John 5 and the Pool at Bethesda Incident
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 3:04 pm
We recently had the following email discussion email about the first incident described in this writing about corruptions in the Book of John and his letters:
http://thepathoftruth.com/teachings/boo ... rupted.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Scriptural Account (with added portion in red):
John 5:1-18 MKJV
(1) After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
(2) Now there is a pool at the Sheep Gate at Jerusalem, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porches.
(3) In these lay a great multitude of those who were sick, of blind, lame, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
(4) For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and troubled the water. Then whoever first stepped in after the troubling of the water was made whole of whatever disease he had.
(5) And a certain man was there, who had an infirmity thirty-eight years.
(6) When Jesus saw him lying, and knowing that he had spent much time, He said to him, Do you desire to be made whole?
(7) The infirm man answered Him, Sir, when the water is troubled, I have no one to put me into the pool. But while I am coming, another steps down before me.
(8) Jesus says to him, Rise, take up your bed and walk.
(9) And immediately the man was made whole and took up his bed and walked. And it was a Sabbath on that day.
(10) Therefore the Jews said to him who had been healed, It is the Sabbath. It is not lawful for you to take up the bed.
(11) He answered them, He who made me whole said to me, Take up your bed and walk.
(12) Then they asked him, Who is the man who said to you, Take up your bed and walk?
(13) And he did not know Him who had cured him, for Jesus had moved away, a crowd being in the place.
(14) Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, Behold, you are made whole. Sin no more lest a worse thing come to you.
(15) The man departed and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him whole.
(16) And therefore the Jews persecuted Jesus and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath day.
(17) But Jesus answered them, My Father works until now, and I work.
(18) Then, because of this, the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but also said that God was His father, making Himself equal with God.
Comments:
Victor: Is this a possible explanation? People there were superstitious and actually fell for a story about how an angel stirred the water and thought they could get healed if in first. In other words, John wasn’t relating something he himself believed, but what was the “old wives’ fable.” However, it doesn’t explain how certain manuscripts omitted offending portions, except that they did what we did by assuming it was a scheming addition.
Paul: From what I’m finding, Victor, the addition came later (part of verse 3 and all of verse 4), and didn’t include verse 7, which is in the oldest manuscripts. I think your explanation of superstition being at work at there is correct and explains what is said in verse 7, which you’ll notice doesn’t endorse the fable like the apocryphal addition does. The idea of getting healed by the “troubling of the water” also explains why a “multitude of invalids” were hanging around the pool, hoping to get healed.
Eric: Jesus wasn’t there to deal with the superstition going on. He was there for that man, regardless of all the other people there. His purpose was to draw the religious out for what He was doing there on the Sabbath, which He addresses later in this chapter with those Sabbath idolaters.
Sean: Verse 7 does provide a good explanation as to why there were many people hanging out at the pool and, as Paul says, it shows that these people were superstitious without promoting the idea of an angel stirring the waters.
I like what Eric says about Jesus’ being there for the crippled man. He doesn’t bother with trying to set him straight on his beliefs. Just, “Do you want to be made whole?” and “Rise, take up your bed and walk.” Done.
I don’t see Him as trying to draw out the religious by healing on the Sabbath; that just came with the territory, so to speak. Jesus had His job to do and He did it.
As for omitting the offending portions, if the earliest manuscripts don’t include these portions, isn’t it not so much a matter of them omitting them, but that they just weren’t there yet? Does that make sense? And if the offending portions were omitted in later manuscripts as well then they would be harking back to the earlier ones.
Ronnie: With reading John 5:1-7 with 3b and 4 removed I could see why someone would have taken the opportunity to add that text. Verse 7 is simply a statement of what happened, but does lend to questioning why the cripple man said what he said. Man's itching ears makes for a great opportunity for a new fable, even if the fable itself was in itself believed upon at the time, which it appears so. This entire discussion just further shines light on how horrible Bibliolatry is. Contrary to lame men groping to get a mystical unpredictable healing, The Lord's choosing is what matters, even if it is by giving faith to seek Him as demonstrated with the Syrophoenician woman. As Eric and Sean mentioned He wasn't there discussing the superstition, but in fact overcoming it.
As to what Eric shared about the Lord drawing out the Sabbath idolaters I do see some support for that from what was said in Mark, regarding another Sabbath day:
Mark 3:1-5 MKJV
(1) And He again entered into the synagogue. And a man was there who had a withered hand.
(2) And they watched Him to see if He would heal him on the sabbath day, so that they might accuse Him.
(3) And He said to the man who had the withered hand, Arise! Come into the middle.
(4) And He said to them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? To save life, or to kill? But they were silent.
(5) And looking around on them with anger, being grieved because of the hardness of their hearts, He said to the man, Stretch out your hand! And he stretched it out. And his hand was restored whole, like the other.
In this case He was there not only to deliver this man physically but also to address another, perhaps more severe spiritual malady of idolatry in the self-righteous.
Martin: Weren't the Pharisees already “out” to get Him? Did they need to be drawn out? It seems like they were trying to use this synagogue situation in Mark to draw Jesus out, but they got caught in their own snare.
Not that Jesus wasn't willing to expose the Pharisees, as light always exposed darkness, but I don't see Him setting traps. It was the Pharisees who thought in those terms. The Father was setting all of these things up and orchestrating all of these situations. Jesus was doing the work put before Him.
We are not to play God, but follow after the example Jesus set before us.
We are to submit and fulfill our duties in all of the circumstances the Lord creates for us, as Jesus did. It isn't our job to create the circumstances.
Paul: Martin makes an important point here. Jesus came as the Son of Man. He wasn’t playing the part of omnipotent God, but was submitting to His Father and the circumstances He found Himself in by His Father’s design, just as we are to do.
Philippians 2:5-8 ESV
(5) Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
(6) Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(7) but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
(8) And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
“I can do nothing of My own self. As I hear, I judge, and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of the Father Who has sent Me” (John 5:30 MKJV).
Ronnie: I appreciate the clarification and correction here. I didn't see or distinguish the work of the Father from that of Jesus as man, Who humbled Himself as a servant, becoming as us (yet without sin), without knowing anything, except the Father reveal it. Whether or not the Father had revealed the outcome of this healing or even that the purpose was two-fold, is speculation on my part. I tend to think Jesus knew quite well what this healing would likely do to the Pharisees there in a general sense but He was not going based on that, but on what He knew to do.
http://thepathoftruth.com/teachings/boo ... rupted.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Scriptural Account (with added portion in red):
John 5:1-18 MKJV
(1) After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
(2) Now there is a pool at the Sheep Gate at Jerusalem, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porches.
(3) In these lay a great multitude of those who were sick, of blind, lame, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
(4) For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and troubled the water. Then whoever first stepped in after the troubling of the water was made whole of whatever disease he had.
(5) And a certain man was there, who had an infirmity thirty-eight years.
(6) When Jesus saw him lying, and knowing that he had spent much time, He said to him, Do you desire to be made whole?
(7) The infirm man answered Him, Sir, when the water is troubled, I have no one to put me into the pool. But while I am coming, another steps down before me.
(8) Jesus says to him, Rise, take up your bed and walk.
(9) And immediately the man was made whole and took up his bed and walked. And it was a Sabbath on that day.
(10) Therefore the Jews said to him who had been healed, It is the Sabbath. It is not lawful for you to take up the bed.
(11) He answered them, He who made me whole said to me, Take up your bed and walk.
(12) Then they asked him, Who is the man who said to you, Take up your bed and walk?
(13) And he did not know Him who had cured him, for Jesus had moved away, a crowd being in the place.
(14) Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, Behold, you are made whole. Sin no more lest a worse thing come to you.
(15) The man departed and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him whole.
(16) And therefore the Jews persecuted Jesus and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath day.
(17) But Jesus answered them, My Father works until now, and I work.
(18) Then, because of this, the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but also said that God was His father, making Himself equal with God.
Comments:
Victor: Is this a possible explanation? People there were superstitious and actually fell for a story about how an angel stirred the water and thought they could get healed if in first. In other words, John wasn’t relating something he himself believed, but what was the “old wives’ fable.” However, it doesn’t explain how certain manuscripts omitted offending portions, except that they did what we did by assuming it was a scheming addition.
Paul: From what I’m finding, Victor, the addition came later (part of verse 3 and all of verse 4), and didn’t include verse 7, which is in the oldest manuscripts. I think your explanation of superstition being at work at there is correct and explains what is said in verse 7, which you’ll notice doesn’t endorse the fable like the apocryphal addition does. The idea of getting healed by the “troubling of the water” also explains why a “multitude of invalids” were hanging around the pool, hoping to get healed.
Eric: Jesus wasn’t there to deal with the superstition going on. He was there for that man, regardless of all the other people there. His purpose was to draw the religious out for what He was doing there on the Sabbath, which He addresses later in this chapter with those Sabbath idolaters.
Sean: Verse 7 does provide a good explanation as to why there were many people hanging out at the pool and, as Paul says, it shows that these people were superstitious without promoting the idea of an angel stirring the waters.
I like what Eric says about Jesus’ being there for the crippled man. He doesn’t bother with trying to set him straight on his beliefs. Just, “Do you want to be made whole?” and “Rise, take up your bed and walk.” Done.
I don’t see Him as trying to draw out the religious by healing on the Sabbath; that just came with the territory, so to speak. Jesus had His job to do and He did it.
As for omitting the offending portions, if the earliest manuscripts don’t include these portions, isn’t it not so much a matter of them omitting them, but that they just weren’t there yet? Does that make sense? And if the offending portions were omitted in later manuscripts as well then they would be harking back to the earlier ones.
Ronnie: With reading John 5:1-7 with 3b and 4 removed I could see why someone would have taken the opportunity to add that text. Verse 7 is simply a statement of what happened, but does lend to questioning why the cripple man said what he said. Man's itching ears makes for a great opportunity for a new fable, even if the fable itself was in itself believed upon at the time, which it appears so. This entire discussion just further shines light on how horrible Bibliolatry is. Contrary to lame men groping to get a mystical unpredictable healing, The Lord's choosing is what matters, even if it is by giving faith to seek Him as demonstrated with the Syrophoenician woman. As Eric and Sean mentioned He wasn't there discussing the superstition, but in fact overcoming it.
As to what Eric shared about the Lord drawing out the Sabbath idolaters I do see some support for that from what was said in Mark, regarding another Sabbath day:
Mark 3:1-5 MKJV
(1) And He again entered into the synagogue. And a man was there who had a withered hand.
(2) And they watched Him to see if He would heal him on the sabbath day, so that they might accuse Him.
(3) And He said to the man who had the withered hand, Arise! Come into the middle.
(4) And He said to them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? To save life, or to kill? But they were silent.
(5) And looking around on them with anger, being grieved because of the hardness of their hearts, He said to the man, Stretch out your hand! And he stretched it out. And his hand was restored whole, like the other.
In this case He was there not only to deliver this man physically but also to address another, perhaps more severe spiritual malady of idolatry in the self-righteous.
Martin: Weren't the Pharisees already “out” to get Him? Did they need to be drawn out? It seems like they were trying to use this synagogue situation in Mark to draw Jesus out, but they got caught in their own snare.
Not that Jesus wasn't willing to expose the Pharisees, as light always exposed darkness, but I don't see Him setting traps. It was the Pharisees who thought in those terms. The Father was setting all of these things up and orchestrating all of these situations. Jesus was doing the work put before Him.
We are not to play God, but follow after the example Jesus set before us.
We are to submit and fulfill our duties in all of the circumstances the Lord creates for us, as Jesus did. It isn't our job to create the circumstances.
Paul: Martin makes an important point here. Jesus came as the Son of Man. He wasn’t playing the part of omnipotent God, but was submitting to His Father and the circumstances He found Himself in by His Father’s design, just as we are to do.
Philippians 2:5-8 ESV
(5) Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
(6) Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(7) but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
(8) And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
“I can do nothing of My own self. As I hear, I judge, and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of the Father Who has sent Me” (John 5:30 MKJV).
Ronnie: I appreciate the clarification and correction here. I didn't see or distinguish the work of the Father from that of Jesus as man, Who humbled Himself as a servant, becoming as us (yet without sin), without knowing anything, except the Father reveal it. Whether or not the Father had revealed the outcome of this healing or even that the purpose was two-fold, is speculation on my part. I tend to think Jesus knew quite well what this healing would likely do to the Pharisees there in a general sense but He was not going based on that, but on what He knew to do.