Lars Kierspel, «'Dematerializing' Religion: Reading John 2–4 as a Chiasm», Vol. 89 (2008) 526-554
After offering a critical analysis of Moloney’s synthetical parallelism for John 2–4, this article argues for a chiastic structure of the Cana-to-Cana cycle which directs the reader from the visible signs (2,1-12+4,43-54) and physical properties of religion (2,13-22+4,1-42) to Jesus as the metaphysical agent of
God’s salvation and judgment (3,1-21+3,22-36). The new 'dematerialized' faith thereby subverts expectations of material restoration and reorients the believing eye not towards a sanctuary but towards the Son.
530 Lars Kierspel
a necessary condition or automatic benefit for discipleship. Jesus’
denial of the mother-son relationship at this moment contributes to
this trajectory and breaks with traditional patterns of defining
religious insiders (17).
b) The Jews
Also in contrast to Moloney’s proposal, we read nothing in the
pericope of the temple cleansing about the Jews’ lack of faith in
Jesus’ words. In Moloney’s eyes, the Jews were “mocking†Jesus and
“arrogantly rejected his word†(18) when they asked for a sign (2,18)
and expressed their misunderstanding by asking, “It took forty-six
years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?â€
(2,20). Yet, Moloney counts the official as an example of “complete
faith†although Jesus reprimands him for wanting to “see signs and
wonders†(4,48). And Nicodemus is considered an example of
“partial faith†although he mocks Jesus’ words more clearly than
anybody with his question, “How can a man be born when he is old?
He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born,
can he?†(3,4) (19). As Moloney himself rightly observes regarding
2,18-20, even “the reader is almost as ignorant as ‘the Jews’†(20)
when it comes to Jesus’ statement about raising the temple in three
days. In addition, even the disciples can believe “the word which
Jesus had spoken†(2,22) only after his resurrection. The Jews’
response to Jesus is thus not implied evidence of their arrogance but
of their ignorance. Asking the obvious question in response to a
purposefully provocative and enigmatic statement is a feature ‘the
Jews’ share with everybody else in the Gospel except the beloved
disciple! (21) Moloney thus over-characterizes the Jews when he reads
their request (2,18) and question (2,20) as an example of “no faithâ€.
While their faith response is elaborated on later in the Gospel, they
(17) J.H. NEYREY, The Gospel of John (NCBC; Cambridge 2007), comes to the
same conclusion. Finding an “anti-kinship motifâ€, he comments that “the mother
of Jesus appears to be less than a hard-core believer; rather, she represents kin or
blood relationship, which is found wanting here. A blood relative but not a
genuine believer, she does not know his ‘hour’†(Ibid., 68).
(18) MOLONEY, Belief, 104, 109.
(19) Reading John 3,4, NEYREY (The Gospel of John, 78) can write: “When he
[Nicodemus] mocks Jesus, his ridicule suggests that his misunderstanding is
completeâ€.
(20) Ibid., 99.
(21) See the disciples’ misunderstandings in 11,11-13; 13,8-10.27-29.36-37;
14,4-5.7-8; 16,16-17; 21,22-23.