II. AT CANA (2:3-5): FROM MOTHER TO WOMAN

Let us first of all give a look at the text. setting out it in three columns and pointing out the structural components which will be explained below.　

A. Components of 2:1-11

The account begins (w.l-2) with the indications of the circumstances of time ("the third day") and of place ("at Cana in Galilee") as well as with the mention of the actors on whom it will then focus attention. These actors are mentioned in the following order: the mother of Jesus (v.1b), Jesus himself (v.2a), then the disciples (v.2b).

It is in this same order that these "agents" intervene in the story. While vv.3-5 describe the initiative of Jesus' mother in approaching him, vv.6-11 describe at greater length the intervention of Jesus himself and its impact on the disciples.

To tell the truth, if the story narrated only the intervention of Jesus' mother and that of Jesus himself, it could limit itself to verse 3. Followed by verses 6-10, (4) In this case we would obtain a story still complete in itself, endowed with its own coherence and dynamism: the initial situation of lack and need, expressed through the intervention of the mother (v.3), is transformed by the intervention of Jesus (vv.6 10). In other words, the need pointed out by Mary is met by the change worked by Jesus of the water into wine. All the essential elements of the miracle are present.

However, note carefully: the presence of verses 4 5 and 11 shows that John is not so much interested in the miracle itself, with its marvelous character. Rather, he is interested in its meaning. The initial situation and its transformation are the occasion of a Christological revelation which provokes a reaction on the part of the privileged witnesses, the mother and the disciples of Jesus. On the one hand, the mother's request (2:3) induces Jesus to reveal something regarding himself and his mission (2:4). This revelation, in turn. entails a reaction on the part of Mary (2:5). On the other hand, the description of Jesus' intervention (2:6-10) is followed by the statement of its Christological meaning (it is a semeion by means of which Jesus manifests his glory [2:11 a] and by the mention of the disciples' faith reaction (2:11b).

The Cana story, therefore, presents a characteristic structure entailing the twofold repetition of three parallel terms, thus:　

It seems to me that the discovery of this structural parallelism will prove to be of primary importance for the interpretation of the main elements of the text.

Let us see now the content of verses 3-5, i.e. the sections of the text corresponding to the letters A (Initial Situation). B (Christological Revelation) and C (Reaction) in the diagram above.

B. Initial Situation (2, 3)

"They have no wine" (2:3b). How should we understand this remark made by the mother of Jesus?

Three main interpretations can possibly be envisaged.

1. Mary's remark does not entail any particular expectation; she is only taking stock of a pitiful and embarassing situation. Somehow this is the attitude of the paralytic of Bethzatha in chapter 5, who does not express any expectation with regard to Jesus, but only gives an account of his difficulties:

Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is troubled, and while I am goinganother steps down before me. (5:7)

2. The mother of Jesus expects that he will do something to solve the problem. Aware of the embarassing nature of the situation, she is thinking of some practical solution that is within the scope of man's mind and action. This is more or less the case in Jn 6:5. where, before a crowd that has nothing to eat. Jesus starts considering a solution of this kind: "How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?". V.6 will tell us that he is actually putting Philip to the test,

3. The mother is expecting from her son a miracle that is going to transform the situation.

Sticking to the data of the text and trying to dovetail with the perspectives of John himself, it seems that we should reject the first and the last interpretation and that consequently the second is to be preferred.

a. Mary's reaction as expressed in v.5 ("Do whatever he tells you") shows that she expected something from Jesus at the very moment that he seemed to have expressed a refusal to intervene (v.4). A fortiori, Mary's first observation (v.3) must have given expression to an expectation.

b. Ought we, however, to see in it the expectation of a miraculous intervention? Not necessarily. Such an expectation would involve a "displacement" within the context of John's presentation of the event. That is, since Jesus has not yet performed any sign (cf. 2:11 a), it would be necessary to suppose that his mother knows already that he has a power he has not yet manifested, all the more so since he has not yet "manifested his glory" (2:1 la). As yet. it is not known who he truly is and, consequently, what he is able to do by reason of his identity.

c. It is a frequent fact in Jn that the expectations expressed with regard to Jesus are at first situated on a purely human level. Let us take some examples. Jesus tells Nicodemus that it is necessary to be born anothen (an adverb which can at the same time mean "from above" and "anew") in order to see the kingdom of God (3:3), Nicodemus, however, at first understand Jesus' words in a human and natural sense (3:4). Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman about the gift of living water (4:10), but also she (mis) understands in a purely material sense (4:15). In the same way, at first the official at Capernaum approaches Jesus as a mere healer or wonder-worker (4:47). In the same way, too, as we have already seen, when Jesus asks the paralytic whether he wants to be healed, the latter envisages only such a healing as can be obtained by a plunge into the pool (4:6-7). So also, when Jesus speaks to the Jews about the bread which he can give them (6:32-33), the Jews think about material bread and not about the bread of life who is Jesus. That they do not have in mind this higher meaning is shown by their reaction in 6:41. Finally. Martha, the sister of Lazarus, expresses the expectation that Jesus will do something (11:22). However, she does not expect the miracle of the resurrection, a miracle which Jesus is able to work (cf. 11:23-24).

In all these cases, the interlocutors of Jesus remain on a purely human level. The object of their requests or of their expectation does not transcend this level. Jesus, instead, places himself on a different level. Could it not be the same here?

d. Yes. Jesus' reply in verse 4 shows that there is a shortfall between the level of Mary's expectation and the level on which Jesus intends to place his intervention.

C. Christological Revelation (2:4)

"O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come". This is the way Jesus' reply (2:4) must be literally translated. Its interpretation has not yet ceased to embarass the commentators. Let us begin with the last part of the reply, which seems easier to clarify.

"My hour"

Which hour is it? The hour of undertaking his mission? The hour of "showing himself to the world", according to the formula of 7:4? The hour of working a miracle? All these suggestions contradict the meaning usually given by John to the "hour" of Jesus. In fact. the hour of Jesus is the hour of the glorification, which glorification is indissolubly linked with the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The "hour", therefore, is the hour of the death-resurrection, the hour when Jesus has "to depart out of this world to the Father" (13:1). Does this mean that the public ministry which precedes the death-resurrection is not important? Does it mean that Jesus essentially has come to die and to rise again? Rather than answer these questions straightaway, we should try to place ourselves within John's perspective. Within this perspective we see that the hour of the total glorification is the hour of the death-resurrection. This glorification, however, is anticipated through Jesus' carrying out of his ministry (cf. 12:28; 13:31-32; 17:10.22). In particular, it is anticipated through the "signs". This fact is expressed in different ways in at least three passages. The first passage is the conclusion of the Cana story:

This, the first of his signs. Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory (2: 11a)

In chapter 11 there is a twofold mention of God's glory and Jesus' glorification in connection with a "sign", the reanimation of Lazarus:

But when Jesus heard it he said,"This illness is not unto death;it is for the glory of God,so that the Son of God may be glorified by meansof it (hina doxasthei)" (11:4).

Jesus said, "Take away the stone".Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him."Lord, by this time there will be an odour,for he has heen dead four days".Jesus said to her.Did I not tell you that if you would believeyou would see the glory of God?" (11:39-40).

We can see, then. that in 2:4 Jesus is saying that the moment of manifesting his glory has not yet come. (Jesus thinks of the glory-manifesting sign because his mother's request has led him to do so). Jesus sees the situation as implying an anticipation of the hour of his total glorification. This interpretation is derived from the Johannine understanding of the "hour". It is confirmed by the parallelism that we have noticed between v.4 and V.11a: verse 11a, speaking of the manifestation of Jesus' glory, clarifies the meaning of the "hour" mentioned in 2:4b. In other words, the Christological revelation which follows upon Jesus' intervention (2:7-10) clarifies the Christological revelation which had followed upon Mary's request (2:3).

"What have you to do with me? "

The meaning of the first part of Jesus' reply－"what have you to do with me?"－is also clarified. As we have already seen, the mother of Jesus implicitly expressed her hope for an intervention by Jesus (v.3), who somehow is asked to solve an embarassing problem, but in a way, so to say. all too human and material. By evoking the prospect of his "hour", Jesus indicates that he situates himself on a higher level. He rejects the type of solution expected by his mother. Or better "it is not so much a refusal as a comment which opens up some of the deeper implications of the event" (B. Lindars) (2). Jesus accedes to his mother's request, but on another level: by accomplishing a "sign" that will reveal his glory. However, the hour of the glorification has not yet come.

The reply "what have you to do with me?" makes us recall the reply given by Jesus in Mt 20:22 to the mother of the sons of Zebedee:

"You do not know what you are asking"

Or, to remain within the confines of John, the reply made by Jesus to the Samaritan woman in 4:10:

"If you knew the gift of God "

It is as if Jesus were saying: You are asking me to do something, to find some solution on the level of human endeavours, but you do not suspect the depth of your request. If I must intervene it will not be in this way. And if I intervene in the way that I should (i.e. by accomplishing a sign), I would be going against the plan of God ("my hour has not yet come").

Without really intending it and realizing it, the mother of Jesus is taking the initiative in an order of realities which properly pertain only to God and his plan of salvation. Is not this the meaning of Jesus' response, indicating that his mother and himself are not on the same level? As in all the other passages mentioned above in B c, a "displacement" takes place in 2:4. From the context of material realities we are projected into the context of spiritual realities.

"Woman"

It is possible now also to understand the unusual way Jesus addresses his mother {gynai, "woman"). Mary is called to leave the human level on which, as mother, she can claim authority over her son. She is asked to place herself on the level of faith and of the salvific plan of God, where her influence and her privileged position are no longer decisive. On this level, Mary finds herself a "woman" like all others. It should be noticed that Jesus in the Gospel of John always addresses women in this way. Cf. 4:21; 8:10; 20:13,15. It is clear from the context that there is not the least hint of disrespect in this way of addressing women. All the same, it is striking that Jesus addresses thus his mother! Neither the Bible, nor Jewish literature, nor, apparently, Greek literature provide another example of a son thus addressing his mother. So at least say the scholars who have investigated this point. (3) This unusual way of addressing one's mother as "woman" should, therefore, be understood in a theological context. Other contexts, like psychology, rules of propriety or human customs, are incapable of explaining it. Now the theological meaning is this: from now on, Jesus says, the fundamental relationship is that of faith. In the order of God's design to be carried out (the "work" of which Jesus speaks in the Gospel of John), "flesh and blood" count for nothing. Not even Mary's motherly relation is an exception. It does not confer any privileged status. We are here in perfect harmony with the Synoptic data of Mk 3:35 and parallels: "Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother." Also Lk 11:27-28: "A woman said to him, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it! '."(4) Once the hour of accomplishing God's plan has come (the hour that will culminate in the glorification), Mary the mother must somehow make place for Mary the woman called to faith.

D. Reaction (2:5)

Is it not precisely Mary's faith that finds expression in the command reported in 2:5: "His mother said to the servats, 'Do whatever he tells you'."? It seems to me that a good number of indications favour this interpretation.

1. In the first place, there is the immediate context. We have just seen that Jesus' response in v.4 denotes a "displacement", a leap from the human level－on which rests Mary's initial intervention－to the level of faith. Does not the fact that Mary persists in her expectation show that she has entered into the new perspective evoked by Jesus' response?

2. Given the fact that, as we have already seen, v.11 b illumines the sense of its parallel v.4, can we further infer that there is the same relation of parallelism and mutual illumination between v.11b and v.5? If so, Mary's reaction (2:5) must be inserted in the line of faith, like that of the disciples (2:11 b).

3. In 2:1 la the sign of Cana is explicitly related to those which will follow ("This [was] the first of the signs"). But in the accounts of the signs that follow John is interested in the reactions of the witnesses in so far as these have something to do with faith (or non-faith: cf. 5:36-40; 6:26; 9:37-41; 11:26-27.45; 12:11,18,37). (5) After all. it is just this link "signs-faith" that is underlined in the conclusion of the Gospel: "These [signs] are written that you may believe" (20:31). Now 2:5 speaks about the reaction of the mother of Jesus. Of itself this detail is not indispensable for the progress of the story. It means that it must be understood in relation to faith.

4. In 2:4 Jesus practically tells us that he has no intention of working a sign. But then he immediately does work a sign (2:6-10). There are other instances in the Gospel of John where Jesus at first refuses to act, then reverses his refusal or reluctance to act because he has been faced by a manifestation of faith. The best example of this is the second sign of Cana (cf. 4:47-50). Everything happens as if faith, which is "the work of God" (6:29), played the role of a "signal" which conveys in some way to Jesus the will of Him who sent him.

5. There are also in the Gospel of John instances in which, when a request is made to Jesus, Jesus himself so to say "increases the measure". Secondly, the one who has made the request opens himself up to this new perspective. Finally, Jesus intervenes in a way that surpasses the level of initial expectation. This is the case, for example, in the story of the reanimation of Lazarus, where the same elements as in 2:1-11 are recognizable:

All these indications lead us to see in the attitude reported in Jn 2:5 a reaction of faith. Without perceiving exactly Jesus' intentions, Mary has understood the "change of level" demanded by her son's response. She accepts to let herself be placed on this level from now on and professes her total trust in Jesus. V.5 bears witness to a "displacement" in the level of Mary's expectation and to a faith which entails an opening up to the unknown. When in Lk 1:38 Mary replies to God's messenger: "Let it be to me according to your word", she has some idea of what is going to happen (cf. 1:30-37). In Jn 2:5, instead, she has only a presentiment that something new is going to begin. In this new beginning all happens according to a plan beyond her comprehension. Mary professes her readiness to collaborate with this plan, even though she does not know clearly how it will be carried out in practice: "Do whatever he tells you". In short, in Jn 2:3 Mary had made her request as a mother: in 2:5 she reacts as a believer.

Notice here the affinity of the attitude of Jesus and Mary with their attitude in Lk 2:49-51: "And [Jesus] said to them [his parents], 'How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?' And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them[ ]; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.''(6)

If this interpretation is correct, it means that in the eyes of the evangelist the attitude expressed in 2:5 enjoys considerable importance. Somehow, it is Mary's faith that sets everything in motion. It is the presence of this faith that prompts Jesus to work the inaugural "sign". This sign will allow him to manifest his glory and to undertake the fulfilment of the work received from the Father. In some way, the faith of Mary is at the origin of the mission.

It is possible that , as some authors think. John places Mary's faith in relation with the faith of Israel. This relation comes to light if we approach the formulation of Jn 2:5 ("Do whatever he tells you") to that by which the people of old expressed his acceptance of the first covenant (Ex 19:8; 24:3-7: "All that the Lord has spoken we will do"). This aspect, however, is not essential for our purpose.(7)

(2)Ibidem, note 7.

(3)Ibidem, notes 8 and 9.

(4)Ibidem, note 10.

(5)Ibidem, note 12.

(6)Ibidem, note 13.

(7)Ibidem, note 14.