John 5:1-16

Redefining the Sabbath

John 5:1-9     Jesus Heals on the Sabbath

1 After this there was a festival of the Jews,
and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

The first festival to be examined was not identified. However, the event would become the occasion to explore the meaning of another precious Jewish celebration, the weekly Sabbath.

2 In Jerusalem, near the Sheep Gate,
there is a pool, called Bethzatha in Hebrew,
with five colonnades.
3 Under these was a crowd of invalids - blind, lame and crippled.

From earliest times, the pool, apparently, had been regarded as possessing healing capabilities.

5 There was a man there who had been ill for thirty-eight years.

If the author saw a meaning in the number thirty-eight, it is no longer obvious.

6 Jesus saw the man lying there.  
He realised that he had been there a long time,
and said to him, “Would you like me to make you well?”

Jesus took the initiative.

7 The invalid answered,
“Sir, I have no one to throw me into the pool when the water is stirred.  
When I go down myself, someone else gets down before me.”

The man did not respond to Jesus’ question. Instead, he complained of his bad luck. Not surprisingly, he had no idea at all of Jesus' identity, or of his ability or willingness to heal him. The narrative assumed that the water of the pool, fed by its own springs, must have noticeably stirred on occasion. The sick man, and, presumably, the other invalids present, believed that, after the waters were stirred, the first person to enter the water could be cured. He had never succeeded to reach the water in time – and blamed everyone else. He was a man without hope.

8 Jesus said to him, “Stand up, pick up your stretcher and start walking.”
9 Immediately the man became well.  
He picked up his stretcher and walked around.

The man did what he was told. The healing was described with a minimum of detail or fuss. Significantly, however, the outcome of Jesus’ action was wider than mere physical healing. The man was made well.

… That day was a sabbath. 

Whatever the actual festival may have been, the focus of the discussion would become Sabbath observance.

For Jews, the Sabbath was a celebration of the completion of God’s creative activity – the seventh day, a day of rest after the six days of creation. History continued, but creation was complete. They allowed no room for the “God of surprises” or for God's creative energy to unfold further.

Over the years, the Sabbath had also acquired a further meaning. As a day of rest, it celebrated the liberation of the Hebrew slaves from their relentless labour in Egypt.

It was a day to recognise God; and a day to take gentle care of themselves. They stopped work and they prayed as community to God. 

John 5:10-16     Beginnings of Criticism

10 So the Jews said to the man who had been healed,
“It is the Sabbath.  
It is not lawful for you to carry your stretcher.”

The Jews challenged the man for breaking the regulations of Sabbath observance, which forbade carrying of objects.

In this case, the term Jews would not refer to Jews in general but to the particular group who saw the man carrying his stretcher and who challenged him. In the Jerusalem of Jesus’ time, everyone was a Jew; Jesus was a Jew; the disciples were Jews – as were Pharisees, priests, etc. 

By calling the champions of the Law and opponents of Jesus, Jews, the author indicated that, by the time he was writing, mainstream non-Christian Jews were being categorised by their Christian counterparts, simply, as Jews. Unlike the Gospel’s author (who, however, knew that he was referring chiefly to influential persons in the local synagogue), discerning readers need to be careful not to generalize, and, certainly, not to adopt a negative attitude to Jews as a people.

The attitude of the Jews was remarkable, but not unusual. People see what they want to see. The Jews did not see a striking sign and the inevitable questions it raised – they saw an infringement of their law. Their response illustrates the power of all closed systems (religious or otherwise) to blind their adherents to the obvious.

The issue of Sabbath observance had become critical by the time that the Gospel was written. After the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, and the devastation and depopulation of the nation in the year 70, the need to maintain Jewish identity throughout the Diaspora had assumed major importance. Jews effectively identified themselves as distinct and different from their neighbours by circumcision, kosher food laws and Sabbath observance. To undermine any of these practices was to destabilise their threatened identity as a “holy people” worshipping a “sacred” God.

The Gospel was not written to give historical details about the past, but to throw light on the Christian struggle to live in the present.

11 But he answered them “The one who healed me,
he told me. ‘Pick up your stretcher and start walking’.”

The man’s answer has been interpreted differently by commentators. In one view, the invalid, who had blamed others for beating him to the healing waters, now blamed Jesus. His whole life had been focussed on his own predicament, and he could not see beyond himself and his own interests.

Another view notices the man’s description of Jesus, in contrast to that made by the Jews. For him, Jesus was the man who healed me; for them, he was the violator of law.

12 So they asked him, “Who is it who told you, ‘Pick up your stretcher and walk’?” 

The Jews’ question was not motivated by a desire to explore further implications of the healing and the mind and message of Jesus, but by their need to interrogate and condemn Jesus.

13 But the man who had been healed did not know;
for Jesus had moved away from the crowd at the place.

After his being made well, the former invalid had simply walked away – perhaps, without a word of recognition or of thanks, or, on the other hand, in immediate obedience to Jesus’ direction to pick up your stretcher and start walking. One way or the other, he had no idea where Jesus had gone.

14 Later on, Jesus came across him in the temple,
and said to him, “Look, you have been healed.
See that you do not sin again, lest something worse happens to you.” 

By advising the man not to sin again, Jesus recognised that he had sinned in the past, but he was not claiming that the man’s previous condition was a punishment from God. Indeed, uninvited, Jesus had taken the initiative to make him well. Yet, suffering can result from sinful behaviour, even if it be the unconscious sin expressed in self-absorption, resentment of others or loss of hope.

Whatever about further physical suffering, Jesus was interested in the man’s ultimate experience of life to the full. He wanted him to savour his new experience of being made well. To lose the wellness of eternal life by the choice to sin would be far worse than sickness.

Problem – Working on the Sabbath

15 The man went off and told the Jews
that it was Jesus who had healed him.

The meaning of the original Greek is ambiguous. The present translation could give the impression of the man’s colluding with the critics. However, the original could also mean that the man went back “proclaiming” that Jesus was not so much the one who broke the Sabbath, as the one who had made him well.

16 This was the reason that the Jews vigourously opposed Jesus,
because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.

The blindness of the critics carried a cautionary note for the readers. They, too, could become people who see only what they want to see (or only what their culture, or sub-culture, allows them to see).


Interpreting Confrontation

The incident marked the intensification of on-going criticism and virulent opposition to Jesus, which would unfold throughout the rest of the narrative. No doubt, it reflected much of the actual experience of the historical Jesus. Its bitterness, however, reflected the continuing arguments between the disciples in the author’s Christian community and their opponents, which had led, eventually, to the disciples’ exclusion from the synagogue.

The author would make use of the literary technique of opposition and argument to emphasise his teaching on the uniqueness of Jesus and of Jesus’ relationship to his Father. Though Jews would be the driving force behind the confrontation, they were not the ones for whom the narrative was written. The Beloved Disciple’s first concern was to use the dialogue to clarify and deepen the faith of the believers already belonging to his community. 

In interpreting the discussions, it is important to read the interventions of Jesus in the light of his non-violent love and respect for people, even his enemies. To see Jesus adopting the same offensive and vitriolic language as his adversaries is to misread the text. The author wished to show Jesus as assertive, but not aggressive. His interventions are to be seen as aiming consistently to educate and lead to self-awareness, not to score points.


Next >> John 5:17-30