This verse has probably caused unrest between denominations. Even being familiar with it, as I am, I still feel uneasy reading these words. For full disclosure I wish to state that I hold to a reformed understanding of Christianity. However, I have a Catholic upbringing and have some understanding of the sentiments held from that perspective. I will also state clearly that I am not able to, nor have I tried to translate this verse from the original Greek. I have simply read a number of English versions of the verse.
Some would argue that this verse is evidence of Jesus being convinced or coerced into action he would not have taken, if not for his mother’s suggestion/request.
The language Mary is quoted to have used is not coercive. “They have no more wine”. A simple statement of fact.
As a son to a loving mother, I can envisage myself in a similar circumstance, and I sense the quiet concern in the statement, and my implied responsibilities as a son with potential means to rectify a problem.
Both Mary and Jesus (as well as the disciples) were invited to this wedding feast.
Were they close relatives? Were they distant relatives?
Were they from Mary’s side, or Joseph’s side of the family?
Why were all the disciples invited?
Were the hosts rash or overly optimistic, inviting more than they could
cater for? Were wedding invitations inclusive of more distant relatives (and therefore large numbers) simply an expected norm, no matter the financial means of the hosts? Or were numbers of invited guests deliberately larger than numbers of available seats, knowing that some would likely not attend, like the bookings of some airlines?
Did they have a little bit of that Australian attitude of, “she’ll
be right”, meaning, “don’t worry, it will all work out”, (despite poor planning)?
I find myself thinking about the feeding of the five thousand when Jesus asks the disciples to feed the crowd. The disciples knew full well that there was barely food for them to share. In that situation I could almost hear Jesus stating “O you of little faith”, though he does not.
If nothing else, Mary seems to lack no faith in what her son is able to achieve, regarding the catering of wine.
Is it possible that Mary was close enough to the hosts to have previously reassured them in their invitation of “extras”, such as the disciples, knowing that Jesus would be able to save the situation? Could I go further and suggest that she expected this outcome, maybe even engineered it?
These last comments (of a "meddling" Mary) are clearly going beyond the written
word, and I am on thin ice even suggesting them, nowhere is Mary's character maligned in this way.
Does Mary have special sway with her son, Jesus?
Is she able to influence his actions more than another?
The Catholic understanding is; if we are in need, approaching Mary may help things happen more than approaching Jesus directly. At least that is my understanding of common Catholic thoughts regarding prayer, and needs.
For many Catholics, Mary, is much more “approachable”, being "fully" human, and a mother, and an “ordinary” person. (Yes I grew up with a strict, stern father, and my mother was able to soften his resistance to some of my requests/wishes as a child, that he otherwise would have simply said “no” to.)
Yet Catholic teaching (I believe) is that Mary is not an ordinary person, she is “immaculate”, meaning she was born without original sin, and remained a life-long virgin, and ascended to heaven without going through physical death.
My reading of the New Testament gives no clear teaching regarding this last paragraph. What I have read states that Mary remained a virgin until the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:25), and that Jesus then had other brothers (Matthew 12:46) and presumably sisters (Matthew 13:56). I also do not hold that she was "immaculate", this understanding is a theological construct, based on the belief that God would not choose the womb of a fallen woman for the incarnation, and that by default, an embryo in Mary;s womb, would inherit fallen genes, but God does not explain how the embryonic gene is formed within Mary, and whether any of Mary's DNA resides in Jesus.
I do believe she was an ordinary person of faith who was greatly favoured by God, in his choosing of her to be the mother of our Saviour.
I also believe that Jesus is fully human, and does not need
mediators between us and he. We are able to approach him directly with all our
needs as well as our gratitude and worship.
There is no other miracle in the New Testament which describes Mary’s intervention or influence, though there are many miracles that describe certain other people intervening, eg the centurion for his servant (Matthew 8:5).
As Christian leaders, elders, ministers, and clergy (I do not hold to a laity-clergy divide), we must be careful not to become mediators for others, but rather help people understand that we all have direct access to Jesus, and are free and invited to call on his great name.
And there is that short passage where Jesus is told that his
mother and brothers have arrived, yet in response Jesus declares
that everyone who does the will of God is his mother, brother and sister. (Matthew 12:46 and beyond) This verse, if nothing else, seems to state that Jesus counts faith (the desire to follow God) as the main influencing factor of his favour. Hence his often mentioned response "your faith has healed you".
Getting back to the verse in question.
Yes, I do believe mothers have sway over their children.
We, as Christian children of all ages, are to honour our parents, this is a command of God, the 5th I believe.
And Jesus would certainly do this. He quotes that specific command (Matthew 15:3-6) as an example of how the Pharisees have nullified God’s word, so it would be hypocritical of Jesus not to honour his mother and father. (We presume at this point Joseph is no longer alive, though it is not stated anywhere.)
Mary understood this as well, and therefore expected Jesus to follow her concern, despite the fact that, from Jesus’ point of view, his ministry had not yet started.
Was Jesus short with Mary?
“My hour has not yet come” is a strong statement.
I believe Jesus was correct. He knew clearly when his ministry
of signs and wonders was to commence. He was not suffering stage fright. He was
not simply avoiding a relatively trivial situation of need. He knew the
significance and preciousness of his works of power, and would not use them for
show, or without the intended purpose of displaying the kingdom of God, nor
would he go beyond what he knew his Father in heaven intended. In other words,
just because he “could” didn’t mean he “should”.
I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in
Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a
severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but
to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. Luke 4:25-26 NIV
I also do not hold that Mary had a greater understanding than Jesus as to when his ministry was to begin.
When exactly was this “hour” that had not yet come?
The other gospels describe the baptism of Jesus, followed by the forty
days in the wilderness, followed by the calling of the disciples and then his
preaching in Galilee. Luke's Gospel, implies that he has performed miracles in other places eg capernaum, prior to his preaching in Nazareth.
John’s gospel does not mention the forty days in the
wilderness, so it is possible that this wedding took place after the forty days in
the wilderness, but before his preaching at the synagogue in Nazareth.
I might suggest that Jesus reading from the scroll in Isaiah
and proclaiming that “today this reading is fulfilled in your presence” was the
beginning of Jesus public ministry. (Luke's timeline puts the calling of the disciples after this event, so it is hard to place the wedding banquet in this timeline)
Was he to announce his prophetic fulfillment of being sent to give sight to the blind and release of captives, and the year of God’s favour, before he actually did it?
If this is the case, then a miracle before this proclamation of God’s word, was somehow, out of place. This is my explanation of Jesus’ reluctance to perform a public miracle at this point. If this is so, then Mary is in an awkward position asking Jesus to help this situation of embarrassment for the wedding hosts who for unknown reasons, have under-catered. Mary clearly feels for the situation, more than Jesus.
Her own wedding, if she had one, would have been a quiet affair, having been scandalised by her untimely pregnancy. She may have had more emotion invested in the smooth running of this anonymous wedding, and again I wonder how closely related she was to the family of the bride or groom. Jesus on the other hand seems to have little concern other than that he is now in the situation of honouring his mother, yet preserving his anonymity and obedience to the wise Spirit-planned path of his ministry.
Was Jesus surprised and unprepared for this request?
Was he annoyed?
Was he short with his mother?
By faith my answer is no, no, and no.
By faith I believe Jesus always spoke the truth in love.
We cannot gain the tone of his statement to his mother from the written word.
He may have been smiling as he said what he said. Yet he was serious and truthful, and I believe Mary knew she had forced his hand prematurely.
In conclusion
Do we need Mary’s intervention in our lives today as Christians?
Although my Catholic friends and brethren would likely say yes, my answer is no.
If we are in need, in the depths of trouble, despair, suffering, fear, or danger, we have a faithful high priest and saviour who is able to hear and answer our prayers.
Is Mary able to hear our prayers?
As a young man, I used to believe that my deceased grandmother, whom I remain convinced was strong in faith, and therefore, saved, as a catholic who loved Jesus, I used to believe that she (as well as God) could see everything I did, now that she was in heaven.
But as a more mature Christian, I don’t see that the Bible supports this understanding.
Nothing is hidden from God. And Jesus who is God, is able to see everything. But deceased humans, in heaven, with the Lord, are they able to see everything?
And if they somehow could, are they able to intervene?
These are difficult questions to answer dogmatically, but the safe and simple answer is to rely on what scripture clearly teaches, and that is that we are to pray in Jesus’ name to our Father in heaven, who knows what we need, even before we utter a word.
Surely when our minds and hearts are focused on the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that is the most useful and joyful and obedient place to be. And any other image or name that is put in that place is potentially a distraction from true worship.
No comments:
Post a Comment