The evidence of Mary’s faith and the effectiveness of that faith is definitely there in the wedding at Cana, and by analogy the effectiveness of our faith. It must also be true though, that Christ’s hour truly had not yet come since that is what Christ said. God would not lie to make a demonstration.
The study that NYer posted sort of skirts the issue by saying “In order to call attention to that all-important element which made Him advance, as it were, the hour of His miracles - namely, Mary’s abiding faith in His Divine Omnipotence.” The “as it were” there is precious since it skirts any explanation for the mystery of God’s interaction with prayer and human free will . . .
I’m sort of drawn to the vision of Leibniz of the best of all possible worlds with God solving the “problem” of existence and salvation in the best possible way . . . with events such as Mary asking him to perform a miracle before “his time” factored in . . . so that there was a “better” outcome if he could have waited, but that outcome could not be within his plan, which was the best plan possible incorporating all actual exercises of free will, including Mary’s action. Of course I’m out on a limb, and sinking fast, with the shore barely in sight, and the fog is getting thick . . . which is why it might be best to just say something like “as it were” . . . instead.
Thank you for your time. Do not take my views with anything less than multiple grains of salt.
I just don't see the problem -- certainly there's no need to make it into "a lie". (I do, however, very much appreciate the opportunity to dig into the passage with you!)
It's probably too easy to make this into an argument between Jesus and Mary, and thus to conclude that Jesus changed His mind or some such. That seems wrong.
John doesn't bother to tell us whether Jesus was upset, or if He said it with a knowing smile. But we can't neglect family dynamics, and the way we talk to our own family members. It reads to me like the "fake stern" tone we all use from time to time. You can easily imagine them communicating their real messages with a glance and a smile.
In that scenario, Mary's simple and direct response ("do what He tells you") would reflect the unspoken part of the conversation -- and the story does read as if Jesus was really saying, "Of course I'll do it, but let's keep it quiet, OK?"
It can't be the case that Jesus was pushed into public prematurely and against His will. By this point, He's already been baptized, the Holy Spirit has come upon Him like a dove, He's been identified as the Messiah, and started gathering Disciples. His public ministry has already started!
So we need to look at it differently, recognizing that John is big on symbolism and foreshadowing. Look at the exchange:
When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine."And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come."
His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
In a symbolic sense, this exchange pretty much encapsulates why Jesus came in the first place. It's just not the time or place for it to actually take place as intended -- but it doesn't mean that He has no intention of dealing with the present, more worldly problem of the wine at the wedding.
Looked at another way, the wine at the wedding seems to foreshadow the wine at the Last Supper. Offering wine at this feast, could stand for the wine of the Eucharistic Feast. "His hour" could be the time when He said, "this is My blood".
Jesus doesn't offer His own blood this time -- He can't, because it has to be followed by His death and resurrection. But the scene foreshadows the end, right at the beginning (John is careful to say this was His first sign).
It we see it simply as foreshadowing, it becomes a whole lot less problematic.