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.
After I had made five in-depth responses to him, Dr. Gagnon replied (just for the record) in a thread on another Facebook page, on 9-17-24, underneath my links to all five: “like your other one, it is an amateurish piece.” This is his silly and arrogant way of dismissing my critiques in one fell swoop. I had informed him that I had over twenty “officially published books” [22, to be exact] and yet he replied that he didn’t know “whether” they were “self-published or with a vanity press or a reputable press.”
His words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.
*****
I’m responding to a rather outrageous and exegetically implausible portion of Dr. Gagnon’s public Facebook article, “John 2:4 Is a Rebuke to Mary for Shallow Sign Faith: A Response to Dave Armstrong, Catholic Apologist” (9-17-24). I already informed him that I would not address his entire post, and would ignore it, because he ignored much of my article that he was ostensibly “replying” to. But this particular argument was just too much to let pass by without comment.
* Jesus’ follow-up address of Mary not as “mother” but as “woman” communicates the adversarial or disconnected relationship between Jesus and his mother. . . . Biological family kinship is meaningless when one deviates from the will of God, especially as regards Jesus’ mission.
Here in John 2:4, the address “woman” rejects any special position of his mother because at this moment her mind is set on earthly things rather than heavenly things, thinking in the realm of flesh rather than Spirit, and operating “from below” rather than “from above” (see John 3:31). She is at this moment to Jesus no more than any other “woman.”
*
. . . The most natural reading is not a positive one. 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.
*
***
“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!
***
I wanted to merely note the fact that many many Protestant commentaries do not take this position as to a negative intent of Jesus in using the word “woman” when addressing His mother at Cana. These include many that do agree with him as to the alleged rebuking nature of Jesus’ words, “What have you to do with me?” in the same verse (Jn 2:4). Dr. Gagnon’s is far from being the “last word” on the meaning of “woman” here. His is just one (extraordinarily negative) — and I think, wrongheaded — take. Here are fifteen Protestant commentators who disagree with him:
*
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers: Woman, what have I to do with thee?—This is an old battle-ground between Protestant and Romanist expositors. The former have found in each clause of the sentence a condemnation of Mariolatry; the latter have sought explanations not inconsistent with their faith and practice. It may be hoped that the day is now past, when anything other than thoughts of reverence and honour is to be connected with the title “Woman,” least of all in the words of One who claimed as His own highest dignity Sonship of, identity with, humanity; and who was here addressing the mother to whom He had been subject, and from whom His own humanity had been derived. Were proof needed of the tenderness which underlies the word as used by Him, it would be found in the other instances which the Gospels supply. . It is spoken only to the Syro-Phœnician whose faith is great (Matthew 15:28); to the daughter of Abraham loosed from her infirmity (Luke 13:12); and, in this Gospel, to the Samaritan embracing the higher faith (John 4:21); perhaps to the sinner whom He does not condemn (John 8:10); to the same mother from the cross (John 19:26); and to Mary Magdalene in tears (John 20:13; John 20:15).
*
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible: Woman – This term, as used here, seems to imply reproof, as if she was interfering in that which did not properly concern her; but it is evident that no such reproof or disrespect was intended by the use of the term “woman” instead of “mother.” It is the same term by which he tenderly addressed Mary Magdalene after his resurrection John 20:15, and his mother when he was on the cross, John 19:26. Compare also Matthew 15:28; John 4:21; 1 Corinthians 7:16.
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible: Jesus saith unto her, woman,…. Calling her “woman”, as it was no ways contrary to her being a virgin, Galatians 4:4, so it was no mark of disrespect; it being an usual way of speaking with the Jews, when they showed the greatest respect to the person spoken to; and was used by our Lord when he addressed his mother with the greatest tenderness, and strongest affection, John 19:26.
*
Expositor’s Greek Testament: John 2:4. His complete reply is, τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι; οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου. γύναι is a term of respect, not equivalent to our “woman”. See chap. John 19:26, John 20:13, Luke 13:12. In the Greek tragedians it is constantly used in addressing queens and persons of distinction. Augustus addresses Cleopatra as γύναι (Dio, quoted by Wetstein).
*
Bengel’s Gnomen: John 2:4. He does not say, Mary, nor mother; but woman; which appellation held a middle place, and was especially becoming for the Lord to use: ch. John 19:26, “Woman, behold thy son;” perhaps, also, it was peculiar [in its use] to Him. The Lord had regard to the Father above all things; not even did He know His mother, according to the flesh. 2 Corinthians 5:16, “Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more.” Comp. note on John 20:13. Especially was the appellation of mother unsuitable to this formula, What is there to Me and thee? However, the Greek γύναι, having no synonym in our language, has a more respectful sound than Woman [ch. John 19:26 shows it betrays no want of tender respect], mulier, [Germ.] Weib, as contradistinguished from [female, lady] femina, [Germ.] Frau: and woman is used for mother, Isaiah 45:10, “Woe unto him, that saith—to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?”—οὔτω ἥκει) is not yet come. The same word [occurs], ch. John 4:47, John 8:42.—ὥρα, hour) of doing what you hint to Me, i.e. of withdrawing. Certainly his hour of assisting them was come.
*
Pulpit Commentary: Verse 4. – With this thought, the reply of Jesus to the premature suggestion of the mother becomes perfectly comprehensible. What is there to me and thee, O woman? Mine hour has not yet come. The appellation “woman” was used by him upon the cross, when he was concerned most humanly and tenderly with her great grief and desolation, and therefore had no breath of unfilial harshness in it (cf. John 19:26; Dio Cassius, ‘Hist.,’ 51:12, where Augustus addresses Cleopatra, Θαρσεῖ ῶ γύναι. . . .).
Henry Alford, Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary: γύναι] There is no reproach in this term: but rather respect. The Lord henceforth uses it towards her, not calling her ‘mother,’ even on the Cross (see ch. 19:26), . . .
* Adam Clarke’s Commentary: Woman, what have I to do with thee? – Τι εμοι και σοι, γυναι: O, woman, what is this to thee and me? This is an abrupt denial, as if he had said: “We are not employed to provide the necessaries for this feast: this matter belongs to others, who should have made a proper and sufficient provision for the persons they had invited.” The words seem to convey a reproof to the virgin, for meddling with that which did not particularly concern her. The holiest persons are always liable to errors of judgment: and should ever conduct themselves with modesty and humility, especially in those things in which the providence of God is particularly concerned. But here indeed there appears to be no blame. It is very likely the bride or bridegroom’s family were relatives of the blessed virgin; and she would naturally suppose that our Lord would feel interested for the honor and comfort of the family, and, knowing that he possessed extraordinary power, made this application to him to come forward to their assistance. Our Lord’s answer to his mother, if properly translated, is far from being disrespectful. He addresses the virgin as he did the Syrophoenician woman, Matthew 15:28; as he did the Samaritan woman, John 4:21, as he addressed his disconsolate mother when he hung upon the cross, John 19:26; as he did his most affectionate friend Mary Magdalene, John 20:15, and as the angels had addressed her before, John 20:13; and as St. Paul does the believing Christian woman, 1 Corinthians 7:16; in all which places the same term, γυναι which occurs in this verse, is used; and where certainly no kind of disrespect is intended, but, on the contrary, complaisance, affability, tenderness, and concern and in this sense it is used in the best Greek writers.
*
*
Colin G. Kruse, The Gospel According to John: Addressing his mother simply as ‘woman’, though abrupt to modern readers’ ears, does not imply lack of affection. Jesus addressed his mother in this way from the cross when making loving provision for her care after his death (19:26). (p. 92)
*
David Pawson, A Commentary on the Gospel of John: “Woman” is not a derogatory term; it’s not an insult. It was a lovely word, the normal word used in the Middle East.
*
Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary: In the social context of the time the address “woman” was in itself certainly not hard or impolite (cf. Mt. 15:28; Lk. 13:12; Jn. 4:21; so also in other Greek writings). (p. 105)
*
J. Carl Laney, John – Moody Gospel Commentary: [“woman”] may sound disrespectful to modern ears. Yet Jesus addressed Mary as “woman” when He committed her to John’s care at the cross (John 19:26). It is evident the term could be used to express affection and respect.
*
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Photo credit:The Marriage at Cana (c. 1500), by Gerard David (1450/1460-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Summary: Did Jesus rebuke His mother at Cana when He called her “woman” (John 2:4)? Dr. Robert Gagnon says yes. I say no, and provide fifteen Protestant commentators in agreement.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In