John 5 JOHN 5:1-15 Healing a Paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda After this there was a Jewish feast, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool called Bethesda in Aramaic, which has five covered walkways. A great number of sick, blind, lame, and paralyzed people were lying in these walkways. Now a man was there who had been disabled for thirty-eight years.
When Jesus saw him lying there and when he realized that the man had been disabled a long time already, he said to him, "Do you want to become well?" The sick man answered him, "Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up. While I am trying to go into the water, someone else goes down before me." Jesus said to him, "Stand up!
Pick up your mat and walk." Immediately the man was healed, and he picked up his mat and started walking. (Now that day was a Sabbath.) So the Jewish authorities said to the man who had been healed, "It is the Sabbath, and you are not permitted to carry your mat." But he answered them, "The man who made me well said to me, ‘Pick up your mat and walk.’" They asked him, "Who is the man who said to you, ‘Pick up your mat and walk’?" But the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had slipped out since there was a crowd in that place.
After this Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, "Look, you have become well. Don’t sin any more, lest anything worse happen to you." The man went away and informed the Jewish authorities that Jesus was the one who had made him well. We have in this passage one of the few miracles of Christ, which John records. Like every other miracle in this Gospel, it is described with great minuteness and particularity. And like more than one other miracle it leads on to a discourse full of singularly deep instruction.
We are taught, for one thing, in this passage, what misery sin has brought into the world. We read of a man who had been ill for no less than thirty-eight years! For thirty-eight weary summers and winters he had endured pain and infirmity. He had seen others healed at the waters of Bethesda, and going to their homes rejoicing. But for him there had been no healing. Friendless, helpless, and hopeless, he lay near the wonder-working waters, but derived no benefit from them. Year after year passed away, and left him still uncured.
No relief or change for the better seemed likely to come, except from the grave. When we read of cases of sickness like this, we should remember how deeply we ought to hate sin! Sin was the original root, and cause, and fountain of every disease in the world. God did not create man to be full of aches, and pains, and infirmities. These things are the fruits of the Fall. There would have been no sickness, if there had been no sin. No greater proof can be shown of man's inbred unbelief, than his carelessness about sin.
"Fools," says the wise man, "make a mock at sin." (Pro. 14:9.) Thousands delight in things which are explicitly evil, and run greedily after that which is downright poison. They love that which God abhors, and dislike that which God loves. They are like the madman, who loves his enemies and hates his friends. Their eyes are blinded. Surely if men would only look at hospitals and infirmaries, and think what havoc sin has made on this earth, they would never take pleasure in sin as they do. Well may we be told to pray for the coming of God's kingdom!
Well may we be told to long for the second advent of Jesus Christ! Then, and not until then, shall there be no more curse on the earth, no more suffering, no more sorrow, and no more sin. Tears shall be wiped from the faces of all who love Christ's appearing, when their Master returns. Weakness and infirmity shall all pass away. Hope deferred shall no longer make hearts sick. There will be no chronic invalids and incurable cases, when Christ has renewed this earth. We are taught, for another thing, in this passage, how great is the mercy and compassion of Christ.
He "saw" the poor sufferer lying in the crowd. Neglected, overlooked, and forgotten in the great multitude, he was observed by the all-seeing eye of Christ. "He knew" full well, by His Divine knowledge, how long he had been "in that case," and pitied him. He spoke to him unexpectedly, with words of gracious sympathy. He healed him by miraculous power, at once and without tedious delay, and sent him home rejoicing. This is just one among many examples of our Lord Jesus Christ's kindness and compassion. He is full of undeserved, unexpected, abounding love towards man.
"He delights in mercy." (Micah 7:18.) He is far more ready to save than man is to be saved, far more willing to do good than man is to receive it. No one ever need be afraid of beginning the life of a true Christian, if he feels disposed to begin. Let him not hang back and delay, under the vain idea that Christ is not willing to receive him. Let him come boldly, and trust confidently. He who healed the cripple at Bethesda is still the same. We are taught, lastly, the lessonthat recovery from sickness ought to impress upon us.
That lesson is contained in the solemn words which our Savior addressed to the man He had cured--"Sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto you." Every sickness and sorrow is the voice of God speaking to us. Each has its peculiar message. Happy are they who have an eye to see God's hand, and an ear to hear His voice, in all that happens to them. Nothing in this world happens by chance. And as it is with sickness, so it is with recovery.
Renewed health should send us back to our post in the world with a deeper hatred of sin, a more thorough watchfulness over our own ways, and a more constant purpose of mind to live for God. Far too often the excitement and novelty of returning health tempt us to forget the vows and intentions of the sick-room. There are spiritual dangers attending a recovery!
Well would it be for us all after illness to grave these words on our hearts, "Let me sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto me." Let us leave the passage with grateful hearts, and bless God that we have such a Gospel and such a Savior as the Bible reveals. Are we ever sick and ill? Let us remember that Christ sees, and knows, and can heal as He thinks fit. Are we ever in trouble? Let us hear in our trouble the voice of God, and learn to hate sin more. Technical Notes: 1. After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem . 2.
Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda , having five porches. 3. In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, blind, lame, paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water. 4. For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and troubled the water; whoever then first, after the troubling of the water, stepped in was made well of whatever disease he had. 5. And a certain man was there who had an infirmity thirty-eight years. 6.
When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he said to him, Will you be made well? 7. The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool; but while I am coming, another steps down before me. 8. Jesus said to him, Rise, take up your bed and walk. 9. And immediately the man was made well, took up his bed, and walked. And that day was the Sabbath. 10. The Jews therefore said to him who was cured, It is the sabbath day; it is not lawful for you to carry your bed. 11.
He answered them, He who made me well said to me, Take up your bed and walk. 12. Then they asked him, Who is the man who said to you, Take up your bed and walk? 13. And he who was healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place. 14. Afterward Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, Behold, you are made well; sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you. 15. The man departed and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. 1.--[ After this. ] Literally translated this would be “after these things.” Some think that when St.
John is telling some event which follows immediately after the last thing narrated, he uses the expression “after this thing” (as John ii.12), but that when there has been an interval of time, he uses the expression “after these things.” If this be correct, we must suppose that some space of time elapsed between the healing of the nobleman’s son and the visit to Jerusalem, recorded in this chapter. [ A feast of the Jews. ] There is nothing to show what feast this was. Most commentators think it was the passover. Many, however, think it was the feast of pentecost.
Some few say it was the feast of tabernacles, some the feast of purim, and some the feast of the dedication. Each view has its advocates, and the question will probably never be settled. An argument in favor of the passover is the fact that none of the five Jewish feasts were so regularly attended by devout Jews as the passover. An argument against it is the fact that on three other occasions, when the feast of the passover is mentioned in St. John, he carefully specifies it by name, and one would naturally expect that it would be named here. The matter is really of no peculiar importance.
In one point of view only is it interesting. If the “feast” was the passover, it proves that there were four passovers during the period of our Lord’s ministry on earth. St. John mentions three by name, beside this “feast.” (John ii.23; vi.4; xii.1.) This would make it certain that our Lord’s ministry lasted three full years, or at any rate must have begun with a passover and ended with a passover.
If the “feast” was not the passover, we have no proof that His ministry lasted longer than between two and three years. (See notes on John ii.13.) The expression, “a feast of the Jews,” is one of many incidental evidences that St. John wrote specially for the use of Gentile converts, and that he thought it needful for their benefit to explain Jewish ordinances. [ Jesus went up. ] The frequency of our Lord’s attendance at Jewish feasts, and the respect He showed for Mosaic ordinances, should always be noticed. They were appointed by God, and so long as they lasted, He gave them honor.
It is an important proof to us that the unworthiness of ministers is no reason for neglecting God’s ordinances, such as baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The benefit we receive from ordinances and sacraments does not depend on the character of those who administer them, but on the state of our own souls. The priests and officers of the Temple, in our Lord’s time, were probably very unworthy persons. But that did not prevent our Lord honoring the Temple ordinances and feasts. It does not, however, follow from this that we should be justified in habitually going to hear false doctrine preached.
Our Lord never did this. Let it be noted that none of the four Gospel writers speak so much of our Lord’s doings in Judæa and Jerusalem as St. John does. 2. [ There is in Jerusalem . ] These words, it is thought, show that Jerusalem was yet standing and not taken and destroyed by the Romans when John wrote his Gospel. Otherwise, it is argued, he would have said, “There was at Jerusalem.” [ By the sheep market a pool. ] Nothing certain is known about this pool or its precise situation. Modern travelers have professed to point out where it was.
But there is little ground for determining the matter, except conjecture and tradition. After all the changes of eighteen centuries, points like these are almost incapable of a satisfactory solution. There is no place in the world, perhaps, where it is so difficult to settle anything decidedly about ancient buildings and sites as Jerusalem. Some propose to render the expression “sheep market” the “sheep gate,” because of Nehemiah iii.1.
But we really have no certain ground for either expression. [ Called in Hebrew, Bethesda . ] The word “Bethesda,” according to Cruden, means “house of effusion” or “house of pity or mercy.” It is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. The mention of “in Hebrew” shows again that John did not write for Jews so much as Gentiles. [ Having five porches. ] These porches were probably covered arcades, piazzas, colonnades, or verandas, open at one side to the air but protected against the sun or rain overhead.
In a hot country like Palestine, such buildings are very necessary. 3.--[ In these lay a great multitude. ] The context seems to show that the multitude were assembled at this particular feast in this place, expecting a certain miracle to be wrought which only took place at this particular time of the year. [ Impotent folk. ] This expression evidently does not mean paralytic people, but merely people who were sick and ill.
The mention of “blind, lame, paralyzed,” shows this. [ Moving of the water. ] This “moving” must have been something that could be seen and observed by persons standing by or looking on. There was no virtue or healing element in the water until the movement took place. 4.--[ For an angel went down, etc. ] The thing we are here told is very curious. There is nothing like it in the Bible. Josephus, the Jewish writer, does not mention it.
The simplest view is that it was a standing miracle wrought once every year, as Cyril says, or at any rate at some special season only, by God’s appointment, to keep the Jews in mind of the wonderful works that had been done for them in time past, and to remind them that the God of miracles was unchanged. But when this singular miracle first began, on what occasion it began, why we never hear anything else about it, in what way the angel came down, are questions which cannot be answered.
That angels did interpose in a miraculous manner in the days of the New Testament is perfectly clear from many instances in the Gospels and Acts. That the Jews themselves had strong faith in the interposition of angels on certain occasions is clear from the account of the vision of Zacharias, when we are simply told that the people “perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple.” (Luke i.22.) That from the days of Malachi, when inspiration ceased, God may have seen it good to keep up in the Jewish mind a faith in unseen things by the grant of a standing miracle, is a very probable opinion.
The wisest course is to take the passage as we find it and to believe though we cannot explain. All other attempts to get over the difficulties of the passage are thoroughly unsatisfactory. To condemn the passage as not genuine is a lazy way of cutting the knot, and not at all clearly warranted by the authority of manuscripts. To say that St. John only used the popular language of the Jews in describing the miracle and did not really believe it himself is, to say the least, irreverent and profane.
To suppose, as Hammond and others have done—that the “angel” only means a common human “messenger” sent by the priests and that the healing efficacy of the water arose from the blood of the many sacrifices which drained into the pool of Bethesda at the passover feast, or to suppose as do others—that Bethesda was a pool where sacrifices were washed before they were offered, are all entirely gratuitous assumptions and do not get over the main difficulty. There is no proof that the blood of the sacrifices did drain into the pool.
There is no proof that the blood would give the water any healing virtue. There is no proof, as Lightfoot shows, that sacrifices were washed at all. (See Lightfoot’s Exercitations on John on this passage.) Moreover, this hypothesis would not account for only one person being healed every time the waters were “stirred up” or for St. John’s mention of the “angel stirring up” the waters.
Here, as in many other instances, the simplest view, and the one which involves the fewest difficulties, is to take the passage as we find it and to interpret it as narrating an actual fact: viz., a standing miracle which actually was literally wrought at a certain season and perhaps every year. After all, there is no more real difficulty in the account before us than in the history of our Lord’s temptation in the wilderness, the various cases of Satanic possession, or the release of Peter from prison by an angel.
Once admit the existence of angels, their ministry on earth, and the possibility of their interposition to carry out God’s designs, and there is nothing that ought to stumble us in the passage. The true secret of some of the objections to it is the modern tendency to regard all miracles as useless lumber which must be thrown overboard, if possible, and cast out of the Sacred Narrative on every occasion. Against this tendency we must watch and be on our guard.
Rollock remarks: “The Jewish people at this time was in a state of great confusion, and the presence of God was in great measure withdrawn from it. The prophets whom God had been accustomed to raise up for extraordinary purposes were no longer given to the Jews. Therefore God, that He might not appear altogether to cast off His people, was willing to heal some miraculously, and in an extraordinary way, in order that He might testify to the world that the nation was not yet entirely rejected.” Brentius and Calvin say much the same.
Poole thinks that this miracle only began a little before the birth of Christ “as a figure of Him being about to come who was to be a Fountain opened to the house of David.” Lightfoot takes the same view. [ Troubled the water. ] This means, no doubt, “disturbed, agitated, stirred up,” the water of the pool. There is no reason for supposing that the angel visibly appeared in doing this.
It is enough to suppose that at a certain hour there was a sudden stir and agitation of the waters, immediately after which they possessed the miraculous virtue of healing, just as the waters at Marah became sweet immediately after Moses cast the tree into them. (Exod. xv.25.) [ Whoever then first. ] This shows that the whole affair was miraculous. On no other supposition can we account for only one person being healed after the troubling of the water.
That only “one” was healed is plain, I think from the wording of the passage. [ Of whatever disease he had. ] These words would be more literally translated, “with whatsoever disease he was held.” Bengel thinks that the use of the past tense throughout this verse shows that the miracle had ceased when John wrote. He “used to go down,” “used to trouble the waters,” etc. Tertullian declares expressly that the miracle ceased from the time that the Jews rejected Christ. 5.--[ Infirmity thirty-eight years. ] This means the length of time during which the sick man had been ill.
How old he was we do not know. Baxter remarks, “How great a mercy is it to live eight and thirty years under God’s wholesome discipline! O my God, I think Thee for the like discipline of eight and fifty years. How safe a life is this compared to one spent in full prosperity and pleasure!” Those who see typical and abstruse meanings in all the least details of the narratives of Scripture observe that thirty-eight years was the exact time of Israel’s wanderings in the wilderness. They see in the sick man (helpless and hopeless till Christ came) a type of the Jewish Church.
The pool of Bethesda is Old Testament religion. The small benefit it conferred (only healing one at a time) represents the narrow and limited benefit which Judaism conferred on mankind. The merciful interference of Christ on the sick man’s behalf represents the bringing in of the Gospel for all the world. These are pious thoughts, but it may well be doubted whether there is any warrant for them.
The notions that the pool of Bethesda was a type of baptism, and the five porches typical of the five books of the law or the five wounds of Christ, appear to me mere ingenious inventions of man without any solid foundation. Yet Chrysostom, Augustine, Theophylact, Euthymius, Burgon, Wordsworth, and many others maintain them. Those who wish to see a full reply to the theory that the miracle at the pool of Bethesda is a typical proof of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration will find it in Gomarus, the Dutch divine.
He takes up Bellarmine’s argument on the subject and answers him completely. 6.--[ When Jesus saw...knew...long time. ] We need not doubt that our Lord knew this man’s history by that divine knowledge which, as God, He possesses of all things in heaven and earth. To suppose that He ascertained by inquiry the state of his case before speaking to him is a weak, meager, and frigid interpretation. As a practical truth, it is a most comfortable doctrine that Jesus knows every sickness and disease and all its weary history.
Nothing is hid from Him. [ He said to him. ] This is an example of our Lord being the first to speak and begin conversation, as He did with the woman of Samaria. (John iv.7.) Unasked, unsolicited, unexpectedly, He mercifully addressed the sick man. No doubt He always begins in man’s heart before man begins with Him. But He does all things as a Sovereign, according to His own will; and it is not always that we see Him taking the first step so entirely of Himself as we do here. [ Will you be made well? ] The English language here fails to give the full force of the Greek.
It means, “Have you a will? Do you wish? Do you desire to be made well?” The question was perhaps meant to awaken desire and expectation in the man and to prepare him in some sense for the blessing about to be bestowed on him. Is not this, to take a spiritual view, the very language that Christ is continually addressing to every man and woman who hears His Gospel? He sees us in a wretched, miserable, sin-sick condition.
The one thing He asks us is, “Have you any wish to be saved?” 7.--[ I have no man...put me into the pool. ] This is no doubt mentioned as an intentional proof of the heartlessness and unkindness of human nature. Think of a poor invalid waiting for years by the water and having not a single friend to help him! The longer we live on earth, the more we shall find that it is a selfish world, and that the sick and afflicted have few real friends in time of need.
“The poor is hated even of his neighbor.” (Prov. xiv.20.) Christ is the only unfailing friend of the friendless and helper of the helpless. 8.--[ Rise...walk. ] Here, as in other similar cases, it is evident that miraculous healing power went forth with the words of our Lord. Thus, “Stretch forth thy hand” (Mark iii.5); “Go show yourselves to the priests” (Luke xvii.14). Commands like these tested the faith and obedience of those to whom they were given. How could they possibly do the things commanded if impotent like the man before us?
Where was the use of doing them if still covered with leprosy, like the ten lepers? But it was precisely in the act of obedience that the blessing came. The whole power is Christ’s. But He loves to make us exert ourselves and show our obedience and faith. Augustine finds in the command “Take up your bed” an exhortation to the love of our neighbors, because we are to bear one another’s burdens; and in the command “Walk” an exhortation to love God!
Such allegorizing appears to me very unwarrantable and calculated to bring the Bible into contempt as a book that can be made to mean anything. 9.--[ Immediately...made well...walked. ] Here we see the reality of the miracle wrought. Nothing but Divine power could enable one who had been a cripple for so many years to move his limbs and carry a burden all at once. But it was as easy to our Lord to give immediate strength as it was to create muscles, nerves, and sinews in the day that Adam was made.
When we are told that the man “took up his bed,” we must remember that this probably was nothing more than a light mattress, carpet, or thick cloth such as is commonly used in hot countries for sleeping on. 10.--[ The Jews. ] Here, as in many places in St. John’s Gospel, the expression, “the Jews,” when used of the Jews at Jerusalem, means the leaders of the people—elders, rulers, and scribes.
It does not mean vaguely the “Jewish crowd” around our Lord, but the representatives of the whole nation—the heads of Israel at the time. [ It is not lawful...bed. ] In support of this charge of unlawfulness, the Jew would allege not merely the general law of the fourth commandment, but the special passages in Nehemiah and Jeremiah about “bearing no burden” on the Sabbath day. (Neh. xiii.19; Jer. xvii.21.) But they could not have proved that these passages applied to the case of the man before them. For a man to carry merchandise and wares on the Sabbath was one thing.
For a sick man, suddenly and miraculously healed, to walk away to his home carrying his mattress, was quite another. To forbid the one man to carry his burden was Scriptural and lawful. To forbid the other was cruel and contrary to the spirit of the law of Moses. The act of the one man was unnecessary. The act of the other was an act of necessity and mercy. It might perhaps be urged, in defense of the Jews, that they only saw a man carrying off a burden and knew nothing of his previous illness or his cure.
But when we remember the many instances recorded in the Gospels of their extreme and harsh interpretation of the fourth commandment, it is doubtful whether this plea will stand. 11.--[ He who made me well, etc. ] The answer of the man seems simple. But it contains a deep principle. “He who has done so great thing to me was surely to be obeyed when He told me to take up my bed. If He had authority and power to heal, He was not likely to lay upon me an unlawful command. I only obeyed Him who cured me.” If Christ has really healed our souls, should not this be our feeling towards Him?
“Thou hast healed me. What Thou commandest I will do.” 12.--[ Who is the man...walk? ] Ecolampadius, Grotius, and many others, remark what an example this question is of the malevolent and malicious spirit of the Jews. Instead of asking “Who healed you?” they asked, “Who told you to carry your bed?” They cared not for knowing what they might admire as a work of mercy, but what they might make the ground of an accusation. How many are like them!
They are always looking out for something to find fault with. 13.--[ Did not know who it was. ] It is most probable that the cripple really did not know not who it was who had healed him, and had only seen our Lord that day for the first time. He was ignorant of His name and only knew Him as a kind person, who came up and said suddenly, “Will you be made well?” and after curing him, miraculously, suddenly disappeared in the crowd. [ Conveyed himself away. ] The Greek word so rendered is peculiar and only found in this place.
Parkhurst thinks that it simply means “departed, or went away.” Schleusner says that the root of the idea is “swimming out, or escaping by swimming,” and that the meaning here is “withdrew himself secretly from the crowd that was in the place.” If so, it is not improbable that, as in Luke iv.30 at Nazareth, and John x.39 in the Temple, our Lord put forth a miraculous power in passing or gliding through the crowd without being observed or stopped. 14.--[ Afterward...temple. ] It is not clear how long a time elapsed before our Lord found the man whom He had healed in the Temple.
If the theory be correct to which I adverted in the note on the first verse, there must have been an interval. The word “afterward” is literally “after these things.” Chrysostom thinks that the circumstance of the man being found “in the temple” is an indication of his piety. [ Behold you are made well; sin no more, etc. ] These words appear to point at something more than meets the eye. They are a solemn caution. One might fancy that our Lord knew that some sin had been the beginning of the man’s illness, and that He meant to remind him of it.
It certainly seems very unlikely that our Lord would say broadly and vaguely, “sin no more,” unless He spoke with a significant reference to some sin which had been the primary cause of this man’s long illness. (See 1 Cor. xi.30.) There are sins which bring their own punishments on men’s bodies; and I am strongly disposed to think that it may have been the cause with this man. The expression “a worse thing” would then come out with more force. It would be “a heavier visitation,” a worse judgment even than this thirty-eight years’ illness. A sick bed is a sorrowful place, but hell is much worse.
Besser remarks: “It is a dreadful thing when the correction and mercy of Divine love wearies itself with a man in vain. You that are sick, write over your beds when you rise up from them in renewed health, ‘Behold you are made well; sin no more lest a worse thing come unto you.’” Brentius says much the same. If sin was the cause of this man’s disease, and he had been ill from the effects of it thirty-eight years, it is plain that it must have been committed before our Lord was born!
It is an instance, in that case, of our Lord’s perfect and Divine knowledge of all things, past as well as future. 15.--[ Departed and told the Jews. ] There is no proof that the man did this with an evil design. Born a Jew and taught to reverence his rulers and elders, he naturally wished to give them the information they desired and had no reason to suppose, for anything we can see, that it would injure his Benefactor. JOHN 5:16-23 Responding to Jewish Authorities Now because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish authorities began persecuting him.
So Jesus told them, "My Father is working until now, and I too am working." For this reason the Jewish authorities were trying even harder to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God. So Jesus answered them, "I tell you the solemn truth, the Son can do nothing on his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.
For the Father loves the Son and shows him everything he does, and greater deeds than these he will show him, so that you may be amazed. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes. Furthermore, the Father does not judge anyone, but has assigned all judgment to the Son, so that all people may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. The one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. These verses begin one of the most deep and solemn passages in the four Gospels.
They show us the Lord Jesus asserting His own Divine nature, His unity with God the Father, and the high dignity of His office. No where does our Lord dwell so fully on these subjects as in the chapter before us. And no where, we must confess, do we find out so thoroughly the weakness of man's understanding! There is much, we must all feel, that is far beyond our comprehension in our Lord's account of Himself. Such knowledge, in short, is too astonishing for us.
"It is high--we cannot attain unto it." (Psalm 139:6.) How often men say that they want clear explanations of such doctrines as the Trinity. Yet here we have our Lord handling the subject of His own Person, and, behold! we cannot follow Him. We seem only to touch His meaning with the tip of our fingers. We learn, for one thing, from the verses before us, that there are some works which it is lawful to do on the Sabbath day. The Jews, as on many other occasions, found fault because Jesus healed a man who had been ill for thirty-eight years, on the Sabbath.
They charged our Lord with a breach of the fourth commandment. Our Lord's reply to the Jews is very remarkable. "My Father," he says, "works hitherto, and I also work." It is as though He said--"Though my Father rested on the seventh day from His work of creation , He has never rested for a moment from His providential government of the world, and from His merciful work of supplying the daily needs of all His creatures. Were He to rest from such work, the whole frame of nature would stand still. And I also work works of mercy on the Sabbath day.
I do not break the fourth commandment when I heal the sick, any more than my Father breaks it when He causes the sun to rise and the grass to grow on the Sabbath." We must distinctly understand, that neither here nor elsewhere does the Lord Jesus overthrow the obligation of the fourth commandment. Neither here nor elsewhere is there a word to justify the vague assertions of some modern teachers, that "Christians ought not to keep a Sabbath," and that it is "a Jewish institution which has passed away." The utmost that our Lord does, is to place the claims of the Sabbath on the right foundation.
He clears the day of rest from the false and superstitious teaching of the Jews, about the right way of observing it. He shows us clearly that works of necessity and works of mercy are no breach of the fourth commandment. After all, the errors of Christians on this subject, in these latter days, are of a very different kind from those of the Jews. There is little danger of men keeping the Sabbath too strictly. The thing to be feared is the disposition to keep it loosely and partially, or not to keep it at all.
The tendency of the age is not to exaggerate the fourth commandment, but to cut it out of the Decalogue, and throw it aside altogether. Against this tendency it becomes us all to be on our guard. The experience of eighteen centuries supplies abundant proofs that vital religion never flourishes when the Sabbath is not well kept. We learn, for another thing, from these verses, the dignity and greatness of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Jews, we are told, sought to kill Jesus because He said "that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." Our Lord, in reply, on this special occasion, enters very fully into the question of His own Divine nature. In reading His words, we must all feel that we are reading mysterious things, and treading on very holy ground. But we must feel a deep conviction, however little we may understand, that the things He says could never have been said by one who was only man.
The Speaker is nothing less than "God manifest in the flesh. (1 Tim. 3:16.) He asserts His own unity with God the Father . No other reasonable meaning can be put on the expressions--"The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do--for what things soever he does, these also does the Son likewise. The Father loves the Son, and shows him all things that himself does." Such language, however deep and high, appears to mean that in operation, and knowledge, and heart, and will, the Father and the Son are One--two Persons, but one God.
Truths such as these are of course beyond man's power to explain particularly. Enough for us to believe and rest upon them. He asserts, in the next place, His own Divine power to give life. He tells us, "The Son gives life to whom he will." Life is the highest and greatest gift that can be bestowed. It is precisely that thing that man, with all his cleverness, can neither give to the work of his hands, nor restore when taken away. But life, we are told, is in the hands of the Lord Jesus, to bestow and give at His discretion. Dead bodies and dead souls are both alike under His dominion.
He has the keys of death and hell. In Him is life. He is the life. (John 1:4. Rev. 1:18.) He asserts, in the last place, His own authority to judge the world. "The Father," we are told, "has committed all judgment unto the Son." All power and authority over the world is committed to Christ's hands. He is the King and the Judge of mankind. Before Him every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess that he is Lord. He that was once despised and rejected of man, condemned and crucified as a malefactor, shall one day hold a great judgment, and judge all the world.
"God shall judge the secrets of man by Jesus Christ." (Rom. 2:16.) And now let us think whether it is possible to make too much of Christ in our religion. If we have ever thought so, let us cast aside the thought forever. Both in His Own nature as God, and in His office as commissioned Mediator, He is worthy of all honor. He that is one with the Father--the Giver of life--the King of kings--the coming Judge, can never be too much exalted. "The one who does not honor the Son, does not honor the Father who sent him." If we desire salvation, let us lean our whole weight on this mighty Savior.
So leaning, we never need be afraid. Christ is the rock of ages, and he that builds on Him shall never be confounded--neither in sickness, nor in death, nor in the judgment-day. The hand that was nailed to the cross is almighty! The Savior of sinners is "mighty to save." (Isaiah 63:1) Technical Notes: 16. For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill him, because he had done these tings on the sabbath day. 17. But Jesus answered them, My Father works hitherto, and I work. 18.
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. 19. Then Jesus answered and said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do; for whatever he does, the Son also does likewise. 20. For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all things that he himself does; and he will show him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. 21.
For as the Father raises up the dead and quickens them , even so the Son quickens whom he will. 22. For the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23. that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who honors not the Son honors not the Father who has sent him. 16.--[ For this reason...persecuted, etc. ] The verbs in this verse are all in the imperfect tense.
It may be doubted whether the meaning is not, strictly speaking, something of this kind: “The Jews from this time began to persecute Jesus, and were always seeking to slay Him, because He made a habit of doing these things on the Sabbath day.” It is some confirmation of this view that our Lord at a much later period refers to this very miracle at Bethesda as a thing which had specially angered the Jews of Jerusalem, and for which they hated Him and sought still to kill Him.
It was long after the time of this miracle when He said, “Are ye angry at Me because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day?” (John vii.23.) 17.--[ But Jesus answered. ] This seems to have been the first reply which our Lord made when charged with breaking the fourth commandment. It was a short, simple justification of the lawfulness of doing works of mercy on the Sabbath.
There seems to have been an interval between this reply and the long argumentative defense which begins in the 19th verse. [ My Father works hitherto, and I work. ] The words rendered “hitherto,” are literally, “until now;” that is, from the beginning of creation up to the present time.
I can only see one meaning in this pithy sentence: “My Father in heaven is continually working works of mercy and kindness in His providential government of the world, in supplying the needs of all His creatures, in maintaining the whole fabric of the earth in perfection, in giving rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, in preserving and sustaining life. All this He does on Sabbaths as well as weekdays. Were He to cease from such works, the whole world would be full of confusion. When He rested from His works of creation, He did not rest from His works of providence.
I also, who am His beloved Son, claim the right to work works of mercy on the Sabbath. In working such works I do not break the Sabbath any more than my Father does. My Father appointed the fourth commandment to be honored, and yet never ceased to cause the sun to rise and the grass to grow on the Sabbath. I also, who claim to be One with the Father, honor the Sabbath, but I do not abstain from works of mercy upon it.” Two things should be observed in this sentence.
One is the plain practical lesson that the Sabbath was not meant to be a day of total idleness and of entire cessation from all kinds and sorts of work. “The Sabbath was made for man”—for his benefit, comfort, and advantage. Works of mercy and of real necessity, to man’s life and animal existence, on the Sabbath day were never intended to be forbidden. The other thing to be observed is our Lord’s assertion of His own Divinity and quality with God the Father.
When He said, “My Father works and I also work,” He evidently meant much more than bringing forward His Father’s example, though that of course is contained in His argument and justifies all Christians in doing works of mercy on Sundays. What He meant was, “I am the beloved Son of God; I and my Father are One in essence, dignity, honor, and authority. Whatever He does, I also do and have right to do. He works and I also work. He gave you the Sabbath, and it is His day.
I too, as one with Him, am Lord of the Sabbath.” That the Jews saw this to be the meaning of His words seems clear from the next verse. Chrysostom remarks on this verse: “If anyone says, ‘How does the Father work , who ceased on the seventh day from all His works,’ let him learn the manner in which He works. What is it? He cares for, He holds together all that has been made.
When you behold the sun rising, the moon running in her path, the lakes, the fountains, the rivers, the rains, the course of nature in seeds and in our own bodies and those of irrational beings and all the rest (by means of which this universe is made up), then learn the ceaseless working of the Father.” (Matt. v.45; vi.30.) Schottgen quotes a remarkable saying of Philo Judæus: “God never ceases to work.
Just as it is the property of fire to burn and of snow to be cold, so is it the property of God to work.” Ferus remarks on the great variety of arguments used by our Lord on various occasions in reply to the superstitious views of the Jews about the Sabbath. One time He adduces the example of David eating the showbread, another time the example of the priests working in the temple on the Sabbath, another time the readiness of the Jews to help an ox out of a pit on the Sabbath. All these arguments were used in defense of works of necessity and mercy.
Here He takes higher ground still—the example of His Father. 18.--[ Therefore the Jews...kill him. ] This short defense which our Lord made seems to have rankled in the minds of the Jews and to have made them even more bitter against Him. What length of time is covered by this verse is not very plain. I am inclined to think that it implies some little pause between the 17th and 19th verses. Here again, as in the 16th verse, we have the imperfect tense all the way through.
It must surely point at something of habit, both in the designs of the Jews against our Lord, in our Lord’s conduct, and in His language about His Father. [ Said God...Father...equal with God. ] It is clear that our Lord’s words about His Sonship struck the Jews in a far more forcible way than they seem to strike us. In a certain sense all believers are “sons of God.” (Rom. viii.14.) But it is evident that they are not so in the sense that our Lord meant when He talked of God as His Father and Himself as God’s Son.
The Greek undoubtedly might be translated more clearly, “said that God was His own particular Father.” (Compare Rom. viii.32.) The Jews, at any rate, accepted the words as meaning our Lord to assert his own peculiar Sonship and His consequent entire equality with God the Father. Their charge and ground of anger against Him amounted to this: “You call God your own particular Father, and claim authority to do whatever He does.
By so doing You make Yourself equal with God.” And our Lord seems to have accepted this charge as a correct statement of the case and to have proceeded to argue that He had a right to say what He had said, and that He really was equal with God. As St.
Paul says, “He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Phil. ii.6.) Augustine remarks, “Behold, the Jews understood what the Arians would not understand.” Whitby remarks that the Jews never accused our Lord of blasphemy for saying that He was the Messiah, but for saying that He was the Son of God, because they did not believe that Messiah when He appeared was to be a Divine Person.
Ferus remarks that the Jews probably took notice of our Lord calling God “My Father,” and not “our Father.” Cartwright also thinks that there is much weight in the expression “my,” and that the Jews gathered from it that Christ claimed to be the only-begotten Son of God, and not merely a Son by adoption and grace. 19.--[ Then Jesus answered and said to them. ] This verse begins a long discourse in which our Lord formally defends Himself from the charge of the Jews of laying claim to what He had no right to claim. (1) He asserts His own Divine authority, commission, dignity, and equality with God His Father. (2) He brings forward the evidence of His Divine commission, which the Jews ought to consider and receive. (3) Finally, He tells the Jews plainly the reason of their unbelief and charges home on their consciences their love of man’s praise more than God’s, and their inconsistency in pretending to honor Moses while they did not honor Christ.
It is a discourse almost unrivaled in depth and majesty. There are few chapters in the Bible, perhaps, where we feel our own shallowness of understanding so thoroughly, and discover so completely the insufficiency of all human language to express “the deep things of God.” Men are often saying they want explanations of the mysteries of the Christian faith, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the person of Christ, and the like. Let them just observe, when we do find a passage full of explanatory statements on a deep subject, how much there is that we have no line to fathom and no mind to take in.
“I want more light,” says proud man. God gives him his desire in this chapter and lifts up the veil a little. But behold, we are dazzled by the very light we wanted and find we have not eyes to take it in! It has always been thought by many commentators that this solemn discourse of our Lord’s was delivered before the Sanhedrim, or general Ecclesiastical Assembly of the Jews. They regard it as a formal defense of His Divinity and Messiahship, and a statement of evidence why He should be received before a regularly constituted ecclesiastical court. It may be so.
Probabilities seem in favor of the idea. But it must be remembered that we have nothing but internal evidence in favor of the theory. There is not a word said to show that our Lord was formally brought before the Sanhedrim and made a formal defense. Some writers lay much stress upon the opening words of the 19th verse—“Then answered Jesus and said”—and consider that these words imply a formal charge in court and a formal reply from our Lord. It may be true. But we must remember that it is only a conjecture.
One thing only is certain: Nowhere else in the Gospels do we find our Lord making such a formal, systematic, orderly, regular statement of His own unity with the Father, His Divine commission and authority, and the proofs of His Messiahship as we find in this discourse.
To me it seems one of the deepest things in the Bible. [ Verily, verily, I say to you. ] Here, as elsewhere, the remark applies that this form of expression always precedes some statement of more than ordinary depth and importance. [ The Son can do nothing of Himself, etc. ] This opening verse declares the complete unity there is between God the Father and God the Son. The Son, from His very nature and relation to the Father, “can do nothing” independently or separately from the Father.
It is not that He lacks or wants the power to do, but that He will not do. (Compare Gen. xix.22.) When the angel said, “I cannot do anything till Thou be come higher,” it means, of course, “I will not do.” “Of Himself” does not mean without help or unassisted, but “from Himself,” from His own independent will. He can only do such things, as from His unity with the Father and consequent ineffable knowledge, He “sees” the Father doing. For the Father and the Son are so united—one God through two Persons—that whatsoever the Father does the Son does also.
The acts of the Son, therefore, are not His own independent acts but the acts of His Father also. The Greek word which we render “likewise” must not be supposed to mean nothing more than “also, as well.” It is literally “in like manner.” Bishop Hall paraphrases this saying of our Lord thus: “I and the Father are one indivisible essence, and our acts are not less inseparable.
The Son can do nothing without the will and act of the Father; and, even as He is man, can do nothing but what He sees agreeable to the will and purpose of His heavenly Father.” Barnes remarks: “The words ‘what things soever’ are without limit. All that the Father does, the Son likewise does. This is as high an assertion as possible of His being equal with God. If one does all that another does or can do, then there is proof of equality.
If the Son does all that the Father does, then, like Him, He must be almighty, omniscient, all-present, and infinite in every perfection; or, in other words, He must be God.” Augustine remarks: “Our Lord does not say, whatsoever the Father does the Son does other things like them, but the very same things... If the Son does the same things and in like manner, then let the Jew be silenced, the Christian believe, the heretic be convinced: the Son is equal with the Father.” Hilary, quoted in the “ Catena Aurea, ” remarks: “Christ is the Son because He does nothing of Himself.
He is God because whatsoever things the Father does, He does the same. They are one because They are equal in honor. He is not the Father because He is sent.” Diodati remarks: “The phrase, ‘what He sees the Father do,’ is a figurative term, showing the inseparable communion of will, wisdom, and power between the Son and the Father in the internal order of the most holy Trinity.” Toletus remarks: “When it is said ‘the Son can do nothing of Himself,’ this does not mean lack of power, but the highest power.
Just as it is a mark of omnipotence not to be able to die or to be worn out or to be annihilated (because there is nothing that can injure omnipotence), so likewise, ‘to be unable to do anything of Himself’ is not a mark of impotence but of the highest power. It means nothing less than having one and the same power with the Father, so that nothing can be done by the One which is not equally done by the Other.” 20.--[ The Father loves the Son, etc. ] This verse carries on the thought begun in the preceding verse—the unity of the Father and the Son.
When we read the words “the Father loves” and “the Father shows,” we must not for a moment suppose them to imply any superiority in the Father or any inferiority in the son as to their Divine nature and essence. The “love” is not the love of an earthly parent to a beloved child. The “showing” is not the showing of a teacher to an ignorant scholar. The “love” is meant to show us that unspeakable unity of heart and affection (if such words may be reverently used) which eternally existed and exists between the Father and the Son.
The “showing” means that entire confidence and cooperation which there was between the Father and the Son, as to all the works which the Son should do when He came into the world to fill the office of Mediator and to save sinners. The “greater works” which remained to be shown were evidently the works specified in the two following verses—the works of quickening and of judging. That the Jews did “marvel” and were confounded at the works of “quickening” we know from the Acts of the Apostles.
That they will “marvel” even more at our Lord’s work of judgment we shall see when Christ comes again to judge the heathen, to restore Jerusalem, to gather Israel, to convince the Jews of their unbelief, and to renew the face of the earth. Both in this and the preceding verse, we must carefully remember the utter inability of any human language or human ideas to express perfectly such matters as our Lord is speaking of. Language is intended specially to express the things of man. It fails greatly when used to express things about God.
In the expression, “sees the Father do,” “loves the Son,” “shows Him all things,” “will show Him greater works,” we must carefully bear this in mind. We must remember that they are expressions accommodated to our weaker capacities. They are intended to explain the relation between two Divine Beings who are one in essence though two Persons, one in mind and will though two in manifestation, equal in all things as touching the Godhead though the Son is inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
There must needs be immense difficulty in finding words to convey any idea of the relation between these two Persons. Hence the language used by our Lord must be cautiously handled with a constant recollection that we are not reading of an earthly father and son, but of God the Father and God the Son, who though one in essence as God are at the same time two distinct Persons. Augustine wisely remarks, “There are times when speech is deficient even when the understanding is proficient.
How much more does speech suffer defect when the understanding has nothing perfect!” Augustine and Bernard both remark that it is far “greater work” to repair ruined human nature than to make it at first, and to re-create it than to create it. 21,22.--[ As the Father raises up the dead, etc. ] Our Lord here proceeds to tell the Jews one of His mighty works which He had come to do in proof of His Divine nature, authority, and commission. Did they find fault with Him for making Himself equal with God? Let them know that He had the same power as God the Father to give “life” and quicken the dead.
Let them know furthermore that all “judgment” was committed to Him. Surely He who had in His hand the mighty prerogatives of giving life and judging the world had a right to speak of Himself as equal with God!
When we read “the Father raises up the dead and quickens them,” we must either understand the words to refer generally to God’s power to raise the dead at the last day, which the Jew would allow as an article of faith and a special attribute of divinity; or else we must understand it to apply to the power of spiritually quickening men’s souls, which God had from the beginning exercised in calling men from death to life; or else we must simply take it to mean that to give life, whether bodily or spiritual, is notoriously the peculiar attribute of God.
The last view appears to me the most probable one and most in harmony with what follows in after verses. When we read “the Son quickens whom He will,” we have a distinct assertion of the Son’s authority to give life at His will, either bodily or spiritual, with the same irresistible power as the Father. The highest of all gifts He has but to “will” and to bestow. The Greek work translated “quickens” is very strong. It is, literally, “makes alive,” and seems to imply the power of making life of all kind, both bodily and spiritual.
Burkitt remarks that it is never said of any prophet or apostle that he did mighty works “at his will.” When we read “the Father judges no man but has committed all judgment to the Son,” we must understand that in the economy of redemption, the Father has honored the Son by devolving on Him the whole office of judging the world. It cannot, of course, mean that judgment is work with which the Father, from His nature, has nothing to do, but that it is work which He has completely and entirely committed to the Son’s hands. He that died for sinners is He who will judge them.
Thus it is written, “He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he has ordained.” (Acts xvii.31.) Burgon remarks: “There is an original, supreme, judicial power; and there is also a judicial power derived, given by commission. Christ, as God, has the first together with the Father; Christ, as man, has the second from the Father.” I think it highly probable that the “all judgment committed to the Son” includes not merely the final judgment of the last day, but the whole work of ordering, governing, and deciding the affairs of God’s kingdom.
“To judge” is an expression constantly used in the Old Testament in the sense of “to rule.” The meaning then would be that the Father has given to the Son the office of King and Judge. The whole administration of the Divine government of the world is put into the hands of the Son, Christ Jesus. Everything connected with the rule of the church and world, as well as the last judgment, is placed in the Son’s hands.
We should carefully mark the distinction between “quickening” and “judging” in the language of these two verses. (a) It is not said that “the Father quickens no man,” but has committed the power of giving life to the Son. Had this been said, it would have contradicted the texts “no man can come unto Me except the Father draws him” and “the Spirit gives life.” (John vi.44; 2 Cor. iii.6.) Quickening is the work of all three Persons in the Trinity, of one as much as another. (b) It is said that judgment is the special work of the second Person in the Trinity.
It is not the peculiar office either of the Father or of the Spirit, but of the Son. There seems a fitness in this. He who was condemned by an unjust judgment and died for sinners is He whose office it will be to judge the world. (c) It is said that “the Son quickens whom He will.” The power of giving life is as much the prerogative of the Son as of the Father or of the Spirit. Surely this teaches us, that to place the election of God the Father or the work of the Spirit before men, as the first and principal thing they should look at, is not good theology.
Christ, after all, is the meeting-point between the Trinity and the world. It is His office to quicken as well as pardon. No doubt He quickens by the Spirit whom He sends into man’s heart. But it is His prerogative to give life as well as peace. This ought to be remembered. There are some in this day who in a mistaken zeal put the work of the Father and the Spirit before the work of Christ. 23.--[ That all men should honor the Son, etc. ] By these words our Lord teaches us that the Father would have the Son to receive equal honor with Himself.
We are to understand distinctly that there is no inferiority in the Son to the Father. He is equal to Him in dignity and authority. He is to be worshiped with equal worship. If any man fancies that to honor the Son equally with the Father detracts from the Father’s honor, our Lord declares that such a man is entirely mistaken. On the contrary, “He that honors not the Son honors not the Father who sent Him.” It was the mind and intention of the Father that the Son, as the Mediator between God and man, should receive honor from all men.
The glory of His beloved Son is part of the Father’s eternal counsels. Whenever, therefore, anyone through ignorance, pride, or unbelief, neglects Christ but professes at the same time to honor God, he is committing a mighty error, and so far from pleasing God is greatly displeasing Him. The more a man honors Christ and makes much of Him, the more the Father is pleased. Evangelical Christians should mark the doctrine of this verse and remember it.
They are sometimes taunted with holding new views in religion because they bring forward Christ so much more prominently than their fathers or grandfathers did. Let them see here that the more they exalt the Son of God and His office, the more honor they are doing to the Father who sent Him. To the Deist and Socinian, the words of this verse are a strong condemnation. Not honoring Christ, they are angering God the Father. The Fatherhood of God, out of Christ, is a mere idol of man’s invention and incapable of comforting or saving.
Alford remarks: “Whosoever does not honor the Son with equal honor to that which he pays to the Father, however he may imagine that he honors or approaches God, does not honor Him at all; because He can only be known by us as “the Father who sent His Son.” Barnes remarks: “If our Savior here did not intend to teach that He ought to be worshiped and esteemed equal with God, it would be difficult to teach it by any language.” Rollock remarks: “The Jews and Turks in the present day profess to worship God earnestly, not only without the Son but even with contempt of the Son Jesus Christ.
But the whole of such worship is idolatrous, and that which they worship is an idol. There is no knowledge of the true God except in the face of the Son.” Wordsworth remarks: “They who profess zeal for the one God do not honor Him aright unless they honor the Son as they honor the Father. This is a warning to those who claim the title of Unitarians and deny the divinity of Christ. No one can be said to believe in the Divine unity who rejects the doctrine of the Trinity.” The entire unity of the three Persons in the Trinity is a subject that needs far more attention than many give to it.
It may be feared that many well-meaning Christians are tritheists , or worshipers of three distinct Gods, without knowing it. They talk as if God the Father’s mind toward sinners was one thing and God the Son’s another—as if the Father hated man and the Son loved him and protected him. Such persons would do well to study this part of Scripture and to mark the unity of the Father and the Son.
After all, that deep truth—“the eternal generation” of God the Son— whatever proud man may say of it, is the foundation truth which we must never forget in trying to understand a passage like that before us. In the Trinity, “none is afore or after other. The Father is eternal; the Son eternal; the Holy Ghost eternal. The Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three eternals but one eternal; not three Gods but one God.” As Burgon remarks, “There never was a time when any one of the three Persons was not.
“ And it might be added, there never was a time when the three Persons were not equal. And yet the Son was begotten of the Father from all eternity, and the Holy Ghost proceeded from all eternity from the Father and the Son.