Michael-Grams: M-G: 4.3.20 // Some Comments on Jesus at the Pool of Bethesda, John 5:1-15, Part 1 of 4

(Jn 5:1) After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

After this.

After (meta) this (touto) is neuter singular. This phrase occurs in John 6x: Jn 2:12; 5:1; 11:7; 13:7; 19:28, 38. Such a phrase signals a change of scenery or a turn in the narrative. It is unknown how much time elapsed between Jn 4:54 and Jn 5:1. This phrase doesn’t demand that this event in Bethesda strictly follow the meeting of Jesus with the nobleman in Cana of Galilee, whose son was sick back in Capernaum.

In Jn 19:28, after this is more definitive than it is here in Jn 5:1. Normally, this phrase is indefinite or vague concerning the amount of time that transpired. Thus, it remains uncertain of the length of time when Jesus was in Cana of Galilee and went up to Bethesda in Jerusalem. It makes you want to give a shout out for calendars and time devices like watches, atomic clocks, and smartphones with GPS capability rather than deciphering ambiguous time-phrases 2k years ago. It takes about a three-day journey going to Jerusalem from Cana of Galilee if you go through Samaria. Going around Samaria, add two more days to the trip.

There was a feast of the Jews.

There is no way of telling which feast is referred to here. The definite article (the) is absent in the Greek. We do know of three Passovers if not counting a possible one in Jn 5:1: the first one is in Jn 2:13, 23; the second one is in Jn 6:4, and the third one is found in Jn 12:1. This is used to determine the length of Jesus’ ministry (3-4 yrs?). It may have been that John was giving a reason for Jesus going up to Jerusalem. The identity of a feast of the Jews is a scholarly debate for sure. The real explosive issue in John 5 will be found in Jn 5:9; it is a pivotal moment with Jesus healing on the Sabbath!

And Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

This speaks of elevational differences. Everywhere was going up to Jerusalem, except for Hebron; it was a descent into Jerusalem. More than likely, Jesus came out of Galilee.

(Jn 5:2) Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches.

Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate.

This was the portal where many sheep were led to be sacrificed in the temple court.

A pool, which is called in Hebrew.

Actually, it was Aramaic, a Semitic language of the Jews of Palestine.

Bethesda.

Bethesda is called the “house of mercy” or the “house of double spring,”1 or according to MacArthur, “Bethesda is the Greek transliteration of an Aramaic name meaning “house of outpouring” or “house of mercy.”2 According to Hendriksen, it is called the “house of mercy” or the “house of the olive-tree.”3

Having five porches (stoa).

Stoa was a covered colonnade where people congregated or were protected from the sun or inclement weather. Some expositors view these five porches or porticoes as representing “the law of Moses and its inability to help man out of his deep troubles” or spiritual predicament.

(Jn 5:3) In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water.

In these [five porches] lay.

This verb is in the imperfect tense, so there is no indication of time or frequency.

A great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed.

Bethesda was packed out and then some! We don’t know if they were swarming because they were “led to believe” that you could actually be healed or it if was held to have some historical legitimacy? Who, having an infirmity for any length of time, would not look for relief anyway possible? What do you have to lose for not trying, right?

Waiting for the moving of the water.

Let’s get into a stirring of another kind before returning back to the pool of water at Bethesda. According to The Bible Knowledge Commentary, “No extant Greek manuscript before A.D. 400 contains these words,”4 in other words, Jn 5:3b-4. Many believe, however, that Jn 5:3b-4 should be included because it is in the majority of the manuscripts post A.D. 400 in explaining why the pool at Bethesda was stirred (cf. Jn 5:7).

Admittedly, these words offer an explanation as to why all of these people with infirmities were gathered there. BNTC quoted a second-century theologian by the name of Tertullian (~ A.D. 145-220) who indicated that he was aware of what was going on at Bethesda and the challenge to be healed there,

“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 was the first to descend into these waters, after his washing ceased to complain.”5

Tertullian may have had another agenda in mentioning this rather than arguing for its inclusion or exclusion in the text. His remarks gave the earliest indication of the motivation behind the gathering at Bethesda. According to Lenski,

“Tertullian used this spurious passage or his favorite conception of the ‘the baptismal angel.’”6

This reference by Tertullian does not necessarily warrant its inclusion in John’s original manuscript. This passage is seen by many evangelical heavyweights as an interpolation. Hendriksen commented that “It is probably much more difficult to explain how it came about that these words were omitted from all the best manuscripts if they were really a part of the original text than to account for the manner in which they may have crept into the text….”7

Two hot points concerning Jn 5:3b-4 are these. (1) If this supposed angel is from Yahweh, it makes Him out to be toying with those hurting; there are other reasons given why this passage appears to most as an “insertion,” and (2) It poses an existential threat of adding or taking away from Scripture if it belongs (cf. Gal 1:8-9). It is still found in the KJV and the NKJV translations, and it is either omitted altogether or bracketed in other translations. For ~12 centuries it has remained a controversial passage, and by the looks of things, it doesn’t look to dissipate anytime soon.

The issue here is not if there was an angel actually stirring the waters or people getting healed as some kind of explanation for why so many people with health issues were drawn to this pool at Bethesda. We do not have any idea as to what extent healings were actually taken place, if any, by those who were successful in being the first in the pool during or after the stirring of the waters.

Obviously, the sick and the afflicted would not be going there if there wasn’t some kind of “evidence of healing” by observing the first one in and out of the water. It wouldn’t surprise me if over time the healings became more embellished so on the spot vendors could make more sales! Like today, it all could have been driven by $uperstition.

There is, however, one pool patron who we know of that was thoroughly healed simply by the words of Jesus without ever having to put one foot in the pool, stirring or not. This was another Messianic manifestation that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and that’s the point, not the supposed miracles circulating in the pool of the house of mercy, Bethesda. This particular physical healing should in no way be construed with spiritual healing as we will see later on by this ingrate.

We know that it is not God’s will for everyone to be healed of health issues. Those who make that claim that it is are lying. The only person we know of that got healed that day was this man. This is not to suggest God was/is unkind or unmerciful. There are way too many verses to the contrary declaring Him to be compassionate and merciful (Rom 10:38; Jn 3:16; 21:25; Rom 5:8).

Nonetheless, these miracles were primarily to identify and validate Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. None of these miracles superseded a person’s will; permission must be given by the recipient (cf. Jn 5:6). The woman who touched the hem of Jesus’ garment already gave permission without even having to say so (Mt 9:20-22). One of the sweet things about going to heaven is that it is free from sin and sickness. <><