When the angel stirred the waters, the only person healed was the first person to enter the water. And the sicker a person was, the less likely he would be able to enter the water first. These limitations point to the fact that the ministries of the Old Testament were shadows pointing to a coming greater ministry, the ministry of Jesus Christ.

The passage John 5:1-16 is one of those rare instances where some translations include and some translations omit an extended portion of a passage. The words at issue are the last phrase in verse 3 and the entirety of verse 4, where we read, “waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had.” This text is included in the Geneva Bible, the King James Bible and the New King James Version. Most modern translations, however, omit these words, and most people just accept this omission. The reason commonly given is that the latter half of verse 3 and all of verse 4 are missing in the oldest and best manuscripts. In my opinion, that statement is not totally correct. Some early manuscripts do omit the latter half of verse 3 and all of verse 4, but I don’t think that they are all among the better manuscripts. On the contrary, let me share with you what Bruce Metzger, perhaps the foremost authority on ancient New Testament manuscripts, says about one of these early manuscripts that omit verse 4 of our passage for today (D, Codex Bezae). He says, “No known manuscript has so many and such remarkable variations from what is usually taken to be the normal New Testament text. [This manuscript’s] special characteristic is the free addition (and occasional omission) of words, sentences, and even incidents.”[i] Some of the other “oldest and best” manuscripts that omit verse 4 have some serious irregularities as well.
Now what is at issue here? As to our understanding of the event recorded in the text, even those who omit verse 4 tend to recognize the verse as an uninspired record of an ancient tradition. They tend to acknowledge that they can’t understand verse 7 without the information that is found in verse 4. In verse 7, the lame man talks about the stirring of the water and about others stepping into the stirred water before he is able to do so. Verse 7 doesn’t make any sense apart from the information that we find in verse 4 about the occasional supernatural angelic activity at the pool. Everyone needs verse 4 in order to understand what verse 7 is talking about. Those who accept verse 4 as part of the inspired text believe that an angel actually did on occasion stir up the waters and heal someone at that pool. Those who regard verse 4 as merely an uninspired ancient tradition often agree with this, but not always. They may regard the ancient tradition as merely a superstitious myth that drew people to this pool. If verse 4 is only an uninspired record of an ancient tradition, then they are free to regard the account of the angel that way as well.
What is of greater concern is that this dispute about the reliability of the latter half of verse 3 and all of verse 4 of our text might cause some to question the reliability of the New Testament in general. No, the Greek New Testament is by far the best attested ancient writing in existence. There are over 5,000 ancient Greek documents, 8,000 ancient Latin documents that are translations of the Greek and many other ancient documents that are translations into other languages.[ii] In addition, there are many quotations from the New Testament in the surviving writings of early Christian leaders. No other ancient writing comes anywhere near such a vast array of surviving manuscripts and witnesses. Just to give you a basis for comparison, consider Caesar’s Gallic Wars, a classic Latin text which I had to struggle with when I took high school Latin. There are only nine or ten good ancient manuscripts that have survived, and the oldest was copied about 900 years after Julius Caesar wrote the book.[iii] I could give you other similar examples. Again, there is no other ancient document with a surviving textual record anywhere near like that of the Greek New Testament.
Also, in the vast multitude of these hand copied documents, there is a strong overall consensus as to what is the original text of the books of the New Testament. God has preserved the text not by making every copyist infallible but by providing us with a vast multitude of documents with “a high degree of textual uniformity.” And this high degree of textual uniformity increases significantly when we limit ourselves to the vast majority of the documents that are in large agreement with each other.[iv] Yes, there are those accidental slips that occur when someone copies any long document by hand, but these tend not to be an obstacle to discerning the original text, especially when multiple copies of the document are available.
If that is the case, then you might wonder why there is some question about verse 4 in our text for today. The majority of the copyists did a good job in faithfully copying the content of earlier copies. Yet early on there were a few copyists in certain regions who felt free to expand the text here and there, to add an occasional something that was not in the text that they were copying from. In response to these few early expanded manuscripts, there were some copyists in Egypt who tried to purge the text. Too often these Egyptian copyists left the extraneous expansions in and took out instead portions of the true text. Yet even these manuscripts with this occasional foolish unauthorized editing tend to agree in large part with the consensus text that is in the majority of the manuscripts. And these manuscripts where the text has been inappropriately changed in some places can often be identified because they do not agree with one another in the changes that have been made. For example, the vast majority of the manuscripts containing our passage for today call the pool Bethesda. Yet in a few older manuscripts, the pool is called Bethsaida or Bethzatha or Belzetha. These few texts agree in changing the name of the pool but can’t agree on a replacement name. Disagreements such as that are a good indication that some copyists did indeed make some changes in the text that they were copying. Contrary to what many today claim, these few manuscripts which leave out verse 4 are not among the better manuscripts.
Let me give you one interesting piece of evidence for the reliability of Bethesda, which is the majority text reading, as the name of the pool. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the mid-twentieth century, and among these ancient scrolls is a scroll made out of copper. This copper scroll is dated between A.D. 35 and 65, which would be sometime after the death of Jesus and before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. This very ancient copper scroll existed long before the surviving Greek New Testament manuscripts were copied, and it confirms that the name of the pool was Bethesda, the name that we find in the majority of the ancient Greek manuscripts.[v]
Most of these ancient manuscripts do include verse 4 of our passage, but there are a few early manuscripts that omit verse 4. Yet a manuscript can be an early copy and also be the work of a less than reliable copyist. Age does not necessarily guarantee reliability. In addition, verse 4 has its own early witnesses. Tertullian in the third century wrote about the water stirred up by an angel in John chapter 5 and thus testified to the validity of verse 4. Verse 4 is also included in the translations of the Gospel according to John into Syriac and Latin that date back to the second century. So there is ample ancient testimony for the inclusion of verse 4.
Read More
Related Posts:

Because of Christ, we don’t have to live in the constant fear of death. Yes, it’s still painful. Yes, it’s still our enemy. Yes, we would avoid it if we could. But it is possible for you and I to look death in the face and to know that it will not have the last word (Romans 8:31–39; Philippians 1:19–23). There is a resurrection. There is a world to come. There is eternal life (Revelation 21:1–7).

The most prominent reality at a funeral is also at the same time the most difficult subject to discuss. That reality, of course, is the subject of death. As one man has noted, “Death is the one experience that will be shared in common by every person …. Every moment we live, the sand in the hourglass of our existence continues to flow, bringing our final end ever near.”1 And yet, despite the “commonness” of death, most people prefer not to talk about it. There seems to be a kind of natural aversion to death. If we had our choice, we’d much rather celebrate the birth of a new child or the wedding of a close friend. If we had our way, there would be no funerals, no sad and uncomfortable occasions associated with the passing of a loved one.
Yet, we cannot escape reality. Death confronts us on the front page of the newspaper. It shakes us when we have to bury a family member or friend. Finally the day comes when death knocks at our own door. Indeed, the moment you and I were born into the world, we began our lifelong journey to the grave. And so, we can’t avoid the reality of death. With this inescapable reality in view, I’d like briefly to address the meaning of death. Specifically, what is death? And why must we die?
What Is Death?
Webster’s Dictionary defines “death” simply as the cessation of life. Thus, to understand “death,” we must first understand “life.” Webster’s offers two primary definitions:
(1) “Life” refers to the properties of growth, metabolism, response to stimuli, and reproduction. But this definition is unsuitable for human life, since it would place us on the same level as bacteria or fungus or garden weeds.
(2) “Life” refers to the physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute a person’s existence. Unlike bacteria and garden weeds, we are personal beings. We do not merely have a body, but we have a mind and a spirit.
Someone may ask, “How do the mental and spiritual experiences of a person differ from a bacterium’s responses to external stimuli?” Here’s the answer: People attribute meaning and significance to their experiences; bacteria do not! People write books; people visit libraries; people engage in philosophy and science; people come to an event like this one today and ask questions like “What is it?” or “Why does it have to happen?” Neither bacteria, nor plants, nor insects, nor animals ask those sorts of questions.
And so, if we put Webster’s definitions together, we end up with something like this: “Death” is the cessation of those meaningful physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute a person’s existence.
That immediately leads to another question.
Why Must We Die?
This is where it gets interesting. When we ask the question “why,” most of us betray a feeling of unhappiness with the prospect of death. For most of us, death is an unwelcome intruder upon our existence. We would much prefer that life continue. Thus, when we ask the question, “Why?” the very tone of our voice conveys the feeling that death is not the way it’s supposed to be.
Death as Meaningless
Despite our feelings, there are many people who tell us today that there’s no meaning to human death. In other words, there is no answer to the question of “why?” Death just happens! It’s part of nature. In fact when you boil it down, there’s really no huge difference between life and death—human life is simply dust in motion and death is simply dust come to rest.
Read More

Being a dad will teach you a lot about the fatherhood of God. It will teach you about your own folly and God’s wisdom; it will teach you about your own sin and God’s forgiveness; it will teach you about your own disobedience and God’s unbreakable love.

Every now and again I jot down a thought that I’d like to ponder but that I don’t intend to tease out into a full article. Over the past few weeks, I have jotted down a series of thoughts on being a dad. I hope there is something here that benefits you or gets you thinking as well.
Your children will learn from you more than anyone else how a father is meant to treat his children and how a husband is meant to treat his wife. The words you speak about these subjects will pale in comparison to the ways you act. Your children are always watching and always learning. Live accordingly.
One of the great privileges and callings of being a dad is bearing the greatest responsibility for your children’s spiritual development. Yet many dads neglect this to their shame and their children’s peril. This most certainly involves ensuring you are all attending a sound local church and involved with it. And it most certainly involves the close discipleship of knowing their spiritual state and of teaching and training them in the Christian faith. Dad, there are many people and forces eager to disciple them away from the Lord; make it your purpose to disciple them toward him.
Family devotions is a wonderful opportunity to grow in knowledge and obedience together. The benefit is in the habit and the repetition—in committing to many years of sharing this experience together. Dad, take the lead in this best of all habits.
One negative word about your daughter’s boyfriend/fiancé/spouse may prove far more significant than a thousand positives. So be effusive with your praise and cautious with any criticism. Criticism will sink down deep.
It is the jurisdiction of dad, and dad alone, to declare when a bottle of shampoo is empty. Only he has the requisite skill to ensure it has been used to the last drop and only he has the right to declare when a new bottle can be opened.
Sons are especially prone to believe that dad is displeased with them. If it is not true of all sons, it is true of many sons. They need to be assured that they are beginning to become men and to gain the trust and confidence of their father. So be sure to provide plenty of words of encouragement and affirmation. Whatever else your son knows, make sure he knows that you love him and are proud of him.
Read More
Related Posts: