• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Jesus' reference to Mary

Status
Not open for further replies.

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
When Jesus performs his first miracle in the book of John (water to wine at the wedding), Jesus refers to his mother as Woman. Does anyone know why- was this a common way to refer to women at that time?

Different commentators read it different ways:

Albert Barnes:
John 2:4 - Woman - This term, as used here, seems to imply reproof, as if she was interfering in that which did not properly concern her; but it is evident that no such reproof or disrespect was intended by the use of the term "woman" instead of "mother." It is the same term by which he tenderly addressed Mary Magdalene after his resurrection Joh_20:15, and his mother when he was on the cross, Joh_19:26. Compare also Mat_15:28; Joh_4:21; 1Co_7:16.

What have I to do with thee? - See the notes at Mat_8:29. This expression is sometimes used to denote indignation or contempt. See Jdg_11:12; 2Sa_16:10; 1Ki_17:18. But it is not probable that it denoted either in this place; if it did, it was a mild reproof of Mary for attempting to control or direct him in his power of working miracles. Most of the ancients supposed this to be the intention of Jesus. The words sound to us harsh, but they might have been spoken in a tender manner, and not have been intended as a reproof. It is clear that he did not intend to refuse to provide wine, but only to delay it a little; and the design was, therefore, to compose the anxiety of Mary, and to prevent her being solicitous about it. It may, then, be thus expressed: "My mother, be not anxious. To you and to me this should not be a matter of solicitude. The proper time of my interfering has not yet come. When that is come I will furnish a supply, and in the meantime neither you nor I should be solicitous." Thus understood, it is so far from being a "harsh reproof," that it was a mild exhortation for her to dismiss her fears and to put proper trust in him.

Mine hour ... - My time. The proper time for my interposing. Perhaps the wine was not yet entirely exhausted. The wine had begun to fail, but he would not work a miracle until it was entirely gone, that the miracle might be free-from all possibility of suspicion. It does not mean that the proper time for his working a miracle, or entering. on his public work had not come, but that the proper time for his interposing there had not arrived.

Adam Clarke
John 2:4 - Woman, what have I to do with thee? - Τι εμοι και σοι, γυναι: O, woman, what is this to thee and me? This is an abrupt denial, as if he had said: "We are not employed to provide the necessaries for this feast: this matter belongs to others, who should have made a proper and sufficient provision for the persons they had invited." The words seem to convey a reproof to the virgin, for meddling with that which did not particularly concern her. The holiest persons are always liable to errors of judgment: and should ever conduct themselves with modesty and humility, especially in those things in which the providence of God is particularly concerned. But here indeed there appears to be no blame. It is very likely the bride or bridegroom’s family were relatives of the blessed virgin; and she would naturally suppose that our Lord would feel interested for the honor and comfort of the family, and, knowing that he possessed extraordinary power, made this application to him to come forward to their assistance. Our Lord’s answer to his mother, if properly translated, is far from being disrespectful. He addresses the virgin as he did the Syrophoenician woman, Mat_15:28; as he did the Samaritan woman, Joh_4:21, as he addressed his disconsolate mother when he hung upon the cross, Joh_19:26; as he did his most affectionate friend Mary Magdalene, Joh_20:15, and as the angels had addressed her before, Joh_20:13; and as St. Paul does the believing Christian woman, 1Co_7:16; in all which places the same term, γυναι which occurs in this verse, is used; and where certainly no kind of disrespect is intended, but, on the contrary, complaisance, affability, tenderness, and concern and in this sense it is used in the best Greek writers.

Mine hour is not yet come - Or, my time, for in this sense the word ὡρα is often taken. My time for working a miracle is not yet fully come. What I do, I do when necessary, and not before. Nature is unsteady - full of haste; and ever blundering, in consequence. It is the folly and sin of men that they are ever finding fault with the Divine providence. According to them, God never does any thing in due time - he is too early or too late: whereas it is utterly impossible for the Divine wisdom to forestall itself; or for the Divine goodness to delay what is necessary.

John Gill
John 2:4 - Jesus saith unto her, woman,.... Calling her "woman", as it was no ways contrary to her being a virgin, Gal_4:4, so it was no mark of disrespect; it being an usual way of speaking with the Jews, when they showed the greatest respect to the person spoken to; and was used by our Lord when he addressed his mother with the greatest tenderness, and strongest affection, Joh_19:26. The Jews frequently object this passage to us Christians: one of their writers his objection in this manner: "they (the Christians) say, the mother of Jesus is never called a woman their law; but here her son himself calls her a man.'' Another puts it thus: "it is their (the Christians) belief, that Mary, even after she brought forth Jesus, was a virgin; but if she was, as they say, why does not her son call her by the name of virgin? but he calls her a woman, which signifies one known by man, as appears from Joh_2:4.''
To which may be replied, that the mother of Jesus is never called a woman in the New Testament, is not said by us Christians: it is certain she is so called, both here, and elsewhere; but then this is no contradiction to her being a virgin; one, and the same person, may be a virgin, and a woman: the Abraham's servant was sent to take for wife for his son Isaac, is called a woman, though a virgin that had never known any man, Gen_24:5. Besides, we do not think ourselves obliged to maintain the perpetual virginity of Mary, the mother of our Lord; it is enough that she was a virgin when she conceived, and when she brought forth her firstborn: and as the Jews endeavour to take an advantage of this against the character of Mary, the Papists are very solicitous about the manner in which these words are said, lest they should be thought to contain a reproof, which they cannot bear she should be judged worthy of; or suggest any thing to her dishonour, whom they magnify as equal to her son: but certain it is, that the following words,

what have I to do with thee? show resentment and reproof. Some render the words, "what is it to thee and me?" and give this as the sense; what concern is this of ours? what business have we with it? let them look to it, who are the principal in the feast, and have the management of it. The Jew (r) objects to this sense of the words, but gives a very weak reason for it:
"but I say, (says he,) who should be concerned but the master of the feast? and he was the master of the feast:''
whereas it is a clear case that he was one of the guests, one that was invited, Joh_2:2, and that there was a governor or ruler of the feast, who might be more properly called the master of it than Jesus, Joh_2:8. However, since Christ afterwards did concern himself in it, it looks as if this was not his meaning. Others render it to the sense we do, "what have I with thee?" as the Ethiopic version; or "what business hast thou with me?" as the Persic version; and is the same with, מה לי ולך, "what have I to do with thee?" used in 1Ki_17:18, where the Septuagint use the same phrase as here; and such a way of speaking is common with Jewish writers (s): hereby signifying, that though, as man, and a son of hers, he had been subject to her, in which he had set an example of obedience to parents; yet, as God, he had a Father in heaven, whose business he came to do; and in that, and in his office, as Mediator, she had nothing to do with him; nor was he to be directed by her in that work; or to be told, or the least hint given when a miracle should be wrought, by him in confirmation of his mission and doctrine. Moreover, he adds,

mine hour is not yet come: meaning not the hour of his sufferings and death, in which sense he sometimes uses this phrase; as if the hint was, that it was not proper for him to work miracles as yet, lest it should provoke his enemies to seek his life before his time; but rather the time of his public ministry and miracles, which were to go together, and the one to be a proof of the other; though it seems to have a particular regard to the following miracle, the time of doing that was not yet come; the proper juncture, when all fit circumstances meeting together, it would be both the more useful, and the more illustrious: or his meaning is, that his time of doing miracles in public was not yet; and therefore, though he was willing to do this miracle, yet he chose to do it in the most private manner; so that only a few, and not the principal persons at the feast should know it: wherefore the reproof was not so much on the account of the motion itself, as the unseasonableness of it; and so his mother took it.
 
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
10,049
1,801
60
New England
✟616,144.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When Jesus performs his first miracle in the book of John (water to wine at the wedding), Jesus refers to his mother as Woman. Does anyone know why- was this a common way to refer to women at that time?

Good Day, Heatherwayno

The ECF John Chrysostom notes:

"For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, 'Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?' (Matt. xii. 48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occassion....And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee?' [John 2:4] instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much for the salvation of her soul" - John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 21)

It was a rebuke.

In Him,

Bill
 
Reactions: Kristos
Upvote 0

Kristos

Servant
Aug 30, 2006
7,379
1,068
Minnesota
✟45,052.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Pure Gold.'

Of course, he still did it.
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,446
375
72
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟53,345.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
In John 2:4, the phrase in Greek is "Ti emoi kai soi,
gunai?"

Look at this phrase word-for-word:

Ti - "What"
emoi - "to me"
kai - "and"
soi - "to you"
gunai - "woman"

So the literal translation is "What is this to me and to you, woman?"

Jesus is not saying to Mary "What does this have to with me" or "What business you have with me". He is not distancing Himself from Mary and the situation. Instead, he is distancing Himself AND His mother from the situation. In other words, He is saying that BOTH He AND His mother are involved in too great of a mission to be be worry about a wedding party running out of win.
If the term "woman" was derogatory in any sense, then there would no point for any of us to be Christians.
Since Jesus was God, He could not sin. He perfectly obeyed the commandments of God. He obeyed His Father's commands more perfectly than anyone else. One of the commandments of god is "Honor Thy father and thy mother". If Jesus meant this in any deragotory, then that means Jesus sinned againt this command, which mean Jesus is not God!

Fortunately, that is not what Jesus intended at all.
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,446
375
72
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟53,345.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
Perhaps you can explain why Jesus didn't address as "Mother of God" as well??
Could you explain why Jesus never referred to His relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit as the Trinity? Since he never used the word "Trinity" does that mean that the Trinity is a false doctrine?


And could you explain why Jesus never gave a list of the gospels and letters that should comprise the New Testament?
 
Upvote 0

Ormly

Senior Veteran
Dec 11, 2004
6,230
94
✟7,151.00
Faith
Christian

Sure. He was not part of it until He cried those words, "It is Finished". It was then a Divine Human became part of the Godhead. Up until that moment it was, ". . . the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 (KJV)
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,446
375
72
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟53,345.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
Sure. He was not part of it until He cried those words, "It is Finished". It was then a Divine Human became part of the Godhead. Up until that moment it was, ". . . the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 (KJV)
It is amazes me how Protestants say that all that we believe must be in the Bible, and then they enunciate a belief that is not in the Bible.

As far as I know there not a verse in the Bible that said that Jesus was not part of the Trinity until He cried "It is finished". Could you cite a verse that actually says this?
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,739
1,099
Carmel, IN
✟733,438.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Sure. He was not part of it until He cried those words, "It is Finished". It was then a Divine Human became part of the Godhead. Up until that moment it was, ". . . the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 (KJV)
By the way 1 John 5:7 (KJV) as you quoted it is actually acknowledged now as an early bibilical gloss that was probably added into a Latin Bible sometime after Jerome's translation. It is not found in any of the early Greek manuscripts. You can look up Johannine Comma to find more info on this.
 
Upvote 0

Doctorex

Member
Jan 5, 2008
19
4
Brisbane
✟22,659.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

While we're on the topic of what is and isn't in the Bible, along with the trinity and veneration of mary, why don't we also discuss the changing of the sabbath day to sunday, good friday (Christ's tomb was empty on Sunday morning, yet he died more than three days and three nights earlier, and that time span would have his resurrection in the afternoon, since he died at that time of day, so he must have been resurrected saturday afternoon before sundown, and his death late on a wednesday?), celebrating Christmas (let alone it being December 25th), calling church leaders "father" (Matthew 23:9), going to heaven when we die etc, the list could go on. They are all traditions of men, not the Bible.
 
Reactions: sunlover1
Upvote 0

Catholic Christian

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2007
3,948
185
63
United States
✟5,032.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
When Jesus performs his first miracle in the book of John (water to wine at the wedding), Jesus refers to his mother as Woman. Does anyone know why- was this a common way to refer to women at that time?
Its a reference to the "woman" in Genesis. Jesus is the new Adam, and Mary is the new Eve:

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." (Gen 3:15)

"Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith" St Irenaeus - (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).
 
Upvote 0

Catholic Christian

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2007
3,948
185
63
United States
✟5,032.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Because the trinity is false.

God is Trinity. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God (cf. John 8:58, 10:38, 14:10; Col. 2:9). It also clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is God (cf. Acts 5:3–4, 28:25–28; 1 Cor. 2:10–13). Everyone agrees the Father is God. Yet there is only one God (Mark 12:29, 1 Cor. 8:4–6, Jas. 2:19). How can we hold all four truths except to say all three are One God?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.