In the first chapter, the Evangelist has shown the dignity of the Word of God. In chapters two through eleven, he demonstrates how the Incarnate Word revealed His divinity to the world, particularly through these seven signs: the wedding feast at Cana (Jn 2:1-11), the healing of the son of an official (Jn 4:46b-54), the healing of a lame man on the Sabbath (Jn 5:1-9a), the feeding of the five thousand (Jn 6:1-13), the calming of the sea (Jn 6:16-21), the healing of the blind man (Jn 9:1-7), and the raising of Lazarus from the dead (Jn 11:1-44). Beginning with chapter twelve, the Evangelist demonstrates how Christ revealed His divinity in His passion and death.

Chapter two begins with St. John recounting Christ’s first miracle, the changing of water into wine at a wedding feast in Cana of Galilee. This event marked the beginning of His public ministry and it demonstrated Christ’s power over nature, for He transformed the nature of a thing: water into wine. This He did to strengthen His disciples’ faith and to lead others to believe that He is the Son of God.

On the Feast of the Epiphany, it was customary to celebrate three events which manifested Christ’s divinity: the adoration of the magi, Christ’s own baptism, and the miracle at Cana. First, His divinity was manifested by the adoration of the magi, for when they saw the child with Mary his mother, “they fell down and worshiped him” (Mt 2:11). Second, His divinity was revealed at His baptism some thirty years later, when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove and a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Mt 3:17). Third, His divinity was manifested when He changed water into wine at Cana. This miracle marked the beginning of His public ministry of teaching and healing, which lasted a little less than three years.

The Evangelist gives us the setting for this miracle: “On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee.” (Jn 2:1a).  First, he tells us the time when these events took place: on the third day after Christ called Philip and Nathanael. In a spiritual sense, it is significant that the marriage took place on the third day, for the first day signifies the law of nature, the second day signifies the written law, the law of Moses, but the third day is the time of grace, when the Lord will raise us up. The prophet Hosea said, “After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him” (Hos 6:2). Second, St. John gives us the occasion which prompted the miracle: a wedding feast. Throughout the Old and New Testaments, marriages and wedding banquets provided a wealth of rich spiritual imagery. In His parable of the wedding feast, Christ likened heaven to a wedding feast that a king prepared for his son (Mt 22:2). In a spiritual sense, the wedding at Cana signifies the union of Christ with His bride, the Church. St. Paul, in his discourse to the Ephesians, compares the love of husband and wife to the union of Christ and His Church (Eph 5:32). An angel revealed to the writer of the Book of Revelation: “Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rv 19:9). The wedding feast of the Lamb and His bride has already begun, and his Bride, the Church, has made herself ready (Rv 19:7). Though the feasting has commenced, this marriage will be consummated only in heaven, when the Lamb leads His bride into His home, into heavenly glory. Third, the Evangelist discloses the location where this occurred: Cana, which was a village in the Province of Galilee in the vicinity of Nazareth. The exact location of Cana is no longer known. Cana is mentioned in three places in the Gospel of John: (1) it is the site of the wedding feast (Jn 2:1); (2) it is the place where the official asked Jesus to heal his son, who was sick at Capernaum (Jn 4:46); and (3) it is the home of Nathanael (Jn 21:2). Cana is mentioned nowhere else in the Bible.

The Evangelist mentions the persons invited: “And the mother of Jesus was there; Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples” (Jn 2:1b-2). First, there was Mary. Note that she was named first. There are two explanations for this. Perhaps she was mentioned to indicate that Jesus was still unknown at that time. He was not invited as a famous person, but as One Who was “also invited,” coming along with His mother. Another explanation might be that Mary was invited because host was uncertain whether or not Jesus would have come alone, for He exhibited great piety, and perhaps was unaccustomed to attending celebrations. Second, Jesus was “also invited.” The fact that He came, even though He was not the main guest, demonstrates His great humility, for as St. John Chrysostom noted, He did not hesitate to come to the marriage of servants, just as He did not hesitate to empty himself, to take the form of a servant in becoming a man: “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men” (Phil 2:6-7). Christ said to His disciples, “learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart” (Mt 11:29). Note also that, by attending the wedding feast, Jesus refuted those who condemn marriage as sinful or base. Third, Jesus’ disciples were with Him at Cana. At that time He had four: Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip, and Nathanael.

In a spiritual sense, the Virgin Mary is present at spiritual betrothals as the one who arranges the marriage, for it is through her intercession that we are joined to Christ through grace. Christ is present as the Groom, Who unites Himself to the soul. The disciples are His groomsmen, facilitating the union of Christ and His bride, the Church.

“When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, ‘They have no wine’” (Jn 2:3). The role of Mary here was to superintend the miracle; the role of Christ was to perform it; and the role of His disciples was to witness it. As mediatrix, Mary performed two functions: she interceded with her Son and she instructed the servants. We note three things concerning her intercession. First, she was kind and full of mercy, for she took steps to relieve the distress of the steward, who ran short of wine. Similarly, St. Paul was a man of mercy and empathy, for he said, “Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant?” (2 Cor 11:29). Second, Mary shows great reverence for Christ, for she did not order Him about, nor did she even recommend to Him a course of action. She simply informed Him of the deficit, for she took pity on the steward in his time of need. Third, Mary has great concern and care for those in need, even as the Lord cares for us: “Thou, O Lord, hast not forsaken those who seek thee” (Ps 9:10). Mary did not wait until the cups were dry; she did not wait until the situation became critical. Rather, she acted as soon as the last of the wine had been poured out into the cups.

In a spiritual sense, note that, before the Incarnation, three wines were running out: the wine of justice, the wine of wisdom, and the wine of charity. First, wine is like justice in that it stings: “Thou hast made thy people suffer hard things; thou hast given us wine to drink that made us reel” (Ps 60:3). The Good Samaritan poured wine and oil onto the wounds of the injured man (Lk 10:34). Wine signifies the severity of justice, and oil represents the sweetness of mercy. Justice was imperfect under the Old Law, as Christ noted, “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:20). But Christ came to bring the law to perfection, to correct its deficiencies. Second, wine is like wisdom, inasmuch as both wine and wisdom cheer the heart. God has given “wine to gladden the heart of man” (Ps 104:15). Of wisdom it is said, “companionship with her has no bitterness, and life with her has no pain, but gladness and joy” (Wis 8:16). Before the Word of God came in the flesh, wisdom was running out, insofar as it was largely hidden, elusive, and difficult for learned men to grasp. But Christ brought wisdom to light and made it accessible to even the simple fishermen. “He taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes” (Mt 7:29). Third, wine is a symbol of charity, for after wine intoxicates, one is moved to act. The wine of charity was running out, in that the people served God largely out of fear, not out of love. And their fear of God was not a filial fear, born out of love, as a son loves his father; but theirs was a servile fear, as a slave fears his master. But Christ raised us up to be children of God by adoption, as St. Paul said, “you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship” (Rom 8:15), and “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us” (Rom 5:5). And so, Christ taught us to pray, not as slaves yoked to the law, but with the freedom of adopted sons and daughters of God: “Our Father who art in heaven” (Mt 6:9).

“And Jesus said to her, ‘O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come’” (Jn 2:4). These words of Christ have been misinterpreted in three ways. First, by those who thought that Christ does not have a real human body, but an imaginary one. This was held by the Manichaeans and by the popular Christian Gnostic Valentinus, who was educated in Alexandria and preached in Rome beginning in 136. Valentinus understood “O woman, what have you to do with me?” to mean that Christ did not receive His human nature from Mary. But this is contrary to Sacred Scripture, for St. Paul said, “God sent forth his Son, born of woman” (Gal 4:4). Jesus could not have been born “of” her unless He received something from her. Indeed, He received a human nature from His mother Mary, as He received the divine nature from God the Father. Christ is generated eternally from the Father and was temporally generated from the Virgin Mary (STh I, 43, 2, ad 1). We should note also that, in the same pericope, the Evangelist identified Mary three times as the mother of Jesus (vv. 1, 3, 5). If Christ had nothing more than an illusory body, and not a true human body, St. John would not have called Mary His mother. Second, the fact that Christ addressed Mary as “O woman” has given rise to the false notion that she lost her virginity in giving birth. The Ebionites, who were a second century sect of Judaizers, asserted that Christ was the natural son of Joseph and Mary, that He was conceived by the conjugal union of Joseph and Mary, and that He did not exist before He became man. Thus, they denied the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, and the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Roman layman, Helvidius, likewise denied the perpetual virginity of Mary, asserting that the “brothers” of Jesus were products of the sexual union of Mary and Joseph after the birth of Jesus. But, “brother,” in Sacred Scripture, often refers to persons others than siblings. Helvidius was soundly refuted by St. Jerome in De perpetua virginitate beatae Mariae (also known as Contra Helvidium or Adversus Helvidium), who insisted that both Mary and Joseph were virgins so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock. We believe that Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35), that the mother of God was a virgin before Christ’s birth, that she miraculously remained a virgin during His birth, and that she remained a virgin throughout her entire life. As Christ is the Father’s Only Begotten Son, He is also the only natural Son of Mary. Christ’s address, “O woman,” does not imply a loss of virginity, but merely refers to her gender, for in Sacred Scripture, “woman” denotes any adult female, whether she be a virgin or not. When Eve was still a virgin in Paradise, Adam said of her, “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree” (Gn 3:12). Christ, in addressing Mary as “woman,” in no way implied that she was not a virgin. Third, some have used Christ’s statement, “My hour has not yet come,” to support their claim that all actions of men, including those of Christ, are predetermined according to fate. This, of course, is to deny the freedom of the human will. But reason and free will, because they are spiritual, are not subject to that which is material. On the contrary, the soul animates and directs the body, not vice versa, for spiritual things are naturally superior to material things. Moreover, since the human soul is not subject to its body, much less, then, is Christ subject to His human body, for through the Word of God, all things were made. Those who assert that all our actions are predetermined out of necessity are refuted by the wisdom of Sirach. To the question, “Why is any day better than another, when all the daylight in the year is from the sun?” (Sir 33:7), the answer of Sirach is this: “By the Lord’s decision they were distinguished, and he appointed the different seasons and feasts; some of them he exalted and hallowed, and some of them he made ordinary days.” (Sir 33:8-9) Thus, the occurrences of things are differentiated, not according to chance, nor by necessity, but by divine providence, by the foreknowledge of the Lord, Who knows everything that will happen. When Christ said, “My hour has not yet come,” He was referring to His passion, the time of which He knew with certainty, for in His divine intellect He knew all there is to know (STh III, 9 1), and in His human intellect He knew all that the human mind can possibly know (STh, III, 9, 3) and all that God has revealed (STh III, 11, 1).

There are at least two possible reasons why Christ said, “O woman, what have you to do with me?” First, according to St. Augustine. He noted that some actions are appropriate to Christ in His human nature, while other actions are appropriate to Him in His divine nature. For example, Christ suffered and died in His human nature, but He performed miracles with His divine nature. Just as God cannot suffer and die, because the divine nature is impassible and immortal, man cannot perform miracles, because human nature lacks the power to abrogate the laws of nature established by God. The reason why Christ asked His mother this question was because, although He received from her a human nature, He did not receive from her the power to do miracles, for that belongs to the divine nature. Performing miracles is a matter between Christ and His Heavenly Father, for He received from His Father the power to perform miracles in His divine nature. Now, since He received His human nature from Mary, and along with it the power to suffer and die, His passion and death is matter between Him and His mother. Thus, when He said, “My hour has not yet come,” He was promising to recognize her at the time of His passion. Accordingly, He spoke to her from the cross, saying, “Woman, behold, your son!” (Jn 19:26) Second, according to St. John Chrysostom, who explained it differently, Mary was afire with such zeal for the honor of her Son that she wanted Him to perform this miracle immediately, so that others might see His glory. But Christ knew that the time was not ripe for the miracle, for the guests should first become aware that the wine has run out, so that they might better appreciate the benefit of the miracle Christ was to perform later that day.

“His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you’” (Jn 2:5). Mary understood that her Son was acting with justice, but she did not lose hope that His mercy would exceed His justice. Perfect justice consists in obeying God, as He commanded, “Thus you shall do to Aaron and to his sons, according to all that I have commanded you” (Ex 29:35). Thus, Mary instructed the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” We are not always obliged to obey men, for men err, but we must always obey the divine law, as St. Peter and the apostles declared, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

“Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons” (Jn 2:6). Since the Jews observed several daily ritual washings of their bodies and of their eating utensils, and since there was a frequent shortage of water in the region, they were accustomed to storing an ample supply of pure water in large stone vessels. The Evangelist made it clear that these jars held pure water designated for use in their purification rites. He said this lest anyone suggest that the jars were previously used to store wine, and that the dregs of the wine had flavored the water which Jesus had the servants put into the jars. Moreover, he mentioned the large capacity of the jars so that, even if the jars had contained leftover wine, the dregs could not sufficiently flavor the water so as to fool the guests. It is clear from what St. John describes that only a miracle could change such a quantity of water into wine.

In a spiritual sense, the six jars signify the six eras of the Old Testament: (1) the era of the patriarchs, (2) the era of the judges, (3) the united monarchy, (4) the divided monarchy, (5) the restoration of Ezra and Nehemiah, and (6) the Maccabean era. During those eras, the hearts of the chosen people were being prepared to receive the Incarnate Word. They were made ready by following the law, which God gave to Moses, and by listening to the Word of God, as He spoke through the prophets. When at last the Word of God came in the flesh, Christ filled the six jars to the brim, signifying that He fulfilled the law and the prophets completely. The seventh era is the era of Christ, from Whom we receive the grace of salvation, as St. Paul proclaimed, “Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor 6:2).

“Jesus said to them, ‘Fill the jars with water.’ And they filled them up to the brim.” (Jn 2:7) We can make three points here. First, Christ asked the steward’s servants to fill the jars so that the servants might be witnesses to the miracle He was about to perform. Second, He chose to transform the water into wine, rather than to create wine out of nothing, for three reasons. First, a literal explanation was offered by St. John Chrysostom. To create something out of nothing is more marvelous, and hence, more unbelievable, than to transform one existing substance into another substance. On that occasion, Christ chose to transform, rather than to create, so that more people might believe and less might be skeptical. Second, Christ often used visible substances in performing miracles in order to demonstrate that the things God created are good in themselves, according to the creation account: “And God saw that it was good” (Gn 1:10, 12). This refuted dualists, like the Manichaeans and the gnostic Marcionites, who both held that the material order was created by an evil force, whereas the spiritual order was created by God. Third, according to the spiritual sense, Christ brought forth wine from the water that was already present at the site in order to show that He came, not to reject and replace the Old Law, but to fulfill it: “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them” (Mt 5:17). What was prefigured and promised in the old was fully disclosed and revealed by the Incarnate Word: “Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures” (Lk 24:45). Third, the effect of Christ’s miracle was immediate, for as soon as the servants filled the jars, Christ changed the fresh water into wine. There was no time for the liquid to ferment or to change its appearance naturally.

“He said to them, ‘Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast.’ So they took it.” (Jn 2:8) In order to make the effect of this miracle apparent, Christ had the servants take a cup of wine to the architriclinus. The triclinium was the place where three rows of dining tables were located. Guests would take their supper by reclining on low couches around these tables. There are two explanations as to the identity of the architriclinus. First, according to St. John Chrysostom, the architriclinus was the one in charge of the banquet. In a wealthy household, this would have been the steward. Christ wanted him to be the first to taste the wine, because, since he would have been too busy to dine, his senses would not have been dulled by food and drink. Therefore, he was in the best position to judge the quality of the wine and to discern whether the water had in fact been turned into wine. If the wine had been taken directly to the guests, it could have been claimed that the guests were drunk, and so, they could not even tell water from wine. Second, according to St. Augustine, the architriclinus was the guest of honor. According to this explanation, Christ sought his opinion first, because this guest was highly respected among those at table.

We can make two points concerning the spiritual sense. First, the servants who poured water are preachers of the Word of God, as Isaiah said, “With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation. And you will say in that day: “Give thanks to the LORD, call upon his name; make known his deeds among the nations, proclaim that his name is exalted.” (Is 12:3-4) Second, the architriclinus is one who is versed in the law, as was Nicodemus (Jn 3:9-10), St. Paul, and Paul’s teacher, Rabbi Gamaliel. When the truth of the gospel, which lies hidden under the letter of the law, is shown to scholars of the law, it is like the wine made from water that was shown to the architriclinus. As water is changed into wine by Christ, the Old Law is fulfilled in the New Law by Christ. As the architriclinus either accepts or rejects the new wine, the scholar either gives his assent to the Word of God and accepts the faith, or he rejects the Word and remains buried under the weight of the law.

“When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew)” (Jn 2:9a). The servants became Christ’s witnesses, as we are His witnesses to the world. As the steward knew nothing of the miracle until the servants revealed the substance of the miracle to him, so too did the nations know nothing of Christ until He was revealed to them by the apostles.

“The steward of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, ‘Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now’” (Jn 2:9b-10). We notice three things here. First, Christ did not produce mediocre wine, but the finest. His miracles are not merely satisfactory, but most perfect. When He healed Simon’s mother-in-law, her fever completely left her (Mk 1:31), and at once she arose and served Him (Mt 8:15). Again, He so fully healed the paralytic, that the man at once arose, took up his mat, and walked (Jn 5:9). Second, Christ allowed the steward’s mediocre wine to be served before His most excellent wine in order to show that, at the outset of one’s spiritual journey, one encounters many things which are bitter and hard to accept, for “the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life” (Mt 7:14). Yet, if one perseveres in the faith and seeks the truth, which the Word of God has to offer, the way becomes more pleasant, as the Lord said, “I have taught you the way of wisdom; I have led you in the paths of uprightness. When you walk, your step will not be hampered; and if you run, you will not stumble.” (Prv 4:11-12) Though we experience bitterness and suffering in the world, as He said, “you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice,” yet to those who persevere in the faith, He promised, “your sorrow will turn into joy” (Jn 16:20). This led St. Paul to conclude, “I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Rom 8:18). Third, men sometimes serve the better wine first in order to deceive. They entice their hearers by soothing words and promises, but only later, after the guests have been intoxicated by the potent wine, does he reveal his evil intent. The proverb warns us of the wiliness of such wine: “Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly. At the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like an adder.” (Prv 23:31-32) Those who are served the good wine first are those who begin to live a virtuous life, but who later fall back into sin. St. Paul scolded his backsliding Galatians: “Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?” (Gal 3:3)

“This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory” (Jn 2:11a). St. John assured us that the miracle at Cana was Christ’s first miracle. Some noncanonical gospels spuriously reported that Jesus performed miracles during His childhood. He performed no miracles as a child, lest those who witnessed such things might regard them as childhood pranks or illusions. Christ waited until He reached a sufficient maturity of years, beyond the frivolity of childhood, beyond the rashness and inexperience of young adulthood, so that His public ministry would be taken seriously. The reason that Christ performed this miracle at Cana, the first of many signs, was because it “manifested his glory,” as the Psalmist proclaimed, “Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory!” (Ps 24:10)

“And his disciples believed in him” (Jn 2:11b). One might ask how this event caused His disciples to believe, for if they were His disciples, then surely they must have already believed in Him. We can answer this in two ways. First, sometimes a thing is described, not as it is in the present, but as it will be in the future, as when we say that the apostle Paul was born at Tarsus, whereas it was actually Saul who was born there, but who later became an apostle. Similarly, at the time when Christ called Andrew, Simon, Philip, and Nathanael, they were not yet true disciples. Second, we can argue that the disciples previously believed that Christ was a good man, and that His words were just, but only after they had witnessed the miracle at Cana did they begin to believe that He was divine.