The dialogue continues with Jesus’
reply: τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι; οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου. owing to the difficulty in
finding an appropriate English equivalent to γύναι, this appears at first sight
to be a very impolite response. However, although the use of γύναι in relation
to his other is somewhat strange, it is in no way impolite or unusual as
an address to women. Indeed, it is the most common address used toward women by
Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (4.21; 8.1; 19.25; 20.13). Its use again towards his
mother in the pathos-laden scene at the foot of the cross (19:25-27) indicates clearly
that the term does not show a lack of affection. There is, however, no
precedent in any source, either Jewish or Greek, for a son to address his
mother in this somewhat formal manner. Does this, then, imply a rejection by
Jesus of his mother? Evidently not, since she is fully accepted, though similarly
addressed in the crucifixion account. What we see here is rather a deliberate
playing down of Mary’s motherhood as a significant influence on the
ministry of Jesus. She remains his mother, as the consistent use of the title ‘Mother
of Jesus’ in John suggests, but in common with the Synoptic Gospels (cf. Mk
3.33-35 [par.]; Lk. 2.49; 11.27-28) John takes the view that the driving force behind
Jesus’ life and ministry is not family expectations, but doing the will of God.
. . . The distancing effect is enhanced by the use of the Semitic phrase τί ἐμοὶ
καὶ σοί, which is probably best translated: ‘What has this concern of yours to
do with me?’ Apparently, at least on the Johannine level, Jesus wants to ensure
the impression is given that what follows in terms of a miracle does so because
he has decided to get involved and not because it was his business to do so in
the first place at the bidding of a family member. The supply of win for the
wedding guests is the province of others, not Jesus. In addition, Mary has not
understood that the ‘hour’ of Jesus has not yet arrived, that is, the house of
glorification in which the gift of the Spirit will be made, supplying the
ongoing need of the disciples. This statement makes sense when placed alongside
his refusal of Mary Magdalene’s ‘clinging in 20.17—the death, resurrection, and
ascension of Jesus are all part of one process in John’s understanding, his ‘lifting-up’
(12.32-33), which is completed only in the giving of the Spirit (20.22). Just
as Mary Magdalene misunderstands the resurrection as a restoration of the
old-style bodily relationship and is accordingly told to back off, so too Jesus’
mother, who correctly understands Jesus Sophia as the true source of ‘wine’,
needs to see that such wine will only be ‘on tap’ after the hour of glorification,
that is, after the coming of the Spirit and the inauguration of the new age. Of
course, the miracle occurs on the ‘third day’ and as such is part of the Johannine
scheme of signs of the ‘not yet’, so the wine which will be supplied in the
miracle is a sign of what will be freely available when that ‘not yet’, the ‘hour’,
finally comes. To understand the phrase οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου in this light has
the virtue not only of maintaining a consistent Johannine understanding of the
hour as that of Jesus’ final glorification, but also of referring what he says directly
to what his mother has said: ‘we have no wine (not: ‘we need a miracle’!).
What follows Jesus’ distancing of
himself from family pressure is a statement of his mother’ new role
(2.5). No longer is she viewed as important because of her family ties to Jesus
Sophia, but she is seen as a model of true discipleship. She acts in faith upon
the knowledge which she has, that Jesus Sophia will provide wine for those who
come to drink. She thus assumes a position of responsibility/leadership and
tells the servants to do as Jesus instructs them. (Martin Scott, Sophia and
the Johannine Jesus [Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement
Series 71; JSOT Press, 1992], 179-81, emphasis in original)