"... mine hour is not yet come." And yet:

How about a discussion on the subject of the implications of a Divine Will?

Of course the more typical one is about how all sorts of tragedies can be part of a divine plan. Catholic theology, and presumably Orthodox as well, makes a distinction between “permissive” will and (ISTR) “direct” will. I’m not defending the theological fix here, just stating that it has been tackled by the academics over the centuries. Many threads here have questioned the approach, and I don’t personally find any future threads anything but predictable. This thread is not about it.

Here is the passage I find interesting.

Mary observes at a wedding she and Jesus attend that “they have no wine” with an urgent tone, suggesting that “JC” should reveal his secret identity and DO SOMETHING.

His first response is to be dismissive, addressing her as woman, and pointedly asking her “What have I to do with thee?”

One may question whether this was starkly disrespectful to her in form alone. I recall one Orthodox commentary that it should have been translated as “Dear Woman” but the whole matter is tangential to the question I have with it.

This is followed by: “… mine hour is not yet come.”

(At least one translation has him saying that she “must not tell [him] what to do” and the like.)

Mary, of course, will not have any of this nonsense and, instead of going back and forth with him simply tells the servants to do whatever he tells them. Of course what follows is his first public miracle, at least according to John.

(And it’s interesting to note, contrary to a certain brand of fundies, that it makes no sense to read “grape juice” into the story. :stuck_out_tongue: )

So here’s the problem. Even if Jesus lacked omniscience, he presumably was in touch with “his Father” and knew when the hour was right for him to go public as a miracle worker. Had the hour not yet come or had it? It doesn’t seem like a flexible matter that could be adjusted for special circumstances.

Obviously the problem would only exist for folks who are at least somewhat strict followers of “the word” and it would be easy enough for others to dismiss the matter by shrugging off the need to take the words so seriously.

I’m really interested in what literalists, inerrantists, infallible-ists or just those who say the Bible must be taken seriously have to say.

Well, I’m not any of those things, really.

But Jesus & Mary were Jews - there’s a strong tradition of God enjoying (and even conceding losses from) a good argument in Judaism.

And “because I’m your mother!” has a loooong tradition of winning arguments.

Luke 7:

Sound kinda like an alkie-in-denial, don’t it? :wink:

Good question (IMHO). And Unponounceable had the best answer I’ve seen:

Which is pretty much the same explanation I’ve seen (and been at least partly satisfied by) for Jesus’s banter with the Syrophoenician woman in Mark 7.

I never thought of it that way, BG, but it is amusing to ponder.

What I had thought of was how silly it was for modern grape juice imbibers to miss the implications of this passage. Drinking grape juice in excess would seem to be just another form of gluttony.

“Grape juice-bibber” just sound silly.

I must be honest. While waiting for responses and elsewhere on the web it occurred to me that there was an “out” for the apparent paradox in the following verses. This is something I missed as significant when reading the whole narrative today.

Can anyone else spot it?