When I wrote my BECNT commentary on John, I surveyed a considerable amount of literature on John’s Gospel in general and on people’s views on Jesus’ messianic “signs” in John in particular. I found that commentators widely agree on six Johannine “signs” but beyond this the consensus crumbles. The six undisputed Johannine “signs” are:

(1) The turning of water into wine at the wedding in Cana (2:1–11)

(2) The healing of the official’s son (4:46–54)

(3) The healing of the lame man (5:1–15)

(4) The feeding of the multitude (6:1–15)

(5) The healing of the man born blind (chap. 9)

(6) The raising of Lazarus (chap. 11)

I also noticed that if there is any consensus as to an additional, seventh, sign in John, it is that this seventh sign is Jesus’ walking on the water (6:16–21).

In a detailed scholarly article published several years ago in the Bulletin of Biblical Research, I have sought to get to the bottom of the matter by taking a careful look at the six undisputed signs; seeking to identify common characteristics of these signs; and developing a profile of a Johannine “sign” that could then be used to evaluate any other possible signs in John (such as the walking on the water).

The definition that emerged was this: “A sign [in John] is a symbol-laden, but not necessarily ‘miraculous,’ public work of Jesus selected and explicitly identified as such by John for the reason that it displays God’s glory in Jesus who is thus shown to be God’s true representative (cf. 20:30–31).” The criteria for evaluating any further signs were stated as follows:

(1) Is a given work performed by Jesus as part of his public ministry?

(2) Is an event explicitly identified as a “sign” in John’s Gospel?

(3) Does the event, with its concomitant symbolism, point to God’s glory displayed in Jesus, thus revealing Jesus as God’s true representative?

A few explanatory comments are in order here. First, you will notice that all six undisputed signs (and even the walking on the water) occur in chapters 1–12 of John’s Gospel, which is concerned with Jesus’ mission to the Jews. The statement in 12:37 that, “Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him,” effectively closes the book on this chapter in Jesus’ ministry, and the final reference to the “signs” in the purpose statement (20:30–31) merely reiterates this without adding any new signs in the interim between chapters 12 and 20 (hence neither the crucifixion nor the resurrection or any other related events are Johannine signs).

Second, it appears that every one of the signs is identified as such at least somewhere in John’s Gospel (notice that often this is somewhat indirect and sometimes not until several chapters later; see below). Here is the list of the six undisputed signs in John again, this time with the reference in John’s Gospel where this event is identified explicitly as a “sign”:

Importantly, however, this criterion rules out Jesus’ walking on the water, since it is nowhere explicitly (or implicitly) identified as a sign in John. Notice in this context that a sign is more than merely a symbolic act or the use of symbolism (though it includes symbolism by virtue of being a “sign,” signifying something about Jesus the Messiah).

Third, as John 20:30–31 makes clear, John selected certain events in Jesus’ public ministry to the Jews (see point #1 above) as signs because they all demonstrated that Jesus was the Christ and Son of God. This, of course, would fit the walking on the water and perhaps other elements in John’s Gospel, but any candidate for “sign” (like the six undisputed signs) must fit all three criteria, not merely one or two.

Hence, I concluded, with the walking on the water ruled out as sign (though it includes an “I am” saying and certainly manifests Jesus’ supernatural origin in form of a theophany), we are left either with only six signs—certainly a possibility in that six may be a number of incompletion—or we should look for a seventh, and eight, etc., sign elsewhere.

Enter the temple clearing (my preferred term for what is more commonly called the temple “cleansing”; for an explanation see my BECNT commentary). It seems to fit the three criteria: (1) it is a symbol-laden, public work of Jesus; (2) it may be explicitly identified as such in 2:18 (though some may disagree; see further below); and (3) it shows Jesus to be God’s true representative.

Some may say that the reference in 2:18 is somewhat indirect in that the Pharisees are merely asking Jesus for a sign (other than the temple clearing). I point to the later identical dynamic at 6:30, however, where the Jews ask Jesus, “What sign then will you give …?” and where, as in 2:19, Jesus proceeds, not to perform another sign—he just fed the multitudes, an undisputed Johannine sign—but rather explicates the significance of the feat he had just performed, thus unpacking the significance of the sign in terms of how it pointed to him as God’s Messiah. The same, I argue, is the case with 2:18, where, rather than performing the sign the Jews demanded, Jesus explicates the significance of what he had just done, showing how the temple clearing was a prophetic, symbolic act conveying the notion of the imminent destruction of the temple and its raising—though, as the evangelist points out subsequently, the “temple” of which Jesus was speaking was not the literal temple (though it would be destroyed, too) but Jesus’ body, which would be “destroyed” (crucified) and “raised again in three days” (2:19). Thus I concluded that the temple clearing is Johannine sign #7.

You may disagree. Why? The most common objections are:

(1) The fact that the first two signs in John are numbered (2:11: #1; 4:54: #2). If the temple clearing is #2, then 4:54 would be #3, not #2. Answer: the numbered signs mark these two signs as having both been performed in Cana of Galilee, a literary inclusio, constituting John 2–4 as the “Cana Cycle.” This does not rule out additional signs, say, in Jerusalem, as the references to just these kinds of signs in 2:23 and 3:2 demonstrates. In fact, the temple clearing is precisely this kind of sign: one of the many signs Jesus performed in Jerusalem during his visit at that juncture in his ministry, selected by the evangelist for its messianic significiance.

(2) The fact that the temple clearing, other than the six undisputed Johannine signs, is non-miraculous. This is clearly the most commonly raised objection. However, as I have attempted to show in the above-mentioned article, the miraculous, while usually found, is not a necessary component of the Johannine conception of sign, as is usually (erroneously, in my opinion) assumed. Look at the Old Testament: there are two clusters of references involving the Greek word for “sign,” sēmeion: (1) the “signs and wonders” performed by Moses at the exodus (but note how Jesus disparages the seeking of such at 4:48); and (2) prophetic “signs” which are non-miraculous but involve prophetic symbolism, usually conveying the notion of judgment. We do not need to give an example of (1), since no one disputes this, but as an example of (2) we offer Isaiah’s walking about stripped and barefoot as a sign of God’s judgment for Egypt and Cush (Isa 20:30). Note that the word sēmeion is used in this passage in the LXX, but, as I usually say in my classes, there surely is nothing that is miraculous at the sight of Isaiah in his underwear!

Now, then, while Jesus’ temple clearing may not fit the “signs and wonders” category, it fits category (2), that of a prophetic sign, perfectly: Jesus acts as a prophet who prophesies the coming doom on the Jerusalem sanctuary and on old-style Judaism through their rejection of the Messiah.

I find it ironic, therefore, that so many people identify “sign” with “miracle” when John has switched from “miracle” (dynamis in the Synoptics) to “sign” precisely to downplay the miraculous and to focus instead on the significance of these acts in terms of messianic symbolism (note that “sign” in its very essence points beyond itself to some underlying meaning). By reinterpreting “miracles,” John has given us a deeper, more profound understanding of the way in which they point to Jesus as the Messiah.

Convinced? Good. Still not convinced? Please read the full article. Still not convinced? Write a Comment below, and we can discuss this further.

In God, Marriage & Family I sought to advocate a rebuilding of the biblical foundations as we put God and his plan first in our marriages and families. I have since increasingly come to realize that this movement has very important implications for the church as well as it seeks to strengthen and support families.

Every church, when asked, will of course say that they are supporting families. But is this necessarily the case? In many (if not most) churches what we actually find is a highly age-segregated model. Upon setting foot on church premises, everyone in the family goes their separate ways: the youth to the youth group, the babies to the nursery, and children and adults to their respective Sunday School classes. These, in turn, are typically divided into people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, Singles, Seniors, and so on. Then there are separate men’s and women’s ministries. How is this arrangement supposed to strengthen families? I believe many churches need to take a look at this question and squarely face the possible negative implications of this kind of approach to ministry with regard to families.

To preempt possible misunderstanding, I am not denying the benefit of encouraging people to mix with their peers and to derive encouragement from others like them at church. I am not saying churches should do away with their youth group (though our approach to youth ministry in the United States could certainly use some thorough reexamination). What I am saying is that respect for God’s order for the family should lead the church to devise ways in which families are encouraged to worship together, study God’s Word together, and grow together in their faith.

In theory, I realize, churches say they equip individuals at church—fathers, mothers, youth, children—and then they will come home and during the week be encouraged to relate to other members in the family in a Christian manner. But is it really best to segregate people at church and to leave integration to families themselves during the rest of the week? Would it not be better to practice and encourage integration at church as well?

I am not even advocating a model that is “family-integrated” church-wide here (though there would seem to be undeniable benefits to such a model). I am suggesting, at least, that families reconsider whether their current offerings do in fact have the effect of strengthening and supporting families in the greatest way possible. If this process of re-examination were to lead to changes (as I think they probably will), this would result in better integrated, more closely-knit families.

I believe that the purpose for every family should be exactly the same as for the church: families devoted to worship, discipleship, evangelism, fellowship, and so on. If so, church leaders should ask themselves the question: How are we encouraging families to grow in their worship? How are we helping parents to become more committed disciples and to help their young people grow in their discipleship? How can we help make families evangelistic units where service of others and sharing their faith becomes a way of life, a genuine desire, and a matter of commitment and priority? The list could go on and on.

At my church, my wife and I and our entire family have started a little experiment. After attending a “Family Bible Study” class for six months, we started a class of our own that we chose to call “Kingdom Families”—“Kingdom Families,” because we aspire to be more than families studying the Bible together. We want to be households—families with children, singles, old and young people—that think of themselves as kingdom outposts of salt and light in this world. On Sunday mornings we pray together, share meals and have fellowship, study God’s Word together, as families.

Everyone is welcome. To accommodate smaller children, we have coloring pages, occasional skits, and other activities tied in with the Bible lesson. One of the great benefits of this approach is that children and young people can see the father take leadership in prayer and teaching the Bible and that they can see their parents discuss the Bible together and participate in the discussion themselves. We circulate a prayer list and try to keep in touch as much as we can during the week. We are not a church in itself but part of the ministry of the church as a whole.

Since this is a fairly new concept, part of the challenge of our small gathering is to explain to the leadership and other church members exactly what we are all about. Most importantly, we want to be philosophically (i.e. biblically) driven rather than merely follow pragmatically an approach to “doing church” that mostly reflects the culture around us (even if this would mean our numbers would be bigger!). We do not have all the answers; we do not feel our way is the only way; and we continue to seek the Lord’s leading as our little group struggles to grow.

While we are aware of various models of integrating the church and families, and while we seek to learn from all of those, we do not hold up one work as our “Bible” or agree 100% with it. We believe this approach calls for discernment, humility, and careful nuancing, because the devil would love nothing more than to divide the church over this issue (or any issue) by stirring up some controversy or misunderstanding or misrepresentation.

For those of you interested in this approach, I reproduce our vision statement below:

“The Kingdom Families Sunday school class is focused on households, whether families, singles, widows, divorced, and others. We are a multi-generational group of believers because we believe that in this way we can best reflect the type of learning and growing Christ desires for his church in the body of Christ. We study the Bible together, are interconnected with each other during the week through prayer and fellowship gatherings, and actively engage in and support evangelistic and missionary efforts through outreach, prayer, giving, and help. We would love to have any interested individuals or families join us. We are looking for a few kingdom families who share our vision of multi-generational, aimed at reaching entire households.”

Our church is Richland Creek Community Church in Wake Forest, North Carolina (www.richlandcreek.com). If you are in the area and are looking for a church, come and visit us. Our class meets during the third hour of worship, starting at 11 a.m., in Room 111.

For Further Study see, among other works, Eric Wallace, Uniting Church and Home (Solutions for Integrating Church and Home, 1999); for a church family seeking to implement this kind of model see www.lakeside-community.org.  

In a previous post, I mentioned the forthcoming book Quo Vadis, Evangelicalism? which will celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. The work will feature nine selected presidential addresses delivered by past ETS presidents plus an introduction and epilogue by the editor and appendices listing all the past ETS presidential addresses and names and years of tenure of Journal editors. As JETS editor and as general editor of the volume, allow me to whet your appetite for the volume, which will be presented at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, by sharing a couple endorsements that have come in for the book.

Timothy George, the founding dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University and a senior editor of Christianity Today, says, “John Stott once defined evangelicals as Bible people and Gospel people. This anthology of ETS presidential addresses shows how these two lodestars—an unswerving commitment to the totally truthful Word of God written and the transforming message through the living Word of God, Jesus Christ—has guided the evangelical academy for the past half-century. This book has both historic importance and contemporary relevance for the issues evangelicals face today.”

David Wells, Andrew Mutch Distinguished Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, endorses the book with these words: “This book gives us a snapshot of evangelical scholars engaging their world over the last fifty years. It is a valuable history. But more than that, it also shows just how difficult it is to preserve Christian orthodoxy, constantly beset as it is by questions, challenges, and perplexities. This calls for both fidelity and wisdom and these presidents showed that they had what was needed.”

I believe the book will make an important contribution to the future of the evangelical movement. Quoting from the Introduction, “Speaking personally, reading and digesting these presidential addresses … has given me, a third-generation scholars in the ETS, a much fuller and deeper appreciation for the history of the evangelical movement and my place within it. No one reading these addresses can fail to benefit from the tremendous collective wisdom offered by these guiding visions.” I look forward to see many of you at the November Annual Meeting and at the ETS Banquet on Thursday night.

NOTE: The program of the upcoming ETS Annual Meeting has now been posted here.