It seems almost impossible to decide with certainty what feast is alluded to in [John 5:1]. One can only speak with moderation where everything is so doubtful. Various feasts have been suggested as solving the problem.
1. The Feast of Dedication has been proposed by Kepler and Petavius. But this view has met with no great amount of favor, for there is too short an interval between the first Passover and December, when it occurred. It might be a later Feast of Dedication, but this feast was not one of the great feasts and would hardly have drawn Jesus all the way from Galilee to attend it. He did attend this feast once ([John 10:22]), but he was already in Judea at this time, having come up to attend the Feast of Tabernacles ([John 7:2], [14]). So Robinson, Clark, etc. So this feast seems to be ruled out of the question.
2. The Feast of Tabernacles is advocated by Ebrard, Ewald, Patritius. It is very unlikely that the Feast of Tabernacles after the first Passover could be meant, as the Saviour did not return to Galilee for some time afterwards. He could hardly have come back so soon to Jerusalem. But the Feast of Tabernacles after the Passover of [John 6:4] is mentioned later, [John 7:2] f., which Jesus attended, it seems, because he was hindered from going up to the previous Passover by the murderous designs of the Jews. It is possible that the feast of [John 5:1] may have been the Feast of Tabernacles after a Passover not mentioned, and so would come after the second Passover of his public ministry. But we do not know that Jesus attended any other Feast of Tabernacles save the one in [John 7:2], which he may have done because he missed the preceding Passover.
3. The Feast of Purim, first suggested by Kepler, has had great favor with modern harmonists, but apparently more on sentimental than on scholarly grounds. Meyer says, "Without doubt it was Purim." But it is by no means so certain as Meyer would have us believe. (a) Meyer relies on [John 4:35] and [6:4] to show that this was the Feast of Purim just before [John 6:4]. But the expression, "Say not ye, There are yet four months and then cometh the harvest?" may be, and probably is a proverbial saying indicating the usual length of time between sowing and reaping, which, as a matter of fact, was about four months. Hence nothing can be determined by this note of time. And, besides, the four months could precede the Passover just as well as Purim, because the sowing lasted a month or so. (b) The Feast of Purim occurred a month before the Passover. Is it at all likely that two circuits of all Galilee were made in the meantime, besides much work of other kinds? See [Luke 8:1] and [Matt. 9:35-38]. The three general circuits throughout Galilee, besides the mission of the twelve and a large part of their training, the general statements about the Master's work of preaching and healing, require an expansion rather than a contraction of the time for this period of his ministry. It seems then quite unreasonable, when once the mind takes in this enlarged conception of the missionary work of Jesus, as recorded by the Synoptic Gospels, to limit it to the amount of work mentioned by John, since he omits much of the early ministry, because, it would seem, the others are so full just here. (c) The Feast of Purim, moreover, was observed at home in the synagogues, and not by going to Jerusalem. See Esther 9:22 and Jos. Ant. xi. 6, 13. But "the multitude" ([John 5:13]) seems to imply (Robinson) a concourse of strangers at one of the great festivals. (d) It seems hardly probable, besides, that Jesus would go to any feast just a month before the Passover and come back to Galilee and not go to the Passover itself ([John 6:4]). Least of all would he do this in the case of Purim. (e) The man who was healed at this feast was healed on the Sabbath ([John 5:9]), and this occasioned the outburst among the people. But the Feast of Purim was never celebrated on the Sabbath, and when it came on a Sabbath it was postponed. See Reland, Antiq. Sacr. 4, 9.
4. Pentecost is held to be the feast here alluded to by many early and some later writers, such as Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Erasmus, Calvin, Bengel, etc. Norris makes it the Pentecost after the first Passover, but to do this, has to crowd into this short interval Christ's first Judean ministry, the journey through Samaria together with the first part of his Galilean ministry. So this idea has little weight. McClellan argues that the allusions of Jesus in [John 5:17-47], "infallibly point to Pentecost," meaning the Pentecost after a second Passover that is not mentioned. He further contends that this best suits the chronological arrangement and the term "a feast of the Jews." This view is certainly possible and cannot be positively disproved, although it is not so "infallibly" clear as McClellan imagines.
5. The Passover has always met with many adherents, being the second Passover in the Saviour's ministry and making four in all ([John 2:13]; [5:1]; [6:4]; [12:1]). An unnamed Passover may exist in the ministry even if not referred to here. The arguments in favor of this interpretation are the most satisfactory. We cannot consider them as absolutely conclusive, yet the Passover meets all sides of the case better than any of the other feasts. (a) The plucking of ears from standing grain by the disciples ([Luke 6:1]) would indicate a time after the Passover and before Pentecost. This incident appears to have happened after the feast mentioned in [John 5:1]. (b) It is fairly implied ([John 5:1]) that the feast took Jesus to Jerusalem. The Passover would more likely be the one to lead him there. It is expressly stated that he attended two Passovers and a special reason is given for his not attending a third. If there was another Passover in his ministry, this would naturally be the one. (c) This suits best the hostility manifested at this feast, which would have time to become acute (Broadus' Comm. on Matt.) and break out with increased vigor in Galilee and prevent his attending the next Passover ([John 6:4]; [7:1]). (d) If this Passover be a second Passover of the ministry, sufficient time is afforded for the great Galilean ministry without artificial crowding. His ministry would be long enough to allow the great work recorded as done by him. Only two serious objections can be urged to this idea. (1) It is objected that the article would be used with "feast," if the Passover were thus mentioned as the feast. But to this we can reply: (a) The article is sometimes omitted when the Passover is meant ([Matt. 27:15]; [Mark 15:6]). (b) The absence of the article proves nothing whatever one way or the other. No conclusion can be drawn for or against the idea of the Passover. (c) The article does occur in many manuscripts, including the Sinaitic, and is put in the margin of the Revised Version. So nothing can be gained against this theory here. (2) The chief objection is that Jesus would not have remained so long away from Jerusalem, a year and six months, from the Second Passover till the Feast of Tabernacles after the Third Passover. But (a) we do not know that he did not attend any other feast in that time, for silence proves nothing; and (b) a good reason is given for his failure to attend the Third Passover, which may have applied to the others, if he did not go, viz., the desire of the Jews to kill him ([John 7:1]).
Hence it is natural that there should be a variety of opinions as to the length of the Saviour's ministry, varying all the way from one to four years, leaving out mere guesses based on five and more Passovers. McKnight argues that the ministry may have lasted five or more full years, since all the Passovers of Christ's ministry may not be mentioned.
(1) The Bi-paschal theory makes the time of the public life of Jesus one year, allowing only two Passovers to the Gospel of John. Browne in his Ordo Saeclorum advocates this view. But the words, "the Passover," in [John 6:4] must be omitted, and for this there is not enough documentary evidence. If this could be done, Westcott thinks Browne would make out a good case. But with the present text, his view cannot be entertained.
(2) The Tri-paschal theory finds only three Passovers in the life of Christ. Hence the public work of Jesus would be from two to two and a half years in length. This view is quite possible, as is shown in the Harmony. These writers usually make the feast of [John 5:1] Purim before the Passover of [John 6:4], or Pentecost after it.
(3) The Quadri-paschal theory contends for four Passovers and a ministry of from three to three and a half years. This theory follows from making [John 5:1] a Passover or Purim before or Pentecost or Tabernacles after an unnamed Passover. This seems to be the more probable length of the Saviour's public work on earth. How short a space was even this to compass such a marvellous work. The ministry of Jesus seems crowded beyond our comprehension. It would be certain that the Saviour's public life lasted about three years and a half, if it was admitted that [John 5:1] referred to a Passover. Various writers seek to find an allusion to the three years of the Saviour's ministry in the Parable of the Barren Fig Tree ([Luke 13:6]), but this application of the parable is by no means certain, since three might naturally be used as a round number. But there can very well have been a passover not mentioned. All we can say is that we know that the ministry of Jesus was two and a half years in length with the probability of three and a half.