Hi! Funny the things I find while Googling, for your reaction on reading the Wedding at Cana is EXACTLY like mine. How can Jesus address His mother in such a disrespectful way without sinning?

Well, the explanation that most satisfies me comes from Catholic theology. Let me present it to you as I posted it at http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=6189188&postcount=198

We focus on what Jesus said to His mother when she approached Him:

And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come."

Now, as you can see, Jesus did not call the Virgin Mary as "Mother," but as "woman." Is not this disrespectful?

It could not be! For if Jesus was ever disrespectful to His Mother, then He would have sinned. Let us remember what Jesus said to the rich man:

[16]And behold, one came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" [17] And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." [18] He said to him, "Which?" And Jesus said, "You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, [19] Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." [20] The young man said to him, "All these I have observed; what do I still lack?" [21] Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." (Matthew 19:16-21 RSV)

"Honor your father and mother" is one of the prerequisites of Jesus to be perfect in the eyes of God. Therefore, being the Perfect Man, Jesus could not have disrespected His Mother with His reply to her. On the contrary, being the Perfect Man, he must ALWAYS honor His Mother. And the only way Jesus could have do this with His reply is that Woman is her honorific title!

And Jesus said to her, "O Woman (with a capital W), what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come."

Any other way of calling His Mother by "woman" is disrespectful. This should remind you of something that happened in the beginning of the Bible:

Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called WOMAN, because she was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:23 RSV)

It was Jesus Himself who named the Virgin Mary the new Eve. And Jesus called her again with this title while hanging from the Cross: "Woman, behold, your son!"

In fact, St Paul also calls her this:

But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of Woman, born under the law... (Galatians 4:4, RSV)

On what grounds have you decided that "woman" is an honorific title? Simply saying, “It must be , because Jesus used it,” will not do; and arbitrarily capitalizing the word doesn’t change matters, either. Furthermore, it is not merely the use of the word “woman” that needs explanation, but the dismissive tone of the entire reply.

On what grounds have you decided that "woman" is an honorific title? Simply saying, “It must be , because Jesus used it,” will not do; and arbitrarily capitalizing the word doesn’t change matters, either. Furthermore, it is not merely the use of the word “woman” that needs explanation, but the dismissive tone of the entire reply.

On the simple ground that if Jesus meant anything else for the name of "Woman" to the Virgin Mary, it would be disrespectful for her, and as Jesus Himself said, to be perfect one has to honor one's own parents always.

If you can think of any other way for Jesus' words in Cana to be of respect to His mother, than I would accept that explanation.

Furthermore, it is not merely the use of the word “woman” that needs explanation, but the dismissive tone of the entire reply.

Ah, but the honorific title changes everything, you see. Let me illustrate:

And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come."

Someone reading this can read this to be disrespectful, dismissive.

And Jesus said to her, "O Mother, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come."

Someone reading this can also still look at this as disrespectful/dismissive, but others can also begin to read this as being delivered in a soft, respectful way, as Jesus was trying to explain His situation to His mother.

See how just changing the name of Mary can change the tone of the sentence?

Now let us see what happens when we change "woman" to "Woman":

And Jesus said to her, "O Woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come."

Maybe it is hard to see the change? Well, let us change the context, which is still true if Jesus really meant "woman" to be "Woman":

And Adam said to her, "O Eve, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come."

Or even, as Catholic Theologians see this:

And the King said to her, "O Queen Mother, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come."

So, if we presuppose that “woman” is an honorific title, change “w” to “W,” or change “woman” to “Mother” or, better yet, “Queen Mother” . . .

Yes, I’ll agree, changing everything changes everything. Now seriously, how do you explain it without changing the text to fit your presuppositions?

One step at a time, David ^___^ I can give you the answer for that, but have you answered my first question yet?

Have you found a better way for Jesus' words in Cana to be of respect to His mother?

No, I haven’t, nor do I need to. I’ve made no assertions in that regard that I need to substantiate; you have. I stated at the beginning that I don’t know the answer. It is you that is on the defense, not I. You’ve made your assertions; now you must prove them.

Alright, fair enough.

Yes, I’ll agree, changing everything changes everything. Now seriously, how do you explain it without changing the text to fit your presuppositions?

If you followed my arguments, I only made three presumptions:

1) Jesus is the Perfect Man, and being perfect He follows all the commands of the Father perfectly and always.

2) Everything that was recorded in the Gospel of St. John actually happened.

3) Him being the Fulfillment of the Law, everything that Jesus did must be a fulfillment of the Old Covenant, and thus the New Testament must have parallels in and fulfillments of the Old Testament.

Now, Jesus said that one of those commandments is "Honor thy father and mother" (Matthew 19:19). And yet Jesus seemingly was disrespectful to His mother when he said at the wedding in Cana, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come."

If that is so, then my first presumption would be wrong! But we cannot erase what Jesus said, for it was stated in the Gospel of St John (my second presumption), and as we know that it was St. John who took care of the Virgin Mary after the death and resurrection of Christ (John 19:26-27) (aside from the fact that the "beloved disciple" was in the event at the time), this was most probably a first-hand account.

Therefore, we must say that what Jesus said in John 2:4 was in fact respectful and honoring His mother. And the only way that Jesus had done this is by Jesus' calling her of "woman" to be her honorific title...unless you have a better explanation, David.

And yet, what is this honorific title of "Woman"? The only answer I can find is in the Old Testament:

Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called WOMAN, because she was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:23)

Therefore, this could be an example of my presumption #3: As Jesus is the New Adam, Mary could be the New Eve.

----o----

Now, is there a proof for this, that Mary could be the New Eve? The Early Church Fathers found one, and being a physician and knowing some things about this, I have to agree. And surprisingly, it is in the New Testament:

And she [Mary] gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. (Luke 2:7, RSV)

Now think about that for a while. Have you ever seen a mother give birth, especially to her first born? The pain is not only very intense but also very exhausting, as the pain of labor lasts for several hours, even up to a day, before birth. Even today, natural spontaneous delivery is still a very exhausting, even paralyzing process for mothers, especially mothers of their first born.

Now let us go to Mary's situation. This was a time of no anesthesia. Mary had just finished her travel with her husband from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the imperial census.

And yet Jesus was given birth, was wrapped by Mary in swaddling clothes, and laid in a bed by His own mother right after birth!

What is interesting here is the possible explanations for this passage:

1) Joseph was an careless husband who was away when his wife gave birth.

2) Joseph, and any other person who was attending to Mary's delivery, was inept enough to let Mary (who should be resting) clean her Son, wrap Him, and lay Him on a bed of hay after giving birth.

3) Mary had superhuman endurance to pain and exhaustion.

4) Mary experienced no pain and hardship during her birthing.

5) The account of Luke is misleading; Jesus was born a few days before Mary wrapped Him in swaddling clothes and laid Him in a manger, or Mary was not the one who first cleaned and wrapped Jesus in swaddling clothes.

----o----

Now that is for the "New Eve" part. We will go to the "Queen Mother" part in the near future.

Thank you David for your time.

God bless!

You’ll have to pardon my slow response. Believe it or not blogging is not my life. But I’ll try to continue this to the end, if you’ll be patient.

If Genesis 2:23 (“the only answer [you] can find”) proves that “woman” is an honorific title, then “man” is at least as honorific, if not more so. I’m afraid that doesn’t satisfy at all. On that count, I think you’re still stuck with “it must be, because I can’t think of any other explanation.”

I don’t know why I should consider the possibility that Mary “could be” the new Eve. “Could be” is mere speculation. Furthermore, there is no hint in Scripture (that I’m aware of) that there is a second Eve, so why should I look for one?

As for your Patristic proof, I guess I’m probably not getting your point. I don’t see how Mary’s birthing experience is relevant. I’m assuming that you’re going with explanation 3, 4, or both. Even if those were true, I don’t see how that would make her the new Eve, since Scripture mentions no such person.

In any case, to follow this tangent a bit, you left out two possibilities:

1) Joseph was there (of which I have no doubt) and helped Mary with the immediate care of Jesus.

2) Mary — after a perfectly normal birth, pain, exhaustion and all — did indeed wrap Jesus in clothes and lay him in the manger.

1 is probable, 2 is not at all far-fetched (see below). I would guess it was a combination of both.

I should tell you that I do have some experience with these things. I’ve been present at all of my children’s births; I’ve delivered six of them at home, two with the direction of a midwife, and four on my own. In each case, my wife held the baby immediately and could have done the diapering and dressing had I not done it myself. Primitive peoples have been known to give birth under much more difficult circumstances than Mary. Even now, in this country, there are women — feminist hippies, or some such oddities — who take pride in giving birth entirely alone. Crazy, but true! So even in your worst-case scenario (Mary was entirely alone), I don’t buy the necessity of any miraculous circumstances. Mary was a woman like any other, and there is no reason to believe the birth of Jesus was anything but normal.

But, like I said, that has no bearing on the existence of a new Eve.