Now there is at Jerusalem The Syriac seems to have read, ην, there was, as it is rendered in that version in the past time. Cyril, Chrysostom, and Theophylact favour this reading, as also does Nonnus. “If tolerably supported,” says Dr. Campbell, “it would be accounted preferable, as this gospel was written after the destruction of Jerusalem.” But if Jerusalem was destroyed, as it probably was, when St. John wrote this, it does not follow that the pool and its porticoes were destroyed also. The pool, or what is said to be it, is shown to travellers at the present time. By the sheep-market a pool Or, by the sheep-gate, as Dr. Campbell renders επι τη προβατικη, observing, however, that there is nothing in the Greek which answers to either gate or market; but the word used being an adjective, requires some such addition to complete the sense: and we have good evidence that one of the gates of Jerusalem was called the sheep-gate. See Nehemiah 3:32; Nehemiah 12:39. But we have no evidence that any place there was called the sheep-market. The word κολυμβηθρα, here rendered a pool, signifies a place to swim in. Doddridge, Macknight, Campbell, and many other learned men, understand by it, a bath, like those near Jericho, where Aristobulus was drowned by Herod's order, as he was swimming. Called in the Hebrew tongue, Bethesda That is, the house of mercy; having five porticoes Piazzas, or covered walks, being a most agreeable and salutary building in those warm climates, where excessive heat was not only troublesome, but prejudicial to health. Probably the basin had five sides. In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk The water being highly esteemed on account of some medicinal virtues which attended it, and the benefit many had received by bathing in it: waiting for the moving of the water For an extraordinary commotion to be caused in it. For an angel went down at a certain season Or, as some understand κατα καιρον, at that season, the season of the feast, mentioned John 5:1, confining the miracle of the pool to this particular feast. For, since the evangelist does not say that the waters of this pool had their healing quality at any other feast, we are at liberty to make what supposition seems to us most probable. Perhaps the silence of Philo and Josephus upon this miracle may induce some to think that it happened only at one passover. For though many infirm people lay in these porticoes, if the angel, as is probable, descended frequently during that solemnity, the miracle would be no sooner known than multitudes would come and wait at the pool, to be cured by the moving waters. However, if the number of the sick, collected together on this occasion, and the phrase κατα καιρον, rendered, at a certain season, shall incline any to believe that these waters had a healing quality at other passovers also, the silence of the writers before mentioned needs not to be much regarded, it being well known that they have omitted much greater transactions, which they had as good an opportunity to know; namely, that multitude and variety of miracles which our Lord performed in the course of his ministry. See Macknight. As the word rendered angel means also messenger, and is frequently used of any messenger whatever, Dr. Hammond conjectures, that not an angel of God, but an officer, sent by the priests and rulers at a certain time to stir up the waters of this pool, is here intended; and that the warm entrails of animals, which he supposed were cast into it to be washed, communicated this healing virtue to it. But surely all the circumstances of this history, as Dr. Whitby justly observes, render this hypothesis highly improbable. For how is it likely, 1st, That this should be a natural means of curing all sorts of diseased persons, without exception, the blind, the halt, and the withered?
2d, That it should only cure the person that stepped in first, though he might be followed by others the same instant; for how should the natural virtue of this pool, impregnated with the warm entrails of so many sacrifices, extend itself only to one ? Man 1:3 d, That it should do this only at one time of the year, namely, at the feast of passover; for this was done, not at several times, but only at a certain time, or season, or at that time, or season. And, lastly, the very foundation of this conjecture is taken away by that observation of Dr. Lightfoot, that there was a laver in the temple for the washing of those entrails, and so they were not likely to be washed in this pool. It is further to be observed, that these waters of Siloam were a type of the kingdom of David, according to Isaiah 8:6; and of Christ, according to Joh 12:3 of the same prophet; whence Siloam is interpreted sent, by this evangelist, John 9:7. To this type of the Messiah, God might therefore give this virtue about that time, to prepare the Jews to receive his advent, who was sent to them; and, at the same time, when a fountain was to be opened for sin and for uncleanness, (Zechariah 13:1,) he might communicate this virtue to this pool, as a prefiguration of it: whence, as Tertullian observes, “the virtue of this pool then ceased, when they, persisting in their infidelity, rejected our Saviour.” And this might be one reason why the Jewish writers are so silent as to its virtue, because, by its signification, it related to Christ, and by this miracle confirmed his doctrine. “That the waters of Bethesda,” says Dr. Macknight, “should at this time have obtained a miraculous healing quality, was, without doubt, in honour of the personal appearance of the Son of God on earth. Perhaps it was intended to show that Ezekiel's vision of waters, (Ezekiel 47:1; Ezekiel 47:7,) issuing out of the sanctuary, was about to be fulfilled; of which waters it is said, (John 5:9,) They shall be healed, and every thing shall live whither the river cometh.