The Significance of Minor Characters in the Gospel of John

By James M. Howard

[James M. Howard is Director, Southern Colorado Center, School of Adult and Graduate Studies, Colorado Christian University, Lakewood, Colorado.]

Several relatively minor characters in the Gospel of John were involved in the miracles Jesus performed. This article discusses how these characters contribute to the development of the plot and purpose of the Gospel.

A Word about Literary Characters and Signs

Culpepper notes that characters in narrative literature are seen primarily as autonomous beings with their own traits and personalities, or they are seen primarily as related to the plot and serving some inherent function in plot development.[1] The characters and plot in a story then work together to produce a certain effect.[2] As a result the way John chose to portray minor characters is basic to the development of the purpose of the Gospel.[3]

In the Gospel of John, Jesus’ signs are significant in that “the distinctive Johannine perspective” becomes evident through the presentation of the signs.[4] “Signs fulfill a specific literary function in the Fourth Gospel, summoning the reader, like the witnesses in the narratives, to either faith or rejection (with an emphasis on the former, 20:27–31).”[5] In John the characters and signs come together to call readers to a decision about their belief in Christ.[6] This is supported by John’s purpose statements (1:6, 31; 20:31).

John recorded six signs and labeled them as such.[7] Grassi suggests that the seventh sign consists of “Jesus’ death and the accompanying issue of water and blood from Jesus’ side.”[8] If this is correct, the first six signs anticipate and lead to the seventh—Jesus’ death and glorification, as seen in the following chiastic structure.[9]

A The wedding feast at Cana (2:1–12; character: Jesus’ mother)

B The restoration of the dying son (4:46–54; character: the royal official)

C The Sabbath healing at Bethesda (5:1–16; character: the lame man)

D The multiplication of loaves and fish (6:1–71; character: Peter)

C´ The Sabbath healing of the blind man (chap. 9; character: the blind man)

B´ The restoration of Lazarus to life (11:1–44; characters: Mary and Martha)

A´ The great hour of Jesus’ death (19:25–37; character: Jesus’ mother)

The correspondences are immediately obvious. The sign at the center of the chiasm reflects John’s stated purpose of leading the reader to faith in Christ. After Jesus multiplied the loaves and fish, Peter, representing all the disciples, expressed his faith (6:68–69) followed by the counter example of Judas (6:70–71).[10] Among its other correspondences, the chiasm shows a close relationship between the first and last signs. As noted by Grassi, elements common to these two include “Jesus’ mother, the ‘hour,’ the thirst or lack of wine, the obedience motif, and the wine/blood/water.”[11]

The Mother of Jesus

Jesus’ mother appears in two scenes in the Gospel of John. The first is at the wedding in Cana where Jesus performed His first miracle sign (2:1–12). Her second appearance is at the cross (19:25–27). Because she remains unnamed in these two passages and is “scarcely defined,”[12] this has led to a variety of symbolic interpretations ranging among her “representing Judaism, Jewish Christianity, the new Eve, and the Church.”[13] While it is granted that John employed much symbolism and double meaning, nothing in the two appearances of Jesus’ mother confirms any of these suggestions. John’s primary reason for including her is something other than the suggestions mentioned and other than ordinary character assessment and application, since he gave relatively little information about her.[14]

The Wedding at Cana (2:1–12)

As the scene in Cana begins, Jesus’ mother appears with no introduction.

The scene is a wedding to which Jesus, His mother, and His disciples were invited (vv. 1–2). The story, although simple on the surface, leaves several details unstated. For example why would Mary tell her son about the wine in the first place, and why did He respond to her as He did? Her instructions to the servants followed by the miracle and the response of the headwaiter beg for further analysis and understanding. The reader is left with a simple story that has a deeper meaning and significance.

When Jesus’ mother told Him that the wine was gone, He spoke of His “hour,” which was yet future. The connection between the wine and His “hour” is more significant than it appears at first glance. “John’s account of Jesus’ conversion of such a large quantity of water into wine at a wedding feast is one way of announcing that. .. the eschatological time of salvation had arrived in the presence of the long-awaited Messiah.”[15] Thus Mary’s role prompts curiosity and helps carry forward the theology of John’s Gospel—the eschatological revealing of the long-awaited Messiah.[16] Her role, though brief, encourages the reader to anticipate this.[17]

When Jesus’ mother told Him, “They have no wine,” He responded, “Woman, what does that have to do with us?” (v. 4). This seems somewhat out of character for Him. In addition the use of “woman” seems to indicate some degree of distance between the two of them.[18] The key to understanding this enigma seems to lie in His words, “My hour has not yet come.” Here He made it clear that the governing will of His life had shifted from her to His Father and implied that His actions from now on would be in accord with His own will (and that of His Father) and not that of others.[19] This, then, at one level seems to be a story about a Son who was moving into the limelight of His service to God, and a mother who must give way to this.[20] Her response to the servant—“Whatever He says to you, do it”—indicates that she had done this. Moloney notes that “the mother of Jesus, is the first person, in the experience of the reader, to manifest trust in the word of Jesus. Her relationship with Jesus transcends the limitations displayed by the disciples, who attempted to understand him within their own categories in 1:35–51. The mother of Jesus is deliberately shown by the author as the first who commands action based entirely on the word of Jesus, without offering any supporting cultural, religious, or historical motivation for such a command.”[21]

At another level, however, the story plays a significant role in that it introduces several themes that are developed later in the Gospel.[22] The theme of water is seen in chapters 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, and ultimately at the cross. The subject of glory—“This beginning of His signs. .. manifested His glory” (2:11)—is mentioned repeatedly throughout the Gospel.[23] Wine is referred to again at the cross. And ultimately what Jesus showed at Cana would be seen clearly “only through the seventh and last sign of the cross.”[24]

The Crucifixion Scene (19:25–27)

The presence of Jesus’ mother at the cross is “not incidental, but [is] central in the first and last signs.”[25] Jesus’ “hour” had now come. In the wedding at Cana she told the servants to do whatever Jesus commanded them. And then this idea of obedience is fully expressed in the crucifixion scene where Jesus Himself obeyed the Father in His death for the world (cf. Phil. 2:8).

This scene, like that at Cana, includes some enigmatic words by Jesus to His mother (John 19:26–27). Moments away from death, He looked at her and said, “Woman, behold, your son!” In this Gospel the first words spoken by Jesus on the cross were these words to His mother. “Jesus speaks to the woman who was the first to commit herself unconditionally to his word.”[26] He then looked at the disciple whom He loved and said, “Behold, your mother!” This link between Mary and John has often been debated.[27] If this disciple is John, the author of the Gospel, as seems likely, then the connection made by Jesus becomes clearer.[28] Jesus was thus claiming the beloved disciple as His true relative. And Mary and John would serve as witnesses of Jesus’ death to the community later on.

Jesus’ mother had witnessed the turning of water into wine at Cana, and she had directed the servants to obey Christ. Now she saw Him drink wine and obey the Father.[29] She had believed before He had performed any signs, and thus she became an example of a true believer. In this regard she became a “revealer” of Christ. Similarly the beloved disciple, the author of the Gospel, became a “revealer” to the believing community of the Messiah.[30] Both Mary and John were witnesses (19:35), and would testify about these events and their significance from that point on. The role played by Jesus’ mother, then, is of great significance in linking the first sign with the seventh.

The two events may be compared as follows.

The Wedding at Cana	The Crucifixion
Jesus’ mother is key in initiating the scene.	Jesus’ mother is key in receiving the beloved disciple.
Jesus altered His relationship with His mother by transferring His obedience to the Father.	Jesus altered His relationship with His mother by transferring her reliance to the beloved disciple.
There was a lack of wine.	Jesus thirsted and wine was brought to Him.
Jesus referred to the future as His “hour.”	Jesus fulfilled His “hour.”
The servants obeyed Jesus.	Jesus obeyed the Father.
Jesus’ glory was manifested.	The Father’s glory was manifested.

What was foreshadowed at Cana became reality at the cross. Jesus’ mother had an important role in both events. At Cana she acted in the role of mother, and at the cross she understood her son’s role (and her own role). At Cana she had little if any grasp of what would take place in Jesus’ life and death. At the cross she was a witness to a very gruesome event (more so because of her unique position). Thus she could testify to the events of that day as well as the entire life of her Son.

The Royal Official

A royal official was the beneficiary of Jesus’ second sign (4:46–54). The scene opens with a reference to Cana, which suggests that just as something significant had happened there earlier, so again something significant was about to happen.

Having been rejected by the leaders in Jerusalem, Jesus went back to Cana in Galilee.[31] While in Jerusalem at the Passover, the Jewish leaders had confronted Him about His cleansing of the temple. Their question set the stage for the story of the royal official. In this way they became a foil for the royal official and his genuine faith when they asked Jesus, “What sign do You show us, as your authority for doing these things?” (2:18). Displeased by His actions, they challenged Him by asking for a sign. When He answered them with the fact that the sign would be His death and resurrection, they did not believe.

In contrast, Jesus was warmly received in Samaria (4:1–42) and Galilee. Though rejected by the antagonistic Jewish leaders, He was welcomed by Galileans. His words were believed by those who heard Him, and His ministry expanded. However, in the middle of the scene with the royal official He said enigmatically, “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe” (v. 48). This response may seem illogical, since the royal official came to Jesus out of need rather than out of wonder because of His miracles.[32] But the “you” is plural, suggesting that He was speaking not to the royal official but to the crowd. The Samaritans had believed because of Jesus’ word (v. 41), but the Galileans had believed (or at least followed Him) because of His miracles (v. 45). The royal official demonstrated that he was willing to believe apart from the signs.

There is no indication that the official had been in Jerusalem at the Passover. Coming out of need, he asked Jesus to come heal his son. Jesus responded to the crowd because of their hunger for sensationalism (v. 48), and so the royal official again asked Jesus to go to his house (v. 49), for he was not looking for a sign. His faith was placed in Jesus Himself, not in His deeds. He repeatedly asked Jesus to come to Capernaum to heal his son, but as soon as Jesus told him, “Go, your son lives,” he “believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and started off” (v. 50). The official became a model of what it means to believe apart from signs.[33]

Although change in the official’s character is not obvious, perhaps a subtle change may be noted. When the royal official first approached Jesus, he may not have been aware of what had transpired in Jerusalem. But when Jesus confronted the crowd, the royal official demonstrated tenacity by approaching Him a second time about his need.[34] He thus models what it means to approach Jesus with needs as they arise.

The Lame Man

The story of the lame man in Bethesda near Jerusalem is recorded in 5:2–16. Whereas the royal official requested a healing, the lame man was approached by Jesus. The fact that Jesus asked him whether he wanted to be healed set the stage for both dialogue and the presentation of the story line.[35] And whereas the royal official demonstrated faith in Jesus, there is no evidence that the lame man ever believed. In fact the details of the story suggest that the lame man did not believe. He did not at first know who had healed him. When asked, he was willing to point to another and to deflect the attention of the Jewish leaders away from himself in order to avoid being punished for carrying his mat on the Sabbath. Knowing that they were seeking to blame someone, when the lame man later learned it was Jesus who had healed him, he reported Him to the leaders (v. 15).

The fact that Jesus had returned to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews (v. 1) reminds readers of Jesus’ earlier visit to Jerusalem and of tension because the Jews had refused to believe without seeing a sign (2:13–25; 4:48).[36] What will happen in this scene? Will this incident be like the earlier one or different?

When Jesus asked the man if he wanted to be healed, one would naturally expect him to answer yes. It comes as a surprise, therefore, that the man did not answer as expected, but instead talked about his inability to enter the pool. When the Jewish leaders said the man should not be carrying his pallet on the Sabbath (because this would involve work), he offered “the somewhat feeble defence that his carrying of the bed was ordered by the itinerant healer.”[37] Staley argues that the man’s response was a bold witness, rather than weak and feeble.[38] However, this does not seem to be the most natural intent behind John’s presentation of the scene. What is significant is that John pointed out that the healed man, according to the Jews, broke the Sabbath law, and the man blamed Jesus, so that Jesus was seen as breaking the Sabbath.

Verse 13 states that Jesus had slipped away into the crowd; yet it is still strange that the man did not know who He was. One gets the impression that the man was somewhat “dull,”[39] and then once he had more knowledge, he did nothing good with it. There is no mention of gratitude or belief on his part (cf. 9:35–38), only persecution of Jesus as a result of the man’s learning who had healed him (5:16).

Jesus initiated this healing, as a kind of “nonemergency” miracle, and He intentionally did so on the Sabbath. (This is the first explicit mention of the Sabbath in John.)[40] This is confirmed by His response to the Jews that “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working” (v. 17). “It was clear to Jewish thinkers that God could not rest on the Sabbath; as his creation continued, people died and were thus judged, children were born, and thus life was given. God could not cease to be active, even on the Sabbath, or else history would come to an end.”[41] In Jesus’ response He revealed more about Himself than on previous occasions; He “was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God” (v. 18).

This is consistent with John’s manner of progressively revealing the Messiah throughout the Gospel. It also reveals the truth that God Himself was not bound by the Sabbath—indeed He worked on the Sabbath. Jesus’ healing of the lame man is therefore a statement that He is above the Sabbath; or more importantly, the works He does, which are always good, are allowable on the Sabbath. The lame man thus became a means for Jesus to reveal this next phase of His character and His work.

The lame man is an example of someone who responded inappropriately to Jesus’ signs. The man had everything to gain, and yet that was not enough. He was even given physical healing, and he still did not respond with belief in Christ. Thus he “represents those whom even the signs cannot lead to authentic faith.”[42]

Like other minor characters, the lame man experienced a degree of change as a result of his encounter with Jesus. At the beginning he was sitting by the pool waiting for someone to help him.

He was in a secure position and probably had not broken the Sabbath law. After Jesus healed him, he was walking around carrying his pallet. Rather than responding with joy or excitement, he blamed the one who had made him walk. Later when Jesus found him and talked to him, he told the Jews that Jesus was the one who had made him well. He progressed from being needy, to being indifferent, to denying responsibility for breaking the Sabbath law, to betraying Jesus to the leaders. This supports the conclusion that he did not believe in Christ, but rather moved further away from Him.[43]

The Blind Man

The blind man stands as a model of what it means to believe in Jesus and to grow in spiritual insight, and this growth is seen in the contrasts between the blind man and the leaders. Though the man received his “sight,” the Jewish leaders were “blind” (9:39–41).[44] He was the opposite of the authorities. “If they represent what it is to reject Jesus in unbelief, he most certainly is a model of what it is to accept him in faith.”[45]

The healing of the blind man is similar in some ways to that of the lame man, but the results are different. When first approached by Jesus, the blind man followed Jesus’ instructions and was rewarded with sight. From then on, he witnessed to “the reality, the manner and the author of the healing.”[46] Thus he was an able defender of Jesus to the religious leaders. In fact the man was so effective in this that the leaders kicked him out (v. 34). In contrast to the lame man, he was ready and willing to believe in Jesus and to worship Him. The character of the blind man was developed in detail to show his growing faith, whereas little attempt was made to develop the character of the lame man.[47] Culpepper compares and contrasts the healing of these two men in the following ways.[48]

The Lame Man	The Blind Man
His history: 38 years (5:5)	His history: from birth (9:1)
Jesus took the initiative to heal him (v. 6).	Jesus took the initiative to heal him (v. 6).
The pool had some healing powers (v. 4).	He washed in the pool and was healed (v. 7).
Jesus healed on the Sabbath (v. 9).	Jesus healed on the Sabbath (v. 14).
The Jews accused him of breaking the Sabbath (v. 10).	The Pharisees charged that Jesus violated the Sabbath (v. 16).
The Jews asked who had healed him (v. 12).	The Pharisees asked how he was healed (v. 15).
He did not know who or where Jesus was (v. 13).	He did not know where Jesus was (v. 12).
Jesus found him and invited belief (v. 14).	Jesus found him and invited belief (v. 35).
Jesus implied a relationship between sin and suffering (v. 14).	Jesus rejected sin as the explanation of the man’s suffering (v. 3).
He went to the Jews (v. 15).	The Jews cast him out (vv. 34–35).
Jesus said He must work as His Father is working (v. 17).	Jesus said He must do the works of the One who sent Him (v. 4).

John focused on the man’s response in recognizing who Jesus is. The titles and descriptions of Jesus throughout this scene include “the Light of the world” (v. 5, a title He used of Himself), “the man called Jesus” (v. 11), “a prophet” (v. 17), “from God” (v. 33), and “Lord” (v. 38). The man was growing in his belief as seen in his first recognizing Jesus as a prophet and then calling Him Lord. Thus the blind man serves as an example of what it means to be enlightened by Jesus (cf. 1:9, 12).

Like other minor characters, the blind man exhibited change throughout the scene. At the beginning of the story he is almost an innocent bystander. The opening conversation between Jesus and His disciples has little apparent regard for the blind man. However, Jesus said the reason for the man’s blindness was so that the works of God would be displayed (9:3). When the blind man entered the narrative, he willingly obeyed Jesus (v. 7). Other than Jesus’ opening remarks, there is no evidence that the man knew he would receive his sight, and yet the reward for his obedience was sight.

After he gained his sight he consistently gave credit to Jesus, first in answer to his neighbors (v. 8) and then to the Pharisees (v. 15).

In debating with the Pharisees about the one who had healed him, the man consistently answered truthfully and, when pushed, confrontationally. He was growing in boldness as well as understanding. His faith grew even to the point of being willing to be put out of the synagogue (vv. 22, 34). In contrast to the man’s acknowledgment of Jesus, the Pharisees stated that they were “disciples of Moses” (v. 28) and said they did not know where Jesus was from (v. 29).[49] The climax came when the man declared to Jesus, “Lord, I believe” and began to worship Him (v. 38).[50] In contrast to the lame man the blind man serves as a model of what it means to grow in genuine faith.

Mary and Martha

Mary and Martha figure prominently in the story of the raising of Lazarus (11:1–46). Throughout this scene they are contrasted and compared with each other. Like the narratives of the other minor characters, this story has a “carefully articulated narrative design which determines the shape and message of John 11.”[51]

In the opening scene the reader is told immediately who the characters are (v. 1). Mary is identified as the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet and wiped them with her hair (v. 2), as recorded later in 12:1–8. Jesus loved these siblings—Mary, Martha, and Lazarus (v. 5). After hearing of Lazarus’ illness, Jesus intentionally remained where He was for two additional days. This delay on His part leads the reader to ponder why Jesus acted as He did.

As the story progresses, the reader learns through a conversation between Jesus and His disciples that Lazarus had “fallen asleep” and that Jesus had to awaken him (v. 11). Jesus explained that one reason for His delay was to demonstrate His power to the disciples so that they might believe (v. 15). This raises the question about the belief of the disciples. What was it that they were to believe? Thomas’s enigmatic comment reveals that he understood to some degree the purpose of this event (v. 16). He realized that Jesus must die. Jesus’ travel to Judea would ultimately lead to His death. In a sense, then, Lazarus’ resuscitation set the stage for the death and glorification of the Son of God.[52] “John’s teaching [in this story] that suffering can provide the opportunity for divine intervention foreshadows the significance of Jesus’ own death and resurrection.”[53] This is what the disciples needed to believe. Again the purpose of John’s Gospel emerges.

This is supported by Jesus’ earlier statements about glory. Lazarus’ sickness would reveal not only God’s glory but also the glory of the Son of God (v. 4). The miracle of Lazarus being raised to life helped deepen the disciples’ faith in preparation for Jesus’ own death and resurrection (12:23–33).

When He arrived at Bethany, Jesus found that Lazarus had been dead four days, long enough for advanced decay to have occurred. In other words Lazarus was truly dead! When the women heard that Jesus had arrived, they responded in different ways. Martha ran to meet Jesus, while Mary remained at home (11:20). Martha’s comment that Lazarus would not have died if Jesus had been there shows that her faith in Jesus was genuine. She knew that He could have healed Lazarus if He had desired to do so.

Here the reader knows what Martha and Mary did not know—that Jesus had already planned to raise Lazarus from the dead. Martha was led by Jesus to express her belief in the coming Resurrection and in Jesus as the Messiah. However, Jesus was not content to leave her with only a partial understanding of the final Resurrection. Her inadequate faith is seen in her responses to Him in verses 21 and 24. He led her into a fuller understanding of the truth by revealing to her that, in fact, He is the resurrection and the life.[54]

When Mary came to meet Jesus, she fell at His feet and expressed the very same words used by Martha: “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died” (v. 32; cf. v. 21). Though the sisters’ words were the same, Mary’s faith evoked a different response from Jesus—a response of compassion and solidarity with both Martha and Mary (v. 33).[55] The faith of both women contrasts with the weaker faith of their comforters (v. 37).[56]

The sisters approached Jesus out of need—their overwhelming grief over the death of their brother. At this point in the Gospel of John the reader is fully aware of who Jesus is and His capabilities. In some respects the story of Martha and Mary prepares the reader for the challenge to believe in Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. His intentional delay also reveals that God often uses suffering as an opportunity for divine intervention, even though it is difficult in such situations to believe.

Conclusion

The minor characters and Jesus’ six miracle signs discussed in this article may be summarized as follows.

Character	Passage	Sign	Key Trait
Mother of Jesus	2:1–12	Turning water into wine	Revealer of Christ
Royal official	4:46–53	Restoring a dying son	Belief resulting from needs
Lame man	5:2–16	Sabbath healing	Unbelief in spite of signs
Blind man	chap. 9	Sabbath healing	Belief in the context of signs
Martha and Mary	11:1–46	Raising of Lazarus	Belief resulting from needs
Mother of Jesus	19:25–27	Crucifixion	Revealer of Christ

These minor characters play a dominant role in the presentation and development of Jesus’ miracles.

In each instance several things may be noted. First, each of the minor characters is a model of faith or unbelief. This is consistent with John’s purpose of leading the reader to believe in Jesus Christ. With each character the reader is led to side with or against that person about Christ.

Second, each minor character revealed the Messiah in a different way. This too is consistent with John’s method of increasingly revealing the Messiah throughout his Gospel.

Third, each character reflects some degree of change because of his or her encounter with Christ—either movement into a deeper relationship with Him or movement away from Him.

Fourth, three of the characters reveal that God allows the innocent to suffer in order to demonstrate His glory through healing or resurrection.

Fifth, several of the characters show that being a disciple of Christ involves faith, courage, tenacity, honesty, genuineness with emotions, recognition of needs, humility to seek help from Him, willingness to confront opposition, and willingness to confront doubts and long-held beliefs that may be in error. Thus these minor characters help convey several of the themes seen throughout the Gospel of John.

Notes

1. R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 101–4. In keeping with John’s purpose all the characters in the Gospel of John experienced some degree of change because of their encounter with Jesus.
2. Leland Ryken, How to Read the Bible as Literature (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 37.
3. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 106. For a dissenting view see Colleen M. Conway, “Speaking through Ambiguity: Minor Characters in the Fourth Gospel,” Biblical Interpretation 10 (2002): 324–41. She argues that “the minor characters of the Fourth Gospel do more to complicate the clear choice between belief and unbelief than to illustrate it” (ibid., 325). Her primary argument is that the minor characters are presented in ways that introduce ambiguity and tension, and that these qualities draw the reader into the story, since this more accurately represents the “complex life of faith” (ibid., 340). Nevertheless she concludes that one of “many distinct features of the Gospel of John is the relentless way in which it pushes the reader toward a decision” (ibid., 324).
4. Barry L. Blackburn, “Miracles and Miracle Stories,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 555.
5. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 1:251. See also Blackburn, “Miracles and Miracle Stories,” 556.
6. Francis J. Moloney, Belief in the Word: Reading John 1–4 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 12. See also Joseph A. Grassi, “The Role of Jesus’ Mother in John’s Gospel: A Reappraisal,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (January 1986): 67–80.
7. This assumes that Jesus’ walking on the water (6:16–21) is not a sign. The word shmei'on is used of each of the six miracles (2:11; 4:54; 6:2, 14; 9:16; 12:18) but not of His walking on the water. Of course Jesus performed many other miracles. The six sign-miracles are evaluated here for what they contribute to the plot and purpose of the Gospel.
8. Grassi, “The Role of Jesus’ Mother in John’s Gospel,” 68.
9. Ibid., 69.
10. Since the purpose of this article is to explore how minor characters are employed to develop the journey of belief in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus’ multiplying of the loaves and fish and Peter’s confession of faith are not discussed, except to complete the sign chiasm.
11. Ibid., 77.
12. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 133.
13. Ibid.
14. David R. Beck, The Discipleship Paradigm: Readers and Anonymous Characters in the Fourth Gospel (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 132–36. He suggests that Mary’s anonymity helps the reader identify with her. Thus she represents a positive model for discipleship.
15. Duane F. Watson, “Wine,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 873.
16. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 1:501. He argues that Mary’s faith became the catalyst for Jesus’ action. Keener further argues the possibility that her instruction, “Whatever He says to you, do it” (v. 5), parallels Pharaoh’s instruction to the Egyptians about Joseph when Pharaoh said, “Whatever he says to you, you shall do” (Gen. 41:55). “Jesus, like Joseph, will provide abundance in time of need” (ibid., 509). Her expectation of Him is a model of what it means to demonstrate true faith.
17. Turid Karlsen Seim, “Roles of Women in the Gospel of John,” in Aspects on the Johannine Literature: Proceedings of Papers Presented at a Conference of Scandinavian New Testament Exegetes in Uppsala June 1986, ed. Lars Hartman and Birger Olsson, Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series (Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksell, 1986), 58. Seim makes the excellent point that John consistently presented women as competent, central, and well-known persons in the stories. They were not dependent on or subordinate to men’s authority but were independent in their own right. This further supports the idea that Jesus’ mother played a carefully defined role, in which male-femaleness was not a dominant issue.
18. D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 170; and Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 1:505.
19. Grassi, “The Role of Jesus’ Mother in John’s Gospel,” 78.
20. Seim, “Roles of Women in the Gospel of John,” 62. Any mother can recognize the potential maternal difficulties of this situation.
21. Moloney, Belief in the Word: Reading John 1–4, 84 (italics his).
22. Ibid., 79.
23. The noun “glory” and various forms of the verb “glorify” occur in John 1:14; 2:11; 7:39; 8:50, 54; 9:24; 11:4 (twice), 40; 12:16, 23, 28 (three times), 41; 13:31, 32 (three times); 14:13; 15:8; 16:4; 17:1 (twice), 4, 5 (twice), 10, 22, 24; 21:19.
24. Grassi, “The Role of Jesus’ Mother in John’s Gospel,” 78.
25. Ibid., 71. Grassi notes that in both settings the word “mother” is used four times and in both scenes the word “woman” is used once.
26. Francis J. Moloney, Glory Not Dishonor: Reading John 13–21 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 144.
27. George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 349–50; Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (XIII–XXI): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1970), 922–27; Carson, The Gospel according to John, 616–18; and Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2:1144–45.
28. Carson argues that possibly the sister of Jesus’ mother mentioned in verse 25 is Salome who is mentioned in Mark 15:40 and who is also “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” in Matthew 27:56–57 (The Gospel according to John, 616). If this is so, Salome would have been John’s own mother, and John would have been Jesus’ cousin.
29. Grassi, “The Role of Jesus’ Mother in John’s Gospel,” 74.
30. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 134.
31. A. Gl. van Aarde, “Narrative Criticism Applied to John 4:43–54, ” in Text and Interpretation: New Approaches in the Criticism of the New Testament, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, P. J. Hartin, and J. H. Petzer (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 124.
32. Barry W. Henaut, “John 4:43–54 and the Ambivalent Narrator: A Response to Culpepper’s Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel,” Studies in Religion 19 (1990): 290.
33. Culpepper, on the other hand, says the royal official exemplifies those who respond because of the signs they see, but who are still ready to believe apart from the signs (Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 137). But it seems more natural to see the royal official as distinct from the crowd.
34. “In the first story Jesus’ mother is the suppliant and responds to Jesus’ rebuke by refusing to take no for an answer (2:3–5); in this passage the royal official acts in the same manner” (Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 1:630). Moloney suggests that, as in the miracle of turning the water to wine, Jesus performed the miracle in His own way by not going down to the royal official’s home. Jesus chose to heal the official’s son in a different way because of the genuineness of the man’s faith (Belief in the Word: Reading John 1–4, 185–86).
35. Francis J. Moloney, Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5–12 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 5.
36. David L. Mealand, “John 5 and the Limits of Rhetorical Criticism,” in Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honor of George Wishart Anderson, ed. A. Graeme Auld (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 259.
37. Ibid., 260.
38. Jeffrey L. Staley, “Stumbling in the Dark, Reaching for the Light: Reading Character in John 5 and 9, ” Semeia 53 (1991): 61–63.
39. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 138.
40. Harold Weiss, “The Sabbath in the Fourth Gospel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 110 (summer 1991): 312.
41. Moloney, Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5–12, 8. See also Carson, The Gospel according to John, 246–59; and Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 1:641–45.
42. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 138.
43. Moloney, Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5–12, 7. He argues that readers become aware of a “failure in faith.” This story then becomes a catalyst for readers to choose how they will respond.
44. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 359.
45. J. Warren Holleran, “Seeing the Light: A Narrative Reading of John 9, ” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 69 (1993): 20.
46. Ibid.
47. James L. Resseguie, “John 9: A Literary-Critical Analysis,” in The Gospel of John as Literature: An Anthology of Twentieth-Century Perspectives, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman, and Mark W. G. Stibbe (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 116.
48. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 139–40.
49. Moloney, Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5–12, 126.
50. Ibid., 128. This is especially noteworthy since he already knew that it was Jesus (9:11). But he did not yet know Jesus’ identity. When Jesus approached him after his encounter with the Pharisees and asked him if he believed in the Son of Man, he looked to Jesus to point him to the Son of Man so that he might believe. It was this conversation with Jesus that moved him to a new level of both understanding and belief regarding Jesus’ identity. Jesus revealed what the blind man had already seen but had not yet understood.
51. Francis J. Moloney, “The Faith of Martha and Mary: A Narrative Approach to John 11, 17–40, ” Biblica 75 (1994): 472.
52. Moloney, Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5–12, 154–56.
53. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2:839.
54. Ibid., 2:843; and Moloney, “The Faith of Martha and Mary,” 477.
55. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2:845.
56. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 141. He says Martha had discerning faith and Mary had unlimited love. In contrast Moloney suggests that Mary was the one who typifies the faith that John was calling for, in contrast to Martha, who consistently fell short (“The Faith of Martha and Mary,” 483). However, this seems forced, especially in view of Martha’s statement in verse 22 that even after the death of Lazarus, God would give Jesus whatever He asked.