² tn The words “he did” are not in the Greek text but are implied. They form an ellipsis which must be supplied for the modern English reader. Some modern translations supply “it” rather than “he” because the gender of πνεῦμα (pneuma) in Greek is neuter, but there are sufficient NT contexts that use masculine pronouns to refer to the Spirit to justify the use of a masculine pronoun here in the translation.

⁴ sn They did not understand. Here is the theme of the speech. The people did not understand what God was doing through those he chose. They made the same mistake with Joseph at first. See Acts 3:17; 13:27. There is good precedent for this kind of challenging review of history in the ancient scriptures: Ps 106:6-46; Ezek 20; and Neh 9:6-38.

³ sn Uneducated does not mean “illiterate,” that is, unable to read or write. Among Jews in NT times there was almost universal literacy, especially as the result of widespread synagogue schools. The term refers to the fact that Peter and John had no formal rabbinic training and thus, in the view of their accusers, were not qualified to expound the law or teach publicly. The objection is like Acts 2:7.

¹ tn Or “Israelite men,” although this is less natural English. The Greek term here is ἀνήρ (anēr), which only exceptionally is used in a generic sense of both males and females. In this context, it is conceivable that this is a generic usage, although it can also be argued that Peter’s remarks were addressed primarily to the men present, even if women were there.

² sn Where was Caiaphas the high priest located? Did he have a separate palace, or was he somewhere else with the Sanhedrin? Since Augustine (4th century) a number of scholars have proposed that Annas and Caiaphas resided in different wings of the same palace, which were bound together by a common courtyard through which Jesus would have been led as he was taken from Annas to Caiaphas. This seems a reasonable explanation, although there is no conclusive evidence.

³ sn The phrase after a little while, you will see me is sometimes taken to refer to the coming of the Holy Spirit after Jesus departs, but (as at 14:19) it is much more probable that it refers to the postresurrection appearances of Jesus to the disciples. There is no indication in the context that the disciples will see Jesus only with “spiritual” sight, as would be the case if the coming of the Spirit is in view.

⁵ sn He has been buried four days. Although all the details of the miracle itself are not given, those details which are mentioned are important. The statement made by Martha is extremely significant for understanding what actually took place. There is no doubt that Lazarus had really died because the decomposition of his body had already begun to take place, since he had been dead for four days.

² sn So that you may believe. Why does Jesus make this statement? It seems necessary to understand the disciples’ belief here in a developmental sense because there are numerous references to the disciples’ faith previous to this in John’s Gospel, notably 2:11. Their concept of who Jesus really was is continually being expanded and challenged; they are undergoing spiritual growth; the climax is reached in the confession of Thomas in John 20:28.

¹ tn Or “who chews”; Grk ὁ τρώγων (ho trōgōn). The alternation between ἐσθίω (esthiō, “eat,” v. 53) and τρώγω (trōgō, “eats,” vv. 54, 56, 58; “consumes,” v. 57) may simply reflect a preference for one form over the other on the author’s part, rather than an attempt to express a slightly more graphic meaning. If there is a difference, however, the word used here (τρώγω) is the more graphic and vivid of the two (“gnaw” or “chew”).

¹ tn The term ἄνθρωποι (anthrōpoi) used here can mean either “people” (when used generically) or “men” (though there is a more specific term in Greek for adult males, ανήρ [anēr]). Thus the woman could have been speaking either (1) to all the people or (2) to the male leaders of the city as their representatives. However, most recent English translations regard the former as more likely and render the word “people” here.

¹ tc Was this dispute between the Baptist’s disciples and an individual Judean (᾿Ιουδαίου, Ioudaiou) or representatives of the Jewish authorities (᾿Ιουδαίων, Ioudaiōn)? There is good external support for the plural ᾿Ιουδαίων (P⁶⁶ א* Θ ƒ^1,13 565 al latt), but the external evidence for the singular ᾿Ιουδαίου is slightly stronger (P⁷⁵ א² A B L Ψ 33 1241 the majority of Byzantine minuscules and others).

² sn Cana in Galilee was not a very well-known place. It is mentioned only here, in 4:46, and 21:2, and nowhere else in the NT. Josephus (Life 16 [86]) says he once had his quarters there. The probable location is present day Khirbet Cana, 8 mi (14 km) north of Nazareth, or Khirbet Kenna, 4 mi (7 km) northeast of Nazareth.

¹ sn Although the author thought of the town as in Galilee (12:21), Bethsaida technically was in Gaulanitis (Philip the Tetrarch’s territory) across from Herod’s Galilee. There may have been two places called Bethsaida, or this may merely reflect popular imprecision—locally it was considered part of Galilee, even though it was just east of the Jordan river. This territory was heavily Gentile (which may explain why Andrew and Philip both have Gentile names).

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

⁴ tc The reference to the ascension (“and was taken up into heaven”) is lacking in א* D it sy^s, but it is found in P⁷⁵ and the rest of the ms tradition. The authenticity of the statement here seems to be presupposed in Acts 1:2, for otherwise it is difficult to account for Luke’s reference to the ascension there. For a helpful discussion, see TCGNT 162-63.

² sn They began to accuse him. There were three charges: (1) disturbing Jewish peace; (2) fomenting rebellion through advocating not paying taxes (a lie—20:20-26); and (3) claiming to be a political threat to Rome, by claiming to be a king, an allusion to Jesus’ messianic claims. The second and third charges were a direct challenge to Roman authority. Pilate would be forced to do something about them.

⁴ sn Putting all the gospel accounts together, there is a brief encounter with Annas (brought him into the high priest’s house, here and John 18:13, where Annas is named); the meeting led by Caiaphas (Matt 26:57-68 = Mark 14:53-65); and then a Sanhedrin meeting (Matt 27:1; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66-71). These latter two meetings might be connected and apparently went into the morning.

¹ tn There is debate in the textual tradition about the position of γάρ (gar) and whether v. 35 looks back to v. 34 or is independent. The textual evidence does slightly favor placing γάρ after the verb and thus linking it back to v. 34. The other reading looks like Isa 24:17. However, the construction is harsh and the translation prefers for stylistic reasons to start a new English sentence here.

⁵ tn Or “is not coming in a way that it can be closely watched” (L&N 24.48). Although there are differing interpretations of what this means, it probably refers to the cosmic signs often associated with the kingdom’s coming in the Jewish view (1 En. 91, 93; 2 Bar. 53–74). See D. L. Bock, Luke (BECNT), 2:1412-14, also H. Riesenfeld, TDNT 8:150.

¹ tn There is no verb in the Greek text; one must be supplied. Some translations (NASB, NIV) supply “proclaimed” based on the parallelism with the proclamation of the kingdom. The transitional nature of this verse, however, seems to call for something more like “in effect” (NRSV) or, as used here, “in force.” Further, Greek generally can omit one of two kinds of verbs—either the equative verb or one that is already mentioned in the preceding context (ExSyn 39).