1. "From all labor there is profit" (Proverbs 14:23) – says the book of Proverbs. But Christ inspires us even more when He says: "He who seeks finds" (Matt. 7:8). That is why it seems to me surprising how Philip followed Christ. Andrew followed, having heard about Christ from John, Peter from Andrew; and Philip knew nothing about Him from anyone or anyone, but as soon as Christ said to him: "Follow Me," Philip immediately obeyed Him, and not only did not abandon Him, but even became a preacher about Him to others. Hastening to Nathanael, Philip says to him, "We have found him of whom Moses wrote in the law and the prophets" (v. 45). Do you see how anxious his soul was, how often he pondered over what Moses wrote, and how he awaited the coming of Christ? The word: found shows people who are constantly searching. "On the morrow [Jesus] desired to go into Galilee." He does not call anyone to Himself before anyone joins Him. And he does this not simply, but according to His inherent wisdom and understanding. If no one had come to Him voluntarily, and He Himself had drawn everyone to Himself, then perhaps they would have left Him afterwards. But as soon as they themselves decided to do this, they remained firm in their intention. But He calls Philip as a man more known to Him than others. Born and raised in Galilee, Philip, of course, knew Christ more than anyone else. Thus, having gained some disciples, Christ goes to catch others and draws Philip and Nathanael to Himself. The conversion of Nathanael to Christ is not so surprising, because the rumor of Jesus spread throughout all Syria, as is the conversion of Peter, James, and Philip, not only because they believed before they saw the miracles of Jesus Christ, but also because they were from Galilee, from whence no prophet came, and nothing good could come (v. 46). for the Galileans were an uneducated, savage, and coarse people. Meanwhile, Christ manifested His power here as well, choosing from the earth, which bore no fruit, the most worthy disciples. So, probably, Philip followed Christ, seeing Peter's companions and hearing (about Christ) from John. Probably, too, the voice of Christ produced its effect in him. Christ knew who would be useful to Him. But the evangelist omits all this. Philip knew that Christ was to come; but that Christ is Jesus, he did not know; but I think that he heard it either from Peter or from John. The Evangelist also names the village of Philip in order to show how "God chose the weakness of the world" (1 Corinthians 1:27). "Philip found Nathanael, and said to him, We have found him of whom Moses wrote in the law and the prophets, Jesus the son of Joseph of Nazareth" (v. 45). He says this in order to give credibility to his preaching, referring to Moses and the prophets, and thus to encourage the listener to pay attention. Nathanael was a precise man and in all things he inquired into the truth, as Christ also testified and the deed itself showed. Therefore Philip did well to send him to Moses and the prophets, in order thus to dispose Nathanael to accept Him of whom he had preached to him. But if Philip calls Christ the son of Joseph, then do not be dismayed. At that time He was still considered to be the son of Joseph. But how can it be seen, Philip, that He is the one of whom Moses and the prophets wrote? What proof will you give us? Verbal testimony alone is not enough. What sign hast thou seen? What miracle? After all, in such cases it is not safe to believe simply without evidence? What proof do you have? The same as Andrew's, Philip answers us. As Andrew, not having the strength to depict the riches that he found, not finding words to describe this treasure, leads his brother to Him whom he has found, so Philip: without telling Nathanael why Jesus is the Christ and how the prophets foretold about Him; but draws him to Jesus, knowing that he will not depart from Jesus as soon as he tastes His words and His teachings. "Nathanael said to him, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip said to him, "Go and see." And when Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, he said of him, Behold, this is indeed an Israelite, in whom there is no guile" (vv. 46, 47). Christ praises and exalts Nathanael because he said: "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth"? Should he not be condemned for this? No, these were not the words of an unbeliever, and they did not deserve accusations, but praise. How and why? Because he was more versed in prophecy than Philip. He knew from the Scriptures that Christ was to come from Bethlehem and from the village where David was. This opinion prevailed among the Jews, and the prophet had long foretold, saying: "And you, Bethlehem, the land of Judah, are in no way less than the governors of Judah, for from you shall come forth a Leader who will shepherd my people Israel" (Micah 5:2; Matt. 2:6; John 7:42). Therefore, when Nathanael heard that (Christ had appeared) from Nazareth, he was confused and perplexed, finding Philip's message not in accordance with the prophetic prediction. But see how Nathanael, even in his perplexity, is prudent and moderate. He did not immediately say, 'You deceive me, Philip, and you lie.' I don't believe, I won't go; I know from the prophecies that Christ must come from Bethlehem. And you say – from Nazareth. This is not Christ. No, Nathanael said nothing of the sort. What then? And he goes to Christ and, on the one hand, not agreeing that Christ came from Nazareth, thus shows a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures and prudence in actions, on the other hand, he does not completely reject Philip's message and thereby reveals his strong desire for the coming of Christ. He only thought that Philip had wrongly indicated the place of the coming. Pay attention also to the caution with which he expresses his doubt – in the form of a question. He does not say: Galilee does not produce anything good, but how? "Can anything good come from Nazareth"? But Philip was also very prudent. When he encounters an objection, he is not annoyed, not offended, but only stands his ground, wishing to bring this man to Christ Himself and from the very beginning showing in himself the firmness of spirit characteristic of the Apostle. That is why Christ also said: "Behold truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile." Of course, an Israelite can also be a liar. But this one is not like that, he says: his judgment is impartial; He does not express in his words either liking or disliking. True, the Jews, too, to the question: "Where should Christ be born?" answered: "In Bethlehem," and cited the testimony: "And thou, Bethlehem, the land of Judah, is in no way less than the governors of Judah"; but they bore witness to it even before they saw Christ; and when they saw it, out of envy they hid this testimony and said: "We know Him whence He comes; But when Christ comes, no man shall know whence He comes" (John 7:27). But Nathanael did not act in this way, but what opinion he had about Christ at first, and yet he remained, namely, that He was not from Nazareth. Why do the prophets call him a Nazarite? Because there was a place of His upbringing and residence. But even Christ does not want to say to Nathanael: "I am not from Nazareth, as Philip told you, but from Bethlehem," so as not to cast doubt on His words from the very beginning. Moreover, if he had convinced Nathaniel of this, it would not have been sufficient proof that He was the Christ. Why couldn't He, who was not the Christ, come from Bethlehem, like the other people who were born there? Thus, Christ leaves this, and does what could most attract Nathanael to Him, namely, that He was present at Nathanael's conversation with Philip. When Nathanael asked Him, "Why do You know me"? He says, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you" (v. 48). Here is a firm and constant man! When Christ said: "Behold truly an Israelite," he was not haughty by these praises, he was not carried away by approvals; but he stands his ground, seeking out and testing the truth with greater diligence in order to learn something true. So he still tests as a man, and Jesus answers as God. "Before," he said, "I saw you." He had known Nathanael's good manners before, not as a man who watched over him, but as God. And now, "I saw thee under the fig tree," when there was no one there, but only Philip and Nathanael, and they talked among themselves about it. Wherefore it is said, "When he saw Nathanael coming unto him, he saith of him, Behold the Israelite indeed," and so it is said, in order to show that Christ spoke these words before Philip approached, so that such testimony might not be doubted. For this purpose, He named the time, the place, and the tree itself. If He had only said, "Before Philip came to thee, I saw thee," He might have been suspected that He had not sent Philip himself, and thus nothing of importance would have been found in His words. But when He pointed out the place where Nathanael was, when Philip invited him, and the name of the tree itself, and the time of the conversation, He showed in Himself undoubted clairvoyance. But Christ not only revealed His clairvoyance, but also brought Nathanael to his senses in another way, namely, He brought to his mind the words he had said at that time: "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" and all the more favored him to Himself, as well as by the fact that for such words He not only did not condemn him, but even praised and exalted him. That is why Nathanael understood from this that Christ was truly Christ, i.e., both from His insight and from the fact that Christ knew his opinion exactly, and thereby showed that He knew what was hidden in his soul, and not only did He not condemn him for expressing his opinion, but even praised him. That Nathanael was invited by Philip, Christ said; but what he said to Philip, and Philip to him, he kept silent about it, leaving it to his conscience and not wishing to expose him any more.

3. What is it? Did Christ see Nathanael only before Philip invited him, and until that time did not see him with a vigilant eye? I saw it - and no one will contradict it. But at that time it was necessary to say only what was necessary. What about Nathanael? Having received the indubitable proof of Christ's foreknowledge, he confessed Him, and as before in his slowness he showed prudence, so now in his compliance he showed prudence. He answered Christ thus: "Rabbi! Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel" (v. 49). Do you see the soul that is suddenly enraptured and embraces Jesus with its words? You, he says, are desired, expected. Do you see how he is amazed, marveled, jumps and jumps for joy? In the same way, we should rejoice, who have been vouchsafed to know the Son of God, not only to rejoice in our souls, but also to express joy in our very deeds. And what is characteristic of those who rejoice? To believe Him whom they have known; but believers – to do what pleases Him.

Therefore, when Christ also came to us, let us show that we rejoice in Him, and let us not do anything that can offend Him. Let us adorn the house into which He came: this is characteristic of those who rejoice. Let us offer him the table which He Himself desires: this is the nature of those who rejoice. What kind of meal is this? He Himself says: "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me" (John 4:34). Let us feed Him who hungers, let us give Him thirsty to drink. Give Him only a cup of cold water, and He will accept this too, because He loves you; the offerings of the loved ones, however small, seem great to the lover. Just don't show negligence. Throw down two mites before Him, and He will not reject them either, but will accept them as great riches. He has no fault in anything, and does not accept it out of any need; therefore he justly measures everything not by the measure of what is given, but by the disposition of the giver. Just show that you love this Guest, that you try to do everything for Him, that you are glad to see Him. See what kind of love He has for you. He came for your sake, laid down His life for you, and after all these blessings He does not refuse to beg you. "In the name of Christ we beseech you," says the Apostle, "be reconciled to God" (2 Corinthians 5:20). But who, you will say, is so mad as not to love his Lord? This is what I say, and I know that none of us will renounce it in words and thoughts. But he who is loved wants love for him to be manifested not only in words, but also in deeds. He says that we love, but does not do what is characteristic of lovers - this is ridiculous not only in relation to God, but also to people. Therefore, if to confess only in words, and to show the contrary in deeds is not only useless, but also harmful to us, then I beseech – let us express our confession in deeds, that we may be worthy of confession also from the Lord Himself, on the day when He shall make known the worthy before His Father – I beseech in Christ Jesus our Lord, through Whom and with Whom be glory to the Father with the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

CONVERSATION 21

"Nathanael answered Him, Rabbi! You are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel. Jesus answered and said to him, "You believe, because I said to you, I saw you under the fig tree; thou shalt see more than this" (John 1:49,50)

1. Beloved, we need much care, much vigilance, in order to be able to penetrate into the depths of the divine Scriptures. Otherwise, while falling asleep, it is impossible to comprehend their meaning; but careful study is needed, and constant prayer is also needed, in order to see at least a little in the sanctuary of the word of God. So today we see an important issue that requires a lot of attention. When Nathanael said, "Thou art the Son of God," Christ said to him, "I said unto thee, I have seen thee under the fig tree; thou shalt see more than this." What in these words needs to be investigated? That Peter, who confessed: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16), after so many miracles and after such teaching, is blessed as having received a revelation from the Father; but Nathanael, who said the same thing even before the miracles and before the teaching, heard nothing of the kind from Christ, but also, as if he had not yet said as much as should have been said, is stirred up to expect great revelations. What is the reason for this? Because, although Peter and Nathanael spoke the same words, they did not speak with the same thought. Peter confessed Jesus to be the Son of God as the true God; and Nathaniel as a mere man. From what can this be seen? From the following words of Nathaniel. And when he said, "Thou art the Son of God," he added, "Thou art the King of Israel." But the Son of God is the king not only of Israel, but of the entire universe. However, this is evident not only from here, but also from the following. Christ did not add anything to Peter's words, but, as if Peter's faith were already perfect, He said that on this confession He would build His Church. But in relation to Nathanael, He did not do so, but quite the opposite. In Nathanael's confession, as it were, there was still much and something better missing, and now Christ makes up for what is lacking. What's he saying? "Verily, verily, I say unto you, From henceforth ye shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending to the Son of man" (v. 51). Do you see how Christ little by little raises him out of the earth and inspires him not to imagine Him as a mere man? Can he really be a man whom the angels serve and for whom the angels ascend and descend? For this reason He said, "Thou shalt see more than this," and in explaining this, He added about the angelic ministry. The meaning of His words is this: To you, Nathanael, this seemed important[1], and for this you acknowledge Me as the king of Israel. What then will you say when you see angels ascending and descending for Me? With such words Christ inspired us to recognize Him as the Lord of the angels. As to the true Son of the King, these royal servants ascended and descended to Christ, as in the time of suffering, in the time of resurrection and ascension; and even before that they came and served Him – when they preached the news of His birth, when they exclaimed: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace" (Luke 2:14), when they came to Mary, to Joseph. But Christ does it now as He does on many other occasions. He pronounces two prophecies, and the correctness of the one is immediately revealed, and the other, relating to the future, is confirmed through the present. Of these, one, already proven, is the following: "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." The other was to be fulfilled in the future, and in part was already being fulfilled at that time, namely, the ascent and descent of the angels, such as: at His sufferings, at His resurrection and ascension; and of this, even before the events, He assured by what He had said about the present. Whoever has come to know His power from the past, hearing also about the future, can more easily accept the prediction about the future. What about Nathanael? Nothing answers to this. For this reason Christ also concluded His discourse in it, leaving it to reflect on what was said for himself, and not wishing to express everything at once. By throwing the seeds into the fruitful ground, He allows it to bring forth fruit in due time. This He depicted in another place in the following words: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while the people slept, his enemy came, and sowed tares among the wheat, and departed" (Matt. 13:24,25). "On the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. And Jesus and His disciples were called to the marriage" (John 2:1,2). I have already said that He was most famous in Galilee. That's why they call Him to marriage, and He comes. He did not look to His own dignity, but to our benefit. He who did not renounce the form of a slave, much less could he renounce to come to the marriage of slaves. He who co-reclines with tax collectors and sinners could not renounce co-presence with those who were at the marriage. Those who invited Him to the marriage, of course, did not have a proper understanding of Him, they called Him not even as a great man, but simply as an ordinary and familiar person. This is what the evangelist hints at, saying: "The mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and His disciples were also called to the marriage", i.e., Jesus was called the same as she and the disciples. "And because there was a lack of wine, the mother of Jesus said to him, They have no wine" (v. 3). Here it is worth paying attention to how did His Mother come up with the idea to imagine something great about her Son? Up to that time He had not yet performed any miracle. "Thus," it is said, "Jesus began the miracles at Cana of Galilee" (v. 11).

2. And if anyone says that there is not yet sufficient proof that the miracle at Cannae was the beginning of miracles, since the addition "in Cannae of Galilee" only shows that this miracle was the first in Cannae, and not in general, and not the first of all His miracles; and it is likely that Christ had performed other miracles in other places before, we will say to this the same thing as we said before. What exactly? What John says, "I did not know Him; but for this he came to baptize in water, that he might be manifested unto Israel" (John 1:31). If Christ had performed miracles in adolescence, then the Israelites would not have needed another person to manifest Him. If Christ, having come to manhood, became known for His miracles not only in Judea, but also in Syria and beyond, moreover, He performed them in the course of only three years, or rather,

But in His adolescence He did not perform any miracles, except, as Luke relates, how He, when He was twelve years old, sat among the teachers, listened to them, and amazed them with His questions. However, not without reason, but intentionally, He did not begin to work miracles from the very first age: otherwise His miracles might have been considered phantoms. If even at the age of maturity many suspected Him of this, how much more so when He began to work miracles in His youth. Moreover, the Jews, consumed with envy, would have lifted Him up to the cross even sooner and before the proper time, and thus the whole work of our salvation would not have been accepted by faith. Where, you will say, did His Mother come up with the idea of assuming something great in Him? He had already begun to reveal Himself for what He was, both through the testimony of John and through what He Himself had said to the disciples. And above all, His very conception and all the events that followed His birth inspired His Mother with a lofty concept of Him. "And His mother kept all these words in Her heart" (Luke 2:52). Why, you say, did she not express this before? Because, as I said, He Himself only then began to reveal Himself. Until then, He had lived like an ordinary man. That is why she did not tell Him this before. As soon as she heard that for His sake John had come and given such a testimony about Him, and that He already had disciples, she asked Him boldly, and when there was a lack of wine, she said: "They have no wine." She wanted to please the guests and glorify herself through her Son. Perhaps she had something human in mind, like His brothers, who said: "Manifest Thyself to the world" (John 7:4), desiring to gain glory for themselves by His miracles. That is why Christ answered her so strongly: "What have I to do with Thee, O Woman? my hour has not yet come" (v. 4). But that He greatly revered His parent, listen to Luke's account of how Christ was obedient to His parents; and this same Evangelist (John) shows how He cared for His Mother at the very time of His sufferings on the Cross. When parents do not in the least forbid God-pleasing deeds and do not hinder them, then parents must and must be obeyed; Disobedience in this case is very dangerous. But when they demand something untimely and forbid some spiritual work, it is not safe to obey them. That is why in the present case Christ answered in this way, and in the other case also: "Who are my mother and my brethren" (Mark 3:33)? At that time they did not yet have a proper understanding of Him; and His Mother, because she gave birth to Him, wanted to command Him in all things, according to the custom of all mothers, whereas she should have honored Him as the Lord, and worshipped Him. That is why He answered her in this way then. In fact, think what it was like when, in front of all the people surrounding Him, in front of a large gathering of attentive listeners, while teaching the teaching, His Mother entered the assembly, began to distract Him from preaching, in order to talk to Him alone, and moreover, did not remain with Him in the house, but dragged Him alone from there to herself. That is why He said, "Who are My mother and My brethren"? And He did not offend His Mother by this; no, but brought her the greatest, not allowing her to think of herself in a humiliated way. If He had care for others and everything was directed towards instilling in them a proper understanding of Himself, how much more did He care about His Mother in this respect. But as she, probably, even after hearing this from her Son, did not want to obey Him afterwards, but wanted, like a mother, in any case to be the first, He answered so. Otherwise, He could not have raised her from such a derogatory concept of Him to a more exalted one, if, i.e., she had always expected Him to be revered as a son, but did not recognize Him as Lord. It is for this reason that He said here, "What have I to do with Thee, O Woman"? However, there was another reason, no less important. What is it? He wanted people not to suspect the miracles He performed. It was to be asked by those who were in need, not by the Mother. Why? What is done at the request of relatives, although it would be important, often seems unseemly to outsiders. When the needy themselves ask, then the miracle becomes above all suspicion, then the praise is impartial and the benefit is great.

3. If a physician, even an excellent one, entering a house where there are many sick people, did not hear anything either from the sick themselves or from those around them, but only his mother begged him, then he would become suspicious and unpleasant to the sick, and neither those who were sick nor those who were with them would expect anything important and good from him. That is why Christ then rebuked His Mother, saying: "What shall I and Thee, Woman?" inspiring her not to do anything of the kind in the future. He also cared for the honor of His Mother, but much more for her spiritual salvation and for the good of people, for which He clothed Himself with flesh. Thus, these words were spoken by Christ to His Mother, not out of any arrogance, but with a special purpose – in order to place her herself in a proper relationship with Him, so that miracles would be performed with due dignity. And that Christ greatly revered His Mother, this, apart from other cases, is sufficiently evident from the very thing that is apparently said in rebuke of her. In His very displeasure He showed that He greatly revered her. And in what way, we will talk about this in the following conversation. Thinking about this, if you hear how one woman said: "Blessed is the womb that bore Thee, and the breasts that nourished Thee," and He answered her: "Blessed are they that do the will of my Father" (Luke 11:28), then understand these words in this sense. The Saviour's answer to the Mother did not express a rejection of the Mother, but that His very birth would not have benefited her in the least, if she herself had not possessed great virtue and faith. If, without the virtue of the soul, there would be no benefit for Mary herself in the fact that Christ was born of her, how much more can it be of no use to us, if we have a virtuous and valiant father, brother, or son, and we ourselves are far from his virtues. "A man," says David, "will not redeem his brother in any way, nor give God a ransom for him" (Psalm 48:8)? The hope of salvation, after the grace of God, should be placed in nothing else, but only in one's own perfections. If the birth of Christ in itself could benefit the Virgin, then it would also have benefited the Jews (since Christ was their kinsman in the flesh), it would have benefited the city in which He was born, and it would have benefited the brethren as well. But His brethren, as long as they did not take care of themselves, did not receive any benefit from high affinity, and were condemned along with other men; but when they shone forth with their own virtues, then they are glorified. And the city was destroyed and burned, not benefiting from being the place of His birth. His kinsmen in the flesh were destroyed and perished in the most miserable way, having gained nothing from their kinship with Him for their salvation, precisely because they had no protection in their own virtue. But the apostles were most glorified, because they truly and in a way worthy of our emulation attained kinship with Christ, through obedience to Him. From this we also learn that in any case we need faith and a pure and bright life. Only this can save us. For a long time, Christ's kinsmen were respected everywhere, so much so that they were called "sovereign," but now we do not even know their names. And the lives and names of the apostles are glorified everywhere. Let us not puff ourselves up with nobility according to the flesh, but, even though we have thousands of illustrious ancestors, let us ourselves try to surpass them in virtue, knowing that the merits of others will not bring us any benefit in the future judgment, and will even increase the severity of our condemnation, precisely because, descended from virtuous fathers and having such close examples, we nevertheless did not follow such teachers. This I say now, having in mind many pagans, who, when we convert them to faith in Christ and exhort them to be Christians, point to their relatives, ancestors and households, and say: all my relatives, friends and household have already become faithful Christians. But what do you have to do with it, wretched one? It is you who will be ruined because you, not respecting so many people close to you, did not hasten to turn to the truth. Others, being already believers, but having led a careless life, when you exhort them to virtue, imagine the same thing and say: my father, grandfather and great-grandfather were very pious and virtuous people. But it is especially to your condemnation that you, being descended from such people, do deeds unworthy of your kind. Listen to what the prophet says to the Jews: "And Israel served for the woman, and for the woman he kept [the sheep]" (Israel's work on the woman, and on the woman you will be saved) (Hosea 12:12); and Christ: "Abraham your father was glad to see my day; and he saw and rejoiced" (John 8:56). And always the virtues of the ancestors turn not only into praise of the Jews, but also into a greater accusation. Knowing this, let us do everything in such a way as to save ourselves by our own deeds, so that otherwise we will not deceive ourselves with hopes in others and will not learn about our deception when this knowledge will not benefit us in any way. "In the tomb," it is said, "who shall praise Thee" (Psalm 6:6)? Therefore, let us reform ourselves here, so that there we may attain eternal blessings, which may we all be vouchsafed by the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom and with Whom be glory and dominion to the Father and the Holy Spirit forever and ever. Amen.

[1] That is, that Christ saw him under the fig tree before Philip came to him.

DISCOURSE 22

"What have I to do with Thee, Woman? My hour has not yet come" (John 2:4).

1. There is some work in teaching, as Paul shows when he says: "It is fitting that the chief elders should be given special honor, especially those who labor in word and doctrine" (1 Tim. 5:17). But it depends on you to make this work both easy and hard. If you reject our words, or if you do not reject them and do not do them in your deeds, then this work will be burdensome for us, as vain and vain labor. But if you pay attention to our words and show it in your very deeds, then we will not feel any difficulty in teaching; the fruit that comes from these labors will not allow you to notice their severity. Therefore, if you want to arouse jealousy in us, not to quench or weaken it, I beg you, show us the fruit, seeing the blossoming fields, feeding on the hope of abundance and hoping for your future wealth, do not faint in these good pursuits. And today we see an important subject. When the Mother of Jesus said, "They have no wine," Christ answered, "What have I to do with you, Woman? My hour has not yet come." Meanwhile, after these words, He did what the Mother said. This subject requires research no less than the former. So, having called on the One Who created this miracle, let us proceed to solve the problem. Not only is it said, "The hour has not come"; the Evangelist further notes: "But no man laid hands on Him, for His hour had not yet come" (John 7:30); and in another place: "And no man took him, for his hour had not yet come" (John 8:20). Also: "The hour has come, glorify Thy Son" (John 17:1). I have collected here all these sayings from the entire Gospel in order to give one solution to everything. What is it? Christ said: "The hour has not come" not because He was subject to the law of time, and not because He actually observed certain hours. Was it necessary for the Creator of times and the Creator of ages? But by these words He wants to show that He does everything in its own time, and not suddenly, since confusion and disorder could arise from this, if, i.e. He did each of His works at the wrong time and mixed everything together, such as birth, resurrection, and judgment. Thus observe: the creature had to come into being, but not all together; a man and a wife, but not both together; the human race was to be condemned to death and to be resurrected, but there is a great distance of time between the two; it was necessary to give the law, but not together with grace, but to arrange both in their own time. Thus, Christ Himself was not subject to the conditions of time, because He established the very order of times, He is their Creator. But John, quoting here the words of Christ: "My hour has not come," shows that at that time He was not yet known to everyone and did not have a full assembly of disciples; Only Andrew followed him, and Philip with him, and no one else besides them. And they did not know Him as they ought, not even His mother or brothers. Already after performing many miracles, the Evangelist remarked about His brethren: "For even His brethren believed not in Him" (John 7:5). Nor did those present at the marriage know Him. Otherwise, in need, they themselves would turn to Him with a request. That is why he says: "My hour has not come." Those present do not yet know me; nor do they know that there is no wine. Let them feel it first. And it is not from you that I ought to hear. You are My Mother, and therefore you make the miracle itself suspicious. And it would be proper for those who are in need to turn to Me with a request; not because I needed it, but because they would accept the occasion with greater confidence. He who sees himself in need, when he receives what he needs, remains much grateful; and whoever does not yet feel the need will not fully and vividly feel the good deed itself. Why, then, having said, "My hour has not come," and thus refusing, did He nevertheless do what the Mother had told Him? Especially in order for people who contradict and consider Him to be subject to the conditions of time, it is enough to show that He is not subject to time. If He had been subject, how would He have done what He did, when the right time had not yet come? He did this also out of reverence for the Mother, so as not to appear in all things contrary to her or unable to do so, and so as not to shame his Mother in the presence of so many people, and she also brought servants to Him. In a similar way He said to the Canaanite woman: "It is not good to take bread from the children and throw it to the dogs" (Matt. 15:26); however, after these words, he granted her what he asked, bowed down by her perseverance. He also said: "I have been sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24), but even after these words He healed the daughter of this woman.

2. From this we learn that, even though we are unworthy, yet by persistent prayers we can make ourselves worthy to receive (what we ask for). Therefore the Mother hoped and brought her servants with the aim that the request would be from a large number of people. Wherefore she added, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it, v. 5. She knew that He refused not out of infirmity, but out of humility and in order not to give the idea that He Himself was in too much of a hurry to perform a miracle; That is why she brought her servants. "And there were six stone waterpots, standing [according to] the custom of the purification of the Jews, containing two or three measures. Jesus said to them, "Fill the vessels with water." And they filled them to the top" (v. 6, 7). The Evangelist remarked, not without purpose: "[according to] the custom of cleansing the Jews," but so that any of the unbelievers would not suspect that there were remnants of wine in the vessels, and therefore, when water was poured in and mixed with them, a certain weakest wine was composed. For this reason the Evangelist says: "[according to] the custom of the cleansing of the Jews," showing that no wine was ever stored in those vessels. Palestine is a land without water, and there are not springs and wells to be found in every place; Therefore, the Jews always filled vessels with water, so that they would not run to the rivers when they became unclean, but have at hand a means of purification. But why did He not perform a miracle before the vessels were filled with water – what would have been much more amazing? After all, it is another thing to change the finished substance only in quality, and another thing to produce the substance itself from nothing. Of course, this is more surprising; But for many, it would not seem so likely. For this reason Christ often voluntarily diminishes the greatness of miracles, so that they may be more conveniently acceptable. And why, you will say, did He not produce water Himself and then turned it into wine, but ordered the servants to pour it in? Again, for the same reason, so that those who drew water themselves would be witnesses to the miracle and so that it would not seem in the least a phantom. If anyone were to shamelessly deny this, the servants might say, "We drew water ourselves." In addition, by this miracle He overthrows the revived teaching, which is contrary to the Church. There are those who say that there is some other creator of the world, and that what is seen is not created by Him, but by some other god hostile to Him. Curbing such madness, Christ performed most of His miracles from ready-made substances. If the Creator of the world had been hostile to Him, He would not have used other people's deeds to prove His own power. So now, to show that He Himself is the One who changes water into grapes and turns rain into wine, through the root of the vine - which is accomplished in a plant after a long time - in an instant He does it at marriage. Then, as soon as the servants had filled the vessels with water, He said to them: "Now draw and bring to the master of the feast. And they carried it. And when the steward had tasted the water that had become wine, and he did not know whence it came, only the servants who drew the water knew, then the steward called the bridegroom and said to him, "Every man gives the good wine first, and when they are drunk, then the worst; but thou hast kept the good wine hitherto" (vv. 8-10). Here again some laugh, saying: there was a meeting of drunken people, the taste of the connoisseurs was already spoiled, and they were unable either to understand or judge what was going on there, so that they could not distinguish whether it was wine or water, and that they were drunk was expressed by the architricline himself. True, this is very funny. But the Evangelist destroys this suspicion as well. He says that it was not the guests who expressed their opinion about what had happened, but the architricline, who was sober and had not yet drunk anything. For you know that those who are entrusted with the order of such banquets are the most sober, because they have only one thing to do, and that is to arrange everything in order and order. Therefore, in order to witness the miracle, Christ used the sober feeling of the architricline. He did not say, "Pour wine to those who are at table," but said, "Bring it to the architricline." "When the steward has tasted the water that has become wine, and he did not know where [this wine] came from, only the servants who drew the water knew, then the steward calls the bridegroom." Why didn't he invite servants? In this way, a miracle would be revealed. The reason is that Jesus Himself did not reveal the miracle that had taken place, but wanted the power of His signs to be known not suddenly, but little by little. And if it had been discovered at the same time, they would not have believed the story of the servants about Him, but perhaps they would have thought that they were out of their minds, since they ascribe the matter to one who was then considered by many to be an ordinary man. The servants themselves, of course, knew this matter well from their own experience, and could not help believing their own hands; but they had no way of assuring others of this. That is why Christ Himself did not reveal what had happened to everyone, but only to those who could understand it better than others, presenting the most accurate knowledge of the miracle of the future time. After the performance of other miracles, this also had to be made reliable. Thus, later, when He healed the son of a courtier, the Evangelist in the narration of this also makes it clear that this miracle had already become more public. The courtier especially called upon Jesus, because he learned, as I say, about this miracle. This is what John explains when he says: "Jesus came again to Cana of Galilee, where he changed water into wine" (John 4:46), and not just into wine, but the best wine.