The popular interpretation of this scripture always bothered me. I was taught that Mary essentially forced Jesus into a miracle. That his mother came to him and told him to solve the wine shortage, which he did even though he says his time has not come. That seems to be inconsistent with who Jesus is and how he worked. He always only did the will of his father. If his time had not come then nothing Mary could say would make him go against the father's will.
It occurred to me that we could see this conversation from a different angle. I'm sure others have thought of this and maybe theologians will explain why the popular interpretation is used instead. I'm no theologian.
Imagine Mary coming to Jesus at the feast telling him there is no more wine. This is tantamount to saying, "Time to go home Jesus. The wine is finished. The party is over." Jesus, being Jesus says, " Don't tell me that, I'm not leaving. I haven't done what I need to do here." Jesus knows he has a miracle to do here. The time for leaving is not now. Mary, realising that Jesus has something up his sleeve, tells the servants to do whatever he asks. I'm not convinced that Mary knew Jesus could turn water into wine, he had never done something like that before or showed any signs of things like that, but I think she was confident that he would do something.
This seems to be consistent with how John describes Jesus' response when his brothers urge him to go to the Feast. Again there he says, "My time has not come, it's not time for me to go to Judea yet."
To me, that perspective fits better with who Jesus was and how a typical Mother/Son relationship might work.
No comments:
Post a Comment