September 2

The Pool of Bethesda

John 5:1-4

Following the course of our Lord’s history, we next find Him again at Jerusalem, to take part in the celebration of the second Passover Note: St. John says only “a feast of the Jews;” and that it was the Passover, has been shown by many convincing arguments not necessary to be produced here; but a convenient summary of which may be found in Dr. Robinson’s Harmony of the Four Gospels, pp. 190-192: Boston, 1840. since the commencement of his ministry.

St. John states that there was “at Jerusalem, by the sheep market, a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.” There is no word in the original Greek of this text answering to “market;” and therefore, instead of that word, any other better suited to complete the sense, might be substituted. Some do substitute the word gate; seeing that a “sheep gate” is frequently mentioned by Nehemiah, while there is no sheep market mentioned in Scripture, nor by any Jewish writer. The sheep gate may have been so called, because it was the gate by which sheep were brought into the city; but we are not aware of any such custom in the East, as that of bringing live sheep or cattle into a town for sale. They are usually sold in the early morning outside the towns, near one of the gates; and this is always the same gate, that people bringing cattle from the country may know to which gate to take them for sale. The sheep gate might also thus be the sheep market.

The Pool of Bethesda

Some complete the sense by joining the words “sheep” and “pool,” and make it the “sheep pool,” and suppose it may have been a pool in which the sheep used in the temple sacrifices were washed. But it was not required to wash the victims before they were slaughtered, and for the subsequent washing provision was made in the temple itself. We may conclude, therefore, that it was the sheep gate, which was also the sheep market.

Much search has been made for this pool of Bethesda; for there seems no reason why it should not still exist. It is thought to have been found in a now dry basin or reservoir which lies under the north wall of Temple Mount—so close under the wall, indeed, that the south side of the reservoir seems to form part of it. This basin is very large—no less than 300 feet long by 130 broad; and its depth is 75 feet, without accounting for the rubbish which has for ages been accumulating in it—so that it must have been anciently much deeper. Although this basin has long been dry, it is plain that it was formerly a “pool” or reservoir, as it is cased over internally with small stones, plastered with cement. The west side is thus built up like the rest, except towards the southwest corner, where two lofty vaults extend westward, and the traveller is told that these are two of the “five porches” mentioned by the evangelist.

The question of the identity of this “pool” with that of Bethesda, is not one to which we mean to invite the attention of the reader. Suffice it to say, that it seems more likely to have been that pool than anything else that can now be found in Jerusalem.

The name of this pool, Bethesda, signifies “house,” or “abode of mercy.” And we are at no loss for the reason. It had been observed that, at particular seasons, a peculiar commotion took place in this water, and that, for a short time after such commotion, it possessed such strongly sanative properties, that those who were foremost in getting into the water, were cured of the diseases with which they were afflicted. In all this, so far, there is nothing we find any difficulty in explaining. The mercy of God has dispersed over the earth many health-giving fountains, whose waters offer effectual remedy for diseases which no physician can cure. This pool of Bethesda does not seem to have had any such properties in its ordinary or quiescent state, but at certain seasons it received the overflow of some hidden but highly salubrious spring or springs, causing a bubbling commotion at the point of influx, and whoever stepped in there, and laid his body in those healthful waters, before their effect was lost by diffusion through the large pool into which they came, was healed of his disease.

Thus far, all might seem plain enough. But a difficulty has been found in the declaration of the evangelist, that “an angel went down into the pool and troubled the water.” Note: This clause does not exist in all the manuscript copies of Scripture, and has hence been rejected by some as of no authority—as an interpolation. But it is found in many manuscript copies of the New Testament, and its genuineness is maintained by the best textual critics, besides that it is largely authenticated by the citations or references of ancient Christian writers. We therefore take it as it stands. It is not here to be understood, as stated that the angel did this visibly, or was seen to do it; but that the peculiar property imparted to the pool at particular seasons, was by the special favor of God, through the ministry of an angel. It was the custom of the Jews to ascribe all such favors, and all extraordinary manifestations in what we call “nature,” to the ministry of the angels of God; and this was a fine religious feeling which they did well to cultivate, and which we do ill to neglect. It is a custom sanctioned by the sacred writers, Note: See, among other instances, Matthew 4:11; Matthew 18:10; Luke 16:22; Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 1:13. and so sanctioned, must be received as true. It is supposed by some, that it is mentioned by John merely as the current impressions of the Jews, and that he does not himself avouch it. If that were the case, he would most assuredly have said so, for no sacred writer is more careful than John to distinguish things incorrectly reported from his own statements. It was certainly the opinion of the Jews in this case; for, observing effects so remarkable, they would naturally ascribe it to God through the ministry of an angel. If the notion was true, there is no reason why John should repudiate it; and if not true, there is every reason why he should not appear to sanction it. But he does this without limitation, he makes it his own, and the question ceases to be of any consequence, whether it is stated as his own explanation or that of the Jews. We therefore receive it, because in either way it is his statement, and because it is in accordance with all that Scripture teaches. There was clearly something more at work than the ordinary operations of nature. Was ever any natural spring or fountain heard of, any bath or pool, which had or could have instant effect in producing the cure of such diseases, as those of the persons who are described as awaiting there for the moving of the waters—“impotent folk, blind, halt, withered”? What then hinders that we should believe that, in the beneficent providence of God, an angel should be sent to unlock the sealed fountains, and give intensity of healing power to their streams? What hinders, but that unspiritual hardness which is growing upon the world as it gets old, and renders it unwilling to believe the Scripture doctrines, that the universe is replete with spiritual beings, employed in God’s high service, and delighting in missions of mercy to mankind?