Muchacho Polaco

When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had already been there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be healed?”

Most modern translations say that the man had been in that condition a long time, as implied by the context. The Greek doesn’t include that phrase, but it seems a reasonable conclusion. It could also mean that he had been lying by the pool a long time (a substantial part of his life), or he had been there that day for a long time. Whichever the case, the intent seems to be that this man has been helpless for a long time.

The question is a hard one to understand. There are a spectrum of ideas proposed. Jesus wanted to draw attention to what he was about to do. Jesus wanted to inspire hope in this man. Jesus was questioning if this man really wanted help or if he just wanted a lifetime of handouts (Sproul seems to take this position).

Whichever the case, Jesus is initiating the conversation. The man has not solicited help. In fact, it doesn’t seem like the man has any idea who Jesus is (as evidenced later). Was there any reason for this man to expect the miraculous?

I think the man desperately wanted to be healed, as any would in his situation. Like walking into a cancer ward and asking if the people suffering there want to be healed. I don’t think Jesus is questioning the man’s desire. After all, why else is the man at the pool? Why had he been there ‘a long time’ if he wasn’t desperately trying to get well the only way he knew how.

The passage seems to read, Jesus saw that he had been coming to the pool for a long time to be healed and he asks him, do you want to be healed?Maybe the question was intended to identify, or have the man confess, what his hope was in regard to his disability. Something like; you’ve been coming here a long time with the hope of being healed, what do you think is going to save you from your suffering?

The sick man answered him, “Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, and while I am going another steps down before me.”

I think Chrysostom understands this passage well when he says:

For when Christ had said, “Wilt thou be made whole?” “Yea, Lord,” he saith, “but I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool.” What can be more pitiable than these words? What more sad than these circumstances? Seest thou a heart crushed through long sickness? Seest thou all violence subdued? He uttered no blasphemous word, nor such as we hear the many use in reverses, he cursed not his day, he was not angry at the question, nor did he say, “Art Thou come to make a mock and a jest of us, that Thou asketh whether I desire to be made whole?” but replied gently, and with great mildness, “Yea, Lord”; yet he knew not who it was that asked him, nor that He would heal him, but still he mildly relates all the circumstances and asks nothing further, as though he were speaking to a physician, and desired merely to tell the story of his sufferings. Perhaps he hoped that Christ might be so far useful to him as to put him into the water, and desired to attract Him by these words. What then saith Jesus?

What pitiful imagery. Apparently this man has seen the pool stirred up in the past and he has attempted to get into the pool to be healed, but is too slow. Maybe he has to drag his body along the ground, while those blind or with less debilitating disabilities can simply run to the pool. What utter hopelessness. It makes you wonder why he even bother comes to the pool at all. Maybe he comes to the pool hoping he can find someone that will give him the advantage he needs, by caring him into the pool. As Chrysostom proposes, perhaps this is what he is hoping Jesus is going to offer him. Otherwise, he must have realized he had zero chance at getting into the pool first. Yet he continues there a long time.Despite the textual issues of verse 4, verse 7 confirms that this man had seen enough to believe that he too could be healed by some sort of miraculous event involving the pool. Most certainly he would have attributed that miracle to God. He has zero chance to get into the pool first, but does he return to the pool because, despite the circumstances, he believes God can heal even him? I wonder if this man’s time spent at the pool is any indication of his faith. Does he have faith?

One man was there who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years.

Verse 3 mentioned a multitude of disabled people. But here in verse 5 the focus is on but one of them. This is the convergence of an eternal God’s divinely orchestrated plan with its manifestation in time. This one man was the present purpose. Jesus could have healed all of them. But he signaled out just one.

John switches tense (one man was there) which again emphasizes the current reality of the temple’s present existence at the time of the Gospel’s writing.

The word for invalid is astheneia which means weakness, frailty, without strength, etc. There are passages, like this, which seem to be speaking of the weakness of the body, and others where it’s referring to the soul. For instance:

I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. (Romans 6.19)

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. (Romans 8.26)

If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. (2Cor. 11.30)

The man’s age is not given. He could have been disabled from birth, or perhaps much later. In fact, very little details are given about this man other than his disability.From verse 7 and verse 8 we know the disability had something to do with the man’s ability to get up or walk. Verse 7 indicates he is able to move to some degree (or be moved), but not sufficiently fast enough to get into the pool before anyone else.

Thirty-eight years. That’s a long time. Perhaps we’re told the length of time to reveal just how bad this man’s situation was. We aren’t told how long he’s been at the pool, only the length of his infirmity, but verse 6 does indicate that he had “been there a long time”. I interpret this to refer to the length of time at the pool, not the length of time of his disability.

In these lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed.

Why were there a multitude of disabled people here? Perhaps it was because there was a lot of shade. Verse 2 explained that there were five rows of columns which each were covered. That was probably a nice break from the sun.

Also, the pool is near the Sheep Gate, where people brought animals for sacrifice. Perhaps this was a great place to get some help from those that passed through the area. Calvin has this to say:

It is possible that diseased persons lay in the porches to ask alms when the people were passing there who were going into the temple to worship; and there, too, it was customary to purchase the beasts which were to be offered in sacrifice.

But there was more than shade and alms. There’s a pool there and the belief that God is healing certain people through the pool.

Part of verse 3 and the entirety of verse 4 are contested. The ESV doesn’t include them. Other modern translations footnote this portion. It reads as follows (from the NAS):

 In these lay a multitude of those who were sick, blind, lame, and withered, [waiting for the moving of the waters; for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.]

The claim is the oldest (and therefore believed to be the best) manuscripts (which contain the complete NT) do not include these words. Two codices are being referred to when this claim is made: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They both are believed to originate from the 4th century. Those that subscribe to this view often claim there is no evidence of these verses existence prior to 500ad. That claim is disingenuous, because there is much earlier testimony. Tertullian’s On Baptism (particularly, but not only chapter 5) is clear evidence that he relied upon a text that included these verses.

If it seems a novelty for an angel to be present in waters, an example of what was to come to pass has forerun. An angel, by his intervention, was wont to stir the pool at Bethsaida. They who were complaining of ill-health used to watch for him; for whoever had been the first to descend into them, after his washing, ceased to complain. This figure of corporeal healing sang of a spiritual healing, according to the rule by which things carnal are always antecedent as figurative of things spiritual. And thus, when the grace of God advanced to higher degrees among men, John 1:16-17 an accession of efficacy was granted to the waters and to the angel. They who were wont to remedy bodily defects, now heal the spirit; they who used to work temporal salvation now renew eternal; they who did set free but once in the year, now save peoples in a body daily, death being done away through ablution of sins. (On Baptism, Chapter 5)

Tertullian was a 2nd century author whose writings are a couple hundred years earlier than either of those codices. Even so, it’s a difficult subject because there are 2nd-3rd century papyri of John 5 that do not include the disputed part. I’m not sure how to weigh historical testimony (like Tertullian) to the few fragments we have from a similar time.

Augustine’s tractates (5th century) include the disputed portion, as do the Old Latin translation a century prior to Augustine (Codex Vercellensis).

3. What was done, then, that they who could not be healed in the porches might be healed in that water after being troubled? For on a sudden the water was seen troubled, and that by which it was troubled was not seen. You may believe that this was wont to be done by angelic virtue, yet not without some mystery being implied. After the water was troubled, the one who was able cast himself in, and he alone was healed: whoever went in after that one, did so in vain. What, then, is meant by this, unless it be that there came one, even Christ, to the Jewish people; and by doing great things, by teaching profitable things, troubled sinners, troubled the water by His presence, and roused it towards His own death? But He was hidden that troubled. For had they known Him, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. 1 Corinthians 2:8 Wherefore, to go down into the troubled water means to believe in the Lord’s death. There only one was healed, signifying unity: whoever came thereafter was not healed, because whoever shall be outside unity cannot be healed. (Tractate 17)

The earliest known Greek codex with John 5:4 is Codex Alexandrius from the 5th century. You can read it here. Gordon Fee has done some interesting work on this verse which can be found here. Fee summarizes:

Furthermore, the fact that there is such early and widespread evidence for a text of Johnwithout 5:4, among witnesses with no direct textual relatedness, suggests that the ‘omission’ would have to have been made more than once, a possibility that seems most highly improbable. Since the passage is so thoroughly non-Johannine in style and language, we may confidently regard both additions as having had no place in the Johannine original.

It’s obviously a complicated issue with more complexity than most preachers give it. Nearly every sermon I’ve listened to so far is flippantly dismissive with vague appeals to  ‘best manuscripts’. Maybe. But a discussion of the philosophical assumptions that entail ‘best manuscripts’ is so far beyond the scope of the sermon that it would seem best to avoid the issue all-together in the context of corporate gathering. I think it causes far too much confusion and for that reason, I am intending to avoid raising the issue.

Spanish bibles, except for maybe one or two modern translations which no one uses, are all based upon a different textual tradition and for that reason, include verse 4. Nonetheless, verse 7 is pretty clear that minimally the *belief* alluded to in verse 4 was subscribed to by those present at the Pool of Bethesda. This accounts for why the disabled wanted to get into the pool first. The omission of verse 4 doesn’t change the text in my opinion, as relying upon verse 7 alone one could draw a similar conclusion.

Healed for the Sake of Holiness
John Piper, August 2009

in spite of Jesus’ power to heal, our world continues to be shot through with sin and disease and calamity and death. (Piper)

Sickness and suffering are abundant. Jesus demonstrates he could stop (or prevent) that if he desired. But he doesn’t.

He didn’t stumble by. He knew what he was doing. He was going to this pool the same way he went to Samaria to find the woman at the well, and the same way he went to sign-seeking, prophet-dishonoring Galilee to find a kingly official who had a sick son. Jesus moves toward need, not comfort. Toward brokenhearted sinners, not the self-righteous. (Piper)

When studying John 4, the same thought had occurred to me. Jesus really went out of his way for this one woman. These weren’t chance occurrences.

So it looks like this healing is not a response to anything religious or faithful about the man. It looks like Jesus healed him simply because his situation was so miserable for so long. In other words, it looks like it came from Jesus’ compassion, not the man’s faith or righteousness. (Piper)

This also reminds me of the woman at the well. Their situations were both so miserable for so long. I think many people can identify with that situation.

Jesus knows what he has done. He healed a man on the Sabbath and told him to carry his bed as a sign and celebration that he is whole. (Piper)

Interestingly, it’s as if Jesus is intentionally trying to cause problems among the legalists. Jesus tells this man to carry his mat despite knowing what the consequences would have been on the sabbath for this man. This man is in the temple. Jesus would have anticipated the antagonism the healed man would experience as soon as ‘he picked up his mat’.

Now notice what is most remarkable here. Jesus healed and disappeared before the man could find out who he was. He didn’t even know who healed him. Does this mean Jesus had no intention of dealing with this man’s soul? Was he content just to do a random miracle and leave the man in ignorance as to where it came from? (Piper)

That does seem strange. Especially to the man. He had been in a miserable condition for 38 years and in a moment that is all changed. And the man responsible for it has left abruptly. That had to have left this man in a state of confusion. Jesus told him to get up, pick up his mat, and walk. And that’s exactly what he does. Where was he supposed to walk to?

Notice two things. At the end of verse 13, the reason Jesus walked away from the man was that there was a crowd there: “Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place.” The place was filled with sick people and, no doubt those who cared for them. Had he stayed there after healing one man there would have been a tumult of miracle-seeking. This is not the main thing Jesus is after. (Piper)

That relates to the point made above. Sickness and suffering are abundant. Jesus exits because there was a crowd in that place. A crowd that included a lot of sick and suffering people. When it was realized what had been done for this man who had been suffering for so long, they would want the same. Jesus could have healed an entire mob. But he exits.

I chose you freely. And I healed you. Now, live in this power. Let the gift of healing, the gift of my free grace, be a means to your holiness.” (Piper)

I think the natural tendency is to wonder why Jesus would only heal this one man and not all of the others. As if there were some sort of moral obligation on Jesus’ end. Rather, if the nature of these men are properly understood, one wonders why Jesus would have healed any of them, especially the one that he healed. These are not victims. Jesus was well aware of the events that would follow before hand. And he still proceeds with this particular man.

I take that—final judgment—to be the “worse thing” (in verse 14) that will happen because there aren’t many natural things worse than the 38 years this man endured, (Piper)

If anyone could appreciate Piper’s point here, it would have been that man.

The implications of this are huge for the diseases and disabilities that we deal with today. Jesus walked into a huge “multitude of invalids” according to verse 3. And he heals one man. Just one. And disappears before even that man can know who he was. He leaves hundreds of invalids behind unhealed. Then he finds the man in a less conspicuous place and puts all the focus on holiness. “Sin no more.” (Piper)

I wonder if this was an offense to the healed man that prompted him to betray Jesus immediately thereafter. Had he seen himself as a victim for the prior 38 years? Now Jesus was telling him not to sin further. I wonder if this enraged him.

The point is this: In the first coming of the Son of God into the world, we receive foretastes of his healing power. The full healing of all his people and all their diseases and disabilities awaits the second coming of Christ. And the aim of these foretastes which we receive now is to call us to faith and holiness. (Piper)

This is helpful in shedding light on the intent of the healing. The purpose was greater. There is an eschatological purpose. It is revelatory of things to come and reveals deeper truths of our current condition.

In John 11 the stench of death illustrates the stench of sin. Here it seems the diseases of the body further illustrate the disease of sin.

Most people who suffer from disabilities in this life will have them to the day they die. And all of us, till Jesus comes again, will die of something. Here and there, some are healed. We believe in miracles. But even though Jesus had all the power to heal, he did not usher in the final day of perfect wholeness. His ministry points to that day. (Piper)

There is a deeper meaning to what is happening here. The nature of man. The consequence of that nature. The nature of God. His desire. And a taste of what he intends for later.

Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five roofed colonnades.

Bethesda in Hebrew/Aramaic means house (beth) of grace (hesda). Other locations that start with beth are; Bethel (House of God), Bethlehem (House of Bread), Bethsaida (House of Fish). Bet (beth) is also the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet (and also used for the number 2).

Interestingly, until the 19th century, it was believed that the Gospel of John was written much later than it was by an author who was unfamiliar with the Jerusalem during the time of Jesus. There was no evidence, outside of the Bible, that the pool existed. That is, until it was discovered in the 19th century.

Also remarkable is the third word in the verse: is. In Greek, as in English, it is a present tense, third-person, singular, indicative verb. In other words, it’s not was (the passage also uses has five roofed colonnades, not had). John is referencing something that currently exists. It didn’t exist after 70ad as Jerusalem, and particularly the temple, was destroyed. Yet the Gospel of John is predominately dated as being written 90-100. If the text had been written after 70ad, verse 1 would not use present tense verbs to denote the pool and gate’s existence.

Some have argued that the pool was used to wash the animals being prepared for sacrifice. However, the pool is 13 meters deep, so others argue that it is unlikely such a pool would be used for this purpose. Rather, they argue that the pool was used as a water basin for the needs of the temple.

The Sheep Gate was the first gate built during the rebuilding of Jerusalem during the time of Nehemiah.

Eliashib the high priest and his fellow priests went to work and rebuilt the Sheep Gate. They dedicated it and set its doors in place, building as far as the Tower of the Hundred, which they dedicated, and as far as the Tower of Hananel.

Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five roofed colonnades.

As a lamb is a young sheep, it is interesting that John 5 takes place by the Sheep Gate. This is the gate that was built during Nehemiah’s time (Neh 3). And it seems this is the gate in which the animals prepared for sacrifice would enter Jerusalem. Interestingly, Spurgeon alleges Christ’s triumphant entry was through this gate though there is nothing to support this:

He was led into Jerusalem by the sheep-gate, the gate through which the lambs of the Passover and the sheep for sacrifice were always driven.

Spurgeon may have it right, but if he does, it’s through speculation. Speculation is never a good approach to exegesis.

But the setting of John 5 is obviously significant and reminds me of John 10:7.

After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

John 5 places the context as during a feast of the Jews, but the particular feast is not specified. Some commentators suggest it is inconsequential, but simply intended to explain why Jesus is now found in Jerusalem. Some, however, suggest that the identification of the feast has relevance in regard to determining the duration of Jesus’ public ministry. For instance the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary has this to say:

1. a feast of the Jews—What feast? No question has more divided the Harmonists of the Gospels, and the duration of our Lord’s ministry may be said to hinge on it. For if, as the majority have thought (until of late years) it was a Passover, His ministry lasted three and a half years; if not, probably a year less. Those who are dissatisfied with the Passover-view all differ among themselves what other feast it was, and some of the most acute think there are no grounds for deciding. In our judgment the evidence is in favor of its being a Passover, but the reasons cannot be stated here.

To help clarify why the year variation in the public ministry of Jesus is relevant to identifying this feast as Passover is explained more from Meyer’s NT Commentary:

 If this feast itself is taken to be the Passover, we are obliged, with the most glaring arbitrariness, to put a spatium vacuum of a year between it and the Passover of John 6:4, of which, however, John (John 6:1-4) has not given the slightest hint. On the contrary, he lets his narrative present the most uninterrupted sequence. Hengstenberg judges, indeed, that the gap can appear strange only to those who do not rightly discern the relation in which John stands to the Synoptics. But this is nothing more than the dictum of harmonistic presuppositions.

The Expositor’s Greek Testament succinctly sums up the two predominant and competing views:

It is chiefly between Purim and Passover that opinion is divided, because some feast in spring is supposed to be indicated by John 4:35. Against Passover it is urged that in chap. 6 another Passover is mentioned; but this is by no means decisive, as John elsewhere passes over equally long intervals of time. Lampe, Lightfoot, Grotius, Whitelaw, and Wordsworth argue for Passover: Tischendorf, Meyer, Godet, Farrar, Weiss, and others strongly favour Purim; while Lücke seems to prove that no sure conclusion can be reached. [For a full and fair presentation of opinions and data see Andrew’s Life of our Lord, p. 189 sqq.] The feast, whatever it was, is mentioned here to account for Jesus being again in Jerusalem.

I’ve been asked to preach twice in June. I’m inclined to stay with the Gospel of John. Previously I’ve preached on John 4, John 11, and John 13. I think I am going to backtrack now and pick up in John 5. Particularly, the story of the healing of the 38-year-old paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda. This is such an interesting story with great themes that parallel those in the other 3 chapters I’ve gone through. However, there is a fairly complicated textual issue that exists in John 5 (verse 4) akin to that of John 8. Since I am preaching back-to-back on the same day (June 28th), I think I may follow John 5 with John 9 (the healing of the blind man). Similar stories with dissimilar responses by the healed men. That greatest challenge is always in the translation, since I still need a translator. I am on the cusp of trying to preach in Spanish, and I think I could do that if I translated the text before hand. But since there is a wedding that weekend with a number of English speaking people from out of the country in attendance, I’ve been asked to preach in English with translation.

Here is the text from John 5 that I would like to pursue (from the ESV):

“After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five roofed colonnades. In these lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed. One man was there who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had already been there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be healed?” The sick man answered him, “Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, and while I am going another steps down before me.” Jesus said to him, “Get up, take up your bed, and walk.” And at once the man was healed, and he took up his bed and walked.

Now that day was the Sabbath. So the Jews said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath, and it is not lawful for you to take up your bed.” But he answered them, “The man who healed me, that man said to me, ‘Take up your bed, and walk.’” They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Take up your bed and walk’?” Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place. Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.” The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”

The above is from the ESV which, like most modern translations, does not include verse 4. The omitted verse reads as follows:

for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.