“Thou shalt.”

“Thou shalt not.”

“Thou shalt.”

“Thou shalt not.”

“Shalt.”

“Shalt not.”

“SHALT!” “SHALT NOT!”

Sounds like angry children arguing on the playground, doesn’t it? But what you’re hearing is the insistent bickering of adult Christians entrenched in legalism.

I was recently made aware of a book which records some very strange laws still on the books in our country. Some of these “whacky laws” are listed below:

• “In Pennsylvania, the penalty for cursing is a forty-cent fine. However, if God is mentioned in the curse, the fine is sixty-seven cents.”
• “It is illegal to mispronounce the name of the city of Joliet, Illinois.”
• “In San Francisco, you are not permitted to carry a basket suspended from a pole.”
• “It is unlawful for goldfish to ride on a Seattle, Washington, bus unless they lie still.”
• “Michigan law once required taking a census of bees every winter.”
• “In Natchez, Mississippi, it is against the law for elephants to drink beer.”
• “An old Hollywood, California, ordinance forbids driving more than two thousand sheep down Hollywood Boulevard at one time.”
• “In Muncie, Indiana, you cannot bring fishing tackle into a cemetery.”
• “The California penal code prohibits the shooting of any animal, except a whale, from an automobile.”
• “In Kansas City, Missouri, children are prohibited by law from buying cap pistols. However, the law does not restrict them from buying shotguns.”
• “A Minnesota law requires that men’s and women’s underwear not be hung on the same clothesline at the same time.”
• “In Joliet, Illinois, women are not allowed to try on more than six dresses in one store.”[1]

I mention these “whacky laws” of our own land because I am about to point out some of the “whacky Jewish laws” of Jesus’ day. We are inclined to look at these laws and laugh, amazed at how ridiculous they seem. Before getting too carried away with our laughter, let me say this. Every one of these apparently ridiculous laws made sense to the lawmakers at the time they became law. These “whacky laws” did not come about in a vacuum; they were a legislative attempt to prevent or solve a real problem of some kind. Lest we think lawmakers wish to spend all their time making up silly laws, let me suggest that they must do so because of “whacky” folks like you and me.

As parents, we should be able to understand how this happens. We would love to be able to give our children a very general principle or guideline, and trust them to follow it. For example, we wish we could say to our child, “Just be home at a reasonable hour.” The trouble is that they do not agree with us about what “reasonable” means, and so we have to give an exact time.

Our child says, “Mom, can I go down the street and play with Charlie?” We say, “No, I don’t want you to play with Charlie at his house.” So our child goes down the street and plays with Charlie out in the yard (to keep our rules), or he plays with Charlie’s brother in his house. We therefore learn to make our rules more and more specific, lest our child fail to behave as we intended. The more specific we make these rules, the sillier they appear to others.

I am not defending Pharisaism or the legalism of the Jews of Jesus’ day. Many of their rules would be very difficult to defend. Nevertheless, I must also say that most of the regulations I am about to call to your attention were probably necessitated by people who were unwilling to abide by principles; thus, religious leaders were forced to become more and more specific, to the point of unbelievable gnat-straining. Here are some of the regulations of the Jews in our Lord’s time:

Some of the detailed regulations are passing wonderful. For example, ‘(On the Sabbath) a man may borrow of his fellow jars of wine or jars of oil, provided that he does not say to him, ‘Lend me them’ (Shab. 23:1). This would imply a transaction, and a transaction might involve writing, and writing was forbidden. Or again, ‘If a man put out the lamp (on the night of the Sabbath) from fear of the gentiles or of thieves or of an evil spirit, or to suffer one that was sick to sleep, he is not culpable; (but if he did it with a mind) to spare the lamp or to spare the oil or to spare the wick, he is culpable’ (Shab. 2:5). The attitude to healing on the sabbath is illustrated by a curious provision that a man may not put vinegar on his teeth to alleviate toothache. But he may take vinegar with his food in the ordinary course of affairs, and the Rabbis philosophically concluded, ‘if he is healed he is healed’ (Shab. 14:4)![2]

The Mishna says: ‘He that reapeth corn on the Sabbath to the quantity of a fig is guilty; and plucking corn is reaping.’ Rubbing the grain out was threshing. Even to walk on the grass on the Sabbath was forbidden because it was a species of threshing. Another Talmudic passage says: ‘In case a woman rolls wheat to remove the husks, it is considered sifting; if she rubs the head of wheat, it is regarded as threshing; if she cleans off the side-adherences, it is sifting out fruit; if she throws them up in her hand, it is winnowing’ [Jer. Shabt, page 10a]. The scrupulosity of these Jews about the Sabbath was ridiculously extreme. A Jewish sailor caught in a storm after sunset on Friday refused to touch the helm though threatened with death. Thousands had suffered themselves to be butchered in the streets of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes rather than lift a weapon in self-defense on the Sabbath! To these purists, the act of the disciples was a gross desecration of the Sabbath law. The worst of all was that Jesus permitted and approved it.[3]

In the above citations, J. W. Shepard is referring to the Sabbath laws of Jesus’ day, but we would be incorrect to suppose things have improved with time. A friend loaned me a book by Rav Yehoshua Y. Neuwirth entitled, Shemirath Shabbath: A Guide to the Practical Observance of Shabbath.[4] This volume (my friend reminds me that it is the first volume) goes into great detail concerning the interpretation and application of the Sabbath for contemporary Judaism. In the preface to this work the author writes, “The Mishna (Chagiga: Chapter 1, Mishna 8) likens the laws of Shabbath to ‘mountains hanging by a hair,’ in that a multitude of precepts and rules, entailing the most severe penalties for their breach, depend on the slightest of indications given by a biblical verse.”[5]

He also reminds us of the importance which Judaism has placed, and continues to place, on the keeping of the Sabbath:

May we be privileged, by virtue of the proper observance of the Shabbath, to see the final redemption of Israel. Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, “Were Israel properly to observe two Shabbathoth, they would immediately be redeemed” (Shabbath 118b). Until such time, God’s only dwelling-place on this earth is within the four walls of the Halacha (Berachoth 8a).[6]

The book contains many instructions about the keeping of the Sabbath, but I will mention only a few:

Cooking in most all forms (boiling, roasting, baking, frying, etc.) is forbidden on the Sabbath, in particular when the temperature is raised above 45 degrees centigrade (113 Fahrenheit).[7]

If the hot water tap is accidentally left on, it cannot be turned off on the Sabbath.[8]

Escaping gas can be turned off, but not in the normal way. One must turn off the tap of a gas burner with the back of the hand or the elbow.[9]

The preparation of food is greatly affected by the Sabbath. One cannot squeeze a lemon into a glass of ice tea, but one can squeeze lemon on a piece of fish.[10]

That one cannot light a fire on the Sabbath is taught in the Old Testament law (cf. Exod. 35:3). Strict Judaism views this to prohibit turning electric lights on or off on the Sabbath. The problem can be solved, however, by using a timer, which automatically handles this task.[11]

So, too, an air conditioner cannot be turned on by a Jew on the Sabbath, although a Gentile might be persuaded to do so.[12]

One cannot bathe with a bar of soap on the Sabbath, but liquid detergent is acceptable.[13]

I find the section dealing with “discovered articles” (pp. 233-235) most interesting. One is prohibited from transporting goods on the Sabbath. This would prevent merchants from conducting business on the Sabbath. It has been so highly refined that now one cannot carry something which he unknowingly took with him. If one is walking along on the Sabbath and discovers that he is carrying something in his pocket, he has several courses of action so as not to violate the Sabbath.

He may, for example, drop the item out of his pocket, but not in the normal or usual fashion (by grasping it, removing it from the pocket, and dropping it on the floor). He can, however, reverse his pocket, expelling the object unnaturally, and thus legitimately. If the item is valuable, and he does not wish to leave it on the ground, he can ask a Gentile to watch the item for him.

Otherwise, the item could be carried, but not in the usual way. He can carry it for a prescribed distance (just under four amoth), put it down, then take it up, and so on. Or, the man could relay it between himself and a fellow-Israelite, each one carrying the object for no more than the prescribed distance. If this is not advisable, the object can be carried in an unusual way, such as placing it in the shoe, tying it to his leg, or managing to suspend it between his clothing and his body.

Morris adds this regulation regarding work on the Sabbath:

Mishnah, Shab. 7:2 lists thirty-nine classes of work forbidden on a sabbath, the last being ‘taking out aught from one domain into another.’ An interesting regulation provides that if a man took out ‘a living man on a couch he is not culpable by reason of the couch, since the couch is secondary’ (Shab. 10:5). This clearly implies that the carrying of the ‘couch’ by itself is culpable.[14]

This information is not supplied to amuse you, but to prepare you for the issues that arise in our study of John chapter 5, as well as later on in John’s Gospel. A decisive change takes place here. Until now, signs and miracles may not have convinced all, but they definitely were instrumental in drawing some to faith. When Jesus turned the water into wine, a few realized what had happened, but only the disciples of our Lord are said to have “believed” (John 2:11). When our Lord went to Jerusalem and cleansed the temple (John 2:12-22), He also performed a number of signs, which caused a number to “believe in His name” (2:23-25). Nicodemus was at least impressed by the signs Jesus performed (3:2). The Samaritans did not require a sign, but many believed in Jesus when they heard His words (4:4ff.). The royal official who came to Jesus was forced to believe the word which Jesus spoke to him, and the miracle that resulted was instrumental in his coming to faith, along with his whole house (4:43-54).

Suddenly, when we reach this fifth chapter of John our Lord’s miracles actually precipitate intense opposition and persecution. The healing of the man at the pool of Bethesda brings about a reaction so strong that the Jews are even more resolved to kill Jesus. In chapter 6, Jesus feeds the 5,000, but after He informs these would-be disciples that they must trust in His sacrificial death, virtually all forsake Him. In chapter 7, when Jesus appears in Jerusalem, the Jews send officers to arrest Him. In chapter 8, when Jesus has an animated debate with the Jews and makes the statement, “Before Abraham came into existence, I am!,” many want to stone Him. From chapter 5 onward, the Jews are determined to do away with Jesus. As time goes on, their opposition to Jesus only intensifies.

As we begin our study of chapter 5 and witness the wonderful works of our Lord precipitating intense reaction to Him, let us listen and learn those lessons which God has here for us.

The Pharisees were the grandfathers of legalism, and in our lesson today, Jesus meets them head-to-head, toe-to-toe in a confrontation that turns the tide of official opinion against Him!

* LEGALISM: LET’S UNDERSTAND IT.

When we lift the veil on legalism, we find hypocrisy instead of holiness.

What is it? Legalism is conforming to a code of behavior for the purpose of exalting self. Legalists make lists of “dos” and “don’t” based not on Scripture but on tradition or personal preference. Then they judge themselves and others on their performance. In a nutshell, it’s a “checklist Christianity.”

How does it appear? It slips into a congregation unnoticed and usually preys especially on young, naive believers. Paul describes legalists in Galatians 2:4: “<This matter arose> because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.”

Why is it wrong? First and foremost, legalism is unbiblical. Grace and freedom are the hallmarks of the Christian life, not law and bondage. Second, it promotes the flesh, which cannot please God (Rom. 8:8). Third, it is based on pride, a prime example of which is the parable of the Pharisee and the tax gatherer in Luke 18:9-14.

When did it start? Legalism is an ancient art, begun by the Pharisees and implemented by subsequent generations of apprentices who have been narrow, rigid, and often intolerably religious.

Legalists have refused to accept the doctrine of grace. Instead, they have sought to supplement grace with their own works or ideas.

LEGALISM: Let’s examine it

   The pivotal issue on which the controversy in John 5 turns is the question of observing the Sabbath. Before we get into the passage, let’s do a little homework concerning this:

– Origin of the Sabbath.

At the end of Genesis 1, we read that God completed His work of creation in six days. In Genesis 2:2, Moses states: “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.”  Essentially, sabbath means “rest.”

 

– Law of the Sabbath.

   In Exodus 20, the Law God gave to Moses required observance of the Sabbath, and He based His injunction on the pattern of the creation.  Exodus 20:8-11: “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. {9} Six days you shall labor and do all your work, {10} but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. {11} For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

– Tradition of the Sabbath

Slipping in between the Old and New Testaments, the Pharisees amplified the Sabbath law by adding 39 categories of unpermitted work, along with a number of tedious restrictions. These became part of the traditional teachings of the rabbis, who then enforced them among the people. Yet these requirements stretched considerably beyond God’s original intent.

Notice one example: “If a man removed his fingernails by means of his nails or his teeth, and so, too, if [he pulled out] the hair of his head, or his moustache or his beard; and so, too, if a woman dressed her hair or painted her eyelids or reddened [her face]..such a one declares liable…and has worked on the Sabbath.”

* Context of our Text for Today.

   The first period in the life of Jesus recorded in this gospel contained His claims. He Himself presented some of them through an explicit avowal of Messiahship, some were implicit in the titles ascribed to Him by His friends, and still others were latent in the miracles that He performed.

He claimed nothing less for Himself than Deity. He demanded nothing less from His followers than obedient faith.

Between chapters 4 and 5:1, the following incidents occurred in Jesus’ life:

1. Returned to Nazareth, taught in the synagogue, and was rejected (Luke 4).
2. Called four fishermen the second time, and healed many (Matt. 4; Mark 1; Luke 5).
3. Made the Galilean tour among crowds (Matt. 9).
4. Healed a leper (Matt. 8).
5. Healed a paralytic (Matt. 9).
6. Called Matthew (Matt. 9).
7. Ran into controversies about eating and fasting (Matt. 9; Mark 2; Luke 5).

Because of His claims, He met opposition. Chapters 6 and 7 show the development of this opposition in debate and controversy before it broke into deadly conflict.

The subject matter in this Period of Controversy was centered around two events: the healing of the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda and the feeding of 5,000 men in Galilee.

These two differ in character, in scope, in locality, and in response:

– One was negative, for it removed the handicap of a long standing disease. The other was positive, for it provided nourishment for the healthy crowd.

– One pertained to one individual, the other to 5,000 men.

– One took place in Galilee, the other in Jerusalem.

– One evoked the enmity of the Jews; the other brought acclamation of the multitude.

BOTH PRODUCED CONTROVERSY!

* THE NEED (5:1-5)

     “Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews. {2} Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. {3} Here a great number of disabled people used to lie–the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. {4}  {5} One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years

   There were three Jewish feasts which were feasts of obligation– Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. Every adult male Jew who lived within 15 miles of Jerusalem was legally bound to attend them.

It’s most likely that this feast was Pentecost, since the events of John 6 occur when the Passover was near.  The Passover was in mid- April, and Pentecost was seven weeks later.

John makes a special point of mentioning the 38 years this man had been physically sick.  Bethesda means “house of mercy” or “compassion.”

Five porches had been built by this pool for the sick and diseased, etc., and they were probably covered so they could be protected from the sun and rain.

Make this special note: Verses 3b and 4 are not found in the latest translations of the original Greek…they aren’t even found in the most translations except as a footnote. They were added in the later centuries to explain why the sick were gathered, and listed the superstitious feelings of the people.

Beneath the pool was a subterranean stream which every now and again bubbled up and disturbed the waters. The belief  was that the disturbance was caused by an angel, and that the first person to get into the pool after the troubling of the water would be healed from any illness from which he was suffering.

For 38 years, this pathetic man has lain here in the poverty, the repulsion, and the despair. It may be that as Jesus walked around, the man of this story was pointed out to him as a most pitiable case, because his disability made it very unlikely, even impossible, that he would ever be the first to get into the pool after it had been troubled.

He had no one to help him in, and Jesus was always the friend of the friendless, and the helper of the man who has no earthly help. He did not trouble to read the man a lecture on the useless superstition of waiting for the water to be moved…His one desire was to help.

When Jesus arrived in Jerusalem he was apparently alone; there is no mention of his disciples.  He found his way to a famous pool.  Its name was either Bethesda, which means House of Mercy, or more likely, Bethzatha which means House of the Olive.  The better manuscripts all have the second name, and we know from Josephus that there was a quarter of Jerusalem actually known as Bethzatha.  The word for pool is kolumbethron, which comes from the verb kolumban, to dive.  The pool was deep enough to swim in.  The passage we have put in brackets is not in any of the greatest and best manuscripts and was probably added later as an explanation of what people were doing at the pool.  Beneath the pool was a subterranean stream which every now and again bubbled up and disturbed the waters.  The belief was that the disturbance was caused by an angel, and that the first person to get into the pool after the troubling of the water would be healed from any illness from which he was suffering.

To us this is mere superstition.  But it was the kind of belief which was spread all over the world in ancient days and which still exists in certain places.  People believed in all kinds of spirits and demons.  The air was thick with them; they had their abodes in certain places; every three, every river, every stream, every hill, every pool had its resident spirit.

Further, ancient peoples were specially impressed with the holiness of water and especially of rivers and springs.  Water was so precious and rivers in spate could be so powerful that it is not surprising that they were so impressed.  In the west we may know water only as something which comes out of a tap; but in the ancient world, as in many places still to-day, water was the most valuable and potentially the most dangerous of all things.

Sir J. G. Frazer in Folk-lore in the Old Testament (ii, 412-423) quotes many instances of this reverence for water.  Hesiod, the Greek poet, said that when a man was about to ford a river, he should pray and wash his hands, for he who wades through a stream with unwashed hands incurs the wrath of the gods.  When the Persian king Xerxes came to the Strymon in Thrace his magicians offered white horses and went through other ceremonies before the army ventured to cross.  Lucullus, the Roman general, offered a bull to the River Euphrates before he crossed it.  To this day in south-east Africa some of the Bantu tribes believe that rivers are inhabited by malignant spirits which must be propitiated by flinging a handful of corn or some other offering into the river before it is crossed.  When anyone is drowned in a river he is said to be “called by the spirits.”  The Baganda in Central Africa would not try to rescue a man carried away by a river because they thought that the spirits had taken him.  The people who waited for the pool in Jerusalem to be disturbed were children of their age believing the things of their age.

First, the verses which speak of an angel troubling the waters of the pool are not present in the best manuscripts.

None of the best and most ancient manuscripts have these words which accordingly, have not been retained in the A.R.V. On the other hand, Tertullian (about 145-220 A.D.) already shows that he knows this passage; for he states:

“An angel, by his intervention, was wont to stir the pool at Bethsaida. They who were complaining of ill health used to watch for him; for whoever was the first to descend into these waters, after his washing ceased to complain’ (On Baptism V).”[15]

Second, the alleged “miraculous healings” at the pool of Bethesda are not like any other healing I find in the Bible. Think about it. Have you ever read of any such miracle in the Bible, where an angel somehow energizes the waters, and the first person into the water is healed? Where do we ever read of angels being involved with healings? Water is often used in healings, but such miracles are always specific—not general. Naaman was healed of his leprosy when he obeyed Elisha’s instructions to dip himself seven times in the Jordan River (2 Kings 5). People are healed individually and specifically, not in some kind of “whoever can get there the first” manner. Even in the case of the bronze serpent, referred to in John 3, everyone who looked up to the serpent was healed. There is something very bizarre, very unusual (dare I say “troubling”?) about this “miracle.” Does God really heal someone because he can push and shove and bully his way into the pool first?

Third, this was not the time for miracles. The 400 years between the last book of the Old Testament and the coming of Christ were a time of silence. Prophets were not writing, nor speaking, so far as I can tell. Jesus broke that silence. John prepared the way for Jesus, but we are specifically told that he performed no signs (John 10:41). Why would we suppose there were “miracles on tap” for those who waited for an angel to “trouble the waters” at the pool of Bethesda when this was not a time for miracles?

Fourth, this ailing man, whose words in verse 7 are not in dispute, is not a man of faith, and thus his comments about the pool and its alleged magical powers should be considered cautiously. I do not dispute that this man supposed the pool had healing powers at certain times, but I do seriously question that this is indeed the case. Listen to what Carson has to say about this:

The invalid apparently held to a popular belief that the first person into the pool after the waters had been disturbed, and only the first person, would be miraculously healed. There is no other attestation of this belief in sources roughly contemporaneous with Jesus, but analogous superstitions both ancient and modern are easy to come by.[16]

Fifth, it is not at all uncommon for the sick to congregate around mineral water, which is believed to have healing powers:

In general it may be stated that it is never uncommon for people, afflicted with various illnesses, to gather around mineral springs. Think of the springs around Tiberias or, in our own country, of the waters of Hot Springs, Arkansas, which long before the Spaniards arrived were already being credited with healing virtues.[17]

Sixth, I am puzzled as to why Jesus has to ask this man if he wants to be made whole, and even more perplexed at the man’s answer. Why does Jesus ask this man if he wishes to get well? And why does the man not give a simple “Yes” in response? Instead, the man seeks to defend his “system” for failing to provide him with a healing. He blames this failure on others, since no one will help him into the pool, and others beat him to it. Unlike the woman at the well in chapter 4, or even Nicodemus in chapter 3, this man seems to have no spiritual insight, no theological content, and definitely no faith.[18] Carson doesn’t care much for this fellow, as evident in his assessment of him:

He tries to avoid difficulties with the authorities by blaming the one who has healed him (v. 11); he is so dull he has not even discovered his benefactor’s name (v. 13); once he finds out he reports Jesus to the authorities (v. 15). In this light, v. 7 reads less as an apt and subtle response to Jesus’ question than as the crotchety grumblings of an old and not very perceptive man who thinks he is answering a stupid question.[19]

Perhaps it would be helpful to sum up my reservations by encouraging you to “see” what this miraculous healing by angel-stirred waters might look like if you made a movie of this part of our Lord’s life. To be true to the text, there would be a very large group of sick and hurting people gathered at the pool of Bethesda. Every one of them would be hopelessly incurable. Nothing more could be done for them. All they could do is beg, and hope and pray for a miracle. How eager all of them would be to believe the stories they heard about miraculous healings at this pool, even if they had never actually seen anyone healed.

Suddenly, the waters of the pool begin to boil, or bubble, or froth in some way, and pandemonium breaks out. Only one person will be healed per “stirring”—the first one into the pool. Every ailing person there at the pool is in competition with the rest of the multitude who are also hoping for a healing. If and when the waters are actually troubled, no one dares to tell anyone else, for fear they might reach the pool first. Can you imagine the pushing, shoving, and tripping that takes place as every ailing person desperately strives to be the first into the water?

What a pathetic sight, to see cripples crawling, hopping, rolling, clawing their way to the water’s edge. What chaos there would be! And then, even if one person was healed, it would not be the most needy person, because the one with the smallest ailment would be the most likely one to reach the pool first. The most needy person would be the least likely to get into the water first. Therefore, the least needy would probably be the one cured, while all the rest struggle to get out of the pool, get back to their “stations,” and await their next chance. What a very pathetic scene.

It may be that as Jesus walked around, the man of this story was pointed out to him as a most pitiable case, because his disability made it very unlikely, even impossible, that he would ever be the first to get into the pool after it had been troubled.  He had no one to help him in, and Jesus was always the friend of the friendless, and the helper of the man who has no earthly help.  He did not trouble to read the man a lecture on the useless superstition of waiting for the water to be moved.  His one desire was to help and so he healed the man who had waited so long.

In this story we see very clearly the conditions under which the power of Jesus operated.  He gave his orders to men and, in proportion as they tried to obey, power came to them.

(i)  Jesus began by asking the man if he wanted to be cured.  It was not so foolish a question as it may sound.  The man had waited for thirty-eight years and it might well have been that hope had died and left behind a passive and dull despair.  In his heart of heart the man might be well content to remain an invalid for, if he was cured, he would have to shoulder all the burden of making a living.  There are invalids for whom invalidism is not unpleasant, because someone else does all the working and all the worrying.  But this man’s response was immediate.  He wanted to be healed, though he did not see how he ever could be since he had no one to help him.

The first essential towards receiving the power of Jesus is to have intense desire for it.  Jesus says:  “Do you really want to be changed?”  If in our inmost hearts we are well content to stay as we are, there can be no change for us.

(ii)  Jesus went on to tell the man to get up.  It is as if he said to him:  “Man, bend your will to it and you and I will do this thing together!”  The power of God never dispenses with the effort of man.  Nothing is truer than that we must realize our own helplessness; but in a very real sense it is true that miracles happen when our will and God’s power co-operate to make them possible.

(iii)  In effect Jesus was commanding the man to attempt the impossible.  “Get up!”  he said.  His bed would simply be a light stretcher-like frame-the Greek is krabbatos, a colloquial word which really means a pallet-and Jesus told him to pick it up and carry it away.  The man might well have said with a kind of injured resentment that for thirty-eight years his bed had been carrying him and there was not much sense in telling him to carry it.  But he made the effort along with Christ-and the thing was done.

(iv)  Here is the road to achievement.  There are so many things in this world which defeat us.  When we have intensity of desire and determination to make the effort, hopeless though it may seem, the power of Christ gets its opportunity, and with him we can conquer what for long has conquered us.

Certain scholars think this passage is an allegory.

The man stands for the people of Israel.  The five porches stand for the five books of the law.  In the porches the people lay ill.  The law could show a man his sin, but could never mend it; the law could uncover a man’s weakness, but could never cure it.  The law, like the porches, sheltered the sick soul but could never heal it.  The thirty-eight years stand for the thirty-eight years in which the Jews wandered in the desert before they entered the promised land; or for the number of the centuries men had been waiting for the Messiah.  The stirring of the waters stands for baptism.  In point of fact in early Christian art a man is often depicted as rising from the baptismal waters carrying a bed upon his back.

It may well be that it is now possible to read all these meanings into this story; but it is highly unlikely that John wrote it as an allegory.  It has the vivid stamp of factual truth.  But we do well to remember that any Bible story has in it far more than fact.  There are always deeper truths below the surface and even the simple stories are meant to leave us face to face with eternal things.

* THE MIRACLE (5:6-9a)

    “When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, “Do you want to get well?” {7} “Sir,” the invalid replied, “I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me.” {8} Then Jesus said to him, “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.” {9} At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked.”

Not only would this man’s plight be seemingly hopeless, but the man himself seemed resigned to his fate and had accepted the inevitable. Verse 7 is a further explanation of their superstition: the people believed the angels stirred the water, and the first one in would be healed.

Jesus’ question, set to modern language: “Do you want to get well?” While it may seem like an obvious thing, Jesus was probing his inner heart.

The reply revealed that the man was placing blame for his condition on what everybody  else had not done for him. He was bound by his circumstances and could rise no higher than a futile complaint.

But Jesus presented him with immediate personal action (vs. 8) as a new alternative to dull acceptance of the inevitable.

Just as distance was no barrier to healing the royal official’s son, so time was no obstacle for Jesus to overcome in healing the lame man. Just think: 38 years of misery, shame, embarrassment and despair; in a split second, it was all history!

No matter how long we have been struggling with some particular sin or situation from our past, Jesus can change it! The real question is: do you wish to get well?

* THE CONFRONTATION (5:9b-17)

   “The day on which this took place was a Sabbath, {10} and so the Jews said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat.”

Undoubtedly, the witnesses around the pool were bustling with excitement. But the miracle leaves the legalists bristling with anger. When they should have been on their knees in praise, the only thing these Pharisees can do is pull out their principle-book and quote condemnation, chapter and verse.

The law said simply that the Sabbath Day must be different from other days and that on it neither a man nor his servants nor his animals must work; the Jews set out 39 different classifications of work, one of which was that it consisted in carrying a burden.

They found their belief particularly on two passages:

Jeremiah 17:19-27: “This is what the LORD said to me: “Go and stand at the gate of the people, through which the kings of Judah go in and out; stand also at all the other gates of Jerusalem. {20} Say to them, ‘Hear the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah and all people of Judah and everyone living in Jerusalem who come through these gates. {21} This is what the LORD says: Be careful not to carry a load on the Sabbath day or bring it through the gates of Jerusalem. {22} Do not bring a load out of your houses or do any work on the Sabbath, but keep the Sabbath day holy, as I commanded your forefathers. {23} Yet they did not listen or pay attention; they were stiff-necked and would not listen or respond to discipline. {24} But if you are careful to obey me, declares the LORD, and bring no load through the gates of this city on the Sabbath, but keep the Sabbath day holy by not doing any work on it, {25} then kings who sit on David’s throne will come through the gates of this city with their officials. They and their officials will come riding in chariots and on horses, accompanied by the men of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, and this city will be inhabited forever. {26} People will come from the towns of Judah and the villages around Jerusalem, from the territory of Benjamin and the western foothills, from the hill country and the Negev, bringing burnt offerings and sacrifices, grain offerings, incense and thank offerings to the house of the LORD. {27} But if you do not obey me to keep the Sabbath day holy by not carrying any load as you come through the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day, then I will kindle an unquenchable fire in the gates of Jerusalem that will consume her fortresses.'”

Nehemiah 13:15-19: “In those days I saw men in Judah treading winepresses on the Sabbath and bringing in grain and loading it on donkeys, together with wine, grapes, figs and all other kinds of loads. And they were bringing all this into Jerusalem on the Sabbath. Therefore I warned them against selling food on that day. {16} Men from Tyre who lived in Jerusalem were bringing in fish and all kinds of merchandise and selling them in Jerusalem on the Sabbath to the people of Judah.  {17} I rebuked the nobles of Judah and said to them, “What is this wicked thing you are doing–desecrating the Sabbath day? {18} Didn’t your forefathers do the same things, so that our God brought all this calamity upon us and upon this city? Now you are stirring up more wrath against Israel by desecrating the Sabbath.” {19} When evening shadows fell on the gates of Jerusalem before the Sabbath, I ordered the doors to be shut and not opened until the Sabbath was over. I stationed some of my own men at the gates so that no load could be brought in on the Sabbath day.”

Both passages make it clear that what was in question was trading and working on the Sabbath as if it had been an ordinary day! But the Rabbis of Jesus’s day solemnly argued that a man was sinning if:

– he carried a needle in his robe

– if he wore artificial teeth or his wooden leg

– if a woman wore a broach

 They were matters of spiritual life and death!

The presentation of the Jewish authorities in connection with this miracle was unflattering.  Their concern was not for the man, but the Sabbath.  They were a perfect example of unspiritual heartlessness which results from barren institutionalism.

The law was “holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12), and its requirements of the observance of the Sabbath was intended to provide men with a pause in the week’s exhausting toil. They were more concerned about days, than men!

A man had been healed from a disease which, humanly speaking, was incurable.  We might expect this to be an occasion of universal joy and thanksgiving; but some met the whole business with bleak and black looks.  The man who had been healed was walking through the streets carrying his bed; the orthodox Jews stopped him and reminded him that he was breaking the law by carrying a burden on the Sabbath day.

We have already seen what the Jews did with the law of God.  It was a series of great wide principles which men were left to apply and carry out but throughout the years the Jews had made it into thousands of little rules and regulations.  The law simply said that the Sabbath day must be different from other days and that on it neither a man nor his servants nor his animals must work; the Jews set out thirty-nine different classifications of work, one of which was that it consisted in carrying a burden.

His defence was that the man who had healed him had told him to do it, but he did not know his identity.  Later Jesus met him in the Temple; at once the man hastened to tell the authorities that Jesus was the one in question.  He was not seeking to get Jesus into trouble, but the actual words of the law were:  “If anyone carries anything from a public place to a private house on the Sabbath intentionally he is punishable by death by stoning.”  He was simply trying to explain that it was not his fault that he had broken the law.

So the authorities levelled their accusations against Jesus.  The verbs in verse 18 are imperfect tense, which describes repeated action in past time.  Clearly this story is only a sample of what Jesus habitually did.

His defence was shattering.  God did not stop working on the Sabbath day and neither did he.  Any scholarly Jew would grasp its full force.  Philo had said:  “God never ceases doing, but as it is the property of fire to burn and snow to chill, so it is the property of God to do.”  Another writer said:  “The sun shines; the rivers flow; the processes of birth and death go on on the Sabbath as on any other day; and that is the work of God.” True, according to the creation story, God rested on the seventh day; but he rested from creation; his higher works of judgment and mercy and compassion and love still went on.

Jesus said:  “Even on the Sabbath God’s love and mercy and compassion act; and so do mine.”  It was this last passage which shattered the Jews, for it meant nothing less than that the work of Jesus and the work of God were the same.  It seemed that Jesus was putting himself on an equality with God.  What Jesus really was saying we shall see in our next section; but at the moment we must note this-Jesus teaches that human need must always be helped; that there is no greater task than to relieve someone’s pain and distress and that the Christian’s compassion must be like God’s-unceasing.  Other work may be laid aside but the work of compassion never.

Another Jewish belief enters into this passage.  When Jesus met the man in the Temple he told him to sin no more in case something worse might happen to him.  To the Jew sin and suffering were inextricably connected.  If a man suffered, necessarily he had sinned; nor could he ever be cured until his sin was forgiven.

The Rabbis said:  “The sick arises not from sickness, until his sins be forgiven.”  The man might argue that he had sinned and been forgiven and had, so to speak, got away with it; and he might go on to argue that, since he had found someone who could release him from the consequences of sin, he could very well go on sinning and escaping.  There were those in the church who used their liberty as an excuse for the flesh (Galatians 5:13).  There were those who sinned in the confidence that grace would abound (Romans 6:1-18).  There have always been those who have used the love and the forgiveness and the grace of God as an excuse to sin.  But we have only to think what God’s forgiveness cost, we have only to look at the Cross of Calvary, to know that we must ever hate sin because every sin breaks again the heart of God.

“But he replied, “The man who made me well said to me, ‘Pick up your mat and walk.'” {12} So they asked him, “Who is this fellow who told you to pick it up and walk?” {13} The man who was healed had no idea who it was, for Jesus had slipped away into the crowd that was there. {14} Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.” {15} The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. {16} So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. {17} Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.”

The Pharisees took this occasion (vs. 16) as one excuse to persecute Him. They disliked Jesus when here the first time (2:18) and were suspicious of His popularity (4:1).

Now they have cause for an open breach. They would watch His conduct on the Sabbath from now on (Mark 2:23; 3:2, 6).

Of course, the penalty for blasphemy was death. It is here that the “official persecution” of Jesus began!

In the days that followed, our Lord often confronted His enemies with their evil desire to kill Him (John 7:19, 25; 8:37, 59). They hated Him without cause (15:18-25).

Verse 17 presents a profound idea: the Father never rests or ceases in His provision of love, judgment, compassion and mercy. In Genesis, as it records the creation, it’s true that God rested on the 7th day…but He rested from creation, not His other “higher works.” He, then, must meet the needs of men on the Sabbath.

And note the “I” is emphatic in the original language! Philo said: “God never ceases doing, but as it is the property of fire to burn and snow to chill, so it is the property of God to do.”

Another writer: “The sun shines, the river flows; the processes of birth and death go on the Sabbath just as any other day; that is the work of God.”

* THE REACTION (5:18)

   “For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”

The reply of Jesus to these accusations contained not only a new ethical concept of the Sabbath, but also a new theology. Jesus indicated that He made the Father His pattern, and that He felt that the Father’s work constituted sufficient precedent and reason for Him. They understood what He meant, because they sought to kill Him.

Essentially, the indictments of the legalists were two fold:

1. Jesus broke the Sabbath (vs. 16, 18)
2. Jesus claimed equality with God by claiming Him as His Father (vs. 17-18).

Ironically, the Pharisees were the guilty ones: they judged Jesus, refused to rejoice or give praise at the healing, and even went so far as to plot Christ’s assassination.

This is not the “watershed” incident, which convinces the Jews that Jesus must die. That decision has been reached earlier, on an occasion that John does not include in his Gospel. John chooses to introduce the theme of opposition here with the story of the healing of the paralytic. This opposition continues to the end of the Gospel, reaching its climax at Calvary:

The three chapters of this section, John 5-7, record the shift from mere reservation and hesitation about Jesus to outright and sometimes official opposition. The first point of controversy is the Sabbath (5:9ff.), but this is soon displaced by a fundamentally Christological issue arising out of the dispute over the Sabbath (5:16-18), and this in turn leads to an extended discourse concerning Jesus’ relationship with the Father, and the Scriptures that bear witness to him (5:19-47). Although the miracles of ch. 6 evoke superficial acclaim (6:14-15, 26), that allegiance cannot endure Jesus’ teaching: even many of his disciples abandon him (6:66). By ch. 7, he is being charged with demon-possession (7:20), and, amidst profound confusion in the masses, the authorities try to arrest him (7:30), but without success (7:45-52). Throughout this rising clamour, Jesus progressively reveals himself to be the obedient Son of God, his Father (5:19ff.); the bread of life, the true manna which alone can give life to the world (6:51); the one who alone can provide the thirst-quenching drink of the Spirit (7:37-39).[20]

This incident in John 5 does two things. First, it discloses the wickedness of unbelieving Jews, especially of unbelieving Jewish leaders. Our text describes a man who has been handicapped for 38 years. Jesus sees him and takes pity on him, not because he is pious, but because he has suffered so long. Jesus heals him without even requiring faith of him. Jesus then seeks the man out, warning him about continuing in his sin. And what does this man do? He informs the Jewish leaders of our Lord’s identity. If he knows that the Jews have already purposed to kill Jesus (as John tells us in our text), then he turns Jesus over to be killed.

As a result of our Lord’s gracious miracle, these Jewish leaders are seen for who they are. They suppose that they love God and their fellow man, in obedience to the law of Moses. They think themselves pious, and expect to be the first to enter the kingdom of God. Indeed, they expect a prominent leadership role in that kingdom. And yet when Jesus comes to town and heals a paralytic, their only concern is that the healed man is “walking illegally” (with his mat). They hardly seem to notice or care that the man is “walking”—the paralytic has been healed! And then, because Jesus has performed such a miracle, they begin to persecute the Son of God.[21] When Jesus points out that this is exactly who He is, they redouble their efforts to kill Him. The wickedness of man never ceases to amaze us.

The second thing this incident in John’s Gospel does is to provide the occasion for Jesus to state very clearly (and very early in this Gospel) just who He is. I have often heard someone say, “Just who do you think you are?” Jesus tells these Jewish leaders who He is, and they do not like it at all.

Here, my friend, is the most important point of all. Who Jesus is makes all the difference in the world. Some ignorantly or foolishly say that Jesus did not claim to be God. They have not read the Gospels well, and they can hardly have read John’s Gospel at all! John tells us that Jesus is God (John 1). He now tells us that Jesus claims to be God (chapter 5—not to mention chapters 3 and 4). And he tells us as well that Jesus’ claim to be God is the reason why the Jews feel justified in resolving to put Him to death.

It is completely clear that John claims Jesus is God come down to earth, having taken on human flesh. It is clear that Jesus claims to be God, having come from the Father in heaven. And it is also clear that the Jews understand Him to do so. The issue is not whether our Lord claims to be God, nor whether His enemies think He is claiming to be God. The issue is whether our Lord is who He claims to be.

If Jesus is who He claims to be, then we would expect Him to have authority over sickness, demons, and even death. The signs which He performs show this to be the case. If He is the Son of God, then He also has the authority to act in God’s behalf, indeed, to act as God—healing on the Sabbath, forgiving sins, or cleansing the temple. Everything our Lord says and does hangs on this single issue: is Jesus who He claims to be? If He is, then we should accept His words as the very words of God. We should cast ourselves upon Him for the forgiveness of our sins and for the gift of eternal life. In John’s words, we should “believe” and have life in His name (20:31).

The most important question you will ever answer is this: “Who is Jesus Christ?” John gives us the answer, clearly. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who speaks and acts for God, and as God. Jesus Christ is the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” He is the only One through whom your sins can be forgiven, the only way to heaven (John 14:6). Do you believe this? John wrote this Gospel to convince you of this truth (20:31). Believing on Him is the only way to heaven. Rejecting Him is to remain destined for hell. It is as simple as that. These are not my words; they are His words, and you must determine whether or not you believe Him. Believing His words does not make them true, any more than denying them makes them false. You should believe them because they are true, because they are spoken by the Son of God. Believing them does save you, and rejecting them proves you worthy of eternal condemnation (hell).

It is not without significance that John selects this miracle as further evidence of Jesus’ identity as the Messiah. Note the words of the prophet Isaiah, and compare them not only with the story of the healing of the paralytic in our text, but with the healing of the lame man in Acts 3:

4 Say to those who are fearful-hearted, “Be strong, do not fear! Behold, your God will come with vengeance, With the recompense of God; He will come and save you.” 5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, And the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. 6 Then the lame shall leap like a deer, And the tongue of the dumb sing. For waters shall burst forth in the wilderness, And streams in the desert (Isaiah 35:4-6, NKJV).

1 Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time for prayer, at three o’clock in the afternoon. 2 And a man lame from birth was being carried up, who was placed every day at the temple gate called the ‘Beautiful Gate’ so he could ask for money from those going into the temple courts. 3 When he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple courts, he asked them for money. 4 Peter looked directly at him (as did John) and said, “Look at us!” 5 So the lame man paid attention to them, expecting to receive something from them. 6 But Peter said, “I have no silver or gold, but what I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, stand up and walk!” 7 Then Peter took hold of him by the right hand and raised him up, and at once the man’s feet and ankles were made strong. 8 He jumped up, stood and began walking around, and he entered the temple courts with them, walking and leaping and praising God. 9 All the people saw him walking and praising God, 10 and they recognized him as the man who used to sit and ask for donations at the Beautiful Gate of the temple, and they were filled with astonishment and amazement at what had happened to him (Acts 3:1-10).

Our text has several more lessons to teach us, which I shall briefly mention.

We cannot help but notice that those who are most in the wrong here are those who are most assured of being right. Wanting to be right, and thinking you are right are not the same as being right. There are few evils as great as doing wrong in the name of doing what is right. “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20, NKJV).

Those who do evil in the name of doing right are also those who call Jesus evil for being right and doing what is right.

Doing what is right does not always result in a righteous or a rewarding response. Doing what is right is always the right thing to do. Doing what is right may very well produce a favorable response. But we must also remember Jesus’ words that if men rejected and persecuted Him, they will certainly do so to us. If our Lord’s good deed resulted in betrayal by the recipient of a supernatural healing, and persecution by the Jewish religious leaders, let us expect that our good deeds may also produce unpleasant responses.

18 “If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own. But because you do not belong to the world, but I chose you out of the world, for this reason the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they obeyed my word, they will obey yours too. 21 But they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. But they no longer have any excuse for their sin. 23 The one who hates me hates my Father too. 24 If I had not performed among them the miraculous deeds that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen the deeds and have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this happened to fulfill the word that is written in their law, ‘They hated me without reason’” (John 15:18-25).

This passage is a reminder of the “weakness” of signs and wonders, and of the power of God’s Word. Signs and wonders do not necessarily produce faith, and the faith they do produce is second-class, in and of itself (2:23-25). Here, the miracle Jesus performs does not even produce faith in the one who is healed. The paralytic betrays our Lord by identifying Him to the authorities. Signs and wonders are something like illegal “drugs”—they may produce a spectacular effect at the beginning, but as time goes on, there is a demand for more and more. Signs and wonders have a diminishing effect. They are not wrong, for John uses them in this Gospel to convince his readers that Jesus is the Messiah, so that men and women might believe in His name and obtain the gift of eternal life.

While signs seem to produce fewer and fewer saints, the word of our Lord is mighty. Jesus does not need the angel-troubled waters of the pool of Bethesda to heal the paralytic. He does not even need the faith of this disabled man. All that is required is His word. At His command, the man who has been disabled for 38 years gets up and walks—not only walks, but carries his bed with him. He who is the Word, the Logos, who created the world with a word, is the One who heals with but a word. We should thus heed His words, for they are spirit and life (John 6:63).

Finally, we see in our text a beautiful example of sovereign grace. Grace is God’s unmerited favor, God’s undeserved goodness. Because it is grace, and cannot be earned, it must be sovereignly bestowed. That is, grace is not bestowed upon men because of who they are or what they have done. Grace is not given to those who are worthy and withheld from the unworthy. Men are always unworthy of the grace God sovereignly bestows upon them. Knowing what we know, who of us would have selected this fellow to be healed, rather than some other individual? Jesus heals this man, knowing him as well as He knew the woman at the well. He knows this man’s sin, which he persists in practicing up to the moment of his healing and beyond. Jesus knows this man will turn Him in to the authorities, who are determined to kill Him. This man is the recipient of God’s grace, not because of who he is, but because of the kindness of our Lord alone. If we are honest, we will quickly admit that we, too, are unworthy recipients of His grace as demonstrated by our salvation.

Pressing this point further, notice that our Lord ministers to this ailing man, knowing he will not come to faith. Jesus serves this man who will not be saved. Jesus does not just serve to save. That is, He does not just serve those who will be saved. He serves because of who He is, not because of the worthiness of those served. Let us be careful that we do not serve men, assuming they will be saved. They may not be saved, no matter how much we serve them. We, like our Lord, serve out of the depths of the love God has given us for others, regardless of whether that love is reciprocated or rewarded by those whom we serve.

Addendum: An Important Question

Allow me to raise a question which may be on your mind: “Why doesn’t Jesus heal the others who are ailing at the pool of Bethesda? If Jesus is able (and surely He is), why doesn’t Jesus heal everyone at the pool that day?” My first “tongue-in-cheek” answer is that Jesus is leaving some for the apostles to heal, after His resurrection and ascension. For example, there was the crippled man healed by Peter and John on their way to the temple in Acts 3. However, this is not a satisfactory answer. Let us pursue the matter further then.

First, I must remind you that this question is not entirely academic. Jesus is still able to heal every sick person. God still heals today, but only a few, rather than all. The answer to the above question is also the answer to those who desire that God heal all the sick today.

Second, healing is a manifestation of God’s sovereign grace. No one deserves to be healed. Thus, no one has the right to complain if God does not heal them. We have no more right to complain about not being healed than we do to complain about not being a millionaire. If grace is undeserved, and sovereignly bestowed, then God is free to heal those whom He heals and not to heal the rest.

Third, it is very wrong to conclude that those who are not healed by God are those from whom God’s grace has necessarily been withheld. Do not understand me to say that those whom God heals are those who receive grace, and that those who are not healed are those from whom grace has been withheld. God may very well manifest His grace through physical affliction. One’s physical affliction may be that which God uses to draw men to Himself. How many healthy people came to Jesus for grace? But God may also use physical affliction in the life of the Christian to produce spiritual depth and growth, and thus to be a blessing to others (see 2 Corinthians 1:3-11).

 

Fourth, let us look at a text which deals directly with the question at hand:

29 Now as soon as they left the synagogue they went to the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. 30 Simon’s mother-in-law was lying down with a fever, so they spoke to Jesus at once about her. 31 He came and raised her by taking her hand. Then the fever left her and she began to serve them. 32 When it was evening, after sunset, they brought to him all who were sick and demon-possessed. 33 The whole town gathered by the door. 34 So he healed many sick with various diseases and drove out many demons. But he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him. 35 Then Jesus got up in the darkness of the early morning and went out to a deserted place, and there he spent time in prayer. 36 Simon and his companions searched for him. 37 When they found him, they said, “Everyone is looking for you.” 38 He answered, “Let us go elsewhere, into the surrounding villages, so that I can preach there too. For that is what I came to do.” 39 So he went into all of Galilee preaching in their synagogues and casting out demons (Mark 1:29-39).

For our Lord, one healing leads to many healings. Jesus heals Simon Peter’s mother-in-law. Word gets out, and by evening, a crowd of sick people assemble outside the door. Jesus graciously heals those who gather. In the morning, an even greater multitude has gathered, and yet Jesus is nowhere to be found. Simon and his companions set out to look for Jesus and find Him praying. Simon’s words (paraphrased) are almost a rebuke: “Lord, where have you been! What are you doing out here, praying? There is a huge crowd of sick people waiting for you back at my mother-in-law’s house. Let’s get going; there’s work to do!”

Does Jesus not care about these sick people? Of course He does. But He also knows that it is a never-ending problem. The more He heals, the more will come to Him for healing. The more who come, the more time He will spend healing. Jesus knows what His mission is. His mission is not primarily to heal, but to proclaim the good news of the gospel. In importance, His healing ministry is secondary. It accredits His ministry and message. It sets Him apart from other teachers. Here is a man who “teaches with authority,” by not only speaking about God’s grace, but by demonstrating it! Jesus heals very selectively because of His mission. In addition, He heals selectively because man’s primary problem is not sickness, but sin. In many cases, men’s ailments are used of God to bring them to faith.

For our Lord, healing the sick is a “tempting” thing to do. He cares about our sickness and our suffering. He is constantly moved with compassion toward those who are afflicted. Healing is also the easy thing for Him to do. It is not so much for His healing, but for His teaching that Jesus is opposed, rejected, and even crucified. Healing would make Jesus too popular, too quickly, and thus undermine His mission of proclaiming the truth—and ultimately of dying on the cross of Calvary to atone for man’s sins. Jesus purposes not to heal everyone who is sick, because that is not His primary calling, and it can become a hindrance to His priority of proclaiming the good news of the gospel.

One final observation: Jesus does not heal all because His mission is to bring about a much deeper and much more permanent healing from our sins:

I said, “LORD, be merciful to me; Heal my soul, for I have sinned against You” (Psalm 41:4, NKJV).

Who forgives all your iniquities, Who heals all your diseases (Psalm 103:3, NKJV).

He sent His word and healed them, And delivered them from their destructions (Psalm 107:20, NKJV).

He heals the brokenhearted And binds up their wounds (Psalm 147:3, NKJV).

But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed (Isaiah 53:5, NKJV).

This “healing” He offers to all who will receive Him as the “Lamb of God,” as the One who died in the sinner’s place, bearing the guilt and penalty for their sins. Have you experienced this healing? It is offered to all who will receive it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] Barbara Seuling, More Whacky Laws (New York: Scholastic Inc., 1975).

[2] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), p. 305, fn. 25.

[3] J. W. Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1939), p. 161.

[4] Rav Yehoshua Y. Neuwirth, Shemirath Shabbath: A Guide to the Practical Observance of Shabbath, English edition, prepared by W. Grangewood (Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1984).

[5] Ibid, p. xxx.

[6] Ibid, p. xxxii.

[7] Ibid, p. 1.

[8] Ibid, p. 17.

[9] Ibid, p. 11.

[10] This is my understanding of the view expressed on pages 66-67.

[11] Ibid, pp. 141-142.

[12] Ibid, p. 146.

[13] Ibid, p. 154.

[14] Morris, p. 306, fn. 28.

[15] Hendriksen, p. 190.

[16] Carson, p. 243.

[17] Hendriksen, p. 192.

[18] “This healing differs from many others in that, not only is there no mention of faith on the part of the man, but there seems no room for it. The man did not even know Jesus’ name (v. 13) … Jesus is not limited by man as He works the works of God.” Morris, pp. 303-304.

[19] Carson, p. 243.

[20] Carson, p. 240.

[21] “We are thus introduced to a theme which is important in the rest of this Gospel. Jesus does His mighty works, His ‘signs.’ But, instead of faith, strenuous opposition is aroused among the national religious leaders.” Morris, pp. 298-299.