John Calvin Commentary John 2:1

"And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:" — John 2:1 (ASV)

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.