John and The Mother of Jesus

In John 2, Jesus performs his first miracle, where he turns water into wine at a wedding near Galilee.

The theological challenge for anyone towing the party line is that Jesus’ mother seems to facilitate Jesus’s first miracle.  This is curious considering Jesus was the son of God, and more explicitly, the “Word [of God] as flesh”.

And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus said to him, They have no wine.
Jesus said to her, Woman, what have I to do with you? my hour is not yet come.
His mother said to the servants, Whatever he says to you, do it.

giotto_-_scrovegni_-_-24-_-_marriage_at_cana

Jesus reveals a subservience, along with his inability to do anything, when he says “my hour is not yet come”.  In response, Jesus’s mother transfers her authority to Jesus so that he can render the non-existent wine, thus making this moment Jesus’s “hour”.

Why should Jesus’s mother do this?

If you are anything like me, and believe that not a single word of these Gospels was wasted on frivolous prose, the implication is that Mary *must* transfer her authority to Jesus to catalyze his powers on Earth.   In other words, Jesus would have no authority to perform miracles unless his mother granted this authority.  The fact that this interaction precedes Jesus’s first miracle is not inconsequential.

John’s catalyst for miracle-making Jesus is in contrast to Mark’s prerequisite, which was Jesus’s baptism prior to receiving the Spirit.  Of course, the theology of this Johannine text was different than the Cerinthian/Ebionite theology which contributed to the Synoptic narrative; specific implementation differences should be expected.

An interesting aside is that Irenaeus, who also used John’s Gospel, gave a hostile response to Marcus the magician, who performed a similar trick as Jesus:

Pretending to consecrate cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length the word of invocation, [Marcus the Magician] contrives to give them a purple and reddish colour…

3a90210fe9d8851717e543dff446fb89The transfer of authority from the mother to the son is also detectable in Revelation, in a more abstract form.

Revelation 5:12 says “Worthy is the lamb that hath been slain to receive the power, and riches, and wisdom…”

In Revelation 12, the pregnant woman, clothed in the sun, with stars in her crown and the moon at her feet, gives birth after triggering a war in heaven; her antagonist, the dragon, gives chase and attempts to eat the child.  The child is saved by God when he is snatched up to heaven.

Once the dragon sensed he would neither be able to capture the woman nor her newborn son, he turned his attention toward her other children, who were the keepers or preservers of the law.  In Hebrew, the term for keep, preserve, or guard is Nasar.

If one assumes this Greek tradition found in John’s Gospel was a carryover from an earlier Hebrew one, then this passage exposes an important detail:  the woman’s other children were the Nasaraeans.  Among other things, the Nasaraeans rejected the Pentateuch, claimed it was a forgery, believed they had the true word of Moses, and lived in secret among the Jews.

John 19:19 taps into this tradition, when Pilate wrote on Jesus Christ’s cross:  JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

If one is attached to the notion that Nazareth was called as such in the 1st century, this interpretation, that Nazareth was so-called because of the Nasaraeans, is faulty.  However, I am very skeptical Nazareth was called as such at this time; rather, I believe Nazareth was so-named because it was later identified as the location where the Nasaraeans saw their brother, the newborn child of the Queen of Heaven, return.

In John 19:27, Jesus said to his mother that she was now mother to “the disciple”, presumably John.  Likewise, he told John that his mother was now John’s mother.  From that hour on, John took Jesus’ mother into his home.  Jesus then drank vinegar, said “it is finished”, and “gave up the ghost”.

In this context, we see the underpinning of this Johannine system:  Jesus’s first miracle was preceded by his mother giving him authority.  Jesus’s last act was to turn over his mother to his disciple, and to make his disciple the adopted son of his mother.  This passage is not by coincidence and it is not pedestrian.  This is a critical element of the Johannine system.

The underlying theology saw Jesus’s mother as important, despite the fact that the Gospel goes out of its way *not* to name her.  One speculation is that John had no need to name Jesus’s mother, because it was so well-known.  But does that mean her name was Mary?

There are other Marys in John’s Gospel, including Mary Magdelaine and Mary, the wife of Cleophas (the extant Gospel says Cleophas’ wife was Jesus’ mother’s sister, but I suspect this was an interpolation).

More likely, Jesus’s mother was known to its readers because his mother was Wisdom, the Queen of Heaven.  Later texts which rely on John expose this detail, as well.  For instance, an early Christian text called The Teaching of Silvanus:

My son, return to your divine nature… Return, my son, to your first Father God, and to Wisdom your mother, from whom you came into being.

Jesus’ mother, who was the Queen Wisdom, is found in many places, including 1 Enoch 42.3, which describes her fate after being purged from Solomon’s temple after King Josiah’s Deuteronomic reform in the 7th century BCE:

Wisdom went forth to make her dwelling among the children of men, And found no dwelling-place:

Wisdom returned to her place, And took her seat among the angels.

And unrighteousness went forth from her chambers: Whom she sought not she found, And dwelt with them

In other words, true Wisdom was replaced by another woman on Earth, and Wisdom subsequently returned to heaven.  In Revelation 19:2, we see this replacement woman’s fate:

He has condemned the great prostitute who corrupted the earth by her adulteries.

The woman had shown up earlier in Revelation 17:

One of the seven angels…said to me, “Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits by many waters.  With her the kings of the earth committed adultery, and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries.”

Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls.

This reference to purple, scarlet, gold, and stones seems a likely reference to the 2nd temple.  Consider Josephus’ description in Wars:

As to the holy house itself, which was placed in the midst [of the inmost court], that most sacred part of the temple…the inner part was lower than the appearance of the outer, and had golden doors…a Babylonian curtain, embroidered with blue, and fine linen, and scarlet, and purple, and of a contexture that was truly wonderful…There was also a wall of partition, about a cubit in height, made of fine stones, and so as to be grateful to the sight…on the other part there hung twelve stones, three in a row one way, and four in the other; a sardius, a topaz, and an emerald; a carbuncle, a jasper, and a sapphire; an agate, an amethyst, and a ligure; an onyx, a beryl, and a chrysolite

 

The conclusion this matrix brings me to is that the Johannines, and perhaps their earlier Nasaraeane counterparts, saw the 2nd temple as an illegitimate replacement of Solomon’s temple, and this replacement woman was a metaphor for it.

Advertisements

Author: Tim...Stepping Out

Tim Stepping Out

6 thoughts on “John and The Mother of Jesus”

  1. Not to mention the absurd amounts of wine around 120 to 180 gallons. The guests are already black out drunk by then. I guess Jesus is not really concerned about liver cirrhosis and alcoholism.

    Given that the Abrahamic faiths are known for their patriarchy and sexism, do you think that early versions of Christianity (pre-canonical gospel Gnosticism) are just as sexist as the current orthodoxy?

    Like

    1. I mean, both in the gospels and the epistles are known to contain thinly disguised misogyny:

      Matthew 15:21-28 Jesus is both racist and sexist for calling a Canaanite woman “a dog”.
      Colossians 3:18 Wives must submit to their husbands. The original greek used is “ύποτάσο” meaning submission (Strong’s G5293).
      1 Corinthians 11:2-10 A woman should cover herself similar to the hijab and burqa in Islam.
      1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Women should shut up inside the Church unless their husbands told them to do so.

      How patriarchal and sexist early Gnosticism could’ve been?

      Like

  2. The miracle at Cana is one I could have pulled off. From what I know, the wedding practices at the time were that the wedding feast, which lasted days, was to include food and wine for the guest and to run out of either was considered very bad form. So, to prevent embarrassment to the hosts, possibly stalling while a runner went for a resupply, Jesus walks around with a ewer of water pour for the guest. When the guests notice it is water and not wine, Jesus uses a modicum of charisma to sell the idea that it is wine (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean). The guests, unless they were blitzed would pick up on this and go along. Heck, I could have pulled off this subterfuge.

    Now as to what the story tellers do to a story like this to make their points is another thing, almost impossible to remove from the narrative. Also, people with hidden agendas could easily shape a phrase here or there, using code words or not, to bolster an interpretation more favorable to their ideology. Since there have been so many redactions to these texts (plus the earliest NT docs date to the fourth century, it is hard to tell what nuances are “hidden knowledge” for acolytes and what nuances are subterfuge.

    Like

  3. I think your theory is ridiculous personally. I think its a cipher text written by a Gnostic who was writing for the Catholics ironically. He had to include a mother for his patrons to accept the book, so he includes her, but only to make Jesus deny her “woman, what have I to do with thee?” (same wording demons use to distance themselves from Jesus in the Synoptics). And the absurd details like why the hell is her name “Mary” no mentioned? Why is she a wedding planner all the sudden? Why is the first thing he does after making disciples go to a dumb wedding? Who the hell is even getting married? Why would he make wine for drunks who are already drunk? Why would he deny his mother then do exactly what she said? Why is he making 120 gallons of wine for people already drunk? All of this is to point to the fact that the author himself doesn’t believe a word of it, so you will know that the whole story was only to satisfy the requirements of his Catholic patrons, and that he is actually using this requirement to make his Gnostic point that Jesus did NOT have a mother.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s