Most biblical scholars divide the Gospel of John in two parts: between the Book of Signs (Jn 1:19 – 12:50) and the Book of Glory (Jn 13:1 – 20:31). Yet this arbitrary division can only be sustained if one presupposes that the Johannine signs end with the raising of Lazarus. Although I accept the general consensus among scholars concerning the first six signs, I argue for the inclusion of the flux of water and blood Christ’s side as the seventh sign, which implicitly identifies Jesus as the New Temple. When the Jews ask for a sign after Jesus cleanses the Temple, he responds with a peculiar remark, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn 2:18-20). The focus here is Jesus identity as the new eschatological temple, which is signified by the flux of water and blood. Furthermore, given the textual and thematic parallels displayed by the sign narratives, I argue that the seven signs are arranged chiastically. I adopt the list and arrangement proposed by Marc Girard,[1] who was a Professor of Biblical Hermeneutics at the French institute École Biblique in Jerusalem.
A: Changing water into wine (Jn 2:7-8, 11)
B: Healing of the official’s son (Jn 4:46-54)
C: Healing of the paralytic (Jn 5:5-9)
D: Feeding of the 5,000 (Jn 6:5-13)
C’: Healing of the man born blind (Jn 9:1, 7)
B’: Raising of Lazarus (Jn 11:43)
A’: Water and Blood (Jn 19:34)
In his article, “The Seventh Johannine Sign: A Study in John's Christology,” Andreas J. Köstenberger opposes the inclusion of the crucifixion among the Johannine signs. I believe his opposition stems from a legitimate concern that the signs point to the crucifixion and resurrection, whereas the crucifixion itself is the fulfillment of the signs. I agree with this assessment, which is why I narrow the sign down to a specific instance of the crucifixion scene, namely, the flux of water and blood from Christ’s side. However, Köstenberger does provide some insightful criteria for identifying the signs qua signs. The first criterion he offers for identifying the signs is that the signs must be public works of Jesus. In other words, they have as their audience the broader public, not merely Jesus’ inner circle. The second criterion he mentions is that the signs must be explicitly referred to as such. For example, the six commonly recognized signs are explicitly referred to as signs:
(1) Water into Wine (2:11)
(2) Healing of the Official’s Son (4:54)
(3) Healing of the Paralytic (6:2; 7:21)
(4) Multiplication of Loaves (6:14)
(5) Healing the man born blind (9:16)
(6) Raising of Lazarus (12:18)
The third criterion Köstenberger lists is that the signs must “point to God's glory displayed in Jesus, thus revealing Jesus as God’s authentic representative… While the word “glory” is not always used in conjunction with Jesus’ working of signs, all of Jesus’ signs are presented as evidence that Jesus is God’s authentic representative (cf. 5:17– 47; 7:14-24; 6:25-59; 9:3-5, 35– 41; 11:25-27, 40).”[2]
However, Köstenberger also excludes the necessity of the miraculous as a condition for the identification of the signs. He argues that when we see the term signs in the Old Testament it can either refer to some miraculous event or to a prophetic act (cf. Isa 20:3; Ezek 4:1-3). He writes, “Of the roughly 120 references to “signs” in the OT and apocrypha, the vast majority are clustered around two events or types of ministries: the exodus, where frequent reference is made to the “signs and wonders” performed by God through Moses, and the “signs” forming part of the activity of the OT prophets.”[3] He continues, “The "miraculous" element is certainly not missing in the signs of John's Gospel. It appears, however, that this is not where John's emphasis lies. This seems to be suggested by the fact that the phrase "signs and wonders" which is characteristic for the types of signs performed during the exodus occurs only once in the Fourth Gospel, and there on the lips of Jesus with a strongly negative connotation (cf. 4:48).”[4]
I agree with Köstenberger that John’s emphasis is not so much on the miraculous itself, but rather on what the signs signify. However, this does not prevent the Gospel author from utilizing the miraculous in each of the six commonly recognized signs. The fact that the six commonly recognized signs all have some miraculous element associated with them favors the opinion that the miraculous is a necessary condition for the identification of a sign in John’s gospel. Furthermore, of the six commonly recognized signs, at least four of them have some allusion to the Exodus.
(1) The Wedding at Cana alludes to the first plague (Ex 7:14-25).
(2) The paralytic who was crippled for thirty-eight years alludes to length of time spent by Israel wandering in the wilderness (Deut 2:14).
(3) The multiplication of loaves alludes to the raining down of Manna (Exod 16; Jn 6:49).
(4) The healing of the blind man centers on the Law of Moses (Exod 20:5).
John’s emphasis on the miraculous and the Exodus suggests that Jesus fulfilled the first type of ministry indicated by Köstenberger. This is ultimately what prompted the Jews to declare Jesus the prophet foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 (cf. Jn 6:14).
Instead of the crucifixion, Köstenberger argues for the inclusion of the Temple Cleansing on the basis of John 2:18 (“What sign do you have for doing this?”). However, this passage can be interpreted in three ways: (1) it can be taken to mean the Temple Cleansing itself is a sign (cf. John 6:30), (2) it can allude to some future act, or (3) it could imply both. However, if we add the Temple Cleansing, we would have to include some other event to retain the chiastic structure of the Johannine signs. The only other event that parallels the Temple Cleansing textually and thematically is the washing of the disciple’s feet. However, the foot washing during Last Supper doesn’t fulfill the first two criteria listed by Köstenberger.
|
Temple Cleansing |
Last Supper |
|
2.13: The Passover of the Jews was at hand |
13.1: Now before the feast of the Passover |
|
2.15: and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.
(Casting out money changers from the Temple) |
12.6: This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief… 13.26-27: So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. Then after the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.”
(Casting out Judas from the Upper Room, which is symbolic of the New Eden / Temple). |
|
2.16:“you shall not make my Father’s house a house of trade” |
14.2: “In my Father’s house are many rooms” |
I exclude the Temple Cleansing for several reasons. In the first place, of the 17 instances when the term “sign” is used, all of them allude to some miraculous event (cf. 2:11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:48; 12:18, 37; and 20:30). When the Jews ask Jesus for a “sign” in 2:18 and 6:30, they are precisely asking for a miraculous display of power. The fact that Jesus criticizes the royal official for asking for a miracle doesn’t prevent Him from performing one, nor does it prevent the gospel author from assigning it as the second sign performed at Cana. The fact that the six commonly recognized signs all have some miraculous element to them, argues against the inclusion of the Temple cleansing. Instead, John 2:18-19 & 20:30 implicitly imply that the flux of blood and water from Christ’s side should be considered as one of the Johannine signs.
Here on, I will provide a side by side list of the textual and thematic parallels displayed by the various Johannine signs; starting off with the Wedding at Cana and the Crucifixion narrative.
|
Textual Parallels |
|
|
Wedding at Cana (2:1-11) |
Crucifixion (19:17-37) |
|
2.9: When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine |
19.34: But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. |
|
2.4: And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? |
19.26: “Woman, behold, your son!” |
|
2.11: and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him |
19.35: his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth—that you also may believe |
|
Theme |
Text |
|
|
Wedding at Cana |
Crucifixion |
|
|
Allusion to the Holy Spirit through the signs of water, wine and blood. The water and wine allude to baptism and the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:5; 4:10; Mk 2:21-22). The wine and blood also allude to the Eucharist (Jn 6:53). |
2.10: “Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.”
4.10: “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.”
|
19.28-30: After this Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the scripture), “I thirst.” A bowl full of vinegar stood there; so they put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished”; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
19.34: But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.
19.26: “Woman, behold, your son!” (Divine Adoption; cf. Jn 1:12). |
|
The steward of the wedding implicitly alludes to Jesus as the Bridegroom of the wedding, although this is made more explicit when the Baptist proclaims Jesus the Bridegroom of Israel (3:28-29).
The piercing of Christ’s side alludes to the creation of Eve from Adam’s side, and their subsequent marriage. |
2.9-10: When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” |
19.34: But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. |
|
Emphasis on the sixth day of the week. |
2.1: On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, |
Jesus crucified on the Sabbath. |
|
The Wedding at Cana is the beginning of Jesus’ signs (or more appropriately His work’s), whereas the blood and water is His seventh and last divine act, analogous to the work of Yahweh in the Mosaic creation account. Jesus concludes His ministry with the words: “It is finished”. |
2.11 This, the beginning of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee |
19.30: “It is finished” |
Although the Wedding at Cana concludes the six day narrative of the Johannine week (cf. 2:1; 1:29, 35, 43), it also begins the heptadic chiastic structure of the Johannine signs. Interestingly, the author of the Gospel writes that the Wedding at Cana was the "beginning of the signs" (archēn tōn sēmeiōn) as opposed to the “first sign" (prōton sēmeiōn) (Jn 2:11). This seems to allude to the introductory statement of the Prologue (In the beginning was the Word…”). This view is reaffirmed by verse 2:11b, “and manifested his glory,” which parallels 1:14c, “we have beheld his glory.” The author’s use of the phrase the “third day” (hēmera tē tritē) (Jn 2:1) also has a twofold allusion. In the first place, it alludes to the resurrection of Christ. Although a few scholars contest this, much of the Gospel is only intelligible in light of the Resurrection. Rather, I think we can be certain that the Evangelist was consciously thinking about the resurrection given the immediate transition into the Temple Cleansing (2:19-20, 22; cf. 5:20,24; 6:39-40,44). Secondly, the phrase alludes to the sixth day of the Mosaic creation account (which culminates in the marriage between Adam and Eve). As many scholars have noted, the first two chapters of the gospel are a recapitulation of the Mosaic creation account. Beginning with the declaration “en archē ēn ho Logos” and culminating in the marriage feast at Cana (2:1-11), the Johannine narrative parallels the Mosaic creation account to a remarkable degree. Here is a list of just some of the textual parallels between the Johannine and Mosaic creation accounts.
|
John 1-2 |
Genesis 1-3 |
|
1.1a: In the beginning was the Word… 1:3a: Through Him all things were made |
1.1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth |
|
1.4-5: In him was light… and the darkness could not overcome it |
1.3: And God said, “Let there be light” 1.4: and God separated the light from the darkness. |
|
1.29 The translational phrase “Next Day” (Tē epaurion) is used, implying there was a first day. |
1.5: And there was evening, and there was morning—day one (yom-'ehad). |
|
1.32: “I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him” |
1.6-7: “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters…” |
|
1.35: Now the Third Day |
1.8: Second Day |
|
1.42: “You shall be called Cephas” |
1.9: “Let the dry land appear” |
|
1.43: Fourth Day |
1.13: Third day |
|
1.51: “Amen, Amen, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.”
[n.b. angels are referred to as stars in the book of Revelation (cf. Rev 1:16, 20; 8:10, 12; 9:1; 12:14)] |
1.14 “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens…” |
|
2.1: On the Third Day |
1.31: Sixth Day |
|
2:1: On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee 2.10: “Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” |
2.23: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh’ she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” |
|
2.4: “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” |
3.15: And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” |
If the Mosaic creation account serves as the backdrop for the first two chapters of John’s gospel, then there is good reason to believe that the Cana story also incorporates Edenic nuptial symbolism. The Edenic-nuptial motif becomes all the more evident when placed in context of Cana’s corresponding sign, viz. - the flux of water and blood from Jesus’ side (19:34). In the crucifixion narrative, the author depicts Jesus as sleeping Adam (19:30; cf. Gen 2:21), from whose side water and blood come out (19:34, cf. Gen 2:21-24). The gospel author’s consistent depiction of Jesus as the Bridegroom (cf. 2:1-11; 3:29; 4:16-18; 19:34) only reinforces the Edenic nuptial motif in the Cana story. The Edenic-nuptial motif not only highlights Jesus’ role as the New Adam, but also the Church’s status as the New Eve. This is why the Christian eccleisa is often depicted under the figure of the Temple (cf. 2:19).
The Crucifixion narrative also has several parallels to the Mosaic creation account:
|
John 19 |
Genesis 2-3 |
|
19.26: “Woman, behold, your son!” |
2.23: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” |
|
19.30: “It is finished” |
2.3: And on the seventh day God finished his work |
|
19.30: and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. |
2.21: So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh |
|
19.34: But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. |
2.21: while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; |
|
19.19: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” |
1.28: have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air |
|
19.23: But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom |
2.15: The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. (cf. Num. 3:7-8; 8:25-26; 18:5-6; 1 Chr. 23:32; Ezek. 44:14) |
So what are the theological implications of the textual parallelism displayed by the Cana and Crucifixion narratives? To determine this, we need to understand what the two signs signify in themselves. The Wedding at Cana obviously alludes to the marriage between Christ and His Bride, the Church (cf. 3:28-29). It also implicitly alludes to the union that occurred at the Incarnation (i.e., between divinity and humanity), indicated by the phrases archēn tōn sēmeiōn (2:1) and ephanerōsen tēn doxan autou (2:11), paralleling John 1:1 and 1:14, respectively. By implication, the Crucifixion is the consummation of the marriage between Christ and deified humanity (Jn 20:19-23). On a secondary level, the piercing of Christ’s side also alludes to His role as the New Temple (2:19-21; 1:14, 32, 51; Ezek 47:1; Mishnah, Middoth 3:2). Jesus’ statement to the Samaritan woman in John 4:21-24 also has ecclesiological implications. Although Jesus is the Temple par excellence, we, as the body of believers, also constitute the New Temple (cf. 19:26-27, 34). We no longer have to go to any specific place to encounter the presence of God; rather the instantiation of the ecclesia will be determined by three conditions: our profession of faith (Jn 3:36), sharing in the sacraments (3:5; 6:53), and union with a valid hierarchy (Jn 1:42; 10:10; 21: 15-19).
The second sign (healing of the royal official’s son) builds on the first theologically. The gospel author adds, “This was now the second sign that Jesus did when he had come from Judea to Galilee” (4:54). The significance of this connection will only be brought out once we place the healing of the official’s son in relation to its corresponding sign, viz. - the raising of Lazarus.
|
Jesus Heals Official’s Son (4:46-54) |
Jesus Raises Lazarus (11:1-44) |
|
1.47, 49: Initial request from the father to “come down” |
11.3: Initial request from Martha and Mary to go to Lazarus |
|
4.46: And at Capernaum there was an official whose son was ill. |
11.3: “Lord, he whom you love is ill.” |
|
4.47: Jesus comes down from Judea, “When he heard that Jesus had come from Judea to Galilee” |
1.7: Jesus goes to Judea, “Let us go into Judea again.” |
|
4.47: for he was at the point of death. |
11.4: “This illness is not unto death” 11.14: “Laz′arus is dead” |
|
4.50: Jesus doesn’t go in person to the official’s son but heals him by His word,
“Go; your son will live” (4:50). |
Jesus doesn’t go to Lazarus until after he has died (11:17). And then raises Lazarus by His word,
“Lazarus, come out” (11:43) |
|
4.48: “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.” 4.50: The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and went his way. 4.53: he himself believed, and all his household. |
11.15: “and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe.” |
Both the official’s son and Lazarus were at the point of death when their family members came asking Jesus for help. Although dead (or at the point of death), they were made to live again, which could figuratively be called a second birth. The term “deuteron” used in John 4:54 is also found in Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus (3:4-5). If the second sign builds upon the first theologically (which is textually and structurally related to the crucifixion), then it seems to add the element of rebirth to the nuptial theme already present in the Cana and Crucifixion narratives. The implication would be that Christ is uniting Himself to renewed humanity.
The third sign (healing of the paralytic) corresponds textually to the restoration of the blind man’s sight on several levels.
|
Jesus Heals Paralytic(Jn 5:1-15) |
Jesus Heals Blind Man (Jn 9:1-34). |
|
|
Length of Illness |
38 years (Jn 5:5) |
Born without sight (Jn 9:1) |
|
Cause of Illness |
Sin (Jn 5:14) |
Not sin (Jn 9:3) |
|
Day of the Week |
Sabbath (Jn 5:16 ) |
Sabbath (Jn 9:14, 16) |
|
Close association with water |
Jesus heals the paralytic near the sheep gate and the 5 porticoes (Jn 5:2) |
Jesus sends the blind man to wash in the pool of Siloam (Jn 9:7) |
|
Mention of works |
Jesus mentions the works He must accomplish (Jn 5:36) |
Jesus mentions the works He must accomplish (Jn 9:4 and 10:25) |
|
Pharisees investigate |
5:12-13 They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Take up your pallet, and walk’?” Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place. |
9:12 They said to him, “Where is he?” He said, “I do not know.” |
Besides the textual similarities, there are also clear thematic parallels. For example, the paralytic typological represents wandering Israel (5:5), who was spiritually desolate due to obstinacy in sin (5:14); whereas the man born blind represents the fallen condition of the human race (9:6), which is born in spiritual darkness due to original sin. St. Augustine writes, “Blindness came upon the first man by reason of sin: and from him we all derive it: i.e. man is blind from his birth.”[5] The remedy for both spiritual death and blindness is ultimately baptism, which is alluded to by the five porticoes and the pool of Siloam. The implication being, baptism is both spiritually regenerative and illuminative. As a side note, there is also reason to believe that the healing of the paralytic is associated with Jesus’ post resurrection appearance to the disciples (20:19-23), given the use of dirt in the healing of the blind man, which harkens to the Mosaic creation account of Adam (2:7).
The climatic point for the Gospel of John is the multiplication of loaves. The multiplication of loaves mirrors the institution narrative found in the synoptic Gospels. In verse 11, Jesus takes bread, gives thank, and distributes it among those who were seated. And then in verses 70-71, Jesus alludes to the betrayal of Judas. In the Lukan account of the institution narrative, we find a similar structure; Jesus takes bread, gives thanks, breaks it, and gives it to His disciples (Lk 24:19). And then soon afterward we have the prediction of the betrayal of Judas (Lk 24:21-22). This only reinforces the Eucharistic allusions of the Bread of Life discourse, where Jesus explicitly states the necessity of eating His flesh and drinking His blood (6:53), which corresponds to the command to eat his body and drink his blood during the last supper. The command to eat the flesh of the son of man is juxtaposed to the Mosaic creation account where Adam and Eve are commanded not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:16-17). Within this framework, Jesus is not only depicted as the manna that came down from heaven (Exod 16), but also the tree of life, which gives eternal life to those who eat of it (6:54). This is why St. Ignatius calls the Eucharist “the medicine of immortality.”[6] The implicit Edenic allusion is difficult to discern but can be established through several textual connections. The prediction of Judas’ betrayal in verses 70-71 is later fulfilled in chapter 13, where after eating the morsel of bread, Satan enters Judas, and he immediately leaves the Upper Room (13:21-30). This is a reversal of what occurred in the Mosaic account. Instead of Adam and Eve leaving the garden, we have Satan and his followers exiting (Gen 3:24). As opposed to the negative command, “Do not eat of the tree,” (Gen 3:17), we have the positive command “Unless you eat of the flesh of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jn 6:53). The Edenic allusion is reinforced by the garden imagery associated with the Upper Room.
In His post-resurrection appearance (Jn 20:19-23), Jesus appeared to His disciples through closed doors (the same room where Jesus washed His disciples’ feet). When placed in the context of Jesus’ act of breathing, and its close association with Genesis 2:7, the Upper Room becomes a type of Garden of Eden. The Edenic imagery is further highlighted by the mention of “closed doors,” indicating that the Upper Room was a kind of sanctuary (much like the Garden). In John 14, while in the Upper Room with His disciples, our Lord says, “In My Father’s house there are many rooms” (Jn 14:2). The only other instance where the phrase “My Father’s house” is used is in reference to the Jerusalem Temple in John 2:16. This further reinforces the priestly ministry the apostles received during the Last Supper in John 13. The literary connection between the Temple and the Upper Room also indicates that the Upper Room is a figure of the church / paradise. As heaven on earth, the church is the place of God’s own dwelling. Indeed, God presently dwells in our midst through the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Thus, by reconciling His disciples to Himself, Jesus is giving them access once again to the tree of life (cf. Rev 22:14; Gen 2:9). The mysterious appearance through closed doors also reinforces this Eucharistic allusion (Jn 20:19). For more on the Upper Room as a type of Eden, one can read my article, “The Restoration of the Archetypal Eden in the Gospel of St. John.”
The multiplication of loaves is also thematically related to the Cana story. The overabundance of wine produced (2:6) corresponds to the overabundance of bread left over (6:13). Assuming that the Bread of Life discourse is eucharistically centered, the association between Cana and the multiplication of loaves adds nuptial meaning to the Eucharist. Through the Eucharist, Jesus unites Himself to the human soul in the most intimate way.
[1] Marc Girard, “La composition structurelle des sept ‘signes’ dans le quatrime evangile,” Sciences Religieuses 9 (1980) 315-24.
[2] Andreas J. Köstenberger, “The Seventh Johannine Sign: A Study in John's Christology,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 5 (1995), 94.
[3] Ibid. 90
[4] Ibid. 91
[5] Aquinas, Catena Aurea: Gospel of John.
[6] Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 20.
No comments:
Post a Comment