John 5 - The Moody Bible Commentary

C. Progressive Rejection of Jesus’ Ministry (5:1–12:50)

In chaps. 5–12, John described how Jesus as Messiah is Lord of the Sabbath and fulfills the imagery of the Jewish feasts such as Passover and Booths. With opposition growing against Him (Cf. 5:16, 18), it was as if Jesus was being put on trial and needed to produce witnesses in His defense (5:31-36; 8:13-17). The signs provided that testimony. Ironically, it was His opponents who were put on trial by Jesus.

5:1 The feast to which John alludes is not identified except that it fell on a Sabbath (v. 9). It is impossible to be sure, but more than likely it was a Passover. Since all males were commanded to attend three feasts at the temple each year—Passover, Pentecost, and Booths (Ex 24:13-17; Dt 16:16)—Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

1 Events at the Unnamed Feast (Healing of the Lame Man) (5:1-47)

5:2-3a The present tense in the phrase there is in Jerusalem helps identify the date of writing before AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem (see Introduction: Date). If the composition of the Fourth Gospel was after that date, the sheep gate would have been destroyed and the author would have used the past tense (“there was in Jerusalem a sheep gate”). The sheep gate (cf. “door of the sheep,” 10:7) and Bethesda (“house of mercy”) probably have spiritual, symbolic significance. The pool was on the northeast side of Jerusalem. It consisted of two trapezoid-shaped pools surrounded by covered walkways (porticoes) on four sides and a fifth separating the pools.

5:3b-4 Verses 3b-4 are not found in some important, early mss. Yet Morris writes (John, 267-68), “there is no reason for doubting that it explains the presence of the people (cf. v. 7),” i.e., why a multitude of the sick and crippled came regularly to the pool. Against including these verses, the external evidence clearly supports the omission. Much from these verses is repeated in v. 7, which does not need vv. 3b-4. And the omission is the harder reading, for it is unlikely that a scribe would remove these verses if they were originally in the text. Surely they were added to explain why people gathered there.

On the other hand, in support of including vv. 3b-4, first, Tertullian (AD 200) gives evidence of having known the verse. This means its inclusion in the mss can be dated just as early as P66 and P75 (around AD 200 and 400, respectively). Second, v. 7 cannot be understood easily if vv. 3b-4 are absent. Much is left unexplained. Third, it is highly likely that the verses were deleted because a scribe thought it reflected a pagan superstition. In the first century, the Greek god of healing, Asclepius, became associated with this place, and a scribe after this date may have removed the verses to avoid confusion or syncretism. Raymond Brown notes, “This ancient gloss, however, may well reflect with accuracy a popular tradition about the pool” (John, 207). On the balance, vv. 3b-4 were probably not written by John. In the OT, the angel of the Lord (v. 4) was the preincarnate Christ. Apparently on rare occasions, the angel of the Lord stirred up the water to heal graciously the first one who entered. John has already contrasted the role of angels with that of Jesus (1:51). Now the Angel of the Lord (Jesus) was personally present to heal just one.

5:5-7 Out of a multitude of ill people (v. 3), Jesus chose one who was ill for thirty-eight years. The number recalls Israel’s wanderings in the wilderness for 38 years (Dt 2:14). Jesus knew (v. 6) by His supernatural knowledge (Cf. 1:47; 2:25; 4:39) that he had already been a long time in that condition. Jesus’ question Do you wish to get well? reveals the complete inability of the man to be healed. The question was also intended to prepare the man’s heart for faith; instead he complained. Since he was paralyzed, the sick man could not move quickly enough to get into the pool himself (v. 7), and had no one to put him in when the water was stirred up.

5:8-9 The healing was completed with the words Get up (rise up, egeiro) a term used of resurrection. In the following dialogue, Jesus will use this word of His life-giving power in the last day (v. 21). But the Lord also commanded, pick up your pallet and walk. Though no faith was expressed (the man did not even know who it was who healed him), the healing was instantaneous (v. 9). In the Synoptics, faith led to one’s healing (e.g., Mt 8:5-13; 9:2-7, 20-22, 27-29; 15:22-28; Mk 9:17-27). But Jesus’ three miraculous healings recorded in John (here; 4:46-54; 9:1-38) were noted by John to lead his readers to faith (Cf. 21:30-31). The current narrative demonstrates that not all miracles will bring about faith in their recipients. It also indicates that the Son shows grace to those who do not deserve it. The comment, Now it was the Sabbath on that day, prepares the readers for the following controversy.

5:10-11 Since the paralytic was also Jewish, the term Jews must refer to the Jewish leaders (see Introduction). Carrying items such as a bedroll was not permissible on the Sabbath because it violated Jewish traditions added to the Mosaic law. Thirty-nine types of work are described in the Mishnah that violated the Sabbath, such as tying and untying a knot (cf. m. Sabb. 7:2). When questioned, the healed man replied (v. 11) that the One who had made him well was the same one who said to him, Pick up your pallet and walk. It appears that the man was seeking to shift the blame for his supposed violation of the Sabbath from himself to Jesus, so that his comment in v. 11 was designed to get Jesus in trouble and sidestep their reproof.

5:12-14 When questioned further, the healed man could not identify Jesus by name (v. 13). The man was so focused on his new condition, and apparently so devoid of gratitude, that he was not aware that Jesus had slipped away through the crowd to avoid publicity (Cf. 6:15). But later, Jesus found him in the temple complex (Cf. 9:35) just south of the pool of Bethesda. Do not sin anymore indicates that the man’s illness may have been the result of some unidentified sin 38 years before (Cf. 9:2-3). Jesus knew his past life (Cf. 4:39). Another worse physical disease or even physical death (cf. Pr 2:18; 11:19) might result if he engaged in a life of sin.

5:15-16 The man … told the Jews that it was Jesus. When these verses are taken with v. 11, it appears that the healed man continued his attempt to alleviate himself of the guilt of violating the Sabbath and place it fully upon Jesus. It is unlikely that the healed man came to faith (Cf. 11:45-46). As a result of his report, the Jewish leaders were persecuting Jesus [i.e., slandering Him as a law-breaker], not because He did this healing on the Sabbath but because He was doing these things (pl.) repeatedly on the Sabbath.

5:17-18 The Sabbath commemorated God’s work in creation (Gn 2:2-3; Ex 20:8-11) and in redemption (Dt 5:15). For Jesus to say that My Father is working until now [e.g., babies are born on the Sabbath; He sustains the universe on the Sabbath], and I Myself am working implied that He, like His Father who is the Creator-Redeemer, is the source of all life and salvation. The words were seeking all the more (v. 18) show that the Jewish authorities were plotting to kill Him even before this attempt (cf. Mk 3:6). The plots to kill Jesus are frequently mentioned in John (7:1, 19, 25, 30; 8:37, 40; 10:39; 11:8). The charge was not only Sabbath violation. Jesus was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God—one of the clearest claims to deity in John.

5:19 John began a long response by Jesus, divided into two sections: Jesus’ equality with but subordination to the Father (vv. 19-30), and Jesus’ witnesses that testify to His authority. Although Jesus is equal in essence to the Father, nothing He does is independent of the Father’s initiative. For Jesus to do something He sees the Father doing affirms their unique, intimate relationship (1:1; 17:5). Whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner, accurately imitating the Father’s will and working in perfect unity. John’s purpose is to present a high Christology here. Some understand this section as a model for the Christian life—that one should see where God is at work and then join Him there in it. But John’s purpose is clearly Christological—to prove that the Son shares the Father’s divine authority (vv. 22-23).

5:20-21 The Father loves the Son. In 3:35 (“the Father loves the Son”), “loves” is the Greek verb agapao, but in 5:20 (“the Father loves the Son”), “loves” is a different verb, phileo. The two words in John’s gospel are essentially synonyms (though phileo can mean “to kiss” in Koine Greek), and neither here nor elsewhere can be pressed to show a distinction in meaning—a fact that has considerable implications for Peter’s interaction regarding his love for Jesus in 21:15-17. Elsewhere in John, the love of the Father for the Son is always the Greek word agapao (Cf. 3:35; 10:17; 15:9; 17:24). The Father’s love causes Him to show Christ all things that He Himself is doing. The greater works are the right given to the Son to raise the dead (v. 21) and give life to whom He wishes, i.e., to those who believe.

5:22-23 As in the OT, the Father gives life and raises the dead. So He has the right to judge. Since the Father has given to the Son the right to raise the dead, He has also given all judgment to the Son. This shows the persons of the Trinity are distinct while perfectly united. All people must honor (v. 23) or worship the Son even as they honor the Father, substantiating Christ’s divine authority along with God the Father’s.

5:24-25 To have eternal life, one must believe in the God who sent Christ. Islam rejects this God, and Judaism’s view of Him is culpably insufficient. Has eternal life and has passed out of death into life communicate the immediacy of this divine transaction (see comment on 3:36). For does not come into judgment, see comments on 3:18. For an hour is coming and now is (v. 25), see comments on 4:21, 23. The dead who hear the voice of the Son of God and live are spiritually dead nonbelievers (Eph 2:1, 5; Col 2:13) who come to faith (hear, v. 25) and receive eternal life now. They, and those who have believed and who have died, will participate in the future resurrection (see the comments on v. 28).

5:26-27 Just as the Father has life in Himself begins another comparison in which Jesus claims to be the source of life (Cf. 1:3-4; 14:6). Even so completes the comparison. Like the Father, Jesus has authority over life as well as over the Sabbath (cf. vv. 17-18). For all eternity past, the Father gave to the Son also to have life in Himself. Jesus’ authority to execute judgment is because He is the Son of Man (v. 27). Man will be equitably judged by Jesus not primarily as the Son of God but as the Son of Man (Cf. 1:51; Dn 7:13-14).

5:28-29 An hour is coming refers to the future resurrection (all who are in the tombs … will come forth). In this passage, all Christians are considered to be those who did the good deeds (v. 29), namely, they exercised faith in Jesus (see the contrast between believing and disobeying in 3:36), and they will go to a resurrection of life. But all who fail to believe are also viewed from the perspective of eternity. Even though those who reject Christ may do many commendable things, those deeds are not oriented toward the glory of God and are not done in the power of the Holy Spirit. Those who do not embrace Christ are viewed as those who committed the evil deeds and go to a resurrection of judgment.

5:30-32 For I can do nothing on My own initiative, see v. 19. If Jesus judges only on what He hears from the Father, His judgment will be just (righteous) since God is just. The Son does not seek His own will (4:34; 6:38; 7:28; 8:29). He knows perfectly and seeks continually the Father’s will. In the Mosaic law, proper court procedure required two or more witnesses (Dt 17:6; 19:15; Nm 35:30). In submission to the law, Jesus agreed that His testimony alone (v. 31) could not be verified as true in a human court. But He was trusting another, the Father, to bring testimony to Him (v. 32).

5:33-34 For You have sent to John, see comments on 1:19-28. Jesus acknowledged that John the Baptist had testified to the truth of His identity as the Messiah. But the authoritative testimony He received was not a human testimony (v. 34). Christ needed to say these things about the Father’s true testimony (v. 32) so that those listening to Jesus (and the readers of John) may be saved.

5:35-36 John was a lamp, fulfilling the prophecy of the “lamp” that was to prepare for the Messiah (Ps. 132:17). While he was preaching (shining), the Jewish people were willing to rejoice for a while, hoping he would bring in a messianic ruler who would establish the kingdom and overthrow Rome. But the greater testimony to which Jesus appealed was the very works (pl., His teachings, miracles, and later His death and resurrection), which the Father had given Him to accomplish (Cf. 4:34; 17:4).

5:37-38 The Father had testified in the OT Scriptures (cf. v. 39), by a voice from heaven at the baptism of Jesus (Mt 3:17; Mk 1:11), and by the descent of the Spirit like a dove on Christ (Jn 1:32-33). Yet these Jewish leaders (vv. 16, 18) had neither heard His voice spiritually at any time nor seen His form (i.e., nature) by faith, as proven in their failure to believe in the Son (v. 38).

5:39-40 The Pharisees held that those ignorant of the law were accursed (7:49). So they searched the Scriptures because they thought that in the mere knowledge of Scripture they had eternal life. Blinded by their self-righteousness, they missed the true Messiah about whom the Scriptures prophesied. This failure meant they were unwilling to come to Christ for eternal life, not merely that they were ignorant of the truth.

5:41-42 I do not receive glory from men corrects the opponents’ assumption that Jesus was disappointed that they did not give Him honor. Christ abandoned all self-righteousness and sought glory (see comments on 1:14; 2:11) from God, not from people. “Glory” carries slightly different emphases in John. Here, “glory” means “praise,” “honor,” or “recognition.” The Pharisees sought admiration from their contemporaries by their knowledge of Torah. At the incarnation, Jesus willingly set aside His divine glory (17:5; see comment on Php 2:7). Now on earth, Jesus sought honor from God by His complete humiliation and obedience to the Father’s will (Jn 17:4). Contrary to sincere faith in Christ, religious systems surreptitiously promote seeking honor from contemporaries (cf. v. 44; Mt 6:5, 16; 23:5). Seeking honor from people and love for God (v. 42) are mutually exclusive.

5:43-44 In My Father’s name means Jesus was God’s supreme representative. The foremost act of love for God (v. 42) is to receive the representative He sent. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him may refer to the future Jewish reception of the beast (Dn 9:27; Rv 13:1-8) or the False Prophet (Rv 13:11-17), or even Simon bar Kokhba, who led the second revolt against Rome in AD 132–135. Seeking glory from one another seriously hinders faith in Christ (cf. Jn 12:42-43). For faith in Christ, one needs to seek after the glory [i.e., glorification/resurrection; cf. Rm 5:2; 8:21] that is from the one and only God.

5:45-47 In the future judgment, Christ does not need to bring a judgment against the Jewish leaders. Moses (i.e., the first five books of Scripture that he wrote) in whom they had set their hope for eternal life (v. 39) would testify to their guilt in failing to recognize Jesus as the Messiah he predicted. Moses frequently prophesied of the Messiah (cf. Gn 3:15; 49:10; Ex 12:21; Nm 24:17; Dt 18:15; cf. also Jn 1:45; 3:14; 8:56). Anyone who believed in the Scriptures Moses wrote (and therefore believed in the Lord) would have believed in Jesus as the Messiah (v. 46; see comment on 6:37).