THE FIGURE OF MARY IN THE
WEDDING FEAST AT CANA

Nicholas Lombardo

The wedding feast at Cana presents us with one of the few recorded interactions between Mary and Jesus and thus provides much insight into the figure of Mary. For centuries, the passage was almost universally interpreted as portraying Mary as having intimate relationship with Jesus and a strong faith in his divinity. Today there is much disagreement, with some reading the passage as in fact painting Mary's relationship with Jesus in a negative light. In this essay, I will examine the text and some of the various interpretations that have been offered, with the hope of producing a trustworthy and accurate exegesis. In addition, I will provide a brief analysis of what can be discerned from the passage about the Gospel portrait of Mary.

On the third day there was a wedding in Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding. When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servers, "Do whatever he tells you." Now there were six stone jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings, each holding twenty to thirty gallons. Jesus told them, "Fill the jars with water." So they filled them to the brim. Then he told them, "Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter." So they took it. And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine, without knowing where it came from (although the servers who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom and said to him, "Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now." Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs in Cana in Galilee and so revealed his glory, and his disciple began to believe in him. (John 2:1-11, The New American Bible)

As a whole, the passage is centered primarily on Christ, but its secondary concern with "the mother of Jesus" is also very strong.

The very fact that the mother of Jesus is mentioned in the first verse, which supplies the setting for the scene, and that she raises the question concerning the wine, clearly directs the reader's attention to her and her expectations.[1]

For whatever reason, then, John wants to call attention to Mary, and it can be inferred that he wants to especially call attention to her relationship with Jesus (the fact that he describes her not by her given name but as "the mother of Jesus" supports this[2]).

When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine."

Although it is a disputed point, it seems clear that Mary is (a) explicitly requesting Jesus' assistance and (b) asking for something more than just a mundane solution, because otherwise it is difficult to make sense of Jesus's reply.[3] She is asking for a miracle: "Mary at Cana believes in the Messiah and His power to perform miracles, and that is why she asks Him to perform one: 'They have no more wine.'"[4] She displays deep faith in the process; she does not indicate any sort of doubt in her Son's power. The scene also demonstrates a motherly concern on the part of Mary for the practical well-being of others. In sum, so far John has portrayed Mary in a very positive light: (a) she manifests deep faith in her Son and (b) she manifests attentive concern towards the well-being of the wedding party (who, it should be noted, had not even noticed the problem themselves, and would have been humiliated if it had come to everybody's attention.[5])

And Jesus said to her, "Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come."

The significance of Jesus' use of the word "woman" is obscure. There is no evidence that "woman" was a common Aramaic form of address of one's mother; however, "woman" is a normal, polite form of address that Jesus used in other parts of John's Gospel.[6] Some suggest that the term of address indicates that Jesus was annoyed at Mary's request, but such an interpretation is untenable. One of the strongest reasons for this is that Jesus uses the same word "woman" to address Mary from the cross (cf. John 19:25-27), a time at which Jesus could not have any imaginable reason for being annoyed with Mary.[7]

Jesus's question, "how does your concern affect me?" cannot be interpreted apart from an understanding of the idiomatic Semitic expression behind the Greek. Literally, the expression translates as "What to me and to thee."[8] Mary and the New Testament provides the following semantic analysis:

The Semitism, "What to me and to you", has at least two shades of meaning in the Hebrew OT: (1) When one party is unjustly bothering another, the injured party may use this phrase, meaning, "What have I done to you that you should do this to me?". . . (2) When someone is asked to get involved in something which he feels is no business of his, he may use the phrase, meaning: "That is your business; how am I involved?"[9]

Clearly, in the context of Jesus's reply, the second meaning comes into play.

A further clarification might be had in translating the phrase as "Why should this concern either you or me?" -- in other words, not just "Why should I make your business mine?" but "Why should this be the business of either of us?" This view is supported by M.-J. Lagrange:

Were we to consider the Greek alone we should be inclined to translate the words as meaning: 'What is there between thee and me?' Not only would that be very harsh, but, if we consider the relations between a son and his mother or the circumstances of this situation, where there is no occasion for a family quarrel, such a translation would be absolutely meaningless...All that Jesus says, therefore, to His Mother is that there is no occasion for either of them to intervene in the matter: to do so would cause a sensation, and the time has not yet arrived for Him to draw attention to Himself.[10]

Hence, Jesus' reply should not be regarded as harsh or as indicative of annoyance. To argue so would be discordant with the other Gospels: Jesus sometimes refuses a request, but nowhere else is he ever annoyed to the point of harshness with somebody who sought to obtain the well-being of others through his assistance, as Mary was doing. Now, his reply is, of course, enigmatic, as are many other parts of the Gospels -- why would he express reluctance and then perform the miracle? -- but it is just enigmatic and does not a priori indicate that Jesus was upset that Mary asked for the miracle.

There is much debate over what exactly "hour" refers to in "My hour has not yet come." John McHugh lists no less than 5 major lines of interpretations.[11] For the most part, they boil down to two main alternatives: either "hour" refers only to the Paschal events of the Passion, Crucifixion, and Resurrection, or it extends also to the public manifestation of Jesus as the Messiah. In light of the fact that Jesus goes on to perform the miracle, something that he implied could only be done once his hour had come, it seems clear that "hour" must here refer to the manifestation of Jesus as the Messiah.

But regardless of what exactly "hour" means, it is worth noting that "My hour has not yet come" reads like an apology: "I'd do something, but my hands are tied." It is not a flat-out refusal. Jesus could have said, "Woman, I cannot do anything now. The time isn't right." But he doesn't: he rather presents his predicament to Mary without making a definitive statement of what he is willing to do. In fact, he leaves it open that things will change: "the time is not yet right, but it will be in the future."

His mother said to the servers, "Do whatever he tells you."

Each round of the brief exchange adds to the mystery. Still wondering what Jesus means by his reply to Mary's innocuous observation, we are confronted by another surprise: Mary turns her attention from Jesus to say "Do whatever he tells you" to the servants, as though Jesus had expressed eagerness instead of hesitancy to perform the requested miracle. What motivated Mary to make such a bold move?

Here is where the crux of any interpretation of the Cana episode must rest, at least as regards the person of Mary. As enigmatic as Jesus's reply is, the real question is how we interpret Mary's boldness. Although there are a wide variety of interpretations, there are basically two alternatives: either John here presents Mary as sharing some deep communion with Jesus that encouraged her to be persistent in face of his apparent reluctance, or she grossly misunderstood her Son and abused her maternal privileges (well intentioned or not) to get him to perform a miracle.

The former interpretation is far more convincing for the simple reason that Jesus does, after all, perform the miracle. Some people posit that there was a non-verbal signal in Jesus's reply or immediately after that told Mary that she should be persistent.[12] While that is quite possible -- John doesn't always mention important non-verbal events explicitly, like when Mary Magdalene falls to the feet of Jesus and embraces him after the Resurrection (cf. John 20:17-18) -- it is unnecessary to posit such an exchange. The point is that Mary and Jesus know each other very well. John Paul II reflects on what the Cana episode says about their relationship as follows:

"What deep understanding existed between Jesus and his mother? How can we probe the mystery of their intimate spiritual union? But the fact speaks for itself."[13]

If we read the text without any assumptions about how John could or could not possibly have intended to portray the relationship between Jesus and Mary, we must arrive at the conclusion that, in his account of the wedding feast at Cana, John presents Mary as having a very close relationship with Jesus.[14]

This close relationship has extraordinary theological implications. An understanding of Jesus's "hour" as the beginning of his public manifestation as Messiah coupled with the fact that Jesus does indeed perform the miracle after Mary requests it (to the benefit of both the material well-being of the wedding party and the spiritual benefit of the disciples) leads to the inescapable conclusion that Mary is intimately linked with Jesus's public manifestation as Messiah, with the beginning of his hour. John Paul II writes, "At Cana, thanks to the intercession of Mary and the obedience of the servants, Jesus begins 'his hour.'"[15] Just as Mary gave Jesus to the world at his birth, so too does she give Jesus to the world at the beginning of his public ministry: John's account shows that Mary's bold faith in her Son is the cause of the first manifestation of his status as Messiah.

It is clear also that John portrays Mary as drawing the servants the mystery of Jesus, just as she causes Jesus to intervene in the wedding. Max Thurian describes her action as follows:

Mary has so well understood the will of Christ in regard to Him and in regard to the miracle that she no more importunes her Son with an insistence that would be unfitting but turns to the servants to invite them to believe, and obey, whatever the word and the will of Jesus may be. She communicates to them in some kind of way her faith and her obedience to the Word of the all-powerful Messiah.[16]

By her mediation, Mary shows herself to be someone who places herself in the middle between Jesus and the needs of other people: she asks for Jesus' intervention for the wedding, and then she turns to the servants and asks for them to "listen" to her Son.[17] Although there are many instances throughout the Gospels of people interceding with Jesus on behalf of one close to them, there is no other instance of somebody (a) asking for help for a person of distant or ambiguous relationship or (b) coupling their intercession with an encouragement for others to "listen" to Jesus.

From this presentation of Mary's mediation at Cana, we are led to some impressive conclusions about the person of Mary as portrayed by the evangelist. John Paul summarizes some of these conclusions as follows:

It is certain that that event [i.e., the miracle] already quite clearly outlines the new dimension, the new meaning of Mary's motherhood . . . the description of the Cana event outlines what is actually manifested as a new kind of motherhood according to the spirit and not just according to the flesh, that is to say Mary's solicitude for human beings, her coming to them in the wide variety of their wants and needs. . . . Mary places herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their wants, needs and sufferings. She puts herself "in the middle," that is to say she acts as a mediatrix not as an outsider, but in her position as mother...And that is not all. As a mother, she also wishes the messianic power of her Son to be manifested..."[18]

Mary's putting herself "in the middle" isn't only one way: she does not just represent the wedding party's needs to Jesus, she represents Jesus to the servants.

Another essential element of Mary's maternal task is found in her words to the servants: "Do whatever he tells you." The Mother of Christ presents herself as the spokeswoman of her Son's will, pointing out those things which must be done so that the salvific power of the Messiah may be manifested.[19]

The wedding feast of Cana has great implications for the Gospel portrait of Mary. It places Mary's close relationship with Jesus in stark relief: (a) she is the cause of Jesus's first miracle (a miracle, it might be noted, that is almost universally viewed as a blatant foreshadowing of the transformation of the Old Covenant into the New and the redemptive transformation of humanity accomplished by Jesus on the cross) (b) she obtains the miracle even when Jesus expresses reluctance and (c) she knows Jesus so well that his apparent hesitancy does not hide his intentions from her. Perhaps more surprisingly, it also shows Mary as taking on a maternal role with respect to Jesus's disciples, in her solicitude for their material and spiritual well-being, a role that is revealed explicitly by Jesus on the cross in making her the adoptive mother of the beloved disciple (cf. Jn 19:25-27).

Some argue that this sort of interpretation reads too much into the text in order to "prove" the theological premise that Mary has an exalted relationship with her Son. Yet the alternative interpretations are the ones guilty of reading assumptions into the text: in order to explain away the disconcerting mystery of the close communion between Mary and Jesus (that allows Mary to confidently tell the servants to "Do whatever he tells you"), they postulate that Mary must have misunderstood her Son, in spite of the fact that Jesus does show himself willing to perform the miracle and does not reprove her persistence in any way. At the very least, and especially in light of the centuries-old exegetical tradition that supports it, my interpretation cannot be dismissed out of hand (as many contemporary scholars are wont to do).

[1] Raymond Brown et al, Mary in the New Testament (New York: Paulist Press, 1978) p 187.
[2] Stefano M. Manelli, F.F.I., All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed (New Bedford, MA: The Academy of the Immaculate, 1995) p 292.
[3] Such was the consensus agreement of the scholars behind Mary in the New Testament (see p. 188).
[4] Max Thurian, Mary: Mother of the Lord, Figure of the Church (Great Britain: Faith Press, 1963) p. 135.
[5] Manelli, p. 293.
[6] Cf. The New American Bible, note to John 2:4.
[7] John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975) p 362.
[8] The New Jerusalem Bible, note to John 2:4.
[9] Brown, p 191.
[10] Marie-Joseph Lagrange, O.P., The Gospel of Jesus Christ (Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1938) Vol I, p 93.
[11] Cf. McHugh, p 366.
[12] Cf. McHugh, p 367.
[13] Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater (Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1987) p 30.
[14] This should not be surprising: Mary is Jesus's mother.
[15] Pope John Paul II, p 31.
[16] Thurian, p 142.
[17] According to a common interpretation of John's allegorical meaning in this passage, the servants can be readily seen as symbolizing humanity in general and thus the instance has application to a theological understanding of Mary's relationship with humanity.
[18] Pope John Paul II, p 31.
[19] Pope John Paul II, p 31.