Unlike many Latter-day
Saints, I have a strong interest in Mariology (the theology of the person and
work of the Mother of Jesus). Perhaps it is due to being a graduate of a
Catholic seminary and interacting with much of Catholic theology and
apologetics on Rome’s Marian dogmas. Furthermore, I have noticed that there is
little serious discussion of Mary from Latter-day Saints, perhaps due to Rome’s
Mariolatry. However, Mary is an important topic in both the New Testament and
theology. I offer the following excerpts from an interesting study of Mary by
Martin Miguens, Mary: “The Servant of the Lord” (Boston: Daughters of St.
Paul, 1978), a work that various Catholic apologists have appealed to (e.g. Scott Hahn; Art Sippo):
It is the commonly accepted view that the “surname” kecharitomene
has to be connected with the phrase, “you have found grace in the sight of the
Lord,” so that it becomes a sort of expression and explanation of the surname.
Thus the surname under discussion certainly connotes the concept of choice and election
by God: Mary has been graced with the privilege of God’s choice, election, and
commission for the pursuit of this plans; she becomes “the one who has been
graced” with God’s election. The contents of the kecharitomene are illustrated
by certain concepts in the calling of the Servant who becomes “the chosen one”
(bahir; LXX, ho eklektos: Is 42:1; 45:4; 43:20), whom God evaluates
in these terms: “You are previous in my sight, you are valuable; and I love
you” (Is 43:4); in other words, he is “my chosen one in whom my soul
delights” (42:1). Cyrus too, was loved by God (48:14). (pp. 43-44)
The evangelist understands that the reason why Mary is to be “called
blessed” is her maternity. Only Mary’s maternity is contemplated. Such is certainly
the case with Elisabeth, who declares Mary blessed among women at the same time
that she declares in the same sentence (kai) the “fruit of her womb”
blessed also; the surprise of Elisabeth is that “the mother of My Lord” should
pay a visit to her; Mary is “blessed” because she believed in the realisation
of what the Lord “has said to her,” which is nothing but the preceding message
of her calling. The case is not different with Luke and his community. Whatever
the syntactic relation between v. 48 and 49, the logical connection is obvious:
all generations will call Mary blessed “because the Powerful one has done great
things to me.” The context does not suggest any concept with which to link the
great things or wonders of God done “to my” except Mary’s maternity, in which
God showed himself to be “the powerful one” who intervened through “the power
of the Most High” (1:35). The point is relevant because it proves that the real
foundation of Mary’s “blessedness” in the eyes of Luke and his community (and
of Elisabeth) is her maternity: she begins to be declared blessed “from now
one,” from the very first moment that her maternity because known to others.”
(P. 58)
[On Elizabeth calling Mary the “mother of my Lord”] The passage of Mk
12:36f (Lk 20:41) is evidence in New Testament times the statement “Yahweh said
to my lord” (etc., Ps 110:1) was understood in a messianic sense: the
entire sentence describes the royal enthronement of the Messiah king. The whole
atmosphere refers us to the conceptual world of the Old Testament where the
king himself is often addressed as “my lord” (1 Kings 1:13-47); the title
applies also to all persons of some distinction. On the other hand, if it was
believed that David called the Messiah “my lord” (Ps 110:1), everybody else in
the Israelite community could follow his example. In other words, in Elisabeth’s
praise the term “my lord” is a respectful and courtly description of the Messiah;
it is, in practical terms, a messianic title related to the royal dignity of “the
son of David” title to whom
the “throne” of Davidic given, who will “be king over the house of Jacob,” and
whose “kingdom” will have no end—this is in fact “the fruit of Mary’s womb”
according to the terms of the narrative coming just before Elisabeth’s
salutation (Lk 1:32). Mary, “the mother of my lord,” is, therefore, the mother
of the Messiah, namely, of the most glorious and honourable king of biblical
history and, above all, of “the horn of salvation raised in the house of David,
as God had spoken through the prophets of old” (1:69ff): the king who is in the
fulfilment of biblical hope and expectation. In this perspective, of an evidently royal projection of the
Messiah, the definition of Mary as “the mother of my lord” has a genuinely
biblical flavour and sinks its roots into the purest religious and historical traditions
of the Old Testament. (pp. 61-62)
[On John 2:4; cf. the JST] The foregoing observations [from pp. 109-113 examining the
phrase “what to you and to me?”] constitute the parameters conditioning and, to
a certain extent, determining the meaning of Jesus’ answer to Mary in v. 4. The
answer is the real subject of debate, particularly because of the expression ti
moi kai soi. Grammatically the answer itself contains two sentences that
can be punctuated and, therefore, related in different ways. The first
sentence, the one here transliterated from the Greek, is certainly interrogative
as the ti at the beginning serves to prove. The only questionable point
here is whether the vocative “woman” (gynai) marks the end of this
connections are possible, but the problem itself is not tremendously important.
The sense does not change in either alternative. The second sentence “my hour
[time] is not yet come” can be considered interrogative or not. Here the
meaning of the entire answer can change according to either alternative. A
question formulation such as “is my hour not yet come?” suggests that the hour
is indeed here, which entails both that the “hour” or time is the time to start
(v. 11 “the beginning of miracles”) performing miracles, as well as that Jesus
does not refuse his mother’s request. This, in turn, suggests very strongly
(though not necessarily) that the first question of Jesus’ answer also is
favourable to Mary’s proposal. An interrogative punctuation in the second part
is perfectly possible and legitimate; it cannot be discarded. Still we retain
the other punctuation---without question mark—that turns the sentence into a
statement, both because it is the one generally admitted and because, implying
the less favourable sense, it does not render the entire problem any easier.
The answer of Jesus in v. 4 is introduced by the sentence “and [kai]
Jesus says to her.” In our discussions the point in the introduction is there
is no adversative particle as, for instance, “but” (de); we have just an
“and.” The author of the fourth gospel is able to use de in dialogue
introductions very idiomatically with some through slight adversative force
(1:38; 4:32; 6:10, 20, 7; 41; 9:15, 16, 17, 36, 38, etc). Moreover, in
conflicting or polemic answers the verb mostly used by the evangelist in the
introduction is apokrinesthai (to answer), whereas in our dialogue in
all three instances (vv. 3, 4,5) we have legein (to say, to tell).
Admittedly, on this matter an absolute rule would not be easy to establish in
John. The least one can say, however, is that the introduction to Jesus’ answer
in Jn 2:4 does not give any support to a negative (refusal) understanding of
the answer itself. In this connection, the waiters, that follows immediately
after the answer, no adversative particle is present—indeed, no conjunction,
not even a kai (and) that someone might wish to construct as an
adversative waw. The implication is, again, that the text provides no
support to the concept that Mary’s action, is in disagreement with Jesus’
answer . . .[after an analysis of similar NT constructions on pp. 114-127] It
is not to apply the results of our survey to Jn 2:4 where Jesus answers Mary’s
request by ti emoi kai soi?, “what to me and to you?” If the expression
is taken as a refusal or rebuke of the type “mind your business,” it is in
sharp, intolerable conflict with the entire interlocking and dynamics of the
narrative. It conflicts, in the first place, with the real outcome of the
entire narrative, since in fact, Jesus performed the miracle; it conflicts with
the fact that Jesus used the opportunity to make this the start of his
miracles, to “reveal his glory,” and to confirm the faith of his disciples; it
is in conflict quantity and excellent quality of the wine provided by Jesus; it
is in conflict, above all, with the obvious willingness displayed by
Jesus in performing the miracle as well as with the interest he took in
the whole matter. The concept of refusal or rebuke clashes even more violently,
if possible, with the instructions of Mary to the waiters immediately after Jesus’
answer ti emoi kai soi?, instructions which, as pointed out above, set
in motion the entire process that develops fro them; it clashes with the
obvious immediacy and forward drive of the unfolding action; it is certainly
clashes, and very violently so, with the expectation of Mary when she made her
request that, as a matter of fact, is answered even beyond her expectations
(abundance, quality of wine). Such an understanding clashes even with the
literary presentation of hid dialogue and immediate result (Mary’s
instructions) where every adversative particle, that could indicate a change of
direction, is conspicuously omitted. On the other hand, there is no single
element in the narrative that can give any support to the understanding of the
idiomatic phrase as a refusal or rebuke.
On the contrary, a reconciliatory, agreeing meaning of the idiom squares
perfectly with all the details in the narrative and brings all the aspects
mentioned above together into a powerful unit. The context has a powerful—indeed,
the decisive—voice in this matter. All the details and aspects of the episode so
naturally brought into a tight cohesion by the agreeing understanding become as
many supporting proofs in favour of such understanding. The biblical background
disclosed above is evidence that the agreeing is certainly possible and,
according to the circumstances, necessary: the latter alternative applies to
our case.
The correct translation, therefore, of Jesus’ answer ti emoi kai soi?
To Mary’s request in Jn 2:4 is this: “what difficulty [problem] is there to me
and to you?” On account of the interrogative formulation, the answer is an
emphatic statement and affirmation the meaning of which is as follows: there is
absolutely no problem or difficulty to me and to you in this affair, i.e. in
Mary’s proposal or request. The inference being that Jesus wholeheartedly agrees
with Mary’s proposal. She understands this and tells the waiters to be ready.
The entire action follows very smoothly and the miracle is performed with all
splendour and generosity—which is a confirmation of Jesus’ agreeing intentions.
(pp. 113-14, 127-29)