It is then appropriate to take a
look at the uses of “miraculous signs.” In the second chapter of John,
this term is used in conjunction with the changing of the water into wine, as
the author writes that “Jesus did this as the first of His miraculous signs”
(2:11a). This was said to have been a way in which “He revealed His
glory, and His disciples believed in Him” (2:11b). Consequently then, the
presentation of the signs are often linked to the issue of belief.
In the twenty-third verse of the
same chapter, the author reports that “while Jesus was in Jerusalem at the
feast of the Passover, many people believed in His name because they saw the
miraculous signs He was doing.” Interestingly, this mention of miraculous
signs is not specifically connected to any particular account of the
performance of miraculous signs. It is simply an assertion on the part of
the author that seems to rely on the knowledge of the miraculous as part of the
Jesus tradition in the community for which this Gospel was composed.
At this point in the record
offered by the author of John, all that Jesus is said to have done in Jerusalem
was the driving out of those changing money and selling animals (2:15), along
with making a statement about the Temple being His Father’s house (2:16).
These would hardly be defined as “miraculous signs” in any respect. In
response to His activity in the Temple, unsurprisingly, Jesus is questioned by
the Jewish leaders, with a demand to know why, and under what authority, He had
done what He had done. In fact, as it relates to the purposes of this
study at this point, it is even asked of him “What sign can you show us, since
you are doing these things?” (2:18b) Here, the use of “miraculous” is not
offered. Jesus is said to have responded to the query with the highly
subversive and quite obviously proleptic “Destroy this temple and in three days
I will raise it up again” (2:19), but there is certainly nothing in this story
that approaches the level of “miraculous sign”.
From there, John immediately moves
to the story of an encounter between Jesus and a Jewish leader named
Nicodemus. With no chapter breaks in the original composition, and with
it most likely designed to be delivered as an oral performance at a single
setting, the listener is taken directly from Jesus speaking to a group of
Jewish leaders, to Jesus speaking with one Jewish leader. Presumably
then, it is reasonable to understand Nicodemus as coming to Jesus as a direct
result of what took place in the Temple. It is probable then, for the
purpose of this Gospel and its author, that the listener is supposed to presume
that Nicodemus was himself present at the event in the Temple and heard what
Jesus said.
In his opening statement to Jesus,
Nicodemus says “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from
God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs that you do unless God
is with Him” (3:2b). Once again, this talk of “miraculous signs” presumes
a shared knowledge within the Johannine community, for there is nothing in the
Jerusalem-situated narrative, to that point, that could truly be labeled as
such.
Jesus’ response to Nicodemus
contains the first reported use, in the Gospel of John, of the all-important
phrase “kingdom of God.” Jesus said to Him, “I tell you the solemn truth,
unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (3:3).
This will go on to tie in quite well with Jesus’ talk, within the same
conversation, of perishing and eternal life (which, as has already been
established, is linked to conceptions of exile and exodus, both of which speak
to the nature of the rule of the Creator God over His people, and through them,
the whole of creation), and of the salvation and redemption of the world that
is part of the Creator’s design and purpose for the Christ. Naturally,
Jesus then goes on to speak about the need for belief (3:12,16,18), thus
relating Nicodemus’ use of “miraculous signs” with belief.
No comments:
Post a Comment