![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2024\/08\/JesusCana2.jpg\")
<\/a>Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon<\/a>\u00a0(see his\u00a0Facebook page<\/a>; public posts) is a Visiting Scholar in Biblical Studies at Wesley Biblical Seminary; formerly Professor of Biblical Studies at\u00a0Houston Christian University<\/span><\/a>\u00a0and Associate Professor of New Testament at\u00a0Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.<\/a>\u00a0He obtained a Master of Theological Studies (MTS): Biblical Studies degree from\u00a0Harvard Divinity School<\/a>\u00a0and a (Ph.D.) in New Testament Studies, magna cum laude, from\u00a0Princeton Theological Seminary<\/a>. Dr. Gagnon grew up Catholic, and he\u00a0wrote on 8-17-24<\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>. His article is cited in its entirety. I use RSV for biblical citations.<\/span><\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I\u2019m responding to a\u00a0public post on his Facebook page<\/a>, dated 8-17-24.<\/p>\n \u201cPlease Hit \u2018Subscribe\u2019\u201d!<\/strong>\u00a0<\/span>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, \u201cSign Me Up!\u201d: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a\u00a0YouTube<\/em>\u00a0channel.\u00a0My blog was rated #1<\/a>\u00a0for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Please also consider following me on Twitter \/ X and purchasing\u00a0one or more of my 55 books<\/a>.\u00a0All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 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<\/a>,\u00a0citing three Protestant commentators:<\/p>\n The Protestant commentator William Barclay writes:<\/p>\n \u201cThe word\u00a0Woman (gynai)<\/em>\u00a0is 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\u00a0Lady<\/em>\u00a0which gives at least the courtesy in it\u201d\u00a0(The Gospel of John,<\/em>\u00a0revised edition, vol. 1, p. 98).<\/p>\n Similarly, the Protestant\u00a0Expositor\u2019s Bible Commentary<\/em>, published by Zondervan, states:<\/p>\n Jesus\u2019 reply to Mary was not so abrupt as it seems. \u2018Woman\u2019 (gynai<\/em>) 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)\u201d (vol. 9, p. 42).<\/p>\n Even the Fundamentalist\u00a0Wycliff Bible Commentary<\/em>\u00a0put out by Moody Press acknowledges in its comment on this verse, \u201cIn his reply, the use of \u2018Woman\u2019 does not involve disrespect (cf. 19:26)\u201d (p. 1076).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Akin concludes:<\/p>\n 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\u00a0never<\/em> have spoken irreverently to his mother. His perfect fulfillment of the Torah includes a perfect fulfillment of the command, \u201cHonor your father and mother,\u201d which in the literal Hebrew is \u201cGlorify your father and mother.\u201d . . .\u00a0To 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 \u2014 at the two key junctures in John\u2019s Gospel where Mary appears \u2014 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).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Did Jesus \u201crebuke\u201d His mother at this wedding? No: . . .\u00a0The Navarre Bible<\/em>\u00a0explains the passage:<\/p>\n The sentence rendered \u201cWhat have you to do with me?\u201d (RSV) is the subject of a note in RSVCE which says \u201cwhile 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.\u201d The Navarre Spanish is the equivalent of \u201cWhat has it to do with you and me?\u201d] The sentence \u201cWhat has it to do with you and me?\u201d is an oriental way of speaking which can have different nuances. Jesus\u2019 reply seems to indicate that although in principle it was not part of God\u2019s plan for him to use his power to solve the problem the wedding-feast had run into, our Lady\u2019s request moves him to do precisely that. Also, one could surmise that God\u2019s plan envisaged that Jesus should work the miracle at his Mother\u2019s request. In any event, God willed that the Revelation of the New Testament should include this important teaching: so influential is our Lady\u2019s intercession that God will listen to all petitions made through her; which is why Christian piety, with theological accuracy, has called our Lady \u201csupplicant omnipotence.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Dom Bernard Orchard\u2019s 1953\u00a0Catholic Commentary<\/em>\u00a0adds more insightful interpretation:<\/p>\n Concerning the second: the Master\u2019s question which literally reads:\u00a0\u2018What to me and to thee?\u2019\u00a0<\/i>has to be understood from biblical and not modern usage. Therefore it does not mean: \u2018What concern is it of ours?\u2019 or \u2018There is no need for you to tell me\u2019. 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\u2019s answer is a refusal, but not an absolute refusal, rather, a refusal\u00a0ad mentem,\u00a0<\/i>as a Roman Congregation would say, and the Blessed Virgin understood her Son\u2019s 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\u2019s business. The Blessed Virgin\u2019s subsequent action shows that the tone of our Lord\u2019s protest on this occasion was neither a curt nor an unqualified refusal.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Barnes\u2019 Notes on the Bible<\/a><\/em>\u00a0also dissents from Dr. Gagnon\u2019s harsh take (though suggesting a \u201cmild reproof\u201d):<\/p>\n What have I to do with thee? \u2013 See the notes at\u00a0Matthew 8:29<\/a>. This expression is sometimes used to denote indignation or contempt. See\u00a0Judges 11:12<\/a>;\u00a02 Samuel 16:10<\/a>;\u00a01 Kings 17:18<\/a>. 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: \u201cMy 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.\u201d Thus understood, it is so far from being a \u201charsh reproof,\u201d that it was a mild exhortation for her to dismiss her fears and to put proper trust in him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It all comes down to language, culture, idiom, context. But doesn\u2019t Jesus\u2019 fulfillment<\/em>\u00a0of His mother\u2019s request for more wine (by performing a miracle \u2014 His first recorded one \u2014 to provide more) suggest that He didn\u2019t intend to\u00a0rebuke<\/em>\u00a0her in the first place? He\u00a0did<\/em>\u00a0what she requested. One would\u00a0think<\/em>\u00a0so, it seems to me. Much ado about\u00a0nothing<\/em>\u00a0. . .<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n * Photo credit: <\/strong>Saint Raphael Catholic Church (Springfield, Ohio) \u2013 stained glass, Wedding at Cana \u2013 detail<\/span>\u00a0(<\/span>Nheyob<\/a>:\u00a011-22-14)<\/span>\u00a0[Wikimedia Commons<\/a>\u00a0\/\u00a0Creative Commons <\/a>Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International<\/a>\u00a0license]<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: 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 \u201cWoman.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon\u00a0(see his\u00a0Facebook page; public posts) is a Visiting Scholar in Biblical Studies at Wesley Biblical Seminary; formerly Professor of Biblical Studies at\u00a0Houston Christian University\u00a0and Associate Professor of New Testament at\u00a0Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.\u00a0He obtained a Master of Theological Studies (MTS): Biblical Studies degree from\u00a0Harvard Divinity School\u00a0and a (Ph.D.) in New Testament Studies, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":85980,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[45],"tags":[2357,19302,550,19299,17379,19296],"class_list":["post-85977","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blessed-virgin-mary","tag-blessed-virgin-mary","tag-did-jesus-rebuke-mary-at-cana","tag-marian-devotion","tag-robert-gagnon","tag-wedding-at-cana","tag-who-is-my-mother"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nJesus then responds with a curt \u201cWhat to me and to you, woman? My hour has not yet come\u201d (v. 4). There are 3 parts to this response, the question (\u201cWhat to me and to you?\u201d), the address of his mother (\u201cwoman\u201d), and the disclaiming assertion. We will now look at each element in turn.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nFirst, the question \u201cWhat to me and to you?\u201d (Gk. ti emoi kai soi<\/em>) is a Semitic idiom (Heb. mah-l\u00ee ve-lak<\/em>) 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: \u201cWhat have I done to you that you should do this to me?\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nThe phrase functions in John 2:4 as the Johannine equivalent of the rebuke uttered by Jesus in Mark\u2019s Gospel to Simon (Peter) for expressing opposition to his divine fate to suffer and die for the sins of the world: \u201cGet behind me, Satan (adversary)!\u201d<\/span>
\n*<\/div>\n
\n*<\/div>\n
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nMany (including yours truly) think that this response by Jesus to his mother represents redaction (editing) by the Fourth Evangelist into a preexisting \u201csigns source\u201d 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\u2019 activity to his being \u201clifted up\u201d or \u201cexalted\u201d on the cross, and that does not arrive at a larger identity of Jesus as the Life and Light of the world.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nMary does not interact with Jesus\u2019 sharp rebuke (again, suggesting that it was added by the Fourth Evangelist into a pre-existing story). Instead, \u201chis mother says to the servants (attending table), \u2018Whatever he says to you, do'\u201d (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 \u201cfrom below,\u201d still more concerned with the literal wine shortage at the wedding in Cana.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nIn the end Jesus does turn the water into wine, but for a deeper purpose, to \u201creveal his glory\u201d (v. 10, much as Yahweh \u201crevealed his glory\u201d to Israel in the Mount Sinai light show). Jesus perhaps does this particular \u201csign\u201d to illustrate that he is the Best Wine at the wedding banquet of the Lamb and his church.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nAddendum<\/strong>:<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nThose who read Jesus\u2019 address to his mother \u201cwoman\u201d as a mark of treating Mary as a New Eve are reading out of context.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nThe interpretation that I offer of \u201cwoman\u201d also fits Jesus\u2019 disregard of Mary\u2019s 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 \u201crestrain\u201d Jesus because of reports that he is out of his mind, Jesus gives his famous \u201cWho is my mother?\u201d Biological family kinship is meaningless when one deviates from the will of God, especially as regards Jesus\u2019 mission.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nThe most natural reading is the one that I put forward. When a son addresses his mother as \u201cwoman,\u201d one doesn\u2019t 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.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n*<\/div>\n
\n***
\n*<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n