This post has been rewritten, keeping the substance, but deleting some of the extraneous matter.
My previous post addressed Jesus learning obedience in his childhood. This post examines his young adulthood. In our culture, we could just as easily say his adulthood, for the event I will be addressing happens when Jesus is nearing 30.
This incident once again involves his obedience to his mother. I think this incident in the life of Jesus seriously challenges the current societal delusion that something magical takes place on the day one turns 18, that all of a sudden, BOOM, you become an adult, and then nobody can tell you what to do any longer. This ideation can hardly be supported Biblically, though there is no question that one's responsibilities become broader when one reaches adulthood. However, the Western ideal of total autonomy is a delusion, as is the idea that one is ever totally free from any obligation to parents.
The incident in Jesus' life is the wedding feast at Cana as recorded in John 2. The story is familiar: the host of the wedding has miscalculated in the amount of wine which was needed for the party. He has run out of wine, and the family is likely on the edge of a social disgrace and humiliation. Mary finds out about the dilemma, and she calls Jesus in for the rescue.
The interchange between Jesus and his mother is fascinating. "Son, they have no wine." Jesus, "Woman, what to me and to you?" -- a literal rendering of the Greek. Mary, to the servants, "That which he says to you, do it." What is going on here? How do we understand this dialogue and Jesus' enigmatic, cryptic response to his mother?
The various translations differ here. Some follow the KJV to the effect of "Woman, what do I have to do with you?" Others turn this around, following another textual witness, and make this "Woman, what do you have to do with me?" Jesus follows this up with the statement, "My hour is not yet come," implying that he is rebuking his mother for having overstepped her bounds of authority in some manner, perhaps in attempting to command control over those aspects of Jesus' divinity. Others make this more general, "Woman, what has this to do with us?" In other words, ""Woman, this is none of our business," or "Woman, this is no concern of ours, it is the responsibility of others, let them care for it on their own."
A young person from our modern generation may understand Jesus to be rebuking his mother here, saying to her something on the order of, "Woman, what do you have to do with me? I am an adult now, and I need to be able to make my own decisions. You do not have any authority over me any longer, so you really shouldn't be ordering me around!" In fact, I can hear the argument for this interpretation now, and that is that Jesus is simply setting his boundaries; he is engaging in emotionally healthy behavior, and he is gently letting his mother know that she is violating his personal space, and that she is infringing upon his autonomy as a person.
I so not think that this argument can be supported from the text, for it does not fit very well with Jesus' actions. You see, Jesus did what his mother instructed him to do. Mary says to the servants, "Whatever he says to you, do it." Jesus calls for the water pots, and turns the water into the wine. Mission accomplished. Jesus has obeyed his mother's implicit instructions, he has fulfilled them right to the T.
In so doing, Jesus has honored his mother. Whether or not there is an overstepping of personal boundaries is perhaps a valid point of discussion. However, despite any overstepping that there may have been, Jesus has honored his mother. He has not put her to open shame. He has maintained her dignity, demonstrating his obedience to the command in the law of Moses to honor his father and mother.
I am not certain if Jesus' statement to Mary is intended to be a mild chastisement or not. If it is, I suspect it has far more to do with Mary asking Jesus to demonstrate the power of his divinity than that he is trying to set boundaries concerning any violation of his supposed person. When it comes to allowing people to violate his person, Jesus sets the example; he endured all forms of suffering, yet he never tried to protect himself, neither when it was crucial, did he ever offer any defense. Our Roman Catholic friends refuse to see a rebuke here, and maintain that Jesus was simply addressing according the custom of the day. And that does seem to be the case in Jesus' use of the term "Woman," for that is the way that he also addressed other women in the Gospels.
There is more to be said here, but it will require at least one additional post. Stay tuned, and I will get right on it, before I forget what it is that I desire to say.
No comments:
Post a Comment