Guest - An important message about Puritan Board Member and Moderator Rules of Behavior has been posted here.

The angel of the Lord at the pool in John 5:4

Discussion in 'The Gospels & Acts' started by Mayflower, May 30, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mayflower

    Mayflower Puritan Board Junior

    John 5:4. for an angel of the Lord went down at certain times into the pool, and stirred up the water. Whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water was made whole of whatever disease he had.

    There is written about the Angel of the Lord at the pool and those sick, blind, lame, or paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water, and those who were first were healed.

    These verses were always difficult fot me to understand.

    What is the meaning or lesson concerning this Angel that was send be God ?

    Why only those who were not as handicapt or paralyzed hath the oppertunity to be healed , while those who could not walk at all could not be healed (until Jesus came by the man who were sick for thirty-eight years) ?

    Does anyone has some background information or practical lessons for these verses ?

    [Edited on 5-30-2006 by Mayflower]
     
  2. VirginiaHuguenot

    VirginiaHuguenot Puritanboard Librarian

    This verse is contested by some Biblical critics, but I am in agreement with the Traditional Text that it rightfully belongs in the Bible.

    Matthew Henry:

    Matthew Poole:

    John Calvin:

    Richard Sibbes, The Soul's Conflict With Itself, And Victory Over Itself By Faith (1635):

     
  3. SolaScriptura

    SolaScriptura Puritanboard Softy

    Andrew, on what textual grounds do you base your agreement that the Textus Receptus is correct?
     
  4. VirginiaHuguenot

    VirginiaHuguenot Puritanboard Librarian

    As a general rule, I accept the Traditional Text because I believe in God's providential preservation of his word and reject the efforts of rationalistic scholars who would like to excise certain miracles and passages of great theological significance from God's word. In this case, I believe the manuscripts which omit all or portions of this passage are not reliable (specifically the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) or consistent among themselves (see below). The Patristic testimony to this verse is sound, and I see no valid reason to disbelieve that it is canonical, nor have countless other Biblical scholars through the millennia.

    Thomas Holland, Crowned With Glory: The Bible From Ancient Text to Authorized Version:

    Edward Hills, The King James Version Defended, pp. 145-146:

     
  5. SolaScriptura

    SolaScriptura Puritanboard Softy

    Ok. I was just wondering.
     
  6. Mayflower

    Mayflower Puritan Board Junior

    Thanks Andrew for the commentary's!
     
  7. VirginiaHuguenot

    VirginiaHuguenot Puritanboard Librarian

    You're welcome, Ralph!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page