053. Chapter 32 - The Lame Man at the Pool of Bethesda

Chapter 32 - The Lame Man at the Pool of Bethesda

John 5:1-47 Identity of the Feast The Galilean ministry, which had gained such momentum as to draw great crowds from a distance and to lead the scholars from Jerusalem to send delegations for the purpose of obstructing His campaign, was interrupted by a visit to Jerusalem for one of the great feasts of the Jews. The identification of the feast is a decisive factor in determining the length of Jesus’ ministry. If it was the passover, then there are four passovers in the ministry of Jesus which must have lasted through three years and a fraction. manuscripts differ as to whether there is a definite article with the word “feast.” If the article is used, then it certainly must have been the passover for it was “the feast of the Jews.” “A feast” may mean any one of the various feasts: passover, pentecost, tabernacles, dedication, and purim. All have been advocated by various scholars. But the natural process of elimination argues strongly for the passover. He had cleansed the temple at the preceding passover. An extended ministry in Judaea followed. The trip through Samaria and the great campaign in Galilee followed. The note of time in John 4:15 shows it was about the last of December when He was at Sychar (four months before the harvest). This immediately rules out tabernacles and dedication. The latter was about December 25 and was not commanded in the Old Testament, but instituted by the Jews to commemorate the rededication of the temple by Judas Maccabaeus, after it had been defiled by Antiochus Epiphanes. Purim came in February and was a feast which the Jews had established to celebrate the rescue of the Jews in Persia by Esther. It was a noisy and hilarious affair like our Halloween. Such a feast would hardly have been propitious for a campaign by Jesus in Jerusalem. Moreover, this does not leave sufficient time for such a movement as is indicated in Galilee between the time He was at Sychar and this feast. All things point to this feast as the passover and the ministry of Jesus as more than three years. it is characteristic of the erratic tendencies of B. W. Bacon that he should hold that the ministry of Jesus lasted one year and that Jesus was fifty years old at the time. He arrives at the first conclusion by roundly denouncing the Gospel of John as unhistorical and at the second conclusion by contradicting the explicit declaration of Luke that Jesus was “about thirty years of age” when He came to be baptized. He selects the age of fifty by affirming historical accuracy for the casual estimate of the Jews in John 8:57: “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?” The Synoptics do not definitely describe more than one passover. John names three passovers and seems to indicate four: John 2:23; John 5:1; John 6:4; John 11:55. Only John says that the feeding of the 5,000 occurred at the time of the passover. The other three indicate the general movement of the ministry of Jesus without attempting to record the exact time element. John is of the greatest assistance in filling in the gaps of the narrative and in giving notes of time. These are introduced incidentally, but give clear chronological data.

Value of This Record The purpose of John in introducing this narrative of the healing of the lame man and the ensuing controversy was evidently to supplement the Synoptics which had concentrated on the great Galilean ministry and had omitted the events enacted during His early visits to Jerusalem. This procedure enabled John to introduce a powerful illustration of Jesus’ power to heal and a revelation of His divine personality. It also assisted in tracing the rising tide of Jewish hatred of Jesus in the capital — a bitterness which gradually spread to the provinces. The Pool of Bethesda The Pool called Bethesda in this text is usually identified with the siphon spring and pool southeast of the temple area which is now called the Virgin’s Pool. There is no word for “gate” in the text: “a pool by the sheep (gate).” Barclay would supply “market” and supposes it was a pool in the Tyropean Valley farther south. He objects that the Virgin’s Pool is underground and no place available for the five porches mentioned in the text. But the description of the troubling of the waters so closely fits the action of the siphon spring which feeds the Virgin’s Pool that it seems likely this pool was called Bethesda in the time of Christ and that the porches were built over the entrance to this underground pool. The Omitted Verse The best manuscripts omit John 5:4 and it has been removed to the margin of the American Standard Version. The account implies that the people believed some supernatural force caused the irregular flow of the pool and that the first person to enter would be healed. The omitted verse seems to be an explanatory addition of a scribe who attempted to state this belief of the people. He probably wrote this statement in the margin and later scribes copied it into the text. The entire verse is omitted by the great uncials: Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi, and others; also, the important cursives: 33, 157, 134. Many cursives mark it with an asterisk, indicating it is doubtful. The last clause of John 5:3 is also omitted by an array of manuscripts equally impressive. The internal evidence confirms the testimony of the manuscripts: (1) The miracles of the Bible are always connected with the delivery of a specific message. Miraculous healing by the waters of a pool with no messenger to explain is not according to the teaching of the Scripture. The miracles stamped the divine seal of God upon the truth of the message delivered. The best proof of the falsity of the modern claims to work miracles in the name of Christ is the fact that such claims are advanced by various sects which teach exactly contradictory doctrines. If their so-called “faith healings” are actual miracles, then God is the author of confusion and confirms as true, pronouncements which are absolutely contradictory and mutually exclusive. The Scripture clearly indicates the passing of miracles with the apostolic age when the divine evidence to prove the truth of the gospel was no longer needed (Acts 8:5-24; 1 Corinthians 13:8-13). There is no parallel in the New Testament to the proposition of being healed by a pool with no specific message attached to the miracles. The healing by the touch of the garments of Jesus, Peter, and Paul is not parallel, for these miracles were directly connected with their personality and message, even though an inanimate object played a part in the miracle. (2) A second reason why it is evident that the original text did not declare that miracles had actually been worked by the pool is that such healing would have enabled the rich who could employ assistance to secure miraculous aid before the poor. This is plainly contrary to the Scripture. (3) The four hundred years of silence since the close of the Old Testament and the fact that John the Baptist worked no miracles place a profound emphasis upon the miracles of Jesus. This emphasis is lost if miracles were being performed all the while by the water in a pool of Jerusalem. Jesus did not attack this superstitious belief of the people. They probably would not have listened to Him. But He cut the ground from under their superstition by performing a real miracle and showing it came from God. The contrast which this miracle afforded with the imaginary cure of the pool was the most effective method of correcting their false conception. The Man Selected A great multitude of sick and infirm people were here near the pool. Why should Jesus have selected this man out of so great a crowd? Several reasons are evident: (1) This impotent man seems to have been a most hopeless case and therefore would offer most decisive evidence of His power. (2) The pitiful state of this man, who was more helpless than the others and was constantly thrust aside by the multitude since he had no friends to help him, stirred the sympathy of Jesus. (3) He read the man’s heart and life as an open book and He knew that he had the character to respond to the challenge for faith. The Man Challenged To Believe

Jesus did not walk up to the man and heal him without any effort to appeal to his heart. In the cases we have studied thus far, the sick and afflicted came to Jesus seeking miraculous aid. Here Jesus approached a man who did not know Him and hence had made no effort to seek His aid. Jesus came into the world to lead men to that faith in Him which would bring eternal redemption. This was the ultimate purpose in His mighty works. Divine love moved Him to pity man both in his physical ailments and in his spiritual suffering. Sympathy that would reach as far as the body but would disregard the needs of the soul would be very poor sympathy indeed. Hence Jesus used His miracles to bring faith as well as health. The miracles gave opportunity to stir faith and to confirm faith. Jesus continually tested the faith of those who came seeking help before He performed a miracle. The amount of faith which He demanded varied with the opportunities of the individual. The first thing that Jesus did for this lame man was to stir anew in his heart the great desire to be healed and the faith to believe lie could be healed by the mysterious and majestic Person who addressed him. “Wouldest thou be made whole?” seems like an obvious question to ask a man who was at such great pains to seek a cure at this pool. He had been sick for thirty-eight years and was trying desperately to be healed. But the Master desired to dispel any despondency in his heart because of his failure to secure relief here at the pool and to stir faith that would lead him to obey Jesus’ challenge. The question of our Lord is directly connected in the text with His intimate knowledge of the man’s persistent effort to secure relief from the pool. The Man Healed

There is a startling grandeur in the manner with which Jesus called the lame man away from any dependence upon the waters of the pool and demanded that he put his trust in simple obedience to the command which the Master gave to him. Inasmuch as the man later states he did not know the identity of the wonderful Person who had healed him, this is a case in which the divine personality of Jesus exerted a strong natural influence upon the man to persuade him to obey this command. The faith that the man showed, as he obeyed the command and was healed, was a faith in Jesus that He could do as He promised and heal him if he obeyed. Later on, as the man was being persecuted by the Jewish leaders because he had broken their traditions in bearing a burden (his bed) on the Sabbath, Jesus revealed Himself more completely to the man and warned him: “Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing befall thee.” Thus Jesus, having led the man to the recovery of a whole body through the miracle, sought him out to give him spiritual aid, The manner in which Jesus revealed Himself to the man is most impressive. He did not come to apologize to him for having healed him on the Sabbath or even to defend His course. He did not seek to express regret that persecution had resulted for the man. He did not tell him that He had heard he was unable to identify his Benefactor and assure him that He wanted to make known His identity. He showed His divine majesty in unique fashion by reading the man’s heart and life. He also sought to turn the man’s mind away from the petty persecution he was meeting and from too great exaltation over his physical recovery, to his spiritual life and his relation to God. Thus Jesus sought to lead the man to a clearer faith and to help him face the trying problems before him. The Man Vindicated

It may seem strange that the man immediately went and told the enemies of Jesus who it was that had healed him. But Jesus had not forbidden it. The man felt his act of carrying his bed was completely justified by the authority of the great Prophet who had such miraculous power. Since Jesus had possessed the power to heal by a miracle, he felt that the Master had divine authority for the command He had issued. It was in no sense a betrayal of Jesus that he revealed to the Pharisees His identity. He could not defend himself to these scholars against the charge of being a Sabbath breaker, but he was sure that Jesus could. He doubtless felt that the Jews had no right to criticize his conduct, and since they were seeking to ignore the miracle, they should be compelled to face the facts and to come into the presence of the tremendous Person who had worked the miracle. His report was a testimony for Christ, because he laid emphasis upon the miracle rather than the breach of Sabbath regulations: “that it was Jesus who had made him whole.” The Method of Jesus This second visit to Jerusalem created almost as great a furor as His first visit. The manner in which this miracle was worked aroused heated discussion. Why did Jesus heal the man on the Sabbath day, if He knew it would bring such bitter criticism upon Him? Jesus made a deliberate choice in the whole matter as to the man and the time, for He approached the man, and commanded the man to take up his bed and carry it home, even though He knew that the sight of this man carrying such a burden through the Sabbath day crowds which thronged the temple would create controversy. The difference in the methods of Jesus is most pronounced: in Galilee, where such intense excitement prevailed over His ministry that it threatened to get out of hand, He counseled a leper to tell no one of his cure; here in Jerusalem, which was so full of hostility on the part of leaders that even the people who favored Him only dared to talk of Him in whispers, Jesus boldly threw down the gauntlet to the cold and callous unbelief of the leaders by sending this man right through their midst on the Sabbath day carrying his bed as proof of the miracle. Moreover, Jesus did not attempt to hide behind the man when the storm of criticism arose. The man evidently acted in harmony with the will of Jesus when he immediately reported to the Pharisees who had cured him. This completed the testimony of the man to them concerning the miracle. The Critical Nature of the Controversy On His first visit to Jerusalem, Jesus had challenged the rule of the Sadducees in the temple. He had boldly cleansed the temple of its worldly merchandising. He had thus proclaimed to the nation that which He later explicitly stated: “Behold, a greater than the temple is here.” On His second visit to Jerusalem, Jesus denounced the false leadership of the Pharisees, who, by their traditions, had nullified the Word of God. He deliberately sent this lame man walking through the crowds carrying his bed on the Sabbath day. Thus He proclaimed to the nation: “The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” He struck two successive blows at the Pharisaical shackles which bound the nation and which must be broken before they would be prepared to hear the gospel of God’s grace on the day of Pentecost. He had uncovered the hypocrisy and falsity of the political and religious leaders of the nation. He had begun the controversy which was to bring about His death, but which would also bring about man’s redemption. He had given prodigious revelations of His divine nature and the spiritual character of His program. The Method of the Pharisees The Jewish leaders immediately began to persecute Jesus when they learned of a certainty who had worked the miracle. They probably did this at first by a sneering refusal to admit His miracles or hear His teaching; by laying traps for Him and heckling Him while He preached; by spreading underhand, slanderous attacks, and stirring opposition to Him among the crowd. These were their usual methods. The appeal to violence gradually prevailed among the enemies of Jesus. There is some suggestion of this attitude even at His first visit to Jerusalem (John 2:23-25), and at the close of His early Judaean ministry (John 4:1-3). And now they begin desperately to plot His death. Jesus’ opening statement in the temple in defense of His healing the lame man caused His enemies to redouble their plots to kill Him: “For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God” (John 5:18).