Is the wedding at Cana an intersession by Mary to Jesus?
Holy Mary, our Heavenly intercessor
5,420 Views |
61 Replies |
Last: 4 hrs ago by Thaddeus73
I would say yes.
I really like the example of the wedding at Cana for this because Jesus says it's not his time yet but does what she asks anyway out of obedience and respect for his mother.
Christ fulfilled the fullness of the law, and the wedding is a great picture of the 5th commandment.
To then turn that into intercession that can even be applied to us through his mother is quite the leap.
To then turn that into intercession that can even be applied to us through his mother is quite the leap.
10andBOUNCE said:
Christ fulfilled the fullness of the law, and the wedding is a great picture of the 5th commandment.
To then turn that into intercession that can even be applied to us through his mother is quite the leap.
To deny what it obviously is by the plain meaning of the text is equally an apologetic leap intended to avoid what's staring you in the face.
It's obviously about a need for a key element of the wedding feast and how at his mother's prompting he miraculously turns the lack of wine into an intoxication of grace.
Mary simply informs Jesus of the dilemma "They have no wine" and that is her intercession. She entrusts even that small embarrassment to Him. It is worth noting the simplicity of her prayer: she does not dictate a solution, she does not demand a timeline. She simply presents the need and trusts that he will respond to her.
After what some mistakenly characterize as a rebuff, she goes with perfect trust to the servants and tells them, "Do whatever he tells you." These are, remarkably, her last recorded words in the Gospels. Everything she needed to say about faith, about surrender, about how to approach her Son is contained in that one command.
Re: the supposed rebuff, the "mother of Jesus" appears only twice in the Gospel of John: in this passage and at the foot of the Cross (John 19:25-27). John deliberately connects the two scenes. In both, Mary uniquely fulfills the role of mother.
The title "Woman" echoes Genesis as it is the same word used for Eve. This is John painting Mary as the New Eve, alluding to a new creation in which Christ is the New Adam and Mary is the New Eve. By calling her "Woman," Jesus is not pushing Mary away. He is crowning her with a cosmic identity.
To understand Mary's intercessory role at Cana more deeply, it helps to look at the Old Testament. In ancient Israel, the Gebirah, the Queen Mother, held a unique intercessory role before the king. In 1 Kings 2:19-20, when Bathsheba approaches King Solomon, he rises, bows, and seats her at his right hand. When she makes a request, Solomon says he will not refuse her.
This is precisely the pattern at Cana. The Wedding at Cana reveals Mary's unique intercessory role as the New Eve and Queen Mother. The Queen Mother doesn't have power in herself. Her power comes entirely from her relationship to the King. She brings petitions to the King. Mary's intercession is always under, through and toward Christ, never apart from Him.
In the same way she models perfect discipleship with her fiat to the Angel Gabriel, Mary at Cana gives us the perfect model of intercessory prayer: recognize the need, bring it to Christ, trust completely, and point others to Him. She adds nothing to Christ's power. She diminishes nothing of His glory.
So, yes, Jesus is honoring his mother exactly as we would all expect him to do, but it is dismissive to say that is all that is happening here. He is honoring his mother by addressing in a miraculous manner some earthly needs that she brings to his attention, and in doing so, he is initiating his public ministry.
Going deeper into the question of whether this is merely a good Jewish son following the 5th Commandment, what is the Wedding at Cana? Weddings are a consistent biblical symbol for the mystical union between God and his people. Throughout scripture we see that God wants to "marry" his people, Israel, because he loves them. God wants to fill them with his own life "consummating the marriage" in a manner of speaking. So what is the fulfillment of this prophetic desire? Quite simply it is the Incarnation, when a divine nature and a human nature came together in the unity of a divine person to form a marriage between God and Israel. Jesus is the wedding of heaven and Earth, the marriage of divinity and humanity. He is the bridegroom and the Church is the bride in him.
The most intimate union is achieved between God and the world. And at the wedding at Cana, at the prompting of his human mother, Jesus publicly "outs" himself and miraculously changes 180 gallons of water into the wine of the divine life, an intoxication of grace. When we are infused with the divine life and married to God, that life never runs out.
The reason the wedding at Cana is here in scripture is not merely to show us that Jesus was an obedient Jewish son. It is showing us how God's longing for the love of his chosen people is now being opened up to everyone by grace and he wants us to drink freely of his wine of divine life. The Old Covenant and the New Covenant.
The six stone water jars were specifically for the Jewish rites of purification. Their number, six, may symbolize the incompleteness or imperfection of the Old Covenant purification system. As Jesus transforms the water used for external purification into wine, He can be seen as changing the Old Covenant purification system and enabling the internal purification of believers.
This is not a rejection of Israel's covenant. It is its fulfillment and superabundance. The prophets like Jeremiah spoke of how God would write a new covenant in the hearts of His people (Jeremiah 31:33). This New Covenant would be greater than what came before, as the wine of Jesus is superior to the previous wine and is made freely available to all the guests at the wedding.
I don't understand this. It applied to the people at the wedding. She saw their need and interceded for them. If she's alive in heaven (and I believe all saints are) then she can do the same for us there. Jesus saves and has the power, she's just interceding exactly like the wedding here. How is this a stretch of logic?
File5 said:
I don't understand this. It applied to the people at the wedding. She saw their need and interceded for them. If she's alive in heaven (and I believe all saints are) then she can do the same for us there. Jesus saves and has the power, she's just interceding exactly like the wedding here. How is this a stretch of logic?
But we don't need her to do that.
Howdy, it is me! said:File5 said:
I don't understand this. It applied to the people at the wedding. She saw their need and interceded for them. If she's alive in heaven (and I believe all saints are) then she can do the same for us there. Jesus saves and has the power, she's just interceding exactly like the wedding here. How is this a stretch of logic?
But we don't need her to do that.
Do you ask others to pray for you? You don't "need" them either.
If she had not said anything he would have not done anything based on the plain reading of it. So her intercession was clearly effectual. You are right in that we don't necessarily need to, but it can certainly help just as asking other to pray for us can help.
The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is our intercessor
Frok said:
The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is our intercessor
True. It also teaches that Jesus is our intercessor.
So the Holy Spirit is not our only intercessor.
True, Jesus is our mediator and the Holy Spirit intercedes for us.
Frok said:
True, Jesus is our mediator and the Holy Spirit intercedes for us.
There's nothing in tbat about exclusivity. Revelation 5:8 and 8:5 clearly show that the prayers of the saints (the holy ones) are presented to God.
"When the Lamb had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." Rev 5:8
The Lamb Jesus Christ, the Lion of Judah takes the scroll, and heaven erupts in worship. Golden bowls full of incense. John doesn't leave us guessing what they represent. They are the prayers of the saints.
The twenty-four elders in heaven represent the leaders of the people of God in heaven, and in the New Testament, the term "saints" normally refers to Christians living on earth. This passage depicts the saints in heaven offering to God the "prayers of the saints" on earth i.e., interceding for them.
This is not a minor theological footnote. This is Scripture explicitly showing that the saints in heaven are aware of our prayers and present them before God. John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" and if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.
This also connects to another biblical theme: the Bible directly associates the prayers of the faithful on earth with incense. The Psalmist writes, "Let my prayer be counted as incense before thee, and the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice!" (Psalm 141:2).
The image is ancient, priestly, and deliberate. Incense rising = prayer ascending.
In Revelation 8, an angel came and stood at the altar in heaven with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.
Then the angel took the censer and filled it with fire from the altar and threw it on the earth, and there were peals of thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning, and an earthquake.
The prayers of the faithful, gathered and offered before the throne of God, trigger a divine response that shakes the earth. It is the prayers of the saints that are rising like incense before God, and it is in response to those prayers that God sends these peals of thunder and rumblings and flashes of lightning and it all happens in response to prayer.
That is not clear to me, you can theorize that but it doesn't line up with the rest of scripture IMO.
Nobody prays to anyone other than God. The incense is the prayers of the saints but I don't see any instruction for other saints to pray to the saints.
Nobody prays to anyone other than God. The incense is the prayers of the saints but I don't see any instruction for other saints to pray to the saints.
I like having a pure and holy intercessor praying for me 24/7 to her Son Jesus....It has certainly brought about many good answers to my prayers....
Frok said:
That is not clear to me, you can theorize that but it doesn't line up with the rest of scripture IMO.
Nobody prays to anyone other than God. The incense is the prayers of the saints but I don't see any instruction for other saints to pray to the saints.
It's not theory anymore than your theory that no one prays to anyone other than God. But of course, if it's just each of us and our Bible a la sola scriptura you don't have any principled way to contradict the biblical exegesis I just gave you, other than your subjective opinion. So, you do you.
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:Frok said:
That is not clear to me, you can theorize that but it doesn't line up with the rest of scripture IMO.
Nobody prays to anyone other than God. The incense is the prayers of the saints but I don't see any instruction for other saints to pray to the saints.
It's not theory anymore than your theory that no one prays to anyone other than God. But of course, if it's just each of us and our Bible a la sola scriptura you don't have any principled way to contradict the biblical exegesis I just gave you, other than your subjective opinion. So, you do you.
Where are the instructions to use the Bible alone as the rule of faith? I'll hang up and listen.
Intercessory prayer is very important to Catholics. Most of my very important needs in life I have entrusted to St. Jude, St. Joseph, Mother Mary, St. Alphonsus, St. Blaise, etc.
And most have been answered positively. It's not just that Catholics believe in intercessory prayer by very much alive holy people in heaven, aka the Great Cloud of Witnesses in Hebrews 12, but THAT IT WORKS!
And most have been answered positively. It's not just that Catholics believe in intercessory prayer by very much alive holy people in heaven, aka the Great Cloud of Witnesses in Hebrews 12, but THAT IT WORKS!
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:Howdy, it is me! said:File5 said:
I don't understand this. It applied to the people at the wedding. She saw their need and interceded for them. If she's alive in heaven (and I believe all saints are) then she can do the same for us there. Jesus saves and has the power, she's just interceding exactly like the wedding here. How is this a stretch of logic?
But we don't need her to do that.
Do you ask others to pray for you? You don't "need" them either.
We go over this in every thread.
This claim falls flat every time. You're making an assumption, without any Scriptural support, that Mary and the Saints have any means of hearing each individual's prayer towards them.
That support does not exist.
Example: I'm alone in my kitchen right now. Not on the phone or texting. I just asked my mom, who is across town to pray for me. She didn't hear me. She couldn't.
The incorrect attempt to attribute abilities to the Saints, that we have no support for believing is just wrong.
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:FTACo88-FDT24dad said:Frok said:
That is not clear to me, you can theorize that but it doesn't line up with the rest of scripture IMO.
Nobody prays to anyone other than God. The incense is the prayers of the saints but I don't see any instruction for other saints to pray to the saints.
It's not theory anymore than your theory that no one prays to anyone other than God. But of course, if it's just each of us and our Bible a la sola scriptura you don't have any principled way to contradict the biblical exegesis I just gave you, other than your subjective opinion. So, you do you.
Where are the instructions to use the Bible alone as the rule of faith? I'll hang up and listen.
Quick note, I did a typo, I meant to say IN SCRIPTURE nobody prays to anyone other than God.
Scripture is the only infallible authority, all traditions and teachings come from what we know in scripture. It's THE authority that can't be argued with.
Says who? Scripture?
I like this response - basically what is the mechanism for them to hear our prayers, even if they are saints in Heaven? It would have to be a supernatural grave that God allows to have happen. Will look into this more, there are some scriptural and catechism references that expand on this. But that aside for a moment, for the sake of the argument and assuming they could hear our prayers - how would that be different than asking someone alive on Earth to pray for us? Or would you say it's the same?
File5 said:
Says who? Scripture?
From a practical standpoint, how do we know what Jesus did? How do we know the original teachings of the Apostles?
It's something we all agree on. Thus, when discussing a topic of theology it holds the most weight.
Frok said:FTACo88-FDT24dad said:FTACo88-FDT24dad said:Frok said:
That is not clear to me, you can theorize that but it doesn't line up with the rest of scripture IMO.
Nobody prays to anyone other than God. The incense is the prayers of the saints but I don't see any instruction for other saints to pray to the saints.
It's not theory anymore than your theory that no one prays to anyone other than God. But of course, if it's just each of us and our Bible a la sola scriptura you don't have any principled way to contradict the biblical exegesis I just gave you, other than your subjective opinion. So, you do you.
Where are the instructions to use the Bible alone as the rule of faith? I'll hang up and listen.
Quick note, I did a typo, I meant to say IN SCRIPTURE nobody prays to anyone other than God.
Scripture is the only infallible authority, all traditions and teachings come from what we know in scripture. It's THE authority that can't be argued with.
We only have a canon of scripture because the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church established by Jesus upon the rock of Peter compared the writings that were being used liturgically and circulated among Christians in the 4th century with the Traditions handed down from the Apostles to their successors in that church and with the writings used in that church's liturgy at that time.
As a side note, if the men who invented sola scriptura and sola fide your had not removed 7 OT books from the canon you would definitely see prayers for the dead in 2 Maccabees as well as in Tobit.
Question for the Protestants here:
We both agree demons are real and have personalized influence on us. They know us well enough to tempt at our weakest points (Matthew 4, Acts 5:3, 1 Peter 5:8), and some form of interaction across the spiritual divide is real (James 4:7, Ephesians 6). This doesn't grant them omniscience; they observe, exploit patterns, and use preternatural abilities under God's limits (Job 12).
If God sovereignly permits fallen spiritual beings this targeted awareness and harmful influence, why would it be inconsistent for Him to grant greater awareness and intercessory ability to the glorified saints in heaven that have been perfected in love, fully alive in Christ, and part of the same Body?
Death doesn't sever our union in Christ (Romans 8:38-39). We are one Body: Church militant on earth and triumphant in heaven. The rich man in Hades still cared about his brothers (Luke 16), how much more the saints in glory?
We already accept good angels interact with and assist humans throughout Scripture. If angels can do this, why withhold it from glorified humans, made in God's image, redeemed by Christ, and who are now crowned with glory?
The question isn't whether non-corporeal beings can be aware of and engage with the living, we agree they can and do. It's whether God would grant this to saints who love us perfectly in Him. If He permits it to demons (for His purposes and our testing), why deny it to His closest friends?
We both agree demons are real and have personalized influence on us. They know us well enough to tempt at our weakest points (Matthew 4, Acts 5:3, 1 Peter 5:8), and some form of interaction across the spiritual divide is real (James 4:7, Ephesians 6). This doesn't grant them omniscience; they observe, exploit patterns, and use preternatural abilities under God's limits (Job 12).
If God sovereignly permits fallen spiritual beings this targeted awareness and harmful influence, why would it be inconsistent for Him to grant greater awareness and intercessory ability to the glorified saints in heaven that have been perfected in love, fully alive in Christ, and part of the same Body?
Death doesn't sever our union in Christ (Romans 8:38-39). We are one Body: Church militant on earth and triumphant in heaven. The rich man in Hades still cared about his brothers (Luke 16), how much more the saints in glory?
We already accept good angels interact with and assist humans throughout Scripture. If angels can do this, why withhold it from glorified humans, made in God's image, redeemed by Christ, and who are now crowned with glory?
The question isn't whether non-corporeal beings can be aware of and engage with the living, we agree they can and do. It's whether God would grant this to saints who love us perfectly in Him. If He permits it to demons (for His purposes and our testing), why deny it to His closest friends?
Srby said:
Question for the Protestants here:
We both agree demons are real and have personalized influence on us. They know us well enough to tempt at our weakest points (Matthew 4, Acts 5:3, 1 Peter 5:8), and some form of interaction across the spiritual divide is real (James 4:7, Ephesians 6). This doesn't grant them omniscience; they observe, exploit patterns, and use preternatural abilities under God's limits (Job 12).
If God sovereignly permits fallen spiritual beings this targeted awareness and harmful influence, why would it be inconsistent for Him to grant greater awareness and intercessory ability to the glorified saints in heaven that have been perfected in love, fully alive in Christ, and part of the same Body?
Death doesn't sever our union in Christ (Romans 8:38-39). We are one Body: Church militant on earth and triumphant in heaven. The rich man in Hades still cared about his brothers (Luke 16), how much more the saints in glory?
We already accept good angels interact with and assist humans throughout Scripture. If angels can do this, why withhold it from glorified humans, made in God's image, redeemed by Christ, and who are now crowned with glory?
The question isn't whether non-corporeal beings can be aware of and engaged with the living, we agree they can and do. It's whether God would grant this to saints who love us perfectly in Him. If He permits it to demons (for His purposes and our testing), why deny it to His closest friends?
I am not Protestant, but I will defend those who oppose the doctrine of the communion of the saints to this extent: if I thought a doctrine violated the precept of offering worship to God alone, I would be very hesitant to agree with it and would like to think that I would vociferously oppose it. But more fundamentally, what Protestant opposition to the CoS reveals is a failure to understand the "non-competitive transcendence" of God; i.e. God is not a competitor with His creation, meaning that as God comes closer to humans, we become more alive, radiant, and free rather than overwhelmed or destroyed.
Having said that, the communion of the saints does not violate the precept of offering worship to God alone. In fact, it does precisely the opposite. Good faith Protestants simply misunderstand the CoS. The others are just being polemical because it poses a threat to their novel doctrines like sola fide.
PS - the Apostles' Creed clearly refers to the CoS as a fundamental precept of what it means to be Christian. Segments of the Apostles' Creed are found in Christian writings dating as early as the second century. The most important predecessor of the Apostles' Creed was the Old Roman Creed, which was probably developed during the second half of the second century.
The earliest written form of the Apostles' Creed is found in a letter that Marcellus of Ancyra wrote in Greek to Julius, the bishop of Rome, about AD 341.
The creed was developed from early interrogations of catechumens persons receiving instructions in order to be baptized. The Apostles' Creed, like all creeds during the patristic era, was composed as a direct response to heresy in defense of the gospel and the Christian faith. It was intended to be apologetic in nature to articulate the essentials of the Christian faith against a backdrop of heresy. The immediate heresy that the Creed responded to was Gnosticism.
The text accepted and used today at every Catholic baptism is identical to what was written in 750 by Pirminius, who lived in what is now Switzerland. Gradually it replaced other baptismal creeds and was acknowledged as the official statement of faith of the entire Catholic Church in the West by the time that Innocent III was pope (1198-1216).
Quote:
This claim falls flat every time. You're making an assumption, without any Scriptural support, that Mary and the Saints have any means of hearing each individual's prayer towards them.
That support does not exist.
It does exist if you read your bible, that says that those who are united to Jesus become ONE Spirit with him, that we become partakers of the divine nature, and that saints in heaven present our prayers to God in the form of incense.
Featured Stories
See All
2027 Tomball K/P Andres Von Der Meden commits to Texas A&M
by Ryan Brauninger
Connor O'Gara's June SEC power rankings
by Connor O'Gara
Partida earns NCBWA Freshman All-American status
by Richard Zane
Aggie recruiting stays booming during dawg days of summer
by Ryan Brauninger
34:41
7h ago
3.0k
Sdcable
2027 Tomball K/P Andres Von Der Meden commits to Texas A&M
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
59
PJYoung
B12 ADs, SEC talking about not playing Texas Tech in any sports
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
53
Gigem314
B12 ADs, SEC talking about not playing Texas Tech in any sports
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
46