Posted on 12/07/2007 1:41:57 PM PST by NYer
|
Mary and Mount Sinai
First, Mary’s words recall the typical response for covenant obedience in the Old Testament. For example, the theme of doing whatever God tells you appeared three times when Israel established its covenant with Yahweh at Mount Sinai. When Moses first announced to the Israelites their mission and the duties of being God’s chosen people, the whole congregation responded, "All that the Lord has spoken we will do" (Ex. 19:8). And when God established this covenant with Israel in a ritual ceremony at Sinai, Moses solemnly announced the words of the Lord to the people, and the congregation twice responded, "All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do" (Ex. 24:3, 7).
Similar words were repeated later in Israel’s history when they renewed their covenant as they settled in the Promised Land (Josh. 24:24) and when they began to rebuild Jerusalem after their exile in Babylon (Neh. 5:12). Thus, at the pivotal moments in Israel’s history — the covenant at Sinai, entering the Promised Land, the restoration of Jerusalem — doing whatever God says is paramount and is closely associated with covenant obedience.
This sheds light on Mary’s words at the wedding feast of Cana. At the dawn of the messianic era, a new turning point in Israel’s history has arrived. As the Messiah is about to perform His first miracle and thereby launch His public ministry, we once again encounter the theme of doing whatever God says. Mary tells the servants, "Do whatever he tells you," and with these words she echoes Israel’s profession of faith at Sinai. Mary "personifies in a certain manner the people of Israel in the context of the covenant" and stands as a faithful representative of Israel.1
Joseph and Jesus
Second, Mary’s words find a close parallel with what Pharaoh said about Joseph in the Book of Genesis. During the severe famine in Egypt, Pharaoh put Joseph in charge of storing up the wheat harvest in the plentiful years before the famine and distributing it once the food crisis arrived. When the starving people cried for provisions, Pharaoh told them, "Go to Joseph; what he says to you, do" (Gen. 41:55) — an expression almost identical to what Mary would later say at Cana.
This Biblical connection between doing whatever Joseph says and doing whatever Jesus says is quite significant, for there are several parallels between Joseph and Jesus in these two scenes. Just as Joseph overcame a lack of food during the famine with his storehouses of grain, so Jesus overcomes a lack of wine at the wedding by changing a large volume of water into wine. Just as Joseph is presented as having the Spirit of God in him at the beginning of his work (Gen. 41:38), so Jesus is described as having the Spirit upon Him at the start of His ministry (Jn. 1:32). Just as Joseph was 30 years old when he began to store up the grain for the people (Gen. 41:46), so Jesus is 30 years old when He provides the wine for people at the wedding feast (see Lk. 3:23). And just as Pharaoh’s words about Joseph — "what he says to you, do" — came when Joseph enters into his reign, so Mary’s words — "do whatever he tells you" — come when Jesus begins His public ministry with the first miracle in His kingly mission.
The Third Passover
|
John Paul II said these first two Passover miracles — involving wine at Cana and bread in the wilderness — anticipate the greatest miracle which would take place on the third Passover: the changing of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. |
Mary’s words also contain Eucharistic significance. This can be seen when we consider how John’s Gospel is structured around three Passover feasts that span the course of three years.
Each of the three Passovers in John’s Gospel occasions a miracle involving bread or wine or both. The first Passover comes near the time of the wedding feast at Cana (see Jn. 2:13 and preceding verses), when Jesus changes water into wine in a time of need. The second Passover brings a second miracle in which Jesus provides an abundance in a time of need: the multiplication of loaves to feed the 5,000 (Jn. 6:4). In his general audience on March 5, 1997, John Paul II said these first two Passover miracles — involving wine at Cana and bread in the wilderness — anticipate the greatest miracle which would take place on the third Passover: the changing of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.
Jesus performed this miracle near the time of the Jewish feast of Passover (cf. Jn. 2:13), as he did in multiplying the loaves (cf. Jn. 6:4). He thus showed his intention to prepare the true paschal banquet, the Eucharist. His desire at the wedding in Cana seems to be emphasized further by the presence of wine, which alludes to the blood of the New Covenant, and by the context of a banquet. In this way . . . Mary obtained the miracle of the new wine which prefigures the Eucharist, the supreme sign of the presence of her risen Son among the disciples.
In the wider context of John’s Gospel, therefore, Mary’s command at Cana may have Eucharistic undertones, for the "good wine" that Mary leads the servants to is itself a foreshadowing of the supernatural wine of the Eucharist.
Trust Without Hesitation
Now let’s consider how Mary’s command "Do whatever he tells you" has profound effects on the servants, inspiring them to trust Jesus in a radical way. Just put yourself in the servants’ shoes. Jesus tells them to take the six stone jars for the Jewish rites of purification, fill them up with water, and draw some out to present to the steward of the feast. These stone jars would have been used for ritual washings of hands (and possibly feet). Astonishingly, Jesus tells the servants to fill up these very jars with water and then present their contents to their boss for serving as drink for the guests.
This would take a lot of faith! Imagine what the servants are thinking: "Fill up these jars? With water? And serve it to the guests? How is this going to solve the problem?" From a human perspective, Jesus’ plan does not make any sense. Yet first and foremost, Jesus is asking the servants not to understand His plan, but to trust Him.
Similarly, we may not always grasp Jesus’ work in our lives. We may not see clearly where the Lord is leading us. Yet, as John Paul II reminded us in his general audience on February 26, 1997, Mary’s command "Do whatever he tells you" challenges us to trust Him without hesitation not only when it makes sense to us, but "especially when one does not understand the meaning or benefit of what Christ asks."
Mary Inspires Prompt Obedience
With this background, we can see how Mary’s words "Do whatever he tells you" inspire the servants to tremendous faith. John’s Gospel, in fact, highlights how the servants respond as faithful disciples, promptly following Christ’s commands, no matter how mysterious those commands might appear to be.
Jesus gives two orders to the servants. First, He tells them, "Fill the jars with water." John’s Gospel immediately points out that the servants not only obeyed Christ’s command, but did so perfectly: "And they filled them up to the brim" (Jn. 2:7). Second, Jesus tells them, "Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast," and John’s Gospel notes "they took it" (Jn. 2:8). Notice how John’s Gospel goes out of its way to tell us that the servants did exactly as they were told.
| Jesus | The Servants |
| "Fill the jars" | "They filled them" (Jn. 2:7) |
| "Take it to the steward" | "They took it" (Jn. 2:8)2 |
Clearly, these servants followed Mary’s exhortation, "Do whatever he tells you." As such, they are portrayed as faithful disciples, obedient to Christ’s words.3
The Return of the Bridegroom
|
In the future era when God would rescue Israel from its enemies, there would be a great feast of wine (Is. 25:6) with wine overflowing in abundance (Amos 9:13-14; Joel 2:24; 3:18). In light of this background, the large quantity of wine at the feast in Cana would signal that the Old Testament prophecies about the messianic era are coming to fulfillment. |
Finally, Mary’s words "Do whatever he tells you" spoken in the context of a wine miracle and a wedding feast help reveal Jesus as the messianic Bridegroom coming to renew His marriage covenant with His bride, Israel.
Consider the rich symbolism of wine for the ancient Jews. First, the prophets used wine imagery to foretell the restoration of Israel and the coming of the Messiah. In the future era when God would rescue Israel from its enemies, there would be a great feast of wine (Is. 25:6) with wine overflowing in abundance (Amos 9:13-14; Joel 2:24; 3:18). In light of this background, the large quantity of wine at the feast in Cana would signal that the Old Testament prophecies about the messianic era are coming to fulfillment.
Second, wine also had marital symbolism, as it celebrated the joyful union of bride and groom in the Song of Solomon (Song 1:2, 4; 4:10; 5:1; 7:9; 8:2). Thus the centrality of wine in the context of a wedding feast at Cana would bring to mind the love between husband and wife.4
This has important implications, for in the Old Testament, God’s covenant with Israel was described as a marriage relationship. Yahweh was the divine Bridegroom, who married His bride, Israel, in the covenant at Sinai. When Israel was obedient to the covenant, she was described as a faithful spouse. But later, when Israel broke covenant with Yahweh and began worshipping other gods, she was seen as an unfaithful wife, an adulterer, or even a harlot (see Jer. 2:1-2; 3:1-12; Ezek. 16; Hos. 2).
Nevertheless, the prophet Hosea announced that Yahweh would remain faithful to Israel even though she was unfaithful to Him. In fact, God one day would woo Israel’s heart back to Him and renew their relationship in a marriage covenant that would endure forever (Hos. 2:19-20).
In the first century, Jews were longing for their Messiah to come and for their divine bridegroom to heal and restore their covenant of love just as Hosea had foretold. That Jesus chose to have His first miracle provide an abundance of wine in the context of a wedding feast is intentional. It signals that the messianic Bridegroom has finally arrived to usher in the great feast and reunite Himself to His bride, the fallen people of Israel.
Mary and the Bride’s Heart
|
Mary’s words reflect the heart of a bride in love with her bridegroom. Representing the faithful of Israel, Mary invites the servants, the disciples, and all of us to run after our Bridegroom’s desires, ardently seeking to fulfill whatever He wants of us. |
John’s Gospel goes out of its way to highlight this marriage symbolism, using the word "marriage" itself twice in the opening three verses of this story (Jn. 2:1-3). With this emphasis on the marriage, one would expect to read about the bride and groom. But strikingly, the narrative tells us nothing at all about the newlyweds themselves. Instead, the two main characters in the focus of this story are Mary and Jesus.
This is why some have suggested that Mary and Jesus serve as the symbolic bride and groom, heralding the restoration of the marriage covenant between Israel and Yahweh as Hosea once foretold. With Jesus, this is clear. Jesus is identified in the Gospel of John as the messianic Bridegroom (Jn. 3:29) and He is the main actor at the wedding at Cana, providing the messianic wine in the context of a marriage feast.
We already have seen how Mary represents Israel in this account, echoing Israel’s loving response to Yahweh when the covenant was first established at Mount Sinai. By saying "Do whatever he tells you," Mary recalls Israel’s original words of spousal covenant fidelity — vows that had been severely broken through centuries of sin and idolatry, but ones that are now being restored as the messianic Bridegroom begins His public ministry with His first miracle.
In this light, "Do whatever he tells you" should not be seen as a legalistic call to tediously obey an all-powerful master. Rather, Mary’s words reflect the heart of a bride in love with her bridegroom. Representing the faithful of Israel, Mary invites the servants, the disciples, and all of us to run after our Bridegroom’s desires, ardently seeking to fulfill whatever He wants of us.
Endnotes:
You fail to comprehend the distinction of Mary having been the mother of Jesus in the flesh but not the mother of Jesus - the second of the triune God-head. As God, Jesus has always existed and was not birthed by any human. As man, he came to Earth via birthing by the young woman, Mary. Scripture shows His relationship to her not being the normal one of son to mother, from the early record of Jesus being left behind, inadvertently, because He had to “tend to His Father’s business” in the temple. (Luke 2:41 - 52)
I did not say heavenly saints could not intercede for us, but that we are not to pray to them. We are to pray only to and in the name of Jesus - our high priest. The prayers of the saints mentioned in Rev 5 and 8 do not prove your point, as the word “saints” refers to any and all Christians - not those who have died in Christ. The context of these two chapters indicates that the prayers being handled by these heavenly elders and angels are those of the persecuted saints of God living on Earth during the Great Tribulation. Check out Rev 6:9 - 11.
I believe the Scriptures - I do not believe anything man says unless it line up with the Scriptures. To call Mary “the Mother of God” is to glorify a mere woman with merit that is not hers. Indeed, the Bible does not record that she sought to be looked upon as such. This is a tale of men for the worship of men. It’s heresy.
No, you don’t get it. You’re separating Jesus the Second Person of the Trinity from Jesus the man. What part of “and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” don’t you get? Are you not aware that the Word is the Second Person of the Trinity? Mary did not “create” the Second Person of the Trinity, but He grew in her womb, she gave birth to Him, and she nursed Him. That makes her the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity. “The Word became flesh.” I know it’s hard to imagine Mary changing God’s diapers, but that’s Incarnational Reality.
I don’t have a problem with saying Mary was the Mother of Jesus. She’s honored as a godly woman, not sinless, not perpetually virginal (after Christ) and not assumed into heaven.
I’m pretty sure Manfred understands that.
I find it amazing that certain protestant Freepers who don’t want to be pinged (Q...cough cough..)and who wouldn’t suffer their golden cow to be criticized and are hasty to whip out the “Judge not lest ye be judge” and “touch not the Lord’s anointed” can show up here and criticize Catholicism. Don’t you? OR am I using the wrong translation again?
I would agree with that in part. Mary did not give birth to the Father nor the Spirit. Although all three persons are coequal in the single Godhead.
She is eternal? Or the Eternal Son isn't eternal?
Uh the mother of God, queen of heaven, etc. is very strange words to me... especially when you say she is his mother in godly form. That's blasphemous!
I wouldn’t say I find it amazing, I would merely call it what it is: Hypocrisy.
Stop the presses!
We agree on something! LOL.
:-)
I knew that we agreed on this. That’s what I was referring to on the other thread where you said something about ‘translation.’
Hmmmmm
Thx
:-) No problem. ;-)
Sorry, it’s not clear at all that he understands that. His statements say otherwise. Can you read his mind?
If you say that it’s blasphemous to say that Mary is the mother of God, then you obviously didn’t understand my post above. It is blasphemy to say that she is NOT, because by doing so you deny that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity. As for Queen of Heaven, if Jesus is Christ the King, and she is His mother, then she is the Queen Mother. Check out Bathsheba and Solomon for a comparison. No matter what you say to the contrary, your statements prove the fact that you believe that Mary was just a “baby-machine.” You deny that she had any maternal role in the birth of Jesus, was just a passive bystander, and didn’t have any kind of active role in the Incarnation - such as saying “yes” to it. Holy Scripture says otherwise.
It also says in Luke that “He went home with them to Nazareth and was subject to them”.
He spent 30 years there in the presence of Joseph and Mary and learned the skill of carpentry there.
The happening of the “finding Him in the temple” was much more of a lesson for us about his age at the time—the age of the male entry into the studies of their faith—and the meaning of his loss and finding are not meant to convey agandonment or neglect, To believe so is to fail to understand the true meaning of His deliberate plan to emerge at the 12th year of life in the temple with the learned men to bring to their minds the prophecy of Isaiah, which should have given them some understanding of the fulfillment that was at hand.
How can you say that her relationship with her Son was not normal, when Sacred Scripture tells us that she nursed him and cared for Him in infancy, childhood and adolescence?
If He was “not birthed by any human”, how then was it that she bore Him in her womb? Was his flesh and blood from some other source? If so, how so?
How is it then that Scripture tells us that Elizabeth said (in Luke): “Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb”?
Doesn’t St. Paul tell us that we are the “adopted sons” of our Heavenly Father through Christ Jesus? If this is so, and we are told that it is in the Epistles, then we who have no merit of our own may inherit our sonship through the redemption of the Cross. If that is so, Mary “merits” that redemption as much as we do, and in all cases, she and we become sons (and daughters)of God the Father through the merits won for us by the Son of God. Therefore, the merits are hers just as they are ours, through Christ Jesus.
Also, are those “persecuted saints of God living on earth during the Great Tribulation” the only saints who have died as martyrs to persecution because of the faith? If so, why is it so? Are the lives of all those who died for the faith from the time of the birth of Christianity up to the Great Tribulation to come not saints also?
Did she give birth to the Holy Spirit and to the Father?
BTW I wasn’t responding to YOUR post at that point. So make sure you check those things.
I think you're stretching the metaphor WAY too far, especially because you don't stop there, you go on to say (as all Catholics pray) "mother of God" when she is only the mother of Jesus Christ. But then... when people have to add something to the sufficiency of Christ alone to satisfy people's need for a mother figure to venerate, you end up with a lot of strange intellectual gymnastics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.