"After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches.
In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water.
For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had.
Now a certain man was there who had an infirmity thirty-eight years.
When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he already had been in that condition a long time, He said to him, "Do you want to be made well?"
The sick man answered Him, "Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; but while I am coming, another steps down before me."
Jesus said to him, "Rise, take up your bed and walk."
And immediately the man was made well, took up his bed, and walked. And that day was the Sabbath.
The Jews therefore said to him who was cured, "It is the Sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your bed."
He answered them, "He who made me well said to me, 'Take up your bed and walk.'
Then they asked him, "Who is the Man who said to you, 'Take up your bed and walk'?"
But the one who was healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, a multitude being in that place.
Afterward Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, "See, you have been made well. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you." The man departed and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well.
For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath." (John 5:1-16)

Message:
We begin our exposition of this portion of John's Gospel by noting that many Bible commentators have difficulty with the arrangement of the chapters at this point in the Gospel. Barclay, in his small commentary makes the following comment:
"Most New Testament scholars think that at this point in the Fourth Gospel the chapters have somehow become misplaced. They hold that Chapter 6 should come before chapter 5.
The reason is this. Chapter 4 finishes with Jesus in Galilee (John 4:54). Chapter 5 begins with Jesus in Jerusalem. Chapter 6

***Page break***
(Page Two)

again shows us Jesus in Galilee. Chapter 7 begins with the implication that Jesus had just come into Galilee because of the opposition which He met in Jerusalem. The changes between Jerusalem and Galilee become very difficult to follow. On the other hand chapter 4 (4:54) ends: "This the second sign that Jesus did, when He had come from Judaea to Galilee." Chapter 6 begins (6:1); "After this thing Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee," which would be a natural sequence. Chapter 5 then shows us Jesus going to Jerusalem for a Feast and meeting with very serious trouble with the Jewish authorities. We are in fact told that from that time they began to persecute Him (5:10). Then chapter 7 begins by saying that Jesus went about in Galilee and "would not go about in Judaea, because the Jews sought to kill Him" (7:1).
But, we ought not to expect everything to fit into a neat geographical or chronological picture. John draws his incidents from where he chooses. It may not be without relevance that in chapter 21:1, there is an abrupt and unexplained transition from Judaea to Galilee, so that the phenomenon is found elsewhere. We have no manuscript evidence for any other order than the traditional one. Nor is it easy to see how such a transposition could have taken place despite the claims of those who advocate displacement so strenuously. There is also the point made by Godet that a removal to Galilee would follow naturally on the conflict mentioned in chapter 5.
Finally there is the theological point that in chapter 6 Jesus speaks of Himself as the bread of life, the bread which comes down from heaven, the living bread, and makes it clear that men have eternal life only through Him. The establishment of Jesus' position as the Divine Son in 5:19-47 seems to be required as the basis for the claims made in chapter 6. It is best to suspend judgment for certainty in such a matter is not attainable.
Our text begins..."After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem."
One cannot overestimate the importance of such festivals in first-century Judaism. Leviticus 23 offers a list of these festivals and stresses their importance. The cycle of festivals was old (Purim and Hanukkah were the newest, but centuries-old in Jesus' day) and the liturgies of the temple and the responsibilities of Jewish families well established. Three times each year Jewish families were expected to travel to Jerusalem for worship (Passover in spring, Pentecost seven weeks later, Tabernacles in autumn), thanking God for the harvest of crop and herd and remembering great episodes from Israel's history.
The Sabbath was the only weekly festival, observed in homes and synagogues in Israel's villages.

***Page break***
(Page Three)

But in some respects, the Sabbath set the tone for what it meant to have a period of time set aside for reverence and devotion for any festival. The first day of Passover (according to Leviticus 23:7) was to be "a sacred assembly" in which no work could be done. The onset of festivals mimicked the observance of Sabbath. This means that Sabbath set the pace, outlining the pattern of Jewish devotion for what was to follow.
The question is...Which feast is referred to in our chapter 5 text? It is generally assured that the feast mentioned in 5:1 must have been either Passover or Pentecost or Tabernacles of the year 28 A.D. Of these three the term FEAST OF THE JEWS is used elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel to indicate either Passover (6:4) or feast of Tabernacles (7:2). In reality, we do not have a specific answer to the question. Each of the feasts, of course, had deep religious significance and pointed to important spiritual truths. Apparently one of John's minor aims is to show his readers that Jesus perfectly fulfilled all that the feasts typified. What they symbolized he brought into existence.
Our text indicates that Jesus must have attended this feast alone, for there is no mention of His disciples being with Him.
The story in our text opens with Jesus coming to Jerusalem during a feast (which is Sabbath, 5:9) and arriving at a gate in the city's northwest wall called the Sheep Gate. It is interesting that this northeast section of the walled city has continued to sponsor a sheep market one day per just outside St. Stephen's Gate. The NIV refers to the name of a pool there called in Aramaic "Bethesda," but this has posed innumerable problems for the translator. Greek texts offer many alternatives for the site: Bethzatha, Bethsaida, Belzetha, and Bethesda, some suggest a new word, "Bethesta," which means "house of sheep."
We learn in the story that many people viewed the pool as a healing sanctuary (5:3). [Just a little historical note concerning this pool. The pool (or, in reality, the reservoir which formed it) was laid bare in the year of 1888 in connection with the repair of the church of St. Anne, in northeast Jerusalem. A faded fresco on the wall pictures an angel "troubling" the water. It appears, therefore, that by the early church this pool was viewed as Bethzatha. In the time of our Lord it had five porticos or covered colonnades where the sick could rest, protected from inclement weather.] "In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in

***Page break***
(Page Four)

first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had." (v.3, 4) None of the best and most ancient manuscripts have these words, which accordingly, have not been retained in the A.R.V. But there is no reason for doubting that it explains the presence of the people. The people understood that occasionally an angel would descend and stir the water of the pool, and they also believed that the first one into the water would be healed. But, on the basis of the text as it is found in the best manuscripts and in the A.R.V., there is no necessity to believe that the agitation that occurred in the water was actually due to any supernatural cause.
Also, the idea that whoever, after such a disturbance, was the first man to step into the pool was healed is not presented here as necessarily the belief of the author of the Fourth Gospel nor as the teaching of the Holy Spirit but as the implied opinion of the sick man. Some Bible scholars believe that the disturbance may have been caused by the intermittent bubbling up of a natural spring.
For sure, nowhere in Scripture do we have anything like an angel's coming and doing works of healing on a haphazard basis, with the first of a group of sick people to get into a pool being chosen and all the rest ignored, no matter how needy. It simply does not fit into the Christian way of understanding things. But there is little doubt that many people in Jerusalem believed this, and that was why the sick were there at the pool.
Nobody knows what caused the disturbance of the water. Some think there was a spring that bubbled up intermittently, and this may well have been the case. There is no spring there now, but it is not impossible that there was such a spring in Jesus' day and that it dried up over the centuries. Others think that water was piped into the pool from some external source (from the temple area perhaps) and that when this happened the waters were agitated. We do not know but there is no reason to doubt that there was something that caused the waters to move at unpredictable times, and this was understood as the moment of healing.
The above explanations are the general comments by most commentaries, but Dr. Barnes in his commentary takes a slightly different position on our story. Please let me quote at length his words:
"It is not affirmed that the angel did this visibly, or that they saw him do it. They judged by the effect, and when they saw the waters agitated, they concluded that they had healing properties, and descended to them. The Jews were in habit of attributing all favors to the ministering of angels of God. This fountain, it seems, had strong medicinal properties. Like many other waters, it had the property of healing certain diseases that were incurable of any other means. In the case of the waters of Bethesda there does not

***Page break***
(Page Five)

appear to have been anything miraculous, but the waters seem to have been endued with strong medicinal properties, especially after a periodical agitation. All that is peculiar about them in the record is that this was produced by the ministry of an angel. This was in accordance with the common sentiment of the Jews, the common doctrine of the Bible, and the belief of the sacred writers. Nor can it be shown to be absurd or improbable that such blessings should be imparted to man by the ministry of angels. There is no more absurdity in the belief that a pure spirit or holy angel should aid man, than that a physician or a parent should; and no more absurdity in supposing that the healing properties of such a fountain should be produced by his aid, than that any other blessing should be."
In light of the last few paragraphs which I have written, you can see that there is much division in the interpretation of this passage of Scripture.
Our text continues: "And a certain man was there which had an infirmity thirty and eight years." We have observed in previous lessons that John's intent in writing his gospel was to present "signs" in the ministry of Christ that would help people to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:30-31)
We then ask the question..."Why did John include this miracle as part of his proof of Christ as the Messiah, the Son of God?" May I suggest a couple of possible reasons. First, it was this miracle that marked the beginning of angry disbelief and hostility toward Jesus on the part of the Jewish leaders. It is to this theme that the Gospel now turns. Second, there is the fact that the story illustrates how Jesus came to the weak and helpless, and saved them. This aspect of the story is particularly apparent at the beginning of the account of the hostility that developed between Jesus and the Jewish leaders; for the leaders were the ones who should have accepted Him and among whom we would have thought He should have done His most extensive work. But they were insensitive, and Christ moved instead among the masses.
Because this miracle was wrought on the Sabbath Day, this miracle gave rise to the first outbreak of Christ's rejection. Speaking as One who claimed equality with authority, Jesus rebuked His foes for searching the Scriptures but failing to understand that they led to Him. Religious and careful about matters of the law, these rejecters of Christ's claims were destitute of compassion. A year before this miracle at Bethesda, Jesus proved His Messianic claims by cleansing the Temple. Now He performs a miracle on the Sabbath for the deliberate purpose of destroying wrong ideas of such a holy day.

***Page break***
(Page Six)

By the miracle, the claims of His deity received the fullest possible publicity in the nation's capital, where He wrought few miracles because of unbelief.
Our text states that the man at the pool had been sick for thirty-eight years. John does not tell us what his trouble was, but from verse 8 it would appear to have been some form of paralysis or lameness.
Many commentators make an interesting comparison at this point in the story. The two scriptures compared are Deuteronomy 2:14 which declares that the nation of Israel was thirty eight years in the wilderness...and verse 5 of our story tells us this man had been sick for thirty-years! Thirty-eight years was exactly the length of time that Israel spent in the wilderness after they came under law at Sinai. These commentators suggest that herein is a parable in action which sets before us a vivid illustration of God's work of grace in the spiritual realm. Just as the condition of that impotent multitude depicts the depravity of Adam's fallen race, so Christ singling out this individual and healing him, portrays the sovereign grace of Him who singles out and saves His own elect. (It is always fascinating to me to read the various commentaries and see what each Bible scholar finds in the text!).
Verse 6 of our text says: "When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he already had been in that condition a long time, He said to him, "Do you want to be made well?" Note the individuality of this. The eyes of the Saviour were fixed on that one who, out of the crowd, had been given to Him by the Father before the foundation of the world. Not only are we told that Christ "saw him," but it is added, "and knew that he had been now a long time in that case." Yes, He knew all about him; had known him from all eternity--"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep" (John 10:11). "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love" (Ephesians 1:3-4)
And then we read, "And saith unto him." It was not the man who spoke first but Christ! The Lord always takes the initiative, and invites Himself. It was thus with us when His sovereign grace sought us out. It is never wise to ready strange things into any text, but the fact remains that John spoke of "A CERTAIN MAN," and while many people were within reach of the water, it was to one man only that Jesus came. We wonder why this was so, but here we see the predestinating foreknowledge of God. It was in the eternal mind that this man would respond, and in the fullness of time, the opportunity was given for him to do so. In some senses this is the history of every conversion, for

***Page break***
(Page Seven)

all men are surrounded by a great multitude. In a very personal and unique sense, the Saviour comes to the side of every man and every woman destined to be healed by His grace. The fact that the man had no friends shows he was helpless; the fact that he had been there for thirty-eight years suggests he was also hopeless. There is nothing he could do toward his healing...he desperately needed a Saviour!
Knowing then, that this man had been in this condition for a long time, Jesus addressed him. HE SAID TO HIM, DO YOU WANT TO GET WELL? Did not the Saviour ask the question to impress upon this man the utter helplessness of his condition? Man must be brought to recognize and realize his potency. It is not till we discover we are helpless that we shall abandon our miserable efforts to weave a robe of righteousness for ourselves. It is not till we learn we are impotent that we shall look outside of ourselves to Another.
Dr. Barclay makes an interesting comment on this question that Jesus asked the man. "Jesus began by asking the man if he wanted to be cured. It was not so foolish a question as it may sound. The man had waited for thirty-eight years and it might well have been that hope had died and left behind a passive and dull despair. In his heart of hearts the man might be well content to remain an invalid for, if he was cured, he would have to shoulder all the burden of making a living. There are invalids for whom invalidism is not unpleasant, because someone else does all the working and all the worrying. But this man's response was immediate. He wanted to be healed, though he did not see how he ever could be since he had no one to help him. The first essential towards receiving the power of Jesus is to have intense desire for it. Jesus says: "Do you really want to be changed?" If in our inmost hearts we are well content to stay as we are, there can be no change for us."
ONE REASON WHY SOME PEOPLE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH CHRIST IS THAT THEY DO NOT WISH TO BE DISTURBED OUT OF THEIR COMFORTABLE, SELFISH WAYS. To be a Christian introduces us to a life that none who have experienced it ever want to lose. But there is a price. To enter this life means leaving the old one!
The man's thoughts are concentrated on the pool. He makes no real answer to Jesus' question, though perhaps he implies that his endeavors to get into the pool over all those long years show that he did want healing. But quite clearly he does not think of Jesus as someone who might heal him. He has his mind made up about the way healing would come and does not allow anything to disturb him from that course. John Calvin comments, "This sick man does what we nearly all do. He limits God's help to his own ideas and does not dare promise himself more than he conceives in his mind."

***Page break***
(Page Eight)

The sick man explained to Jesus why he had not had healing, though he had looked for it for so long. Clearly he believed firmly that the one way in which he would be healed would be by getting into the pool right after the waters moved, so that the angel's healing work would be done on him. Jesus did not discuss the pool or its alleged curative properties. He simply told the man to get up, take up his pallet, and walk. What a challenge this was to a man who had just now confessed his own complete inability! The pallet or mat to which Jesus refers was a camp bed, pad or a thin mattress.
ALL AT ONCE THE MAN WAS HEALED. He obeyed and was healed ALL AT ONCE. The very fact that the author of the Fourth Gospel, in contrast to Mark, seldom uses the expression ALL AT ONCE, STRAIGHTWAY, OR INSTANTLY, indicates that he wishes to place special stress on this sudden and complete character of the cure. Once more the glory of the Son of God stands revealed. This recovery is neither gradual nor partial; nor, we may well add, was the sickness faked. At the word of Jesus new strength and vigor surged through this man's whole body; and he picked up his mat and was walking! This healing differs from many others in that, not only is there no mention of faith on the part of the man, but there seems no room for it. The man did not even know Jesus' name. Moreover right up till Jesus uttered the critical words his thoughts were centered on healing through getting into the pool. We must feel that, while faith was commonly the prerequisite of healing, it was not absolutely necessary. Jesus is not limited by man as He works the works of God.
Someone has written of this man...AT THE POOL WITH HIS BACK ON HIS BED, HE NOW LEAVES WITH HIS BED ON HIS BACK! Most likely he would have left the mass of rags he had been stretched out on behind, but Christ expressly told him to take his wretched bed with him for these reasons Laidlaw suggests:
(1) As a proof of his complete recovery, that he could not only walk, but carry his bed.
(2) As a mark of identity, to prove he was the very man who had laid so long helpless at the pool.
(3) As a test of his faith in his Healer, and thankfulness to Him. Trusting Him, the man did exactly as he was commanded.
No doubt one reason why Christ selected so many incurable cases on which to show forth His power, was in order to have suitable objects to portray to us the irreparable ruin which sin has wrought and the utter helplessness of man’s natural estate. The Saviour, then, was pressing upon the man the need of being made whole. But more; when the Saviour said, "Wilt thou be made whole?" it was tantamount to asking, 'Are you willing to put yourself, just as you are, into My hands? Are you ready for Me to do for you what you are unable to do for yourself? Oh! what an invitation to helpless man from a powerful Saviour!