《Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures – John (Ch. 4~Ch. 8》(Johann P. Lange) 04 Chapter 4

Footnotes:

FN#95 - John 4:43.—[The article refers, of course, to the δύο ἡμέρας in John 4:40.—P. S.]

FN#96 - John 4:43.—Codd. B. C. D. omit: καὶ ἀπῆλθεν; but A. supports the Recepta. Tischendorf omits the words. Meyer also rejects them. But it is evident that they have been omitted through failure to perceive their import. The Evangelist would distinguish between the departure for Galilee in the wider sense, and the removal to Upper Galilee, called by him simply Galilee, in the provincial sense. [The received text is in favor of Dr. Lange’s interpretation of πατρίς, see Exeg. Notes, but the latest editions reject καὶ ἀπῆλθεν on the authority of the oldest MSS. א. B. C. D. Orig. Cyr.—P. S.]

FN#97 - John 4:43.—[Dr. Lange here inserts in small type the gloss: from Lower Galilee to Upper, thus anticipating his explanation of πατρίς, John 4:41. See the Exeg. Notes.—P. S.]

FN#98 - John 4:46.—This ὁ ̓Ιησοῦς, wanting in most authorities, is added by the textus receptus.

FN#99 - John 4:51.—[Alford brackets καὶ ἀπήγγειλαν. Tischend. ed. VIII. reads καὶ ήγγειλαν with א. D. Westcott and Hort omit it.—P. S.]

FN#100 - John 4:51.—Lachmann: ὁ παῖς αὐτοῦ, after A. B. C. etc. [Tischend, Alf, Mey. likewise adopt ὁ παῖς αὐτοῦ for the easier lect. rec. ὁ παῖς σου, which may have been conformed to ὁ παῖς σου, John 4:50.—P. S.]

FN#101 - Augustine, Tittmann, Kninoel and Bloomfield take γάρ here in the sense of καίπερ, which is against all grammar.—P.S.]

FN#102 - Comp. John 1:46; John 2:1; John 7:3; John 7:41; John 7:52.—P. S.]

FN#103 - Dr. Lange mentions Olshausen after Tholuck. But in the third ed. of his Com, Olshausen refers πατρίς to Nazareth. Dean Alford adopts De Wette’s view, but in his sixth edition he combines with it Luthardt’s (see below, sub5).—P. S.]

FN#104 - Godet pretty nearly agrees with Meyer.—P. S]

FN#105 - Some identify this nobleman with Chuza, Herod’s steward, whose wife Joanna was among the followers and supporters of Jesus, Luke 8:3. A mere conjecture.—P. S.]

FN#106 - Among those who have identified the two, Strauss and others would give the preference for accurate narration to Matthew, Gfrörer and Ewald to John. With Weisse again it is “a misapprehension of a parable.” According to Baur the doctrinal import of the story of Nicodemus and of that of the woman of Samaria is here combined in a third story, teaching: How faith in miracles comes by means of faith in word, and consequently is in reality only such. In other words two critical legends are supposed to be combined in a third, and the Jewish councillor and the Samaritan woman become in this phantasy the Galilean nobleman!
05 Chapter 5
Verses 1-47

SECOND SECTION

Open Antagonism between Christ, as the Light of the World, and the Elements of Darkness in the World, especially in their proper Representatives, Unbelievers, but also in the Better Men, so far as They still belong to the World.

John 5:1 to John 7:9

I

THE FEAST OF THE JEWS AND THE SABBATH OF THE JEWS, AND THEIR OBSERVANCE OF IT: KILLING CHRIST. THE FEAST OF CHRIST AND THE SABBATH OF CHRIST, AND HIS OBSERVANCE OF IT: RAISING THE DEAD. OFFENCE OF THE JUDAISTS IN JERUSALEM AT THE SABBATH-HEALING OF JESUS, AND AT HIS TESTIMONY CONCERNING HIS FREEDOM AND HIS DIVINE ORIGIN (AND BESIDES, DOUBTLESS, AT HIS OUTDOING THE POOL OF BETHESDA). FIRST ASSAULT UPON THE LIFE OF JESUS. CHRIST THE TRUE FOUNT OF HEALING (POOL OF BETHESDA), THE GLORIFIER OF THE SABBATH BY HIS SAVING WORK, THE KAISER OF THE DEAD, THE LIFE AS THE VITAL ENERGY AND HEALING OF THE WORLD, ACCREDITED BY JOHN, BY THE SCRIPTURES, BY MOSES. THE TRUE MESSIAH IN THE FATHER’S NAME, AND FALSE MESSIAHS

Chap5

1. The Healing.

1After this [these things, μετὰ ταῦτα, not τοῦτα] there was a feast^[FN1] of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem 2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market [sheep gate]^[FN2] a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue [in Hebrew, Ἐβραἵστι] Bethesda,^[FN3] having five porches 3 In these lay a great [omit great]^[FN4] multitude of impotent folk [of the sick, or diseased persons], of [omit of] blind, halt [lame], withered, waiting for the moving of the water 4 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 had5[Omit all from waiting to had.]^[FN5] And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity6[who had been in his infirmity]^[FN6] thirty and eight years. When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now [already] a long time in that case,^[FN7] he saith unto 7 him, Wilt [Desirest] thou [to] be made whole? The impotent [sick] man answered him, Sirach, 8 I have no Prayer of Manasseh, when the water is troubled, to put me [carry me quickly, cast me] into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth [goeth] 8down before me. Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk 9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked.

2. The offence at the healing on the sabbath

And on the same [on that] day was the sabbath.^[FN9] 10The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day [omit day]; it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed [to take up the bed]. 11He answered them, He that made me whole, 12the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk. Then^[FN10] asked they [They asked] him, What man is that which [Who is the man that] said unto thee, Take 13 up thy bed, [omit thy bed]^[FN11] and walk? And [But] he that was healed^[FN12] wist [knew] not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away [withdrawn him self], a multitude [or crowd] being in that [the] place 14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a [some, τι] worse thing come unto thee [befall thee]. 15The man departed, and told^[FN13] the Jews that it was Jesus, which [who] had made him whole.

3. The accusation, a twofold accusation, and the vindication of jesus concerning his working on the sabbath, and concerning his claim to be the son of god

16And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus [And for this cause the Jews persecuted (judicially arraigned) Jesus], and sought to slay him [omit and sought to slay him],^[FN14] because he had done these things on the sabbath day [omit day].

17But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto [is working unceasingly even until now, or, up to this time] and I work [am working]. 18Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken [broke, ἔλυεν] the sabbath [according to their opinion], but said also that God was his Father [but also called God his own Father, πατέρα ἴδιον], making himself equal with God.

19Then answered Jesus [to this second accusation] and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do [doing, ποιοῦντα]: for what things soever he doeth, these things also doeth the Son likewise [in like manner]. 20For the Father loveth the Song of Solomon, and sheweth him all things that [which he] himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, [and greater works than these will he show him],^[FN15] that ye may marvel.

4. The saving operation of the Song of Solomon, his quickening in general

21For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will 22 For the Father judgeth no man [Neither doth the Father judge any one], but hath committed all [the entire] judgment unto the Son: 23That all men should [may] honour the Song of Solomon, even [omit even] as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent24[who sent] him.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life, and shall not come [cometh not, οὐχ ἔρχεται] into condemnation [judgment, χρίσιν]; but is passed from [hath passed out of]^[FN16] death unto [into, εὶς] life.—

5. The spiritual raising of the dead now immediately beginning

25Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now Isaiah, when the dead. shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given [gave he] to the Son [also] to have life in himself; 27And hath given [he gave] him authority to execute judgment also [omit also]^[FN17] because he is the [a] Son of man.^[FN18]

6. The future raising of the dead

28Marvel not at this: for the [an] hour is coming, in the [omit the] which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the [a] resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the [a] resurrection of damnation [judgment, χρίσεως].

30I can of mine own self [of myself] do nothing; as I hear [the actual sentence of God], I judge; and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father [him]^[FN19] which hath sent [who sent] me.

7. Testimony of jesus

31If I [myself] bear witness of [concerning] myself, my witness is [according to law of testimony] not true 32 There is another that beareth witness of [concerning] me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of [concerning] me is true.

8. Testimony of john the baptist

33Ye [have] sent [ὰπεστάλκατε] unto John, and he bare [hath borne] witness [μεμαρτύρηχεν ] unto the truth 34 But I receive not testimony [authentication] from [a] man:^[FN20] But these things I say [I speak openly of this matter], that ye [who know of the circumstances] might [may] be saved 35 He was a [the] burning and a shining light [lamp]^[FN21]: and ye were willing for a season [a little while, an hour, πρὸς ὥραν] to rejoice in his light.^[FN22]

9. Testimony of the father in the works of jesus and in the scriptures

36But I have greater witness than that of John^[FN23] for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do [the very works or, the works themselves which I am doing], bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me 37 And the Father himself,^[FN24] which hath sent [who sent] me, hath borne witness of me.^[FN25] Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen [spiritually] his shape 38 And ye have not his word [Old Testament word] abiding [with living power] in you; 39for whom he [himself] hath [omit hath] sent, him ye believe not. Search [Ye do search]^[FN26] the Scriptures; for [because] in them [in the several books and letters] ye 40 think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And [yet] ye will not come to me; that ye might [may] have life [the life of those Scriptures themselves].

10. Incapacity of the jews to know the true messiah, and their disposition to receive false messiahs in spite of the testimony of moses, whose accusation they incur

41I receive not [do not appropriate to myself] honour [glory, δόξαν] from men.^[FN27] 42But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you [are not inwardly directed 43 towards God]. I am [have] come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive 44 How can ye believe, which [who] receive honour [glory] one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only [the glory that is from the only God, or, from him who alone is God]?^[FN28] 45Do not think that I will [shall] accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust [ye hope, or, have placed your hope, ὴλπίχατε]. 46For had ye believed [if ye believed] Moses, ye would have be lieved [ye would believe] me; for he wrote of me 47 But if ye believe not his [not even his] writings, how shall [will] ye believe^[FN29] my words?

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

[Preliminary Remarks.—The healing of a helpless and hopeless cripple at the House of Mercy is the first miracle of Jesus in Judea related by John, although He had performed signs there before, which are only alluded to, 2:23; 3:2. It forms the basis of a lengthy and most important Christological discourse, which opens the conflict of Jesus with the unbelieving Jewish hierarchy, and reveals the contrast between His positive fulfilment of the spirit of the law and their negative observance of its letter, as also between His living theism and their abstract monotheism. His doing good on the Sabbath was made the ground of a charge of Sabbath-breaking, and His claim to be in a peculiar sense the Son of God was construed as blasphemy deserving of death. Christ here proclaims all those grand truths, which John had announced in the Prologue. He reveals Himself as one with the Father, who never ceases doing good, as the Lord of the Sabbath, as the Giver of life, as the Raiser of the dead, and the Judge of the world, and claims divine honor. He supports these astounding claims, which no mere man could make without being guilty of blasphemy or madness, by the united testimony of John the Baptist, of God the Father through His works, and of the O. T. Scriptures, and drives this threefold testimony with terrible earnestness into the conscience of the Jews. He then traces their unbelief to the secret chambers of their self-seeking hearts, and completely turns the tables by presenting their own Moses, in whom they boastfully put their hope, as their accuser for not following his lead to Christ, to whom he pointed in all his writings. Thus the mouths of these hypocritical worshippers of the letter and enemies of the spirit and aim of the law were stopped, but their hearts continued in opposition and longed for an opportunity to carry out their bloody design. The significance of this discourse is well brought out by Dr. Lange in his analysis (see the headings) and in the Doctrinal remarks. Comp. also my concluding note on John 5:47.—P. S.]

John 5:1. After these things.—On the distinction between μετὰ ταῦτα and μετὰ τοῦτο, see Lücke on this passage.^[FN30] Here closes the first great ministry of Jesus in Galilee (see Leben Jesu, II, 2, pp556–745).

A [The] feast of the Jews.—[Which feast? This point is still under dispute, but the controversy is now narrowed down to a choice between the Passover and the Purim. The decision has a bearing on the chronology of the gospel history. If the feast here spoken of be the Passover, then our Lord’s public labors continued during three and a half years, since John notes three other passovers as falling within His ministry, 2:13; 6:4; 12:1,13:1. If not, then the time must in all probability be reduced to two and a half years. On the bearing of the definite article on the question, and the various readings, see Text. Notes.—P. S.] Meyer: “Which feast is meant, appears with certainty from John 4:35; comp6:4. For John 4:35 was spoken in the month of December; and from John 6:4 it appears that the passover was nigh at hand; hence the feast here intended must be one falling between December and the passover, and this is no other than the feast of Purim, which was celebrated on the 14 th and 15 th of Adar ( Esther 9:21 ff.), that Isaiah, in March [one month before the passover], in memory of the deliverance of the nation from the massacre projected by Haman. So Keppler, [who first suggested this view], d’Outrein, Hug, Olshausen, Wieseler, Neander,^[FN31] Krabbe, Anger, Lange, Maier and many others.”^[FN32] Meyer justly adds: The feast is not designated, because it was a minor festival, whereas the greater feasts are named by John: not only the passover, but also the σκηνοπηγία, 7:2, and the ἐγκαίνια 10:22.

[The chief objections to this view are: 1. The feast of Purim was no temple feast, and required no journey to Jerusalem. But Christ may have attended this feast as He attended other festivals (7:2; 10:22) without legal obligation, merely for the purpose of doing good2. The Purim was never celebrated as a Sabbath. But the Sabbath spoken of, John 5:9, may have preceded or succeeded the feast.—P. S.]

Other views of the feast: (1) The passover: Irenæus,^[FN33] Luther, and many more;^[FN34] (2) Pentecost: Cyril [Chrysostom, Calvin], Bengel, etc.; (3) the feast of tabernacles: Cocceius, Ebrard [Ewald]; (4) the feast of dedication: Petavius; (5) a feast which cannot be determined: Lücke, De Wette, [Brückner], Luthardt, Tholuck (7th ed.)^[FN35]

The feast of Purim [יְמֵי הַפוּרִים, or simply פּוּרים lot, from the Persian], Esther 9:24; Esther 9:26; ἡ Μαρδοχαἴκή ἡμέρα, 2 Maccabees 15:36; Joseph. Antiq. xi6, 13. On the 13 th of Adar a fast preceded the feast; in the festival itself the book of Esther (called מְּגִלָה by eminence) was read in the synagogues. As a popular festival it was distinguished, like the feasts of tabernacles, and dedication, by universal rejoicings. Fanaticism in the people naturally sought to make it a festival of triumph over the Gentiles (subsequently over the Christians also). And on this account was this particular feast of Purim so pre-eminently the feast of the Jews (with the article), and the article in the Cod. Sinait. in this place cannot be made to speak exclusively, as Hengstenberg proposes, for the passover.^[FN36] We must no doubt mark a difference between the simple expression, feast, and the expression: feast of the Jews.

John 5:2. Now there is at Jerusalem.—The ἔστι has been interpreted with reference to the porches, as indicating that, at the time of the composition of this passage, Jerusalem had not been destroyed. On this see the Introduction. Eusebius writes in his Onomast. s. v. Βηζαθά: καὶ νῦν δείνυται [but he does not mention the locality]. Yet the ἔστι may also be attributed to rhetorical vivacity.

By the sheep gate.—Ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ sc. πύλῃ.^[FN37]| According to Nehemiah’s topography of the restored city it was what is now Stephen’s gate in the north-east quarter of the city, leading out over Kidron to Gethsemane and the Mount of Olives (Bâb Sitty Merijam, ‘Gate of My Lady Mary;’ also ‘Gate of the Tribes,’ or ‘Porta vallis Josaphat.’ Comp. Winer, Art. Jerusalem, I. p548; Krafft, Die Topographie Jerusalems, p148; Robinson, I. p386; 2:74, 136, 148; Von Raumer, Paläst. p255. [If the Pool of Bethesda is identical with the Fountain of the Virgin (see below), the Sheep Gate cannot well have been St. Stephen’s Gate, which is too far off.—P. S.]

A pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda.—בֵּית חֶסְדָא, house of kindness, grace, gentleness, house of mercy. Tholuck: Institution of charity, Charité. Five porches.—Tobler (Denkblätter von Jerusalem, 1853, p62): So late as the fifth century five porches were still shown. According to his (medical) hypothesis there were five arched compartments for the separation of the patients. Tholuck: Colonnades, porticoes, to shelter the patients from wind and rain; probably the rear one having a wall. Theodore of Mopsuestia imagined one central hall (probably inclosing the pool), and four halls on the circumference of it (perhaps crosswise); this would have been, at all events, the most convenient arrangement for the sick. The outer portions must doubtless have been protected on more than one side.

As to the location of the pool, there is on the outer side of the gate of Stephen a small fishpond or reservoir, and inside the gate the very large, deep reservoir, to which the name of Bethesda is usually given; probably without foundation.^[FN38] It is perfectly dry, and on the bed of it grow large trees, the tops of which do not even reach to the level of the street. In this pool Robinson sees the remains of an old trench which belonged to the fortress of Antonia. He supposes, on the other hand, that the Fountain of the Virgin^[FN39] may have been the pool of Bethesda. Robinson says [Am. ed. of1856, vol. I. p337]:

“On the west side of the valley of Jehoshaphat about twelve hundred feet northward from the rocky point at the mouth of the Tyropœon, [or the valley of the Cheesmongers] is situated the fountain of the Virgin Mary; called by the natives’, ‘Ain um ed-Deraj, Mother of Steps. In speaking of Siloam I have already brought into view the singular fact, that there is no historical notice later than Josephus, which can be applied to this fountain, before near the close of the fifteenth century, and have also mentioned the more modern hypothesis, which regards it as the fountain of Siloam, in distinction from the pool of that name. Others have held it to be the Gihon, the Rogel, and the Dragon-well of Scripture; so that in fact it has been taken alternately for every one of the fountains, which anciently existed at Jerusalem. It is unquestionably an ancient work; indeed there is nothing in or around the Holy City, which bears more distinctly the traces of high antiquity. I have already alluded to the reasons which make it not improbable, that this was the ‘King’s Pool’ of Nehemiah, and the ‘Pool of Solomon’ mentioned by Josephus, near which the wall of the city passed, as it ran northwards from Siloam along the Valley of Jehoshaphat to the eastern side of the temple.” This spring is connected with the well of Siloam by a passage [of about 2 feet wide, 1750 feet long, and cut through the solid rock], through which Robinson and his companions [for the first time] laboriously passed.^[FN40] “The water in both these fountains, he relates [I. p340], is the same; notwithstanding travellers have pronounced that of Siloam to be bad, and that of the upper fountain to be good. We drank of it often in both places. It has a peculiar taste, sweetish and very slightly brackish, but not at all disagreeable. Later in the season, when the water is low, it is said to become more brackish and unpleasant. It is the common water used by the people of Kefr Selwân. We did not learn that it is regarded as medicinal, or particularly good for the eyes, as is reported by travellers; though it is not improbable that such a popular belief may exist.” At the upper fountain (the Fountain of the Virgin) Robinson observed a sudden bubbling up of the water from under the lower step. “In less than five minutes it had risen to the basin nearly or quite a foot; and we could hear it gurgling off through the interior passage. In ten minutes more it had ceased to flow, and the water in the basin was again reduced to its former level….Meanwhile a woman of Kefr Selwân came to wash at the fountain. She was accustomed to frequent the place every day; and from her we learned, that the flowing of the water occurs at irregular intervals; sometimes two or three times a day, and sometimes in summer once in two or three days. She said, she had seen the fountain dry, and men and flocks, dependent upon it, gathered around and suffering from thirst; when all at once the water would begin to boil up from under the steps, and (as she said) from the bottom in the interior part, and flow off in a copious stream.” [I. p342].

[For these reasons Dr. Robinson merely suggests, without expressing a definite conviction himself (I. p343), that this Fountain of the Virgin may have been Bethesda, the same with the “King’s Pool” of Nehemiah and the “Solomon’s Pool” of Josephus. T. Tobler, during frequent visits to the Fountain of the Virgin in the winter of1845, early in the morning and late in the evening, confirms the observations of Robinson as to its intermittent character which bring it into striking resemblance with the Pool of Bethesda. Neander (Leben Jesu, p282), and Tholuck (in loc.) are inclined to Robinson’s view Tholuck, who frequently visited the springs of Kissingen in Bavaria, speaks of a gaseous spring of this kind in Kissingen, which after a rushing sound about the same time every day commences to bubble and is most efficacious at the very time the gas is making its escape. Comp. also an article on the miracle of Bethesda by Macdonald, in the Andover Bibliotheca Sacra, for Jan1870, pp108 ff. According to Wolcot and Tobler, the water of the Fountain of the Virgin and the Pool of Siloam, as well as that of the many fountains of the Mosque of Omar, proceeds from a living spring beneath the altar of the temple.^[FN41] This spring was, as Dean Stanley says, (Sinai and Palestine, new ed, Lond1866, p181), the treasure of Jerusalem,’ its support through its numerous sieges—the ‘fans perennis aquæ’ of Tacitus (Tac. Hist. v12)—the source of Milton’s

‘Brook that flowed

Hard by the oracle of God.’

But more than this, it was the image which entered into the very heart of the prophetical idea of Jerusalem. ‘There is a river (a perennial river), the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacle of the Most High’ ( Psalm 46:4). ‘All my fresh springs shall be in thee’ ( Psalm 87:7). ‘Draw water out of the wells of salvation’ ( Isaiah 12:3). In Ezekiel’s vision ( Ezekiel 47:1-5) the thought is expanded into a vast cataract flowing out through the Temple-rock eastward and west ward into the ravines of Hinnom. and Kedron, till they swell into a mighty river, fertilizing the desert of the Dead Sea. And with still greater distinctness the thought appears again, and for the last time, in the discourse, when in the courts of the Temple, ‘in the last day, that great day of the feast (of Tabernacles), Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto Me,…out of his belly shall flow rivers of living I water’ ( John 7:37-38).”—P. S.]

Other hypotheses see in Meyer [who, however, thinks that the exact situation of Bethesda, cannot be fixed with certainty; see p219]. What leaves the theory of Robinson in need of further investigation is the assumption that here, contrary to the usual order, the bathing pool or fish pool must have been placed above, and the B spring below on the same fountain stream or flume. This difficulty may be obviated by distinguishing between the point of the spring itself and a bathing pool situated somewhat aside. But the distance of the Fountain of the Virgin from the Sheep Gate invalidates Robinson’s theory. [Or rather it may invalidate the identity of the Sheep Gate with St. Stephen’s Gate, which is of more modern origin.^[FN42]—P. S.]

It is more probable that, according to Krafft (Topographie Jerus. p176), the now dry Struthion pool in the church of St. Anna was the pool of Bethesda, “To attribute the healing virtue of the water, which, according to Eusebius, was of a red tinge, and was perhaps impregnated with mineral substance, to the sacrificial blood from the temple, and to derive the name from אַשְׁדָא,^[FN43] effusio (Calvin, Arret, and others, after Eusebius), is unfounded, and contrary to John 5:7. The usual interpretation of the name is found even in the Peshito.” (Meyer). “Struthion is an alkali. This alkali, together with particles of iron, mixed with the water, may have given it its red color and medicinal effect.” (Krafft).

John 5:3. Blind, lame, withered.—Three kinds of sick folks [τῶν ἀσθενούντων] are specified: The blind first; comp. John 9; the lame, those disabled in their limbs; the withered, those who were fallen away, emaciated, consumptive, (comp. Matthew 12:10; Luke 6:6; Luke 6:8). [Also paralytics, as this man was, to judge from his lameness and the κράββατος paralylicorum, Mark 2:4; Acts 9:33.—P. S.]