ⁵⁴ tn Aram “and the king.” The proper name has been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[5:1]  ⁵⁵ sn The temporal indicator After this is not specific, so it is uncertain how long after the incidents at Cana this occurred.

[5:1]  ⁵⁶ tc The textual variants ἑορτή or ἡ ἑορτή (Jeorth or Jh Jeorth, “a feast” or “the feast”) may not appear significant at first, but to read ἑορτή with the article would almost certainly demand a reference to the Jewish Passover. The article is found in א C L Δ Ψ Ë¹ 33 892 1424 pm, but is lacking in {Ì^66,75 A B D T W^s Θ Ë¹³ 565 579 700 1241 pm}. Overall, the shorter reading has somewhat better support. Internally, the known proclivity of scribes to make the text more explicit argues compellingly for the shorter reading. Thus, the verse refers to a feast other than the Passover. The incidental note in 5:3, that the sick were lying outside in the porticoes of the pool, makes Passover an unlikely time because it fell toward the end of winter and the weather would not have been warm. L. Morris (John [NICNT], 299, n. 6) thinks it impossible to identify the feast with certainty.

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

[5:1]  ⁵⁷ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[5:2]  ⁵⁸ tn Regarding the use of the present tense ἐστιν (estin) and its implications for the dating of the Gospel of John, see the article by D. B. Wallace, “John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel,” Bib 71 (1990): 177-205.

[5:2]  ⁵⁹ tn The site of the miracle is also something of a problem: προβατικῇ (probatikh) is usually taken as a reference to the Sheep Gate near the temple. Some (R. E. Brown and others) would place the word κολυμβήθρα (kolumbhqra) with προβατικῇ to read “in Jerusalem, by the Sheep Pool, there is (another pool) with the Hebrew name.” This would imply that there is reference to two pools in the context rather than only one. This does not seem necessary (although it is a grammatical possibility). The gender of the words does not help since both are feminine (as is the participle ἐπιλεγομένη [epilegomenh]). Note however that Brown’s suggestion would require a feminine word to be supplied (for the participle ἐπιλεγομένη to modify). The traditional understanding of the phrase as a reference to the Sheep Gate near the temple appears more probably correct.

[5:2]  ⁶⁰ tc Some mss (א [L] 33 it) read Bethzatha, while others read Bethsaida (Ì^[66],75 B T W^s [Ψ] pc vg); codex D has Belzetha. A lot of controversy has surrounded the name of the pool itself: The reading of the Byzantine (or majority) text (A C Θ 078 Ë^1,13 Ï), Bethesda, has been virtually discarded by scholars in favor of what is thought to be the more primitive Bethzatha, even though many recent translations continue to employ Bethesda, the traditional reading. The latter is attested by Josephus as the name of a quarter of the city near the northeast corner of the temple area. He reports that the Syrian Legate Cestius burned this suburb in his attack on Jerusalem in October a.d. 68 (J. W. 2.19.4 [2.530]). However, there is some new archaeological evidence for this problem. 3Q15 (Copper Scroll) from Qumran seems to indicate that in the general area of the temple, on the eastern hill of Jerusalem, a treasure was buried in Bet áEsdatayin, in the pool at the entrance to the smaller basin. The name of the region or pool itself seems then to have been Bet ᾿Esda, “house of the flowing.” It appears with the dual ending in the scroll because there were two basins. Bethesda seems to be an accurate Greek rendition of the name, while J. T. Milik suggests Bethzatha is a rendition of the Aramaic intensive plural Bet áEsdata (DJDJ 3, 271). As for the text of John 5:2, the fundamental problems with the Bethesda reading are that it looks motivated (with an edifying Semitic etymology, meaning “House of Mercy” [TCGNT 178]), and is minimally attested. Apart from the Copper Scroll, the evidence for Bethesda is almost entirely shut up to the Byzantine text (C being the most notable exception, but it often has Byzantine encroachments). On the one hand, this argues the Byzantine reading here had ancient, semitic roots; on the other hand, since both readings are attested as historically accurate, a decision has to be based on the better witnesses. The fact that there are multiple readings here suggests that the original was not well understood. Which reading best explains the rise of the others? It seems that Bethzatha is the best choice.

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

[5:2]  ⁶¹ tn Grk “in Hebrew.”

[5:2]  ⁶² tn Or “porticoes,” or “colonnades”; Grk “stoas.”

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

[5:4]  ⁶³ tc The majority of later mss (C³ Θ Ψ 078 Ë^1,13 Ï) add the following to 5:3: “waiting for the moving of the water. 5:4 For an angel of the Lord went down and stirred up the water at certain times. Whoever first stepped in after the stirring of the water was healed from whatever disease which he suffered.” Other mss include only v. 3b (A^c D 33 lat) or v. 4 (A L it). Few textual scholars today would accept the authenticity of any portion of vv. 3b-4, for they are not found in the earliest and best witnesses (Ì^66,75 א B C* T pc co), they include un-Johannine vocabulary and syntax, several of the mss that include the verses mark them as spurious (with an asterisk or obelisk), and because there is a great amount of textual diversity among the witnesses that do include the verses. The present translation follows NA²⁷ in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

[5:5]  ⁶⁴ tn Grk “who had had thirty-eight years in his disability.”

[5:6]  ⁶⁵ tn Or “knew.”

[5:6]  ⁶⁶ tn Grk “he.” The referent (the man) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[5:7]  ⁶⁷ tn Or “Lord.” The Greek κύριος (kurios) means both “Sir” and “Lord.” In this passage the paralytic who was healed by Jesus never acknowledges Jesus as Lord – he rather reports Jesus to the authorities.

[5:7]  ⁶⁸ tn Grk “while I am going.”

[5:7]  ⁶⁹ tn Grk “another.”

[5:7]  ⁷⁰ tn The word “there” is not in the Greek text but is implied.

[5:8]  ⁷¹ tn Or “pallet,” “mattress,” “cot,” or “stretcher.” Some of these items, however, are rather substantial (e.g., “mattress”) and would probably give the modern English reader a false impression.

[5:9]  ⁷² tn Grk “became well.”

[5:9]  ⁷³ tn Or “pallet,” “mattress,” “cot,” or “stretcher.” See the note on “mat” in the previous verse.

[5:9]  ⁷⁴ tn Grk “Now it was Sabbath on that day.”

[5:9]  sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[5:10]  ⁷⁵ tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” In NT usage the term ᾿Ιουδαῖοι (Ioudaioi) may refer to the entire Jewish people, the residents of Jerusalem and surrounding territory, the authorities in Jerusalem, or merely those who were hostile to Jesus. Here the author refers to the Jewish authorities or leaders in Jerusalem. (For further information see R. G. Bratcher, “‘The Jews’ in the Gospel of John,” BT 26 [1975]: 401-9).

[5:10]  ⁷⁶ tn Or “pallet,” “mattress,” “cot,” or “stretcher.” See the note on “mat” in v. 8.

[5:11]  ⁷⁷ tn Or “pallet,” “mattress,” “cot,” or “stretcher.” See the note on “mat” in v. 8.

[5:12]  ⁷⁸ tc While a number of mss, especially the later ones (A^c C³ D Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï latt sy), include the words τον κραβ(β)ατ(τ)ον σου (ton krab(b)at(t)on sou, “your mat”) here, the earliest and best (Ì^66,75 א B C* L) do not. Nevertheless, in the translation, it is necessary to supply the words due to the demands of English style, which does not typically allow for understood or implied direct objects as Greek does.

[5:12]  ⁷⁹ tn Grk “Pick up and walk”; the object (the mat) is implied but not repeated.

[5:14]  ⁸⁰ tn Since this is a prohibition with a present imperative, the translation “stop sinning” is sometimes suggested. This is not likely, however, since the present tense is normally used in prohibitions involving a general condition (as here) while the aorist tense is normally used in specific instances. Only when used opposite the normal usage (the present tense in a specific instance, for example) would the meaning “stop doing what you are doing” be appropriate.

[5:15]  ⁸¹ tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” See the note on the phrase “Jewish leaders” in v. 10.

[5:16]  ⁸² sn Note the plural phrase these things which seems to indicate that Jesus healed on the Sabbath more than once (cf. John 20:30). The synoptic gospels show this to be true; the incident in 5:1-15 has thus been chosen by the author as representative.

[5:16]  ⁸³ tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” See the note on the phrase “Jewish leaders” in v. 10.

[5:16]  ⁸⁴ tn Or “harassing.”

[5:17]  ⁸⁵ tc ‡ Most witnesses (Ì⁶⁶ A D L Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï latt co) have ᾿Ιησοῦς (Ihsou", “Jesus”) here, while generally better witnesses (Ì⁷⁵ א B W {0141} 892 1241 pbo) lack the name. Although it is possible that Alexandrian scribes deleted the name due to proclivities to prune, this is not as likely as other witnesses adding it for clarification, especially since multiple strands of the Alexandrian text are represented in the shorter reading. NA²⁷ places the word in brackets, indicating some doubts as to authenticity.

[5:17]  ⁸⁶ tn Grk “answered.”

[5:17]  ⁸⁷ sn “My Father is working until now, and I too am working.” What is the significance of Jesus’ claim? A preliminary understanding can be obtained from John 5:18, noting the Jewish authorities’ response and the author’s comment. They sought to kill Jesus, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God. This must be seen in the context of the relation of God to the Sabbath rest. In the commandment (Exod 20:11) it is explained that “In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth…and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Philo, based on the LXX translation of Exod 20:11, denied outright that God had ever ceased his creative activity. And when Rabban Gamaliel II, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar ben Azariah, and R. Akiba were in Rome, ca. a.d. 95, they gave as a rebuttal to sectarian arguments evidence that God might do as he willed in the world without breaking the Sabbath because the entire world was his private residence. So even the rabbis realized that God did not really cease to work on the Sabbath: Divine providence remained active on the Sabbath, otherwise, all nature and life would cease to exist. As regards men, divine activity was visible in two ways: Men were born and men died on the Sabbath. Since only God could give life and only God could deal with the fate of the dead in judgment, this meant God was active on the Sabbath. This seems to be the background for Jesus’ words in 5:17. He justified his work of healing on the Sabbath by reminding the Jewish authorities that they admitted God worked on the Sabbath. This explains the violence of the reaction. The Sabbath privilege was peculiar to God, and no one was equal to God. In claiming the right to work even as his Father worked, Jesus was claiming a divine prerogative. He was literally making himself equal to God, as 5:18 goes on to state explicitly for the benefit of the reader who might not have made the connection.

[5:18]  ⁸⁸ tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” See the note on the phrase “Jewish leaders” in v. 10.

[5:19]  ⁸⁹ tn Grk “answered and said to them.”

[5:19]  ⁹⁰ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

[5:19]  ⁹¹ tn Grk “nothing from himself.”

[5:19]  ⁹² tn Grk “that one”; the referent (the Father) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[5:19]  ⁹³ sn What works does the Son do likewise? The same that the Father does – and the same that the rabbis recognized as legitimate works of God on the Sabbath (see note on working in v. 17). (1) Jesus grants life (just as the Father grants life) on the Sabbath. But as the Father gives physical life on the Sabbath, so the Son grants spiritual life (John 5:21; note the “greater things” mentioned in v. 20). (2) Jesus judges (determines the destiny of people) on the Sabbath, just as the Father judges those who die on the Sabbath, because the Father has granted authority to the Son to judge (John 5:22-23). But this is not all. Not only has this power been granted to Jesus in the present; it will be his in the future as well. In v. 28 there is a reference not to spiritually dead (only) but also physically dead. At their resurrection they respond to the Son as well.

[5:21]  ⁹⁴ tn Grk “and makes them live.”

[5:21]  ⁹⁵ tn Grk “the Son makes whomever he wants to live.”

[5:22]  ⁹⁶ tn Or “condemn.”

[5:22]  ⁹⁷ tn Or “given,” or “handed over.”

[5:23]  ⁹⁸ tn Grk “all.” The word “people” is not in the Greek text but is supplied for stylistic reasons and for clarity (cf. KJV “all men”).

[5:24]  ⁹⁹ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

[5:24]  ¹⁰⁰ tn Or “obeys.”

[5:24]  ¹⁰¹ tn Or “word.”

[5:24]  ¹⁰² tn Grk “and does not come into judgment.”

[5:25]  ¹⁰³ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

[5:25]  ¹⁰⁴ tn Grk “an hour.”

[5:27]  ¹⁰⁵ tn Grk “him.”

[5:27]  ¹⁰⁶ tn Grk “authority to judge.”

[5:28]  ¹⁰⁷ tn Grk “an hour.”

[5:29]  ¹⁰⁸ tn Or “a resurrection resulting in judgment.”

[5:30]  ¹⁰⁹ tn Grk “nothing from myself.”

[5:30]  ¹¹⁰ tn Or “righteous,” or “proper.”

[5:30]  ¹¹¹ tn That is, “the will of the Father who sent me.”

[5:32]  ¹¹² sn To whom does another refer? To John the Baptist or to the Father? In the nearer context, v. 33, it would seem to be John the Baptist. But v. 34 seems to indicate that Jesus does not receive testimony from men. Probably it is better to view v. 32 as identical to v. 37, with the comments about the Baptist as a parenthetical digression.

[5:33]  ¹¹³ sn John refers to John the Baptist.

[5:34]  ¹¹⁴ tn Or “I do not receive.”

[5:35]  ¹¹⁵ sn He was a lamp that was burning and shining. Sir 48:1 states that the word of Elijah was “a flame like a torch.” Because of the connection of John the Baptist with Elijah (see John 1:21 and the note on John’s reply, “I am not”), it was natural for Jesus to apply this description to John.

[5:35]  ¹¹⁶ tn Grk “for an hour.”

[5:36]  ¹¹⁷ tn Or “works.”

[5:36]  ¹¹⁸ tn Grk “complete, which I am now doing”; the referent of the relative pronoun has been specified by repeating “deeds” from the previous clause.

[5:37]  ¹¹⁹ tn The word “people” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied to clarify that the following verbs (“heard,” “seen,” “have residing,” “do not believe”) are second person plural.

[5:37]  ¹²⁰ sn You people have never heard his voice nor seen his form at any time. Compare Deut 4:12. Also see Deut 5:24 ff., where the Israelites begged to hear the voice no longer – their request (ironically) has by this time been granted. How ironic this would be if the feast is Pentecost, where by the 1st century a.d. the giving of the law at Sinai was being celebrated.

[5:39]  ¹²¹ tn Or “Study the scriptures thoroughly” (an imperative). For the meaning of the verb see G. Delling, TDNT 2:655-57.

[5:39]  ¹²² sn In them you possess eternal life. Note the following examples from the rabbinic tractate Pirqe Avot (“The Sayings of the Fathers”): Pirqe Avot 2:8, “He who has acquired the words of the law has acquired for himself the life of the world to come”; Pirqe Avot 6:7, “Great is the law for it gives to those who practice it life in this world and in the world to come.”

[5:39]  ¹²³ tn The words “same scriptures” are not in the Greek text, but are supplied to clarify the referent (“these”).

[5:41]  ¹²⁴ tn Or “I do not receive.”

[5:41]  ¹²⁵ tn Or “honor” (Grk “glory,” in the sense of respect or honor accorded to a person because of their status).

[5:41]  ¹²⁶ tn Grk “from men,” but in a generic sense; both men and women are implied here.

[5:42]  ¹²⁷ tn The genitive in the phrase τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ (thn agaphn tou qeou, “the love of God”) could be translated as either a subjective genitive (“God’s love”) or an objective genitive (“love for God”). Either is grammatically possible. This is possibly an instance of a plenary genitive (see ExSyn 119-21; M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §§36-39). If so, the emphasis would be on the love God gives which in turn produces love for him, but Jesus’ opponents are lacking any such love inside them.

[5:43]  ¹²⁸ tn Or “you do not receive.”

[5:43]  ¹²⁹ tn Or “you will receive.”

[5:44]  ¹³⁰ tn Or “honor” (Grk “glory,” in the sense of respect or honor accorded to a person because of their status).

[5:44]  ¹³¹ tn Or “honor” (Grk “glory,” in the sense of respect or honor accorded to a person because of their status).

[5:44]  ¹³² tc Several early and important witnesses (Ì^66,75 B W a b sa) lack θεοῦ (qeou, “God”) here, thus reading “the only one,” while most of the rest of the tradition, including some important mss, has the name ({א A D L Θ Ψ 33 Ï}). Internally, it could be argued that the name of God was not used here, in keeping with the NT practice of suppressing the name of God at times for rhetorical effect, drawing the reader inexorably to the conclusion that the one being spoken of is God himself. On the other hand, never is ὁ μόνος (Jo mono") used absolutely in the NT (i.e., without a noun or substantive with it), and always the subject of the adjunct is God (cf. Matt 24:36; John 17:3; 1 Tim 6:16). What then is to explain the shorter reading? In uncial script, with θεοῦ written as a nomen sacrum, envisioning accidental omission of the name by way of homoioteleuton requires little imagination, largely because of the succession of words ending in -ου: toumonouqMuou. It is thus preferable to retain the word in the text.

[5:45]  ¹³³ sn The final condemnation will come from Moses himself – again ironic, since Moses is the very one the Jewish authorities have trusted in (placed your hope). This is again ironic if it is occurring at Pentecost, which at this time was being celebrated as the occasion of the giving of the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai. There is evidence that some Jews of the 1st century looked on Moses as their intercessor at the final judgment (see W. A. Meeks, The Prophet King [NovTSup], 161). This would mean the statement Moses, in whom you have placed your hope should be taken literally and relates directly to Jesus’ statements about the final judgment in John 5:28-29.

[5:46]  ¹³⁴ tn Grk “For if.”

[5:47]  ¹³⁵ tn Grk “that one” (“he”); the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.