The curious case of John 5:4

[Johann]

"In our need to establish the Bible as authoritative, we have created an intellectual framework that puts expectations on the Bible that are simply not sustainable."

The Bible is Inspired by God
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NKJV):
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
This verse affirms that Scripture has its source in God, meaning that its authority is not human but divine. The Bible's purpose is to guide, teach, correct, and train believers in righteousness.

The Bible is God's Truth, but Requires Right Understanding
2 Peter 1:20-21 (NKJV):
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
Scripture must be understood in its God-given context, which includes recognizing that it is not merely an intellectual document but a revelation of God's will. While it contains historical, poetic, and doctrinal elements, its authority is rooted in God's purposes, not in human expectations of it.

Faith Over Intellectualism
1 Corinthians 1:25 (NKJV):
"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."
The Bible was not written to meet human intellectual frameworks but to reveal God's wisdom, which often surpasses human understanding. This doesn't mean we should abandon intellectual rigor, but it reminds us that faith plays a critical role in approaching Scripture.

The Purpose of Scripture is Spiritual
John 5:39-40 (NKJV):
"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life."
Jesus reminds us that the Bible’s primary function is to lead people to Himself, not simply to provide an intellectual framework. Any expectations that reduce it to a purely human intellectual endeavor miss its spiritual significance.

J.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Did the Muslim point out the missing verse in the NIV? If that were the problem, I'd explain that the KJV has all the verses, but the critical text of modern bibles mostly leaves verses out because they are not in the codex Sinaiticus they translated it from, and that the KJV is translated from the majority text which has all the verses.

or maybe the KJV added verses that were not in the original.

We have to be careful and not make statements of facts which can not be proven. There is no perfect english text.

 

[St. SteVen]

Indicating that we refuse to recognize that our brothers and sisters in Christ who have gone before us might actually have information and spiritual insights that we ourselves don't have.

Personally, I think Bible commentaries are the trench warfare of Christianity.

[

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The conversation took place sometime around 2004 or 2005. I recall that the student either read or showed the Muslim the passage in NIV (maybe he did both, I’m not sure anymore about that) and the Muslim replied that the Bible has been corrupted. Verse 4, which doesn’t exist in the NIV, was the lynchpin of the Muslim’s argument. That’s what brought on the student’s crisis about the reliability of the Bible.



That’s helpful but does it adequately address the Muslim assertion that the Bible has been corrupted?

It is a common muslim argument that the bible does not even agree with itself. Unlike to Quaran, which is one word and has no different versions that contradict each other.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I would lead him to the KJV bible, explaining to him the corrupt history of modern translations

why would you lead him to an unintelligible bible? Most people who do not reasd old english can not comprehend what the word says.

The KJV also has errors. which if you lead with your reasoning, would cause them to discount any bible.. Because of the perfect KJV is proven not perfect. well throw it all out

 

[St. SteVen]

The Bible is Inspired by God

Every word?

The Bible is God's Truth, but Requires Right Understanding

Hidden truth?
"Available only to the initiate; secret or mysterious" = Occult

Faith Over Intellectualism

Just believe it. It doesn't need to make sense.

The Purpose of Scripture is Spiritual

It should be a resource, not a source.

[

 

[GodsGrace]

Just a little digression: The NIV I have is actually not mine; it was given to my stepson by his Sunday School class back in Florida. It has his first name but my last name engraved on the cover, which annoyed him so he didn't want it. But I found it more readable than the nice leather-bound KJV with the zipper and the colorful maps my grandparents had given me back when I was seven, so I read and read that NIV (including the footnotes) until the binding started falling apart. When our son got out of the Navy, he wanted it back (wrong name and all), but by that time the binding was held together with duct tape.

So, I read the footnotes and I've long known about the manuscript issues. I agree that it shouldn't have been a problem.

I have a 1986 NASB with duck tape on it.
Paid it a pretty penny back then too, but it lasted all these years.

As to John 5:4....how do you like this:
I never noticed that verse 4 was missing !!
My NIV (Zondervan 2008) also has the footnote BTW, but it's not my main bible.

The NASB, which is my main bible, has John 5:4 in brackets.
Frankly, I don't pay too much attention to this "stuff".
I stated my position on this in my post 40.

God either IS or ISN'T.
Man makes the mistakes...not God.

I don't like the belief some have that God came down here from heaven,
got a typewriter (He's an old-fashioned God) and typed down the entire bible.

This belief always creates a problem when something new is discovered regarding either
the bible or the earth - like its age, for instance.

My method is easy and relies only on God and His Son who is the ultimate revelation.

 

[GodsGrace]

Every word?


Hidden truth?
"Available only to the initiate; secret or mysterious" = Occult


Just believe it. It doesn't need to make sense.


It should be a resource, not a source.

[

I agree with all of the above SS.
Except your last sentence.

THEN what IS the SOURCE?

 

[GodsGrace]

why would you lead him to an unintelligible bible? Most people who do not reasd old english can not comprehend what the word says.

The KJV also has errors. which if you lead with your reasoning, would cause them to discount any bible.. Because of the perfect KJV is proven not perfect. well throw it all out

I can't give examples - not a scholar - however, we do know for sure that the newer bibles are more correct in translation due to all the new information we've found....older manuscripts which are closer to the time of the writers, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.

Just would like to say that I think it's pretty incredible how close the scripture we have is to the DSS....
confirming that the main idea/concept/beliefs of the bible are correct.

Any difference would be a small nuance and nothing that would change the actual meaning of the bible....

 

[Matthias]

This verse (John 5:3b-4) is a later scribal commentary which tries to explain

the presence of all the sick people by the pool
why this man had been there so long
why he wanted someone to put him in the water, John 5:7
It is obviously a Jewish folk tale. It was not part of John's original Gospel. The evidence for this verse not being included is:

it is not in manuscripts P66, P75, א, B, C*, D
it is marked by an asterisk in over 20 additional later Greek manuscripts, showing that this text was thought not to be original
there are several non-Johannine terms used in this short verse
It is included in several early Greek uncial manuscripts, A, C3, K, and L. It is also included in the Diatessaron (about A.D. 180), and the writings of Tertullian (A.D. 200), Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Cyril. This shows its antiquity but not its inclusion in the original inspired Gospel. It is included in KJV, NASB (1995 Update, with brackets), and NKJV, but omitted in NASB (1970), NRSV, NJB, REB, NET Bible, and NIV.

For a good discussion of the manuscript variants by an evangelical textual critic, see Gordon Fee, To What End Exegesis?, pp. 17-28.

SPECIAL TOPIC: TEXTUAL CRITICISM

John 5

Haven't read your post but this from Bob Utley.

J.

That’s a good way to help the student. How would you get him past his reluctance to read and consider it?

 

[St. SteVen]

I don't like the belief some have that God came down here from heaven,
got a typewriter (He's an old-fashioned God) and typed down the entire bible.

Agree. That was the message between the lines in the evangelical church I was raised in.
But more like God put a pen to the parchment and didn't strop writing until the canon was closed.
Every word, "God-breathed".

Decades later I started to learn about where the Bible ACTUALLY came from.
That was a shocker. But not a crisis of faith. More like a crisis of church.
I could still trust God, but I could trust the church, or its spokespersons.

[

 

[Johann]

That’s a good way to help the student. How would you get him past his reluctance to read and consider it?

Good question-there's a noticeable hesitation from some members here, and I've lost "good brothers" who aren't willing to read secondary sources. However, since it's not a salvation issue, I won’t push the matter.

J.

 

[Matthias]

Most here don't read "commentaries" brother @Matthias-sad, but true.

J.

That was the case with the student I was trying to help. I was eventually able to persuade him to look at some.* The problem was his attitude toward them in general - “Just the words of men”, not inspired.

* I asked him a question about the Bible. When he started to answer, I stopped him and asked why he thought I should listen to his commentary. He hadn’t thought of his own speaking about the Bible as being commentary.

 

[St. SteVen]

THEN what IS the SOURCE?

This came up on another topic. Seemed to be worth its own topic.


Understanding the difference between the SOURCE and a RESOURCE.
God should be our SOURCE. Everything else is a RESOURCE. (including the Bible)


Source:
- God


Resources:
- The Bible
- Commentaries
- Preachers/teachers
- Other believers
- Unbelievers (listen)

Source or Resource? - Understanding the difference

This came up on another topic. Seemed to be worth its own topic. Understanding the difference between the SOURCE and a RESOURCE. God should be our SOURCE. Everything else is a RESOURCE. (including the Bible) Source: - God Resources: - The Bible - Commentaries - Preachers/teachers -...

www.christianityboard.com

[

 

[GodsGrace]

This verse (John 5:3b-4) is a later scribal commentary which tries to explain

the presence of all the sick people by the pool
why this man had been there so long
why he wanted someone to put him in the water, John 5:7
It is obviously a Jewish folk tale. It was not part of John's original Gospel. The evidence for this verse not being included is:

it is not in manuscripts P66, P75, א, B, C*, D
it is marked by an asterisk in over 20 additional later Greek manuscripts, showing that this text was thought not to be original
there are several non-Johannine terms used in this short verse
It is included in several early Greek uncial manuscripts, A, C3, K, and L. It is also included in the Diatessaron (about A.D. 180), and the writings of Tertullian (A.D. 200), Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Cyril. This shows its antiquity but not its inclusion in the original inspired Gospel. It is included in KJV, NASB (1995 Update, with brackets), and NKJV, but omitted in NASB (1970), NRSV, NJB, REB, NET Bible, and NIV.

For a good discussion of the manuscript variants by an evangelical textual critic, see Gordon Fee, To What End Exegesis?, pp. 17-28.

SPECIAL TOPIC: TEXTUAL CRITICISM

John 5

Haven't read your post but this from Bob Utley.

J.

I think it's great that we have this new information.
My copy of the KJV contains John 5:4 with no notification.

 

[GodsGrace]

Agree. That was the message between the lines in the evangelical church I was raised in.
But more like God put a pen to the parchment and didn't strop writing until the canon was closed.
Every word, "God-breathed".

Decades later I started to learn about where the Bible ACTUALLY came from.
That was a shocker. But not a crisis of faith. More like a crisis of church.
I could still trust God, but I could trust the church, or its spokespersons.

[

Amen!
This is why it's called a relationship in Christian parlance.

 

[Behold]

That was the case with the student I was trying to help. I was eventually able to persuade him to look at some. The problem was his attitude toward them in general - “Just the words of men”, not inspired.

95% of people who are confused regarding, and now deceived regarding...

"losing salvation"
"what does it mean to be born again"
"eternal security"
"water baptism as a requirement for Salvation"
"Catholicism"
"Mormonism"
"JW"
"Calvinism"
"Mary Baker Eddy"
"Confusion about the Rapture"
"Confusion about Hell, vs, Sheol, vs Hades"..

and so many more 'Isms".. are led there by : COMMENTARIES.

100%, nearly, of the arguments found on Forums, exist because people do not study a bible, and they are simply posting "what some man said", from a commentary or from the writings of some deceived "church father".


Thats a fact, all of it.

 

[GodsGrace]

This came up on another topic. Seemed to be worth its own topic.


Understanding the difference between the SOURCE and a RESOURCE.
God should be our SOURCE. Everything else is a RESOURCE. (including the Bible)


Source:
- God


Resources:
- The Bible
- Commentaries
- Preachers/teachers
- Other believers
- Unbelievers (listen)

Source or Resource? - Understanding the difference

This came up on another topic. Seemed to be worth its own topic. Understanding the difference between the SOURCE and a RESOURCE. God should be our SOURCE. Everything else is a RESOURCE. (including the Bible) Source: - God Resources: - The Bible - Commentaries - Preachers/teachers -...

www.christianityboard.com

[

Agreed !
I stated this in both my post 40 and 67....
exactly the same idea.

 

[Johann]

That was the case with the student I was trying to help. I was eventually able to persuade him to look at some. The problem was his attitude toward them in general - “Just the words of men”, not inspired.

I love the Bereans-
Act 17:11 Now these were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica. They [Literally “who”] accepted the message with all eagerness, examining the scriptures every day to see if these things were so.
Act 17:12 Therefore many of them believed, and not a few of the prominent Greek women and men.
More noble than those (eugenesteroi tōn). Comparative form of eugenēs, old and common adjective, but in N.T. only here and Luk_19:12; 1Co_1:26. Followed by ablative case tōn as often after the comparative.

With all readiness of mind (meta pāsēs prothumias). Old word from prothumos (pro, thumos) and means eagerness, rushing forward. In the N.T. only here and 2Co_8:11-19; 2Co_9:2. In Thessalonica many of the Jews out of pride and prejudice refused to listen. Here the Jews joyfully welcomed the two Jewish visitors.

Examining the Scriptures daily (kath' hēmeran anakrinontes tas graphas). Paul expounded the Scriptures daily as in Thessalonica, but the Beroeans, instead of resenting his new interpretation, examined (anakrinō means to sift up and down, make careful and exact research as in legal processes as in Act_4:9; Act_12:19, etc.) the Scriptures for themselves. In Scotland people have the Bible open on the preacher as he expounds the passage, a fine habit worth imitating.

Whether these things were so (ei echoi tauta houtōs). Literally, “if these things had it thus.” The present optative in the indirect question represents an original present indicative as in Luk_1:29 (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 1043f.). This use of ei with the optative may be looked at as the condition of the fourth class (undetermined with less likelihood of determination) as in Act_17:27; Act_20:16; Act_24:19; Act_27:12 (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1021). The Beroeans were eagerly interested in the new message of Paul and Silas but they wanted to see it for themselves. What a noble attitude. Paul’s preaching made Bible students of them. The duty of private interpretation is thus made plain (Hovey).
Vincent.

I really love the passage above-it highlights the noble attitude of the Bereans who eagerly examined Scripture to see if what Paul preached was true. Their approach shows the importance of personal study and interpretation (Vincent). However, I won’t push others or make enemies over non-salvific issues..

J.

 

[Lambano]

That was the case with the student I was trying to help. I was eventually able to persuade him to look at some. The problem was his attitude toward them in general - “Just the words of men”, not inspired.

Did you point out the irony of him trusting YOU for guidance, but not, say, Matthew Henry, Utley, or Barclay?