Tell me more ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Recently while reading John 5 with my wife's family, we had a discussion about whether the pool of Bethesda really had healing powers. Some said the story is written as if the pool really could heal:

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. (John 5:4)

Others said that perhaps John was just telling a story and the supposed healing powers of the pool made for great juxtaposition.

I have a hard time believing a spring could have healing powers, and especially only after an angel made some ripples. But I guess some people still believe in healing mineral springs.

Did the pool of Bethesda really have healing powers?

share|improve this question
Why is it harder to believe that a pool had healing powers after an angel stirred them? :S – RCIX Sep 5 '11 at 16:50
Good point. I believe in angels, but I think it just makes the story that more exotic. Are there any other indications in the Bible that angels can heal? – JustinY Sep 5 '11 at 16:54
Apparently so -- there's a whole angel dedicated just to healing. :) – RCIX Sep 5 '11 at 17:03

1 Answer

up vote 8 down vote accepted

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "perfect" translation of scripture, but there is an interesting thing to note about the verse you mention. One of the English translations I personally trust the most is the ESV. If you try to look this verse up in an ESV Bible you will find that it skips from verse 3 to 5.

Wait, what!?!

According to their footnote and the Study Bible commentary there is a significant problem with the manuscripts for this passage in that the phrase in question is not found in the earliest known manuscripts. The translators made the following judgement call:

The statement in the ESV footnote about an angel of the Lord stirring the water and the first person who stepped in being healed is found in some early manuscripts, but not the earliest. Therefore the omitted verse 4 should not be considered part of Scripture, although v.7 (which is in all manuscripts) shows that people believed something like what this statement reports.

I do not know much about this particular passage of scripture, but I think it's reasonable to interpret the whole business with the pool to be a folk tradition rather than a valid source of magic healing. I do not know of any recorded evidence of specific/significant/verifiable miracles stemming from the pool, although I don't know that we can rule out the possibility just on principle.

I believe it is important to note that in all cases of healing, the healing stems from God and the focus of our attention should always be on Him rather than whaver medium He chose to use to reveal that healing. One example of this can be seen here:

Matthew 9:20-22 (ESV)
20 And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, 21 for she said to herself, “If I only touch his garment, I will be made well.” 22 Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And instantly1 the woman was made well.

I think the important thing to note about this passage is that it was not Jesus garment that provided healing, but Jesus power to heal that He chose to bestow upon the woman on account of her faith in Him (not in His garment).

share|improve this answer
+1 for exegetics. I'd still like to eventually see more in-depth analysis (but maybe that's Biblical Hermeneutics.SE). – dancek Aug 27 '11 at 17:51
The reasons why those verses are omitted in most modern translations has more to do with the critical decisions of Westcott/Hort in their Greek compilation. This text is found in manuscripts as early as the third century (not textus receptus manuscript), and I think they are necessary to give verse John 5:7 any sense. – dleyva3 Aug 28 '11 at 8:54

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.