The late Catholic priest Father Raymond E. Brown was one of the foremost liberal NT scholars of the 20th century. His two-volume commentary on John’s Gospel is considered some of the best ever written. I cite from his commentary on John 2 and the wedding of Cana to see what he has to say in respect to Mary being described as the New Eve.
(3) The symbolism of the Mother of Jesus, the “woman,” at Cana. If Cana is primarily concerned with the christological theme of the manifestation of Jesus’ glory, it also has, as do many of the Johannine stories, subordinate theological motifs. The present discussion centers around the symbolic import of the conversation between Jesus and his mother. Perhaps nowhere in John is the difference of theological predisposition between Catholic and Protestant more painfully evident that in the exegesis of ii 4. There is an enormous amount of Catholic literature on this verse, much of it not rising above the level of pious eisegesis: yet most Protestant commentators pass over the verse as if it were unthinkable that Mary played a role in Johannine theology. That we are seeing the dawn of better days is witnessed in the more sober approach to the Mariology of the scene found in Schnackenburg, Braun, and others, and by passing references in Protestant circles to Mary’s importance in the Johannine scene, for example, Bultmann, p. 81, who thinks the story may have come from circles favorable to Mary. Thurian’s treatment is not only the best Protestant evaluation of the Mariological question, but far better than many Catholic treatments.
We must begin the treatment of the symbolism of Mary at Cana by drawing on Rev xii; this once again presumes that Revelation may be used as a witness to some of the thought patterns and interests of the Johannine school. (To substantiate what follows see A. Feuillet, Le Messie et sa Mere d’apres Ie chapitre xii de l’Apocalypse,” RB 66 [1959], 55-86; now in English in JohSt, pp. 257-92.) In Rev xii there is a mysterious, symbolic figure of ” a woman” who is a key figure in the drama of salvation. There can be no doubt that Revelation is giving the Christian enactment of the drama foreshadowed in Gen iii 15 where enmity is placed between the serpent and the woman, between the serpent’s seed and her seed, and the seed of the woman enters into conflict with the serpent. In Revelation the woman in birth pangs brings forth a male child who is the Messiah (xii 5 II Ps ii 9) and is taken up to heaven. The great dragon, specifically identified as the ancient serpent of Genesis by Rev xii 9, frustrated by the child’s ascension, turns against the woman and her other offspring (xii 17).
It is generally agreed that the woman of Revelation is a symbol of the people of God. Israel is frequently portrayed as a woman in the OT and her anguish as birth pangs (Isa xxvi 17-18, lxvi 7). As for the NT, Revelation (xix 7) itself describes the Church as a bride. The drama of the woman, the people of God, spans the two Testaments: as Israel she brings forth the Messiah who cannot be defeated by the serpent; as the Church, she continues on earth after the Ascension, persecuted but protecting her children.
However, often in the Bible collective figures are based on historical ones. Thus, the fact that the woman represents the people of God would not at all preclude a reference to an individual woman who is the basis of the symbolism. Since the woman is described as the mother of the Messiah, many commentators suggest that Mary is meant. The figure of Eve in Gen iii 15 is the background for the description of the woman in Rev xii; and it is important that from the earliest days of Christianity Mary was seen as both a symbol of the Church and the New Eve (Justin Trypho c 5; PO 6:712; and Irenaeus Adv. Boer. m 22:4; PG 7:959). For a complete list of references see H. de Lubac, The Splendour of the Church (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1956), Ch. IX; for an exhaustive treatment of the woman of Rev xii as both the people of God and Mary, see B. LeFrois, The Woman Clothed with the Sun (Rome: “Orbis Catholicus,” 1954).
Turning to John, we find that the mother of Jesus appears at Cana and in one other incident, namely, when she stands at the foot of the cross and receives the Beloved Disciple as her son (xix 25-27-see COMMENT in The Anchor Bible, vol. 30). A number of important parallels are shared by Rev xii and these scenes in John. (a) The figure in Rev xii is described as ” a woman”; in both Johannine scenes Jesus addresses his mother as ”Woman,” which, as we saw in the NOTE, is a peculiar form of address that needs an explanation. The term would be intelligible in all these cases if Johannine thought is presenting Mary as Eve, the “woman” of Gen iii 15. (b) Rev xii is unquestionably set against the background of Gen iii: we have seen how many echoes there are of the early chapters of Genesis in John i-ii. A background in Genesis for John xix 25-27 is more difficult to discern, but certainly the death of Jesus is in the framework of the great struggle with Satan foretold in Gen iii, at least as that passage was interpreted by Christian theology (see John xiii 1, 3, xiv 30). The birth pangs mentioned in Gen iii 16 and Rev xii 2 may be associated with the death of Jesus, as we point out in the COMMENT on John xvi 21-22 (The Anchor Bible, vol. 30). (e) Rev xii 17 mentions the woman’s other offspring against whom the dragon makes war: thus, the seed of the woman (Gen iii 15) is not only the Messiah, but includes a wider group, the Christians. In both of her appearances in John, Mary is associated with Jesus’ disciples. At Cana her action is in the context of the completion of the call of the disciples. (Some exegetes have drawn the parallel between her request as the occasion of Jesus’ first manifestation of glory to his disciples and Eve’s request as the occasion of man’s first sin. This probably puts more emphasis on the causality of Mary’s request than the evangelist intends.) At the foot of the cross Mary is made the mother of the Beloved Disciple, the model Christian, and so she is given offspring to protect.
Having seen the relationship of the three scenes in the Johannine corpus in which the woman (Mary, the mother of the Messiah, as a symbol of the Church) appears, we may now interpret the conversation at Cana. On a theological level it can be seen that Mary’s request, whether by her intention or not, would lead to Jesus’ performing a sign. Before he does perform this sign, Jesus must make clear his refusal of Mary’s intervention; she cannot have any role in his ministry; his signs must reflect his Father’s sovereignty, and not any human, or family agency. But if Mary is to have no role during the ministry, she is to receive a role when the hour of his glorification comes, the hour of passion, death, resurrection, and ascension. John thinks of Mary against the background of Gen iii: she is the mother of the Messiah; her role is in the struggle against the satanic serpent, and that struggle comes to its climax in Jesus’ hour. Then she will appear at the foot of the cross to be entrusted with offspring whom she must protect in the continuing struggle between Satan and the followers of the Messiah. Mary is the New Eve, the symbol of the Church; the Church has no role during the ministry of Jesus but only after the hour of his resurrection and ascension.
The plausibility of these suggestions about the Johannine symbolism that surrounds Mary has been advocated by Protestants like Hoskyns (p. 530) and Thurian and by Catholics like Braun and Feuillet. It will be noted that this interpretation must be kept clearly distinct from a later Mariology which will attach importance to the person of Mary herself; we believe that the Johannine stress is on Mary as a symbol of the Church. Both in Luke and in John Mariology is incipient and is expressed in terms of collective personality.
(4) The choice wine at Cana and the Eucharist. Possibly, another subordinate theological motif in the Johannine scene is sacramental; ow general cautions about Johannine sacramentality (see Introduction, Pat1 VIII:B) would lead us to insist, however, that if there is eucharistic symbolism, it is incidental and should not be exaggerated. As for other sacramentalism, in TS 23 (1962), 199-200, we argued against the attempt b~ some Catholic writers (Vawter, Stanley, J.-P. Charlier, Galot) to see in the Cana narrative a reference to Matrimony as a sacrament. To suggest that the wedding feast of Cana is a foreshadowing of the nuptials of the Lamb (Rev xix 9) in the sense that Mary symbolizes the Church as the spouse of Chris1 is not only to confuse symbolism (Mary and Jesus are not being married at Cana), but also to give major stress to an incidental background. Likewise, we reject the attempt (e.g., Niewalda, p. 166) to see baptismal symbolism at Cana. Though the water for Jewish purifications is replaced, it is not replaced by the waters of Christian Baptism but by wine.
The suggestion (Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyprian) that the “choice wine” of the Cana story may have been intended to remind the readers of the Gospel of eucharistic wine deserves more serious consideration. Such symbolism would be secondary, for the primary meaning of the wine is clearly Jesus’ gift of salvation, for which light, water, and food are other Johannine symbols. What are the external and internal criteria used to establish the possibility of this interpretation? Externally, a 2nd–or 3rd–century fresco in an Alexandrian catacomb joins Cana and the multiplication of the loaves, thus bread and wine (Niewalda, p. 137); and in John the multiplication of the loaves has undeniable eucharistic overtones. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. m 16:7), speaking of Cana, mentions that Mary wanted beforetime to partake of “the cup of recapitulation”; and this seems to be a reference to the eucharistic cup (Sagnard, SC 34: 295-97). Internally, the Gospel itself does draw a connection between the Cana scene and the hour which is to begin formally at the Last Supper (xiii 1). Also, the dating of the Cana scene (ii 13), of the multiplication of the loaves (vi 4), and of the Last Supper to the period before Passover does seem to bind the three scenes together and to aid in associating the wine of Cana with the bread of the multiplication as a symbolic anticipation of the eucharistic bread and wine. Others associate Mary’s presence at Cana and her presence at the foot of the cross when blood flowed from the side of Christ (Kilmartin, art. cit.). The fact that wine is the blood of the grape (Gen xlix 11; Deut xxxii 14; Sir 1 15) has also been invoked. And it is true that “choice wine” in place of the waters for Jewish purification could stand for the true cleansing agent of the Christian dispensation–”the blood of Jesus, His Son, cleanses us from all sin” (1 John i 7). However, many of these internal indications of sacramental intent are at most poetic allusions which do no more than make a eucharistic interpretation possible. (The Gospel According to John I-XII (Anchor Bible Series, 1966), Vol. 29, pp. 107-110;)
albanianchristianity 
Leave a comment