JOHN 5:1-13

 

                                                   Troubling the Water (collage, 2009)

John 5:1-13 relates one of only three healing miracles found in John's Gospel, none of which appears in the Synoptics. “Wieland discusses six suggested sites and agrees that the identification of the twin pools of St. Anne with Bethesda is 'virtually established.'” (Morris) This is partially due to the mention in the copper scroll of Qumran of 'pools' at Bethesda. This fits well with the double pool excavated there which contained five porticoes as stated in John 5:2.

Morris goes on to say, “Many commentators point out that the identification is apparently ancient, for a Crusader church built over the pool has a mural depicting an angel arising out of the pool.”

Raymond Brown remarks that “the factual details found in the introduction...are very accurate. They betray a knowledge of Jerusalem that militates against a late or non-Palestinian origin of the story.”

F.F. Bruce goes into more detail: “The pool of Bethesda, described in John v. 2, has been located in the north-east quarter of the old city of Jerusalem, the quarter which was called Bezetha, or 'New Town', in the first century AD. In 1888 excavations near St. Anne's Church, in that quarter, revealed the remains of an ancient church building. Beneath this lay a crypt, with its north wall divided into five compartments in imitation of arches; on this wall there could also be distinguished traces of an old fresco representing the angel troubling the water. Clearly those who built this structure believed that it marked the site of the pool of Bethesda. And subsequent excavations below the crypt showed that they were right; a flight of steps was uncovered leading down to a pool with five shallow porticoes [i.e. covered walkways] on its north side, directly underneath the five imitation arches on the north wall of the crypt. “There are few sites in Jerusalem mentioned in the Gospels, which can be identified so confidently.”

This archeological find is one of many reasons that caused even a previously skeptical Bible scholar such as J.A.T. Robinson to state: “In fact it is becoming clear that Mark is much more theological and John much more historical than was previously supposed.”

Verse 3 goes on to state that many ill people lay there. But verses 3b-4 (found in the KJV but not in many modern translations) read: “...waiting for the stirring of the water; for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water was made well from whatever disease that person had.”

There is a certain reference to the stirring of the waters in v. 7; however the rest of the material in 3b-4 is not found anywhere else in the story. The reasons for most translators omitting these 1-1/2 verses are enumerated by Metzger:

    1. They are not present in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.

    2. More than 20 Greek manuscripts have these words, but they are marked with asterisks to note that they are spurious.

    3. This passage contains seven words found nowhere else in John's Gospel, three of which are found nowhere else in the New Testament.

    4. Those manuscripts which do contain these words vary considerably from one another in exact wording.

Jesus approaches one particular paralytic or lame man lying near the pool and asks him if he really wants to be healed. Rather than answer this question directly, the discouraged man starts by addressing Jesus as kyrie (“lord”). We should note with Witherington and Yamazaki-Ransom that this “should not be counted as having christological weight.” In other words, the man was merely responding to Jesus with a polite title, not one with any theological meaning behind it.

The paralytic (we don't actually know what his malady was) then explains that he isn't able to get into the pool before someone else beats him to it since he has “no man” to help him in. Culpepper sees an “implicit commentary” in the lame's man use of that term in that at the time he in fact has someone right before him who is more than just a man. Culpepper connects this with the fact that a few verses later in the text (v. 18) the Jews seek to kill Jesus for claiming to be equal to God.

So what we are left with for sure regarding this “stirring of the waters” is that the belief at the time was that when the waters were stirred (or “troubled”) for some reason, the first person into the water would be healed of what ailed them. In classical Greek, tarasso (“troubled) means “to shake something out of inertia and throw it into confusion, i.e. to disturb, to upset...to agitate...” (Muller)

Going to the OT equivalent of this Greek word, Cook notes that Pharaoh in Ezekiel 32:2 is compared to a mythical monster “who aspires to rock the cosmos (in the seas, cf. Isa 27.1 and the watery chaos of Ps 46:3; 93.3). Vv 2,13-14 show, however, that in reality he can only stir up a little local trouble, muddying the water with his feet.”

In the case of John 5, we don't know who was supposed to be disturbing the water since we can't rely on the information in the spurious verse 4. However, it may certainly reflect an ancient superstition of the time and would not be unusual in light of Brown's observation: “The Mohammedans of Palestine in modern times have traditions about the jinni of a particular spring.”

And as to the first one getting in the water being healed, Guthrie notes: “Although there is no other evidence to support the view that the waters when disturbed possessed curative properties, it is certainly not impossible that many people believed that they did.”

Two archeological findings at the site help explain the dire situation the paralytic faced. Muller notes that the pool was sixteen meters deep with no shallow end. Thus, a cripple would have had to be carried and held all the time. Additionally, the fact that there were five long porticoes to hold all those waiting to be cured made the paralytic's plight even more hopeless, as Guthrie notes.

“The water in the Bethesda pool was probably disturbed from time to time by an intermittent spring...R.D. Potter points out that there is no spring in this part of Jerusalem, but fragments of pipes have been found in the vicinity. The moving of the water could have been caused by renewal from the pipes.” (Muller)

Similar explanations are given by most commentators. For example:

“From time to time internal pressure caused the water to be agitated.” (Kistemaker)

“In this hilly area the water may have come from underground drainage; some of it, perhaps, from intermittent springs...” (Brown)

But aside from the physical picture that the above paints, the much more important aspect is the theological underpinnings expressed in it. Here are some valuable points gleaned from the literature:

Klink feels that “in John 5:1-15 it is possible to interpret an intentional contrast between the magical waters of healing beside which the lame man hopes for healing and the healing that Jesus offers.” Brown comments, “If the paralytic's malady were not so tragic, one could almost be amused by the man's unimaginative approach to the curative waters.”

Without getting too far into current political issues, I find it fascinating and disgusting that more and more evangelical churches have seemingly given up on turning to God for a solution to the supposed concerted attacks on the church and our Christian values and have turned instead to rabblerousers who stir us up in anger through their largely untrue diatribe. The unfortunate result is that (1) people are leaving churches with pastors who refrain from overt politically motivated rhetoric in favor of ones who often preach more politics than Bible from the pulpits and (2) churches are attracting fewer and fewer new people because of evangelicals' growing reputation for rancor, fear-mongering and hatred of those who do not agree 100% with their detailed agenda. Enough politics and back to theology for all of us, myself included!

Morris brings out another interesting point in considering the fact that this miracle required absolutely no apparent faith in Jesus on the part of the lame man. In fact, he couldn't even identify who He was after the event. “We must feel that, while faith was commonly the prerequisite of healing, it was not absolutely necessary.” The healing was primarily caused by Jesus' compassion for the man's pitiful plight.

Blum remarks that “the Bible nowhere teaches this kind of superstition, a situation which would be a most cruel contest for an ill people.” It is indeed amazing that none of the ill people lining the pool asked themselves what sort of loving God would pit one deserving person against another in the race to be healed. That is why it is so necessary for us to constantly gauge our actions and beliefs against what the Bible teaches rather than looking at what current wisdom is prevailing at the time in which we are living and within the specific group(s) to which we belong.