Mary at Cana

[Crown_of_Stars]

It would seem as though Mary was “hinting” for Jesus to use His power when she said, “They have no more wine.” Did Mary know her Son had the power to make more wine? Is this really what she was asking? Then when she said, “Do whatever He tells you,” it would seem as though she knew He would do what she asked, even though all He told her was, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? For my hour has not yet come.” It would seem as though that was it, He had dismissed her request, and yet she seemed to think or know He would do it because of what she told the servants.

 

[bardegaulois]

That “they have no more wine” is a prayer that serves as an example to follow, a simple statement of need, with the rest left to the Lord. However, “woman, what is it to me and to thee?” though it might at first sound so to us, is not an expression of sharp disapproval. Why then would Our Lady give such an order to the servants thereafter?

The brief exchange between Jesus and Mary here gives us much to meditate on. We see that Jesus knows our needs, but He makes His fulfillment of them condition upon our prayer. The we see Jesus seeming to refuse to listen to Mary’s request; I’m sure we’ve all been there in our prayer lives before. But then we see Mary’s confidence that her simple petition will be granted, and so she then counsels the servants to be ready to conform to Christ’s authority and to comply with His orders. In this, she both shows us how simply to state our circumstances in which something is necessary, and then gives us instruction vicariously through the servants.

This terse passage of Scripture remains among the richest in what it reveals to us.

 

[MaryT777]

Interested in comments…

 

[thistle]

It would seem as though Mary was “hinting” for Jesus to use His power when she said, “They have no more wine.” Did Mary know her Son had the power to make more wine? Is this really what she was asking? Then when she said, “Do whatever He tells you,” it would seem as though she knew He would do what she asked, even though all He told her was, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? For my hour has not yet come.” It would seem as though that was it, He had dismissed her request, and yet she seemed to think or know He would do it because of what she told the servants.

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 1. The Mother of Jesus was present. It is supposed she was then a widow, since in all the rest of the history of Jesus, not a single word occurs respecting St. Joseph. (Calmet)

Ver. 3. They have no wine. The blessed virgin Mother was not ignorant of the divine power of her Son, and that the time was come when he designed to make himself known to the world. She could not make her request in more modest terms. (Witham)

Ver. 4. Some of the Fathers have spoken without sufficient precaution on this action of the blessed Virgin; supposing she was actuated by some inclination to vanity, in begging her Son to perform a miracle on this occasion; that some of the glory of it might accrue to her, and that on this account our Saviour answers her with severity, saying, Woman, (not Mother) what is it to thee or me. Other Fathers, with more reason, attribute the interference of the blessed Virgin to her charity and compassion for the new married couple. Whatever turn be given to our Saviour’s answer, it must be acknowledged it has in it the appearance of something severe. But the Fathers have explained it with mildness, observing that our Saviour only meant to say, Mother, what affair is it of ours if they want wine? Ought we to concern ourselves about that? Others think that he wished, by these words, to let his Mother know that she must not forestall the time appointed by the heavenly Father, as if her demand were unseasonable and out of time. But most of the Fathers and best commentators understand, that he speaks here not as man and Son of Mary, but as God; and in that quality, he observes to his Mother, I have nothing in common with you. It is not for you to prescribe when miracles are to be performed, which are not to be expected in compliance with any human respect. I know when my power is to be manifested for the greater glory of God. (Calmet) —See the like forms of speech, Mark i. 24; Luke iv. 34; &c. — My hour is not yet come. It is not yet time. He waited till the wine was quite done, lest any should believe that he had only increased the quantity, or had only mixed water with the wine. He would have his first miracle to be incontestable, and that all the company should be witnesses of it. (St. Augustine, et alii patres passim. — Christ’s first miracle in the New Testament, was a kind of transubstantiation in changing water into wine; the first miracle Moses performed when sent to the Jews, was transubstantiation. (Exodus iv.) The first Moses and Aaron performed, when sent to the Egyptians, was transubstantiation. (Exodus vii.)

 

[PNEUMA]

It would seem as though Mary was “hinting” for Jesus to use His power when she said, “They have no more wine.” Did Mary know her Son had the power to make more wine? Is this really what she was asking? Then when she said, “Do whatever He tells you,” it would seem as though she knew He would do what she asked, even though all He told her was, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? For my hour has not yet come.” It would seem as though that was it, He had dismissed her request, and yet she seemed to think or know He would do it because of what she told the servants.

The “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” translation is completely wrong. The correct translation is “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me?”

As for the story, the turning of water into wine alludes to the turning of wine into blood at the Lord’s table.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Mary was a Jewish mother.

[No disrespect: she really WAS a Jewish mother.]

Jesus was her Jewish adult son who still lives at home.

Read the story of the miracle at Cana with that context and with those language accents.

[You are reading this in English. English wasn’t even invented until 700 years after Jesus. BUT, for an equivalent, read it as if you are comedian Jackie Mason.]

[The marriage feast at Cana was a two day long party. A lot of wine was consumed.]

[For a cultural equivalent, there used to be a situation comedy television program called “Cheers” … took place in a basement bar named Cheers. One of the characters was named Cliff Claven … a mail man who lived at home with his mother. “But, Maaa!” ]

[Jesus is stuck. His mother has given him an ORDER … to fix the problem. She KNOWS that Jesus is God the Son of God. I can see him at the bar trying to enjoy a beer … (Beer has been around for 10,000 years already.) … so he tells the steward at the restaurant what to do. The steward is the guy who is running the party for the newly-wed married couple and running the tab. He alone knows what transpired with the water jugs … and he alone can ask “how did you do that?”.]

 

[M-Dent]

It would seem as though Mary was “hinting” for Jesus to use His power when she said, “They have no more wine.” Did Mary know her Son had the power to make more wine? Is this really what she was asking? Then when she said, “Do whatever He tells you,” it would seem as though she knew He would do what she asked, even though all He told her was, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? For my hour has not yet come.” It would seem as though that was it, He had dismissed her request, and yet she seemed to think or know He would do it because of what she told the servants.

On this one point, Mary had faith in Jesus’ supernatural power before she witnessed it.

John Paul II had noted here how Mary aided in introducing Jesus the Saviour and helped to strengthen the faith of the disciples by obtaining this miraculous sign.

 

[Beryllos]

Mary was a Jewish mother.

[No disrespect: she really WAS a Jewish mother.]

Jesus was her Jewish adult son who still lives at home.

Read the story of the miracle at Cana with that context and with those language accents.

[You are reading this in English. English wasn’t even invented until 700 years after Jesus. BUT, for an equivalent, read it as if you are comedian Jackie Mason.]

I can also hear the Jewish mother in the story of the boy Jesus in the temple: His mother said to him, “Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety.” Is it acceptable to read that with a Jewish mother accent?

 

[PJM]

It would seem as though Mary was “hinting” for Jesus to use His power when she said, “They have no more wine.” Did Mary know her Son had the power to make more wine? Is this really what she was asking? Then when she said, “Do whatever He tells you,” it would seem as though she knew He would do what she asked, even though all He told her was, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? For my hour has not yet come.” It would seem as though that was it, He had dismissed her request, and yet she seemed to think or know He would do it because of what she told the servants.

The short answer is YES; Mary did know at least intuitively

Read carefully Luke chapters one and two

Mary’s relationship with God the Father was nearly as intimate as it was and is with her Son Jesus.

The verbal exchange you point out is profound; because not only did Mary Know what she was doing; she also would of had some indication [enlightenment of the Holy Spirit] about what such an action would, or at least COULD lead too, with the now evidence Ministry of Jesus; and the sword of SORROW that was prophetised for HER as well.

Luke 2: 30-35
[30] Because my eyes have seen thy salvation, [31] Which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples: [32] A light to the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. [33] And his father and mother were wondering at those things which were spoken concerning him. [34]*** And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted; [35] And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed.***

GBY and thanks for asking

Patrick

 

[James248]

The short answer is YES; Mary did know at least intuitively

Read carefully Luke chapters one and two

Mary’s relationship with God the Father was nearly as intimate as it was and is with her Son Jesus.

The verbal exchange you point out is profound; because not only did Mary Know what she was doing; she also would of had some indication [enlightenment of the Holy Spirit] about what such an action would, or at least COULD lead too, with the now evidence Ministry of Jesus; and the sword of SORROW that was prophetised for HER as well.

Luke 2: 30-35
[30] Because my eyes have seen thy salvation, [31] Which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples: [32] A light to the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. [33] And his father and mother were wondering at those things which were spoken concerning him. [34]*** And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted; [35] And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed.***

GBY and thanks for asking

Patrick

She still struggled to understand those words.

 

[James248]

It would seem as though Mary was “hinting” for Jesus to use His power when she said, “They have no more wine.” Did Mary know her Son had the power to make more wine? Is this really what she was asking? Then when she said, “Do whatever He tells you,” it would seem as though she knew He would do what she asked, even though all He told her was, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? For my hour has not yet come.” It would seem as though that was it, He had dismissed her request, and yet she seemed to think or know He would do it because of what she told the servants.

I think He was only saying what He said when he was about twelve years of age: “I must be about My Father’s business.”

 

[kkollwitz]

Jesus says, “what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.” This I do find brusque, but not accusatory. Thus far Mary has only made an observation. Jesus sounds like he’s going into Rabbi mode, by asking a blunt question and waiting for a response before He does or says anything else. It’s an opportunity for Mary to say or do something. Then Mary famously says to the stewards, “do whatever he tells you.”

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

Mary was a Jewish mother.

[No disrespect: she really WAS a Jewish mother.]]

Is calling Mary a “Jewish mother” an insult? I never heard of this.

 

[Mintaka]

The expression is “between me and thee,” and it is the same one used when Abraham was buying the burial cave at Machpelah.

As Brant Pitre points out in his Bridegroom book, the point is that endless wine and feasting were closely associated with the Messiah’s reign. Everything has to be read in that connection.

 

[Good_Fella]

It would seem as though Mary was “hinting” for Jesus to use His power when she said, “They have no more wine.” Did MaryThen when she said, “Do whatever He tells you,” it would seem as though she knew He would do what she asked, even though all He told her was, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? For my hour has not yet come.” It would seem as though that was it, He had dismissed her request, and yet she seemed to think or know He would do it because of what she told the servants. know her Son had the power to make more wine? Is this really what she was asking? .

Mary certainly didn’t expect her Son to go to the nearest wine store. And she certainly didn’t approach the chief steward to address the problem. Then why her Son? Perhaps she simply expressed her dismay to him which prompted Jesus to use this occasion to begin his public ministry and thereby associate his mother with him in his redemptive work. Yet Mary says to the servants: “Do whatever he tells you.” So it appears that she did expect her Son to somehow resolve the problem. But how could he, if not by performing a miracle?

Jesus used a familiar Jewish expression when he asked his mother Mary: “Woman, what have I to do with you?” At first it may appear to us that our Lord addressed his mother abruptly. We may have the impression that what concerned Mary was of no concern of her Son’s. However, both the Mother and the Son shared one vital concern ever since she consented to be the mother of the Messiah: the salvation of Israel and the whole world of the Gentiles. Thus in the Greek text of John’s Gospel, we have a Hebraism used by Jesus that reads* te emoi kai soi*: literally “what to me and to you”. This idiom denotes a close personal relationship between the one who is asking the question and the one who is being asked and carries with it a mark of respect and a sign of mutual interests. Jesus was implicitly asking, “How does the lack of wine concern you and me?” Jesus must have known, if his mother hadn’t, despite all her deep pondering.

In the Hebrew NT, this expression reads mah-liy walak isah: literally “what is there to me and you”. In other words, “What would you have of me, woman?” This is the polite form of asking ‘What would you have me do, woman?’ and implies that the speaker already has an idea of what she would like him to do. By asking his mother this question, Jesus was drawing her closer into association with his divine work of salvation. He implicitly asked whether she was willing to go through with what he was about to do, for their relationship to each other would no longer be the same if he did. She would have to let go of her Son and have him be subjected to cruel and humiliating suffering and even death at the hands of ungrateful sinners. So when Jesus addressed his mother, he was mindful that they shared a similar interest far from beneath their common dignity; a concern much more important than the replenishing of wine for the wedding guests.

Here we must note the rich symbolism that exists in this circumstance of the lack of wine, without which the wedding feast is rendered incomplete. The wine is evocative of the blood of the new and everlasting Covenant (Mt.26:27-28). The elements of wine and blood are identified with each other at our Lord’s paschal supper with his apostles on the eve of his passion and death at Passover. Allegorically the wedding feast at Cana represents the eschatological wedding feast of the Lamb made possible by the sacrificial outpouring of Christ’s blood (Rev 19:6-9). Our Lady mediated on our behalf when she consented to become the mother of the divine Messiah, and she continued to intercede on our behalf by prompting her Son to begin his mission which would eventually result in the shedding of his precious blood for the salvation of the whole world. Mary’s intercession at the wedding feast heralded the dawn of a new age in salvation history. Her patronage paved the way for the application of saving grace.

As God’s chief steward, Mary managed the distribution of the restorative grape of life made substantial in the precious blood of our Lord and Saviour. Our Lady’s mediation wrought the changing of the water into wine so that the latter should be transformed into the redemptive blood of Christ. It was by his suffering through obedience to his Father’s will that Jesus was perfected and, as a result, designated by God as High Priest in the order of Melchizedek (Heb.5:5-8). Having entered the more perfect tabernacle not made by human hands by his own blood, he has become the mediator of a new covenant, now that he has died once for all as a ransom for the sins of the world. (Heb.9:11-27). Because of her obedience to the will of God (Lk 1:38), Mary was designated to intercede on the world’s behalf by offering her beloved Son for its redemption. In the spirit of the priesthood, our Lady sacrificed her maternal rights when she solicited her Son to do something which resulted in his first miracle for a more important reason than the replenishing of wine at a family wedding. At Cana, she acted as our chief steward in the distribution of a superior wine, that being the blood of her Son which supersedes the blood of goats and bulls of the first covenant. Maybe Mary didn’t know all this, though she did much pondering in her heart. But Jesus did, and he wanted his mother to assume an important role in the economy of salvation. She would eventually know in time, if he hadn’t consulted with her already during their hidden years together. Our Lord called his mother “Woman”, which appears to be an allusion to Eve. Adam called his wife woman before her fall from grace. The tradition of Mary being the new Eve - the spiritual mother of all the living - existed by the time John wrote his gospel.

:heaven:

 

[James248]

Mary certainly didn’t expect her Son to go to the nearest wine store. And she certainly didn’t approach the chief steward to address the problem. Then why her Son? Perhaps she simply expressed her dismay to him which prompted Jesus to use this occasion to begin his public ministry and thereby associate his mother with him in his redemptive work. Yet Mary says to the servants: “Do whatever he tells you.” So it appears that she did expect her Son to somehow resolve the problem. But how could he, if not by performing a miracle?

Jesus used a familiar Jewish expression when he asked his mother Mary: “Woman, what have I to do with you?” At first it may appear to us that our Lord addressed his mother abruptly. We may have the impression that what concerned Mary was of no concern of her Son’s. However, both the Mother and the Son shared one vital concern ever since she consented to be the mother of the Messiah: the salvation of Israel and the whole world of the Gentiles. Thus in the Greek text of John’s Gospel, we have a Hebraism used by Jesus that reads* te emoi kai soi*: literally “what to me and to you”. This idiom denotes a close personal relationship between the one who is asking the question and the one who is being asked and carries with it a mark of respect and a sign of mutual interests. Jesus was implicitly asking, “How does the lack of wine concern you and me?” Jesus must have known, if his mother hadn’t, despite all her deep pondering.

In the Hebrew NT, this expression reads mah-liy walak isah: literally “what is there to me and you”. In other words, “What would you have of me, woman?” This is the polite form of asking ‘What would you have me do, woman?’ and implies that the speaker already has an idea of what she would like him to do. By asking his mother this question, Jesus was drawing her closer into association with his divine work of salvation. He implicitly asked whether she was willing to go through with what he was about to do, for their relationship to each other would no longer be the same if he did. She would have to let go of her Son and have him be subjected to cruel and humiliating suffering and even death at the hands of ungrateful sinners. So when Jesus addressed his mother, he was mindful that they shared a similar interest far from beneath their common dignity; a concern much more important than the replenishing of wine for the wedding guests.

Here we must note the rich symbolism that exists in this circumstance of the lack of wine, without which the wedding feast is rendered incomplete. The wine is evocative of the blood of the new and everlasting Covenant (Mt.26:27-28). The elements of wine and blood are identified with each other at our Lord’s paschal supper with his apostles on the eve of his passion and death at Passover. Allegorically the wedding feast at Cana represents the eschatological wedding feast of the Lamb made possible by the sacrificial outpouring of Christ’s blood (Rev 19:6-9). Our Lady mediated on our behalf when she consented to become the mother of the divine Messiah, and she continued to intercede on our behalf by prompting her Son to begin his mission which would eventually result in the shedding of his precious blood for the salvation of the whole world. Mary’s intercession at the wedding feast heralded the dawn of a new age in salvation history. Her patronage paved the way for the application of saving grace.

As God’s chief steward, Mary managed the distribution of the restorative grape of life made substantial in the precious blood of our Lord and Saviour. Our Lady’s mediation wrought the changing of the water into wine so that the latter should be transformed into the redemptive blood of Christ. It was by his suffering through obedience to his Father’s will that Jesus was perfected and, as a result, designated by God as High Priest in the order of Melchizedek (Heb.5:5-8). Having entered the more perfect tabernacle not made by human hands by his own blood, he has become the mediator of a new covenant, now that he has died once for all as a ransom for the sins of the world. (Heb.9:11-27). Because of her obedience to the will of God (Lk 1:38), Mary was designated to intercede on the world’s behalf by offering her beloved Son for its redemption. In the spirit of the priesthood, our Lady sacrificed her maternal rights when she solicited her Son to do something which resulted in his first miracle for a more important reason than the replenishing of wine at a family wedding. At Cana, she acted as our chief steward in the distribution of a superior wine, that being the blood of her Son which supersedes the blood of goats and bulls of the first covenant. Maybe Mary didn’t know all this, though she did much pondering in her heart. But Jesus did, and he wanted his mother to assume an important role in the economy of salvation. She would eventually know in time, if he hadn’t consulted with her already during their hidden years together. Our Lord called his mother “Woman”, which appears to be an allusion to Eve. Adam called his wife woman before her fall from grace. The tradition of Mary being the new Eve - the spiritual mother of all the living - existed by the time John wrote his gospel.

:heaven:

You can just answer it in one sentence: Jesus was telling Mary what He told her when He was twelve: “I must be about My Father’s business.”

 

[Beryllos]

Is calling Mary a “Jewish mother” an insult? I never heard of this.

It’s not an insult. As I understand that remark, it is a caricature based on today’s Jewish culture. I am not sure whether Jewish mothers in Mary’s day were like that.

 

[Good_Fella]

You can just answer it in one sentence: Jesus was telling Mary what He told her when He was twelve: “I must be about My Father’s business.”

Jesus understood that the Father’s business included Mary.

When the angel Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with you,” she was perplexed by the meaning of the angel’s greeting. She intuited that God must have sent His messenger to ask something very demanding of her for a divine purpose and must have thought to herself how it was that God should choose a fourteen year old girl to probably embark on a very important mission for Him, whose implications must be tremendous. After all, she must have been familiar with the traditions of God appearing to the patriarchs and the prophets and calling them to engage in an enormous task. When God appeared to Jacob and ratified the covenant He had initially made with Abraham and now entrusted to his grandson, he said: " I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you" (Gen 28:15). Likewise, when God called Moses from the burning bush to lead His people from slavery in Egypt to the Promised Land, He said: “I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain” (Exod. 3:12). Taking Moses’ place, Joshua was called by God to lead the Israelites into battle so as to possess the land God promised them with these words: “No one will be able to stand against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so** I will be with you**; I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Josh 1:5). When God placed David, a humble shepherd boy, on the throne as head of His everlasting kingdom in anticipation of the coming of the Messiah, reminding David of His faithfulness to him, He said: “I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, that you should be prince over my people Israel; and I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth…When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom” (2 Sam 7:9,12). And when God called Jeremiah to be a prophet for the nations, He said: "Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you” (Jer. 1:8). The words “the Lord is with you” must have signalled to Mary that God was calling her to a great mission which would be as difficult and demanding as it was for the Hebrew heroes who went before her. Sensing her uneasiness, but I doubt any dread, foreboding, and mistrust (more a state of perplexity that God should call an adolescent girl who might not be up to the task), the angel assured her, as God allayed the fear in Jeremiah: “Fear not, Mary. For you have found favour with God” (Lk 1:30).

Mary’s salvific mission began once she faithfully pronounced her Fiat (Lk 1:38), assured that God would go with her wherever she went as He did with His servants who went before her, and it continued when she and Jesus attended the wedding feast at Cana. Ever since the angel appeared to Mary, she has had a mediatory role to play as the mother of our Lord. It culminated on Calvary, and it continues to this day, where in Heaven our Blessed Mother exercises her saving office as our maternal advocate, who powerfully intercedes for us by her prayers before the throne of grace in the eternal kingdom her Son inherited from his father David.

:heaven:

 

[po18guy]

From the 1942 Catholic Biblical Association Commentary that accompanies the 1941 Confraternity New Testament: **

"2, 1-12: The Marriage Feast at Cana. Cana was a village in lower Galilee, about five miles northeast of Nazareth; it is now generally identified with Kefr Kenna. 1. The third day, probably from the call of Nathanael. A marriage, an occasion of great joy and feasting, the celebration lasting for seven days; hence the exhaustion of the wine can readily be explained. 3. When the wine failed, Mary confided the situation to her Son. The presence of the disciples suggests the nature of their attachment to Jesus, and provides His motive for the miracle, the first sign wrought to confirm their faith (cf. 1, 50-51). 4. Woman was the customary respectful address, similar to our “Madam,” though less formal; cf. 19, 26. The question is a familiar Jewish phrase, its conciseness in Aramaic, “What to me and to thee?” is kept in the original Greek. For its use in ordinary situations see Judg. 11, 12; 2 Kgs. 16, 10; 19, 22; 2 Par. 35, 21; Matt. 8, 29; Mark 1, 24; 5, 7; Luke 4, 34; 8, 28. It commonly implies dissent, though not always of the same intensity. Its true force in the present context is determined by the facts that Mary’s suggestion could not involve a fault, that it could not be received with the least harshness, and that she at once understood that it had not been repulsed, as her order to the servants shows. My hour has not yet come: St. Augustine and many of the Fathers understand by this the hour of His Passion, but this hardly fits the circumstances, which rather suggest His hour for the performance of such miracles, i.e., the public ministry. 6. Manner of purification: the Jewish custom of washing the hands twice during the course of a meal was of ritual significance. As the measure was about nine gallons, the quantity was considerable. 8. The chief steward is a functionary not otherwise known from Jewish sources, but the Greek term indicates one in charge of the table arrangements. 11. First of his signs: i.e., signs of His real nature, evidence of His divinity. So Christ’s miracles are usually termed by John. In the later idiom of the Rabbis, “sign” meant “wonder,” while in John it is almost a synonym for “evidence,” a “manifestation of His glory.” His disciples believed in him: while the miracle may have had other motives, such as regard for His mother, kindness to His host, approval of the occasion, insinuation of the transubstantiation of the Eucharist, yet the Evangelist implies that the first motive was the confirmation of the incipient faith of the disciples. 12. Most of the five disciples hitherto named were from the neighborhood of Capharnaum on the shore of Lake Genesareth. This was to be the center of our Lord’s activity in Galilee, of which John has little to tell. Brethren: near relatives.

** Perhaps even more thought provoking is Monsignor Ronald Knox’s (Knox Translation) comment on the six purification jars (John 2:6-8) **

“[2] Our Lord is generally understood to have turned the water in the six water-pots into wine. But, since the verb here used for ‘to draw’ applies more properly to drawing from a well, it is possible to suppose that the water-pots contained only water throughout, and that the wine came from the well itself, at the seventh time of drawing.”

** I understand that this is not the classic understanding, but the scriptures are not clear and this would serve to demonstrate that the six jars (six being the number of incompleteness) were passing from the scene and the seventh draw - that of completion, of fulfillment - was made from the well itself at our Lord’s command.

 

[James248]

Jesus understood that the Father’s business included Mary.

When the angel Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with you,” she was perplexed by the meaning of the angel’s greeting. She intuited that God must have sent His messenger to ask something very demanding of her for a divine purpose and must have thought to herself how it was that God should choose a fourteen year old girl to probably embark on a very important mission for Him, whose implications must be tremendous. After all, she must have been familiar with the traditions of God appearing to the patriarchs and the prophets and calling them to engage in an enormous task. When God appeared to Jacob and ratified the covenant He had initially made with Abraham and now entrusted to his grandson, he said: " I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you" (Gen 28:15). Likewise, when God called Moses from the burning bush to lead His people from slavery in Egypt to the Promised Land, He said: “I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain” (Exod. 3:12). Taking Moses’ place, Joshua was called by God to lead the Israelites into battle so as to possess the land God promised them with these words: “No one will be able to stand against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so** I will be with you**; I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Josh 1:5). When God placed David, a humble shepherd boy, on the throne as head of His everlasting kingdom in anticipation of the coming of the Messiah, reminding David of His faithfulness to him, He said: “I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, that you should be prince over my people Israel; and I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth…When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom” (2 Sam 7:9,12). And when God called Jeremiah to be a prophet for the nations, He said: "Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you” (Jer. 1:8). The words “the Lord is with you” must have signalled to Mary that God was calling her to a great mission which would be as difficult and demanding as it was for the Hebrew heroes who went before her. Sensing her uneasiness, but I doubt any dread, foreboding, and mistrust (more a state of perplexity that God should call an adolescent girl who might not be up to the task), the angel assured her, as God allayed the fear in Jeremiah: “Fear not, Mary. For you have found favour with God” (Lk 1:30).

Mary’s salvific mission began once she faithfully pronounced her Fiat (Lk 1:38), assured that God would go with her wherever she went as He did with His servants who went before her, and it continued when she and Jesus attended the wedding feast at Cana. Ever since the angel appeared to Mary, she has had a mediatory role to play as the mother of our Lord. It culminated on Calvary, and it continues to this day, where in Heaven our Blessed Mother exercises her saving office as our maternal advocate, who powerfully intercedes for us by her prayers before the throne of grace in the eternal kingdom her Son inherited from his father David.

:heaven:

You yourself said she didn’t grasp what His business was. He was giving her a reminder.

Augustine says it better than I:

Why, then, said the Son to the mother, Woman, what have I to do with you? Mine hour is not yet come? Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had. She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity, of the weakness which for our sakes He took upon Him. But the miracle which He was about to do, He was about to do according to His divine nature, not according to His weakness; according to that wherein He was God not according to that wherein He was born weak. But the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1:25 His mother then demanded a miracle of Him; but He, about to perform divine works, so far did not recognize a human womb; saying in effect, That in me which works a miracle was not born of you, you gave not birth to my divine nature; but because my weakness was born of you, I will recognize you at the time when that same weakness shall hang upon the cross. This, indeed, is the meaning of Mine hour is not yet come. For then it was that He recognized, who, in truth, always did know. He knew His mother in predestination, even before He was born of her; even before, as God, He created her of whom, as man, He was to be created, He knew her as His mother: but at a certain hour in a mystery He did not recognize her; and at a certain hour which had not yet come, again in a mystery, He does recognize her. For then did He recognize her, when that to which she gave birth was a-dying. That by which Mary was made did not die, but that which was made of Mary; not the eternity of the divine nature, but the weakness of the flesh, was dying. He made that answer therefore, making a distinction in the faith of believers, between the who; and the how, He came. For while He was God and the Lord of heaven and earth, He came by a mother who was a woman.