John Calvin Commentary John 2

There was a marriage in Cana of Galilee. Since this narrative contains the first miracle Christ performed, it would be proper for us, even if for this reason alone, to consider the narrative attentively; though — as we will see later — there are other reasons that recommend it to our attention.

But as we proceed, the various advantages arising from it will be seen more clearly. The Evangelist first mentions Cana of Galilee, not the one situated towards Zare-phath (1 Kings 17:9; Obadiah 1:20; Luke 4:26) or Sarepta, between Tyre and Sidon, which was called the greater in comparison to this latter Cana, which some place in the tribe of Zebulun, and others in the tribe of Asher.

For Jerome also assures us that, even in his time, a small town existed that bore that name. There is reason to believe it was near the city of Nazareth, since the mother of Christ came there to attend the marriage. From the fourth chapter of this book, it will be seen that it was not more than one day’s journey from Capernaum.

That it was not far from the city of Bethsaida may also be inferred from the circumstance that, three days after Christ had been in that region, the marriage was celebrated — the Evangelist tells us — in Cana of Galilee. There may also have been a third Cana, not far from Jerusalem, and yet outside of Galilee; but I leave this undetermined, because I am unfamiliar with it.

And the mother of Jesus was there. It was probably one of Christ’s close relatives who was getting married, for Jesus is mentioned as having accompanied his mother. From the fact that the disciples are also invited, we may infer how plain and frugal his way of living was, for he lived in common with them.

It may seem strange, however, that a man who has no great wealth or abundance (as will become evident from the scarcity of the wine) invites four or five other people on Christ’s account. But the poor are more ready and frank in their invitations because, unlike the rich, they are not afraid of being disgraced if they do not treat their guests with great expense and splendor. For the poor adhere more zealously to the ancient custom of maintaining a wide circle of acquaintances.

Again, it may be thought to show a lack of courtesy that the bridegroom allows his guests, in the middle of the entertainment, to run out of wine. For it suggests a lack of thoughtfulness not to have enough wine for his guests.

I reply, nothing is related here that does not frequently happen, especially when people are not accustomed to the daily use of wine.

Besides, the context shows that it was towards the conclusion of the banquet that the wine fell short, when, according to custom, it might be assumed that they had already drunk enough. For the master of the feast speaks thus: Other men place worse wine before those who have drunk enough, but you have kept the best till now. Furthermore, I have no doubt that all this was regulated by the Providence of God, so that there might be room for the miracle.

The mother of Jesus says to him. It may be doubted if she expected or asked anything from her Son, since he had not yet performed any miracle; and it is possible that, without expecting any remedy of this sort, she advised him to give some pious exhortations that would prevent the guests from feeling uneasy and, at the same time, relieve the shame of the bridegroom. I consider her words to be expressive of (συμπαθεία) earnest compassion. For the holy woman, perceiving that those invited were likely to consider themselves disrespected and to murmur against the bridegroom, and that the entertainment might thus be disturbed, wished that some means of soothing them could be adopted. Chrysostom throws out a suspicion that she was moved by the feelings of a woman to seek I do not know what favor for herself and her Son; but this conjecture is not supported by any argument.

Woman, what have I to do with thee? Why does Christ repel her so rashly? I reply, though she was not moved by ambition, nor by any carnal affection, still she did wrong in going beyond her proper bounds. Her anxiety about the inconvenience endured by others, and her desire to have it in some way mitigated, proceeded from humanity, and ought to be regarded as a virtue; but still, by putting herself forward, she might obscure the glory of Christ.

It ought also to be observed that what Christ spoke was not so much for her sake as for the sake of others. Her modesty and piety were too great to need so severe a chastisement. Besides, she did not knowingly and willingly offend; but Christ only meets the danger, so that no improper use might be made of what his mother had said, as if it were in obedience to her command that he afterwards performed the miracle.

The Greek words (Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοὶ) literally mean, What to me and to you? But the Greek phraseology has the same meaning as the Latin—Quid tibi mecum? (what have you to do with me?). The old translator led many people into a mistake by supposing Christ to have asserted that it was no concern of his, or of his mother’s, if the wine ran short. But from the second clause we can easily conclude how far removed this is from Christ’s meaning, for he takes upon himself this concern, and declares that it belongs to him to do so, when he adds, my hour is not yet come. Both ought to be joined together—that Christ understands what it is necessary for him to do, and yet that he will not act in this matter at his mother’s suggestion.

It is certainly a remarkable passage; for why does he absolutely refuse to his mother what he freely granted afterwards, on so many occasions, to all sorts of people? Again, why is he not satisfied with a mere refusal? And why does he reduce her to the ordinary rank of women, and not even deign to call her mother? This saying of Christ openly and manifestly warns people to beware lest, by too superstitiously elevating the honor of the name of mother in the Virgin Mary, they transfer to her what belongs exclusively to God. Christ, therefore, addresses his mother in this manner in order to lay down a perpetual and general instruction for all ages: that his divine glory must not be obscured by excessive honor paid to his mother.

How necessary this warning became, in consequence of the gross and disgraceful superstitions which followed afterwards, is too well known. For Mary has been constituted the Queen of Heaven, the Hope, the Life, and the Salvation of the world; and, in short, their fury and madness proceeded so far that they stripped Christ of his spoils and left him almost naked.

And when we condemn those horrid blasphemies against the Son of God, the Papists call us malignant and envious; and—what is worse—they maliciously slander us as deadly foes to the honor of the holy Virgin. As if she did not have all the honor that is due to her, unless she were made a Goddess; or as if it were treating her with respect to adorn her with blasphemous titles and to substitute her in the place of Christ. The Papists, therefore, offer a grievous insult to Mary when, in order to disfigure her by false praises, they take from God what belongs to Him.

My hour is not yet come. He means that he has not until now delayed through carelessness or indolence, but at the same time he states indirectly that he will attend to the matter when the proper time for it arrives. As he reproves his mother for unseasonable haste, so, on the other hand, he gives reason to expect a miracle.

The holy Virgin acknowledges both, for she abstains from addressing him any further; and when she advises the servants to do whatever he commands, she shows that she expects something now. But the instruction conveyed here is still more extensive: that whenever the Lord holds us in suspense and delays his aid, he is not therefore asleep, but, on the contrary, regulates all His works in such a manner that he does nothing but at the proper time.

Those who have applied this passage to prove that the time of events is appointed by Fate are too ridiculous to require a single word to be said for refuting them. The hour of Christ sometimes denotes the hour which had been appointed to him by the Father; and by his time he will afterwards designate what he found to be convenient and suitable for executing the commands of his Father. But in this place, he claims the right to take and choose the time for working and for displaying his Divine power.

His mother says to the servants. Here the holy Virgin gives an instance of true obedience that she owed to her Son, when the question related not to the relative duties of mankind, but to His divine power. She modestly acquiesces, therefore, in Christ’s reply and in the same way exhorts others to comply with His injunctions.

I acknowledge, indeed, that what the Virgin now said related to the present occurrence and amounted to a declaration that, in this instance, she had no authority, and that Christ would do, according to His own pleasure, whatever He thought right. But if you attend closely to her design, the statement that she made is still more extensive; for she first disclaims and lays aside the power which she might seem to have improperly usurped, and next, she ascribes the whole authority to Christ, when she instructs them do whatever He shall command.

We are taught generally by these words that if we desire anything from Christ, we will not obtain our wishes unless we depend on Him alone, look to Him, and, in short, do whatever He commands. On the other hand, He does not send us to His mother but rather invites us to Himself.

And there were there six water-pots of stone. According to the computation of Budaeus, we infer that these water-pots were very large; for as the metreta (μετρητὴς) contains twenty congii, each contained, at least, a Sextier of this country. Christ, therefore, supplied them with a great abundance of wine, as much as would be sufficient for a banquet for one hundred and fifty men. Besides, both the number and the size of the water-pots serve to prove the truth of the miracle. If there had been only two or three jars, many might have suspected that they had been brought from some other place. If water in only one vessel had been changed into wine, the certainty of the miracle would not have been so obvious or so well ascertained. It is not, therefore, without good reason that the Evangelist mentions the number of the water-pots and states how much they contained.

It arose from superstition that such numerous and large vessels were placed there. They had the ceremony of washing, indeed, prescribed to them by the Law of God; but as the world is prone to excess in outward matters, the Jews, not satisfied with the simplicity God had enjoined, amused themselves with continual washings. And as superstition is ambitious, they undoubtedly served the purpose of display, much as we see today in Popery, where everything that is said to belong to the worship of God is arranged for pure display.

There was, then, a twofold error: that without God's command, they engaged in a superfluous ceremony of their own invention; and next, that under the pretense of religion, ambition reigned amidst that display. Some Popish scoundrels have manifested an amazing degree of wickedness by having the effrontery to claim they had among their relics those water-pots with which Christ performed this miracle in Cana, and exhibited some of them, which, first, are of small size, and, next, are unequal in size.

And today, when the light of the Gospel shines so clearly around us, they are not ashamed to practice those tricks, which are certainly not intended to deceive by enchantments but rather to mock people daringly, as if they were blind; and the world, which does not perceive such gross mockery, is evidently bewitched by Satan.