Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
John 2:11 What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.
John 2:23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name.
John 4:54 This was the second sign Jesus performed after coming from Judea to Galilee.
Does "signs" means supernatural miracles?
The four Gospels record about 35 miracles of Jesus. However, there are numerous other miracles that are alluded to that are not specifically described, eg, Matthew 4:23, 24; 9:35; 12:15; 14:14, 35, 36; 15:30, 31; Mark 1:32 - 34; 6:5; Luke 4:40; 5:15; 6:17 - 19; 7:21; John 2:23; 3:2; 4:45; 6:2; 20:30; 21:25. This final reference says:
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
Thus, we can be confident that there were many more miracles/signs that Jesus performed that are not described in the Gospels.
The Gospel of John specifically lists seven miracles or "signs" before the crucifixion in his Gospel:
The first two in this list are explicitly described as the first and the second sign/miracle of Jesus.
John uses the Greek word, σημεῖον (sémeion) = "sign". BDAG gives two basic meanings for this words, the second of which is: "an event that is an indication or confirmation of intervention by transcendental powers, miracle, portent", eg, Matt 12:38, 16:1, Mark 8:11, John 2:11, 18, 23, 3::2, 4:54, 6:2, 14, 26, 30, 7:31, etc.
The ‘Signs’ were ‘supernatural’. Had to be. Signs were ‘miracles’ that were prophesied. To be a ‘sign’, there had to be a ‘link’ to a prophecy. That is,not ‘just’ a miracle to reflect or demonstrate deity.
John 4:48, NIV: "Unless you people see signs and wonders,' Jesus told him, 'you will never believe.'"
Signs were to announce that ‘he’, Jesus, was the prophesied Messiah, or put another way, verify that ‘he’ was the prophesied Messiah. So yes, the signs were all supernatural miracles. Signs were all ‘happenings’ that only the promised Messiah would be able to ‘perform’.
John 2:11 NIV: “What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.”
John 2:11 is saying that his disciples recognised this ‘water into wine’ as a prophetic sign. Something the Old Testament (Tanakh) talked about.
Jeremiah 31:12 “They will come and shout for joy on the height of Zion, And they will be radiant over the bounty of the Lord— Over the grain and the new wine and the oil… And they will never languish again.”
And elsewhere, example, Psalm 4:6-8. So the answer to your question ... Does "signs" means supernatural miracles? is yes.
Let me propose, first, that "sign means more than "miracle". It means "miracle with a purpose". A "sign" points in a particular direction. Jesus complains elsewhere that "this generation" wants to see "a sign" (e.g. Matthew ch16 v4), and what he means is that they are demanding the kind of miracle that will "prove" what he claims about his authority.
I suggest,then, that the Cana episode is meant as "a sign for the Jews", and the Capernaum episode is meant as "a sign for the Gentiles".
The first suggestion is based on the implications of "wedding".The covenant relationship between God and his people Israel is identified as "husband and wife" at many points in the Old Testament, including the prophets (e.g. Hosea ch2, Ezekiel ch16), and also (arguably) the Song of Solomon.
The rationale for the second suggestion is more oblique, I'm afraid. In the equivalent story in the Synoptics (Matthew ch8 vv5-13) the anxious request comes from a centurion.
So my suggestions cannot be proved absolutely. But if they are on the ball, the answer to your question is that "Jews" and "Gentiles" cover the whole world between them, so no more than two signs are necessary. The message, in each case,is that "Faith" is the answer.
P.S. It is possible to imagine that in the original arrangement of the material the two stories came in quick succession, averting the need for the remark about "returning to Cana".
Read all four gospels together, the Wedding of Cana took place not long after Jesus' Baptism. His Baptism was happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing (John 1:28). At this location, we can imagine that Jesus should have visited Jerusalem, likely for the Feast of Tabernacles, and October is a good season, not too hot, not too cold for Baptism and Wedding taken place.
Immediately follow the Wedding of Cana, John's gospel immediately jumped to the next visit to Jerusalem, for the Passover (John 2:13). A few events happened before he went back to Cana, Galilee, include;
Then finally, Jesus arrived Galilee and visited Cana again, where a "certain royal official (NIV)/ certain nobleman (KJV)" whoes son lay sick at Capernaum, begged Jesus to go to Capernaum to heal his son (John 4:46-54).
Now, the OP had asked a good question. In between these two signs, there is a significant time lapse. Did Jesus perform any miracles during the time?
My answer is "Yes", but in John's perspective he did not call them a sign. Then why was it?
After the wedding of Cana, Jesus went to Capernaum with his disciples (John 2:12). Reading all four gospels together, it is quite clear that Capernaum was a base of Jesus' Ministry. A few healing, exorcism were happened in Capernaum and its surrounding, below were likely happened in between these two signs
So why was John not taken the above as signs?
It is because the healing of the "certain nobleman's son" was done without the presence of Jesus.
Reviewing the seven signs of John, all indicate a status of impossible becomes a status of possible, a sign of undisputable divine intervention.
These seven signs were specific chosen by John, to affirm Jesus is God, a meaning much more significant than the miracles itself.
