Healing and Justice

 Below is a rough translation and too many preliminary comments about John 5:1-9, one of the Revised Common Lectionary options for the sixth Sunday of Easter in Year C. What an intriguing story that demands us to consider how we are disposed to reading it. I think one of the biggest distractions in the Christian Church is that we are too focused on the miraculous, so the nitty gritty details of the story pass us by. But, I'll save that for Sunday's sermon.

 

¹ Μετὰ ταῦτα ἦν ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, καὶ ἀνέβη Ἰησοῦς εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα.

After these things was a festival of the Judeans, and Jesus went up into Jerusalem. 

ἦν: IAI 3s, εἰμί to be

ἀνέβη: AAI 3s, ἀναβαίνω to go up

1. After these things – In c. 4, Jesus has the conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well, and then returns to Galilee and particularly to Cana, where he heals the son of a royal official, the “second sign that Jesus did after coming from Judea to Galilee.”

2. In Mark, Jesus only goes to Jerusalem for the last week of his life and expressly to die and be raised there. In John, Jesus goes back and forth. In fact, chapter 6 begins, “After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, also called the Sea of Tiberias.” I don’t know enough about travel in the first century levant to know what to think of this repeated traverse back and forth.  

 

² ἔστιν δὲ ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ κολυμβήθρα ἡ ἐπιλεγομένη Ἑβραϊστὶ Βηθζαθά, πέντε στοὰς ἔχουσα.

Yet in Jerusalem there is by the sheep-market/gate a pool which is called in Hebrew Bethzatha, having five porches.

ἔστιν: PAI 3s, εἰμί to be

ἐπιλεγομένη: PMPart nsf, ἐπιλέγω to call

ἔχουσα: PAPart nsf, ἔχω to have

1. The word προβατικος is a unique form of πρόβατον, the common word for “sheep.” Translations typically go with either “sheep-gate” or “sheep-market.” I am unfamiliar with shepherding practices in the first century, but one can imagine that any sort of “farm to table” practice involving cattle needs some considerable space dedicated to it, near but not necessarily in the city itself. The difficulty for me is to imagine this space next to a pool that is known to have healing qualities.  

2. The noun κολυμβήθρα (pool) is only found in the NT in this story and in the story of the man born blind in c.9 (pool of Siloam).  That story seems to parallel this story in many ways, such as the note that the healing takes place on the Sabbath, and the religious leaders accosting the healed person. (The blind man is sassier than the man in our story.)

A verbal form of the word is in Acts 27:43, meaning to ‘swim,’ and a close cousin is in the previous verse, Acts 27:42, also meaning to ‘swim.’ 

3. While this verse literally says “Hebrew” (Ἑβραϊστὶ), translations might translate it as “Aramaic” with an annotation that says, “Or Hebrew” (ESV); or will translate it “Hebrew” with an annotation that says, “That is, Aramaic” (NRSV). The NIV and KJV do not have annotations, the NIV simply translates it as “Aramaic” while the KJV has “Hebrew.” Ergo, I’m leaning toward “Yiddish.”

4. The word στοὰς gets interesting translations. The NIV and ESV have “colonnades,” while the KJV and YLT have “porches.” The NSRV has “porticos.” Being from the south, I’m reluctant to use “porches” because that seems to be the thing on the front of the house where one sits to visit with passersby. But “colonnade” and “portico” seem unfamiliar to me, except in the 4 instances this term appears in the NT and I don’t think the term is intended to be exotic. It is a way of providing cover from the sun and rain. Would “awning” be too colloquial? Shades? Umbrellas? Cabanas? 

 

³ ἐν ταύταις κατέκειτο πλῆθος τῶν ἀσθενούντων, τυφλῶν, χωλῶν, ξηρῶν.

In these lay many of the infirmed, blind, lame, paralyzed. 

κατέκειτο: IMI 3s, κατάκειμαι to lay

1. The pronoun ταύταις is plural, so a reference to the five στοὰς, not the singular pool.

2. I am relying on lexicons and other helps to translate words, especially when they do not arise very often. Four such words appear here, each of them in the plural genitive form. ἀσθενούντων is often translated simply as “the sick” but sometimes as “infirmed, enfeebled, etc. It is the word John uses to describe Lazarus in his illness leading to his death. τυφλῶν seems more common, at least to me, appearing often in c.9. with the long story of the healing of the blind man. χωλῶν only appears once in John, here. It is the word used in the story of the lame man healed at the beautiful gate in Acts 3. And ξηρῶν seems used the least. This is the only use in John’s gospel, but in the synoptics it is used to describe a man with a withered hand. The NIV, ESV, and NRSV translate ξηρῶν as paralyzed, so that’s what I’m going with.

3. Grammatically, I'm noticing that the NRSV, ESV, and NIV see the last three nouns - τυφλῶν, χωλῶν, and ξηρῶν - as subsets of ἀσθενούντων. So, something like “many invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed.” 

 

There is no v. 3b or v. 4 in the earlier, more reliable manuscripts, so they end up in older translations, like the KJV or Youngs Literal Translation. 

1. Here, I think we get a first-hand glimpse at mythmaking, which starts with filling in the lines of a story that suggests things but doesn’t fully explain them. In v.6, the sick man explains that he is not healed because whenever the water is stirred someone gets in before him. The addition of vv. 3b and 4 seems to be a Scribe’s attempt to explain what that cryptic comment is all about. 

2. So, 3b and 4 in the KJV “…waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.”

 

⁵ ἦν δέ τις ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖ τριάκοντα [καὶ] ὀκτὼ ἔτη ἔχων ἐν τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ αὐτοῦ·

Yet there was a certain man having thirty [and] eight years in his infirmity.

ἦν: IAI 3s, εἰμί to be

ἔχων: PAPart nsm, ἔχω to have

1. I’m trying to reflect the preposition “ἐν,” which I typically translate as “in” when it is followed by the dative case. I think a refined translation might read something like “having his infirmity for 38 years” or even “having [lived] in his infirmity 38 years.” 

2. ἀσθενείᾳ is the singular form of ἀσθενούντων from the list in v.3. 

 

⁶ τοῦτον ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς κατακείμενον, καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει, λέγει αὐτῷ,Θέλεις ὑγιὴς γενέσθαι;

Jesus having seen this laying one and having known that he is having already a long time, says to him, “Do you want to become whole?”

ἰδὼν: AAPart nsm, εἴδω to see

κατακείμενον: PMPart asm, κατάκειμαι to lay 

γνοὺς: AAPart nsm, γινώσκω to know

ἔχει: PAI 3s, ἔχω to have
λέγει: PAI 3s, λέγω to say

Θέλεις: PAI 2s, θέλω to wish

γενέσθαι: AMInf, γίνομαι to become 

1. Seeing the one lying there is one thing; knowing that he has long been in this state of need is quite another. The narrator simply tells us that Jesus’ words are a result of his having seen and having known (aorist participles). It is hard to say if the implication is that there is something about his appearance that suggests he had been there a long time, or whether Jesus simply has that kind of insight. 

2. It is always a little puzzling when Jesus asks anyone who has been described in terms of an illness or malady if they want to be healthy or whole. While today I would argue that we ought not to assume that every blind person wants to see or every deaf person wants to hear, that does seem to be the presumption in biblical stories … until Jesus asks that question. It may be the greatest sign of Jesus’ regard for the agency of those who are infirmed, etc., instead of simply seeing them as victims. 

3. John only uses the word ὑγιὴς (healthy or whole) in this story, but uses it a lot in this story (vv. 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15), and in a reference to this story in 7:23. 

 

⁷ ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ ὁ ἀσθενῶν, Κύριε, ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ἔχω ἵνα ὅταν ταραχθῇ τὸ ὕδωρ βάλῃ με εἰς τὴν κολυμβήθραν· ἐν ᾧ δὲ ἔρχομαι ἐγὼ ἄλλος πρὸ ἐμοῦ καταβαίνει.

The infirmed one answered him, “Lord, I have no person in order that when the water is stirred they might place me into the pool; yet while I am going in another steps down before me.” 

ἀπεκρίθη: API 3s, ἀποκρίνω to answer

ἔχω: PAI 1s, ἔχω to have 

ταραχθῇ: APSubj 3s, ταράσσω to trouble

βάλῃ: AASubj 3s, βάλλω to throw 

ἔρχομαι: PMI 1s, ἔρχομαι to come

καταβαίνει: PAI 3s, καταβαίνω to come down

1. This is the curious reference to the stirring of the water and the need to get in before others that the addition of vv. 3b and 4 tries to explain. And, indeed, it needs some kind of explanation, yes? 
2. I have visited a pool/lake at the bottom of a volcano near Allegria in El Salvador, which has small eruptions of bubbles here and there, I suppose from the magma underneath the lakebed. It is very sulfuric, and local persons go there at times to soak their feet, especially if they have any skin disorders or wounds. Like many hot springs, it brings relief or healing. 

3. While the added vv. 3b and 4 are good enough attempts to explain the enigmatic comment here, I think the point is not the magic of the waters, angelically stirred or not, but a three-part tragedy. 

A. The tragic vicious cycle of someone whose infirmity is what prevents them from obtaining the very healing that they need. 

B. The tragic competitive nature of the cure, where one has to step in before others.

C. The tragedy of solitude. How sad to say, “I have no one to assist.” Perhaps his greatest need is not a cure or magic, but community or family.  

 

⁸ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς,Ἔγειρε ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ περιπάτει.

Jesus says to him, “Rise, take up your mat and walk.” 

λέγει: PAI 3s, λέγω to say

Ἔγειρε: PAImpv 2s, ἐγείρω to rise

ἆρον: AAImpv 2s, αἴρω to take up 

περιπάτει: PAImpv 2s, περιπατέω to walk

1. While “Rise, take up your mat and walk” points to a powerful, miraculous healing, so does an angel stirring the waters and ‘first one in gets a healing.’ And so is any sort of healing even if it is not easily obtainable by someone caught in their own tragic cycle, wrapped in winner/loser competition, or unobtainable apart from a community of help. The difference between those possibilities of healing in this pool and the words of Jesus is that Jesus’ words come without the tragic cycle, competition, or reliance on others. Jesus does not even say, “Here, take my hand.”  He says, “Get up, take your mat, and walk.” 

2. As we will see, the “take up your mat” part of this command causes trouble. Within this pericope, we only get a glimpse of that trouble with the last phrase in the next verse.

 

⁹ καὶ εὐθέως ἐγένετο ὑγιὴς ὁ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ ἦρεν τὸν κράβαττον αὐτοῦ καὶ περιεπάτει. Ἦν δὲ σάββατον ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ.

And immediately the man became whole, and took his mat and was walking. Yet that day was a Sabbath. 

ἐγένετο: AMI 3s, γίνομαι to become

ἦρεν: AAI 3s, αἴρω to take up

περιεπάτει: IAI 3s, περιπατέω to walk

Ἦν: IAI 3s, εἰμί to be

 1. This should probably be two sentences: The first is the conclusion to the man’s healing story; the second the tantalizing comment about it being the Sabbath, which becomes the basis of the criticisms that the authorities have toward the man and then toward Jesus. 

2. In Jesus’ case, the criticisms of violating the Sabbath become life-threatening and carry over several chapters. 

3. The same dynamics are at play in c. 9 with the healing of the blind man. That man’s parents were interrogated about him and answered, “He is our son. He was born blind. We do not know how his eyes were opened. He is of age, so ask him yourself.” The narrator then says, “His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue.” 

4. Similarly, the authorities will begin plotting Jesus’ death after he raises Lazarus. And they begin plotting Lazarus’ death.  

 

Comments: I’m intrigued by Elizabeth Johnson’s article in Working Preacher about this man. She is pretty hard on him. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/sixth-sunday-of-easter-3/commentary-on-john-51-9  

Johnson introduces that man as “perhaps the least willing and the least grateful of all the people Jesus heals in John’s Gospel.” She contrasts a simple “Yes” in response to Jesus’ question in v. 6 to the man’s “complaint” that he has no one to put him in the water. Hence, in v.8 “Jesus responds to the man’s complaint” by saying, “Stand up, take your mat and walk.” Johnson goes on to tell the part of the story that exceeds the RCL pericope: When the man is confronted by the Judean authorities, the man says he does not know who it was who healed him, but says that is who told him to violate the Sabbath by carrying his mat. Later after speaking again with Jesus, the man tells the authorities that it was Jesus who healed him, endangering Jesus’ life. While each of those observations is true enough, it seems to me that Johnson chooses to present this story through the most critical of lenses. For example, “he deflects blame to the man who healed him, whose name he has not even bothered to learn.” And, “Perhaps the man thinks that if the authorities go after Jesus, they will leave him alone.” Likewise, while Jesus words in 5:14, “Do not sin anymore, so that nothing worse happens to you” raise the question of the relationship between sin and infirmity (it comes up again with the blind man in c.9), Johnson says simply, “The ‘sin’ that Jesus refers to is the sin of unbelief.” 

Johnson’s rhetorical choices lead to a notable point: “[H]ere we see that the compassion and healing power of Jesus are not reserved only for those who are ‘deserving’ — for those whose faith is great and who respond to healing by believing in and following Jesus. Certainly Jesus heals such people also. But here Jesus heals one whose lack of faith leads him to cooperate with those who persecute Jesus, who even seek to kill Jesus.” 

I appreciate Johnson’s perspective, particularly her argument, “But this passage makes it clear that healing is not a matter of having ‘enough’ faith (as if that could be measured).” 

 

However, I would suggest a different starting point, bearing more sympathy for the lame man.  

1. If we wear a sympathetic lens, we have to stop and marvel at the phrase “38 years.” If Jesus were around 30-33 years old (which is the common math that we use, although it is a bit arguable), this man was infirmed before Mary bore Jesus, before John the Baptizer was born, before disciples were called, etc. Except John’s opening prologue, all of the things that we read in the gospels happened after this man had become infirmed. That’s a long and difficult time. 

2. To repeat what I said above, This man is caught in a tragic vicious cycle of someone whose infirmity is what prevents them from obtaining the very healing that they need, as well as a tragic competitive nature of the cure, where one has to step in before others, and a tragedy context of solitude, with “no one to assist.” 

3. If the stories of c.9 and c.11 are any indication, the religious authorities are not merely asking questions. They are accusing, looking for reasons to kill Jesus and not opposed to persecuting those who are associated with Jesus. While we could explain the man’s responses to the authorities as cowardice, complicity, or ingratitude, we ought to recognize that his fear is well-grounded.