John 5 - Expositor's Bible Commentary - Abridged

B. The Rise of Controversy (5:1–47) 1. The healing of the paralytic (5:1–15)

1 The words “some time later” mark a break in chronological sequence. Comparison with the Synoptic accounts shows that a measurable amount of time may have elapsed between the healing of the son of the royal official at Capernaum and the episode of the paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda. The reference to the feast does not define the time since the feast is unnamed.

2–4 Excavations have located this pool in the northwest corner of old Jerusalem. It was surrounded by a colonnade on all four sides and down the middle of the pool. People gathered at the water’s edge, hoping to be cured of their ailments, when the water was agitated. The explanation of the moving of the water (v.4; see NIV note) was probably added to the text of John later.

5–6 Jesus selected for his attention the person who seemed most needy. Confinement to a bed for thirty-eight years would leave the sufferer so weak that he would be unable to walk or even stand for any length of time. Jesus’ question must have seemed rather naive to this invalid. Who would not want to be healed from utter helplessness? Yet the question also implies an appeal to the will, which the long years of discouragement may have paralyzed. Jesus thus was challenging the man’s will to be cured.

7 The invalid’s reply shows that he had lost his independent determination. He was waiting for somebody to assist him. Such efforts as he had been able to make had proved futile, and he was despairing of success.

8 The healing was not a response to a request, nor did it presuppose an expression of faith on the part of the man. Jesus asked him to do the impossible—to stand on his feet, pick up his bedroll, and go his way. Renewed by the miraculous influx of new power, the man responded at once and did so. Jesus supplied even the will to be cured!

9–10 The outcome of the miracle was twofold: the paralytic was healed and a controversy broke out. Since the healing took place on the Sabbath, it brought Jesus directly into conflict with the religious authorities, whose traditions regarding the Sabbath were more rigid than the Law itself. Jesus’ healing on the Sabbath was one factor that brought him into disfavor with the religious leaders in Jerusalem (see also Mt 12:1–14; Mk 2:23–3:6; Lk 6:1–6; 13:10–16; 14:1–6; Jn 9:1–14).

11–12 The paralytic seems to have felt no particular gratitude to Jesus for his healing. He took no responsibility for the action on the Sabbath; and after Jesus had dealt with him the second time, he immediately informed the Jewish leaders who it was that had transgressed the Sabbath law. It seems unlikely that he would have been ignorant of the reason for their inquiry.

13 John indicates that on at least four occasions Jesus quietly withdrew from a scene of controversy. Each of these occurred after an argument with the Jews over his claims (see also 8:59; 10:39; 12:36). All these reinforce the concept of the fourth gospel that Jesus was immune to danger until the hour of his passion arrived (7:30; 8:20).

14–15 Jesus’ interest in the man is implied in the word “found.” Apparently Jesus searched for him out of a concern for his spiritual state as well as for his physical illness. The command to “stop sinning” presupposes the possibility that the man’s affliction was caused by his own sin (but cf. comment on 9:2–3). There is no indication that this encounter strengthened the man’s faith and attachment to Jesus; in fact, the contrary could easily be inferred. But he did confess Jesus as his healer.

2. Jesus’defense of his sonship (5:16–47) a. The prerogatives of sonship (5:16–30)

16 This verse introduces the element of controversy between Jesus and his opponents. The immediate cause was his healing on the Sabbath, which they interpreted as a violation of the fourth commandment (Ex 20:8–11; see comment on Jn 5:9–10). Jesus contended that allaying human need was no violation of God’s Law (cf. Lk 14:5).

17 Jesus’ argument for healing on the Sabbath was that God does not suspend his activities on the Sabbath. The laws of nature take no holiday. But more important to the Jews, Jesus identified his activities with those of the Father; he claimed to be continuing the creative work of God.

18 The Jews were angry because of Jesus’ violation of the Sabbath, but they were furious when he was so presumptuous as to claim equality with the Father. This claim of Jesus widened the breach between his critics and himself, for they understood that by it he was asserting his deity. His explanation shows that he did not claim identity with the Father as one person, but he asserted his unity with the Father in a relationship that could be described as sonship. This sonship has many facets, as shown in vv.19–24.

19 The Son is dependent on the Father; he does not act apart from the Father’s will and purpose. Throughout this gospel Jesus continually asserts that his work was to do the will of the Father (4:34; 5:30; 8:28; 12:50; 15:10). John presents Jesus as the Son, not as the slave, of God, yet as the perfect agent of the divine purpose and the complete revelation of the divine nature.

20 The Son is loved by the Father. Their relationship is that of a Father and a Son who are united by love. The Father has revealed to the Son the purpose and plan of his activity, much as the head of a family discusses with the others the plan he wishes to follow.

21 The Son is empowered by the Father. God is the source of life, who alone has power to reverse the processes of the material world and to bring life out of death. This supreme power he has conferred on the Son. Later Jesus demonstrates this power in the raising of Lazarus (11:41–44).

22–23 The Son has been entrusted with the power of judgment. He possesses equal dignity with the Father and shares with him judicial as well as executive authority. Conversely, since the Son is equal in authority, he can rightly claim equal honor with God.

24 The Son is the arbiter of destiny. The determination of this destiny is immediate, as the present tense in this verse implies. Eternal life becomes the possession of the believer at the moment of acceptance; the future judgment will only confirm what has already taken place.

25 The phrase “and has now come” may refer to the present era that will terminate in the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead, or it may refer to the power Jesus had to raise the dead during his lifetime, as in the case of Lazarus. There is another sense in which our Lord’s words are true. As the source of life, he was promising to those who were spiritually dead, like the woman at the well, a new and eternal life if they would listen to his voice.

26 We do not have inherent life within ourselves, for our life is derived from others. Again Jesus claimed deity by saying he was not dependent on another for life, just as the Father derived his life from no one. Jesus possesses inherent life, the power to create and the power to renew life that has been extinguished.

27 The title “Son of Man” has appeared twice previously in this gospel (1:51; 3:14). As the Son of Man Jesus is qualified to judge humanity because he belongs to it and can understand the needs and viewpoints of humans (cf. Heb 2:17).

28–29 This passage contains one of the few references to eschatology in John’s gospel. No chronological distinction is drawn here between the resurrection of the righteous and that of the wicked, nor is any such distinction excluded. John says little about a program, but he does emphasize the fact that Jesus will be the door to the eternal world.

The double resurrection assumes that both the righteous and the wicked will receive bodies in the future life and that presumably each body will express the character of the person who is resurrected. Some commentators claim that the resurrection of v.25 is wholly spiritual while that of vv.29–30 is physical and future. There seems to be an unnecessary distinction here (see comment on v.25), though these two verses are explicitly future. Obviously spiritual resurrection from being dead in transgressions and sins (Eph 2:1) must precede physical resurrection.

30 This verse marks a transition from self-affirmation to testimony. Jesus spoke with the confidence of being commissioned by the Father, not with the arrogance of self-assertion. Twenty-five times in this gospel he asserts that he has been sent by the Father, a reference to his commission for the ministry, which distinguishes him as the Son of God.

b. The witnesses to his authority (5:31–47)

31 Because the authority of Jesus was questioned by his critics, he summoned witnesses to vouch for him. “Witness” or “testimony,” whether verb (GK 3455) or noun (GK 3456), is a common word in this gospel, occurring thirty-three times. This term is used to describe the attestation of Jesus’ character and power. Jesus gives five specific sources of testimony about himself.

Jesus discounts his own witness here, admitting that it is “not valid” (because under Jewish law the self-testimony of any person was not accepted in court). On another occasion, however, he said, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going” (8:14). The apparent contradiction can be resolved because the statement in Ch. 5 is based on legal grounds whereas that in Ch. 8 is based on personal knowledge. In consideration of Jesus’ essential truthfulness, his witness concerning himself is sound, though in legal process it would not be admitted.

32 “There is another who testifies in my favor” could refer either to the Father or to John the Baptist, both of whom are mentioned in the context. The latter is the more likely here, since the witness of John the Baptist follows immediately in v.33 and seems to be the elaboration of the statement in v.32.

33–35 “You have sent to John” is obviously a reference to the delegation sent from the Jewish rulers to John the Baptist when he was preaching in the Judean wilderness (1:19). The fact that they had already asked him for an explanation bound them to give proper consideration to his testimony. John himself had refused the title of Messiah but had predicted the coming of Jesus and had identified him at his appearance as the Lamb of God and the Messiah (1:29–36). Possibly by this time John had been imprisoned. Jesus’ main point is that the Jews could not consistently accept John’s preaching and reject Jesus.

36 Another witness is that of the works Jesus was doing, i.e., those deeds that revealed his divine nature. As the quality of one’s deeds shows one’s moral standards, skill, and personal competence, so Jesus’ works marked him as superhuman in both his compassion and his power (Cf. 3:19–21; 10:25; 14:11). Although Jesus never performed miracles for the purpose of drawing attention to himself, he regarded them as valid proofs of his claims.

The gospel lists seven of these works: (1) The turning of water into wine (2:1–11); (2) the healing of the official’s son (4:43–54); (3) the healing of a paralytic (5:1–15); (4) the feeding of the multitude (6:1–14); (5) the walking on the water (6:16–21); (6) the cure of the blind man (9:1–41); and (7) the raising of Lazarus (11:1–44). Each of these miracles demonstrated Jesus’ power in a different area of human experience. They are called “signs” (GK 4956) because they point to something beyond themselves. In most cases, these signs were followed by a confession of belief on the part of many of the spectators (2:11; 4:53; 6:66, 69; 9:38; 11:45).

37–38 The fourth witness is that of the Father. The allusion seems somewhat obscure, especially since Jesus disclaimed any visible or audible communication from God to the crowd in general. Nevertheless there were occasions on which a voice from heaven spoke, expressing approval of Jesus and affirming his Sonship (see Mt 3:17; 17:5; Mk 1:11; 9:7; Lk 3:22; 9:35; Jn 12:28). To a Jew, the voice from heaven would have meant the approval of God; yet this seems to have had little effect on the multitude. Jesus implies that his hearers had not apprehended the revelation of God because they had not believed him whom the Father had sent.

39–40 Jesus’ final witness is the Scriptures. After the destruction of the temple of Solomon in 586 B.C., the Jewish scholars of the Exile substituted the study of the Law for the observance of the temple ritual and sacrifices. They pored over the OT, trying to extract the fullest possible meaning from its words, because they believed that the very study itself would bring them life. By so doing they missed the chief subject of the OT revelation. Jesus claimed the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Writings) as witnesses to his person and claims (Lk 24:44). For example, they prefigured his sacrifice (Jn 3:14–15) and marked some of the events of the Passion (12:14–15; 18:9; 19:24, 28, 36). He rebuked his hearers for their inconsistency in studying the Scriptures so diligently while rejecting his claims.

41–42 The people were incapable of both interpreting and applying the Scriptures, for as students of the Scriptures they should have known that they spoke of him. Because the Jews did not give “praise” (or “glory”; GK 1518) to Jesus, it was evident that they were spiritually unable to make the connection between the Scriptures and the Savior. But this came as no surprise to Jesus.

43–44 Jesus expressed disappointment because the people would not accept his credentials, though they would accept the personal claims of others who acted solely on their own authority. Compare, for example, the choice of Barabbas over Jesus at the final trial (Lk 23:18–23). Verse 44 rebukes those students of the Scriptures who are more interested in establishing their competitive reputations for scholarship than in obeying the revelation of God so as to bring his approval.

45–47 Moses, who wrote the Law, was highly revered by the Jewish nation. They would not knowingly do anything contrary to his teaching. Their obedience to him was a source of pride. In fact, their very hope in securing God’s favor and blessing lay in their relationship to Moses. Jesus told the people that the law of Moses would condemn them in their rejection of him because their failure to believe in him was essentially a rejection of Moses since Moses had prefigured him (cf. Lk 16:29–31).