Mary in the Gospel of John: Part III: Feast at Cana
Fr. J. Patrick Gaffney, SMM
On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with the disciples. When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him. “They have no wine . . .”Jn 2:1-3.
The last two articles of Mary in the Gospel of John examined some of the background material of John‘s magnificent Gospel so that we may better understand his two references to Mary: Our Lady at the marriage feast of Cana (Jn 2:1-11) and at the foot of the Cross (Jn 19:25-27). This installment begins a study of the role of Mary at the Cana wedding feast. We will first consider the historical level of the narration and in future issues, the deeper spiritual meaning.
1. The Historical Levet
In keeping with Saint Louis de Montfort’s christocentric Marian spirituality, it must be underlined from the outset that the marriage feast at Cana is primarily about Jesus, not Mary. Too often this entire event is summarized in an overly simplistic manner: “Mary asked Jesus to change water into wine and even though He didn’t want to do it, He did it for her.” It is apparent that this is not the full message of Jn 221-11.
What we are being taught through this scene has two levels, so typical of John’s Gospel: the historical and the spiritual or theological. On the historical plane, “the mother of Jesus” (John never calls her “Mary”) plus Jesus and his disciples are present at a wedding. Whose wedding? Perhaps Nathaniel’s, since it is stated that he comes from Carla? Or maybe John, the son of Zebedee, or a relative of Jesus and Mary? All guesswork. Apparently, the answer is not important for us since the evangelist omits the information. Why did the wine run short? Responses like “Jesus and his disciples crashed the party or “The disciples forgot to bring a gift of wine to the wedding party and / or they drank too much” are pure conjecture and border on the silly. Again, the Holy Spirit has not disclosed this to us since, as we can well presume, it would add nothing to the knowledge God wishes to impart.
Painting: Feast at Cana: Bartolome Esteban Murillo (c: 1675)
Mary in the Gospel of John
The Queen presents a series of articles of Mary in the Gospel of John.
Jesus does change water into wine, as John makes clear. And it is “the mother of Jesus” who initiates this miracle by bringing to her Son’s attention, “They have no wine” (cf. Constitution on the Church 58: “at the marriage feast of Cana she brought about by her intercession the beginning of the miracles of Jesus the Messiah”). The dialogue between Mary and Jesus is not easily understood and the reader yearns to know the entire conversation, not just the bits provided by the Gospel. But here again, trying to “fill in the blanks” is a highly subjective and therefore quite a useless endeavor. The Holy Spirit has left us only with: “When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, ‘They have no wine.’ And Jesus said to her, ‘O Woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.’ His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever He tells you.’ ” Is this a rebuke on the part of Jesus? Why does he call his own mother “Woman,” a rather distant although respectful title He gives to other ladies, like the woman at the well (cf. 4:21; 8:10; 20:13)?
First of all, the dialogue itself. Scripture scholars point out that the expression “What have you to do with me?” (literally, the Greek reads:
“What to you and to me?) is capable of two interpretations. It can sound harsh, like: “Get off my back!” This would signify that Mary is unjustly annoying Jesus to such a point that there is animosity, hostility, between them (cf Jgs 11:12; 1Kgs 17:18). Or it can have a milder meaning: “Really, this is no concern of mine” (cf. 2Kgs 2:13). It would then signify nothing more than disengagement. Although some early writers of the Church thought that it should be taken in its first meaning of hostility, the vast majority of contemporary Catholic interpreters opt for the second meaning of disinterestedness. After all, we must keep in mind that Mary apparently understands this to imply that the Lord is nonetheless willing to alleviate the embarrassing situation: “Do whatever He tells you.” There is no hint of a war going on between Jesus and Mary!
The reason given for this disengagement on the part of Jesus is the simple “My hour has not yet come.” Perhaps we could translate this as, “This is not yet the time for me to intervene.” However, we know from the general use of the term “hour” in John’s Gospel that it signifies destiny, fulfillment. For example, 16:21 speaks of the hour of a woman at childbirth: her fulfillment is in transmitting life. For Jesus, his destiny, his fulfillment is the Paschal mystery, his suffering, death and resurrection. John tells us that at the Last Supper Jesus is “aware that the hour had come for him to pass from this world to the Father” (13:1). The reason He does not want to be involved in pouring out an abundance of wine is, so He tells Mary, because that should only happen when His life comes to its fulfillment in His death / resurrection. John is more than hinting at a deeper spiritual meaning, which we will discuss in future installments.
The term Woman, by which Jesus addresses his mother both here and from the Cross (19:26), may be considered polite, but also strange. It appears that both Hebrew and Greek literature of the time never speak of a son calling his mother by the simple, courteous word, Woman. The profound meaning that John intends by the use of this term will be studied in forthcoming issues of The Queen.
The evangelist is clearly intent on disclosing the vast amount of new wine: “six stone jars . . . each holding twenty or thirty gallons . . . and they filled them up to the brim.” The amount would come to approximately 120 gallons, the equivalent of about 900 bottles of choice wine! Some find this embarrassing, especially since the guests have already finished off the whole supply provided by the wedding itself. It is clear that Jesus is not an ascetic rigorist in the likes of John the Baptizer.
The entire event is a manifestation of the glory of Jesus (v.11), so much so, that his disciples now “believed in him.” This final, rather
mysterious note of the Cana marriage narrative more than hints at the deeper, theological meaning intended by John.
Next Article: Mary in the Gospel of John: Part II: Feast at Cana
