By Anne Lastman
In the absence of Annunciation stories, birth stories and infancy narratives in St John’s Gospel the introduction of “the mother of Jesus” (Jn 2:1-12) at the beginning of his public ministry and again at the end of his life on the cross at Calvary (Jn 19:25-27), is intended to alert the reader that the role of the mother of Jesus is pivotal to the this Gospel. There is something important in the way her character is placed. Her actions and her responses. The mother of Jesus is mentioned only twice in this Gospel (John) and both times she is addressed as “woman.”
The Cana pericope is important to the whole of the Gospel of John because within this setting will be given the reason for the birth of Jesus, namely to reveal the returned kabōd (glory) of Yahweh to His people. The kabōd has returned after a long absence (Ez.10: 18-22; 11:22-25) and John’s gospel seeks to show that the divine presence is again amongst His people; “He lived among us” (Jn 1:14) He set up His tabernacle. The language of John when referring to “presence” is the language of tabernacling.
Within the whole cameo of Cana will be shown the beginning of the transformation from the old to the new. The old wineskins, which did not really contain the best wines, and new wineskins must be made available for the new wine. The transformation from the old to the new begins at a kairos moment at Cana, and the evangelist John loads many meanings into the narrative. Further, within the Cana narrative, will be introduced not only themes which will be developed throughout the Gospel but persons who also represent themselves and “others.” Added to this will also be introduced the mysterious “hour,” which unfolds throughout the Gospel and culminates at Calvary with Jesus’ death. (Jn.19:25-27).
The “mother of Jesus” (Jn. 2:1) is introduced and is linked to the Genesis narrative through the title accorded her by her son “Woman.” The title “mother of…” in Semitic culture was and is an honorific title. It’s the title accorded to a woman who has been blessed with a son of such distinction. John prefers to leave out her name and refer to her as the “mother of Jesus” in order to indicate that he is leading the reader to a deeper understanding of and a higher reality of who she is to be seen as, that is, “the woman” of Genesis, the new Eve and a symbol of the bride (Gn 3:15; Rev. 19:7).
John’s narrative set in Cana sets into motion the journey towards that mysterious “hour” and within that “hour” will again be found Jesus and his mother. The roles are important to one another because each contributes to the “hour” of the other. The role of the “mother of Jesus” is important because she sets out the conditions by which Jesus responds and thus begins his ministry due to his revelation. Miracle.
Some scholars have suggested that the title “woman” in the Cana narrative was used by Jesus as a form of rebuke and as a sign of distancing between them. However, because the themes of this Gospel are glory, light, life, renewal, and regeneration it’s clear that John wishes to lead the reader to see Jesus as the one who was present “in the beginning” (Gn. 1:1) and as the one who has come to recreate a new order and within that new order there is also “the woman” just as there was “the woman” in the old order. The new order appears to begin in Cana (his revelation in performing miracle) and reach its fulfilment and climax when the “hour” comes at Calvary.
Noticing that the wine at the wedding feast had run out, the mother of Jesus made the comment “they have no wine” (Jn. 2:4). This does not sound like a request, command or an order. This appears as a statement, and whilst some exegetes have suggested that a request for a miracle is implied and therefore the ensuing rebuke, it’s my contention that it’s not a request but an observation of a noticed reality. It’s also an opening for Jesus to begin to do what he has to do, that is, His Father’s work. It’s an invitation to begin to journey towards that mysterious “hour” In his revelation, his hidden life comes to an end and he must set out on His Father’s business. In Mary’s comment to her son, she is giving him permission to begin the work of His Father. Unlike his earlier foray in the temple when the time was not right (Lk 2:41-52) now the time has come for her to let go.
The Old Testament type is the story of Abraham and Sarah. Abraham agrees to the sacrifice of Isaac but Sarah does not. In this relationship the Father also agrees to the death of His only son, and so does the Mother. In this instance she sets him out on that road.
There is a hint of yes behind the so-called “no” of Jesus because his mother appears untroubled by the so-called public rebuke and immediately and confidently commands the servants to “do whatever he tells you” (Jn. 2:5). This suggests that the response of Jesus was not a rebuke but that they both knew that this was the time. The “hour” to begin. At a symbolic level, “do whatever he tells you” (Jn 2:5) is the language engaged when covenant memory is recalled especially memory of Exodus and Sinai. When Moses relayed to his people God’s instructions they answered, “everything the Lord has said, we will do” (Ex 19:3-8). Cana like Mt Sinai is a call to obedience and the mother of Jesus, like Moses, must lead the people to an understanding that total obedience is demanded. Indeed, this is clearly seen when the servants fill the jars “up to the brim” (Jn 2:7) The instructions of Jesus are meticulously followed and clearly recorded by the author. In a symbolic sense if “the mother of Jesus” is representative of “another” her observation that “they have no wine” v.4 is fitting since her son is to give the new wine of the spirit that is “the nucleus of the new covenant.”
The seemingly strange response of Jesus “ ti-emoi-kai-soi gynai” (Jn2:4) (what to me and to thee) does indeed does sound like a rebuke, however, the sharpness of “ti-emoi-kai-so gynai” possibly exists because of the difficulty in the translation from Greek to host language. Indeed, at best it’s a clumsy rendition and shows the difficulty in the translation of nuances and inflections. Idioms pertaining to a culture can only be appreciated by the native language, that is, the language of their inception. Therefore the tension, which appears to exist in this exchange between the mother and her son, exists because of this difficulty. Not-with-standing the difficulty in translation, it’s also a known method of expression especially to be found in the Old Testament Jg.11:12; 2Sam.16:10; 1Kgs. 17:18 and other places in the New Testament Mt. 8:29; Mk. 1:24; Lk.4.34, where it’s generally understood as having several shades of meaning. That is, when there is unwanted interference or when there is a request for action – though the request should not have been made. (2kgs. 3:13). A rebuking, “ti-emoi-kai-soi gynai” is not a comment a son would make to his mother irrespective of the nature of the relationship, that is, human or divine. It’s further not a comment a son whose mother has been honoured with the tile “mother of…” would make in the presence of others. This would be a public humiliation of his mother and if nothing else would contravene the fourth commandment “honour thy father and thy mother.” (Ex. 20:12) It certainly would not be a comment made by a son who is so intimately connected with the law. “The Wisdom books insist on the respect due to one’s mother (Pr.19:26, 20:20, 23:22; 30:17. Si. 3:1-16).”
Francis Moloney suggests that Jesus’ response is intended to put “some distance between the mother and son” and whilst Moloney suggests there is what appears a rebuke directed at His mother, he also sees that there is also a sense of a studied courtesy and “is led to the necessary paradox of the hour coming and being already here.” And whilst it’s the Father (the voice of another-according to Bultmann) that Jesus listens to and obeys “he is prompted by the mother.” It’s also important to note that “the woman” immediately and without apparent distress at the so-called rebuke commands the servants with an authoritative command “Do whatever he tells you.” (Jn 2:5)
Perhaps the importance of the response of Jesus is not the so-called rebuke but that Jesus addressed his mother as “woman.” It’s his intention to show that Mary is the promise of the prophecy that the “woman” and her offspring will “crush” the head of satan and in the “crushing” recreate all things new. It’s both the “woman” and the “offspring” who must co-operate to accomplish this. The “crushing” must be done by the “offspring” but the “woman” must also experience pain which the crushing will bring. (Lk 2:35)
Further, if “woman” is read as a rebuke at Cana then we must also read the same in (Jn 19:25-27) where again Jesus addressed his mother as “woman”. In these verses it’s clear that the title “woman” is not a rebuke and it’s universally understood as an allusion to the “woman” of Gn 3.15. Bultmann further suggests that “ti emoi kai soi gynai” and the term “woman” in John.19:25-27 are to be interpreted contextually. However, I would suggest that this then becomes selective interpretation to fit one’s own particular interpretive slant. If “woman” John 19:25-27 has a non-aggressive, non-rebuking, but even exalted meaning, then “woman” John 2:4 must also be interpreted favourably using the same conditions.
In as much as the “woman” is to be the new Chawah (mother of all living) it’s possible to conclude that she knew that the mysterious “hour” which Jesus announced (Jn2:4-5) had arrived and that she herself was to be part of that hour. Just as the original “mother of all living” was part of the “hour” and days of creation so too the new woman was to be part of the new “hour” and moment of recreation. Indeed, as the first woman said “no” so the new woman was called to utter her fiat. At each crucial moment in the life of Jesus is to be found his “mother” the “woman” uttering her yes.
This is not to suggest that she knew what the hour contained or exactly what her role was to be but whatever it was she would be required to be beside him. though their relationship would decrease and his Father’s work would need to increase. His revelation meant turning his head turned resolutely towards Jerusalem. (Lk 9:51-62) and his mother from then on would follow from distance.
Within the context of the verbal exchange between Jesus and his mother there is introduced the mysterious term “the hour” This term “the hour” is so important that it appears seven times in this Gospel J4:21, 5:25, 7:37-39, 12:23, 16:21, 17:1. 19:2. The “hour” is loaded with theological meaning and at each of the instances where it is used Jesus highlights a specific new meaning. However, whilst the reader is lead to the understanding that the “hour” is a theological “moment” there is also the very real indication that “the hour will be a moment in the human, historical experience of Jesus.”
Whilst scholars universally accept that the “hour” refers to the glorification of Jesus on the cross it’s also possible to infer that the “hour” means a time leading to that specific hour. A lead up to and the events which lead to that specific hour, and if this is the situation it’s also his mother’s hour because of the mother’s involvement in her son’s life “the hour of the woman will have come”16:21 At Cana as at Calvary and the Apocalypse “Mary (the woman) and the Church are intimately associated in their soteriological function” However, there was also the “hour” that was definitive and what flowed from Jesus in that “hour” flowed from his being in a one union with His father. That is, the death on the cross and from this death the announcement- tetelestai – the completion of work of redemption, (Jn19:30.)
Of particular significance in the understanding of the role of the woman in John’s Gospel is that the evangelist, whilst not introducing the manner of Jesus’ birth and early life he does introduce His mother by placing her right at the beginning of his ministry thus giving her a place of prominence. It’s as if she was required to be there to set him off on His Father’s work and be there at the end of that work. “Her role is always that of providing the occasion for salvation to be worked.” Further, at the conclusion of his life at Calvary, the mother and the beloved disciple are called to new dimension of relationship born at the foot of the cross. This is the dimension slowly unpacked throughout the Gospel and within this dimension is found the “woman,” her son Jesus and her adopted son the beloved disciple “woman behold your son…behold your mother” (Jn19: 26-27) “This divine filiation is the ultimate revelation of the ‘hour’ and brings Jesus’ mission to its completion.”
John’s treatment of the “mother of Jesus” has been one, which must be read, at different levels from the shallowest to the deepest. Cana introduces not only specific celebration, key players, Mary the mother of Jesus, and of course Jesus who provides the infinitely better wine. Jesus by addressing his mother as “woman” invested in her the role of co-worker with him, that is a helper (Gn.2:19) “Woman”, rather than “mother” elevated her status above the human meaning of motherhood to incorporate “mother of all living.” It was not a ploy of the author to elicit rebuke and a distancing between the mother and her son (at Cana) rather it was the author’s intention to weave the various meanings around the relationship between Jesus and his mother, the new “woman” with whom would be formed the new family which would incorporate not only the beloved disciple but all those who would believe in Him . The new members of his family, born at the foot of the cross would have his own mother as their own mother and his own father (God) as their father. The mystery of the “hour” and the “woman” reveals the new familial relationship with God through the intervention of Jesus.
As we have seen the work of “woman” Mary, beginning with her fiat, her setting him off on his journey towards calvary with her “they have no wine” (at Cana) and her presence at all important moments in the life of her son, lead to a vision of Mary of Nazareth as the “Woman” promised in Genesis (3:15). In her fiat, Mary of Nazareth reverses the “No” of Eve into the “Yes” of the new “Eve” and because this is so, the honour accorded to Mary cannot be measured in human terms. It can only be respected as only her son has done so himself.
In her role in assisting her son in his work of redemption it would seem appropriate that at the end of her time on earth, her Son would not permit His mother to suffer the indignity of the curse of death (because of sin) and the body which nurtured him and was his abode of honour at his conception, to be allowed to experience corruption and to disintegrate into soil. Every mother is clothed in a sublime mystery and dignity and Mary’s motherhood most especially because she bore with honour the Son of God and was a motherhood of sacrificial love.
It’s said and believed by some scholars that the Mother would wish to experience the same death as her son, however, it’s my thought that it was her Son’s task to experience death in order to defeat it. The curse of death, because of disobedience and sin, could only be reversed by God’s own way through His son, and so we ask what happened to the immaculate body of the Mother of God, Jesus the Son? and proffer an answer by way of her Assumption to heaven both body and soul. A type and hope for all of us in the time to come, and irrespective of the manner of the end of Mary’s earthly life we know that she was not subject to the law of death (her Immaculate Conception) because in death and return to soil and corruption would mean that her body was under the curse of death. Which indeed it was not so because of her Immaculate Conception.
The body of the mother of him who is life was declared assumed into the abode of her loved son heaven, having been believed by the church for over a thousand years, the definition of this dogma was made an article of faith and true by Pope Pius XII in 1950. At a time when the human body especially, the female body was so dishonoured by her acquiescence to the killing of the child in her womb via abortion.
Mary’s role of mother of all living does not end with her Assumption but sitting at the right hand of her son she, like Bathsheba of Old Testament “speaks” with her son about all her children. Sitting at the right hand of the king, like Bathsheba, Mary sits on a throne brought for her to sit next to the king. The king rose and bowed down to her. (1Kgs 2:19.).
Bibliography
Ashton, J. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1991
Bouyer, L The Fourth Gospel. Ireland: St. Paul Publications. 1955, 1964.
Brown, R.E. The Gospel According to John 1-X11. New York: Doubleday & Company Inc. 1966.
Brown, R.E., Donfried, K.P., Fitzmyer, J.A., Reumann, J. (eds.) Mary in the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress & New York: Paulist Press. 1978.
Bultmann, R. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G.R. Beasley et.al. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971.
Carroll, E.R. Understanding the Mother of Jesus. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc. 1979.
Coloe, M. Raising the Johannine Temple.(John 19:19-37) Australian Biblical Review.
Vol. 48, 2000.
De Vaux, R. OP. Ancient Israel. Its Life and institutions. London: Darton, Longman & Todd. 1965.
Dodd, C.H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: University Press. 1970.
Fehribach, A. The Women In the Life of the Bridegroom. A Feminist Historical-Literary Analysis of the Female Characters in the Fourth Gospel. Minnesota: The Liturgical Press. 1998.
Feuillet, A. Johannine Studies. New York: Alba House. 1964.
Grayston, K. The Gospel of John. Epworth Commentaries. London: Epworth Press 1990.
Koester, C.R. Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel. Meaning, Mystery, Community. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1995.
Lindars, B. The New Century Bible Commentary. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott. Pub. Ltd. 1972.
McHugh, J. The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman & Todd. 1975.
Moloney F.J, Belief in the Word. Reading the Fourth Gospel: John 1-4.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
Orton, D.E. The Composition of John’s Gospel. Selected Studies from Novum Testamentum. Leiden: Boston: Koln: Brill. 1999.
Schnackenburg, R. The Gospel According to St.John. Vol. 1 Commentary Chapter1-4. New York: Herder & Herder. London: Burns & Oates. 1968.
The New Jerusalem Bible. New York: Doubleday & Company. 1985.
……………………………
