João 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!