Does the absence of John 5:4 affect the story's theological message? John 5:4—Textual Omission and Theological Implications Passage in Question John 5:1–9 (vv. 3b–4 bracketed where absent in earliest witnesses): “3 …In these colonnades lay a great number of the sick, blind, lame, and paralyzed [waiting for the moving of the water. 4 For from time to time an angel of the Lord would go down into the pool and stir up the water. The first one to step in after the stirring of the water was healed of whatever disease he had]. 5 One man there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there and realized that he had spent a long time in this condition, He asked, ‘Do you want to get well?’ … 9 Immediately the man was made well, took up his mat, and began to walk.” Literary Context Without Verse 4 Even without the bracketed words, the narrative functions seamlessly: • v. 7 retains “I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred,” providing narrative motive. • Jesus’ dialogue (“Do you want to get well?”) and instantaneous healing spotlight His sovereign authority rather than an angelic lottery. • The Sabbath controversy (vv. 9–18) remains intact, leading directly into Jesus’ discourse on His divine prerogatives (vv. 19–47). Theological Focus Stands Unaltered A. Christ’s Superiority. Whether or not an angelic stirring occurred historically, the point is that Christ heals by word alone, eclipsing any secondary agent. B. Grace over Merit. The man’s inability to reach the water underscores human helplessness; Jesus heals apart from competition, prefiguring salvation by grace (Ephesians 2:8–9). C. Divine Initiative. Jesus “knew” (v. 6) the man’s condition; the miracle is rooted in omniscience, not ritual. D. Sabbath Lordship. The ensuing debate (vv. 16–18) bases Jesus’ equality with the Father on the miracle itself, not on the mechanics of the pool. Angelic Agency Elsewhere in Scripture Scripture records angels mediating healing (e.g., 2 Kings 19:35; Psalm 34:7). Therefore, even if authentic, John 5:4 would harmonize with broader angelology and would not introduce novel doctrine. Reliability of Scripture Affirmed The very transparency that modern translations show by footnoting variants demonstrates textual integrity; nothing substantive to faith or morals is lost or gained. As with the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53–8:11) and the longer Mark ending (Mark 16:9–20), open discussion buttresses, rather than erodes, confidence in the manuscripts. Pastoral and Evangelistic Implications Believers can proclaim: • Christ still sees the individual amid the masses. • Salvation/healing is not a race of works but a gift of grace. • Jesus replaces superstition with certainty; He alone is “the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25). Unbelievers are invited to consider the historical bedrock of the resurrection—attested by minimal-facts scholarship—and the unchanged gospel message despite minor textual variants. Conclusion The omission or inclusion of John 5:4 does not alter the passage’s theological thrust: Jesus, the divine Son, sovereignly heals and calls all to believe. Far from undermining confidence, the careful identification of this variant highlights the providential preservation and trustworthiness of the Word of God. |
    |