Jesus returns to Jerusalem—Passover, 28 AD
5
1 After these things there was the* The manuscript evidence is badly divided here, between ‘the feast’ and ‘a feast’—I take it that the best evidence is on the side of the definite article. In that event the feast was the Passover (with the other alternative it could still be the Passover), the second during Christ's public ministry; one and a half years are behind Him and there are two to go. For events between the first two Passovers see Mark 1:14-2:17, Luke 4:14-5:39 and Matthew 4:12-8:4. feast of the Jews, so Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
The pool of Bethesda
2 Now in Jerusalem, by the Sheep Gate, there is a pool called Bethesda,† Fully 99% of the Greek manuscripts read the familiar ‘Bethesda’, and this name is attested by the 1st century Copper Scroll from Qumran. The so-called ‘critical text’ (UBS and N-A) serves up the pitiful ‘Bethzatha’, following just five Greek manuscripts (as in TEV, RSV, Jer., etc.). The UBS editors have introduced an historical error into their text on the flimsiest of evidence, even going against their favorites, 𝕻75 and B. in Hebrew, which has five porches.‡ The pool is a rectangle (it is still there), so it has four sides—so where was the fifth porch? Across the middle, dividing the pool into two smaller ones. Instead of ‘porch’ one could use ‘portico’, ‘cloister’, ‘colonnade’—a covered walkway. 3 In them a large number of sick people were lying—blind, lame, paralyzed—waiting for the moving of the water; 4 because an angel would go down from time to time into the pool and stir up the water§ The angel, whether good or bad, would presumably be invisible to the people, so this information must have been revealed to John.—then the first one to get in after the stirring of the water became well of whatever disease that was holding him.* About 0.8% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit the last clause of verse 3 and all of verse 4 (as in NIV, NASB, LB, [TEV], etc.). But obviously all those people would not stay there (in discomfort) day in and day out, year in and year out, if nothing was happening. Obviously people got healed (from serious diseases), and verse 7 makes clear that it had to do with the stirring of the water—so why didn't those manuscripts omit verse 7 as well? The UBS editions do us a considerable disservice by following a very small minority of manuscripts (perhaps 2%) and making the angel ‘of the Lord’. Since angels can be good or fallen, it seems most likely to me that the angel involved was fallen. A capricious, occasional healing condemned all those people to added suffering (being at the pool instead of the comfort of home), including the frustration and despair of those who never made it (like the man Jesus healed). A sadistic procedure is just like Satan.
The man selected for healing
5 Now there was a certain man there who had been sick for 38 years.† Wow! 6 Seeing this man lying there and knowing that he had already been sick a long time, Jesus says to him, “Do you want to get well?” 7 The sick man answered Him, “Sir, I have no man to throw‡ That is right, “throw”. Hey, where a split second could make the difference no one is going to stand on ceremony—when the water started to move there would be a mad scramble; people would be thrown at the water, literally. (The demons would really enjoy themselves, seeing ‘the image of God’ humiliated in that way.) me into the pool when the water is stirred up, but while I am coming another gets in before me.” 8 Jesus says to him, “Get up, pick up your pallet and walk!” 9 Immediately the man became well and picked up his pallet and started to walk! 10 But that day was a Sabbath, so the Jews said to the one who had been healed: “It's the Sabbath! You aren't allowed to carry the pallet.” 11 He answered them: “The one who made me well—He said to me, ‘Pick up your pallet and walk.’ ” 12 So they asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Pick up your pallet and walk’?” 13 But the man who was cured did not know who it was, because Jesus had disappeared, there being a crowd in the place.§ Let's stop and think about what Jesus did here. There were probably hundreds of sick people there—why did He only heal one of them? And why did He disappear into the crowd before the man could find out who He was? And why did He do this on a Sabbath? I think it was all deliberate—He wanted to provoke the Jews. He chose a Sabbath; He chose a man who had a pallet, but who had no slave or other helper; He commanded (yes, commanded) the man to carry the pallet; He got out of the way so the Jews would have the man to themselves. In this way He set up a confrontation, as we will see below. [In passing we may note that if ever there was a ‘divine healer’ it was the Lord Jesus, and yet He did not empty out this ‘hospital’. Maybe divine healers aren't supposed to empty hospitals.]
14 After these things Jesus found him in the temple and said to him: “See, you are well. Don't sin any more, so that something worse doesn't happen to you.”* The Lord seems to be implying that the former sickness was the result of sin. But he had been sick for 38 years, so he had paid a heavy price! 15 The man went off and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well.
The Jews want to kill Jesus
16 So because of this the Jews began persecuting Jesus and trying to kill Him,† Less than 3% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “and trying to kill Him” (as in NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc.). because He was doing these things on the Sabbath.‡ The last recorded events before John 5:1 are in Luke 5:12-39. The healing of the paralytic had impressed the Jews, but then Jesus immediately went and ate with publicans; and verses 36-39 were against what the Jews represented. Here in John Jesus challenges their authority over the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, “Until now, my Father works, I also work.”§ Not only does Jesus not run and hide, He ‘ups the ante’—He claims to be God, as the Jews understood perfectly well (and which in their mind called for the death penalty, since they were not prepared to acknowledge that claim). 18 So because of this they wanted to kill Him all the more, because He was not only breaking the Sabbath but was even saying that God was His own Father, making Himself equal with God!
Jesus addresses the Jews
He affirms His equality with the Father
19 Then Jesus answered and said to them: “Most assuredly I say to you, the Son is not able to do anything from Himself, except something He sees the Father doing; because whatever things He does, precisely these the Son also does.* I find this statement to be amazing, revealing and challenging. Jesus only did what He saw the Father doing; so how about us? I would say that my main ‘ministry’ problem is that I often don't know what the Father is doing, and so I waste a lot of time and effort. 20 For the Father loves† To my surprise the verb here is φιλεω, not αγαπαω—the Father is emotionally attached to the Son. Well, since we have emotions God must have had them first. God affirms that He has soul (Isaiah 42:1, Matthew 12:18, Hebrews 10:38). the Son and shows Him everything that He Himself is doing; and He will show Him greater works than these, so that you may marvel. 21 Now just as the Father raises the dead and gives life, just so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. 22 In fact the Father does not judge anyone but has committed all the judging to the Son,‡ I suppose this means that it will be the Son who sits on the ‘great white throne’ (Revelation 20:11). 23 so that all will honor the Son just as they honor the Father.§ Of course someone who does not honor the Father will not honor the Son either. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.* I take it that the Lord Jesus is saying that monotheistic people (Jews, Muslims) who claim to honor the Father, but do not honor the Son, are not really doing so. (Perhaps that would not apply to those who have never heard about Jesus.)
The Son is the just Judge
24 “Most assuredly I say to you that the one listening† Most versions render ‘hear’ instead of ‘listen’, both here and in the next verse, but from the context it seems clear that Jesus is not talking about sound striking the eardrum; He is talking about acting on the basis of what is heard. to my word and believing on Him who sent me has eternal life; he will not go into judging but has moved out of the death into the Life.‡ “The death” refers to Satan's kingdom; “the life” refers to Christ's kingdom (and they are the only alternatives in this world).
25 “Most assuredly I say to you that a time is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of the God, and those who listen will live.§ It seems clear that the picture here is different from that in verses 28-29. Here Jesus says “now is”, so He is not talking about future judgment; so the dead here are spiritually dead, and those who listen to Him receive spiritual life. In verse 28 the reference is to the physically dead, who are raised to face the final judgment. 26 Because just as the Father has life in Himself, just so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; 27 furthermore He gave Him the authority to pass judgment, because He is Son of Man.* We as human beings will be judged by another human being, someone who knows what it's like. There is no definite article with either “Son” or “Man”, so this is not the title He normally used. 28 Do not marvel at this, because a time is coming in which all those in the graves will hear His voice 29 and will come out—those who did good things into the resurrection of life,† Notice again the emphasis on doing, because what you do reflects what you really believe, and what you really believe is what you are—and you cannot kid God. “All those in the graves” means everyone who has died; all will be raised, and all must face the final Accounting. but those who practiced evil things into the resurrection of condemnation. 30 I am not able to do anything from myself. As I hear, I judge, and my judging is just, because I do not seek my own will but the will of the Father who sent me.
Four witnesses to Jesus
31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.‡ According to the Law at least two witnesses were required, so if Jesus had only His own word it would not be enough, would not be valid (even though He told the truth). 32 There is another who testifies about me, and I know that the testimony that He gives about me is true.§ I take it that this witness must be the Father, since in verse 34 Jesus discounts John the Baptizer. 33 You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. 34 Yet I do not accept the testimony from a man; but I say these things so that you may be saved.* Since Jesus has three supernatural witnesses—the Father, His own works and the Scriptures—He does not need John. I do not believe Jesus was angry with John or otherwise dissatisfied with his testimony; it is just that the Jews had already rejected John's testimony about Jesus (as they had rejected Jesus Himself). As He says, He would like for them to turn around and be saved, so He organizes His argument in that attempt. 35 That man was a burning, shining lamp, and for a time you were willing to be glad in his light. 36 But I have a greater testimony than John's, because the works that the Father gave me to complete—the very works that I am doing—they testify about me that the Father has sent me.† Nicodemus recognized this.
37 “Further, the Father who sent me has Himself testified about me. You have neither heard His voice nor seen His form at any time. 38 Nor do you have His word abiding in you,‡ The Lord declares their spiritual bankruptcy. For a religious leader to have never heard God's voice is pretty poor, but much worse is to study God's Word without its ever finding a place in your heart. because you do not believe on the very one whom He sent. 39 You examine the Scriptures because in them you think you have eternal life, yet they are the very ones that testify about me. 40 But you are not willing to come to me so that you may have life.§ Jesus had proved that He was the Messiah, but He threatened everything that they stood for.
The Jews are accused by Moses
41 “I do not accept glory from people. 42 Rather I have come to know you,* That is what the Text says, “I have come to know”—presumably He is referring to knowledge gained by observation; they have clearly demonstrated in His presence that in fact they do not have God's love. that you do not have the love of God in you. 43 I have come in my Father's name and you do not receive me; should another come in his own name, him you will receive.† Might this be a prophetic reference to the Antichrist? 44 How can you believe, who receive glory from men‡ Here I follow what I consider to be by far the best line of transmission, although attested by less than 30% of the Greek manuscripts. and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?§ This is serious! Apparently one's attitude toward glory affects his ability to believe. If the approval of people is more important to you than the approval of God, you probably will not believe into Jesus.
45 “Do not suppose that I will accuse you before the Father. Moses is the one who accuses you, on whom you have set your hope. 46 Because if you really believed Moses you would believe me, because he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my sayings?”* The Lord is affirming the inspiration and authority of Moses' writings; in effect He places them on a level with His own word, for which He claims eternal authority (Luke 21:33).

*5:1 The manuscript evidence is badly divided here, between ‘the feast’ and ‘a feast’—I take it that the best evidence is on the side of the definite article. In that event the feast was the Passover (with the other alternative it could still be the Passover), the second during Christ's public ministry; one and a half years are behind Him and there are two to go. For events between the first two Passovers see Mark 1:14-2:17, Luke 4:14-5:39 and Matthew 4:12-8:4.

†5:2 Fully 99% of the Greek manuscripts read the familiar ‘Bethesda’, and this name is attested by the 1st century Copper Scroll from Qumran. The so-called ‘critical text’ (UBS and N-A) serves up the pitiful ‘Bethzatha’, following just five Greek manuscripts (as in TEV, RSV, Jer., etc.). The UBS editors have introduced an historical error into their text on the flimsiest of evidence, even going against their favorites, 𝕻75 and B.

‡5:2 The pool is a rectangle (it is still there), so it has four sides—so where was the fifth porch? Across the middle, dividing the pool into two smaller ones. Instead of ‘porch’ one could use ‘portico’, ‘cloister’, ‘colonnade’—a covered walkway.

§5:4 The angel, whether good or bad, would presumably be invisible to the people, so this information must have been revealed to John.

*5:4 About 0.8% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit the last clause of verse 3 and all of verse 4 (as in NIV, NASB, LB, [TEV], etc.). But obviously all those people would not stay there (in discomfort) day in and day out, year in and year out, if nothing was happening. Obviously people got healed (from serious diseases), and verse 7 makes clear that it had to do with the stirring of the water—so why didn't those manuscripts omit verse 7 as well? The UBS editions do us a considerable disservice by following a very small minority of manuscripts (perhaps 2%) and making the angel ‘of the Lord’. Since angels can be good or fallen, it seems most likely to me that the angel involved was fallen. A capricious, occasional healing condemned all those people to added suffering (being at the pool instead of the comfort of home), including the frustration and despair of those who never made it (like the man Jesus healed). A sadistic procedure is just like Satan.

†5:5 Wow!

‡5:7 That is right, “throw”. Hey, where a split second could make the difference no one is going to stand on ceremony—when the water started to move there would be a mad scramble; people would be thrown at the water, literally. (The demons would really enjoy themselves, seeing ‘the image of God’ humiliated in that way.)

§5:13 Let's stop and think about what Jesus did here. There were probably hundreds of sick people there—why did He only heal one of them? And why did He disappear into the crowd before the man could find out who He was? And why did He do this on a Sabbath? I think it was all deliberate—He wanted to provoke the Jews. He chose a Sabbath; He chose a man who had a pallet, but who had no slave or other helper; He commanded (yes, commanded) the man to carry the pallet; He got out of the way so the Jews would have the man to themselves. In this way He set up a confrontation, as we will see below. [In passing we may note that if ever there was a ‘divine healer’ it was the Lord Jesus, and yet He did not empty out this ‘hospital’. Maybe divine healers aren't supposed to empty hospitals.]

*5:14 The Lord seems to be implying that the former sickness was the result of sin. But he had been sick for 38 years, so he had paid a heavy price!

†5:16 Less than 3% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “and trying to kill Him” (as in NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc.).

‡5:16 The last recorded events before John 5:1 are in Luke 5:12-39. The healing of the paralytic had impressed the Jews, but then Jesus immediately went and ate with publicans; and verses 36-39 were against what the Jews represented. Here in John Jesus challenges their authority over the Sabbath.

§5:17 Not only does Jesus not run and hide, He ‘ups the ante’—He claims to be God, as the Jews understood perfectly well (and which in their mind called for the death penalty, since they were not prepared to acknowledge that claim).

*5:19 I find this statement to be amazing, revealing and challenging. Jesus only did what He saw the Father doing; so how about us? I would say that my main ‘ministry’ problem is that I often don't know what the Father is doing, and so I waste a lot of time and effort.

†5:20 To my surprise the verb here is φιλεω, not αγαπαω—the Father is emotionally attached to the Son. Well, since we have emotions God must have had them first. God affirms that He has soul (Isaiah 42:1, Matthew 12:18, Hebrews 10:38).

‡5:22 I suppose this means that it will be the Son who sits on the ‘great white throne’ (Revelation 20:11).

§5:23 Of course someone who does not honor the Father will not honor the Son either.

*5:23 I take it that the Lord Jesus is saying that monotheistic people (Jews, Muslims) who claim to honor the Father, but do not honor the Son, are not really doing so. (Perhaps that would not apply to those who have never heard about Jesus.)

†5:24 Most versions render ‘hear’ instead of ‘listen’, both here and in the next verse, but from the context it seems clear that Jesus is not talking about sound striking the eardrum; He is talking about acting on the basis of what is heard.

‡5:24 “The death” refers to Satan's kingdom; “the life” refers to Christ's kingdom (and they are the only alternatives in this world).

§5:25 It seems clear that the picture here is different from that in verses 28-29. Here Jesus says “now is”, so He is not talking about future judgment; so the dead here are spiritually dead, and those who listen to Him receive spiritual life. In verse 28 the reference is to the physically dead, who are raised to face the final judgment.

*5:27 We as human beings will be judged by another human being, someone who knows what it's like. There is no definite article with either “Son” or “Man”, so this is not the title He normally used.

†5:29 Notice again the emphasis on doing, because what you do reflects what you really believe, and what you really believe is what you are—and you cannot kid God. “All those in the graves” means everyone who has died; all will be raised, and all must face the final Accounting.

‡5:31 According to the Law at least two witnesses were required, so if Jesus had only His own word it would not be enough, would not be valid (even though He told the truth).

§5:32 I take it that this witness must be the Father, since in verse 34 Jesus discounts John the Baptizer.

*5:34 Since Jesus has three supernatural witnesses—the Father, His own works and the Scriptures—He does not need John. I do not believe Jesus was angry with John or otherwise dissatisfied with his testimony; it is just that the Jews had already rejected John's testimony about Jesus (as they had rejected Jesus Himself). As He says, He would like for them to turn around and be saved, so He organizes His argument in that attempt.

†5:36 Nicodemus recognized this.

‡5:38 The Lord declares their spiritual bankruptcy. For a religious leader to have never heard God's voice is pretty poor, but much worse is to study God's Word without its ever finding a place in your heart.

§5:40 Jesus had proved that He was the Messiah, but He threatened everything that they stood for.

*5:42 That is what the Text says, “I have come to know”—presumably He is referring to knowledge gained by observation; they have clearly demonstrated in His presence that in fact they do not have God's love.

†5:43 Might this be a prophetic reference to the Antichrist?

‡5:44 Here I follow what I consider to be by far the best line of transmission, although attested by less than 30% of the Greek manuscripts.

§5:44 This is serious! Apparently one's attitude toward glory affects his ability to believe. If the approval of people is more important to you than the approval of God, you probably will not believe into Jesus.

*5:47 The Lord is affirming the inspiration and authority of Moses' writings; in effect He places them on a level with His own word, for which He claims eternal authority (Luke 21:33).

© 2016 Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM, PhD