John 2 - CSB Ancient Faith Study Bible

2:1 Chrysostom: Since our Lord was known in Galilee, they invite him to the marriage. And he comes because he cares more about our good than his own dignity. The one who did not despise taking on himself the form of a servant would much less despise being present at the marriage of servants. Commentary on the Gospel of John 21.1.

2:4 Irenaeus: With [Jesus], nothing is incomplete or done at the wrong time, just as with the Father there is nothing haphazard. The Lord checked Mary’s untimely haste when she was urging him to perform the wonderful miracle of the wine and wanting him to partake of the cup, which would have so much emblematic significance later on. This is why he said, “Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour is not yet come”—[he was] waiting for the hour that was foreknown by the Father. Against Heresies 3.16.7.

2:9 Hilary of Poitiers: 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. On the Trinity 3.5.

2:19-21 Theodoret of Cyrus: Why is it that the Evangelist did not pass over this but added a correction when he said, “He was talking about the temple of his body”? For he did not say “destroy” this body but “the temple,” in order to reveal the God who resided within [it]. “Destroy this temple,” which is much greater than the Jewish one. For the latter held the law, but the former held the lawgiver; the latter had the letter that kills, but the former had the life-giving Spirit. Dialogue 3.61.

2:22 Ambrose: It was not the Father who divested himself of the flesh; for not the Father, but, as we read, the Word was made flesh [see Jn 1:14]. You see, then, that the Arians, in dividing the Father from the Son, run into danger of saying that the Father endured passion. We, however, can easily show . . . the Son himself indeed raised his own body again, as he himself said: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” [v. 19]. And he himself quickens us together with his body: “For as the Father raises the dead and quickens them, so also the Son quickens whom he will” [Jn 5:21]. . . . He, therefore, who has achieved the work of our resurrection, is plainly pointed out to be truly God. On the Christian Faith 3.2.13–14.