Monday of the 2nd Sunday of Pascha

Galilee is a province; Cana a village in it.

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. And yet it suggests a greater consideration than that which was done in the water-pots. For who is there that considers the works of God, whereby this whole world is governed and regulated, who is not amazed and overwhelmed with miracles? If he considers the vigorous power of a single grain of any seed whatever, it is a mighty thing, it inspires him with awe. But since men, intent on a different matter, have lost the consideration of the works of God, by which they should daily praise Him as the Creator, God has, as it were, reserved to Himself the doing of certain extraordinary actions, that, by striking them with wonder, He might rouse men as from sleep to worship Him. A dead man has risen again; men marvel: so many are born daily, and none marvels. If we reflect more considerately, it is a matter of greater wonder for one to be who was not before, than for one who was to come to life again.

The Lord, on being invited, came to the marriage. What wonder if He came to that house to a marriage, having come into this world to a marriage? For, indeed, if He came not to a marriage, He has not here a bride. But what says the apostle? "I have espoused you to one husband, to present you a chaste virgin to Christ." Why does he fear lest the virginity of Christ's bride should be corrupted by the subtilty of the devil? "I fear," saith he, "lest as the serpent beguiled Eve by his subtilty, so also your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and chastity which is in Christ." Thus has He here a bride whom He has redeemed by His blood, and to whom He has given the Holy Spirit as a pledge. He has freed her from the bondage of the devil: He died for her sins, and is risen again for her justification. Who will make such offerings to his bride? Men may offer to a bride every sort of earthly ornament,-gold, silver, precious stones, houses, slaves, estates, farms,-but will any give his own blood? For if one should give his own blood to his bride, he would not live to take her for his wife. But the Lord, dying without fear, gave His own blood for her, whom rising again He was to have, whom He had already united to Himself in the Virgin's womb. For the Word was the Bridegroom, and human flesh the bride; and both one, the Son of God, the same also being Son of man. The womb of the Virgin Mary, in which He became head of the Church, was His bridal chamber: thence He came forth, as a bridegroom from his chamber, as the Scripture foretold, "And rejoiced as a giant to run his way." From His chamber He came forth as a bridegroom; and being invited, came to the marriage.

When we see, therefore, such deeds wrought by Jesus God, why should we wonder at water being turned into wine by the man Jesus? For He was not made man in such manner that He lost His being God. Man was added to Him, God not lost to Him. This miracle was wrought by the same who made all those things. Let us not therefore wonder that God did it, but love Him because He did it in our midst, and for the purpose of our restoration. For He gives us certain intimations by the very circumstances of the case. I suppose that it was not without cause He came to the marriage. The miracle apart, there lies something mysterious and sacramental in the very fact. Let us knock, that He may open to us, and fill us with the invisible wine: for we were water, and He made us wine, made us wise; for He gave us the wisdom of His faith, whilst before we were foolish. And it appertains, it may be, to this wisdom, together with the honor of God, and with the praise of His majesty, and with the charity of His most powerful mercy, to understand what was done in this miracle.

In the ancient times there was prophecy, and no times were left without the dispensation of prophecy. But the prophecy, since Christ was not understood therein, was water. For in water wine is in some manner latent. The apostle tells us what we are to understand by this water: "Even unto this day," saith he, "whilst Moses is read, that same veil is upon their heart; that it is not unveiled because it is done away in Christ. And when thou shalt have passed over," saith he, "to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away." By the veil he means the covering over of prophecy, so that it was not understood. When thou hast passed over to the Lord, the veil is taken away; so likewise is tastelessness taken away when thou hast passed over to the Lord; and what was water now becomes wine to thee. Read all the prophetic books; and if Christ be not understood therein, what canst thou find so insipid and silly? Understand Christ in them, and what thou readest not only has a taste, but even inebriates thee; transporting the mind from the body, so that forgetting the things that are past, thou reachest forth to the things that are before.

Wherefore, prophecy from ancient times, even from the time when the series of human births began to run onwards, was not silent concerning Christ; but the import of the prophecy was concealed therein, for as yet it was water.

When these words of the Gospel are understood, and they are certainly clear, all the mysteries which are latent in this miracle of the Lord will be laid open. Observe what He says, that it behoved the things to be fulfilled in Christ that were written of Him. Where were they written? "In the law," saith He, "and in the prophets, and in the Psalms." He omitted no part of the Old Scriptures. These were water; and hence the disciples were called irrational by the Lord, because as yet they tasted to them as water, not as wine. And how did He make of the water wine? When He opened their understanding, and expounded to them the Scriptures, beginning from Moses, through all the prophets; with which being now inebriated, they said, "Did not our hearts burn within us in the way, when He opened to us the Scriptures?" For they understood Christ in those books in which they knew Him not before. Thus our Lord Jesus Christ changed the water into wine, and that has now taste which before had not, that now inebriates which before did not. For if He had commanded the water to be poured out of the water-pots, and so Himself had put in the wine from the secret repositories of the creature, whence He made bread when He satisfied so many thousands; for five loaves were not in themselves sufficient to satisfy five thousand men, nor even to fill twelve baskets, but the omnipotence of the Lord was, as it were, a fountain of bread; so likewise He might, on the water being poured out, have poured in wine: but had He done this, He would appear to have rejected the Old Scriptures. When, however, He turns the water itself into wine, He shows us that the Old Scripture also is from Himself, for at His own command were the water-pots filled. It is from the Lord, indeed, that the Old Scripture also is; but it has no taste unless Christ is understood therein.

(In Verb. Dom. Serm. xli) Let the proud man blush to see the humility of God. Lo, among other things, the Son of the Virgin comes to a marriage; He who, when He was with the Father, instituted marriage.

(Tr. viii. c. 4) What marvel, if He went to that house to a marriage, Who came into this world to a marriage. For here He has His spouse whom He redeemed with His own blood, to whom He gave the pledge of the Spirit, and whom He united to Himself in the womb of the Virgin. For the Word is the Bridegroom, and human flesh the bride, and both together arc one Son of God and Son of man. That womb of the Virgin Mary is His chamber, from which he went forth as a bridegroom. (Ps. 19:5)

(in v. 1) 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.

(Hom. 2d Sund. after Epiph.) 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 honour 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, honours that also by the presence of His goodness.

(in loc.) 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. The name of the place too where the marriage was held, Cana of Galilee, which means, desire of migrating, has a typical signification, viz. that those are most worthy of Christ, who burn with devotional desires, and have known the passage from vice to virtue, from earthly to eternal things.

And on the third day a marriage etc. After the calling of the disciples has been described, there is here described the manifestation made through the Word and concerning the incarnate Word: whence the Gloss says that after the showings made through John, the Lord himself showed himself by a miracle. The Evangelist therefore describes this manifestation in this order. First is indicated the occasion for performing the miracle: second, the obtaining of the miracle: third, the wondrous conversion of water into wine: fourth, the approval of the miracle: fifth, the manifestation of Christ and the edification of the disciples, to whom the Lord deigned to manifest himself through this miracle.

First, therefore, is indicated the occasion for performing the miracle, which was that the Lord was present at the wedding with his disciples. On account of which he says: And on the third day, namely after the calling of the disciples, a marriage took place in Cana of Galilee; the place is touched upon. And the Mother of Jesus was there: it is not said that she was invited, because by reason of kinship she went as one performing a duty, just as she also went into the hill country to Elizabeth to serve her, as is said in Luke 1. By reason of this the Lord also was invited.

Here a question arises among the expositors concerning the time of the wedding: for it is said by some that it took place on the same day on which the Lord was baptized. But how can this stand, since it is said that it took place on the third day, after the Lord came from Judea?

They respond that it was on the same day, but a year later.

But then the following text contradicts this: for it is said below in the same chapter that he went down to Capernaum, and that he did not remain there long, because the Passover was near: therefore these nuptials took place near the Passover, and therefore not at Epiphany.

But if this is conceded, the custom of the Church is to the contrary, because the Church celebrates three feasts on the same day.

I respond: It must be said that, as has been stated, there are diverse opinions here, and each is probable and can be sustained. For if we wish to maintain that this miracle took place after the baptism of the Lord and his return from the desert and his coming into Galilee, we shall say that it was near the Passover. Nor does the custom of the Church stand in the way, because the Church celebrates these three together — concerning the star and the dove and the changing of the wine — because the Lord first became known through these three; or because the changing of the water signifies the regenerative power conferred upon the waters when the Lord was baptized. But if we wish to maintain the other opinion, we shall respond that when it is said that after this he went down to Capernaum, it should be understood that it was not immediately after this, but with some time intervening, such that the Passover was approaching.

Allegorically: There is a threefold day according to a threefold time, namely of nature, of the Law, and of grace. In this third, the wedding was celebrated between Christ and the Church in the assumption of flesh, concerning which Matthew 22: The kingdom of heaven is like a king who made a wedding feast for his son. In this wedding the six water jars of tasteless water and without nourishment were changed into flavorful and delightful wine, because the shadow of the Law was changed into truth; Hebrews 10: The Law having a shadow of good things to come etc.

The variety of sacrifices into unity; Hebrews 10: Every priest indeed stands daily ministering and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but this one, offering one sacrifice for sins, etc.

The harshness of punishments into lightness; Acts 15: Why do you tempt God, to impose a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, etc.? Enigmas into light; 2 Corinthians 3: Until this present day a veil is placed over their heart; but we, beholding the glory of the Lord with unveiled face, etc. Terrors into love; Romans 8: You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear, but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, etc.

The promises into attainment: Luke 1, in the canticle of Zechariah: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited and wrought redemption for his people. And these things were accomplished at the prayers of the Virgin, through her intercession; Luke 1: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

Christianity does not exclude any of the ordinary human activities. St. Paul tells people to get on with their jobs. He even assumes that Christians may go to dinner parties, and, what is more, dinner parties given by pagans. Our Lord attends a wedding and provides miraculous wine. Under the aegis of His Church, and in the most Christian ages, learning and the arts flourish.

The third day is the mystery of the Trinity, while the miracles of the nuptials are the mysteries of heavenly joys. It was both a nuptial day and a feast for this reason, because the church after the redemption was joined to the spouse who was coming—to that spouse, I say, whom all the ages from the beginning of the world had promised. It is he who came down to earth to invite his beloved to marriage with his highness, giving her for a present the token of his blood and intending to give later the dowry of his kingdom.

The wedding was not held in Jerusalem but outside of Judea, as it were, in the country of the Gentiles—"Galilee of the Gentiles," as the prophet said. It is, I suppose, altogether obvious that the synagogue of the Jews rejected the Bridegroom from heaven and that the church of the Gentiles [gladly] received him.

Consider whether this first miracle of our Savior that took place in Cana of Galilee, where he changed water into wine, is not foretold in the beginning of this prophecy where it says, "Drink this first. Act quickly, land of Zebulun and Naphtali, Galilee of the Gentiles." And this miracle was a sign of the mystic wine—that wine of the faith of the new covenant that is transformed from bodily joy to a joy of mind and spirit.

The primary laws of man are to be found in the permanent life of man; in those things that have been common to it in every time and land, though in the highest civilisation they have reached an enrichment like that of the divine romance of Cana in Galilee. We know that many critics of such a story say that its elements are not permanent; but indeed it is the critics who are not permanent. A hundred mad dogs of heresy have worried man from the beginning; but it was always the dog that died. We know there is a school of prigs who disapprove of the wine; and there may now be a school of prigs who disapprove of the wedding. For in such a case as the story of Cana, it may be remarked that the pedants are prejudiced against the earthly elements as much as, or more than, the heavenly elements. It is not the supernatural that disgusts them, so much as the natural. And those of us who have seen all the normal rules and relations of humanity uprooted by random speculators, as if they were abnormal abuses and almost accidents, will understand why men have sought for something divine if they wished to preserve anything human. They will know why common sense, cast out from some academy of fads and fashions conducted on the lines of a luxurious madhouse, has age after age sought refuge in the high sanity of a sacrament.

I said before that He was best known in Galilee; therefore they invite Him to the marriage, and He comes; for He looked not to His own honor, but to our benefit. He who disdained not to "take upon Him the form of a servant" (Phil. ii. 7), would much less disdain to be present at the marriage of servants; He who sat down "with publicans and sinners" (Matt. ix. 13), would much less refuse to sit down with those present at the marriage. Assuredly they who invited Him had not formed a proper judgment of Him, nor did they invite Him as some great one, but merely as an ordinary acquaintance; and this the Evangelist has hinted at, when he says, "The mother of Jesus was there, and His brethren." Just as they invited her and His brethren, they invited Jesus.

He was truly both seen and heard upon the mount; true and real was the draught of that wine at the marriage of (Cana in) Galilee; true and real also was the touch of the then believing Thomas.

How mighty is the grace of water, in the sight of God and His Christ, for the confirmation of baptism! Never is Christ without water: if, that is, He is Himself baptized in water; inaugurates in water the first rudimentary displays of His power, when invited to the nuptials; invites the thirsty, when He makes a discourse, to His own sempiternal water; approves, when teaching concerning love, among works of charity, the cup of water offered to a poor (child); recruits His strength at a well; walks over the water; willingly crosses the sea; ministers water to His disciples.

But further, if Christ reproves the scribes and Pharisees, sitting in the official chair of Moses, but not doing what they taught, what kind of (supposition). is it that He Himself withal should set upon His own official chair men who were mindful rather to enjoin-(but) not likewise to practise-sanctity of the flesh, which (sanctity) He had in all ways recommended to their teaching and practising?-first by His own example, then by all other arguments; while He tells (them) that "the kingdom of heavens" is "children's; " while He associates with these (children) others who, after marriage, remained (or became)virgins; " while He calls (them) to (copy) the simplicity of the dove, a bird not merely innocuous, but modest too, and whereof one male knows one female; while He denies the Samaritan woman's (partner to be) a husband, that He may show that manifold husbandry is adultery; while, in the revelation of His own glory, He prefers, from among so many saints and prophets, to have with him Moses and Elias -the one a monogamist, the other a voluntary celibate (for Elias was nothing else than John, who came "in the power and spirit of Elias" ); while that "man gluttonous and toping," the "frequenter of luncheons and suppers, in the company of publicans and sinners," sups once for all at a single marriage, though, of course, many were marrying (around Him); for He willed to attend (marriages) only so often as (He willed) them to be.

According to the theoria [of this passage], the Word of God descended from heaven in order that the bridegroom, having made the punishment of the human nature his own, might persuade [his bride] to become pregnant with the spiritual seed of wisdom. He convened the wedding on the third day, that is, in the last times of the age. For he struck the transgression that was in Adam and again bandaged us on the third day, that is, in the last times when, becoming human for us he took on the whole fleshly nature that he resurrected in himself from the dead. Therefore, because of this [John] mentions the third as the day when he consecrated the wedding.

It is evident that this third day should be calculated as the third day after the baptism. He said that the first day was that in which Andrew and his companion followed him and then passed the night with him. The second day relates the events concerning Philip and Nathanael. The third day points to the events of this wedding party. Clearly all these events took place in Galilee. Immediately after his baptism he left and lived there.

Above, the Evangelist showed the dignity of the incarnate Word and gave various evidence for it. Now he begins to relate the effects and actions by which the divinity of the incarnate Word was made known to the world. First, he tells the things Christ did, while living in the world, that show his divinity. Secondly, he tells how Christ showed his divinity while dying; and this from chapter twelve on.

As to the first he does two things. First, he shows the divinity of Christ in relation to the power he had over nature. Secondly, in relation to the effects of grace; and this from chapter three on. Christ's power over nature is pointed out to us by the fact that he changed a nature. And this change was accomplished by Christ as a sign: first, to his disciples, to strengthen them; secondly, to the people, to lead them to believe (2:12). This transformation of a nature, in order to strengthen the disciples, was accomplished at a marriage, when he turned water into wine. First, the marriage is described. Secondly, those present. Thirdly, the miracle performed by Christ.

In describing the marriage, the time is first mentioned. Hence he says, On the third day there was a wedding, i.e., after the calling of the disciples mentioned earlier. For, after being made known by the testimony of John, Christ also wanted to make himself known. Secondly, the place is mentioned; hence he says, at Cana in Galilee. Galilee is a province, and Cana a small village located in that province.

As far as the literal meaning is concerned, we should note that there are two opinions about the time of Christ's preaching. Some say that there were two and a half years from Christ's baptism until his death. According to them, the events at this wedding took place in the same year that Christ was baptized. However, both the teaching and practice of the Church are opposed to this. For three miracles are commemorated on the feast of the Epiphany: the adoration of the Magi, which took place in the first year of the Lord's birth; secondly, the baptism of Christ, which implies that he was baptized on the same day thirty years later; thirdly, this marriage, which took place on the same day one year later. It follows from this that at least one year elapsed between his baptism and this marriage. In that year the only things recorded to have been done by the Lord are found in the sixth chapter of Matthew: the fasting in the desert, and the temptation by the devil; and what John tells us in this Gospel of the testimony by the Baptist and the conversion of the disciples. After this wedding, Christ began to preach publicly and to perform miracles up to the time of his passion, so that he preached publicly for two and one half years.

In the mystical sense, marriage signifies the union of Christ with his Church, because as the Apostle says: "This is a great mystery: I am speaking of Christ and his Church" (Eph 5:32). And this marriage was begun in the womb of the Virgin, when God the Father united a human nature to his Son in a unity of person. So, the chamber of this union was the womb of the Virgin: "He established a chamber for the sun" (Ps 18:6). Of this marriage it is said: "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who married his son" (Mt 22:2), that is, when God the Father joined a human nature to his Word in the womb of the Virgin. It was made public when the Church was joined to him by faith: "I will bind you to myself in faith" (Hos 2:20). We read of this marriage: "Blessed are they who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb" (Rv 19:9). It will be consummated when the bride, i.e., the Church, is led into the resting place of the groom, i.e., into the glory of heaven.

The fact that this marriage took place on the third day is not without its own mystery. For the first day is the time of the law of nature; the second day is the time of the written law, but the third day is the time of grace, when the incarnate Lord celebrated the marriage: "He will revive us after two days: on the third day he will raise us up" (Hos 6:3).

The place too is appropriate. For "Cana" means "zeal" and "Galilee" means "passage." So this marriage was celebrated in the zeal of a passage, to suggest that those persons are most worthy of union with Christ who, burning with the zeal of a conscientious devotion, pass over from the state of guilt to the grace of the Church. "Pass over to me, all who desire me" (Sir 24:26). And they pass from death to life, i.e., from the state of mortality and misery to the state of immortality and glory: "I make all things new" (Rv 21:5).

Then the persons invited are described. Mention is made of three: the mother of Jesus, Jesus himself, and the disciples.

The mother of Jesus is mentioned when he says, the mother of Jesus was there. She is mentioned first to indicate that Jesus was still unknown and not invited to the wedding as a famous person, but merely as one acquaintance among others; for as they invited the mother, so also her son. Or, perhaps his mother is invited first because they were uncertain whether Jesus would come to a wedding if invited, because of the unusual piety they noticed in him and because they had not seen him at other social gatherings. So I think that they first asked his mother whether Jesus should be invited. That is why the Evangelist expressly said first that his mother was at the wedding, and that later Jesus was invited.

The Lord, in that He came to the marriage to which He was invited, wished, apart from the mystical signification, to assure us that marriage was His own institution. For there were to be those of whom the apostle spoke, "forbidding to marry," and asserting that marriage was an evil, and of the devil's institution: notwithstanding the same Lord declares in the Gospel, on being asked whether it be lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause, that it is not lawful save for the cause of fornication. In His answer, if you remember, He said, "What God hath joined together let not man put asunder." And they that are well instructed in the catholic faith know that God instituted marriage; and as the union of man and wife is from God, so divorce is from the devil. But in the case of fornication it is lawful for a man to put away his wife, because she first chose to be no longer wife in not preserving conjugal fidelity to her husband. Nor are those women who vow virginity to God, although they hold a higher place of honor and sanctity in the Church, without marriage. For they too, together with the whole Church, attain to a marriage, a marriage in which Christ is the Bridegroom. And for this cause, therefore, did the Lord, on being invited, come to the marriage, to confirm conjugal chastity, and to show forth the sacrament of marriage. For the bridegroom in that marriage, to whom it was said, "Thou hast kept the good wine until now," represented the person of the Lord. For the good wine-namely, the gospel-Christ has kept until now.

Before the incarnation, both penitential compunction and matrimonial generation were necessary: therefore Christ did not institute these two Sacraments anew, but brought to completion and confirmed in the evangelical law what had already been instituted by him and in a certain way impressed upon the dictate of nature, when he preached penance and attended the wedding and approved the law of marriage, as is gathered from various passages of the Gospel.

And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage. Chrysostom: "He was invited to the marriage, not as someone great, but as a kinsman, and he, being humble, did not refuse the invitation, but went," according to what he teaches in Luke 14: "When you are invited to a wedding, go, recline in the last place."

It is asked whose wedding it was. And that it was John's is said in the Prologue above, and Augustine likewise said in the Gloss on the beginning. But against this, Victor objects: "Since virginity is the meditation upon perpetual incorruption, it is not to be believed that John, to whom testimony of virginity is given, ever consented to an act of the flesh."

To this it must be responded that because greater authority concurs on this point, it should be held that it was John's wedding. And a sign of this can be gathered from the text: because John was a kinsman of the Lord, and for this reason he and his Mother were invited to the wedding.

Therefore what Victor objects is resolved in two ways: in one way, that he did not consent to an act of the flesh or to carnal union absolutely, but, like the Virgin Mary, he committed himself to the disposition of the Holy Spirit, so that thus the virgin, who was to be the guardian of the Virgin, might agree with the Virgin in the manner of virginity.

Alternatively it is answered that, granted that he consented absolutely, his virtue was not diminished, because he consented licitly; similarly the dignity of virginity was not diminished, because, since virginity denotes the incorruption of mind and flesh, it can be lost in three ways: either the incorruption of both is lost, and then it is lost eternally and temporally; or the incorruption of the mind alone is lost, and then it is lost recoverably; or the incorruption of the body alone, and then it is lost temporally but not eternally, because such a one will have the glory of virginity; but nevertheless, as Pope Leo says, such persons ought not to count themselves among the sacred virgins. Since therefore John remained incorrupt in the flesh, even if his mind consented, he afterward returned to the same state.

It is also asked why the Lord willed to go to the wedding. And it seems that He ought not to have done so. For if the place of a wedding is a place of feasting, and the Lord Himself ought to have fled all feasting, then He ought not to have gone there.

I respond: It must be said that He went in order to establish faith and to uproot heresy. He confirmed the faith of the disciples who had been called through the miracle, and He also gained the faith of the bridegroom. He uprooted heresy, namely that of Julian, who condemns marriage. Against which the Lord willed to be present and to confirm and approve marriage by a miracle. But if the Lord, having been invited, had refused to go, then He would have seemed to have favored that heresy and to have condemned marriage.

That conjugal chastity is to be approved according to the evangelical law is shown by authority, as follows. John 2: Jesus and his disciples were called to the wedding: and consequently he shows that he performed his first miracle there; but if the nuptial act were not consonant with the law of God, Christ would not have approved it by his own presence: therefore conjugal chastity accords with divine law.

As one who was renewing and refashioning the very nature of humanity for the better, Christ not only imparts his blessing to those already called into being but also prepares grace in advance for those soon to be born and sanctifies their entrance into existence. And yet, there is still another reason why Jesus was at this wedding. God had said to the woman. "in pain you shall bring forth children." How else could we escape a condemned marriage unless this curse was annulled? This curse too the Savior removes because of his love for humankind. For he who is the delight and joy of all honored marriage with his presence so that he might expel the ancient sadness of childbearing.

The Son of God went to the wedding so that marriage, which had been instituted by his own authority, might be sanctified by his blessed presence. He went to a wedding of the old order when he was about to take a new bride for himself through the conversion of the Gentiles, a bride who would forever remain a virgin. He went to a wedding even though he himself was not born of human wedlock. He went to the wedding not, certainly, to enjoy a banquet but rather to make himself known by miracles. He went to the wedding not to drink wine but to give it.

The third day was now come from Jesus' baptism, and there was a marriage taking place in Cana of Galilee. Jesus' mother was there when, on the failure of the wine, he made wine out of water.… Jesus being Maker of man and woman does not refuse to be called to a marriage; it was he who after forming Eve brought her to Adam. Therefore in the Gospel he says about this union, "What God has joined together let no man put asunder." Let the heretics therefore be put to shame who reject marriage, since Jesus was called to a marriage and his mother was there.

They invite the Lord to the wedding not because they had seen His miracles, not as a great man, but simply as an acquaintance. Indicating this, the evangelist says: "the Mother of Jesus was there" and His brothers. Just as she and the brothers were invited, so too was the Lord. The Lord does not reject the invitation and comes, because He looked not to His own dignity, but to what is useful and beneficial for us. He who did not consider it beneath Himself to be among servants could even less consider it beneath Himself to go to a wedding.

And this is what comes next: Jesus was invited. Christ decided to attend this wedding, first of all, to give us an example of humility. For he did not look to his own dignity, but "just as he condescended to accept the form of a servant, so he did not hesitate to come to the marriage of servants," as Chrysostom says. And as Augustine says: "Let man blush to be proud, for God became humble." For among his other acts of humility, the Son of the Virgin came to a marriage, which he had already instituted in paradise when he was with his Father. Of this example it is said: "Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart" (Mt 11:29).

He came, secondly, to reject the error of those who condemn marriage, for as Bede says: "If there were sin in a holy marriage bed and in a marriage carried out with due purity, the Lord would not have come to the marriage." But because he did come, he implies that the baseness of those who denounce marriage deserves to be condemned. "If she marries, it is not a sin" (1 Cor 7:36).

The disciples are mentioned when he says, and his disciples.

In its mystical meaning, the mother of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin, is present in spiritual marriages as the one who arranges the marriage, because it is through her intercession that one is joined to Christ through grace: "In me is every hope of life and of strength" (Sir 24:25). Christ is present as the true groom of the soul, as is said below (3:29): "It is the groom who has the bride." The disciples are the groomsmen uniting the Church to Christ, the one of whom it is said: "I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ" (2 Cor 11:2).

She represents here the Synagogue, which challenges Christ to perform a miracle. It was customary with the Jews to ask for miracles.

The wine was made to fail, to give our Lord the opportunity of making better; that so the glory of God in man might be brought out of its hiding place: And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto Him, They have no wine.

And the wine failing. Here is touched upon the second point, namely the obtaining of the miracle, which was done by the Mother having compassion on the bridegroom's want. Therefore he says: And the wine failing, the Mother of Jesus says to him: They have no wine; as if to say: From your abundance supply their want; for she knew that he was "rich in mercy" and power, although he appeared poor: 2 Corinthians 8: "Though he was rich in all things, he became poor for our sake."

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.

Receive also yet a third reason. It had been said to the woman by God, In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children. How then was it not needful that we should thrust off this curse too, or how else could we escape a condemned marriage? This too the Saviour, being loving to man, removes. For He, the Delight and Joy of all, honoured marriage with His Presence, that He might expel the old shame of child-bearing. For if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; and old things are passed away, as Paul saith, they are become new. He cometh therefore with. His disciples to the marriage. For it was needful that the lovers of miracles should be present with the Wonderworker, to collect what was wrought as a kind of food to their faith. But when wine failed the feasters, His mother called the Lord being good according to His wonted Love for man, saying, They have no wine. For since it was in His Power to do whatsoever He would, she urges Him to the miracle.

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.

Here it is worth while to enquire whence it came into His mother's mind to imagine anything great of her Son; for He had as yet done no miracle, since the Evangelist saith, "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee."

Now if any say that this is not a sufficient proof that it was the "beginning of His miracles," because there is added simply "in Cana of Galilee," as allowing it to have been the first done there, but not altogether and absolutely the first, for He probably might have done others elsewhere, we will make answer to him of that which we have said before. And of what kind? The words of John (the Baptist); "And I knew Him not; but that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come, baptizing with water." Now if He had wrought miracles in early age, the Israelites would not have needed another to declare Him. For He who came among men, and by His miracles was so made known, not to those only in Judaea, but also to those in Syria and beyond, and who did this in three years only, or rather who did not need even these three years to manifest Himself (Matt. iv. 24), for immediately and from the first His fame went abroad everywhere; He, I say, who in a short time so shone forth by the multitude of His miracles, that His name was well known to all, was much less likely, if while a child He had from an early age wrought miracles, to escape notice so long. For what was done would have seemed stranger as done by a boy, and there would have been time for twice or thrice as many, and much more. But in fact He did nothing while He was a child, save only that one thing to which Luke has testified (Luke ii. 46), that at the age of twelve years He sat hearing the doctors, and was thought admirable for His questioning. Besides, it was in accordance with likelihood and reason that He did not begin His signs at once from an early age; for they would have deemed the thing a delusion. For if when He was of full age many suspected this, much more, if while quite young He had wrought miracles, would they have hurried Him sooner and before the proper time to the Cross, in the venom of their malice; and the very facts of the Dispensation would have been discredited.

"How then," asks some one, "came it into the mind of His mother to imagine anything great of Him?" He was now beginning to reveal Himself, and was plainly discovered by the witness of John, and by what He had said to His disciples. And before all this, the Conception itself and all its attending circumstances had inspired her with a very great opinion of the Child; "for," said Luke, "she heard all the sayings concerning the Child, and kept them in her heart." "Why then," says one, "did not she speak this before?" Because, as I said, it was now at last that He was beginning to manifest Himself. Before this time He lived as one of the many, and therefore His mother had not confidence to say any such thing to Him; but when she heard that John had come on His account, and that he had borne such witness to Him as he did, and that He had disciples, after that she took confidence, and called Him, and said, when they wanted wine, "They have no wine." For she desired both to do them a favor, and through her Son to render herself more conspicuous; perhaps too she had some human feelings, like His brethren, when they said, "Show thyself to the world" (c. xvii. 4), desiring to gain credit from His miracles.

When Christ was present at the marriage feast, and the crowd of guests were faring sumptuously, The supply of wine failed them, and their joy was turned into distress; The bridegroom was upset; the cupbearers muttered unceasingly; There was this one sad display of penury, And there was no small clamor in the room. Recognizing it, the all-holy Mary Came at once and said to her son: "They have no wine, But I beg you, my son, show that you can do all things, Thou who has in wisdom created all things."

We beg of you, holy Virgin, from what sort of miracles did you know How your son would be able to offer wine when He had not harvested the grapes And had never before worked wonders, as John, inspired of God wrote? Teach us, how, when you had never gazed upon And never made trial of His miracles,

How did you summon Him to this miracle? For the question now posed to us in this matter is not simple, As to how you said to your son: "Give them wine," He who has in wisdom created all things.

Let us learn the word which the mother of the God of all said to us: "Listen," she said, "my friends, instruct yourselves and know the mystery; I have seen my son working miracles even before this miracle. …

"For I know that I did not know a husband, And I bore a son—beyond natural law and reason, And I know that I remained a virgin as I had been. Do you, O man, ask for a miracle greater than this birth? Gabriel came to me saying how this one would be born, He who has in wisdom created all things.

"After my conception, I myself saw Elizabeth call me Mother of God before the actual birth; after the birth, Simeon praised me in song; Anna greeted me with joy; the Magi from Persia hastened to the manger, For a heavenly star proclaimed the birth in advance; Shepherds with angels heralded joy, And creation rejoiced with them. What would I be able to ask for greater than these miracles? Indeed from them I have faith that it is my son Who has in wisdom created all things."

Perhaps his mother, as mothers do, incited him to perform a miracle, wishing that the greatness of her son would be revealed—and thinking that the lack of wine offered the right occasion for the miracle.

The Mother urges Him to perform a miracle, because from the events of the conception and birth She had received a lofty understanding of His power. For She kept all these things in Her heart (Luke 2:19, 51) and from this concluded that Her Son possesses power above that of man. But the Mother of God did not have reason to ask Jesus to perform a miracle on the grounds that He had performed other miracles. For, being a child, He did not perform a single miracle; otherwise He would have been known to all. At the same time, the Mother also remembered the testimonies of John, in which he bore witness concerning Him, and She already saw that disciples were following Him, and from all of this She inferred the power of Her Son.

At this physical marriage some role in the miracle belongs to the mother of Christ, some to Christ, and some to the disciples. When he says, When the wine ran out, he indicates the part of each. The role of Christ's mother was to superintend the miracle; the role of Christ to perform it; and the disciples were to bear witness to it. As to the first, Christ's mother assumed the role of a mediatrix. Hence she does two things. First, she intercedes with her Son. In the second place, she instructs the servants. As to the first, two things are mentioned. First, his mother's intercession; secondly, the answer of her Son.

In Mary's intercession, note first her kindness and mercy. For it is a quality of mercy to regard another's distress as one's own, because to be merciful is to have a heart distressed at the distress of another: "Who is weak, and I am not weak?" (2 Cor 11:29). And so because the Blessed Virgin was full of mercy, she desired to relieve the distress of others. So he says, When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him.

Note, secondly, her reverence for Christ: for because of the reverence we have for God it is sufficient for us merely to express our needs: "Lord, all my desires are known by you" (Ps 37:10). But it is not our business to wonder about the way in which God will help us, for as it is said: "We do not know what we should pray for as we ought" (Rom 8:26). And so his mother merely told him of their need, saying, They have no more wine.

Thirdly, note the Virgin's concern and care. For she did not wait until they were in extreme need, but When the wine ran out, that is, immediately. This is similar to what is said of God: "A helper in times of trouble" (Ps 9:10).

Chrysostom asks: Why did Mary never encourage Christ to perform any miracles before this time? For she had been told of his power by the angel, whose work had been confirmed by the many things she had seen happening in his regard, all of which she remembered, thinking them over in her heart (Lk 2:51). The reason is that before this time he lived like any other person. So, because the time was not appropriate, she put off asking him. But now, after John's witness to him and after the conversion of his disciples, she trustingly prompted Christ to perform miracles. In this she was true to the symbol of the synagogue, which is the mother of Christ: for it was customary for the Jews to require miracles: "The Jews require signs" (1 Cor 1:22).

She says to him, They have no more wine. Here we should note that before the incarnation of Christ three wines were running out: the wine of justice, of wisdom, and of charity or grace. Wine stings, and in this respect it is a symbol of justice. The Samaritan poured wine and oil into the wounds of the injured man, that is, he mingled the severity of justice with the sweetness of mercy. "You have made us drink the wine of sorrow" (Ps 59:5). But wine also delights the heart, "Wine cheers the heart of man" (Ps 103:15). And in this respect wine is a symbol of wisdom, the meditation of which is enjoyable in the highest degree: "Her companionship has no bitterness" (Wis 8:16). Further, wine intoxicates: "Drink, friends, and be intoxicated, my dearly beloved" (Sg 5:1). And in this respect wine is a symbol of charity: "I have drunk my wine with my milk" (Sg 5:1). It is also a symbol of charity because of charity's fervor: "Wine makes the virgins flourish" (Zec 9:17).

The wine of justice was indeed running out in the old law, in which justice was imperfect. But Christ brought it to perfection: "Unless your justice is greater than that of the scribes and of the Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 5:20). The wine of wisdom was also running out, for it was hidden and symbolic, because as it says in 1 Corinthians (10:11): "All these things happened to them in symbol." But Christ plainly brought wisdom to light: "He was teaching them as one having authority" (Mt 7:29). The wine of charity was also running out, because they had received a spirit of serving only in fear. But Christ converted the water of fear into the wine of charity when he gave "the spirit of adoption as sons, by which we cry: 'Abba, Father'" (Rom 8:15), and when "the charity of God was poured out into our hearts," as Romans (5:5) says.

He would not dishonor his mother, since he orders us to honor our father and mother.

(in loc.) As if she said, Though He appear to refuse, He will do it nevertheless. She knew His pity and mercifulness. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Hydriæ1 are vessels to hold water: hydor being the Greek for water.

His Mother says to the servants: Whatever he shall say to you, do it. For she knew that he was able; she knew also that he knew; she knew that he would be willing, because he always obeyed her: whence Luke 2: "He went down with them and came to Nazareth and was subject to them," Jesus, namely, to his parents; and from this she was certain that he would do it. Therefore she says: Whatever he shall say to you, do it, as good servants, so that you may obtain the miracle, just as also Naaman, 4 Kings 5: "Father, even if the Prophet had told you a great thing, you ought to have done it." Do whatever he shall say to you: do not doubt; below, chapter eleven: "If you believe, you shall see the glory of God."

The woman having great influence to the performing of the miracle, prevailed, persuading the Lord, on account of what was fitting, as her Son. She begins the work by preparing the servants of the assembly to obey the things that should be enjoined.

On the wedding day in Galilee water was made wine. Have we words to tell or senses to ascertain what methods produced the change by which the tastelessness of water disappeared, and was replaced by the full flavour of wine? It was not a mixing; it was a creation, and a creation which was not a beginning, but a transformation. A weaker liquid was not obtained by admixture of a stronger element; an existing thing perished and a new thing came into being. The bridegroom was anxious, the household in confusion, the harmony of the marriage feast imperilled. Jesus is asked for help. He does not rise or busy Himself; He does the work without an effort. Water is poured into the vessels, wine drawn out in the cups. The evidence of the senses of the pourer contradicts that of the drawer. They who poured expect water to be drawn; they who draw think that wine must have been poured in. The intervening time cannot account for any gain or loss of character in the liquid. The mode of action baffles sight and sense, but the power of God is manifest in the result achieved.

Besides, even while saying to the Canaanitish woman, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to give it unto dogs" (Matt. xv. 26), He still gave the bread, as considering her perseverance; and though after his first reply, He said, "I am not sent save unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel," yet even after saying this, He healed the woman's daughter. Hence we learn, that although we be unworthy, we often by perseverance make ourselves worthy to receive. And for this reason His mother remained by, and openly brought to Him the servants, that the request might be made by a greater number; and therefore she added, "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.

The Mother says to the servants "whatever He says to you, do it" so that the request might be strengthened through their own approach and petition, so that it would be clear that the refusal was not from powerlessness, but with the aim of dispelling the opinion that He resorts to miracles out of self-glorification and vain ostentation.

Now although his mother was refused, she did not lose hope in her Son's mercy. So she instructs the servants, Do whatever he tells you, in which, indeed, consists the perfection of all justice. For perfect justice consists in obeying Christ in all things: "We will do all that the Lord commanded us" (Ex 29:35). Do whatever he tells you, is fittingly said of God alone, for man can err now and then. Hence in matters that are against God, we are not held to obey men: "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). We ought to obey God, who does not err and cannot be deceived, in all things.

Vessels to hold water were there, after the manner of the purifying of Jews. Among other traditions of the Pharisees, they observed frequent washings.

But observe what Himself saith, "The things which were written in the law, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me." And we know that the law extends from the time of which we have record, that is, from the beginning of the world: "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth." Thence down to the time in which we are now living are six ages, this being the sixth, as you have often heard and know. 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. 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. Why did I say, the periods which would run fruitlessly on, unless the Lord Jesus were preached in them? 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.

But what means this: "They contained two or three metretae apiece"? This phrase certainly conveys to us a mysterious meaning. For by "metretae" he means certain measures, as if he should say jars, flasks, or something of that sort. Metreta is the name of a measure, and takes its name from the word "measure." For metron is the Greek word for measure, whence the word "metretae" is derived. "They contained," then, "two or three metretae apiece." What are we to say, brethren? If He had simply said "three apiece," our mind would at once have run to the mystery of the Trinity. And, perhaps, we ought not at once to reject this application of the meaning, because He said, "two or three apiece;" for when the Father and Son are named, the Holy Spirit must necessarily be understood. For the Holy Spirit is not that of the Father only, nor of the Son only, but the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. For it is written, "If any man love the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him." And again, "Whoso hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of His." The same, then, is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. Therefore, the Father and the Son being named, the Holy Spirit also is understood, because He is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. And when there is mention of the Father and Son, "two metretae," as it were, are mentioned; but since the Holy Spirit is understood in them, "three metretae." That is the reason why it is not said, "Some containing two metretae apiece, others three apiece;" but the same six water-pots contained "two or three metretae apiece." It is as if he had said, When I say two apiece, I would have the Spirit of the Father and of the Son to be understood together with them; and when I say three apiece, I declare the same Trinity more plainly.

Wherefore, whoso names the Father and the Son ought thereby to understand the mutual love of the Father and Son, which is the Holy Spirit. And perhaps the Scriptures on being examined (I do not say that I am able to show you this to-day, or as if another proof cannot be found),-nevertheless, the Scriptures, perhaps, on being searched, do show us that the Holy Spirit is charity. And do not count charity a thing cheap. How, indeed, can it be cheap, when all things that are said to be not cheap are called dear (chara)? Therefore, if what is not cheap is dear, what is dearer than dearness itself (charitas)? The apostle so commends charity to us that he says, "I show unto you a more excellent way. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I know all mysteries and all knowledge, and have prophecy and all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I distribute all my goods to the poor, and give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." How great, then, is charity, which, if wanting, in vain have we all things else; if present, rightly have we all things! Yet the Apostle Paul, setting forth the praise of charity with copiousness and fullness, has said less of it than did the Apostle John in brief, whose Gospel this is. For he has not hesitated to say, "God is love." It is also written, "Because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given us." Who, then, can name the Father and the Son without thereby understanding the love of the Father and Son? Which when one begins to have, he will have the Holy Spirit; which if one has not, he will not have the Holy Spirit. And just as thy body, if it be without spirit, namely thy soul, is dead so likewise thy soul, if it be without the Holy Spirit, that is, without charity, will be reckoned dead. Therefore "The water-pots contained two Metretae apiece," because the Father and the Son are proclaimed in the prophecy of all the periods; but the Holy Spirit is there also, and therefore it is added, "or three apiece." "I and the Father," saith He, "are one." But far be it from us to suppose that where we are told, "I and the Father are one," the Holy Spirit is not there. Yet since he named the Father and the Son, let the water-pots contain "two metretae apiece;" but attend to this, "or three apiece." "Go, baptize the nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." So, therefore, when it says "two apiece," the Trinity is not expressed but understood; but when it says, "or three," the Trinity is expressed also.

But there is also another meaning that must not be passed over, and which I will declare: let every man choose which he likes best. We keep not back what is suggested to us. For it is the Lord's table, and the minister ought not to defraud the guests, especially when they hunger as you now do, so that your longing is manifest. Prophecy, which is dispensed from the ancient times, has for its object the salvation of all nations. True, Moses was sent to the people of Israel alone, and to that people alone was the law given by him; and the prophets, too, were of that people, and the very distribution of times was marked out according to the same people; whence also the water-pots are said to be "according to the purification of the Jews:" nevertheless, that the prophecy was proclaimed to all other nations also is manifest, forasmuch as Christ was concealed in him in whom all nations are blessed, as it was promised to Abraham by the Lord, saying, "In thy seed shall all nations be blessed." But this was not as yet understood, for as yet the water was not turned into wine. The prophecy therefore was dispensed to all nations.

But how do we show that all nations belong to the "two or three metretae apiece"? It was a matter of reckoning, in some measure, that he should say the same water-pots contained "two apiece," which he had said contained "three apiece;" evidently in order to intimate to us a mystery therein. How are there "two metretae apiece"? Circumcision and uncircumcision. Scripture mentions these two classes of people, and leaves out no kind of men, when it says, "Circumcision and uncircumcision;" in these two appellations thou hast all nations: they are the two metretae apiece. In these two walls, meeting from different quarters, "Christ became the corner-stone, in order to make peace in Himself." Let us show also the "three metretae apiece" in the case of these same all nations. Noah had three sons, through whom the human race was restored. Hence the Lord says, "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." What is this woman, but the flesh of the Lord? What is the leaven, but the gospel? What the three measures, but all nations, on account of the three sons of Noah? Therefore the "six water-pots containing two or three metretae apiece" are six periods of time, containing the prophecy relating to all nations, whether as represented in two sorts of men, namely, Jews and Greeks, as the apostle often mentions them; or in three sorts, on account of the three sons of Noah. For the prophecy was represented as reaching unto all nations. And because of that reaching it is called a measure, even as the apostle says, "We have received a measure for reaching unto you." For in preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, he says, "A measure for reaching unto you."

(Tr. ix. 5. et sq.) Now if He ordered the water to be poured out, and then introduced the wine from the hidden recesses of creation, He would seem to have rejected the Old Testament. But converting, as He did, the water into wine, He showed us that the Old Testament was from Himself, for it was by His order that the waterpots were filled. But those Scriptures have no meaning, if Christ be not understood there. Now we know from what time the law dates, viz. from the foundation of the world. From that time to this are six ages; the first, reekoning from Adam to Noah; the second, from Noah to Abraham; the third, from Abraham to David; the fourth, from David to the carrying away into Babylon; the fifth, from that time to John the Baptist; the sixth, from John the Baptist to the end of the world. The six waterpots then denote these six ages of prophecy. The prophecies are fulfilled; the waterpots are full. But what is the meaning of their holding two or three firkins apiece? Had He said three only, our minds would have run immediately to the mystery of the Trinity. Nor perhaps can we reject it, even though it is said, two or three: for the Father and the Son being named, the Holy Ghost may be understood by consequence; inasmuch as it is the love between the Father and the Son, which is the Holy Ghost. (c. 17.). Nor should we pass over another interpretation, which makes the two firkins alluded to the two races of men, the Jews and the Greeks; and the three to the three sons of Noah.

Now there were six water jars etc. Here the third point is touched upon, namely the working of the miracle. And because God does all things in a certain "weight, number, and measure," he states the measure in which this miracle was performed. On account of which he says: Now there were six stone water jars there. Water jars are vessels capable of receiving water: Genesis 24: "Give me a little water from your jar." These jars were set according to the purification of the Jews, that is, according to the custom of the Jews for purifying themselves. Concerning this custom, Mark 7: "And returning from the marketplace, unless they wash themselves, they do not eat; and there are many other things which have been handed down to them to observe, the washings of cups and pitchers." Each holding two or three measures. Measure is derived from metron, which means measurement, and here it denotes the common and customary measure, just as in Paris we say a sextarius of wine. According to these measures, therefore, the miracle was performed at the Lord's command.

Morally: These nuptials are those of God and the soul in the very reconciliation of the soul to God, of which Hosea 2 says: I will espouse thee to me in faith, and thou shalt know that I am the Lord.

To celebrate these nuptials the Lord Jesus came, but only when invited: Revelation 3: Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man shall hear my voice and open the door to me, I will come in to him and will sup with him.

The wine at these nuptials runs out: this wine is interior devotion, of which the Psalm says: Wine maketh glad the heart of man; and Matthew 9: No man putteth new wine into old wineskins. That wine runs out when a man becomes dry and undevout, as the holy soul says in the Psalm: My soul is as earth without water unto thee.

But at the prayers of the Virgin, who has compassion on the wretched, God fills the water jars with the water of compunction, which is converted into the sweetness of devotion: whence in Exodus 15 it is said that the waters of Marah were turned to sweetness.

Note therefore that the water jar, in which water is drawn, is consideration; the empty water jar is the consideration of the deficiency and emptiness which man incurs through sin. This water jar is filled with water when a man, from such consideration, is bathed in tears.

The first water jar, therefore, is the consideration of the deficiency of knowledge: Tobit 5: What manner of joy can there be for me, who sit in darkness and see not the light of heaven?

The second water jar is the consideration of the deficiency of vigilance against the enemy: 2 Corinthians 11: But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his craftiness, so your minds should be corrupted and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.

The third is the consideration of the deficiency of interior consolation: Jeremiah 2: See how evil and bitter it is that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God.

The fourth is the consideration of the deficiency of strength to resist: Psalm: My strength hath forsaken me, and the light of mine eyes, even that is not with me. The fifth is the consideration of the deficiency of stability to persevere: Genesis 8: The sense and thought of man are prone to evil from his youth.

The sixth is the consideration of the deficiency of assurance for hoping; Ecclesiastes 9: Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or of hatred.

Then these waterpots are filled to the brim with water, when the penitent soul washes its bed each night through these considerations. And from the water is made the finest wine of devotion, concerning which Zechariah 9 says: What is his good, and what is his beauty, but the grain of the elect and the wine that brings forth virgins? Into this the water of compunction is converted; whence the holy soul says in the Psalm: Thou hast turned my mourning into joy for me.

Why did our Lord change nature at the beginning of his signs, if it was not to show that the divinity that changed nature in the interior of the jars was the same that changed nature in the womb of the virgin? And at the conclusion of the signs, he opened the tomb to show that the insatiable nature of death would not keep hold of him; he confirmed and ratified these two uncertainties of his birth and of his death. As to their nature, these waters were turned into the [fruit of] the vine; their stone vessels were not changed within their own nature. They were a symbol of his body, which was wonderfully conceived in a woman, and in a marvelous way by [the intervention of] no man within the virgin. He thus made wine out of water to teach about the manner of his conception and birth. He called upon the six jars as witness to the one virgin who gave birth to him; for the jars conceived in a unique way that was not customary for them, and they brought forth wine, and then they did not continue to produce [it]. Thus did the virgin conceive and give birth to Immanuel, and then she ceased and did not continue [to give birth]. The offspring of the jars was from smallness to grandeur, and from vileness to excellence, for from water came good wine. In this case [the birth from the virgin], however, it was from grandeur to weakness and from glory to contempt. Yet in the case of these jars, they were for the purification of the Jews, and our Lord poured his instruction into them, to teach that he came in the way [found in] the Law and the Prophets, and he transformed everything by his teaching, just as wine [was made] from water.

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. For because Palestine is a country with but little water, and brooks and fountains were not everywhere to be found, they always used to fill waterpots with water, so that they might not have to hasten to the rivers if at any time they were filed, but might have the means of purification at hand.

The stone water jars were used for the purification of the Jews. For the Jews washed themselves almost every day and only then partook of food. Whether they touched a leper, a dead body, or had contact with a woman, they washed themselves as being already unclean. And since Palestine was waterless and it was not possible to find many springs, they always filled the water jars with water, so as not to run to the rivers in case of defilement. He said "according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews" not without purpose, but so that none of the unbelievers would think that some sediment of wine remained in the vessels, and then, when water was poured in and mixed, a very weak wine was produced — he shows that they were never receptacles for wine.

Now Christ's completion of the miracle is set forth. First, the vessels in which the miracle was performed are described. Secondly, the matter of the miracle is stated (v 7). Thirdly, we have how the miracle was made known and approved (v 8).

The miracle was performed in six vessels; Now there were six stone water jars near by. Here we should note, that as mentioned in Mark (7:2), the Jews observed many bodily washings and the cleansing of their cups and dishes. So, because they were in Palestine where there was a shortage of water, they had vessels in which they kept the purest water to be used for washing themselves and their utensils. Hence he says, there were six stone water jars near by, i.e., vessels for holding water, for purifications according to Jewish customs, i.e., to use for purification, each holding two or three metretes of liquid, that is, two or three measures; for the Greek "metrete" is the same as the Latin "mensura."

These jars were standing there, as Chrysostom says, in order to eliminate any suspicion about the miracle: both on account of their cleanliness, lest anyone suspect that the water had acquired the taste of wine from the dregs of wine previously stored in them, for these jars were standing there for purifications according to Jewish customs, and so had to be very pure; and also on account of the capacity of the jars, so that it would be abundantly clear that the water in such jars could be changed into wine only by divine power.

In the mystical sense, the six water jars signify the six eras of the Old Testament during which the hearts of men were prepared and made receptive of God's Scriptures, and put forward as an example for our lives.

The term metretes, according to Augustine, refers to the Trinity of persons. And they are described as two or three because at times in Scripture three persons in the Trinity are distinctly mentioned: "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19), and at other times only two, the Father and the Son, in whom the Holy Spirit, who is the union of the two, is implied: "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him" (below 14:23). Or they are described as two on account of the two states of mankind from which the Church arose, that is, Jews and Gentiles. Or three on account of the three sons of Noe, from whom the human race arose after the deluge.

The Triclinium is a circle of three couches, cline signifying couch: the ancients used to recline upon couches. And the Architriclinus is the one at the head of the Triclinium, i. e. the chief of the guests. Some say that among the Jews, He was a priest, and attended the marriage in order to instruct in the duties of the married state.

The servants are the doctors of the New Testament, who interpret the holy Scripture to others spiritually; the ruler of the feast is some lawyer, as Nicodemus, Gamaliel, or Saul. When to the former then is committed the word of the Gospel, hid under the letter of the law, it is the water made wine, being set before the ruler of the feast. And the three rows of guests at table in the house of the marriage are properly mentioned; the Church consisting of three orders of believers, the married, the continent, and the doctors.

(Tr. ix. c. 5) But see the mysteries which lie hid in that miracle of our Lord. It was necessary that all things should be fulfilled in Christ which were written of Him: those Scriptures were the water. He made the water wine when He opened unto them the meaning of these things, and expounded the Scriptures; for thus that came to have a taste which before had none, and that inebriated, which did not inebriate before.

When the master of the feast tasted the water made wine, that is, wine made from water, and did not know where it was from, but the servants knew, who had drawn the water, the master of the feast calls the bridegroom, namely so that he might rebuke him and commend and extol the wine.

There is an activity of God displayed throughout creation, a wholesale activity let us say which men refuse to recognize. The miracles done by God incarnate, living as a man in Palestine, perform the very same things as this wholesale activity, but at a different speed and on a smaller scale. One of their chief purposes is that men, having seen a thing done by personal power on the small scale, may recognize, when they see the same thing done on the large scale, that the power behind it is also personal – is indeed the very same person who lived among us two thousand years ago. The miracles in fact are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see...

God creates the vine and teaches it to draw up water by its roots and, with the aid of the sun, to turn water into a juice which will ferment and take on certain qualities. Thus every year, from Noah's time till ours, God turns water into wine. That, men fail to see. Either like the Pagans they refer the process to some finite spirit, Bacchus or Dionysus: or else, like the moderns, they attribute real and ultimate causality to the chemical and other material phenomena which are all that our senses can discover in it. But when Christ at Cana makes water into wine, the mask is off. The miracle has only half its effect if it only convinces us that Christ is God: it will have its full effect if whenever we see a vineyard or drink a glass of wine we remember that here works He who sat at a wedding party in Cana.

Where, then, do we draw the line between explaining and "explaining away"? I do not think there is much difficulty. All that concerns the unincarnate activities of God—His operation on that plane of being where sense cannot enter—must be taken along with imagery which we know to be, in the literal sense, untrue. But there can be no defense for applying the same treatment to the miracles of the Incarnate God. They are recorded as events on this earth which affected human senses. They are the sort of thing we can describe literally. If Christ turned water into wine, and we had been present, we could have seen, smelled, and tasted. The story that He did so is not of the same order as His "sitting at the right hand of the Father." It is either fact, or legend, or lie. You must take it or leave it.

Dr Pittenger contrasts my view with that which makes miracles a sign of God's action and presence in creation. Yet in chapter 15 I say that the miracle at Cana manifests "the God of Israel who has through all these centuries given us wine" and that in the miraculous feedings God "does close and small... what He has always been doing in the seas, the lakes and the little brooks". Surely this is just what Dr Pittenger wanted me to say, and what Athanasius says (De Incarnatione xiv. 8, edited by F. L. Cross, 1939)?

Of the natural conversion of water into wine, what I said was: "God creates the vine and teaches it to draw up water by its roots and, with the aid of the sun, to turn that water into a juice which will ferment and take on certain qualities." For completeness I should, no doubt, have added "with the aid of the soil", and perhaps other things; but this would not, from my point of view, have materially altered what I was saying. My answer to Mr May's question — where the other raw materials came from — would be the same, whether the list of raw materials be reduced to the mere vegetable and sunlight I mentioned, or extended to bring in all that the skilled botanist might add. I think they came from the same source at Cana whence they come in Nature... What I was doing was to combat that particular argument for its falsity which rests on the idea that, if it occurred, such an event would be arbitrary and meaningless.

He who did not want to change stones changed water at Cana.

On the wedding day in Galilee, water was made wine. Do we have appropriate words or senses to ascertain what methods produced the change by which the tastelessness of water disappeared and was replaced by the full flavor of wine? It was not a mixing; it was a creation, and a creation that was not a beginning but a transformation. A weaker liquid was not obtained by admixture of a stronger element; an existing entity perished, and a new entity came into being. The bridegroom was anxious, the household in confusion, the harmony of the marriage feast imperiled. Jesus is asked for help. He does not get up or busy himself. He does the work without any effort. Water is poured into the vessels, wine drawn out in the cups. The evidence of the senses of the pourer contradicts that of the one who draws it out. Those who poured expect water to be drawn; those who draw out think that wine must have been poured in. The intervening time cannot account for any gain or loss of character in the liquid. The mode of action baffles sight and sense, but the power of God is manifest in the result achieved.

(iii. de Trin. c. 5) 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. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was, (but the servants who drew the water knew,) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom. It was not a mixture, but a creation: the simple nature of water vanished, and the flavour 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.

Here again some mock, saying, "this was an assembly of drunken men, the sense of the judges was spoilt, and not able to taste what was made, or to decide on what was done, so that they did not know whether what was made was water or wine: for that they were drunk," it is alleged, "the ruler himself has shown by what he said." Now this is most ridiculous, yet even this suspicion the Evangelist has removed. 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. For of course you are aware, that those who are entrusted with the management of such banquets are the most sober, as having this one business, to dispose all things in order and regularity; and therefore the Lord called such a man's sober senses to testify to what was done. For He did not say, "Pour forth to them that sit at meat," but, "Bear unto the governor of the feast."

"And when the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was, (but the servants knew,) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom." "And why did he not call the servants? for so the miracle would have been revealed." Because Jesus had not Himself revealed what had been done, but desired that the power of His miracles should be known gently, little by little. And suppose that it had then been mentioned, the servants who related it would never have been believed, but would have been thought mad to bear such testimony to one who at that time seemed to the many a mere man; and although they knew the certainty of the thing by experience, (for they were not likely to disbelieve their own hands,) yet they were not sufficient to convince others. And so He did not reveal it to all, but to him who was best able to understand what was done, reserving the clearer knowledge of it for a future time; since after the manifestation of other miracles this also would be credible. Thus when he was about to heal the nobleman's son, the Evangelist has shown that it had already become more clearly known; for it was chiefly because the nobleman had become acquainted with the miracle that he called upon Him, as John incidentally shows when he says, "Jesus came into Cana of Galilee, where He made the water wine." (c. iv. 46.) And not wine simply, but the best.

Thus when he was about to heal the nobleman's son, the Evangelist has shown that it had already become more clearly known; for it was chiefly because the nobleman had become acquainted with the miracle that he called upon Him, as John incidentally shows when he says, "Jesus came into Cana of Galilee, where He made the water wine." (c. iv. 46.) And not wine simply, but the best wine.

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.

That it was wine then, and the best of wine, that had been made, not the servants only, but the bridegroom and the ruler of the feast would testify; and that it was made by Christ, those who drew the water; so that although the miracle were not then revealed, yet it could not in the end be passed in silence, so many and constraining testimonies had He provided for the future. That He had made the water wine, He had the servants for witnesses; that the wine was good that had been made, the ruler of the feast and the bridegroom.

The master of the feast asks not the servants, but the bridegroom. Why? Of course, by divine arrangement. If he had asked the servants, they would certainly have revealed the miracle; but no one would have believed them, for it was the beginning of signs, and no one yet had a great opinion of Christ, so that no one would have believed even if the servants had told of the miracle. However, when after this He performed other miracles as well, the present one too was bound to become credible, and the servants, telling everyone about it, could little by little gain trust. For this reason the Lord arranged it so that not the servants were asked, but the bridegroom.

Then the judgment of the one examining the wine is given. First, he inquires into the truth of the fact; secondly, he gives his opinion.

He says, Now when the head waiter tasted the water made wine, and not knowing where it came from, because he did not know that the water had miraculously been made wine by Christ, although the servants knew, the reason being, since they had drawn the water, he called the groom over, in order to learn the truth and give his opinion of the wine.

Christ has kept the good wine until now, i. e. He has deferred the Gospel till this, the sixth age.

For the bridegroom in that marriage, to whom it was said, "Thou hast kept the good wine until now," represented the person of the Lord. For the good wine-namely, the gospel-Christ has kept until now.

And he says to him: Every man first sets out the good wine: first, that is, in the beginning, and when they have become intoxicated, then that which is worse, because then they are unable to judge, but call all wine good. But you have kept the good wine until now, that is, until the end, and thus you have acted irregularly and contrary to custom. This was a bad custom, because it was against truth and against sobriety; whence Ephesians 5: "Do not be drunk with wine, in which is debauchery, but be filled with the Holy Spirit, speaking" etc.

Dionysus and his church was grounded on a serious joie-de-vivre like that of Walt Whitman. Dionysus made wine, not a medicine, but a sacrament. Jesus Christ also made wine, not a medicine, but a sacrament. But Omar makes it, not a sacrament, but a medicine. He feasts because life is not joyful; he revels because he is not glad.

Again and again, before our time, men have grown content with a diluted doctrine. And again and again there has followed on that dilution, coming as out of the darkness in a crimson cataract, the strength of the red original wine. And we only say once more to-day as has been said many times by our fathers: 'Long years and centuries ago our fathers or the founders of our people drank, as they dreamed, of the blood of God. Long years and centuries have passed since the strength of that giant vintage has been anything but a legend of the age of giants. Centuries ago already is the dark time of the second fermentation, when the wine of Catholicism turned into the vinegar of Calvinism. Long since that bitter drink has been itself diluted; rinsed out and washed away by the waters of oblivion and the wave of the world. Never did we think to taste again even that bitter tang of sincerity and the spirit, still less the richer and the sweeter strength of the purple vineyards in our dreams of the age of gold. Day by day and year by year we have lowered our hopes and lessened our convictions; we have grown more and more used to seeing those vats and vineyards overwhelmed in the water-floods and the last savour and suggestion of that special element fading like a stain of purple upon a sea of grey. We have grown used to dilution, to dissolution, to a watering down that went on for ever. But Thou hast kept the good wine until now.'

The Lord did not simply make wine out of water, but excellent wine. For the miracles of Christ are such that they far surpass what is accomplished by nature. That the water was turned into wine is attested by the servants who drew the water; that it was excellent, by the master of the feast. All of this was proclaimed in the course of time, and those who heard of it were bound to be convinced very firmly. By "wine" you can understand the evangelical teaching, and by "water" everything that preceded the Gospel, which was very watery and did not have the perfection of evangelical teaching. I will give an example: the Lord gave man various laws — one in Paradise (Gen. 2:16–17), another at the time of Noah (Gen. 9), a third at the time of Abraham concerning circumcision (Gen. 17), a fourth through Moses (Ex. 19; Ex. 20), and a fifth through the prophets. All these laws, in comparison with the exactness and power of the Gospel, are watery, if one understands them simply and literally. But if one delves into their spirit and comprehends what is hidden in them, he will find the water turned into wine. For he who discerns spiritually what is spoken simply and understood by many literally will undoubtedly find in this water a fine wine, drunk afterward and kept back by the Bridegroom Christ, since the Gospel indeed appeared in the last times.

Hence he adds: People usually serve the choice wines first, and when the guests have had their fill, then they bring out inferior wine.

Here we should consider, according to Chrysostom, that everything is most perfect in the miracles of Christ. Thus, he restored most complete health to Peter's mother-in-law, so that she arose at once and waited on them, as we read in Mark (1:30) and Matthew (7:14). Again, he restored the paralytic to health so perfectly that he also arose immediately, took up his mat, and went home, as we read below (5:9). And this is also evident in this miracle, because Christ did not make mediocre wine from the water, but the very best possible. And so the head waiter says, People usually serve the choice wines first, and when the guests have had their fill, then they bring out inferior wine, because they drink less, and because good wine consumed in quantity along with a quantity of food causes greater discomfort. It is as though he were saying: Where did this very good wine come from which, contrary to custom, you saved until now?

This is appropriate to a mystery. For in the mystical sense, he serves good wine first who, with an intent to deceive others, does not first mention the error he intends, but other things that entice his hearers, so that he can disclose his evil plans after they have been intoxicated and enticed to consent. We read of such wine: "It goes down pleasantly, but finally it will bite like a serpent" (Prv 23:31). Again, he serves good wine first who begins to live in a saintly and spiritual manner at the start of his conversion, but later sinks into a carnal life: "Are you so foolish as, having begun in the Spirit, to end in the flesh?" (Gal 3:3).

Christ, however, does not serve the good wine first, for at the outset he proposes things that are bitter and hard: "Narrow is the way that leads to life" (Mt 7:14). Yet the more progress a person makes in his faith and teaching, the more pleasant it becomes and he becomes aware of a greater sweetness: "I will lead you by the path of justice, and when you walk you will not be hindered" (Prv 4:11). Likewise, all those who desire to live conscientiously in Christ suffer bitterness and troubles in this world: "You will weep and mourn" (below 16:20). But later they will experience delights and joys. So he goes on: "but your sorrow will be turned into joy." "I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, which will be revealed in us," as is said in Romans (8:18).

He was the King of glory, and changed the elements because He was their Lord.

(Tr. ix) This miracle of our Lord's, turning the water into wine, is no miracle to those who know that God worked it. For the Same that day made wine in the waterpots, Who every year makes wine in the vine: only the latter is no longer wonderful, because it happens uniformly. And therefore it is that God keeps some extraordinary acts in store for certain occasions, to rouse men out of their lethargy, and make them worship Him. Thus it follows, He manifested forth His glory.

(de Cons. Evang. l. ii c. xvii. [38.]) If now for the first time they believed on Him, they were not His disciples when they came to the marriage. This however is a form of speech, such as saying that the Apostle Paul was born in Tarsus of Cilicia; not meaning by this that he was an Apostle then. In the same way when we hear of Christ's disciples being invited to the marriage, we should understand not disciples already, but who were to be disciples.

By this sign he made manifest that he was the King of glory, and so the church's bridegroom. He came to the marriage as a common human being, but as Lord of heaven and earth he could convert the elements as he wished. How beautifully appropriate it is that when he began the signs that he would show to mortals while he was still mortal he turned water into wine. [But] when he had become immortal through his resurrection, he began the signs that he would show only to those who were pursuing the goal of immortal life.… Therefore, let us love with our whole mind, dearly beloved, the marriage of Christ and the church, which was prefigured then in one city and is now celebrated over the whole earth.

This beginning of signs. Here the fifth point is touched upon, namely the manifestation of divine glory and the edification of the disciples' faith. By reason of his manifestation he says: This beginning of signs Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee and manifested his glory. The Gloss: "That is, his hidden Divinity"; below at chapter fourteen: "I will love him and will manifest myself to him."

By reason of the edification of the disciples he says: And his disciples believed in him, that is, they believed more firmly. Bede: "When the Lord reclined at the wedding, the wine failed, so that, when better wine was made by him in a wondrous manner, the glory of the hidden God might be manifested in him, and the faith of those believing in him, having been increased, might advance."

Many most excellent things were accomplished at once through the one first miracle. For honourable marriage was sanctified, the curse on women put away (for no more in sorrow shall they bring forth children, now Christ has blessed the very beginning of our birth), and the glory of our Saviour shone forth as the sun's rays, and more than this, the disciples are confirmed in faith by the miracle.

The historical account then will stop here, but I think we ought to consider the other view of what has been said, and to say what is therein signified. The Word of God came down then from Heaven, as He Himself saith, in order that having as a Bridegroom, made human nature His own, He might persuade it to bring forth the spiritual offspring of Wisdom. And hence reasonably is the human nature called the bride, the Saviour the Bridegroom; since holy Scripture carries up language from human things to a meaning that is above us. The marriage is consummated on the third day, that is, in the last times of the present world: for the number three gives us beginning, middle, end. For thus is the whole of time measured. And in harmony with this do we see that which is said by one of the prophets, He hath smitten, and He will bind us up. After two days will He revive us, in the third day He will raise us up, and we shall live in His Sight. Then shall we know if we follow on to know the Lord; His going forth is prepared as the morning. For He smote us for the transgression of Adam, saying, Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. That which was smitten by corruption and death He bound up on the third day: that is, not in the first, or in the middle, but in the last ages, when for us made Man, He rendered all our nature whole, raising it from the dead in Himself. Wherefore He is also called the Firstfruits of them that slept. Therefore in saying it was the third day, whereon the marriage was being consummated, he signifies the last time. He mentions the place too; for he says it was in Cana of Galilee. Let him that loves learning again note well: for not in Jerusalem is the gathering, but without Judaea is the feast celebrated, as it were in the country of the Gentiles. For it is Galilee of the gentiles, as the prophet saith. It is I suppose altogether plain, that the synagogue of the Jews rejected the Bridegroom from Heaven, and that the church of the Gentiles received Him, and that very gladly. The Saviour comes to the marriage not of His own accord; for He was being bidden by many voices of the Saints. But wine failed the feasters; for the law perfected nothing, the Mosaic writing sufficed not for perfect enjoyment, but neither did the measure of implanted sobriety reach forth so as to be able to save us. It was therefore true to say of us too, They have no wine. But the Bounteous God doth not overlook our nature worn out with want of good things. He set forth wine better than the first, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. And the law hath no perfection in good things, but the Divine instructions of Gospel teaching bring in fullest blessing. The ruler of the feast marvels at the wine: for every one, I suppose, of those ordained to the Divine Priesthood, and entrusted with the house of our Saviour Christ, is astonished at His doctrine which is above the Law. But Christ commandeth it to be given to him first, because, according to the voice of Paul, The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits. And let the hearer again consider what I say.

[Jesus] once changed water into wine by a word of command at Cana of Galilee. Should we not believe him when he changes wine into blood? It was when he had been invited to an ordinary bodily marriage that he performed the wonderful miracle at Cana. Should we not be much more ready to acknowledge that to "the sons of the bridal chamber" he has granted the enjoyment of his body and blood?

"This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee." I told you the other day, that there are some who say that this is not the beginning. "For what," says one, "if 'Cana of Galilee' be added? This shows that this was 'the beginning' He made 'in Cana.'" But on these points I would not venture to assert anything exactly. I before have shown that He began His miracles after His Baptism, and wrought no miracle before it; but whether of the miracles done after His Baptism, this or some other was the first, it seems to me unnecessary to assert positively.

"And manifested forth His glory."

"How?" asks one, "and in what way? For only the servants, the ruler of the feast, and the bridegroom, not the greater number of those present, gave heed to what was done." How then did he "manifest forth His glory"? He manifested it at least for His own part, and if all present hear not of the miracle at the time, they would hear of it afterwards, for unto the present time it is celebrated, and has not been unnoticed. That all did not know it on the same day is clear from what follows, for after having said that He "manifested forth His glory," the Evangelist adds,

"And His disciples believed on Him."

His disciples, who even before this regarded Him with wonder. Seest thou that it was especially necessary to work the miracles at times when men were present of honest minds, and who would carefully give heed to what was done? for these would more readily believe, and attend more exactly to the circumstances. "And how could He have become known without miracles?" Because His doctrine and prophetic powers were sufficient to cause wonder in the souls of His hearers, so that they took heed to what He did with a right disposition, their minds being already well affected towards Him.

(Hom. xx) Should any say that there is not sufficient proof of this being the beginning of miracles, because it is added, in Cana of Galilee, as if some had been preferred elsewhere: we answer, as we did before, that John says below, That He might be made manifest to Israel, therefore have I come baptizing. (c. 1) (Hom. xxi. 2). Now if He had performed miracles in the earlier part of His life, the Jews would not have wanted another person to point Him out. If our Lord in a short time became so distinguished for the number of His miracles, that His Name was known to every one, would He not have been much more so, had He worked miracles from His earliest years? for the things themselves would have been the more extraordinary, being performed by a Child, and in so long a time must have become notorious. It was fit and proper however that He should not begin to work miracles at so early an age: for men would have thought the Incarnation a phantasy, and in the extremity of envy would have delivered Him to be crucified before the appointed time.

It was not what they saw happening that the disciples believed but what could not be seen by bodily eyes. They did not believe that Jesus Christ was the son of the Virgin—that was something they knew. Rather, they believed that he was the only Son of the Most High, as this miracle proved. And so let us too believe wholeheartedly that he whom we confess to be the Son of man is also the Son of God. Let us believe not only that he shared our nature but also that he was consubstantial with the Father; for as a man he was present at the wedding, and as God he changed the water into wine. If such is our faith, the Lord will give us also to drink of the sobering wine of his grace.

When Christ, as a sign of His power, clearly changed the water into wine All the crowd rejoiced, for they considered the taste marvelous. Now we all partake at the banquet in the church For Christ's blood is changed into wine And we drink it with holy joy, Praising the great bridegroom, For he is the true bridegroom, the Son of Mary, The Word before all time who took the form of a servant, He who has in wisdom created all things.

That the Lord began to work miracles after His baptism, we have spoken of this before. But it seems that the first miracle He performed was precisely the transformation of water into wine. For it is said: "This 'beginning' of miracles did He." But someone will say: "If this miracle is the beginning of miracles, it is not the beginning of all miracles, but only of those performed in Cana of Galilee; since He performed various miracles in Cana, this one was the beginning of those." Although we have much to confirm that the present miracle is the beginning of all miracles as well, because the words "and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him" show that before this He had not performed any other miracle by which He would have manifested His glory; nevertheless, let us not argue whether this was the first miracle or another. How then did He manifest His glory? For few were present at this event, and it was not performed before the people? But if not then, afterwards all were to hear of this miracle, as it is proclaimed even to this day, and did not remain unknown. The words "His disciples believed in Him" understand thus: that they acquired a greater and stronger faith in Him. They believed before, of course, but they did not believe so firmly.

Then when he says, This beginning of signs Jesus worked in Cana of Galilee, he gives the disciples' acknowledgment of the miracle. We can see from this the falsity of the History of the Infancy of the Savior, which recounts many miracles worked by Christ as a boy. For if these accounts were true, the Evangelist would not have said, This beginning of signs Jesus worked. We have already given the reason why Christ worked no miracles during his childhood, that is, lest men regard them as illusions.

It was for the reason given above, then, that Jesus performed this miracle of turning water into wine at Cana of Galilee; and this was the first of the signs he did. And Jesus revealed his glory, i.e., the power by which he is glorious: "The Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory" (Ps 23:10).

And his disciples believed in him. But how did they believe? For they already were his disciples and had believed before this. I answer that sometimes a thing is described not according to what it is at the time, but according to what it will be. For example, we say that the apostle Paul was born at Tarsus, in Cilicia; not that an actual apostle was born there, but a future one was. Similarly, it says here that his disciples believed in him, i.e., those who would be his disciples. Or, one might answer that previously they had believed in him as a good man, preaching what was right and just; but now they believed in him as God.