John 5

Chap. V. Ver. 1—16. The lame man cured at the pool of Bethesda.—This is considered as one of the most difficult narratives to explain in all the gospels. We shall consider,— 1. The pool itself, which was called Bethesda, or the House of Mercy, being a kind of infirmary where there was a bath for the benefit of the poor, of which there are some remains to the present day. Maundrell describes it as 120 paces long, 40 broad, and 8 deep. At its west end, he adds, may be discovered some old arches which are now dammed up, which are supposed to be the remains of the porches or cloisters built round it for the convenience of the poor who came to bathe; but the pool is supposed to have been formerly employed to wash the sacrifices for the temple.

2. But the most remarkable part of this narrative respects the descent of an angel at certain times to disturb the water, which gave it a sanative or healing quality. It seems to be generally supposed that this water possessed medicinal properties, which, at certain times, were rendered the more effective by a certain agitation of them, which the Jews attributed to the agency of an angel: and how far the agency of angels may be employed in producing the phenomena of nature is not for us, in the present state, to ascertain: but the most extraordinary circumstance attending this agitation was the transient efficacy of the waters, so that only the few persons that immediately entered the pool while thus sanative [waters] cured.

We do not see the necessity, however, of supposing its virtues were confined to a single individual, but to the few only that entered the bath during its agitation, which this poor man was not able to do on account of his extreme debility, which had lasted, it should seem, almost forty years, though nothing is said of the time he had here waited. The narrative is certainly full of mystery, in whatever way it may be viewed: Dr. Hammond supposes it might have derived its medicinal virtues from washing the sacrifices; we should rather suspect that the springs which fed the bath might have some secret connexion either with a subterraneous sea, or an exhausted volcano. Thus much is certain, that the Dead sea, at no great distance from Jerusalem, is remarkable for the quantity of salt and bitumen which it contains.

Leaving these circumstances, however, in that mystery in which nature is often shrouded, we must now devote our attention to the signal miracle which our Saviour wrought upon this miserable invalid. Jesus asked no question of the man, but whether he was willing to be cured, and then immediately commanded him to take up his bed and walk. This command, however, was delivered on the sabbath, and gave such offence to the Jews, as to raise their enmity, and excite a persecution against him, on pretence that he violated the sabbath. But what was this poor man’s bed? Perhaps only his hyke, or upper garment, or a piece only of old carpeting; or, at most, an old mattress stuffed with hay or straw, on which he had been accustomed to be lifted from place to place; and whether he carried it upon his arm or his shoulder, could make no difference to the law, since it was probably of less weight than the robes of the Pharisee, when full dressed for prayer. Jesus, however, had withdrawn from the crowd without making himself known, either to the man or to the people; when, therefore, they inquired of him—not, Who made him whole? but who dared to bid him carry his bed? he very properly replied, “He that made me whole, the same said unto me, take up thy bed, and walk.” And, surely, he who was able to work such a miracle, had a right to be obeyed. Soon after this, however, Jesus finding the poor man in the temple, where he doubtless came to return thanks to God, after carrying home his bed, he made himself known to him; and the man, probably with a view to do him honour, told the Jews that it was Jesus—not, who had bid him carry his bed, but who had made him whole. Our Lord, at the same time as he thus made himself known, added this friendly caution—“Sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee;” namely, a worse thing than total helplessness and poverty, which, we conceive, can intend nothing short of the miseries of an eternal state.

This discovery of Jesus, however, exposed him to the malice of his enemies, who even now sought his death and would gladly have procured it, either by legal or illegal means. They hated the light, because their minds were full of Ver. 17—30. Jesus maintains the divinity of his character.— The charge is now turned from the poor patient who had been cured, to the good Physician who had wrought the cure. The Jews sought to slay him because he had done these things:— not only for his direction to his patient to carry his bed, but because he had wrought this and other cures upon the sabbath day. This seems to have been the way in which they endeavoured to get rid of the evidence in favour of his divine character and mission, by accusing him as a sabbath-breaker.

Jesus now enters on his defence,—“My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” It is true that the Almighty rested from his work of creation on the sabbath-day, and left us both precept and example to do the same: but has the Deity ceased from works of benevolence to men? Are not his infinite energies perpetually exerted on our behalf? “My Father worketh hitherto, real work,—and what are my works but an imitation of his infinite benevolence? He causes his sun to shine, and his rains to descend, both upon the evil and the good; I exert the like benevolence in healing the sick, and instructing the ignorant.” It is a grand mistake to think that the sabbath can be sanctified by sloth and idleness. To heal the sick, to relieve the poor, and to instruct the ignorant, were the employments of the Son of God, and are duties incumbent, not only on all his ministers, but also on all his followers, as they have ability and opportunity.

But Jesus called God “his Father,” with a familiarity which implied a peculiar relation to him as his own Father. (See note on ver. 18.) This they thought blasphemous, and it would have been so, had he been a mere man, as they supposed. Dr. Waterland justly remarks, that had their inference been unjust, he would have had only to deny it; whereas, in the following verses, he not only admits but justifies it, and claims honour equal to the Father. In attempting to expound our Lord’s doctrinal discourses relative to the divine Being, we feel a peculiar awe, lest we should step beyond the boundary of revelation, which we believe has been the true cause of all the theological errors with which the church has been afflicted: in truth, we would rather stop short than step beyond.

We have already suggested our opinion that St. John, in the first chapter, has an allusion to Solomon’s beautiful allegory in the 8th chapter of Proverbs, where Wisdom is represented as the first-born of God the Father, brought up under his immediate care, and, as a darling child, witnessing the mysterious process of the creation. “When he prepared the heavens—when he appointed the foundations of the earth—Then (says Wisdom) I was by him, as one brought up with him,” and witnessed all his works. ((Proverbs 7:22-31).) Thus our apostle, speaking of the divine Logos, says, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these doeth the Son likewise.”

Did the Father create all things in the beginning? No less true is it of the Word, or Son of God: “All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” ((John 1:3).): “For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth, (as already instanced in creation;) and he will show him greater things than these, that ye may marvel.” Then our Lord goes on to state his participation in the most mysterious works of the resurrection and future judgment: “For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.” And as to the last judgment, “the Father judgeth no man; but hath committed all judgment to the Son.”

And wherefore is all this? Is it to show that the Son is inferior to the Father? Most assuredly not. It is, that notwithstanding, and, indeed, because, the Son hath “humbled himself and become of no reputation”—because he “became obedient to death, even the death of the cross, therefore hath God (the Father) exalted him, and given him a name above every name,” ((Philippians 2:7-9),) “that all (men and angels too) should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.” The inspired writers represent the Lord Jesus as he whom the Father “delights to honour”—whom he hath clothed in his own robes of light and glory—whom he hath placed upon his own throne, and hath stationed his own angels to attend him; and, finally, he hath solemnly declared, before earth and heaven, that “he that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.”

(Compare (Matthew 16:27); XXIV. 30, 31.) When our Saviour declares that “the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear his voice,” he is generally (and we think justly) understood to speak with a double reference; first, to the quickening power of divine grace attending his ministry on earth, and rendering it successful among men dead in trespasses and sins; ((Ephesians 2:1);) and, secondly, to the resurrection of certain individuals from the grave, as the widow’s son, Lazarus, &c.; and he tells them they need not wonder at this, as the time would hereafter come, when “all the dead” should hear his voice, and obey it. Nor let it be supposed, that any of us are uninterested in this great event; for, at the last day, all that are in their graves shall come forth; they that, being animated by a lively faith, have “done good (works) to the resurrection of life” eternal; and “they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of con-

Ver. 31—47. Jesus appeals to his heavenly Father, to John the Baptist, to his own miracles, and to the Scriptures, in evidence of his divine mission.—Our Lord having before told the Jews, “The Son can do nothing of himself,” now repeats it in the first person, “I can of mine own self do nothing;” but the two propositions do not refer exactly to the same point. In the former he is speaking of his miracles, all which were wrought in harmony with the divine operations of the Father. Here he speaks of passing judgment at the last day: “As I hear (says he) I judge;” that is, I judge from evidence: “and my judgment is just, because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.”

Nothing so much biases the mind in judgment as having some interest in the cause, or a will of our own to be consulted. The will of Christ is wholly absorbed in that of his heavenly Father. So he prayed, when in the scene of his deepest mental agonies, “Father, not my will, but thine be done.” In evidence of his mission, Jesus appeals first to his heavenly Father: “If I only bear witness of myself,” says our Lord, “my witness is not valid,” not admissible in evidence. (See note on ver. 31.) “But there is another who beareth witness,” referring to God his Father, “and I know (adds he) that his witness is true,” and valid, and indisputable—referring to the witness borne from heaven at his baptism, “This is my beloved Son.”—“Ye sent messengers unto John the Baptist, and he bare witness unto the truth.”

“But I receive not,” or rather take not, “witness from men.” I look to higher authority. “The works which the Father hath given me to finish”—the miracles I perform, the doctrines I deliver, and the sufferings I am about to endure—all “bear witness of me”—all testify the divinity of my character and mission. But the following verse demands a more particular attention. “The Father himself hath borne witness of me: ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape,” or appearance; that is, the glory of his person. It is true, that Deity is invisible, and it is only in a figurative sense that men can be said to hear his voice; yet we so frequently read of Moses and other prophets seeing the divine glory, and hearing the voice of God, that we are strongly inclined to read the passage interrogatively, as is done by several modern critics and divines, as follows: ‘Have ye neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his appearance? and have ye not his word abiding in (or among) you, that ye believe not on him whom he hath sent?’ The former question is understood to refer to the divine appearance which bore witness to the Saviour at his baptism, as above-mentioned, when the Father testified from heaven, “This is my beloved Son.” The latter question relates to the sacred oracles intrusted with them, of which our Lord speaks distinctly in the following verse: “Search the Scriptures,” or, as some read the text indicatively, “Ye (do) search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me.” (See note on verse 37.) But whether these words be taken indicatively or imperatively, they contain a most important duty—the searching of the Scriptures, which should certainly be diligently attended to, by all who consider them as containing eternal life.

But the searching here is more than barely reading them, more than idly criticising them: the Jews did both these, but they did not seek for eternal life in them, or they would have led them to Jesus for that eternal life; for they spake of him—and to “him gave all the prophets witness.” “We read the heavenly word, We take the offer’d grace: Obey the statutes of the Lord, And trust his promises.” — Watts.

Notes on the verses

Chap. V. Ver. 1. A feast of the Jews.—Generally understood to be the Passover. So Doddridge. Ver. 2. By the sheep-market.—So Doddridge; but Campbell renders it “sheep-gate;” because (he says) we have good evidence that one of the gates was called the sheep-gate, ((Nehemiah 3:1, 32); xii. 39,) but no evidence that there was a sheep-market.— Bethesda.—{The supposed remains of the pool of Bethesda are situated on the east of Jerusalem, contiguous on one side to St. Stephen’s gate, and on the other to the area of the temple. Maundrell states, that “it is 120 paces long, and 40 broad, and at least 8 deep, but void of water. At its west end it discovers some old arches, now dammed up. These some will have to be the five porches in which sate that multitude of lame, halt, and blind.

But the mischief is, instead of five, there are but three of them.”}—Bagster. Ver. 4. For an angel went down, &c.—(The sanative property of this pool has been supposed by some to have been communicated by the blood of the sacrifices, and others have referred it to the mineral properties of the waters. But, 1. The beasts for sacrifice were not washed here, but in a laver in the temple. 2. No natural property could cure all manner of diseases. 3. The cure only extended to the first who entered. 4. It took place only at one particular time. 5. As the healing was effected by immersion it must have been instantaneous; and it was never failing in its effects. All which, not being observed in medicinal waters, determine the cures to have been miraculous, as expressly stated in the text.)—Bagster.

This verse is admitted to be wanting in the Vatican, the Ephrem, and Cambridge MSS., and in others is marked as doubtful; but it is found in all other MSS., (including the Alexandrian,) the Syriac, and other ancient versions; and its connexion with verse 7 (which is not wanting) renders it impossible to make sense of the narrative without it. In our opinion, the omission of this verse (and in some MSS. the concluding clause of the third verse) only shows that the copyists were as much perplexed as we are to understand the passage.—The late ingenious Editor of Calmet (Mr. Taylor) was of opinion, that here were two waters: the one in which the cattle were washed before they were sent to the market, or to the priests; and in this the poor were permitted to bathe: but he thinks there was another water, far more efficacious, which ran only periodically, and in

Ver. 5. Thirty and eight years.—There is no evidence that this man waited at the pool 38 years. He was diseased that length of time. No argument for the sinner to wait, can fairly be drawn from this, as the man immediately complied with the command of Christ. Ver. 13. Conveyed himself away.—Doddridge, “slipped away.” According to Casaubon, the word has an allusion to swimmers, who glide through the water without leaving any impression in it. Ver. 18. His Father.—Doddridge and Campbell, “His own Father.” The former says, “This is the plain and literal sense of the original—Pater idion.” See (Luke 6:41); x. 34. (Acts 4:32). (1 Corinthians 7:2).—Equal with God.—Campbell renders it, “By calling God peculiarly his Father, (he) had equalled himself with God.” Ver. 19. Nothing of himself—That is, independently, or without his con-

Ver. 26. Given to the Son to have life.—As the Father is self-existent, so, according to the divine economy, the Son is also self-existent. Ver. 27 Because he is the Son of man.—Campbell, “A Son of man,” the Greek here omitting the usual article. The Saviour in applying this appellation to himself, claims attributes that show him divine. He is to execute judgment and to raise the dead, ver. 29. See (Daniel 7:9-14), (Philippians 2:5-11). Ver. 29. Resurrection of life.—Life is sometimes taken for religion, as ver. 21. (John 10:28). Sometimes it means the just, (Luke 14:14). Here, it means the eternal favour of God, a freedom from sin and from dying.

—Resurrection of damnation.—Damnation means the sentence, the judgment, the condemnation passed upon a criminal. In the text, it means the judgment pronounced by God upon the wicked. So the resurrection to damnation is this; those who have done evil shall be raised up to be condemned or damned eternally. To oppose, as an objection, that a different meaning is to be given to the word everlasting when applied to the wicked, than what is used when applied