And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.

“(Tr. viii. c. 9. et seq. sparsim) Or it was because our Lord as God had not a mother, though as man He had, and the miracle He was about to work was the act of His Divinity, not of human infirmity. When therefore His mother demanded a miracle, He, as though not acknowledging a human birth, when about to perform a divine work, said, Woman, what have I to do with thee? As if He said, Thou didst not beget that in Me, which works the miracle, My Divinity. (She is called woman, with reference to the female sex, not to any injury of her virginity.) But because thou broughtest forth My infirmity, I will acknowledge thee then, when that very infirmity shall hang on the cross. And therefore He adds, Mine hour is not yet come: as if to say, I will acknowledge thee when the infirmity, of which thou art the mother, shall hang from the cross. He commended His mother to the disciple, when about to die, and to rise again, before her death. But note; just as the Manicheans have found an occasion of error and pretext for their faithlessness in our Lord’s word, What have I to do with thee? in the same way the astrologers support theirs from the words, Mine hour is not yet come. For, say they, if Christ had not been under the power of fate, He would never have said this. But let them believe what God says below, I have power to lay it (my life) down, and I have power to take it again: (John 10:18) and then let them ask, why He says, Mine hour is not yet come: nor let them on such a ground subject the Creator of heaven to fate; seeing that, even were there a fatality in the stars, the Maker of the stars could not be under the dominion of the stars. And not only had Christ nothing to do with fate, as ye call it; but neither hast thou, or any other man. Wherefore said He then, Mine hour is not yet come? Because He had the power to die when He pleased, but did not think it expedient yet to exert the power. He was to call the disciples, to proclaim the Kingdom of heaven, to do marvellous works, to approve His divinity by miracles, His humility by partaking of the sufferings of our mortal state. And when He had done all, then the hour was come, not of destiny, but of will, not of obligation, but of power.”

“Above, the Evangelist showed the dignity of the incarnate Word, and its evidence in many ways; here he consequently begins to treat of the effects and works by which the divinity of the incarnate Word was made manifest to the world, and first he narrates the things which Christ did in the world by living, for the manifestation of his divinity; secondly, how Christ showed his divinity by dying, and this from chapter 12 onward. Concerning the first he does two things: first he shows the divinity of Christ as to the dominion he had over nature; secondly as to the effects of grace, and this in chapter 3, where it says "there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus," and so on. Now Christ's dominion over nature is set before us through the fact that he changed nature: which change indeed was made by Christ as a sign, first to confirm the disciples; secondly to bring the crowds to believe, where it says "after this he went down to Capernaum." The change of nature to confirm the disciples was made at the wedding, in which he converted water into wine; and this is what he says: "a wedding was made in Cana of Galilee," where first the wedding is described; secondly those who were present at the wedding, where it says "and the mother of Jesus was there"; thirdly the miracle itself that was performed is described, where it says "and the wine failing," and so on. Now he describes the wedding, first indeed as to the time; hence he says "and on the third day a wedding was made," namely after he had done the aforesaid things concerning the calling of the disciples. For after he had been made manifest by the testimony of John, he wished also to manifest himself. Secondly, as to the place; hence he says "in Cana of Galilee." For Galilee is a province, and Cana a certain small town within that province. As to what pertains to the letter, it should be known that concerning the time of Christ's preaching there is a twofold opinion. For some say that from Christ's Baptism until his Passion there were two and a half years. And according to these, what is here read concerning the wedding took place in the same year in which Christ was baptized. But the judgment and custom of the Church is contrary to these: for on the feast of the Epiphany a commemoration is made of three miracles, namely the adoration of the Magi, which was in the first year of the Lord's nativity; and the Baptism of Christ, by which he was baptized on the same day, thirty years having elapsed; and the wedding, which took place on the same day, one year having elapsed. From which it follows that at least one year had passed from the Baptism to the wedding. In that year indeed nothing else is read that the Lord did except what is said in Matthew 4 concerning the fasting in the desert, and the temptation by the Devil, and those things which John here relates concerning the testimony of the Baptist and the conversion of the disciples. But from the wedding he began to preach publicly and to work miracles until the Passion, so that he preached publicly for two and a half years. Mystically, by the wedding is understood the conjunction of Christ and the Church, because, as the Apostle says in Ephesians 5:32, "this is a great sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church." And that marriage indeed was begun in the virginal womb, when God the Father united human nature to the Son in unity of person, so that the bridal chamber of this conjunction was the virginal womb; Psalm 18:6: "he has set his tabernacle in the sun." Of this wedding it is said in Matthew 22:2: "the kingdom of heaven is like a king who made a wedding for his son," namely then, when God the Father joined human nature to his Word in the virginal womb. But it was made public when the Church was joined to him through faith; Hosea 2:20: "I will espouse you to myself in faith," and so on. Of this wedding it is said in Apocalypse 19:9: "blessed are they who are called to the wedding supper of the Lamb." But it will be consummated when the bride, that is the Church, is brought into the bridal chamber of the bridegroom, namely into the heavenly glory. Nor is it without mystery that the wedding took place on the third day. For the first day is the time of the law of nature; the second, the time of the written law; but the third day is the time of grace, in which the incarnate Lord celebrated the wedding; Hosea 6:3: "he will revive us after two days; on the third day he will raise us up." The place also fits the mystery: for Cana is interpreted "zeal," while Galilee is interpreted "transmigration." In the zeal of transmigration, therefore, this wedding is celebrated, so as to declare that those are most worthy of union with Christ who, fervent with the zeal of pious devotion, transmigrate from the state of sin to the grace of the Church — Ecclesiasticus 24:26: "come over to me, all you who desire me," etc. — and from death to life, that is, from the state of mortality and misery to the state of immortality and glory; Apocalypse 21:5: "behold, I make all things new." Consequently, when it says "and the mother of Jesus was there," the persons invited are described, where he treats of three, namely the mother, Jesus, and the disciples. Of the mother indeed, when it says "and the mother of Jesus was there." This indeed is put first, in order to show that Jesus was still unknown, and was not invited to the wedding as a distinguished person, but out of a certain familiarity, as one who was known, and one among others: for just as they invited the mother, so too the son. Or perhaps the mother was invited first because they were uncertain about Jesus, whether, if invited, he would come to the wedding, on account of the great religious devotion which they saw in him, and because they had not seen him mingle in feasts. And therefore I think that they first consulted the mother, whether Jesus should be invited. And therefore the Evangelist significantly said first that the mother was already present at the wedding, and that Jesus was afterward invited. And this is what follows: "Jesus was invited." Now Christ willed to be present at the wedding, first indeed in order to give us an example of humility: for he did not have regard to his own dignity, but just as he deigned to take the form of a servant, so he did not disdain to come to the wedding of servants, as Chrysostom says. And so Augustine says: let man be ashamed to be proud, since God was made humble. For among the other humble things which the son of the Virgin did, he came to a wedding — he who, when he was with the Father, instituted weddings in Paradise. And of this example it is said, Matthew 11:29: "learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart." Secondly, in order to exclude the error of certain people who condemn weddings, because, as Bede says, if there were fault in an undefiled marriage-bed and in a wedding celebrated with due chastity, the Lord would by no means have wished to come to such things. Because therefore he came to the wedding, he suggests that the perfidy of those who disparage weddings is damnable. 1 Corinthians 7:36: "the woman does not sin if she marries." Concerning the disciples, he treats of them when he says "and his disciples." Mystically, in the spiritual wedding, the mother of Jesus, namely the Blessed Virgin, is present as counselor of the wedding, because through her intercession the soul is joined to Christ through grace; Ecclesiasticus 24:25: "in me is all hope of life and of virtue." Christ, however, is present as the true bridegroom of the soul, as is said below in John 3:29: "he who has the bride is the bridegroom." The disciples, however, are present as groomsmen, as it were joining the Church to Christ, of which one it was said in 2 Corinthians 11:2: "I have espoused you to one man, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." And because in this material wedding something of the miracle pertains to the mother, something to Christ, and something to the disciples, therefore consequently, when he says "and the wine failing," etc., he shows what pertains to the mother, what to Christ, and what to the disciples. To the mother indeed pertains the procuring of the miracle; to Christ, the accomplishment of the miracle, and this where it says "now there were six stone waterpots there," etc.; to the disciples, the attestation of the miracle, where it says "this beginning of signs Jesus did." As to the first, then, the mother of Christ bore the role of mediatrix; and therefore she does two things: first she makes petition to her son; secondly she instructs the servants, where it says "and his mother says to the servants," etc. Concerning the first, two things are set forth. First the mother's petition; secondly the son's response, where it says "Jesus said to her: what is it to me and to you, woman?" Now in the mother making her petition, note first indeed her piety and mercy. For it pertains to mercy that one should reckon another's lack as if it were one's own; for one is called merciful, as it were having a wretched heart over the wretchedness of another; 2 Corinthians 11:29: "who is weak, and I am not weak?" Because, then, the blessed Virgin was full of mercy, she wished to relieve the lack of others; and so it says "the wine failing, the mother of Jesus says to him." Secondly, note her reverence toward Christ: for out of the reverence which we have toward God, it suffices for us only to set forth our lacks to him, according to that saying of Psalm 37:10: "Lord, all my desire is before you." But how God may come to our aid is not for us to inquire; because, as is said in Romans 8:26, "for we know not what we should pray for as we ought." And therefore his mother simply set forth the lack of the others, saying "they have no wine." Thirdly, note the Virgin's solicitude and diligence: because she did not delay until the extreme necessity, but "the wine failing," that is, while it was in the process of failing, according to what is said in Psalm 9:10 concerning God: "a helper in due time, in tribulation." But Chrysostom asks: why did she not urge Christ to miracles earlier? For she had been instructed concerning his power by the Angel, and confirmed by the many things which she had seen happen around him, all of which she kept, pondering them in her heart, as is said in Luke 2:51. The reason for this is that beforehand he associated as one among others; hence, because she had not seen the opportune time, she deferred doing this. But now, after John's testimony and after the conversion of the disciples, she confidently urges Christ to work miracles, bearing in this the figure of the synagogue, which is the mother of Christ: for it is characteristic of the Jews to demand miracles; 1 Corinthians 1:22: "the Jews seek signs." She says to him, therefore, "they have no wine." Here it should be known that before the Incarnation of Christ, a threefold wine was lacking, namely that of justice, of wisdom, and of charity, or grace. For wine bites sharply, and as to this, justice is called wine. Luke 10:34: the Samaritan applied wine and oil to the wounds of the wounded man, that is, the severity of justice together with the sweetness of mercy; Psalm 59:5: "you have given us to drink the wine of remorse." Wine also gladdens the heart, according to that saying of Psalm 103:15: "wine gladdens the heart of man," and as to this, wisdom is called wine, meditation on which especially gladdens; Wisdom 8:16: "her company has no bitterness." Likewise wine intoxicates, Song of Songs 5:1: "drink, friends, and be inebriated, dearest ones," and according to this, charity is called wine, Song of Songs 5:1: "I have drunk my wine with my milk." And charity is also called wine by reason of fervor; Zechariah 9:17: "wine budding forth virgins." And indeed the wine of justice was lacking in the old law, in which justice was imperfect. But Christ perfected it; Matthew 5:20: "unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." The wine of wisdom was also lacking, which was hidden and figurative, because, as is said in 1 Corinthians 10:11, "all these things happened to them in figure." But Christ made it manifest; Matthew 7:29: "for he was teaching them as one having power." But the wine of charity was also lacking there, because they had received only the spirit of servitude, in fear. But Christ converted the water of fear into the wine of charity, when he gave the spirit of adoption of sons, in which we cry "Abba, Father," as is said in Romans 8:15, and when "the charity of God was poured out in our hearts," as is said in Romans 5:5. Consequently, when it says "Jesus said to her," etc., the response of Christ is set forth: from which response indeed an occasion for a threefold heresy has been taken. For the Manichaeans say that Christ did not have a true body, but a phantasmal one. Valentinus asserts that Christ brought a heavenly body, saying that, as to the body, Christ pertains in nothing to the Virgin. And he takes the support for this error from the fact that Jesus says to her: "what is it to me and to you, woman?" — as if to say: I have received nothing from you. But this is against the authority of sacred Scripture: for the Apostle says, Galatians 4:4: "God sent his Son, made of a woman" — for he could not be said to have been made of her unless he had taken something from her. Moreover, Augustine argues against them, saying: how do you know that the Lord said "what is it to me and to you"? You answer, because John the Evangelist relates this. But this same Evangelist also says of the Virgin that she was his mother. If, then, you believe the Evangelist in this, that he relates that Jesus said to his mother, "what is it to me and to you, woman?", you should also believe him in this, that he says, "and the mother of Jesus was there." Ebion, however, saying that Christ was conceived of male seed, and Helvidius, who says that the Virgin did not remain a virgin after childbirth, took the support for their error from the fact that it says "woman," which seems to imply loss of virginity. But this is false, because "woman" in sacred Scripture sometimes signifies only the female sex, according to that saying of Galatians 4:4: "made of a woman," etc. And this is also clear from the fact that Adam, speaking to God about Eve, said: "the woman whom you gave me as a companion gave me of the tree, and I ate," Genesis 3:12. For it is certain that Eve was then still a virgin, since she was still in Paradise, where he had not known her. Hence what is here called "woman" does not imply loss of virginity, but determines sex. The Priscillianists also took an occasion for their error from the fact that he said "my hour has not yet come," saying that all things happen by fate, and that the deeds of men are subject to fixed hours, and even those of Christ; hence for this reason he said "my hour has not yet come." But this is false concerning any man whatsoever. For since man has free choice, and free choice belongs to him from the fact that he has reason and will, which are indeed immaterial: it is manifest that man, as to choice, is subject to no body, but rather rules over it. For immaterial things are nobler than material things, and therefore the Philosopher says that the wise man rules over the stars. Moreover, this has much less place in Christ, who is the lord and founder of the stars. Hence, by what he said, "my hour has not yet come," is understood the hour of the Passion, determined for him, not by necessity, but according to divine providence. Against them also is what is said in Ecclesiasticus 33:7: "why does one day surpass another day?" He answers: "they are distinguished by the knowledge of the Lord," that is, they are distinguished from one another by divine providence, not by chance. These, then, having been excluded, let us investigate the cause of this response of the Lord: "what is it to me and to you, woman?" And indeed, according to Augustine, in him there are two natures, namely the divine and the human; and although the same Christ exists in both natures, nevertheless the things which belong to him according to human nature are distinct from those which belong to him according to the divine. Now to work miracles belongs to him according to the divine nature, which he received from the Father; but to suffer belongs to him according to the human nature, which he received from his mother. And therefore, to his mother demanding a miracle, he responded saying "what is it to me and to you, woman?" — as if to say: that which works miracles in me, I did not receive from you, but that by which I suffer — that is, according to what belongs to me to suffer, namely the human nature, I received from you; and therefore I will acknowledge you then, when that very weakness will hang upon the cross. And therefore he adds "my hour has not yet come," as if to say: when the hour of the Passion comes, then I will recognize you as mother. Hence also, hanging on the cross, he commended his mother to the disciple. According to Chrysostom, however, it is expounded otherwise. For it is said that the Blessed Virgin, fervent with zeal for the honor of her son, wished that Christ work miracles at once, before it was opportune; and therefore Christ, without doubt wiser than his mother, restrained her. For he did not wish to work the miracle before the lack was known, because thereby it would have been less known and less credible, and therefore he says "what is it to me and to you, woman?" — as if to say: why do you trouble me? "My hour has not yet come," that is, I am not yet known to those who are present. But neither do they yet perceive the lack of wine; let them first perceive this, because when they have recognized the necessity, they will reckon the greater the benefit which they receive. Although, however, the mother was rebuffed, nevertheless she does not distrust her son's mercy; therefore consequently she instructs the servants, saying "whatever he shall say to you, do" — in which indeed consists the whole perfection of justice. For it is perfect justice to obey Christ in all things; Exodus 29:35: "all that the Lord has commanded us we will do." Now this saying, "whatever he shall say to you, do," cannot fittingly be said of anyone but God alone, for man can sometimes err. Hence in such things as are against God, we are not bound to obey men; Acts 5:29: "we must obey God rather than men." But God, who does not err nor can be deceived, we ought to obey in all things. Consequently, when it says "now there were six stone waterpots there," the consummation of the miracle by Christ is set forth. Concerning this, first the vessels in which the miracle was performed are described; secondly the matter of the miracle is designated, where it says "Jesus said to them: fill the waterpots with water"; thirdly the demonstration and approval of the miracle is intimated, where it says "Jesus said to them: draw out now." Now the vessels in which the miracle was performed are set down as six; and this is what it says: "now there were six stone waterpots there." Here it should be known that, as is said in Mark 7:2ff, the Jews observed many bodily washings, and washings of cups and vessels; hence, because they were in Palestine, where there is a lack of water, they had vessels in which very pure water was kept, with which they might frequently wash themselves and their vessels. And therefore it says that there were six stone waterpots there, that is, vessels for keeping water — from "hydor," which means water — "set there according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews," that is, for the use of purification, "each containing two or three measures" — for "metron" in Greek is called "measure" in Latin. And, as Chrysostom says, these vessels are mentioned in order to remove any suspicion regarding the miracle: both on account of their purity, lest anyone should suspect that the water had taken on the taste of wine from the dregs of wine previously stored in them (for those vessels were "according to purification," and therefore had to be most pure); and also on account of the quantity of the vessels, so that it might be evidently clear that the water of so many vessels could not have been changed into wine except by divine power. Mystically, by the six waterpots are signified the six ages of the Old Testament, in which the hearts of men, prepared to receive the Scriptures of God, were set forth as an example for living, as the Gloss says. Now this word "measures," according to Augustine, refers to the Trinity of persons. And they are said to be "two or three" because sometimes in sacred Scripture the three persons are set down distinctly, according to that saying of the last chapter of Matthew, 19: "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"; but sometimes only two are named, namely the Father and the Son, in whom the person of the Holy Spirit is understood, who is the bond of both, according to that saying below in John 14:23: "if anyone keeps my word, my Father will love him, and we will come to him." Or "two" on account of the two conditions of men, namely Jews and Gentiles, from whom the Church was propagated. Or "three" on account of the three sons of Noah, from whom the human race was propagated after the flood. Consequently, when it says "Jesus said to them: fill the waterpots with water," the matter of the miracle is treated. But concerning this a question arises: why was this miracle made not out of nothing, but out of pre-existing matter? For which a threefold reason is assigned. One is according to Chrysostom, and literal: because to make something out of nothing is greater and more wondrous than to make something out of underlying matter; but it is not so evident and credible to many. And therefore, wishing that what was being done should be more credible, he made wine out of water, condescending to the capacity of men. Another reason is to confute perverse dogmas. For there are some (such as the Marcionites and the Manichaeans) who said that the founder of the world was other than God, and that all visible things were created by that one, that is, by the Devil. And therefore the Lord worked many miracles even out of created and visible substances, in order to show that these substances themselves are good, and created by God. The third reason is mystical. For he did not wish to make wine out of nothing, but made wine out of water, in order to show that he was not establishing an entirely new doctrine and rejecting the old, but fulfilling it; as is said in Matthew 5:17: "I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it" — in that what the old law prefigured and promised, Christ exhibited and disclosed; Luke, last chapter, 45: "he opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures." Now he willed the waterpots to be filled with water through the servants, so that he might have them as witnesses of what was being done; hence below it is said: "but the servants knew," etc. Consequently, when it says "and Jesus said to them," etc., the publication of the miracle is set forth. For as soon as the waterpots were filled, the water was converted into wine; and therefore the Lord immediately publishes the miracle, saying "draw out now, and carry to the chief steward," where first is set down Christ's command choosing the examiner; secondly, the judgment of the chief steward tasting it, where it says "but when the chief steward had tasted," etc. He said to them, therefore, that is, to the servants, "draw out now," namely the wine from the waterpots, "and carry it to the chief steward." Here it should be known that a "triclinium" is a place where there are three rows of tables, and it is called "triclinium" from a threefold row of couches, for "cline" in Greek signifies a couch. For the ancients were accustomed to eat reclining on couches, as Valerius Maximus relates. And therefore in the Scriptures they speak of "reclining" and "lying back." The "chief steward," therefore, is said to be the first and chief among the guests. Or otherwise, according to Chrysostom, the chief steward was the one who was the arranger and dispenser of the whole banquet. Because he, being attentive to his duties, had not yet tasted anything, the Lord willed that he himself should judge concerning what had been done, and not the guests, lest anyone might be able to disparage the miracle, saying that they were drunk, and that their senses had been corrupted through eating, so that they could not discern whether it was wine or water. But, according to Augustine, the chief steward was the greatest among those reclining, as has been said; and therefore, in order that his judgment might be more acceptable, he willed to have the judgment of the presiding officer concerning what had been done. Mystically, those who draw the water are the preachers; Isaiah 12:3: "you shall draw waters with joy from the fountains of the Savior." The chief steward, however, is some man learned in the law, such as Nicodemus, Gamaliel, and Paul. When, therefore, the word of the Gospel is entrusted to such men — which lay hidden in the letter of the law — it is as though wine made from water is offered to the chief steward to drink, who, tasting this, approves the faith of Christ. Consequently, when it says "but when the chief steward had tasted," the judgment of the examiner is set forth, where first he inquires into the truth of the deed; secondly he pronounces his verdict, saying "every man sets forth the good wine first." It says, then, that when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine, "he did not know where it was from" — because he did not know that the water had been made wine by a miracle through Christ — "but the servants knew," the reason for which is that they had drawn the water; the chief steward calls the bridegroom, in order to inquire into the truth and to pronounce his verdict concerning the wine; hence he adds, "every man sets forth the good wine first," etc. Here, according to Chrysostom, this should be considered regarding the miracles of Christ: that all of them were most perfect; hence he also restored to Peter's mother-in-law the most perfect health, so that she, rising at once, ministered, as is said in Mark 1:30 and Matthew 9:6. He likewise restored the paralytic to health so perfectly that, rising at once, and taking up his bed, he went to his own house, as is said below in John 5:9. This also appears in this miracle: because he did not make just any wine out of water, but the best that could be. And therefore the chief steward says, "every man sets forth the good wine first, and when they have become drunk, then that which is worse" — because they drink less, and because good wine taken in quantity, together with a quantity of food, weighs more heavily; as if to say: whence is such wine, which you have kept until now? — acting, that is, against custom. This, however, fits the mystery. For someone is said, mystically, to set forth the good wine first, who, intending to deceive others, does not propose first the error which he intends, but those things which allure his hearers, so that after they have become intoxicated and enticed to consent to his intention, he may then reveal his perfidy; and of this wine it is said in Proverbs 23:31: "it enters smoothly, and in the end it will bite like a serpent." But someone is also said to set forth the good wine first, who, beginning from the start of his conversion to live holily and spiritually, at length degenerates into a carnal life; Galatians 3:3: "are you so foolish, that whereas you began in the spirit, you are now made perfect by the flesh?" Christ, however, does not set forth the good wine first: because from the beginning he sets forth things bitter and hard; Matthew 7:14: "narrow is the way that leads to life." But the more a man advances in his faith and doctrine, the more he is sweetened, and the greater sweetness he perceives; Proverbs 4:11: "I will lead you by the paths of equity, which when you shall have entered, your steps shall not be straitened." Likewise, in this world, all who wish to live piously in Christ suffer bitternesses and tribulations; below, John 16:20: "amen, amen, I say to you, that you shall weep and lament," etc. But in the future they shall receive delights and joys; hence it also follows: "your sorrow shall be turned into joy." Romans 8:18: "I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us." Consequently, when it says "this beginning of signs Jesus did," the attestation of the miracle made through the disciples is set forth. From this it is held that the story about the infancy of the Savior is false, in which many miracles are recounted as done by Christ while still a boy; for if this were true, the Evangelist would certainly not say "this beginning of signs Jesus did." And the reason why he did not work miracles in his boyhood has been assigned above: namely, lest men should reckon them as phantasms. Therefore, for this reason, Jesus performed this miracle, namely making wine from water, in Cana of Galilee, which is the beginning of the signs which Jesus did afterward. "And he manifested his glory," that is, the power by which he is glorious; Psalm 23:10: "the Lord of hosts, he is the king of glory." "And his disciples believed in him." But how did they believe? For they were already disciples, and had believed before. But it should be said that something is sometimes said to be, not according to what it now is, but according to what it will be; just as it is said that the apostle Paul was born at Tarsus in Cilicia — not that the apostle was born there, but that the future apostle was born there. So it is said here, "and his disciples believed in him," namely those who were his disciples. Or it should be said that before, they believed him to be a good man, preaching just and right things; but now they believed in him as in God, and so on.”

“Woman, what have I to do with thee? - Τι εμοι και σοι, γυναι: O, woman, what is this to thee and me? This is an abrupt denial, as if he had said: "We are not employed to provide the necessaries for this feast: this matter belongs to others, who should have made a proper and sufficient provision for the persons they had invited." The words seem to convey a reproof to the virgin, for meddling with that which did not particularly concern her. The holiest persons are always liable to errors of judgment: and should ever conduct themselves with modesty and humility, especially in those things in which the providence of God is particularly concerned. But here indeed there appears to be no blame. It is very likely the bride or bridegroom's family were relatives of the blessed virgin; and she would naturally suppose that our Lord would feel interested for the honor and comfort of the family, and, knowing that he possessed extraordinary power, made this application to him to come forward to their assistance. Our Lord's answer to his mother, if properly translated, is far from being disrespectful. He addresses the virgin as he did the Syrophoenician woman, Mat 15:28; as he did the Samaritan woman, Joh 4:21, as he addressed his disconsolate mother when he hung upon the cross, Joh 19:26; as he did his most affectionate friend Mary Magdalene, Joh 20:15, and as the angels had addressed her before, Joh 20:13; and as St. Paul does the believing Christian woman, Co1 7:16; in all which places the same term, γυναι which occurs in this verse, is used; and where certainly no kind of disrespect is intended, but, on the contrary, complaisance, affability, tenderness, and concern and in this sense it is used in the best Greek writers. Mine hour is not yet come - Or, my time, for in this sense the word ὡρα is often taken. My time for working a miracle is not yet fully come. What I do, I do when necessary, and not before. Nature is unsteady - full of haste; and ever blundering, in consequence. It is the folly and sin of men that they are ever finding fault with the Divine providence. According to them, God never does any thing in due time - he is too early or too late: whereas it is utterly impossible for the Divine wisdom to forestall itself; or for the Divine goodness to delay what is necessary.”

“Some of the Fathers have spoken without sufficient precaution on this action of the blessed Virgin; supposing she was actuated by some inclination to vanity, in begging her Son to perform a miracle on this occasion; that some of the glory of it might accrue to her, and that on this account our Saviour answers her with severity, saying, Woman, (not Mother ) what is it to thee or me. Other Fathers, with more reason, attribute the interference of the blessed Virgin to her charity and compassion for the new married couple. Whatever turn be given to our Saviour’s answer, it must be acknowledged it has in it the appearance of something severe. But the Fathers have explained it with mildness, observing that our Saviour only meant to say, Mother, what affair is it of ours if they want wine? Ought we to concern ourselves about that? Others think that he wished, by these words, to let his Mother know that she must not forestall the time appointed by the heavenly Father, as if her demand were unseasonable and out of time. But most of the Fathers and best commentators understand, that he speaks here not as man and Son of Mary, but as God; and in that quality, he observes to his Mother, I have nothing in common with you. It is not for you to prescribe when miracles are to be performed, which are not to be expected in compliance with any human respect. I know when my power is to be manifested for the greater glory of God. (Calmet) —See the like forms of speech, Mark i. 24; Luke iv. 34; &c. — My hour is not yet come. It is not yet time. He waited till the wine was quite done, lest any should believe that he had only increased the quantity, or had only mixed water with the wine. He would have his first miracle to be incontestable, and that all the company should be witnesses of it. (St. Augustine, et alii patres passim. — Christ’s first miracle in the New Testament, was a kind of transubstantiation in changing water into wine; the first miracle Moses performed when sent to the Jews, was transubstantiation. (Exodus iv.) The first Moses and Aaron performed, when sent to the Egyptians, was transubstantiation. (Exodus vii.)”

“Woman--no term of disrespect in the language of that day (Joh 19:26). what . . . to do with thee--that is, "In my Father's business I have to do with Him only." It was a gentle rebuke for officious interference, entering a region from which all creatures were excluded (compare Act 4:19-20). mine hour, &c.--hinting that He would do something, but at His own time; and so she understood it (Joh 2:5).”