552 Lars Kierspel chiasm defines “seeing” (3,5.36) as believing in the Son who mediates salvation (3,1-21) and judgment (3,22-36). In other words, the Gospel deconstructs an old worldview and establishes a new one. While the miracles do demonstrate divine power, the evangelist sharply disconnects that power from Jerusalem and Gerizim as traditional locations of divine presence. By offering an object and a mode of worship that operates without ocular support (2,19; 4,24), the evangelist subverts expectations of material restoration and reorients the believing eye not towards a sanctuary (e.g., Ps 63,2) but towards the Son (108). IV. Summary & Conclusion 1. Moloney’s primary focus on different people’s journey of faith (fides qua creditur) does not do justice to the author’s elaborate efforts to expound on Christological and soteriological foundations as the object of faith (fides quae creditur). The major theme and kind of parallels suggested by Moloney capture only part of the content and overlook important clues that point to a different structural and theological design. 2. While the Cana-to-Cana inclusio alone does not necessitate further concentric progression of the text, the Gospel’s first theological climax in John 3 presents an obvious literary center that functions as a structural balance to both shmei'a and strengthens a spatial perception of the narrative. The real challenge for our chiastic proposal then seems to be found in the parallels between the temple cleansing (2,13-23) and Jesus’ dialogue with the Samaritan woman (4,1-42). Their termino- logical (‘Jerusalem,’ ‘hour ’) and theological links (replacement motif) demonstrate their shared thrust of new worship in antithesis to tradi- tional locations and traditions. Furthermore, the theological surplus of 4,1-42 builds on the parallel and prior reading of 2,13-23 and functions as a commentary thereof. The Christological orientation of worship in “(S)spirit and truth” (4,23.24) and the missiological inclusion of Gentiles (4,31-38) depend on an ideological break with Jerusalem and confessions of him as “prophet” (6,14), “king” (6,15) or “Christ” (7,31) that fall short of grasping his “glory” (2,11; 1,14) and true mission (3,16). (108) It would be the worthwhile task of a separate study to trace this theme of dematerialization in the Gospel outside of John 2–4.