II. THE NATURE OF MARY'S EXPECTATION

In II, B, Gourgues studies the nature of Mary's expectation as reflected in her remark to Jesus: "They have no wine". He envisages three possibilities: 1. Mary expects nothing; 2. Mary expects Jesus to solve the problem in a natural way; 3. Mary expects Jesus to solve the problem in a miraculous way. Gourgues' conclusion is that "we should reject the first and the last interpretation and [...] consequently the second ought to be preferred".

I agree with Gourgues' rejection of the first possibility, but I disagree with his rejection of the last. In particular, the reason adduced by Gourgues to justify the rejection of the third possibility seems to me highly problematic. Gourgues says: "Such an expectation [of a miracle] 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 [our 2:11b!]). As yet it is not known who he truly is and, consequently, what he is able to do by reason of his identity."

It is with these affirmations that I would like to disagree. True, Gourgues states this only in respect of "the context of John's presentation of the event", not with regard to the actual knowledge that Mary may have had. It is a question of understanding what John the evangelist wants to say, not to discover what Mary actually knew. Even allowing for this restriction, however, Gourgues' position seems to me to be untenable.

On the one hand. I agree with Gourgues that it is not necessary to say that Mary expects Jesus to perform a miracle. The literary economy of John's narrative does not demand us to do so. I would even say that it does not encourage us to do so. But this is not to say that it does discourage us from doing so. The fact is that the literary economy of John's narrative is neutral with regard to the nature of Mary's expectation. In a while, we shall try to prove this. For the time being, let us say that the possibility that Mary may be expecting her son to work a miracle cannot be ruled out.

1. The difference between miracle and sign

In fact, Mary's possible expectation of a miracle does not necessarily involve a "displacement" within the context of John's presentation of the event, as Gourgues claims, the displacement would happen if Mary were expecting a "sign". But she may be expecting only a miracle. John distinguishes between a "sign" and a miracle. A miracle is a wonder-work, like. for example, a sudden cure. A "sign" in John's Gospel is a wonder-work with universal salvific significance. This universal salvific significance makes the difference between a miracle and a sign. A miracle can be approached with mere curiosity or out of a dire sense of need. A sign can be approached only through faith.

In expecting a miracle, Mary is not anticipating (and so "displacing") the challenge Jesus will issue to her in v.4. This challenge maintains all its abruptness and forcefulness, even if Mary is expecting a miracle. Jesus in v.4 challenges his mother to make the leap from the expectation of a clever or, possibly, even miraculous solution of a family problem, to the expectation of a "sign". The rest of John's Gospel can help us to see how this is so.

In 4:46-54, the account of the "second Cana sign", Jesus issues the very same challenge to the Capernaum official who has asked him to heal his son. But here Jesus does so in two steps: First, he reacts nervously to the official's request: "Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe!" (4:48). Here the meaning of "sign" is specified as "wonder". This is the only case in which in John "wonder" is added to "sign". "Sign" in John has a manifestly ambivalent value: it is positive, if it leads to faith in Jesus; it is negative, if it fails to do so. A "sign" fails to do so, when it is perceived not as a "sign", but merely as a miracle, as a "wonder". Hence, it is clear that the addition of "wonder" here is meant to show that Jesus reacts nervously to "signs" negatively understood, to "signs" as "wonders". There is the same veiled negative connotation to the word "sign" in Jn 2:18,23-25; 6:14,30; 11:47; 12:18.

Next, the official from Capernaum repeats his request for a "wonder": "Sir, come down before my child dies." (4:49). Jesus' nervous reaction has not attained its purpose of raising up the official's faith to the level of a true "sign". Hence Jesus tries again, challenging the official to a higher form of faith. Through this higher faith the official must know that Jesus does not need to "go down" at all, he does not need to be in a hurry to forestall the imminent death of the child ("before my child dies", the official had said). That is why Jesus tells him: "Go; your son will live." (4:50). John immediately remarks that Jesus was successful in his second attempt: "The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and went his way." (4:50)

In 6:25ff. Jesus again draws the same distinction between "signs" and "(miraculously) eating one's fill". To the people who ask him, "Rabbi, when did you come here?". Jesus answers, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves." (6:26)

In 12:40 Jesus reacts to Martha's difficulty in raising herself up to the level of true salvific faith, exclaiming: "Did I not tell you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?". Martha had been expecting a miraculous cure of her brother. But this is not what Jesus expects us to expect of him!

All these other examples make clear that even if Mary is expecting a miracle she is not causing a "displacement" in the Johannine narrative. To think that Jesus can work a miracle, this is not yet the fullest form of faith. The only adequate form of faith, the faith elicited by Jesus' Christological challenges, is to believe that Jesus can work and wishes to work "signs" of a universal salvific significance. To this higher level of faith does Jesus invite his mother in 2:4, and Mary promptly responds.

2. Mary may be expecting a miracle

a. Hints at Jesus' virginal conception in the Gospel of John

Having dealt with the literary problem of whether Mary's possible expectation of a miracle is consonant with John's presentation of the Cana event, we must deal now with a more basic question, namely: is it possible, apart from the literary economy of the narrative, that Mary actually might have expected a miracle? Searching for an answer to this question, we shall be given a welcome opportunity to fathom a little the mystery of Mary's relationship to her son, Jesus. To answer this question, we cannot rely. as we have done just now, on examples drawn from other parts of the Gospel. In fact, the case of Mary expecting a miracle is unique, because she does so before Jesus has worked any miracle at all. In the case of other people expecting Jesus to work a miracle, we can say that Jesus was already famed as a miracle-worker. Not so with Mary at Cana: "This [was] the first of the signs Jesus did" (2:11)! To find an answer, we have to go deeper.

Before Cana, Mary had already experienced God's miraculous power in the mysterious event of her virginal conception of Jesus. Jesus is the child of an unheard-of miracle. There is at least an echo of this wonder in John's insistence on the "virginal" character of our own re-birth as children of God in 1:12-13 : " children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God". It is a known fact of textual criticism that verse 1:13 is read in the singular, and thus referred to the Word, by some of the earliest Church Fathers, like Irenaeus and Origen (in their Latin translations) and Tertullian. In the singular, this verse would be a probable Johannine reference to the fact of the virginal conception of Jesus, other possible Johannine references to this fact are the irony underlying 6:42 and the malicious insinuation present in 8:41.

In 6:42 Jesus listeners ask themselves, "Surely this is Jesus son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know. How can he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" In the context of the Bread of Life Discourse as well as in the context of the whole Gospel, it is clear who the Father of Jesus is. The self-assurance of Jesus' listeners with regard to their knowledge of his father and mother produces a sense of irony in the reader. The irony, however, concerns only the "father" part of the question. The mother of Jesus, in fact, has already appeared in 2:1-12. There is no irony about Jesus being known as the son of Mary. The irony is about people thinking Jesus as the son of Joseph, when Jesus has always been speaking of God as his Father. This is one of the typical traits of John the evangelist: he uses irony to reveal awareness of basic facts of Jesus' life. Another example of such a procedure is the question about Jesus' Davidic descent in 7:41-42: "Would the Christ come from Galilee? Does not scripture say that the Christ must be descended from David and come from Bethlehem, the village where David was?". The questioners take it for granted that Jesus is not from Bethlehem and use this supposedly certain fact to argue against Jesus' Messianic character. But John and the readers of his Gospel know full well that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Thus the questioners' argument is turned against themselves. Hence the irony-effect.

In 8:41 it is not a question of irony but of malice, in the context of an extremely harsh confrontation between Jesus and "the Jews who had believed in him" (8:31). Jesus tells them: "You do what your father did" (8:41a). The "father" meant by Jesus is the devil! (cf. 8:44). The Jews retort: "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. " The first meaning of their reply is that they are not idolaters. In the OT (just as in the NT Apocalypse of John), fornication is the standard image for idolatry. However, in the context of the heated exchange between the Jews and Jesus, this expression may carry an outrageous insinuation with regard to Jesus' virginal conception. Of course, this insinuation presupposes that the Jews are acquainted with the fact of Jesus' unusual conception. This would go against the implication of the question posed in 6:42. Hence, the presence of this insinuation in 8:41 is not certain. We may conclude, therefore, that in John there are at least some hints at the reality of Jesus' virginal conception. The lack of a clear-cut statement of the virginal conception in John is made good, for the enquiry in hand, by the explicit statements present in the other Gospels. (2)

In particular, the material offered by Luke allows us to use the fact of the virginal conception to get a glimpse of the inner workings of Mary's heart. The miracle of the virginal conception is for Mary a "sign", interpreted as such by the divine revelation accompanying it, of Jesus' divine sonship. From the very beginning of her union with Jesus, Mary knows him as the Messiah and the Son of God. Of course, she knows him as such through faith, which is a form of knowledge, but an obscure form of knowledge.

I cannot agree, therefore, with the following asertion of Gourgues in II.B: "As yet it is not known who [Jesus] truly is and, consequently, what he is able to do by reason of his identity". I think that this statement is faulty both with regard to John's literary presentation of the Jesus-event and with regard to Mary's actual knowledge of Jesus' indentity.

b. Mary's faith knowledge of Jesus begins with her virginal conception of Jesus!

The Cana event comes after the Johannine Prologue with its explicit profession of faith in the transcendent character of Jesus' identity. Moreover, in the rest of Chapter One disconcerting titles have been already attributed to Jesus: "He on whom you see the Spirit descend" (1:33), "Son of God" (1:34,49). " the Son of man [on whom] the heavens open and the angels of God ascend and descend" (1:51). As far as the literary economy of John's Gospel is concerned, there is no question that, at least for the reader, the mystery of Jesus' identity has already dawned upon us. But what about Mary?

Does John want to tell us that the reality of Jesus' divinity dawned upon Mary after the Cana event? I do not think so. As we have seen, there is nothing in John's Gospel to prevent us from relying on the contribution made by Luke's Gospel to understand Mary's mind and heart. At the moment of her virginal conception of Jesus, Mary is confronted with the very mystery of God. Faith is nothing but the placing of oneself unconditionally before the mystery of God revealing Himself. Mary at the moment of the Incarnation thus places herself before God in faith. Faith is man's answer to God who reveals himself. In the case of Mary, God reveals himself in a transcendent and unique way in the person of his Son and her Son Jesus. The virginal conception is the "sign" of this unique and transcendent revelation.

Of course, Mary's faith grew. It grew, indeed, but it did not change. All too often we hear explanations of the growth of Mary's knowledge of Jesus (or even of Jesus' own self-consciousness) which turn growth into a substantial change. But this is misunderstanding the true meaning of growth. If Jesus' self-consciousness was genuine self-consciousness, then it was consciousness of his divine self from the very beginning. This is true, even if his consciousness grew from the consciousness of a child to that of an adult. As a child, Jesus' consciousness of his divinity was the consciousness of a child, but still consciousness of divinity. As an adult. Jesus' consciousness of his divinity became the consciousness of an adult. Analogously, if Mary's faith was true faith, then it was knowledge (however obscure) of Jesus' divinity and humanity, from the very beginning. For this is what faith is: God-given insight into the true identity of Jesus. Mary's faith grew; there is no problem about that. But it was always the same plant that kept growing to its full stature. Through the growth process, a plant is identical with matter (the seed) to the height of a mighty tree (the oak). This is only an image of spiritual growth, but a valid image nevertheless. So that we may conclude that Mary's knowledge of Jesus did not change, but grew. A peasant's common sense can be of some help in understanding God's word.........

c. The growth of Mary's faith knowledge of Jesus

The Gospels and the Book of Acts provide us with enough material to detect the great strides forward in this unceasing process of growth. These great strides in Mary's growth in faith have well-known names: the Annunciation, the Visitation, the marvellous and tragic circumstances of the first Christmas, the Presentation of Jesus in the temple, the surprising 12 year old Jesus, Cana and the other encounters between Jesus and his mother during the public life, the Stabat Mater, 'the Resurrection), Pentecost.

The impression we get is that this growth took place "by leaps and bounds", so to say, rather than by a smooth, gradual development. Each of the great Christological-Marian Gospel events contain a tremendous challenge to Mary's faith. The Cana event is no exception. Mary is called upon to grow in faith, but by taking once again "the leap of faith". However, it is her very same faith that takes the leap!

After these reflections, it may be clearer how improper and inadequate are some rather common ways of describing Mary's knowledge of Jesus; ways which have, in my view, unduly influenced Gourgues' analysis of Mary's expectation:

a. Mary at Cana passes from ignorance of Jesus' true identity to an incipient knowledge of it. Strangely enough, this seems to be the way Gourgues understands the situation.

b. Mary passes from an all to human knowledge of Jesus to a more "Christian" knowledge of him.

c. Mary starts to grow from a "Low Christology" (Jesus as Messiah) understanding of Jesus to a "High Christology" (Jesus as Unique Son of God) understanding of Jesus'. (3)

Not at all. From the first moment of the Incarnation, coincidently with that very moment, Mary Knows her son in faith as the true Son of God. Christian faith is this or it is nothing. To counteract all these inadequate ways of understanding Mary's faith, let me quote a few sentences from number 17 of the encyclical "Redemptoris Mater":

"Faith is contact with the mystery of God. Every day Mary is in constant contact with the ineffable mystery of God made man, a mystery that surpasses everything revealed in the Old Covenant. From the moment of the Annunciation, the mind of the Virgin-Mother has been initiated into the radical "newnes" of God's self-revelation and has been made aware of the mystery. She is the first of those 'little ones' of whom Jesus will say one day: 'Father, ... you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes' (Mt 11:25). For 'no one knows the Son except the Father' (Mt 11:27). If this is the case, how can Mary 'know the Son'? Of course she does not know him as the Father does: and yet she is the first of those to whom the Father 'has chosen to reveal him' (cf. Mt 11:26-27: 1 Cor 2:11). If though, from the moment of the Annunciation, the Son－whom only the Father knows completely, as the one who begets him in the eternal 'today' (cf. Ps 2:7)－was revealed to Mary. she, his Mother, is in contact with the truth about her Son only in faith and through faith! [...] Thus even his Mother, to whom had been revealed most completely the mystery of his divine sonship, lived in intimacy with this mystery only through faith! Living side by side with her Son under the same roof, and faithfully persevering "in her union with her Son', she 'advanced in her pilgrimage of faith', as the Council emphasizes (LG 58). And so it was during Christ's public life too (cf. Mk 3:21-35) that day by day there was fulfilled in her the blessing uttered by Elizabeth at the Visitation: 'Blessed is she who believed'."

d. Yes, Mary may be expecting a miracle

After having stressed the true nature of Mary's knowledge of Jesus in faith, let us return to the nature of her expectation in the context of the Cana event. Mary in faith certainly knows Jesus not only as pure man, not only as wonder-worker, not only as Messiah, but also as Son of God in the strong Christian sense of the term. It is possible, therefore, that at Cana Mary is calling upon Jesus' Messianic power to come to the rescue of the newly-wed spouses in their sorry plight. If there is a limitation in Mary's expectation it consists in this: Mary expects Jesus to act as Messiah, as divinely authoritative Messiah, but merely to solve a private family problem. From this angle, even though Mary may be expecting a miracle, still we may call her expectation a human expectation. Jesus, instead, calls upon her to place herself on a higher plane before him: not the plane of private family affairs, however important and pressing they may be, but the plane of public universal salvific needs of mankind. It is to these needs that Jesus wants to cater through the public acts of his universally salvific power, the acts of "the hour", the "signs" that reveal his own and the Father's glory.

Considering again three possible ways of understanding Mary's expectation suggested by Gourgues, we may say that after all it does not make any real difference, whether we opt for interpretation 2 or interpretation 3. Both 2 and 3 have one important point in common: in both cases, Mary's expectation is below the level expected by Jesus. Now we know, however, that this divergence in level between Jesus and Mary should not lead us into denying the truly "Christian" quality of Mary's knowledge of Jesus.

3. A contrast not between material and spiritual, but between private-particular and salvific-universal

There is another statement of Gourgues which I would like to question. He concludes the paragraph discussing Jesus' pointed question "What have you to do with me?" thus: "From the context of material realities we are projected into the context of spiritual realities".

In my opinion this is not an adequate statement of the case. The divergence between Jesus and Mary is not a contrast between the material and the spiritual. Mary's expectation includes both material and spiritual elements. For example, her concern for the preservation of the joy of the marriage feast cannot certainly be described as "material". Rather, the contrast is between a particular human affair and the uiversal salvific plan of God. Even so, of course, the contrast is not an absolute one. For the universal salvific plan of God includes particular human affairs. We can say that God's plan of salvation becomes "incarnate" in concrete human events. However, Jesus is precisely asking Mary to see the universal salvific will of God in the particular event of the marriage feast. If Jesus acts, he is going to act in fulfilment of God's universal salvific will and not merely to solve the problem of a newly-wed couple. Somehow, the limitation of Mary's expectation does not lie in asking too much. It lies in asking too little! And this is true, even if, as I believe, she had been asking for a miracle!

Having stressed so much the "divergence" between Jesus and his mother revealed by Jesus' question: "What have you to do with me?", a further point should be made to obtain a more balanced appreciation of Jesus' meaning. That is, we must be careful not to give too negative an import to Jesus' sharp questions in v.4. I say "questions" in the plural because also the second part of v.4 probably ought to be translated as a question, thus: "Has my hour not now come?", so that the whole verse actually should run thus: "Woman, what have you to do with me? Has my hour not yet come?" (4)

Jesus is questioning Mary's relation to him. He questions this relation because of the hour (not yet come, if 4b is translated as a statement; somehow already come and not yet come, if 4b is translated as a question. A question, in fact. is neither an affirmation, nor a negation!).

"A question is a question". (5) Attention to this fact should help us to understand better the meaning of Jesus' questions in v.4. In v.4a Jesus is not denying Mary's relationship to him. He questions it. His questioning shows that there is a certain divergence of view between him and his mother. Now a question can have both a positive and a negative answer. It is typical of Jesus' questions in John's Gospel that the context of the whole Gospel provides both positive and negative answers to Jesus' questions. In the case of Jesus' question here, Jesus is denying the continued validity of a merely human mother-son relationship. At the same time. by this very question, Jesus is inviting Mary to enter into a new relationship with him on the plane of God's plan of salvation. Jesus calls on Mary to become the first believing woman in a fully salvific sense. Jesus is asking Mary to become the mother of all truly "Christian" believers.

Truly, Cana is a prefiguration of the Stabat Mater. At the cross, too, Jesus asks Mary to renounce considering herself his mother. He asks her to become mother of the disciple whom he loves. He asks her to become such insofar as she is the first "faithful" woman. The old Mary-Jesus mother-Son relationship is set aside; a new Mary-disciple mother-son relationship is established.

If we pass on to v.4b, there is additional room for wonder. Mary's remark about the lack of wine has given rise in Jesus' mind to the thought of the "hour" that will "manifest his glory". This fact is pointed out also by Gourgues, who, in a parenthesis, says: "Jesus thinks of the glory-manifesting sign because his mother's request induced him to do so". Gourgues does not stop to ask why this should be so. Moreover, Mary's remark not only kindles the thought of the "sign", but also that of the "hour". The two realities, naturally, are related. The sign manifests Jesus' glory. The hour is the hour of the glorification of the Son of man (12:23), The "hour" is in reality the "sign" par excellence, the Paschal Event that fully reveals the Father's glory in the person of Jesus.

Now we should stop and ask: Why should Mary's remark be capable of so much? Capable of stirring up the thought of the Paschal Event in Jesus' mind? Would it be capable of doing so if her request were totally within the confines of a purely human perspective? Does not Jesus' reference to the hour rather show that there is more to Mary's request than meets the eye? We must recognize that there is a depth in Mary's request that is difficult for us to fathom. I would propose that the following is a less inadequate assessment of Mary's expectation: Even though Mary's request does not match Jesus' expectation, still it has a depth which we are not able to fully understand.

This being the case, I further propose that the best exegetical attitude is one of silent pondering on things greater than us: "What deep understanding existed between Jesus and his mother? How can we probe the mystery of their intimate spiritual union?" (Redemptoris Mater, n. 21).

2.This procedure is at odds with the one adopted in Mary in the New Testament, edited by R. E. Brown and others and regarded by many as a standard study of Mary in the New Testament. In my opinion, the exegetical method adopted in this book is unacceptable. It results in a minimalist, least-common-denominator type of exegesis. A typical example of the conclusions such a method leads to may be the following. Dealing with the origin of the Christian faith in the virginal conception of Jesus, the majority membership of the task force behind the book suggests that "the 'catalyst' for the notion [of Jesus' virginal conception] might have been that Jesus was born prematurely (i.e. too early after Joseph and Mary came to live together－cf. Mt 1:18, a 'fact' which was interpreted by his enemies in terms of his illegitimacy, and by Christians in terms of his having been miraculously conceived. The tenuousness of this hypothesis was acknowledged". This hypothesis is not merely tenuous, it is ludicrous and preposterous. It lays its proponents open to the reproach levelled by Dostoyevsky against "the scholars of this world" more than a hundred years ago: " They have only investigated the parts and overlooked the whole, so much so that one cannot help being astonished at their blindness" (The Brothers Karamazov, Penguin, Harmondsworth 1982, p. 199). Dostoyevsky was no exegete. But he was a Christian. He knew what he vas talking about. Here is an astonishingly perceptive comment of his on the Cana story: '"And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him. They have no wine,' Alyosha heard. 'Oh yes, I nearly missed that, and I didn't want to miss it. I love that passage: it is Cana of Galilee, it's the first miracle Oh, that miracle, oh, that lovely miracle! It was not grief but men's gladness that Jesus extolled when he worked his first miracle－he helped people to be happy "He who loves men, loves their gladness"－that was what the dead man had kept repeating, that was one of his main ideas Without gladness it is impossible to live, says Mitya Yes, Mitya Whatever is true and beautiful is always full of forgiveness－that also he used to say' 'Jesus saith unto her. Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatever he saith unto you, do it.' 'Do it The gladnes, the gladness of some poor, very poor people Yes, poor, of coure, if they hadn't enough wine even at a wedding Historians write that the people living by the lake of Gennesaret and in all those places were the poorest that can possibly be imagined And another great heart of the other great being, his Mother, who was there at the time, knew that he had come down only for his great and terrible sacrifice, but that his heart was open also to the simple and artless joys of ignorant human beings, ignorant but not cunning, who had warmly bidden him to their poor wedding. "Mine hour is not yet come"－he said with a gentle smile (yes, he certainly smiled gently at her) And, surely, is was not to increase the wine at poor weddings that he came down on earth. And yet he went and did as she asked him Oh, he is reading again.'" (Ibidem, p.424). Dostoyevsky's insight into the Cana event exercises a sobering influence on our exegetical investigations. What we consider a laborious breakthrough ("his Mother [ ] knew that he had come down only for his great and terrible sacrifice"), is taken by Dostoyevsky as the self-evident starting point of his reflection!

3.This oft-repeated and yet, in my opinion, inadequate expression of the facts seems acceptable even to such a careful thinker as J. Galot. Cf. his "Marie, premiere dans la foi" in Esprit et Vie 97 (1987) 385-391.

4.This is the first sentence of a study on Jn 2:4 by A. Vanhoye: "Interrogation johannique et exegese de Cana (Jn 2:4)" Biblica 55 (1974) 157-167. Most of the insights in this sub-section and the next section are derived from this study.

5.Ibidem, p. 157.