John is careful to note that Jesus’ first miracle (at Cana) is done in response to Mary’s intercession ( John 2:1–11). Mary, the icon of the bride and the counterpoint to Jesus the groom, is exactly the importunate supplicant Jesus tells us he is looking for in the Parable of the Unjust Judge (Luke 18:1–8). She doesn’t take “no” for an answer, but first taps Jesus on the shoulder and says, “They have no wine” and, after a seeming rebuff, goes with perfect trust to the servants and tells them, “Do whatever he tells you.”
There is a strong tendency in Evangelical circles to read this story as yet another example of Jesus “rebuking” Mary. But the longer I contemplated it, the more problematic that way of seeing it became. For instance, if Mary is being “rebuked,” the question is, “Why?” For her “faithlessness?” That makes no sense. She obviously expects Jesus to be able to do something about the wine. But such an expectation is clearly an act of faith in him as Messiah since there’s no reason, humanly speaking, to think a poor carpenter would be able to do anything. So she’s obviously expecting something supernatural here.
At this point, many an Evangelical replies, “Yes, she had faith, of a sort. But it was a worldly faith. She wanted Jesus to perform wonders, but didn’t understand the depth of what his mission would ultimately mean. That’s why Jesus rebuked her with the words, ‘O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come’” (John 2:4).
But this makes no sense either. If Jesus is displeased with her allegedly worldly faith and her supposed hankering after mere publicity stunts, why does he grant her request? Everybody else who comes to him with worldly demands and requests for publicity stunts is invariably refused. Whether it’s Herod Antipas (Luke 23:8–9), or the man who wanted Jesus to adjudicate an inheritance dispute with his brother (Luke 12:13–21), or a mob who wanted to crown him king ( John 6:15), or Pharisees seeking a cool special effect from heaven (Matt. 16:1–4), or his own disciples wanting a dazzling display of divine artillery against the Samaritans (Luke 9:51–56), all such crude demands for worldly power and selfish stunts are flatly refused. Yet, according to a common Evangelical take on this story, Jesus allegedly “rebukes” Mary’s supposed crude desire for a publicity stunt—and then capitulates completely and does the stunt anyway!
Once again, this picture of Mary as pushy stage mother and of Jesus as a sort of sullen young actor shoved—whining about his unreadiness—on to the stage of history tells us far more about some Evangelicals’ attitudes toward Mary than it tells us about the actual events at Cana. Once again the specter of Mary as Mommie Dearest is conjured, but now with the added absurdity of an omnipotent divine Son too wimpy to stand up to his domineering Jewish mom. It is simply insupportable to anyone of common sense. So are there other alternatives?
Rev. Sam Harris at Evangelical John Ankerberg’s ministry offers a less harsh, but still unsatisfactory take. After noting (accurately) that the address “Woman” (Greek: gunai) is perfectly polite and does not have the cold ring in Jesus’ native language that it has in English, he continues:
“What have I to do with you” was a common conversational phrase. Again, it meant no disrespect. Jesus answers Mary’s request, not because she is His mother, but as part of His work as the Messiah. According to a footnote in the New Geneva Study Bible, “This indicates that Mary’s special role as Jesus’ mother gives her no authority to intervene in Christ’s messianic career.” Barclay suggests that Jesus was saying: “Don’t worry, you don’t quite understand what is going on; leaves things to Me, and I will settle them in my own way.” It must always be understood that Jesus was respectful of His mother, but He was beginning to distance Himself from His previous role as a dutiful son.
This reading also fails for a number of reasons. To begin with, it is difficult to see why Jesus’ first miracle, done in direct response to Mary’s request and even over his apparent protests, signifies Mary is powerless to intervene in Christ’s messianic career. It would appear, judging from the end of the story, that Mary’s intervention here had a rather pronounced impact on Jesus’ messianic career.
Second, it is not at all clear that Mary “doesn’t quite understand what is going on.” Still less is it clear that Jesus thinks Mary doesn’t quite understand what is going on. On the contrary, Jesus’ response shows he thinks Mary knows perfectly well what is going on: He’s the Messiah and she wants him to manifest himself to Israel.
And finally, it’s difficult to see in the text just what is compelling Jesus to “distance himself from his previous role as a dutiful son.” The subtext of that statement is that Mary (again) has some sort of false or worldly notion of what “Messiah” means (i.e., military hero, or miraculous stunt man, etc.) and so Jesus must “distance himself” from her false expectations to pursue his true mission. But, in fact, nothing in the text of the story justifies the assumption that Mary has false expectations of the Messiah. On the contrary, this assumption about Mary originates, not with the text of Scripture, but with a prejudice brought to the text by Harris and the sources he cites.
A Catholic reading would urge us to move away from the assumption that Jesus and Mary are in conflict at all. Indeed, my former pastor, Fr. Michael Sweeney, O.P., now the president of the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology, has repeatedly remarked to me that it is legitimate to note a certain playfulness in their exchange. What we’re seeing here is not Jesus the Teenage Messiah hagridden by mom and her neurotic need to impress the ladies from the Women’s Auxiliary with “My son, the Miracle Worker.” Nor are we seeing Jesus politely trying to escape the false expectations of a well-meaning but dim disciple. Rather, we’re seeing a piece of conversation—almost banter— between two people who are both acutely aware of who Jesus is and what he is called to do. Mary, after all, is no fool. She knows her Bible. She knows the meaning of the mission of Israel. And most of all, she knows her Son. A quick read of her Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55) shows that she has spent a long time pondering how, in the coming of Jesus, God “has helped his servant Israel, / in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, / to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.” Every word both Jesus and Mary speak is spoken in light of their shared awareness of that messianic mission and of the words of the prophets who taught Israel to await his coming. With all that as the backdrop of their conversation, Mary is revealed to be using language laden with double meaning to lovingly call Jesus to get on with his mission, not to impress the neighbors with a special effect or publicity stunt. Her point is not simply that the wedding guests have no wine. It’s that the whole nation has no wine. All Israel is waiting for the coming of the Messianic Son of David when:
. . . the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wine on the lees well refined. And he will destroy on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death for ever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth; for the Lord has spoken (Is. 25:6–8).
This image of the “new wine” of the messianic age is not unfamiliar to Jesus. He has read the prophets, too, and their imagery is his own. Indeed, Mary was one of the people who taught him to read the prophets. And so he announces the dawn of the Messianic Age in language that once again links the image of a wedding with the image of wine:
Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. And no one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made. Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; if it is, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved” (Matt 9:14–17).
So Jesus acknowledges Mary’s messianic expectation by replying that his “hour” has not yet come (a reply that makes no sense unless he knows Mary is calling him to begin his messianic mission). More subtly still, he acknowledges his messianic mission by calling her “Woman.” This is more than simply a polite address. It is, like all the rest of their exchange, as allusive to larger Old Testament prophetic realities as Mary’s request is. For in addressing her so, he is reminding us of another woman and the promise she and her seed were given long ago (Gen. 3:15) to “crush the serpent’s head.” The whole conversation makes it clear that Mary believes it’s time for Jesus to announce his identity as Messiah and inaugurate the final decisive battle, not with Rome, but with “that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan” (Rev. 12:9); that Jesus knows perfectly well this is what she means; and that she knows he knows it. Rather than some inane request for drinks all round followed by a meaningless “rebuke,” what we’re really looking at here is a profound conversation in which Jesus and Mary know and understand each other perfectly.
Which is why Mary doesn’t back down, and Jesus doesn’t expect her to. The bride—the second Eve confronting the second Adam —seeks the new wine of the kingdom. Indeed, she does so with just the brass and stick-to-itiveness her Son urges all his disciples to have. And the result is precisely what she sought: “This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him” ( John 2:11). Mary, standing as a kind of icon of the whole Church in persistent and importunate prayer, chases Jesus until he catches her, and the courtship of Jesus and his bride the Church begins with Mary as the consecrated icon of the consecrated bride saying, in effect, “Maranatha! Show yourself, O Lord!”
Comments
Post a Comment
To consider that a Mother would ask her Son to perform a miracle for our benefit knowing it would begin her Son’s public mission resulting in His passion and crucifixion truly astonishes me. I’m unable to fathom the mystery, paradox and heroic sacrifice this act entailed by so good a Mother.
Fulton Sheen has a wonderful discussion about this. He talks about the first miracle as the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and an end of the normal life Jesus and Mary have shared together - that being the reason for Jesus questioning her. ie Are you sure you are ready for this to start?
What have I to do with you?...
Her response? Everything. We are united in a way like no other. What happens to you, happens to me and visa versa. As Blessed Mother Teresa once said. Yesterday is gone. Tomorrow is not yet here. Let us begin.
The nab Bible like almost all Bibles distorts the interchange. It reads:
* [And] Jesus said to her, “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.”
That is what is called sense for sense translating. Word for word translating as in the Latin Vulgate has no such rebuke by Christ: ” What to me and to thee? My hour has not yet come”. Here’s the story of this passage.
The problem is that Augustine’s and Chrysostom’s negative take on the Christ/ Mary interchange weighed on Western interpreters but more importantly on Western translators. Almost all Bibles therefore in English took the liberty of translating the moment in a “sense for sense” fashion rather than in a “word for word” fashion. Christ literally says to Mary, ” What to me and to thee”. This phrasing used at least ten times in the Bible is neutral rather than antagonistic.
The English translations are all antagonistic on Christ’s side…some bad, some worse. It’s actually simple if you stay with the original literal words of Christ. Mary was worried to death that if Christ did His first public miracle there at Cana, He would be seized, imprisoned, and enter his predicted passion very soon. Christ was assuring her that He would not enter his passion that quickly. So to review the scene: Mary needs a miracle but is conflicted that it will lead to Christ’s passion very quickly and this worry shows greatly on her face as she petitions Christ; Christ sees the worry on her face and responds by assuring her…” what to me and to thee…my hour ( to suffer the passion) has not yet come”. Bingo. Mary hears a YES and immediately acts on that yes by telling the servants to follow Christ’s instructions. Lesson: sense for sense translations are not always a good thing. Stick with the Vulgate in this passage…which is the official translation of the Catholic Church in disputed passages.
ps…“hour” in John means the hour of Christ’s passion. Those who thought Christ was saying it was not His hour to go public are incorrect. Christ just went public by bringing the first disciples to a public wedding. He had picked them in the days before Cana.
I always thought this passage was a message to the Jewish people. In ancient Middle Eastern times women had no power and no say in any kind of public matters, however there was one big exception. The Queen Mother of the Davidic kings such as Bathsheba. Going to the Mother of our Lord for intersession doesn’t mean much from our modern view of things but would have have spoke volumes to the Jews of that time. It said that this a Son of David ie. the Messiah. As always The Blessed Mother points us to who her Son is.
Our Lord changed His plan because Our Lady asked. Think of that!!! How much more proof do we need that He will respond to her intercessory prayers for us?
“Woman, what am I to you?” What a meditation…to contemplate that wordless gaze,between them, after he asked her the question.
Mark:
I think one confusion can be avoided by noting what “hour” Jesus is referring to when saying that His “hour” is not yet come: What hour does He mean?
Remember that this is John’s gospel, written last, after Christians had already heard the other gospels and were already practicing the Christian faith through the traditions of the apostles. John is not writing it for his health; he explicitly states that he is writing it that the reader/hearer may know that Jesus is the Christ and that, believing, they may “have life in His name.”
But in doing so John is covering stories of Jesus’ doings not originally covered by the other gospel authors. Why? Well, by the time John is writing his gospel, he is aware of which parts of the Christian faith have been underemphasized thus far; he naturally focuses on these parts. John’s gospel fills in certain theological gaps not so explicitly discussed in the synoptic gospels. His gospel is thus complimentary to the others.
Fine, you may say, but, again, what “hour?” Is Jesus talking about? Three o’clock in the afternoon, perhaps? Clearly not.
In fact the word hour (go to BibleGateway and do a keyword search if you like) occurs throughout John’s gospel but is used in two distinct ways: One way is to refer to times of day (“it was about the ninth hour”) and is unremarkable.
But the other way is the way Jesus is using it at Cana with “my hour is not yet come.” Jesus is anticipating some significant climactic event, which he calls His “hour.” This is how the “hour” is used in John 2:4 (the wedding at Cana) but also in John 4:21-24:
21 Jesus saith to her, `Woman, believe me, that there doth come an hour, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father; 22 ye worship what ye have not known; we worship what we have known, because the salvation is of the Jews; 23 but, there cometh an hour, and it now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father also doth seek such to worship him; 24 God [is] a Spirit, and those worshipping Him, in spirit and truth it doth behove to worship.’
It is also how it is used in John 5:
25 `Verily, verily, I say to you—There cometh an hour, and it now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and those having heard shall live; 26 for, as the Father hath life in himself, so He gave also to the Son to have life in himself, 27 and authority He gave him also to do judgment, because he is Son of Man. 28 `Wonder not at this, because there doth come an hour in which all those in the tombs shall hear his voice, 29 and they shall come forth; those who did the good things to a rising again of life, and those who practised the evil things to a rising again of judgment.
It is also how it is used in John 7:30 and 8:20:
30 They were seeking, therefore, to seize him, but no one laid the hand on him, because his hour had not yet come…
20 These sayings spake Jesus in the treasury, teaching in the temple, and no one seized him, because his hour had not yet come;
Then, when the Gentiles, coming to celebrate Passover with the Jews desire to see Jesus, Jesus seems to know that His “hour” has officially come, and immediately connects that thought to the thought that if a grain of wheat “dies” by going into the ground it springs up again to “bear much fruit”:
20 And there were certain Greeks out of those coming up that they may worship in the feast, 21 these then came near to Philip, who [is] from Bethsaida of Galilee, and were asking him, saying, `Sir, we wish to see Jesus;’ 22 Philip cometh and telleth Andrew, and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus. 23 And Jesus responded to them, saying, `The hour hath come that the Son of Man may be glorified; 24 verily, verily, I say to you, if the grain of the wheat, having fallen to the earth, may not die, itself remaineth alone; and if it may die, it doth bear much fruit;
In John 12:27 Jesus clearly identifies His climactic “hour” with His passion, the same event about which He prayed that this cup would pass away from Him if possible but that the Father’s will would be done:
27 `Now hath my soul been troubled, and what? shall I say—Father, save me from this hour?—but because of this I came to this hour;
John 13:1 confirms this:
13 And before the feast of the passover, Jesus knowing that his hour hath come, that he may remove out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own who [are] in the world—to the end he loved them.
And so does Jesus high-priestly prayer in John 17:
17 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, 2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to [a]all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. 3 This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
So, clearly Jesus sees His “hour” (which, at the time of the wedding at Cana, had “not yet come”) as referring at minimum to His crucifixion.
But that’s puzzling. Why should Jesus, when His mother points out a problem with a lack of wine—a problem He could solve through miraculous intervention—respond that His hour “is not yet come?”
Breaking it down, the scene goes like this: Mary: “They’re out of wine [and You, Son, are able to give them the Best Wine.]” Jesus: “It’s not yet time for that, O Woman; I’m not supposed to give out the Best Wine until I am crucified, and that’s Not Yet. I’m supposed to save the Best Wine until Last.”
But a miracle happens anyway: Jesus turns water to wine. And when it does, John also calls the miracle at the wedding at Cana not a “miracle” (dynamos) but a “sign.” Why “sign?” Because a sign points to something else.
In short, John’s gospel intends us to see that:
1. Jesus’ crucifixion, beginning with the Passover and the Last Supper, are all part of an “hour” in which Jesus provides wine to wedding guests and that the fact that this comes at the end of Jesus’ ministry constitutes Jesus “saving the best wine until last.”
2. Jesus’ miracle at Cana was the transition from Old Testament types (prefigurations and foreshadowings of the New Covenant) to the New Testament antitypes (fullfillments of those prefigurations and foreshadowings). By miraculously providing the Best Wine, Jesus is foreshadowing His blood poured out on the cross, the wine of the cup of the New Covenant, which is shared at the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, wherein Christ marries His bride, which is the Church. (John also wrote the Book of Revelation, remember!) Thus the miracle at Cana is a “sign” of what is to come in Jesus’ “hour.”
3. I don’t suppose any practicing Catholic will have much difficulty thinking of an “hour” they regularly experience—once a week or more—in which their union with Christ (as the Church) is consummated by taking His body into them and receiving, under the appearance of wine, the “best wine” ever to be pressed from the fruit of the True Vine, a “wine” which was first poured out at Jesus’ “hour,” His crucifixion?
A lot of people get confused by the Book of Revelation because of its rich mystical symbolic imagery. Then they read the Gospel of John and say, “My, how much easier that is; why couldn’t he have written Revelation so plainly?” They’re mistaken. The Gospel of John is written that way too, if you pay attention.
The story of the Wedding at Cana is basically Jesus saying, “Mom, I’m not going to Institute the Eucharist right now; it’s not time for that yet…despite the fact that this being a wedding would make it appropriate in a certain way. I’m not going to Institute the Eucharist right YET…but I AM willing to foreshadow it.” And Mary, trusting her Son and perhaps anticipating what is coming next, turns to the servants and says, “Do whatever He tells you.”
“Indeed, my former pastor, Fr. Michael Sweeney, O.P., now the president of the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology, has repeatedly remarked to me that it is legitimate to note a certain playfulness in their exchange.”
Never thought of that before but I feel it’s a perfect inference to draw! Sons and mothers who are close and attuned with each other have that sort of exchange all the time.
Mark,
My apologies for the length of this.
Being raised in a fundamentalist/evangelical family exposed me to all the negative interpretations regarding Mary; Mary wasn’t born sinless; Mary did not remain a virgin, Jesus wasn’t her only child. She had other children; Mary wasn’t assumed into heaven; Mary rejected Jesus’ ministry; she was only a vessel; Mary is never recorded in Scripture as believing in Christ or accepting Christ as her personal Lord and Savior; Mary was of no other importance; one pastor said, “Mary was rejected by Christ at Cana” because, as that pastor explained, “she was a social-status-seeking mother trying to show off that her son could do miracles.” Then, with a snarling, sarcastic voice he quoted the Scripture, “what is that to you—- woman?” He almost spat out, “woman”.
One Advent season our pastor only used the phrase “the virgin” or “the virgin with child.” As an 8 or 9 year old I knew about Mary, Joseph and Jesus but had no idea about “the virgin”, and was afraid to ask my parents since I had a vague sense the word had some questionable connotation. Not until the car ride home, when my mother complained to my father about her discomfort that our pastor was referring to Mary “like that”, was I able to make the connection.
That Mary is still held in low esteem was demonstrated by one young, evangelical woman who, looking me straight in the eye, repeated with all sincerity some of what one of those pastors had said decades earlier with her own twist on the ideas, “Any young woman would have done. I could have been Mary. I could just as easily have been the mother of Jesus.”
Her comment brought to mind an earlier comment that has remained with me since I was about twelve. During that Christmas season, another of our pastors declared the typical Protestant idea that, “Any teenage girl would do”, but he went on to name two teenage girls in the congregation and said, “_____ and _____ could, just as easily, have been the mother of Jesus.” Since one of those girls was my sister, whom I knew to be a remarkably obstinate and defiant teen, and the other girl had a reputation for being, let’s just say, quite accommodating to young men, this twelve-year-old boy was left utterly flabbergasted and disconcerted regarding the character of Mary.
Would God choose an angry defiant or promiscuous teen to be the mother of the Savior? Even as a child, that pastor’s comment violated me to the core. Despite having been taught that Mary was no different than the rest of us (no more and no less sinful) I knew he was foolishly wrong. I have always had a sense that Mary radiated purity. My twelve-year-old gut told me that pastor was dead wrong.
A few years ago (in my fifties) a Catholic friend asked me, “Why do you evangelical Christians ignore, demean and even reject the role that Mary played in redemptive history?” I easily explained that, evangelical Christians, led by the reformers, have learned the lessons of the Old Testament and faithfully guard against idolatry, therefore we utterly reject the worship of Mary.
Exhibiting much dismay, my friend exclaimed, “Catholics don’t worship Mary. We only worship God. We honor Mary as we are told to by Scripture.” He finished with the unsettling comment, “Don’t you know the Hail Mary is biblical?”
That started my exploration of the question, “Who is Mary?” and a reading of the early fathers. Easter Vigil 2008 was my entry into the Catholic Church.
As a new Catholic, in addition to enjoying doctrine as taught by the apostles, experiencing Bible reading free from mental gymnastics, participating in reverent worship services (composed almost entirely of Scriptural passages), being a recipient of the glorious experience of sitting at the Lord’s table for the first time in my life, I also have developed a new appreciation for Mary and am ashamed of my history of colluding with the practice of ignoring, demeaning and denying the unique role she played in redemptive history.
While God could certainly have worked salvation history in some other way, Jesus would not be the Messiah if Mary refused to accept the angel Gabriel’s request (Lk 1:38). Salvation history shows that God willingly subjected His omnipotence to the will of one young girl. Her immediate, unreserved acceptance of God’s will, “I am the Lord’s servant… May your word to me be fulfilled” (Luke 1:38) is what makes her, above and beyond all other Biblical characters, a model for discipleship; a model for us to emulate.
Mary’s role in redemptive history is so great that I do not hesitate to say that any other biblical character, except her son Jesus Christ, would have virtually no impact on redemptive history if they had never existed. All the other biblical characters were incidental to what was to come. Mary is the only person whose role was significant enough that redemption through the God-man Jesus Christ could not have occurred without her willing cooperation (Lk 1:38). Just like there would be no need for the crucifixion if Adam and Eve had not fallen, there would be no redemption through the man Jesus Christ if God had not known her before he formed her in the womb and dedicated her before she was born (Psalms 22:10, 139:13-16; Isaiah 49:1b; Jer. 1:5). As the one renamed “Full of Grace,” this second Eve made good on the opportunity to undo the first Eve’s rejection of God’s will by accepting the Archangel Gabriel’s request to be the channel of redemption on behalf of all mankind. No other biblical character played as critical a role as did she. No one!
During my childhood I heard sermons on most Biblical characters, godly and ungodly, familiar and obscure. One pastor even preached a sermon on what Christ’s coming meant to the ass on which Jesus rode into Jerusalem (Mt 21:2-7; Jn 12:14-15). But, in more than 50 years of sermons, I have not ever heard a single Protestant sermon on Mary! Not one!
Might a valid study of the role of Mary give credence to Catholic teaching? Each discovery that I make affirms the correctness of Catholic teaching and the error of Protestant teaching; little things like the biblical nature of the Hail Mary and great things like the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
God Bless.
As an addendum to my earlier post:
We should remember that in the hour of Jesus’ crucifixion, Luke tells us that saintly men who had died rose from their graves and appeared—I would guess this qualifies as “apparitions” of the saints—to folks all around Jerusalem.
And we should remember that in the Liturgy of the Word, immediately prior to the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the gospels are read and a homily is preached so that those who are spiritually dead might receive the Word and have Life, and go on to partake of the Eucharist, the New Covenant “todah” or “thank offering,” the same kind of offering foreshadowed by Melchizidek.
In short: The dead hear Jesus’ voice, receive life, and go on to Worship in Spirit and in Truth, all as a result of Jesus’ “hour” (His passion, from the start of the Institution of the Eucharist right until the moment He drinks the fruit of the vine and says, “It is consummated” and dies), and all as a result of the ongoing and eternal re-presentation of Jesus’ “hour” (the hour that goes on around the world, from the rising of the sun to its setting, whereby Jesus’ body and blood are lifted up as an unbloody offering before God the Father: The Eucharist today).
That puts the proper spin on Jesus’ references to His “hour” when speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well, and also the quote from John 5.
Bill, your explanation makes so much sense. It makes sense of this whole scene. I love it!
Again, Mr. Shea regales us with his insights on Jesus’ “first miracle” at Cana. Reading Shea’s article continues the wedding feast, Thanks, Gonzalo T. Palacios, Ph.D.
Bill Bannon and R.C., Thank you. Those were great!
New Catholic. How refreshing. On another of Mark Shea’s posts a young man attempted to engage in conversation, but it soon became obvious that he had his own agenda and in no way was looking for Truth or enlightenment. Kudos to you. With an open mind and an open heart, anything is possible. If you had remained closed and stubbornly clinging to what you “knew” or thought you knew, you’d still be a Protestant today. It is only when we are sincerely listening to God (and sometimes that means listening to other people) that we will hear Him. I wish Jerome could understand that. God bless you, and welcome home.
Given all that you wrote above, I am fascinated by the second sign at Cana. John always asks us to look deeper,so, why did he mention this place and the specific first sign?
Thinking about your mentioning of the new Adam (Jesus) and new Eve (Mary)brought a thought to mind how they were brought to reverse/correct or save us from original sin from the first Adam and Eve. The first Eve tempted the first Adam to original sin. The second Eve prompted the second Adam to begin reparation of original sin.
When you think about it, it’s very sad that the word “woman” should be considered derogatory. Unfortunately, that’s how it seems to work, at least in English - honorable forms of addressing women become disrespectful over time. Look at the word “hussy,” which originally came from “housewife.” Or the difference between an Arthurian knight saying, “Lady, I will protect you” and some dude on an airplane saying, “Lady, will you tell your kid to shut up?” The title is the same, the intended effects are completely opposed.
Pope JP II named this as one of the Luminous Mysteries on the Rosary. A meditation or two suggests lessons we can draw from this:
1. Jesus does sometimes do favors when requested by His mother (Therefore, “Holy Mary, Theotokos, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.”) And,
2. The message of Jesus is NOT all about pain and suffering. In appropriate circumstances, He will add to the joy of occasions when invited (and the steward says “What you have done is keep the choice wine until now!” (John 2:10)) He wants to be invited to our marriages, and our celebrations generally. And it is a mistake not to invite Him.
TeaPot562
It surprises me that according to this article some are trying to interpret the wedding of Cana with modern thinking. According to the great Mystic Ven. Mary of Agreda, Our Lady spoke to her about Cana. It is filled with many mysteries of which we will not fully understand in this life, only in the next, for ones great Joy in Heaven or for an increase in regret for those who lose salvation. What I look at is Jesus adresses Mary his Mother, “Woman what is this to you and to me.” Mary is the Woman spoken of in Genesis. When a Jew adressed his Mother as Woman he was giving her a great honor. Christ was honoring his Mother, Our Lady says to the servants and to all of us, “Do all that he tells you.” After Jesus turns the water into wine the chief steward says, “What is this, the greater vintage is always served first. But here the greater vintage is served last.” He was guided by the Holy Ghost, the lesser vintage was the Old Testament, the greater vintage here was the ushering in of the New Testament. Christ performed his first public miracle at the request of the Woman who crushes the head of the serpent. As our Lady said to Ven. Mary of Agreda, “The wedding at Cana is filled with many mysteries.”
Thank you, Mark. My father is a Catholic Deacon and just did a homily on the wedding at Cana. I sent him your article. Thanks you for making this story “big”, i.e. of high significance - adam and eve, that we were missing the wine of messianic salvation, the incredibly significant significance of Mary and her crystal clear relationship with the Son of God, Maranatha, show yourself Jesus, we all proclaim! Halleluia!
i think the most significant aspect of mary is her claim that nations shall call me blessed…you can go anywhere in the world and ask who is the blessed mother and they will tell you the mother of Jesus.
on the otherhand jesus has 2 ocassions where he could have lifted mary up and he does not, in fact he does the opposite. therefore i must say the mary of the catholic church (in my view) is not the mary of scripture. when jesus is told (mark chap 3) his mother and brothers are outside to take charge of him (because they and the authorities thought he was insane)jesus said “who is my mother , who are my brothers” , my brothers etc. are those who are here inside with me and then he said anyone who does the will of my father is my brother, my sister my mother (can also be translated is mary). another time on the road to the cross the woman cried “blessed are the breasts that fed you” jesus responded rather than that blessed are they that hear the word of God and obey it”.
We need to take Paul’s direction in corinthians chap 4 vs 6 “do not go beyond what is written lest you put the pride of one man over another”.
to go beyond what is written is pure speculation (for example the assumption / immaculate conception and these things lead to division among believers.
Rich, this is basic apologetics. In both these cases you mention Jesus is pointing out the most important thing about Mary is not that she is his mother, but that she “heard the word of God and obeyed”. Remember, “let it be done unto me according to thy word.”
The assumption is not contradicted by scripture, in fact the prophet Elijah was assumed so we know it can be done…and who better to assume than Mary? As for the Immaculate Conception, there is evidence for this in scripture when the angel greets Mary with “Hail, the one whose complete blessing by God in the past pours into the present…” and Mary “troubles over this greeting”, for what can it mean to be greeted as a queen with this odd title as a name. The Immaculate Conception points to the truth of who Christ is. For the temple of the Lord is pure and holy, and thus the one who’s very flesh became the body of God must be free from the stain of sin herself.
Really enjoyed the article, it allows one to examine and think…Mary in this Miracle at Cana to me introduces the Salvation of the world in asking her son our Lord to perfume this miracle, also after reading the gospel account for over 40 years it always screams something simple…Jesus was liked by the bride and groom to be invited to their wedding, he accepts the invitation, walks to the wedding with his disciples, and seems to enjoy himself….I think John the gospel writer is telling us through his relationship with Jesus is to invite him into our lives and once we do he will walk into our hearts and change us the same way he changed the water into wine which happened to be better than the wine before and so to you and I will be better than we were before we invited Jesus into our life…so like Mary ask Jesus to change want troubles you and like the bride and groom invite Jesus the Savior of the world into your life and begin to taste the sweet life of love, hope, redemption, forgiveness, and GRACE….
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.