Muchacho Polaco

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.”

The man was carrying his bed while he walked, as Jesus had commanded. But now he’s being reminded that what he is doing is unlawful. Was it unlawful? Most modern commentary suggest the allegation is rooted in an early rabbinic tradition which was adding to the law of God.

In Sproul’s book on John (and in his sermons, which are identical in content to the book), he says:

Now, I ask you where in the Word of God does it say it is unlawful for a person who has been healed of paralysis to carry his bed? You know the answer to that question: nowhere. But the rabbis, in their historical interpretation of the law, had enumerated thirty-nine specific types of work that were illegal on the Sabbath (lay, and the thirty-ninth rule of Sabbath observance the very last one in the list was the prohibition against carrying something from one place to another. As a result of that human rule, the Jews reacted very negatively when they saw this man a man who had been lying paralyzed for thirty-eight years walking and carrying his bed.

It’s true the rabbis enumerated 39 prohibitions in the Babylonian Talmud, but that was written long after the time of Jesus. Despite being much later, the traditions are said to have originated during the time of Jesus.

Is the literature that Jesus was familiar with in his early years yet in existence in the world? Is it possible for us to get at it? Can we ourselves review the ideas, the statements, the modes of reasoning and thinking, on moral and religious subjects, which were current in his time, and must have been [resolved] by him during those silent thirty years when he was pondering his future mission? To such inquiries the learned class of Jewish rabbis answer by holding up the Talmud. Here, say they, is the source from whence Jesus of Nazareth drew the teaching which enabled him to revolutionize the world; and the question becomes, therefore, an interesting one to every Christian, What is the Talmud?

The Talmud, then, is the written form of that which, in the time of Jesus, was called the Traditions of the Elders, and to which he makes frequent allusions. – Rabbi Michael L. Rodkinson

And also from a Jewish Encyclopedia:

The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees.

Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single member of that literature, and round it are gathered a number of Midrashim, partly legal (Halachic) and partly works of edification (Haggadic). This literature, in its oldest elements, goes back to a time before the beginning of the Common Era, and comes down into the Middle Ages. Through it all run the lines of thought which were first drawn by the Pharisees, and the study of it is essential for any real understanding of Pharisaism.

The 39th rule relates to carrying things, or transference from one domain to another. Presumably then that rule originates here during the time of Pharisees here in John 5.

Calvin understands the nature of the conflict and believes God’s law expressly forbids carrying burdens on the sabbath.

And it was the Sabbath. Christ was well aware how great offense would immediately arise, when they saw a man walk along laden with burdens; for the Law expressly forbids

to carry any burden whatever on the Sabbath-day, (Jeremiah 17:21.)

Jeremiah 17:21 reads:

Thus says the LORD: Take care for the sake of your lives, and do not bear a burden on the Sabbath day or bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem.

The Jews were right to interpret Jeremiah 17 as relevant for proper Sabbath observance, but what they were not considering were acts of mercy done on the Sabbath. At least, they weren’t being consistent in their consideration. In Matthew 12, Jesus reminds them of this inconsistency (verses 11 and 12):

He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

It seems the religious leaders have missed the intent of the Sabbath. In verse 7 of the same chapter, Jesus had said (quoting Hosea 6.6):

If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.

Acts of mercy were not a violation of sabbath ordinances. And the Jews knew that to some degree because, as Jesus pointed out, they engaged in acts of mercy on the sabbath when emergencies occurred (like an animal falling into a pit). They just weren’t consistent.

So in this man’s situation. Had he just been carrying his mat on the sabbath with no other reason than to transport it from one location to another, then it seems he would be in violation of the sabbath. But he had been healed on the sabbath. And this was an obvious act of mercy.

The context does not make it clear that the “Jews” (whomever that’s referring to, presumably Jewish leaders), knew that this man had been healed from his disability on the sabbath. If that was the case, then their accusation seems warranted. So the healed man explains to them:

But he answered them, “The man who healed me, that man said to me, ‘Take up your bed, and walk.’”

The man reveals to them that he had been healed. His defense is an appeal to the person that healed him. The person that had healed him told him to do these things.

Some commentators see this as similar to Adam’s defense in Genesis 3:

The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”

Adam had violated God’s command and then blamed God for the conditions in which that violation took place. But that’s not what is happening here. This man had not sinned. On the contrary, he had obeyed Jesus’ command by carrying his mat and walking. His appeal to the man that healed him was an appeal to that man’s authority. He just didn’t know that man’s name:

They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Take up your bed and walk’?”

I think the question is telling. They didn’t ask, Who is the man who healed you?, rather, they’re focused on the take up your bed and walk part as though there not even prepared to consider that acts of mercy are exceptions to sabbath prohibitions. They seem to have tunnel vision.

This is all the more indicting given they are standing in front of a pool called Bethesda. Which means House of Mercy.

Calvin has insightful commentary regarding the rashness of the Jews judgement:

It is the Sabbath. It was the duty of all to maintain the sanctity of the Sabbath, and, therefore, they justly and properly accuse the man. But, when the excuse offered by the man does not satisfy them, they already begin to be in fault; for, when the reason was known, he ought to have been acquitted. It was a violation of the Sabbath, as we have said, to carry a burden; but Christ, who laid the burden on his shoulders, discharges him by his own authority. We are therefore taught by this example to avoid every rash judgment, until the reason of each action be fully known.

Jesus said to him, “Get up, take up your bed, and walk.

The speed in which this miraculous event occurs reminds me of the words of Paul in 1Cor. 15.52 when speaking of the putting on of the resurrected body:

in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.

This man had been physically disabled for 38 years, and then instantly this had changed. He was now able to walk. This phenomenon is all the more curious as the miracle had to have been in part mental. Like the blind man from birth who was able to see immediately when healed in John 9, this man was able to walk immediately. Just having two functional legs doesn’t mean you can walk. Newborns have legs, but they aren’t born walking. Generally, you have to learn to walk (or re-learn how to walk). Those that experience leg injuries that have underwent surgical correction often spend an enormous amount of time in rehabilitative therapy trying to learn how to walk again. But that doesn’t seem to be the case here. His legs are physically restored AND he knows how to use them.

And at once the man was healed, and he took up his bed and walked. Now that day was the Sabbath.

Jesus tells him to do three things. Get up. Pick up your bed. And walk. The man does all three. And it’s not as if Jesus isn’t aware of the immediate antagonism this man would experience. They are in Jerusalem during a feast. They are standing in front of a gate to the city where a flow of traffic would be pouring into the city. There was a lot of observers. In a sense, this man is on display.

Presumably this man would have known that it would have caused problems to carry his bed on the Sabbath. He’s physically disabled, not mentally disabled. Everyone would have known that. So for him to do so would have been seen as scandalous. But even so, the man does as Jesus tells him. He doesn’t object and remind Jesus what day of the week it is. He doesn’t appeal to the religious leaders and remind Jesus that what he is asking would violate their understanding of the law. Jesus has demonstrated his authority and this man responds appropriately. He does what Jesus tells him to do, despite the consequences. Even when everyone is looking. Even though it’s not safe for him to do so. Picking up his mat could cost him his life.

Here’s the apparent dilemma. On the one hand, the religious authorities have taught the people that carrying a bed on the Sabbath would be a violation of the law. But Jesus has told the man to violate that law (or perhaps, that this was an exceptional case which would exempt the action of carrying the mat as a violation of the law). Jesus is telling the man to carry his mat, the religious leaders have taught him otherwise. But the actions of Jesus have established him as authoritative. So there are two competing authorities presented to this man. He chooses to obey Jesus.

This dilemma reminds me of the Garden.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ ”

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The serpent contradicted the word of God and in so doing, encouraged Eve to evaluate the situation for herself. In effect, setting herself up as an authority to determine the truth of the word of God. And it was by this authority that Eve determined that God’s word was not true. And so she ate.

What should she have done? Or what should her husband have done (who stood silently and cowardly by her side as she was essentially attacked by the serpent)? Well minimally they should not have questioned the word of God. Any time one questions the word of God, they are, as Eve, setting up another standard in order to judge the word of God. That new standard then becomes the highest authority, not the word of God. It is nothing less than an effort to dethrone God. That was the agenda of the serpent. It is still the agenda of the serpent.

I started a men’s group in the house that meets on Friday evenings. The group chose the topic of ‘covenant’ to study. The group consists of 5 guys, all of whom enjoy studying subjects in depth. We’ve met twice previously now, the first to identify a subject and the second to start that subject. We are tentatively scheduled to meet tonight if everyone’s schedule can accommodate.

The last time we met we identified a covenant as a social construct that defines the parameters of a particular type of relationship. We considered the difference between unilateral and bilateral covenants. We then spent some time contrasting a covenant with a contract. I had previously given them the analogy of a prostitute and a wife to help identify the differences between the two. We discussed duration, stipulations, breach, misrepresentation, oaths, symbolism/sacraments, and sanctions (both positive and negative).

The homework I offered them was to consider the covenant ceremony instituted in Genesis 15 with Abraham, as well as the covenant ceremony in Jeremiah 34.

Questions to consider are:

1) What is the significance of the animals cut in half?
2) What is the significance of the torch moving through the halves of the animal while Abram is in a trance?
3) Is this a unilateral or bilateral covenant?
4) Same questions repeated for Jeremiah 34.

The list of animals seems strange, but yet Abram seems familiar with the process. The general consensus is that the animals split in half symbolizes the consequence to one that violates the conditions of the covenant.

The torch and oven moving through the animals symbolizes God, who often appears in similar forms (burning bush, pillar of fire, etc).

The covenant is presumed unilateral which is illustrated by God alone passing through the animal pieces.

In Jeremiah, animals are likewise split in two (see verse 18) and God references that imagery when explaining what will happen to those that violated the terms of the covenant. This covenant seems bilateral in that conditions are expected to me met by the men that entered into the covenant.

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.