[Springfield Reformer]

Mrs. D., before you make your mind up on this reinvention of Jesus' response to the Cana request, I would ask you to consider the following, which is a rehash of some of my earlier posts on the same subject:

First, there is little doubt we are looking at an underlying Hebrew idiom, as it doesn't correspond well to any known idiomatic Greek sense.  However, that means we have some samples from the OT to compare it against: 

Judges 11:12  And Jephthah sent messengers unto the king of the children of Ammon, saying, What hast thou to do with me, that thou art come against me to fight in my land?

1 Kings 17:18  And she said unto Elijah, What have I to do with thee, O thou man of God? art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son?

2 Kings 3:13  And Elisha said unto the king of Israel, What have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother. And the king of Israel said unto him, Nay: for the LORD hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab.

2 Chronicles 35:21  But he sent ambassadors to him, saying, What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war: for God commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not.

The Hebrew phrase of interest in each of these cases is: מַה־לִּ֥י וָלָ֖ךְ

The speaker in this idiom is not talking about "you and me" versus someone else. Rather, he is setting up a contrast of interests between himself and the other person, as if to say "what [is] to you [that is also] to me?" Or put another way, what common interest exists between you and I?  See here for how the "vav" between "you" and "me" can serve more purposes than the simple "and," but can have disjunctive force when a verb is lacking.

The Greek equivalent is: Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί

Which transliterates to "ti emoi kai soi."

The Louw-Nida Semantic Range Lexicon renders this as "for what reason are you saying or doing this to me?"  If you plug that back into each of the above OT passages, it works perfectly to capture the sense.

So the phrase is definitely a challenge to the relevancy of Mary's inquiry, especially when seen in light of it's OT usage.  As rebukes go, it was quite mild, as friendly and loving as it gets, but still a challenge.  He never said He wouldn't do anything about the wine.  Only that based on His mission, she had no basis for expecting such a thing.  And yet she trusted that He would do something and He did.  So I don't see the problem here.  I understand that Rome promotes such a view of Mary that challenging her special pull with Jesus seems wrong to those who have accepted that unfounded tradition.  But that is a subjective impression.  Mary has no greater access to or influence over Jesus that any other genuine believer. Jesus said so explicitly.  It is no disrespect to her to be honest.

As for the theories of Michael Heiser, who has turned this expression into Jesus offering help to Mary, this is a person so far detached from traditional Christian theology that he doesn't even need a literal Adam:

That is, I don’t need a single real-time event involving an original human couple to know with theological certainty that all humans are mortal, that all humans sin, and that all humans are totally helpless to remedy either problem.

See it in full context at: http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2012/06/evolution-adam-additional-thoughts/

And while Mr. Heiser has outstanding credentials on paper, he also has some really loony tune ideas.  For example, His teaching on the Divine Council, where he postulates a class of true deities (sons of God) that are created beings but not angelic beings, is an intriguing idea, and very popular with Mormons. But for me it leaves his credibility as a trustworthy exegete very much in doubt.

In any event, I have reviewed his argument concerning Mary and Jesus at Cana and found it to be flippant and shallow.  By his own accounting he hasn't looked at it very hard. He does not even address the four passages which prove the expression has an adversarial sense.  

Furthermore, in this particular case, trying to convert the expression in question into "how can I help you," as MH suggests is possible, wrenches statement of Jesus into two incoherent and pathologically disconnected pieces.  Under this theory, in the first clause, He is asking "how can I help you," and in the second He is saying "it isn't time yet." Those don't go together.  It would be like saying. "How can I help you?  BTW, not now." It makes no sense.

Bottom line, I respect credentials as much as they're worth, but no more.  My dad was in education, and in dealing with gifted children on a regular basis, he concluded that even a really high intellect couldn't compensate for a failure to do the work.  Heiser admits in the last lines of the article this is a bit of lightweight fluff he's been thinking about, and it's obvious he hasn't given it serious thought at all, let alone anything like a scholarly treatment

1. He has used comparison passages for his argument that upon inspection do NOT contain the phrase in question, only bare stumps of the interrogatory "what."
2. He has overlooked a distinct pattern of usage in those passages that DO contain the exact expression
3. He doesn't even mention a critical hint in the context of John 2, Jesus' objection about it not being time yet
4. He has drawn his examples from places where only some of the words of the idiom are used, without noticing that the more compete form of the idiom appears only in adversarial form.

This is significant because if the speaker wanted to put both parties on the same side of the table, there are first person plural constructs in Hebrew for doing that ("what is that between us"), and they would make more sense to use where there is no division of purpose between the parties.  This suggests that when the two different pronouns are used (you versus me), it is precisely because a distinction in purpose is being made between the two parties.  

Bottom line, this does look like a rebuke to me, albeit a very charitable one, as God is kind to us even when we don't see his purposes quite the way He does.

Peace,

SR

[Mrs. Don-o]

THank you for this scholarly reply. I haven't been on FR much today. I'll have to study on these things at some time in the future.

'Preciate'ja, as we say in Tennessee.

[FourtySeven]

I think the only time a son can rebuke his mother is if his mother does or asks something of him that is against God’s Law, or if his mother is doing or saying something factually wrong (thus it’s actually charity to rebuke).

Otherwise, such a son is not giving his mother due respect that “Honor your Father and Mother” demands.

Mary did not ask Jesus to do anything wrong or say something factually incorrect. So to suggest He was rebuking her or in any way confrontational or adversarial with her in any way would be to suggest He broke the Command.

This is a point that Heiser also made that I’d like to see you address. How can one believe that Jesus was confrontational with his mother when she didn’t ask Him to do anything wrong or say anything wrong?

The other verses seem irrelevant to this point because again to suggest He was adversarial or confrontational with her for no good reason would be to imply he wasn’t honoring her there as he always should (or did).

[metmom]

So, if I understand what you posted correctly, what Jesus said to her was essentially.....

*Woman. What are you up to?*

Would that be a fair assessment of the context and intent?

[BlueDragon]

So the phrase is definitely a challenge to the relevancy of Mary's inquiry, especially when seen in light of it's OT usage. As rebukes go, it was quite mild, as friendly and loving as it gets, but still a challenge.

Fascinating. I guess I was a bit wrong. Thank you for your thorough and in-depth investigations and explanation.

Showing your own work, providing evidence for the how and why of things, rather than just so much more argument by assertion (which we are so often subjected to around here) is like a breath of fresh air -- and in this instance far exceeds my own meager attempts to take a stab at the issue. About the best I could do was attempt to put hedge of Scripture and theological principle around the "thingy".

Though as you say (and where I stand corrected) it was still something of a rebuke, yet not entirely...as the word rebuke can be a bit misleading -- but it more along lines of a challenging query, nonetheless?

I'm impressed you've done some homework on this, including (obviously?) having had prior introduction Michael Heiser, his "Naked Bible", and some of his own strange theology.

Yet that is not the real heart of the issue perhaps, for best sense of translation relies upon the conjunction-disjunctive as you very kindly provided link for, which demonstrated that you are not at all just making things up.

It seemed to me that "Naked bible" guy was not making things up at first, his own sense of translation agreeing widely with other translators --- until he then ventured towards guessing and making things up afterwards, in a form of musing untethered from any mooring in evidence.

Row, row, row, your boat

gently down the stream

Merrily merrily merrily merrily,

life is but a dream.

[af_vet_1981]

Bottom line, this does look like a rebuke to me, albeit a very charitable one, as God is kind to us even when we don't see his purposes quite the way He does.

I don't see a mild rebuke. I see the idiom as friendly or unfriendly, even offensive. If unfriendly, and offensive, and in public, ... As for the hour in question, I see that clearly as his hour of passion, clearly referenced elsewhere. An hour when He starts being Messiah has clearly already passed. Prior to Cana, Jesus had already been publicly identified as the Messiah and chosen at least five of his Apostles. If you say no, he had not really started his ministry yet, and perhaps he did not publicly shame her, but rebuked her privately, then she ignored or shook off his rebuke and forced the miracle, telling the servants to do whatever he told them; she forced him to perform a miracle out of season ! I find this would be even more confrontational and would invite another rebuke. If you say he rewarded her faith, why is the text silent ? It was not silent everywhere else when he approved of faith with respect to miracles. I look at this through the prism of Isaiah.

Mary was obviously trying to help some young couple who had no wine; she knew what it was to be a young wife, poor, and not even able to get a civilized room when she had her baby. She comes across as a pious woman here.

Bottom line, the interpretation you proffer, makes him seem lazy, weak or uncertain of himself, a caricature of who He really is, makes her out to be a scheming, controlling Jewish mother, a caricature of who she really is. It was a very odd Hebrew idiom to use. It had to be personal, between the two of them, and we won't know all the details until we see them.

[af_vet_1981]

First, there is little doubt we are looking at an underlying Hebrew idiom, as it doesn't correspond well to any known idiomatic Greek sense. However, that means we have some samples from the OT to compare it against:

It seems to me there is another example in the second book of Samuel but it follows the others in that David the King does not agree with the advice of the sons of Zeruiah. Yet here, we see that Messiah does a miracle to solve the problem Mary brought before him. St Irenaeus in Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 16 has an interesting perspective. He seems to think that The Lord was checking the "untimely haste" of Mary to partake, before the time, of "the cup", but despite that nothing at Cana was out of due season. It was really about the cup of redemption at His last Passover. I hadn't thought of the phrase from that angle. Yet He did "the wonderful miracle" and "WithHim is nothing incomplete or out of due season." So Mary was intended to ask, and He was intended to do the miracle, and perhaps it was a lesson of some sort to desire nothing before the time. The fascination with end times prophecy comes to mind. I remember the question if the Apostles to Him as to would He at that time restore the kingdom to Israel ! We don't consider that a sin on their part, nor rudeness or disrespect on his. He was simply telling them not yet, although He did the miracle at Cana. I'm just soul dreaming here.

St. Irenaeus

With Him is nothing incomplete or out of due season, just as with the Father there is nothing incongruous. For all these things were foreknown by the Father; but the Son works them out at the proper time in perfect order and sequence. This was the reason why, when Mary was urging [Him] on to [perform] the wonderful miracle of the wine, and was desirous before the time to partake of the cup of emblematic significance, the Lord, checking her untimely haste, said, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come”—waiting for that hour which was foreknown by the Father. This is also the reason why, when men were often desirous to take Him, it is said, “No man laid hands upon Him, for the hour of His being taken was not yet come;” nor the time of His passion, which had been foreknown by the Father; as also says the prophet Habakkuk, “By this Thou shalt be known when the years have drawn nigh; Thou shalt be set forth when the time comes; because my soul is disturbed by anger, Thou shalt remember Thy mercy.” Paul also says: “But when the fulness of time came, God sent forth His Son.” By which is made manifest, that all things which had been foreknown of the Father, our Lord did accomplish in their order, season, and hour, foreknown and fitting, being indeed one and the same, but rich and great. For He fulfils the bountiful and comprehensive will of His Father, inasmuch as He is Himself the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Lord of those who are under authority, and the God of all those things which have been formed, the only-begotten of the Father, Christ who was announced, and the Word of God, who became incarnate when the fulness of time had come, at which the Son of God had to become the Son of man.