‘Jesus went up on a mountainside and sat down,’
which parallels the receipt of the two stone tablets on which were inscribed the Ten Commandments, in Exodus. By comparing Jesus to a hugely important Jewish figure like Moses, Jewish readers would be better able to grasp Jesus’ authority and importance. Alternatively, the Old Testament references might be a way to implicitly show Christianity replacing Judaism, again showing Jesus’ divinity and making the reader more likely to have faith. Marsh suggests that Jesus is presented as a ‘New Moses’ in the Feeding of the 5000, which is a metaphor for Christ superseding Judaism. It should be noted that Dodd disagrees that there is any significance to the fact that Jesus sat on a mountain, believing it to be purely of topographical significance. However, this detail does not feature in Mark, often cited as John’s main source, which suggests that the evangelist chose to include it for a theological reason.
John also uses the signs to give a broader perspective on individual events. This is reflected in his use of the word ‘semeia’ (‘signs’), instead of ‘dunameis’ (‘miracles’) which is used in the synoptics. The word ‘signs’ emphasises the fact that the role and purpose of Jesus’ miracles transcend the acts themselves: they fit into a wider divine scheme. There are six signs in John, which seems to be significant as six is considered an incomplete number in Jewish tradition, whereas seven is a whole number. The passion and resurrection occur after the six signs, with some scholars calling it the seventh sign, so it could be interpreted that Jesus’ death on the cross is the fulfillment (or as Bultmann says, the ‘crowning conclusion’) of the signs that came before it. There are aspects of the signs that seem to point towards Jesus’ future. For example, in the Water to Wine account, Jesus replies to his mother’s prompt:
“…why do you involve me?...My time has not yet come.”
For a reader who knows about the passion and resurrection, the statement ‘my time has not yet come’ evokes the idea of Jesus being very aware of God’s plan for him, including the fact that he will eventually sacrifice himself to save people from sin. A strong link is created between Jesus and the Father who sent him, and Christ’s divine knowingness is shown, so it could also be argued that John includes elements of Christology in the signs, which certainly points to them being early Christian theology. The signs can also refer back to the Prologue, for example in the Healing at the Pool, where Jesus only has to say “Pick up your mat and walk” for the crippled man to be cured. This links to the concept of the Logos in John 1:1, where it says:
‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’
Jesus’ words are powerful and true, so the crippled man could not refuse to do as Jesus said. He had no option but to walk and be saved.
There are details that are probably historically or topographically accurate in the signs. For example, the five porticoes mentioned in the Healing at the Pool have actually been found near the church of St Anne near Antonia. However, this does not mean that they do not have theological significance, namely symbolising the five Books of the Law. As Marsh quite rightly points out, details presented for theological reasons are not necessarily unhistorical. John (or his redactors) made a conscious chose to include each detail presented in the account. The very fact that John calls Jesus’ miracles ‘signs’, and that all sorts of underlying messages can be found, means that they must be more than simply accounts of what happened. It is possible to argue, as Dodd does, that the reader tends to see symbolism where there is none. However, taking into account the volume of evidence for evangelistic and Christological intentions in the signs, as well as references to the Old Testament, the Prologue and the passion and resurrection, it is quite plausible to label the signs in John as early Christian theology.
