How Rude was Jesus?
Jesus is at the wedding at Cana, his mom sees a need, and asks Jesus (well, actually tells him) to help. Jesus’ response is,τι εμοι και σοι, γυναι; (Jn 2:4). Word for word, Jesus says, “What to me and to you, woman.”
The translations really dance around with this one. “Woman, what does this have to do with me?” (ESV). “Woman, why do you involve me?” (TNIV). “Woman, why are you saying this to me?” (NET, with the footnote, “The term Woman is Jesus’ normal, polite way of addressing women [Matt 15:28, Luke 13:12; John 4:21; 8:10; 19:26; 20:15]”). “Dear woman, that’s not our problem” (NLT).
γυνη is Greek for “woman” or “wife.” It is in the vocative case as Jesus addressing her directly. It is not nearly so abrupt in Greek as it sounds in English. It is the same form of the word Jesus uses when he tenderly comforts Mary Magdalene at the empty tomb (John 20:15).
And yet it is not usual. Leon Morris (The Gospel According to John, Eerdmans, 180) comments that while the vocative can be used to express “respect or affection,” it is an unusual term for a son to use of his mother. It is not a Hebrew or a Greek expression.
Morris’ suggestion is good. He says that the use of γυναι signals a change in Jesus’ relationship to a Mary, that their relationship as mother-son is no longer their primary relationship now that he is entering his public ministry.
This explains Jesus’ words in Matt 12:48 when he says, ““Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” and goes on to say that his closest family unit is now his followers. That must of stung a little.
And yet on the cross Jesus uses ancient adoption language to tell John that Mary is now his charge. “Woman, behold, your son! … Behold, your mother!” (John 19:26-27). Jesus still cared deeply for his mother, but that relationship was not a primary one for the Son of God who came to do the work of the Son of Man.
It is interesting that the first edition of the NLT omits the translation of γυναι entirely. “How does that concern you and me?” I am glad they put it back in, even though their translation philosophy worked against it since it is so easily misunderstood. This is one of the strengths of word-for-word translations. Even if the translators do not understand it, they include the words. A good lesson I think.
Jesus is always addressed with the vocative kyrie, as opposed to kyrios, in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
There is one exception: John 20.28. Do you believe it is significant that Thomas does not use the vocative when he addresses Jesus as "My Lord and my God"?
Good observation. The vocative was losing out to the nominative, so it may be nothing more than the similar use of a different case. I am going to blog ion this tomorrow (September 21, 2009). It is interesting.
Did you have any further thoughts on this singular non-use of the vocative?
No, sorry, haven't had time.
This is a relatively late comment on this post, but this was the only online discussion of this verse I could find. What about the first half of Christ's address: "τι εμοι και σοι?" I know that it is the same address given by the demons to Jesus in both Mark 5.7 and Luke 8.28, and the parallel story in Matthew 8.29 differs only in that it uses the plural "τι ημιν και σοι." Why is this sometimes translated as "What have you to do with me?" (as in the cases of the Gerasene/Gadarene demoniac stories), whereas the literal rendering is "What to you and to me" seemingly in the sense of, "What concern is that to you and to me" as translated in John 2.4 of the NRSV? It would seem that the first translation is sharply separative, while the latter simply suggests an extraneous concern, with a less pejorative connotation. Why the apparently "non-literal" rendering in some translations?
My guess is that the phrase is somewhat ambiguous, and it lets context fill in the specifics. It is an interesting question, however, as to if the demons were being polite or not. I wonder ....
I agree with Morris' suggestion of changed relationships. Along that line, it's also interesting that Christ's public ministry began at a wedding. Though He would never be married Himself, nevertheless, I’ve always seen the wedding feast as a symbolic fulfillment of Gen. 2:24 - "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife." It’s at a wedding where Jesus leaves the authority of the family home to be “married,” as it were, to his Father’s will.
With grace,
bh
Hi there
These thoughts almost exactly reflect those I had as I was reading. Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" movie offers something by way of an impression of how Jesus would have affectionately related to His Mum, but I think that the warmth of the Scripture's insight into this (However Catholic the emphasis was in the film) also ratifies Jesus' desire to honour His earthly parents. I believe Jesus took this very seriously even during the wedding at Cana, whether or not the nature of Jesus' relationship to His Mum was changing.
I was reading through 2 Timothy recently and recall what Paul said in chapter 3 about one aspect of the godless nature of people in the last times and that they will be, "...disobedient to their parents..." (NIV).
It's also interesting that in the same film, at the end when Jesus hung on the cross and was being mocked by one of the two criminals, that Gibson's poetic license took him to a slightly obscure verse (that I can't quite find at the minute) that talks about the seriousness, in God's sight, of honouring our parents.
Much love
Nick Franks
John 4:7 dos moi pein used the imperative and suggests a directive command. Was this just the way to address a woman?
It was the way to address anyone, gender inclusive. Imperatives are used for lots of things, like requesting God to do something.
how does this compare or contrast with other seemingly abrupt responses in John 4:7 Woman at the well dos moi pein ?
The closest I see to please is Luke 14:18,19
wich is used in a parable there it is a request from a person of lower stature to one higher in position. There he only used the words in a parable not using the term for himself
even the Lords prayer
and in the garden of Gethsemane are respectful pleas not polite requests
what are some of the tools to help lay persons weed through understanding how translators define these different type of equests / entreaties / commands using the availible written texts
It is the same use of the vocative in John 4. The best bet for your last question is just to use a good commentary. There are some good intermediate grammars like Daniel Wallace's, but if you are not familiar with Greek it is probably too much.