John 5:2

There Is - This is thought by some to be a proof that John wrote his Gospel before the destruction of Jerusalem; and that the pool and its porticoes were still remaining. Though there can be little doubt that Jerusalem was destroyed many years before John wrote, yet this does not necessarily imply that the pool and its porticoes must have been destroyed too. It, or something in its place, is shown to travelers to the present day. See Maundrell's Jour. p. 108. But instead of εϚι , Is, both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Persic, Armenian, and Nonnus, read ην , Was; which is to me some proof that it did not exist when these versions were made, and that the pool which is shown now is not the original.

By the sheep market - Rather, gate: see Nehemiah 3:1 , Nehemiah 3:32 ; Nehemiah 12:39 . This was in all probability the gate through which the sheep were brought which were offered in sacrifice in the temple.

A pool - Bp. Pearce thinks the word κολυμβηθρα should be translated bath, and that this place was built for the purpose of bathing and swimming in. He observes that κολυμβᾳν signifies to swim, in Acts 27:43 . In proof of this, he cites three of the old Itala, which have natatoria , a bathing or swimming place.

Bethesda - This word is variously written in the MSS. and versions: Bezatha - Bethzatha - Betzetha - Belzetha - Belzatha - Berzeta; and many have Bethsaida. But the former reading is the genuine one. Bethesda, or according to the Hebrew ביתחסדה Bethchasdah , signifies literally, the house of mercy. It got this name probably from the cures which God mercifully performed there. It is likely the porticoes were built for the more convenient reception of the poor and distressed, who came hither to be healed. It does not appear that any person was obliged to pay man for what the mercy of God freely gave. Wicked as the Jewish people were, they never thought of levying a tax on the poor and afflicted, for the cures they received in these healing waters. How is it that a well-regulated state, such as that of Great Britain, can ever permit individuals or corporations to enrich themselves at the expense of God's mercy, manifested in the sanative waters of Bristol, Bath, Buxton, etc.? Should not the accommodations be raised at the expense of the public, that the poor might enjoy without cost, which they are incapable of defraying, the great blessing which the God of nature has bestowed on such waters? In most of those places there is a profession that the poor may drink and bathe gratis; but it is little better than a pretense, and the regulations relative to this point render the whole nearly inefficient. However, some good is done.