BVM and the Gospel of John

[Mystophilus]

It might be worth considering the wider usage of both descriptions. In the other Gospels, Mary is named only in the Nativity narratives, and in the return to Nazareth (Mt 13:55, Mk 6:3), where she is named by the Nazarenes as part of their demonstration of how well they know the family: the Gospel writer is then recording their words rather than commenting editorially, which is to say that their usage is not necessarily his at all. Naming her in the Nativity is necessary, because she is a character in her own right even before she is Jesus’ mother, but then the story becomes the tale of Jesus’ life, and so Luke does not refer to her by name after 2:34, not even in Jesus’ visit to the Temple, Matthew does not refer to her by name after 2:11, except in the Nazarenes’ words (as noted above), and Mark only refers to her by name in the Nazarenes’ words. In the accounts of her coming to visit Jesus during his ministry (Mt 12:46-50, Mk 3:31-35, Lk 8:19-21), she is described as Jesus’ mother, not personally named. Of course, you do not need to describe someone by name if another title identifies them.

Thus, John’s usage is actually rather coherent with that of the other Gospels, and he quite possibly considered that, when his audience heard “the mother of Jesus”, they would know whom he meant without any other label, not least considering that the Christian worship of Jesus necessarily meant that such a description honoured her. BTW, in reference to the two passages in which you do not see the description of her as His mother being honorific, Jn 6:42 is, like Mt 13:55/Mk 6:3, the quoted speech of non-Christians, and Jn 19:25 does place her at the head of the list.

 

[TimothyH]

This is all awesome stuff. Thank you very much. I’ll have to think on all this because I’ve never thought of those verses being about the Eucharist.
(Apologies to the OP for sidetracking).

I’m glad to share, and have been accused more than once of seeing the Eucharist in Scripture where others do not.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Mary is “The Woman” from Gen 3:15, and Rev 12. Mary was created for the specific purpose of bringing our Redeemer into the world. She is at the beginning of the Bible, and at the end of the Bible, Immaculately concieved to be “The Woman” from and for all time.

I think John, who is also the author of Revelation, uses the term “mother” to identify Mary with “The Woman.”

This is extremely important.

The first Eve in Genesis was created to be a “suitable helper” or a “helpmate” for the first Adam. When the first Adam saw the woman, he cried, “At last, bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh!”, a recognition that she was his perfect partner, made specifically to share in his vocation. The first Eve was the first Adam’s perfect vocation partner.

Mary is exactly that, the perfect partner to share in her son’s vocation to redeem mankind.

Son, they have no wine… Do whatever he tells you…

As the New Eve, Mary encouraged her Son who was the New Adam. Mary helped him fulfill his mission.

-Tim-

 

[babs57]

This is extremely important.

The first Eve in Genesis was created to be a “suitable helper” or a “helpmate” for the first Adam. When the first Adam saw the woman, he cried, “At last, bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh!”, a recognition that she was his perfect partner, made specifically to share in his vocation. The first Eve was the first Adam’s perfect vocation partner.

Mary is exactly that, the perfect partner to share in her son’s vocation to redeem mankind.

Son, they have no wine… Do whatever he tells you…

As the New Eve, Mary encouraged her Son who was the New Adam. Mary helped him fulfill his mission.

-Tim-

I heard commentary that connected the finding in the temple with the wedding at Cana. In the former passage, Mary was not yet ready for Jesus to begin His Father’s work (because she did not fully understand what was to happen), whereas in the latter passage, Jesus almost seems to be asking His mother’s permission to begin. After all, once He performs His first miracle, there will be no turning back…

The literal translation is, “Woman, what to me and to thee? My hour has not yet come.” (Jn 2:4) Jesus seems to be saying, “Mom, you know now what is to come. What happens to me is going to affect you too. We don’t have to start yet.”

Jesus knew that His mother was **THE WOMAN **that was prepared from all eternity to bring the Redeemer into the world. Jesus knows that her heart will be pierced as well. Her work as OUR mother will also be beginning.

Always the obedient son, He will do whatever she says. And what she always says is YES. Turning now to us she says, “Do whatever He tells you.”

 

[patrick457]

Just to add: “What to me and to you” is a Semitic expression: it could mean a kind of confrontational “Wait, what did I do to you?” or even a sort of disengagement or indifference: “Sorry, that’s none of my business.” You can find the expression used a number of times in the OT. In the NT the demoniac at Capharnaum in Mark’s gospel asks the same question to Jesus (“What to us and to you, Jesus the Nazarene…,” 1:24) as well as the Gerasene demoniac (“What to me and to you, Jesus son of God the most high…” 5:7) In those earlier instances the hostile sense is probably meant: “Did we do anything to you? Go away!” In John, it’s probably in the latter sense.

 

[babs57]

Just to add: “What to me and to you” is a Semitic expression: it could mean a kind of confrontational “Wait, what did I do to you?” or even a sort of disengagement or indifference: “Sorry, that’s none of my business.” You can find the expression used a number of times in the OT. In the NT the demoniac at Capharnaum in Mark’s gospel asks the same question to Jesus (“What to us and to you, Jesus the Nazarene…,” 1:24) as well as the Gerasene demoniac (“What to me and to you, Jesus son of God the most high…” 5:7) In those earlier instances the hostile sense is probably meant: “Did we do anything to you? Go away!” In John, it’s probably in the latter sense.

I don’t think it’s so much a hostile “go away” or “We aren’t interested in what you have to do” (they certainly don’t sound disinterested!), as it is an admission of what is to come. In both those cases, the demons acknowledge that Jesus is God, and has the power to bring about their demise.

At the wedding at Cana, Jesus is acknowledging that His mother has the power at that moment to begin the redemptive aspect of His ministry. I think He is more concerned with her than with anyone else in that situation.

I hadn’t looked at any OT use of the phrase, but now that I have, it seems used mostly when there is tension between the two parties. It seems to say that the pending actions may not be necessary, as in 2 Chron 35:20-21. I don’t think this necessarily goes against my comments, though.