Many commentators focus on the seven ‘I AM’ sayings and the seven signs as the things that structure John’s Gospel. How can something like the first sign fall outside of the way you see the structure?

This text is from a transcript of a talk by David Gooding, entitled ‘Four Journeys to Jerusalem’ (2009).

The difference I see is between a book's structure and its dominant themes and patterns. Permit me for just a little while to talk in technicalities. Let's take the idea that the seven signs are the structure of John's Gospel. I would call that a dominant theme.

A dominant theme: the signs in John's Gospel

These signs 'are written so that you may believe . . . and that by believing you may have life in his name . . .' (John 20:31). There are seven such signs, and the first of them is the wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the turning of water into wine. I would call it a dominant theme rather than the structure of the book for the simple reason that if you were to chart those seven signs on a table of contents for John's Gospel, you would find that there is one of these signs in chapter 2 at the beginning; then there isn't another until chapter 4 (the healing of the official's son). In chapters 5 and 6 there are three signs, just in those two chapters (the healing of the paralytic, the feeding of the five thousand, and the walking on the water). Three of them are all grouped. There is nothing in chapter 7 and nothing in chapter 8. There is the miracle of giving sight to the man born blind in chapter 9. There is no sign in chapter 10. In chapter 11 there is the raising of Lazarus. Then in chapters 12–18 there are no signs at all. So, as far as being the structure of the book, if you are using that term in a technical sense, I would say that it doesn't account for the whole book. No end of chapters leave that out completely.

Instead, I would say that it is one of the dominant themes, a very important dominant theme. And, what is more, if you look at those miracles—evidence of the power of Christ and the fact that he is the Son of God—they are not only a dominant theme, but they form a pattern.

What do I mean by that? Well, take the miracle in chapter 5. Here is a man who for thirty-eight years had been trying to get into this pool when the waters were stirred up ('troubled' KJV). The Lord came along and said, 'Would you like to be made well?' The man didn't say, like a sensible man, 'Yes, of course I would.' He said, 'I have no one to help me into the pool.' He couldn't think of any other way of getting better than to get into this pool. He had the notion perhaps that Christ had come to give him a helping hand to get into the pool. But the Lord replied in effect, 'I don't need any pool. Get up!' And the man was healed forthwith. Christ didn't use the pool (see John 5:1–17).

So you say, 'Yes, the Lord doesn't need any pools. He never uses any pool.'

But half a minute! There's a story in chapter 9 about a blind man. He had never been able to see. He wasn't thinking of going to any pool in particular. The Lord spat on the ground, made clay, put it on his eyes, and said 'Go, wash in the pool of Siloam' (see John 9:1–7).

How will you account for this?

We have seen another example of this: the miracle of the nobleman's son. Our Lord heals at a distance. But what happens when it comes to Lazarus? He could have healed him at a distance, but he didn't. Why didn't he?

If you put them out they form a set. The only correction is that there are eight miracles in John, instead of seven. It is perfectly true that the first seven are referred to in chapter 20:

These [signs] are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (John 20:31).

All the first seven have that same purpose. The eighth was another miracle, but it didn't have that purpose. It wasn't to encourage non-believers to believe; it was for the encouragement of Christian workers about the Lord's guidance. It is the miraculous draught of fishes (see John 21:1–14). You will see the difference in emphasis if you attend to the actual words. In the first miracle—turning water to wine—the comment is made at the end, '[the Lord] manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him' (John 2:11). When it comes to the miracle in chapter 21: 'Jesus manifested . . .', not his glory, 'Jesus manifested himself' (John 21:1 RV). That is very deliberate language, because at this time our Lord was dead, buried, risen and on the other side of death: now in risen life.

How did he come and stand on the shore so that they could see him? And where did he get the fish from, and the coals of fire, so that when they brought the fish to land he already had the breakfast cooked? When he said, 'Come and have breakfast' he had some fish on a fire already, but where did he get all that from? He was risen from the dead! And he manifested himself, as he had promised to do before he left them (e.g. John 14:18).

So, yes, there are seven 'signs', or eight miracles. If you chart the eight miracles you will find that they form a pattern, as I've indicated. In the second one, he heals at a distance. In the second to last one, he deliberately doesn't heal at a distance. In the third one he refuses to use a pool. In the third to last one, he uses the pool. So, yes, the signs are certainly an important dominant theme in the Gospel of John, a pattern, but there is another dominant theme.

A dominant theme: the women in John's Gospel

John has a number of stories in which women are very prominent. Those are stories that no other Gospel writer has, or, if they do, it is to nowhere near the same extent. There are six such stories. They also are a dominant theme.

The first one is the same story we've just discussed: the turning of the water to wine at Cana. That happens to be the first recorded miracle, the first sign. But, from another point of view, it is the first in a series that becomes a dominant theme. In the course of that miracle, Mary comes to Jesus and says, 'They have no wine.' And he says to her, 'Woman, what have I to do with you?' (John 2:4 RV) No one else tells you that story (see John 2:1–11).

Then there is the woman in chapter 4. Here is a very prominent story: the Samaritan woman. Nobody else has the story at all. What was wrong with that woman? What marked her out? She had had no satisfaction in her relationships. She had had five husbands and the man she was living with now was not her husband.

Chapter 8 is a famous story, and people say that it shouldn't be in the Gospel of John. They say it is a later edition, an authentic story, but John didn't include it. Well, if so, thank the Lord for the man who did include it later on, because that is a story of a woman as well. What was wrong with her? She was caught in the act of adultery.

Then there is the story of Martha and Mary at the death of their brother. No one else has that story.

At the cross, there is a detail that only John has. Our Lord sees his mother:

When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:26–27)

And there is a final story of Mary in the garden on the morning of the resurrection. Other Gospels mention that she was present; but only John tells us what happened and what our Lord said to her. When she looked round and thought he was the gardener, she said, 'If you have taken him away, tell me where you have laid him and I will remove him.' But it was our Lord, and he said 'Mary', and she recognized him (see John 20:11–18).

Here are six stories in which women are prominent, and they are peculiar to John. You mustn't get upset if the first story is one in the other series of the signs. (There is no law against them being in both dominant themes.)

If you notice, all six of these stories have a common theme. It is sparked off by our Lord's word to Mary at Cana of Galilee: 'Woman, what have I to do with you?' It is a question of relationship. What are weddings about anyway? Weddings are about a relationship! It is a public celebration of a new relationship. It is an extraordinary story of a wedding: do you know, the bride isn't mentioned nor what she was wearing! How can that be? Nothing is said about her. What is said is that Jesus was invited to a wedding, and the mother of Jesus was there. That is significant. That is his closest human relative. She came and said, 'They have no wine.' He said, 'Woman, what have I to do with you?' It is a question of relationship.

Then between the woman in chapter 4 and the man she was living with there was no true relationship. The woman in chapter 8? She had been unfaithful to a relationship. There is Martha and Mary. Notice how Martha talks to the Lord. She doesn't say, 'If you had been here Lazarus would not have died.' She said, 'my brother would not have died'. And our Lord replied, 'Your brother shall rise again', not 'Lazarus shall rise again.' This is about what ordinary physical death does to human relationships.

Then there is Mary at the death of her son. This is what the cross does to relationships. It is not just physical death, but the world's enmity, taking this son from his mother. But then it shows the compensation of being fellow-believers in a new family. He said to Mary: 'Behold your son'; and to John, 'Behold your mother.' It is a new family relationship. And the Lord said to Mary in the garden: 'Go and tell my brothers . . . I ascend to my father and your father; my God and your God.' It is relationships once again. He was already the other side of the grave and death, now mentioning and making real to Mary the reality of this new relationship that goes across death: 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God' (see John 20:11–18). This accounts for the fact that the women never turned the grave of Christ into a shrine. You needn't argue over which is the correct place for the burial of Christ in Jerusalem. You don't need to ask about that really. The early Christians forgot, so for centuries it wasn't known where he was buried for the simple reason that you don't make a shrine to somebody who is alive. The reality of that new relationship between Christ and his people stopped the Christian women from making any shrine of the tomb of Christ.

Do you see then how it is not an either/or question, whether it is the signs that are the main thing or the journeys? Both are important, but each should be seen for what it is actually doing in John's Gospel.