The version in the Gospel of John highlights what is merely
implicit in Mark, namely, that the man was not required to immerse in flowing
water in order to be forgiven. The Gospel of John does this by placing the man
near a mikveh that he was unable to enter, with Jesus telling him to get up and
carry his mat away home with no command that he immerse himself. The man’s
reference to being unable to get into the water when it is agitated because of
his immobility, so that others get in first and block his access, was puzzling
to at least one scribe who introduced the detail about an angel descending to
stir up the waters and give them healing power. Without that addition, the
story may be read as one in which the man is seeking forgiveness for sin
through baptism, and his only hope is the Pool of Bethesda beside which has
been laid. The water would be considered living water only when the sluice gate
was opened and the pool replenished with water that flowed from the valley. Jesus
heals him, with the lack of requirement of immersion in flowing water made even
more explicit than in Mark. Even if this is the significance of these gospel
narratives, it is difficult to determine whether the trajectory leading from
Mark to John is due to a departure from John’s practice by Jesus, or later
Christian’s departure from the practice of John and Jesus. Moreover, if the Pools
of Bethesda were an 339 (which is uncertain) that would readily explain both
why the man sought healing there and why Jesus did not have the man be baptized
there. In short, while there are possible hints of diverging Christian and
Baptist practices, we cannot be sure the New Testament gospels provide evidence
for it at such an early date that they involve disagreement between the
historical John and Jesus. (James F. McGrath, John of History, Baptist of Faith:
The Quest for the Historical Baptizer [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
2024], 122-23)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card:
ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com