Exegetical Report / The Gospel of John, Chapters 5 & 6

by Chris A. Foreman on March 4, 2003

for GGBTS  S2324-01, The Gospel of John (Online), Dr. Jay Y. Noh, Spring 2003

 

The healing at the Pool of Bethesda (5:1-47) Jesus visits Jerusalem and encounters a lame man sitting by a pool waiting for the healing waters to percolate.  Instead, Jesus – the living water – heals him.  The man carries his mat on the Sabbath and is questioned by the Pharisees for this breech of Sabbath rules.  The man turns against Jesus and now the Pharisees turn their wrath on him.  Jesus defends himself by declaring his close relationship to his Heavenly Father and by demonstrating a witness from John the Baptist, his Heavenly Father and Moses.

 

I. Structural question about order of Chapters 5 & 6.

A.  The movement of Jesus between Judea and Galilee suggests that 4&6 go together as does 5&7.  The current order requires more travel by Jesus between north and south.  The re-arrangement is more elegant geographically.

B. The above is true, but reversing chapter 5&6 produces theological problems of greater importance than supposed geographical problems.  Jesus reveals Himself in Chapter 6 in a way that seems dependent upon an earlier revelation in chapter 5.

C. There in absolutely no evidence of a text in which chapter 6 appears before 5. We will stick with the current order, thank you.

 

II. Textual question about V 3 & 4.

A. Verse 3 is probably a gloss made very early to explain why the lame man was by the pool.  I can leave this verse in or out.  It makes no difference.

B. Verse 4 was probably added much later.  There are texts which do not include this verse.  I would not include it.  It is weird doctrinally if you think of it.  Is our faith one that allows “angels” to effect magical cures by troubling waters?  I could build some strange religion on this single verse.

 

III. Interpretation of man carrying his mat.

A person carrying his own mat on Saturday is in obvious breech of Pharisee law concerning work on the Sabbath.  The Pharisees were so obsessed with God’s law that they build a “hedge” around it to keep from falling in.  Unfortunately, common people who had to work for a living could not possibly keep the Pharisee law.  Jesus deliberately told the man to break Pharisee law, but He would never tell anyone to break God’s Sabbath law.   The man carried his own mat as an symbol that he was healed.

 

IV. Interpretation of man turning in Jesus to leaders.

A. The man healed of his lameness was looking out for number one and was glad to shift the blame from himself to Jesus.

B. He was “stool pigeon” for the Pharisees.  He was glad to turn “states evidence” and visit the temple to make a “positive ID” of the perpetrator.  (verse 14).

C. He was involved in some sort of sin (verse 14) that made him turn against Jesus.  This is in contrast to the blind man in chapter nine who had not sinned (9:3).  I think that there was some secret sin in this man’s life for which he was unrepentant even after Jesus had healed him.  How could someone who had received a healing touch from Jesus be so contrary to Jesus?  I think all three play a part, but especially C.

 

V. Theological question about the relationship between sin and sickness.

This is a difficult question.  It may be that in 5:14, Jesus is not speaking specifically of sickness.  If the healed man continues to sin (that is, denying Jesus as Lord), then something worse than lameness will happen to him.  The last verse of chapter three explains those who do not believe in Jesus will not see life but will experience the wrath of God. This is certainly “a worse thing”. I do believe that at times our sickness is indeed caused by our sin, but sometimes it is not.  God is the one who determines when this cause and effect will happen.

 

VI. Theological question about first instance of Sabbath controversy.

I believe that Ridderbos is making the point that in John chapter 5, Jesus is defending his penchant for breaking Pharisee Sabbath rules by equating Himself with the person who made the law in the first place.  By identifying Himself with his Father, Jesus is using a “Christological defense”.  He and father are one, therefore he is not subject to Sabbath restrictions, just as His Father is not subject to such restrictions.  In the SG, the gospel writers do not so much make a Christological defense, but a more practical defense.  The intent of the Sabbath was to free and protect people, not to put them in bondage.  The Sabbath saved (soteriological) people from working themselves to death.  Yet in the hands of the Pharisees, the Sabbath bound them like slaves. 

 

VII. Content question about logical flow of Jesus discourse in vv. 30-47.

Jesus understands the law of Moses.  Jesus has been vigorously defending himself against accusations of being a Sabbath breaker.  Now he may be anticipating their next accusation, that of being a false witness.  This accusation is made explicit in 8:13 (“you bear record of yourself, therefore your record is not true”).  These 18 verses explain that his testimony is true.  He first refers to John the Baptist as a witness, but only of a secondary witness because he is human.  His father, God, is the primary witness and this witness is demonstrated by signs such as the healing of the lame man.  Finally Jesus speaks of a witness that they have been constantly alluding to: Moses.  The law concerning Sabbath and the law concerning witness were given to the Israelites by the hand of Moses.  It is a coup de grace when Jesus says that the strongest witness for the prosecution is actually the strongest witness for the defense.  Moses will in fact accuse the false accusers. 

 

VIII. Word study question on the word “believing”.

The author of the Fourth Gospel is a heavy user of the verb believe (pistw), but does not use at all its cognate noun form belief or faith (pistos).  This is just the opposite of SG usage.  Morris proposes a few reasons for this.

A.  The noun form was common among Gnostics and therefore the author eschewed it.  This is possibility, but remote.

B. The author purposely chose to make belief active rather than static.  Therefore pistos always appears as a dynamic verb rather than a passive noun.  This is a better explanation.  Although, a simple difference in vocabulary may explain it too.

 

IX. Additional question. 

Compare the reaction of healed lame man in chapter 5 to the healed blind man in chapter 9.  Why do they react so differently to the healing touch?

 

Feeding the five thousand (6:1-15), Walking on Water (16-21), Jesus the bread of Life (22-71)

Jesus finds himself preaching in the wilderness.  There is no way to feed this great multitude, so Jesus feeds them with a miraculous meal.  The people overwhelm Him and so he travels to the other side of the Sea of Galilee.  While his disciples are crossing he sea, he catches up to them by walking on the sea. The multitude follows him, seeking more food. Jesus engages them in a long discourse about He himself being the Bread of Life.  Many disciples abandon him after his explicit language, but the twelve remain and Peter confesses that Jesus is Christ.

 

X. Question of Historicity in feeding the miraculous feeding.

A. Some theologians discount this event as entirely legendary (a myth).

B. Others say a “miracle” happened, but that this was a “sharing miracle”.  This means that the multitude really possessed food all along but wouldn’t share it.  They only shared it after Jesus’ example of sharing.  Then the 5000 were fed.

C. A straight reading of this passage does not allow for A & B above.  The words indicate that a genuine miracle took place.  That’s the way the author paints it, the way the multitude and disciples interpreted it.  That’s the way I believe it.

 

XI.  Background Question about Moses in wilderness and Jesus in wilderness.

It is interesting to me how Jesus pairs himself with Moses, even from chapter 1 (“The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ”).  Chapter 6 also had an allusion to Moses. Once again, Moses hovers in the background of Jesus events in chapter 7.  The multitude is again looking for miracles, comparing Jesus to the greatest OT miracle worker. Moses nourished the children of Israel in the wilderness by asking God to provide manna from heaven.  This heavenly food was all the Israelites needed to survive.  Jesus in the true manna from heaven, all we need to survive. “Eating and drinking” is a sign of prosperity and well-being in the OT. Jesus says perfect well-being can come about by eating and drinking Himself.

 

XII.  Interpretation Question about Philip’s answer in v7.

Jesus is the central figure in the Gospel of John.  Everyone else is secondary.  The Gospel writer tells us plainly that his purpose is to provoke belief in readers of the Gospel (20:31).  I have no doubt that the events occurred in John as recorded, but certainly there were no official transcripts or tape recordings of conversations. John must use his imagination as he writes his dialogues in a way that builds our faith.  The questions of Philip, Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman and others, are a vehicle used to meet a didactic purpose. Similar to Watson and Sherlock Holmes, or Tonto and the Lone Ranger, these genuine 1^st century people in John’s Gospel  provide the questions of life to which Jesus can expound the answers of life.

 

XIII.  Interpretation Question about loaves, baskets, filling and not wasting.

There is one aspect of this question that I would like to address.  This is an ecological idea for 21^st century people.  We should live in abundance, but we should not waste.  Note that the people ate until they were filled (not overfilled).  This is a caution to people who treat poverty as a virtue just as it is to people who think over-indulgence is a deserved privilege. Also note how Jesus went out of his way to collect the left-overs.  There was no waste. What a good example for how we should prepare our meals, and how we should consume in general.  It always makes me sick when I see the amount of perfectly good food that restaurants and supermarkets throw out.

 

XIV.  Interpretation Question about meaning of the feeding miracle.

The people realized that a miracle had taken place (tying into question X about historicity).  They knew enough scripture to see a tie in with end times (eschatology). The people viewed this emerging miracle worker as a new Moses or Elijah.  As the books points out, they expected a “prophet who would establish a Kingdom on earth”, rather than a “messiah who would establish a Kingdom of heaven”.   Their desire was to make Jesus an earthly king, but Jesus would have none of that.

 

XV.  Contextual Question concerning the miracle of walking on water.

A. Morris does not give much significance on the placement of this miracle in John’s narrative.  He states that this incident occurred at this juncture, so it is included.  No comment or moral teaching accompanies this sign.  This scene does, however, offer a good segway into the following discourse.

B. Ridderbos indicates that the author of the fourth gospel gave more thought to the inclusion of this sign.  Perhaps it is a private sign (to the twelve) that followed the public sign (to the multitude).  Perhaps Jesus wanted to reinforce the faith of the twelve just before he challenged them with his hard sayings about the bread of life.  As the many disciples walked away from Jesus, maybe these twelve thought back to the previous night when the Son of Man walked to them on the water.  They decided to stick with Jesus.  I think that there is some merit with the position of Ridderbos.

 

XVI.  Critical Question for meaning of “Bread of Life”.

A. Eucharistic interpretation – It is very tempting to match up this wilderness teaching to the Lord’s Supper.  At the supper Jesus says “take, eat, this is my body”.  In this passage, Jesus says I am the “bread of life.”  Furthermore, the fourth gospel does not include an account of the last supper.  Maybe this was the author’s way to address this most important topic.  In addition, for the Catholic church and other ancient traditions, the Eucharist is central to worship.  It would make sense that this passage of John addresses the Eucharist. 

B. Non-Eucharistic interpretation – Although it is tempting, this passage is different from the last supper.  Jesus is not saying here that eating his flesh in a “channel of grace” which is the idea of a sacrament.  Jesus is making a much stronger statement. He is saying that unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood you will not have eternal life.  It seems that Jesus is telling us that we must take his teaching and attitude and absorb it into our innermost being.  A “Christian” is a little Christ.

C. Double meaning interpretation – probably there is merit in most positions. To any reader, the allusion to the Lord’s Supper cannot be missed, yet Jesus is not saying that the Eucharist is critical to salvation.  I go with this view, a double meaning is intended.

 

XVII.  Theological Question on God’s sovereignty in human salvation (v44 & 47).

I have recently learned the difference between a “contradiction” and a “paradox”. A contradiction is an unintentional error in logic.  A paradox is the purposeful positing of two ideas that appear to be contradictory, but are nonetheless both true.  In verses 44 and 47 we see the paradox of “God’s sovereignty” verses human “free will”.  Only those whom God calls will come to Him (predestination). And yet all are free to come to Him (whosoever will).  I don’t think that any human mind can wrap itself fully around this paradox.  I am comfortable to live with this paradox.

 

XVIII. Interpretation Question about eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood.

I think that the language of Jesus was intentionally tough.  He knew that his words would scare away many of his followers.  In verse 26 & 27, Jesus scolds many in the multitude for following him in order to keep their bellies full.  It seems that there were three motives for following Jesus. (1) to get a free meal (2) to see a miracle (3) to digest the words of Jesus to the point where they become a part of you.  Jesus spoke the provocative words of flesh eating and blood drinking to chase away all but the most devoted to him.  If I heard these words from the mouth of a man, I probably would run away too.  This brings us back to a possible motive of Jesus walking on the water: perhaps it fortified their faith in their master.   

 

XIX. Non academic observation of John 6:66.

Is this 6:66 the mark of the beast as spoken of in Revelation?  Are those who receive this mark one-time disciples who walked away from Jesus?  Spooky.

 

XX.  Other Questions: 

Should we give bread to those who have no interest in following Jesus?  When I travel to Africa, should I pass out goodies to all who are in need?  I believe that we are obliged to give food to the hungry without questioning motives (v11), but we should not be surprised when one of the bread eaters proves to be seeking only after physical food and not spiritual food (v 26).  These were called “rice Christians” in China.

 

 

Overall Reflection:

(5:1-47) Just as God the father must work on the Sabbath day to hold together the universe, so must his Son work on the Sabbath to demonstrate his oneness with his father.

(6:1-71) a. Jesus will meet our needs, multiplying our meager offerings.

b. Jesus will come to us when we are most in need of him.

c. We must consume Jesus and get Him into our innermost being to find eternal life.