The Wedding at Cana (John 2:1–11)

The texts below are quoted verbatim from public-domain English translations; nothing is paraphrased.

---

St. John Chrysostom (c. 349–407)read the full homily ›

Homilies on the Gospel of St. John, Homily XXII (on John 2:4–10) Source: trans. Charles Marriott, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 14, ed. Philip Schaff, 1889. Public domain. Full text: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240122.htm (Homily 21, on John 1:49–2:4: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240121.htm)

On "Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come":

Christ did not say, “Mine hour is not yet come,” as being subject to the necessity of seasons, or the observance of an “hour”; how can He be so, who is Maker of seasons, and Creator of the times and the ages? To what else then did He allude? He desires to show this; that He works all things at their convenient season, not doing all at once; because a kind of confusion and disorder would have ensued, if, instead of working all at their proper seasons, He had mixed all together, His Birth, His Resurrection, and His coming to Judgment.

And His meaning is, that as yet He was not manifest to the many, nor had He even His whole company of disciples ... And those at the wedding did not know Him either, for in their need they would certainly have come to and entreated Him. Therefore He saith, “Mine hour is not yet come”; that is, “I am not yet known to the company, nor are they even aware that the wine has failed; let them first be sensible of this. I ought not to have been told it from thee; thou art My mother, and renderest the miracle suspicious. They who wanted the wine should have come and besought Me, not that I need this, but that they might with an entire assent accept the miracle.

Why He nevertheless acted:

Chiefly it was, that they who opposed Him, and thought that He was subject to the “hour,” might have sufficient proof that He was subject to no hour; for had He been so, how could He, before the proper “hour” was come, have done what He did? And in the next place, He did it to honor His mother, that He might not seem entirely to contradict and shame her that bare Him in the presence of so many

On "Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it":

For she knew that His refusal proceeded not from want of power, but from humility, and that He might not seem without cause to hurry to the miracle; and therefore she brought the servants.

On the six waterpots and "after the manner of the purifying of the Jews":

It is not without a reason that the Evangelist says, “After the manner of the purifying of the Jews,” but in order that none of the unbelievers might suspect that lees having been left in the vessels, and water having been poured upon and mixed with them, a very weak wine had been made. Therefore he says, “after the manner of the purifying of the Jews,” to show that those vessels were never receptacles for wine.

On why He transformed existing matter rather than creating from nothing:

“And why was it, that He did not the miracle before they filled them, which would have been more marvelous by far? for it is one thing to change given matter to a different quality, and another to create matter out of nothing.” The latter would indeed have been more wonderful, but would not have seemed so credible to the many. And therefore He often purposely lessens the greatness of His miracles, that it may be the more readily received.

For since there are some who say that the Creator of the world is another, and that the things which are seen are not His works, but those of a certain other opposing god, to curb these men’s madness He doth most of His miracles on matter found at hand. Because, had the creator of these been opposed to Him, He would not have used what was another’s to set forth His own power. But now to show that it is He who transmutes water in the vine plants, and who converts the rain by its passage through the root into wine, He effected that in a moment at the wedding which in the plant is long in doing.

On the ruler of the feast as a sober witness:

For he does not say that the guests gave their opinion on the matter, but “the ruler of the feast,” who was sober, and had not as yet tasted anything. ... and therefore the Lord called such a man’s sober senses to testify to what was done.

For such are the miraculous works of Christ, they are far more perfect and better than the operations of nature. This is seen also in other instances; when He restored any infirm member of the body, He made it better than the sound.

The application:

At that time, then, Jesus made of water wine, and both then and now He ceases not to change our weak and unstable wills. For there are, yes, there are men who in nothing differ from water, so cold, and weak, and unsettled. But let us bring those of such disposition to the Lord, that He may change their will to the quality of wine, so that they be no longer washy, but have body, and be the cause of gladness in themselves and others.

(The homily continues with an extended exhortation against drunkenness and luxury, available in full at the link above.)

---

St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444)read the full homily ›

Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II (on John 2) Source: trans. for the Library of Fathers (P. E. Pusey / T. Randell), LFC 43, 48, 1874/1885. Public domain. Full text: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_john_02_book2.htm

On "And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee":

Seasonably comes He at length, to the beginning of miracles, even if He seems to have been called to it without set purpose. For a marriage feast being held (it is clear that it was altogether holily), the mother of the Saviour is present, and Himself also being bidden comes together with His own disciples, to work miracles rather than to feast with them, and yet more to sanctify the very beginning of the birth of man: I mean so far as appertains to the flesh.

For it was fitting that He, Who was renewing the very nature of man, and refashioning it all for the better, should not only impart His blessing to those already called into being, but also prepare before grace for those soon to be born, and make holy their entrance into being.

On the changing of the water:

The ministers accomplish what is commanded, and by unspeakable might was the water changed into wine. For what is hard to Him Who can do all things? He that calleth into being things which are not, how will He weary, trans-ordering into what He will things already made?

(Cyril continues with the spiritual reading of the third day, of Cana of Galilee, of the failing wine, and of the ruler of the feast; the whole section can be read above.)

---

Blessed Augustine of Hippo (354–430)read the full homily ›

Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate VIII (on John 2:1–4) and Tractate IX (on John 2:1–11) Source: trans. John Gibb, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 7, ed. Philip Schaff, 1888. Public domain. Full text: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701008.htm and https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701009.htm

From Tractate VIII, on the miracle as the everyday work of God:

The miracle indeed of our Lord Jesus Christ, whereby He made the water into wine, is not marvellous to those who know that it was God’s doing. For He who made wine on that day at the marriage feast, in those six water-pots, which He commanded to be filled with water, the self-same does this every year in vines. For even as that which the servants put into the water-pots was turned into wine by the doing of the Lord, so in like manner also is what the clouds pour forth changed into wine by the doing of the same Lord. But we do not wonder at the latter, because it happens every year: it has lost its marvellousness by its constant recurrence.

On the mystery of the address to His mother:

Beyond all doubt, brethren, there is some mystery lurking here ... And see, brethren, how he has told us that Jesus answered His mother, having said first, “His mother said unto Him,” in order that you may keep the virginity of your heart secure against the tongue of the serpent.

There is a great difference between him who says, I would know why Christ made this answer to His mother, and him who says, I know that it was not to His mother that Christ made this answer. It is one thing to be willing to understand what is shut up, another thing to be unwilling to believe what is open.

From Tractate IX, on the six waterpots as the six ages of the world:

Hence “there were there six water-pots,” which He bade be filled with water. Now the six water-pots signify the six ages, which were not without prophecy. And those six periods, divided and separated as it were by joints, would be as empty vessels unless they were filled by Christ.

The first age is reckoned from Adam to Noah; the second, from Noah to Abraham; and, as Matthew the evangelist duly follows and distinguishes, the third, from Abraham to David; the fourth, from David to the carrying away into Babylon; the fifth, from the carrying away into Babylon to John the Baptist; the sixth, from John the Baptist to the end of the world. Moreover, God made man after His own image on the sixth day, because in this sixth age is manifested the renewing of our mind through the gospel, after the image of Him who created us; and the water is turned into wine, that we may taste of Christ, now manifested in the law and the prophets.

Prophecies are fulfilled, the water-pots are full; but that the water may be turned into wine, Christ must be understood in that whole prophecy.

---

St. Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310–367)read the full homily ›

As preserved in the Catena Aurea on John. Public domain.

On the creation of wine, witnessed by the very disagreement of those who poured and those who drew:

Water is poured into the waterpots; wine is drawn out into the chalices; the senses of the drawer out agree not with the knowledge of the pourer in. The pourer in thinks that water is drawn out; the drawer out thinks that wine was poured in.

That it was no mere mixture but a true creation:

It was not a mixture, but a creation: the simple nature of water vanished, and the flavor of wine was produced; not that a weak dilution was obtained, by means of some strong infusion, but that which was, was annihilated; and that which was not, came to be.

---

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202)read the full homily ›

Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 11, §5 Source: trans. Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, ed. Roberts, Donaldson, and Coxe, 1885. Public domain. Full text: https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_iii/anf01.ix.iv.xii.html

On the wine of Cana and the one Creator God:

That wine, which was produced by God in a vineyard, and which was first consumed, was good. None of those who drank of it found fault with it; and the Lord partook of it also. But that wine was better which the Word made from water, on the moment, and simply for the use of those who had been called to the marriage.

For although the Lord had the power to supply wine to those feasting, independently of any created substance, and to fill with food those who were hungry, He did not adopt this course; but, taking the loaves which the earth had produced, and giving thanks, and on the other occasion making water wine, He satisfied those who were reclining [at table], and gave drink to those who had been invited to the marriage; showing that the God who made the earth, and commanded it to bring forth fruit, who established the waters, and brought forth the fountains, was He who in these last times bestowed upon mankind, by His Son, the blessing of food and the favour of drink: the Incomprehensible [acting thus] by means of the comprehensible, and the Invisible by the visible; since there is none beyond Him, but He exists in the bosom of the Father.

---

St. Bede the Venerable (c. 673–735)read the full homily ›

As preserved in the Catena Aurea on John. Public domain.

On why the Lord came to a marriage, and against those who detract from its honor:

His condescension in coming to the marriage, and the miracle He wrought there, are, even considering them in the letter only, a strong confirmation of the faith. Therein too are condemned the errors of Tatian, Marcion, and others who detract from the honor of marriage. For if the undefiled bed, and the marriage celebrated with due chastity, partook at all of sin, our Lord would never have come to one. Whereas now, conjugal chastity being good, the continence of widows better, the perfection of the virgin state best, to sanction all these degrees, but distinguish the merit of each, He deigned to be born of the pure womb of the Virgin; was blessed after birth by the prophetic voice of the widow Anna; and now invited in manhood to attend the celebration of a marriage, honors that also by the presence of His goodness.

On the mystery of the third day:

Nor is it without some mysterious allusion, that the marriage is related as taking place on the third day. The first age of the world, before the giving of the Law, was enlightened by the example of the Patriarchs; the second, under the Law, by the writings of the Prophets; the third, under grace, by the preaching of the Evangelists, as if by the light of the third day; for our Lord had now appeared in the flesh.

On the law weakened by carnal interpretation:

At the time of our Lord’s appearing in the flesh, the sweet vinous taste of the law had been weakened by the carnal interpretations of the Pharisees.