Biblical commmentaries just wear me out!

John 2:1 - 4:26

In the year long journey through the Bible this morning's reading is like a shopping cart overflowing with goodies. A lot of them are familiar goodies and a lot of them LOOK familiar but reveal greater "goodiness" upon further reflection.

Try to get to that extra goodiness through reading biblical commentary though and you'll find yourself drained.

Take the interaction between Jesus and Mary in John 2:3-5, where she tells him that the wine is gone. Jesus answers:
"Dear woman, why do you involve me? My time has not yet come."
Read the commentaries on this and they'll explain why he is NOT being rude, that "His time" refers to his public display of power or of his messiah-ship, that he is rebuking Mary for meddling, and that this is NOT proof of the Catholic view of Mary as an intercessor.

Sheesh.

What I want to know is...if this is NOT his time why does he do the miracle anyway?
Does this passage indicate that it is possible that our requests to God MAY result in His changing His original plan? This would seem to jibe with what we saw back in the Old Testament where prayer caused God to relent or change plans.
Is this an indication that our relationship with Him is much more organic and fluid than what we typically think?
I don't know...but it sure seems a more lively conversation than whether or not this passage confirms certain catholic theologies!

Then there is this tidbit:
John 3:14
"Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life."

The context of the Moses story in Numbers 21 is that the people grumbled against God, He sent snakes amongst them, they cried out, God told Moses to make a brass snake on a pole and to "lift it up" so that whoever looked at it would be saved.

The commentators on Jesus reference to this story point straight to the cross.
But Jesus has just been talking about the fact that He has come "from heaven".
Isn't it more likely that He is referring to his ascension? Is it not possible that while the cross IS centrally important it looses it's importance without the resurrection and ascension?

Maybe I am way off base...but it starts to feel a little too well packaged when I read some of these guys. Maybe I've been thinking outside the box so long I've lost my way back to it.
Is that such a bad thing?