Well since I've just started this blog I'm sure not too many people are checking it....but oh well. I have been studying John 2 and I am a bit stumped right now - so if anyone has some thoughts, let me know.
In this passage, the first miracle of Jesus' ministry occurs here. I have some thoughts in no particular order which need some sorting.
First, lets think about Mary, Jesus' mother. Why did she tell Jesus about the problem? Did she expect a miracle? Or perhaps through the years Jesus had shown an amazing ability to obey and/or serve so completely that his industrious nature had become something Mary depended on. When the family had a need, one could imagine that Jesus would prove a reliable source, not necessarily because of miraculous power, but because of his perfect nature he could be depended on. So maybe Mary did not expect a miracle, but she did know she could tell the problem to Jesus and he would work until he found a solution. But perhaps she did expect a miracle. With the advent of Jesus ministry the chapter before, and mary's apparently apt spiritual perception, maybe she knew a different era had begun and thought it appropriate to ask for such a miracle. However, judging by Jesus reply, maybe she wasn't asking anything! He says "...what does your concern have to do with me?" maybe Mary didn't expect anything, she was just merily commenting to Jesus. It would seem unlikely that she would make mention of it to him unless she thought he could and/or would do anything about it. Anyone have any thoughts?
Noting Jesus address to Mary as woman, from what I can tell of my study, this is a similar address as to what we might say today, "Ma'am". Today, to address a lady as "woman" may sound derogatory, but not then. The important fact is that it was not "mother" or any such term indicating their relationship. This seems clear that it was a deliberate distinction that Christ was making that he "must be about His Fathers business" and now the focus was on being the revealed the Son of God and Son of Man more than he was the son of mary.
So then the statements of Jesus, basically two after addressing Mary as woman. 1) what does your concern have to do with me, and 2) my hour has not yet come. I will address the latter first.
The phrase hour is a significant one in the gospel of John. In fact, it is one of the many groups of seven that appear in this gospel. Note that hour is used more than seven times, but specifically to Christ's hour it is found no more or less than seven times in subject: 2:4, 7:6-8, 7:30, 8:20, 12:23,27, 13:1, and 17:1. It is made very clear that the appointed time or hour Jesus spoke of was that of his death on the cross in 12:27, 13:1, and 17:1. Therefore, based on this, I suggest that the hour Jesus speaks of in 2:4 is not referring to his hour of advent or even his hour to work a miracle, but rather his death. One catholic commentary I read went so far to suggest that Jesus did not know his hour had come at this wedding in cana, but Mary did, and thus helped bring about this first miracle. Nonsense. In addition, it would make no sense that Jesus would say his hour had not yet come (if the hour referred to working a miracle) and then go ahead and work the miracle. Based on these two lines of thought, the first being the consistent use of hour in the gospel, the second being there is seemingly no plausible alternative, I am confident that the hour refers to his ascent to calvary.
So one question is, why did Jesus refer to this hour of his suffering at this time? and what connection did this have to the wedding and / or Mary's concern? For a second lets isolate Jesus comment and think about what it implies. To say, "what it is your concern to me, my hour has not yet come", implies first that somehow Mary's request is linked to this hour, and secondly that the whole scene, or at least an emphasis of it, is related to this hour as well - whether symbolically in the wine, something of the wedding, or in the statement "they have no wine", etc. So why the reference to His hour???? Any thoughts?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
6 comments:
Good questions Jenica (or Andy?). I wouldn't be so quick to say that the word "hour" must always be referring to the same thing in John. It is possible that "hour" is concentrated on the event of the cross but also includes the entire perspective of Jesus' ministry.
From that vantage He might be saying "my time to begin my ministry has not arrived, nevertheless I will do this."
Just an idea, although you might be right about "hour" referring to Calvary as well.
Well, you might very well be right. But let me push the point a little further and perhaps a little more clearer of what I am thinking.
It seems he began his ministry the chapter before. It would seem odd that immediatly after being baptized and calling the disciples, and the other events of chapter one that Jesus would indicate in chapter 2 that it was not yet time for His ministry. Also to this point, if it truly was not his time, than why did he carry out the miracle? If the time was not ready that he should commence his ministry, or even begin miracles, then He would not have turned the water into wine. So I would conclude that the hour had to be referring to something later than either the beginning of miracles or beginning of ministry.
Good points Jandica (my nickname for you when I don't know who's writing).
First, I should have been more specific about "ministry" since you are correct: the baptism and calling of the disciples had already happened. I was referring to the public display of miracles.
You have clearly pointed out the dilemma inherent in this approach, namely: if the time had not yet arrived for public miracle-working, then why did Jesus go ahead and do the miracle?
My response to this line of thought would be that Jesus was reluctant to perform such a highly visible miracle at this point. In Mark 1, one of the first recorded miracles Jesus performs is to heal a man of leprosy (1:40-44). Yet Jesus gave him a strong warning not to tell anyone. The question then arises: why did Jesus perform the miracle if He didn't want anyone to know about it?
I would say that Jesus' compassion for the leper was greater than his reluctance for the public to hear of his power to work miracles. I also think the parallel applies to the instance with the wine.
What do you think?
I think there is some validity to line of thought. One which is also similar to what Jamison-Faucet-Brown commentary contends. But of course I have some contrary thoughts.
One, I would be reluctant to present Christ weighing any option, or having hesitancy or reluctance in anything He did or said. To me this would indicate that He did not exactly know the Father's will or plan. Know what I mean?
Secondly, I think Christ statement to Mary "what have you and I" (literal) plays into this as well. If the hour referred to His beginning of miracles (or miracle ministry, or ministry in general) this statement posses difficulties. If He was reluctant, but yet carried our the miracle anyway, why this statement to Mary?
Here is what I have come to conclusion on. Christ is indeed speaking of the hour, as he does consistently in the rest of the gospel, as His hour of the cross (RE: Jn 12, 17). Tied to this is the importance of his statement to Mary: what have you and I? In the fact that Jesus comletes the miracle, which desire they both had in common, Mary did not share same motivation. She, like the disciples, may not have understood enough of him to know that His kingdom was heavenly, not earthly like so many of the Jews hoped and believed of the messiah. There are other motivations she may have had that I won't contemplate here, but let me summarize my thoughts like this. Mary, seeing that Jesus ministry has begun (chap 1) and aware of His deity (albeit not fully) perhaps thought the time for Christ to act had come. However, her "concern" (as the NKJV translates it) had nothing "to do with" (as the KJV translates its) Christ. His concern was His hour on the cross, Mary's concern was like the other Jews in the advent of the Messiah and the assumed earthly kingdom. So in this brief discourse Christ redirects Mary's focus although the outcome is perhaps the same.
What do you think?
...by the way this is Andy...
Andy -- I think you have some great insights here. I think you are right that Mary's perspective is limited to her expectation of what Messiah would do. This is the point that I think I overlooked earlier. He did not want to think that Jesus' purpose was bound up in miracles like turning water to wine.
Check out the notes from the NET Bible on this. They basically say that "what to me and to you?" is an idiom that means "this is your business, how am I involved?" In this sense, Jesus would be affirming the fact that this was her business, not His. His business was the cross.
Also, on the word translated as "hour" or "time" it says:
"It is a reference to the special period in Jesus’ life when he was to leave this world and return to the Father (13:1); the hour when the Son of man is glorified (17:1). This is accomplished through his suffering, death, resurrection (and ascension – though this last is not emphasized by John). John 7:30 and 8:20 imply that Jesus’ arrest and death are included. John 12:23 and 17:1, referring to the glorification of the Son, imply that the resurrection and ascension are included as part of the “hour.” In John 2:4 Jesus’ remark to his mother indicates that the time for this self-manifestation has not yet arrived; his identity as Messiah is not yet to be publicly revealed.
So in summary, I think I agree that "hour" is referring to the cross, and I agree with you that Jesus is trying to change Mary's perspective on the significance of the miracle. I still also think there is a sense that Jesus was reluctant for people to know about this miracle (as with others) and I think that plays into the rebuke as well.
Alan,
Thanks for feedback. I would whole heartedly agree with your last statement regarding the "gradual revelation" of Christ, or as you said His reluctance for people to know of his miracles. This seems to be consistent on several fronts. In looking at the panorama of history we see that the revelation of God has progresses, and each of us would say that in our own lives as well that the longer we know Him the more He reveals. Why should His ministry be any different?
Post a Comment