A Sabbath Healing and the Aftermath (John 5)
A Sabbath Healing and the Aftermath (John 5)
ἑορτή The definite article to be omitted here (against the B.M.T.) though it occurs in some excellent ancient sources (א, C, II, L etc.). It seems however to have been inserted in order to define the feast as the Passover (as 2:23; 4:45; 6:4; one ms. adds a reference to ‘unleavened bread’ another to ‘tabernacles’ from 7:2). The feast in question is more probably Purim than any other. It seems to have been some festival between winter and the Passover (see 6:9), for though possible it is not probable that a Passover is indicated in St. John’s narrative. For more exact calculations see Wiesler, Chron. p.192sq. We find our Lord at an equally obscure feast in John 10:22 (τὰ ἐνκαίνια). The absence of the article seems to show it was not an important festival.
Vs. 2 The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was not so complete that a bath of medicinal waters should be destroyed. Indeed, it is not probable that St. John had seen Jerusalem since its fall.
ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ κολυμβήθρα The sheep gate. An uncertain ‘door’ or ‘porch’ of the sheep is mentioned in Neh 3:1, 32; 12:38. A.V. has ‘sheep market.’ The words are omitted in the Cureton Syriac and א and Peshitto.
ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ κολυμβήθρα and so other. It is clear that some understood κολυμβήθρα with προβατικῇ, but see Tisch.
Βηθεσδά According to Eusebius Onam., it refers to a place where there are stoas, columns. See Robinson, I, p. 380, and this interpretation seems to have produced no other reading, as it has also altered Βεθεσδά. See Jerome, Opus III, p. 182. Jerome knowing the situation says ‘quid vocabatur προβατικῇ.’ Perhaps some of these variant readings come from getting hold of the rabbinical word that refers to a ‘bath.’ See Buxtorf, p. 1796 here and Wettstein here. And may not this variant have come from the name of the gate προβατικῇ? See Sachs, Sprache und Altesttumsforschung aus Judentum Quelle, p. 199. But it does not follow that Eusebius and the Bourdeaux Pilgrim were right in the location. Βηθεσδά probably means ‘the house of mercy’ as Cureton Syriac and Peshitto make it, referring to the healing properties of the water. See Delitzsch however, Zeitschrift fur Luth. Theolog. 1856, pp. 622sq.
On St. John’s way of rendering Hebrew names elsewhere see 19:13, 17; 20:16; comp. 1:39, 42, 43; 4:25; 9:7; comp Buxtorf (?), p. 1829. The only other reading which can come into competition with that one is ἡ ἐπιλεγομένη Ἐβραϊστὶ Βηθζαθά (so א the text of that manuscript is obviously often correct, as here?) of which a variety of other readings are corruptions—e.g. Bethsaida, the reading of the Bourdeaux pilgrim which he corrects to Beltzalta, imperfectly pronounced. No doubt since Bethsaida was a common name this encouraged that particular reading. Yet I am disposed to think that Bethzatha is the correct reading here. It is read by א and Eusebius. In favor of Bethesda however is: 1) the fact of its meaning; and 2) A, C, Cureton Syriac, etc.
But where is the locality? If we could fix the locale of the sheep gate then this would be approximately decided. This however is only roughly probable—somewhere near the Temple. Tradition identifies it with St. Stephen’s gate, north of the Temple area. There are no sufficient grounds for this. See Robinson, I, p. 342 for his conjecture. The true (uninterpolated) account of St. John in all events accords with this, for there is nothing miraculous, only an intermittent (probably medicinal) healing spring. The case is analogous to that in Luke 8:43.
Vs. 3 Omit πολὐ, in accord with the other interpolations that try to promote its extraordinary character, giving an exaggerated magnitude to the character of the story.
Omit from ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν all the way through ἄγγελος γὰρ κατὰ καιρὸν κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ καὶ ἐτάρασσε τὸ ὕδωρ· ὁ οὖν πρῶτος ἐμβὰς μετὰ τὴν ταραχὴν τοῦ ὕδατος ὑγιὴς ἐγίνετο, ᾧ δήποτε κατείχετο νοσήματι in vs. 4. They are omitted in: 1) in the foremost ancient manuscripts א, B, C, D; and 2) Cureton Syriac, the Egyptian versions, some manuscripts of the Old Latin, so that at that time these phrases do not seem to have been there. And yet the interpolation must have been early, see Tertullian.
What was the motive of the interpolator? To explain vs. 7 which seemed to need explaining and to heighten the effect. Perhaps it emanated from St. John’s own school in Asia Minor. It does not however imply any different conception of the physical effect, except in the particular phrase ‘which was first’ which St. John does not say. The interpolation reflects a belief that all physical changes, whether regular or irregular were produced by angelic agency, e.g. the motion of the planets. This belief we find in Jewish writers, and again in the early Apologists. Comp. Justin Martyr, Apolog. II.5; Antenagoras 2a, p. 124 etc. It is as dogmatic to deny as to assert this.
Vs. 7 ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ἔχω, a Hebraism. There is nothing said about the necessity of being first. The people crowded in front of him so that he could not get into the water when it was in motion.
Vs. 8 κράβαττόν naturally it went into Latin as grabatus. Hence the reading is probably correct.
Vs. 10 Comp. Matt 12:8.
Vs. 14 ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ‘men at hand’
μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε not implying that his ailment was a direct punishment for his offense. Comp 9:2.
Vs. 18 ἔλυεν ‘Would do away with?’
Vs. 21 οὓς θέλει ζῳοποιεῖ, as he did in the case of Lazarus. The bodily raising is only a type of the spiritual raising implied in ζῳοποιεῖ. Comp. 3:13. That this spiritual raising is prominent, appears from the context.
Vs. 24 ἔχει ipso facto. Then and there. There is no κρίσις, no discrimination, and a fortiori no condemnation, for none is needed. The state itself is the acquittal. The κρίσις is precluded, see also the expressions in vs. 29. Comp. μεταβέβηκεν and 1 John 3:14. Comp. Eph 2:4—the kingdom of Satan.
Vs. 25 καὶ νῦν ἐστιν ὅτε οἱ νεκροὶ ἀκούσουσιν τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀκούσαντες ζήσουσιν. Here again a double sense as the καὶ νῦν ἐστιν shows.
On οἱ νεκροί see Matt 7:22; Rev 3:1 etc.
Vs. 26 ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ compared to ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ expresses the whole doctrine of the Person of Christ, derived from and yet subservient to the Logos doctrine, the eternal generation of the Son.
Vs. 27 Υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν, as the head, the representative of the race, he is also the judge of the race. Comp. Acts 7:31, where however it is ἐν ἀνδρί (not since he is Son of Man = Messiah), with a reference to Dan 7:13. Υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου became a title, hence the article omitted as e.g. Rev 1:13; 14:16.
Vs. 29 ποιήσαντες . . . πράξαντες See 3:21, 22. Comp. Gal 5:19, 22 τὰ ἔργα, καρπός, and Eph 5:2. Observe again the contrast of ζωή and κρίσις. The righteous are not judged even to be acquitted. Their state itself is their acquittal.
Vs. 30 ποιεῖν ἀπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ as coming from myself. The perfect work with the Father.
Vs. 31 Ἐὰν ἐγὼ μαρτυρῶ Supposing it possible that my own testimony could be separated from the Father’s testimony, then do not accept my testimony, it is not the truth.
Vs. 32 ἄλλος ἐστὶν ὁ μαρτυρῶν God, not St. John here. This is clear here.
Vs. 33 ὑμεῖς You have disregarded the higher testimony, seeking out John’s.
Vs. 34 ἀλλὰ ταῦτα λέγω But this I say; I refers to John’s testimony.
Vs. 35 ὁ λύχνος ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων Τhe lamp which is lighted and then gives light. ὁ λύχνος describes the type as e.g. 2 Cor 12:12 τὰ μὲν σημεῖα τοῦ ἀποστόλου. Cf. Gal 3:20; 4:1; John 10:11 (ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός). ‘Johannes lumen illuminatum, Christus lumen illuminary’ (Augustine, Serm. 382). Comp. Strabo x.14, p. 642. Notice no reference here to any Old Testament prophecy or to Sir 48:1: καὶ ἀνέστη ᾿ Ηλίας προφήτης ὡς πῦρ, καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ὡς λαμπὰς ἐκαίετο. Contrast John 1:9; 8:12. ὁ καιόμενος must be understood under two ideas: 1) derived light; 2) corruption burning out. For καίεσθαι, see Luke 7:35; Rev 4:5; comp. Ip. (?) 509. Arist (?) Vesp. 1372. This misunderstanding has arisen due to a misinterpretation of the definite article. φαίνεται mistranslated as = φαίνειν in the A.V. in Matt 24:27; Phil. 2:15; Rev 18:23.
Vs. 37 οὔτε φωνὴν αὐτοῦ πώποτε ἀκηκόατε οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε It is not by your outward senses that you can apprehend him. See 6:46.
Vs. 38 καὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ὑμῖν which revelation is necessary in order that by a natural affinity you may apprehend this testimony. The καί here almost = ‘yet’ as in vs. 40.
Vs. 39 ἐραυνᾶτε The form is certainly the indicative as the argument shows. ‘You search the Scriptures, and they bear witness of me, and yet you will not come to me. . . .’ ἐραυνᾶτε well describes the rabbinical mode of dealing with the Scriptures. דּרַשׁ hence midrash. The word itself however does not imply a reproach. See 1 Pet 1:10. It was not the exactness, the diligence of their search which was blameworthy, but the direction in which that diligence was expended, the frivolity (?) of the objects, the arrangement, counting of the letters, the fantastical allegorical interpretation.
ὑμεῖς you of yourselves, you on your part.
δοκεῖτε See Schotter in Alford. Technically they were right, practically they were wrong. See Meyer.
Vs. 40 ζωὴν ἔχητε that life after which you are searching in your own blind way.
Vs. 41 Δόξαν παρὰ ἀνθρώπων If I did, I should have a favorable reception from you. I seek not glory (the recognition of my office), my title.
Vs. 42 On the one hand, this is the only testimony, the only recognition, the only cause that appeals to you. You cannot appreciate the higher recognition, God’s recognition, because you have not the love of God in you. The yearning for God is necessary for the appreciation, the understanding of his testimony. See 1 John 3:17; 5:3.
τοῦ Θεοῦ is therefore an objective genitive—love for God.
Vs. 43 ἐὰν ἄλλος ἔλθῃ The Antichrist is meant. Those who came before our Lord are mentioned in 10:8. A diligent search has counted up 64 such deceivers (see Meyer, p. 208) since the time of Christ. Comp. Matt 24:24.
Vs. 44 οῦ μόνου Θεοῦ The only God. God the Supreme, the Omniscient (cf. 6: 15, 16). Not as A.V. Rom 16:27; 1 Tim 1:17.
Vs. 45 ἠλπίκατε Has restored your hopes. Comp. 1 Cor 15:19sq.; 2 Cor 1:10; 8:5. 1 Tim 4:10; 5:5 for the past tense.
Vs. 46 ἐπιστεύετε The continuous state.
Vs. 47 γράμμασιν ‘letters,’ a reproach is implied in the expression. Something, as we would say, written in black and white, something which appeals to the outward senses and therefore much more directly to gross carnal mind.