Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon (see his Facebook page; public posts) is a Visiting Scholar in Biblical Studies at Wesley Biblical Seminary; formerly Professor of Biblical Studies at Houston Christian University and Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He obtained a Master of Theological Studies (MTS): Biblical Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School and a (Ph.D.) in New Testament Studies, magna cum laude, from Princeton Theological Seminary. Dr. Gagnon grew up Catholic, and he wrote on 8-17-24:
I didn’t find Christ in Catholicism . . . I lost the forest (the big picture of Christ) for a lot of unnecessary trees that were not scripturally grounded. Part of this . . . was due to some non-scriptural and even (in some cases) anti-scriptural doctrines that undermine the role and significance of Christ. I would love to come back to a purified Catholicism more in keeping with a biblical witness. The excessive adulation of Mary, which at times seems to me to come close to elevating her to the godhead (like a replacement consort for Yahweh in lieu of Asherah), is one such obstacle.
His words will be in blue. His article is cited in its entirety. I use RSV for biblical citations.
*****
I’m responding to a public post on his Facebook page, dated 8-17-24.
*
Jesus then responds with a curt “What to me and to you, woman? My hour has not yet come” (v. 4). There are 3 parts to this response, the question (“What to me and to you?”), the address of his mother (“woman”), and the disclaiming assertion. We will now look at each element in turn.
First, the question “What to me and to you?” (Gk. ti emoi kai soi) is a Semitic idiom (Heb. mah-lî ve-lak) found in the OT in Judg 11:12; 2 Sam 16:10; 19:22; 1 Kgs 17:18; 2 Kgs 3:13; 2 Chron 35:21. In the NT the phrase appears elsewhere as a word by demoniacs to Jesus (Mark 1:24; 5:7). Minimally the phrase refers to a complete disjunction of interests. Mostly the phrase is used in situations of opposition and hostility as an adversarial formula. One can paraphrase as: “What have I done to you that you should do this to me?”
The phrase functions in John 2:4 as the Johannine equivalent of the rebuke uttered by Jesus in Mark’s Gospel to Simon (Peter) for expressing opposition to his divine fate to suffer and die for the sins of the world: “Get behind me, Satan (adversary)!”
*
*
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!
***
*
Many (including yours truly) think that this response by Jesus to his mother represents redaction (editing) by the Fourth Evangelist into a preexisting “signs source” story. The abrupt redaction (remove the saying and the preceding and following texts flow more smoothly) underscores the deficiency of sign faith that does not tie Jesus’ activity to his being “lifted up” or “exalted” on the cross, and that does not arrive at a larger identity of Jesus as the Life and Light of the world.
Mary does not interact with Jesus’ sharp rebuke (again, suggesting that it was added by the Fourth Evangelist into a pre-existing story). Instead, “his mother says to the servants (attending table), ‘Whatever he says to you, do'” (v. 5). In a sense, it is to her credit that she instructs others to obey her son. But she is still thinking in earthly, fleshly terms “from below,” still more concerned with the literal wine shortage at the wedding in Cana.
In the end Jesus does turn the water into wine, but for a deeper purpose, to “reveal his glory” (v. 10, much as Yahweh “revealed his glory” to Israel in the Mount Sinai light show). Jesus perhaps does this particular “sign” to illustrate that he is the Best Wine at the wedding banquet of the Lamb and his church.
Addendum:
Those who read Jesus’ address to his mother “woman” as a mark of treating Mary as a New Eve are reading out of context.
The interpretation that I offer of “woman” also fits Jesus’ disregard of Mary’s special status as mother of the Messiah when she gives into worldly thinking and behavior in Mark 3:31-35. When she with her other sons goes to “restrain” Jesus because of reports that he is out of his mind, Jesus gives his famous “Who is my mother?” Biological family kinship is meaningless when one deviates from the will of God, especially as regards Jesus’ mission.
The most natural reading is the one that I put forward. When a son addresses his mother as “woman,” one doesn’t think: Oh, he is thinking of her as a new Eve! One thinks rather: My goodness, he is treating his own mother as if she were not his mother, as if she were a woman like any other woman to him.
Here again we observe the old, tired, fundamentally silly argument that Jesus was supposedly disrespectful of His mother. This silly trifle was disposed of by Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin, citing three Protestant commentators:
The Protestant commentator William Barclay writes:
“The word Woman (gynai) is also misleading. It sounds to us very rough and abrupt. But it is the same word as Jesus used on the Cross to address Mary as he left her to the care of John (John 19:26). In Homer it is the title by which Odysseus addresses Penelope, his well-loved wife. It is the title by which Augustus, the Roman Emperor, addressed Cleopatra, the famous Egyptian queen. So far from being a rough and discourteous way of address, it was a title of respect. We have no way of speaking in English which exactly renders it; but it is better to translate it Lady which gives at least the courtesy in it” (The Gospel of John, revised edition, vol. 1, p. 98).
Similarly, the Protestant Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan, states:
Jesus’ reply to Mary was not so abrupt as it seems. ‘Woman’ (gynai) was a polite form of address. Jesus used it when he spoke to his mother from the cross (19:26) and also when he spoke to Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection (20:15)” (vol. 9, p. 42).
Even the Fundamentalist Wycliff Bible Commentary put out by Moody Press acknowledges in its comment on this verse, “In his reply, the use of ‘Woman’ does not involve disrespect (cf. 19:26)” (p. 1076).
Akin concludes:
The fact it is not a title of disrespect should be obvious from the fact that Jesus, as an obedient Son who fulfilled the Torah perfectly, would never have spoken irreverently to his mother. His perfect fulfillment of the Torah includes a perfect fulfillment of the command, “Honor your father and mother,” which in the literal Hebrew is “Glorify your father and mother.” . . . To publicly speak irreverently of his mother is something that Jesus would never have been able to countenance. Actually, the way Jesus is using the term — at the two key junctures in John’s Gospel where Mary appears — is symbolic and emblematic of her role in redemptive history. Whereas Eve was the First Woman, Mary is the Second Woman, just as Adam was the First Man and Jesus was the Second Man (1 Cor. 15:47).
Did Jesus “rebuke” His mother at this wedding? No: . . . The Navarre Bible explains the passage:
The sentence rendered “What have you to do with me?” (RSV) is the subject of a note in RSVCE which says “while this expression always implies a divergence of view, the precise meaning is to be determined by the context, which here shows that it is not an unqualified rebuttal, still less a rebuke.” The Navarre Spanish is the equivalent of “What has it to do with you and me?”] The sentence “What has it to do with you and me?” is an oriental way of speaking which can have different nuances. Jesus’ reply seems to indicate that although in principle it was not part of God’s plan for him to use his power to solve the problem the wedding-feast had run into, our Lady’s request moves him to do precisely that. Also, one could surmise that God’s plan envisaged that Jesus should work the miracle at his Mother’s request. In any event, God willed that the Revelation of the New Testament should include this important teaching: so influential is our Lady’s intercession that God will listen to all petitions made through her; which is why Christian piety, with theological accuracy, has called our Lady “supplicant omnipotence.”
Dom Bernard Orchard’s 1953 Catholic Commentary adds more insightful interpretation:
Concerning the second: the Master’s question which literally reads: ‘What to me and to thee?’ has to be understood from biblical and not modern usage. Therefore it does not mean: ‘What concern is it of ours?’ or ‘There is no need for you to tell me’. In all the biblical passages where it occurs, Jg 11:12; 2 Kg 16:10, 19:22; 4 Kg 3:13; 2 Par 35:21; Mt 8:29; Mk 1:24, the phrase signifies, according to circumstances, a great or lesser divergence of viewpoint between the two parties concerned. In 2 Kg 16:10 it means total dissent; in Jg 11:12 it voices a complaint against an invader. In our passage, also, divergence must be admitted. In a sense our Lord’s answer is a refusal, but not an absolute refusal, rather, a refusal ad mentem, as a Roman Congregation would say, and the Blessed Virgin understood her Son’s mind from the tone of his voice. His first public miracle belonged to the divine programme of his Messianic mission into which flesh and blood could not enter. His answer is therefore an assertion of independence of his Mother, similar to the word he spoke in the temple about his Father’s business. The Blessed Virgin’s subsequent action shows that the tone of our Lord’s protest on this occasion was neither a curt nor an unqualified refusal.
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible also dissents from Dr. Gagnon’s harsh take (though suggesting a “mild reproof”):
What have I to do with thee? – See the notes at Matthew 8:29. This expression is sometimes used to denote indignation or contempt. See Judges 11:12; 2 Samuel 16:10; 1 Kings 17:18. But it is not probable that it denoted either in this place; if it did, it was a mild reproof of Mary for attempting to control or direct him in his power of working miracles. Most of the ancients supposed this to be the intention of Jesus. The words sound to us harsh, but they might have been spoken in a tender manner, and not have been intended as a reproof. It is clear that he did not intend to refuse to provide wine, but only to delay it a little; and the design was, therefore, to compose the anxiety of Mary, and to prevent her being solicitous about it. It may, then, be thus expressed: “My mother, be not anxious. To you and to me this should not be a matter of solicitude. The proper time of my interfering has not yet come. When that is come I will furnish a supply, and in the meantime neither you nor I should be solicitous.” Thus understood, it is so far from being a “harsh reproof,” that it was a mild exhortation for her to dismiss her fears and to put proper trust in him.
It all comes down to language, culture, idiom, context. But doesn’t Jesus’ fulfillment of His mother’s request for more wine (by performing a miracle — His first recorded one — to provide more) suggest that He didn’t intend to rebuke her in the first place? He did what she requested. One would think so, it seems to me. Much ado about nothing . . .
*
*
*
***
*
Photo credit: Saint Raphael Catholic Church (Springfield, Ohio) – stained glass, Wedding at Cana – detail (Nheyob: 11-22-14) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]
Summary: Protestant NT scholar Robert Gagnon insists that Jesus rebuked His mother Mary several times in Scripture. I reply regarding the wedding at Cana incident & His use of “Woman.”
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In