“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 from whatever disease he had” (John 5:4).
A friend sent me Dr. Michael Heiser’s LogosTalk article “Who Took John 5:4 Out of My Bible?” You can read it here. According to Heiser, no one took it out. It was never in the Bible in the first place.
Here is the evidence Heiser cites that John 5:4 should not be in our Bibles:
- It “is not found in any of the earliest and most accurate manuscripts of the Gospel of John.”
- “In roughly two dozen manuscripts scribes put asterisk marks at the verse to warn the next scribe who would copy the manuscript that the verse was likely not original.”
- “Four of the last five Greek words of what would be John 5:4 aren’t found anywhere else in John’s writings.”
As someone who believes the Majority Text is the correct text, I’d like to briefly explain why I think that the evidence strongly favors inclusion, not exclusion.
Let me begin by saying that Heiser is expressing the view of most New Testament scholars today. In fact, Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament says that the omission of John 5:4 is certain. That is, the committee gave omission an “A” rating, which “signifies that the text is certain” (p. 14*). For that reason, I am responding. I have nothing against Dr. Heiser. Indeed, I do not know him. And I’m glad he wrote this article since it gives us all a chance to consider the issue, which I believe is important.
First, the argument that “the earliest and most accurate manuscripts” surely contain the correct readings is weak. Over 3,000 times the three so-called earliest and best manuscripts, aleph, A, and B, disagree with each other.
That is actually the case in John 5:4. Manuscript A includes this verse. Aleph and B do not include.
Second, only eight manuscripts omit (aleph, B, C corrected, D, W, 1025, 0141, 33). But there are hundreds of manuscripts which include John 5:4. The external evidence strongly supports inclusion.
Third, the argument on word usage is weak. The last five words in the Majority Text of John 5:4 are egineto hō dēpote kateicheto nosēmati. Of those words, only the last three are rare in John’s writings. Two of those words, dēpote and nosēmati, only occurs here (= hapax legomena) in the entire New Testament. However, there are about 700 hapax legomena in the New Testament. We cannot exclude verses because they contain one or more hapaxes.
The second to last word, kateicheto, only appears here in John. Ah, but it only appears once in Acts too. But no one suggests Acts 27:40 should be omitted.
Consider the opening line in Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. The words [it was] the best of times, the worst of times, the age of wisdom, and the age of foolishness are not found again in the book. But no one suggests they should be omitted.
Fourth, as Heiser points out, the notion of the stirring of the water is found in John 5:7, “I have no man to put me in the pool when the water is stirred up…” The fact it is found in verse 7 lends support for verse 4 being original. Indeed, if verse 4 is not original, then verse 7 doesn’t make much sense. From an internal evidence standpoint, inclusion is strongly suggested.
Finally, I much agree with Heiser’s third application, “we need to be sure the content of our preaching and teaching has a secure footing in the text. God moved people to spend their lives transmitting the biblical text; the least we can do is pay close attention.” That statement is not dependent on the Critical Text. Whatever words are original, those we should accept and teach.
John 5:4 is in my Bible. If it isn’t in yours, then you should do as Heiser says in his second application: “it pays to compare Bible versions.” Amen.
Ken Tamashiro
Thank You, Pastor Bob,
I agree with you on this issue.
What I’ve noticed is,… circumstances support the whole picture.
In my opinion here,… many will try and create circumstances based on keywords, rather than understanding the context of the circumstances that support the whole picture.
Speaking for myself only,… When I understand the circumstances to which anything is written, then my understanding of the Bible becomes much more clearer.
Grace and Peace,
Ken
Jeff Hawkins
Good word Brother.
Theodore A. Jones
Squabble and bobbel over John 5:4, my my.
The greater matter is: “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13 Disobey that law a hell chute ride is the result. Squabbling and bobbeling about Jn. 5:4 is of least concern.
Pam
Mr Jones, the Apostle Paul wrote this for you:
Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is ……
Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. Gal 4:21-31, passim
Note carefully what Paul said: “Cast out the bondwoman and her son.” In other words, pitch the law. Toss it out. Be free.
Diane Boring
Thank you Bob for this post. It’s another NUGGET that God has brought my way to add to the “many” nuggets He has shown me. I’ve been reading your little book… “Inerrancy for Dummies,” and ordered extras to give out to friends at my church. I want them to consider the evidence. It’s called “being a Berean.” 🙂 “GOD BREATHED” and He made sure we had ALL of His truth.
One year at the end of one of the GES Conferences you asked for theme ideas for a coming conference. On that list was the subject of Inerrancy. AT THAT TIME it didn’t appeal to me because I already believed that the Bible (the original manuscripts) were without error, but I read your book and NOW find it extremely important for Bible believers to understand what’s happening in our conservative Evangelical Institutions and denominations. Inerrancy of God’s Word is being challenged in these conservative institutions. So I’m doing my little part to encourage my friends to read your little book on that subject. Like you said in that book… (paraphrased)…. There are always answers for any discrepancies. Your book was very good in pointing out how to look for easy solutions. Thank you for that. 🙂
Jeff Ayers
Diane,
TO believe in the original autographs as the Bible, and that they alone are inerrant and infallible, is to believe essentially nothing
The originals are nowhere to be found, you cannot hold them in your hands and you have never read them.
What possible good is there in believing a pile of MSS that no longer exist are inerrant?
Additionally, so far as we know, the Autographa of the 27 NT books were never bound or collated into the “Bible”, had no spacing between words, had no punctuation marks and had not chapter and verse divisions.
Paul Zeron
Enjoyed your explanation.
Jerry Rockwell
Thank you Bob. It is encouraging to know there are some who still hold to the Majority Text/Byzantine Text/TR. I checked and found that some translations make the mistake of leaving the verse out but not correcting the verse numbering (see: NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV,) while others put brackets [ ] around the verse and leave a note that “this verse is not in the oldest and best manuscripts.” When a person reads the translations noted above, they must think the translators could not count when the verses go 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 etc. Hmm, the left the number 4 out. Do the translators presume the ignorance of believers? Your blog is right on target.
God bless you,
Jerry
EternallySaved
I have a theory, you are all free to disagree with me, but, this is something very fascinating. Look at the deeper implication of the verse. The verse is saying that angels that God created have this very interesting power to stir the water in that pool, and somehow the water molecules get energized and can heal damaged and wounded and diseased cell tissues. That is the clear implication as stated in the verse.
Now, what exactly is going on there? Is it some type of energy phenomena that is connected to God and those angels who did that? And notice this important point: Clearly, the effect wore off after a time, or else it would not matter when the person could go into the water and get healed.
Most people skip over this implication.
Here is my speculative theory, based on the facts as laid out in the verses:
1 God is the Creator and He created the angels and all energies and electromagnetic phenomena and everything else.
2 Angels or certain angels have the power, derived from God, ofcourse, to somehow energize the water, at least in that pool, to heal damaged tissues.
3 Satan always counterfeits the things of God so it makes sense that he has set up his false counterfeit miracles across history.
4 There is something deeper to the science of electromagnetics that we do not understand at this point. Notice the stirring being mentioned. There are clearly certain geometric spiral and vortex and other shapes in the biological and natural world, created by God. Sadly, the study of this “Sacred Geometry” is full of deceived new agers and heathens and other pagans and secular humanists who try to twist it for their ends. But I believe a purified form of “Christ centered Sacred Geometry” exists when you cut away all of that Satanic trash and it is connected to God’s creation of the universe and angels. Remember and beware: The Devil will try to side track you and deceive you and copy and twist the things of God. Don’t fall for all of that Satanic new age heathen “energy healing” such as reiki and kundalini and other things. That is dangerous spiritually to people because devils/evil spirits are behind it.
And it makes sense that Satan would want to cover up and erase that verse from Bibles because he does not want this knowledge to be in the hands of man. Why? Because the Anti Christ and False prophet during the Tribulation will have the power to “call down fire from heaven”. What is this? They will be empowered by Satan himself to manipulate this energy. He knows more about electromagnetics than we do. Satan does not want the effect to become commonplace before his Beast appears on the world scene, and so he tries to suppress this knowledge. God ofcourse created all energy and God is in control and God is infinite, eternal, and unlimited.
I also believe that in our new sinless bloodless glorified resurrected bodies God will give we saved people the power to manipulate energy and mass and gravity and more.
Jeff Ayers
Careful Bob, Your rhetoric is sounding awfully close to becoming one of us Textus Receptus nut jobs. We wear the moniker proudly.