By Larry Barnes in John —

John 2

9/30/2025

I just read John 2 NKJV. Jesus is reluctant to perform the miracle, but Mary seems to insist on it. Or, Mary concedes to Jesus's will and tells the servants to do what He says, miracle or no. I still believe that although Jesus is God, he did not do anything of His own choosing, but only as directed by the Father. And then, the Holy Spirit did it thru Him. By doing so, He not only experienced full humanity, but also showed we could do the same.

Your reflection on John 2 (the wedding at Cana) touches on a profound theological point about Jesus’ nature, His relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and His role as a model for humanity. Let’s break it down with clarity, staying grounded in the text and your observations.

In John 2:1–11 (NKJV), Jesus is at a wedding in Cana when Mary, His mother, brings to His attention that the hosts have run out of wine. Jesus responds, “My hour has not yet come” (v. 4), which suggests reluctance or at least an indication that the timing for a public display of His power isn’t quite right. Mary, however, seems to act with confidence in His ability and authority, instructing the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it” (v. 5). This can be interpreted in two ways, as you’ve noted: either Mary is gently nudging Jesus to act, trusting in His divine power, or she’s submitting to His will, leaving the outcome to Him. The text doesn’t explicitly say she insists, so your second interpretation—Mary deferring to Jesus’ authority—aligns well with her response, which shows trust in His judgment.

Your belief that Jesus, though fully God, only acted under the Father’s direction is supported by Scripture. In John 5:19, Jesus says, “The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do.” Similarly, John 8:28 reinforces this: “I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things.” This reflects the unity within the Trinity—Jesus, fully divine, submits to the Father’s will, and the Holy Spirit empowers His actions (e.g., Luke 4:1, 14, where Jesus is led and empowered by the Spirit). The miracle at Cana, His first public sign in John’s Gospel, manifests His glory (John 2:11) but is performed in alignment with the Father’s purpose, not as an independent act.

Your point about Jesus experiencing full humanity is also key. Philippians 2:6–8 describes how Jesus, though equal with God, “emptied Himself” (kenosis) to take on human form, living in dependence on the Father and the Spirit. By doing so, He models how believers, empowered by the same Spirit, can live in alignment with God’s will. John 14:12 suggests that those who believe in Him will do “greater works,” implying that the same Spirit-enabled obedience is available to us.

The interplay at Cana shows Jesus’ humanity (His initial hesitation, possibly reflecting His deference to the Father’s timing) and divinity (His power to transform water into wine). Mary’s role highlights her faith and submission, which mirrors how we’re called to trust God’s will. The miracle, then, isn’t just about meeting a need but revealing Jesus’ glory and the Trinitarian dynamic at work—Father directing, Son obeying, Spirit empowering.

The next section is a little confusing. This event, I thought, happened at the end of His ministry, or is John just using this event to set up chapter 3?

I understand your confusion about the placement of John 2:13–25 (the cleansing of the temple) in relation to the timeline of Jesus’ ministry. In the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), the temple cleansing is typically placed near the end of Jesus’ ministry, during the Passion Week leading up to His crucifixion (e.g., Matthew 21:12–13, Mark 11:15–17, Luke 19:45–46). However, in John’s Gospel, it appears early, in chapter 2, right after the wedding at Cana. This difference often raises questions about chronology and John’s purpose. Let’s address this clearly, considering whether this event happens early in Jesus’ ministry or if John is using it to set up chapter 3.

Two Possible Interpretations

There are two main ways scholars approach this discrepancy:

  1. Two Temple Cleansings: Some argue that Jesus cleansed the temple twice—once early in His ministry (as recorded in John 2:13–25) and once at the end (as in the Synoptics). This view holds that the events are distinct, pointing to differences in details:The two-cleansing view suggests Jesus’ actions early in His ministry set the stage for His conflict with religious authorities, which intensifies later. The challenge is that neither John nor the Synoptics explicitly mention two cleansings, so this relies on harmonizing the accounts.
    • In John, Jesus makes a whip of cords, drives out animals, and overturns tables, emphasizing His authority over the temple as a place of worship (John 2:15–16). He also speaks of His body as the temple (“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” v. 19).
    • In the Synoptics, the focus is on the temple as a “house of prayer” being made a “den of robbers” (e.g., Mark 11:17), with less emphasis on the resurrection sign.
    • The early placement in John aligns with the Passover setting (John 2:13), while the Synoptics tie it to the final Passover of Jesus’ life.
  2. One Cleansing, Different Chronology: Others argue there was only one temple cleansing, likely at the end of Jesus’ ministry, and John places it early for theological reasons, not chronological ones. Unlike the Synoptics, John’s Gospel is less concerned with a strict timeline and more focused on thematic and theological purposes. Evidence for this includes:
    • John organizes his Gospel around “signs” (e.g., Cana in 2:11, the resurrection reference in 2:19) to reveal Jesus’ identity as the Messiah and Son of God (John 20:30–31).
    • The temple cleansing in John 2 establishes Jesus’ authority and zeal for God’s house, setting up key themes like His divine identity and the replacement of the old temple system with His body (v. 21). This flows into chapter 3, where Jesus discusses spiritual rebirth with Nicodemus, emphasizing the new covenant over the old system.
    • John may have moved the event to the beginning to frame Jesus’ ministry as a direct challenge to the religious establishment, preparing readers for the escalating tension throughout the Gospel.

Is John Setting Up Chapter 3?

Your question about whether John uses the temple cleansing to set up chapter 3 is insightful. The answer leans toward “yes,” as John’s Gospel often uses events to introduce theological themes that unfold in subsequent passages. The temple cleansing (John 2:13–25) serves several purposes that connect to John 3:

  • Jesus’ Authority: The cleansing establishes Jesus as one with divine authority to purify worship and challenge corrupt practices. This sets the stage for His conversation with Nicodemus, a religious leader, in John 3:1–21, where Jesus asserts His divine knowledge of spiritual matters (“We speak what We know,” v. 11).
  • Temple as His Body: Jesus’ cryptic statement, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (2:19), points to His death and resurrection, which John explains as referring to “the temple of His body” (2:21). This foreshadows the new life and spiritual rebirth discussed in John 3 (“You must be born again,” v. 3).
  • Faith and Unbelief: The end of John 2 notes that Jesus “knew what was in man” (2:24–25), as many believed in Him but He didn’t entrust Himself to them. This transitions smoothly into John 3, where Nicodemus, a Pharisee, comes to Jesus with partial understanding, and Jesus challenges him to move beyond superficial belief to true spiritual transformation.

Addressing the Timeline

If you thought this event happened at the end of Jesus’ ministry, you’re likely influenced by the Synoptic accounts, which place it during the final Passover. John, however, mentions multiple Passovers (e.g., John 2:13, 6:4, 11:55), suggesting a ministry spanning at least two to three years, with the cleansing in John 2 occurring at an earlier Passover. Whether it’s a separate event or a thematic reordering, John’s placement serves his purpose: to present Jesus as the divine Son who inaugurates a new era of worship, culminating in His resurrection.

Reconciling with Your Earlier Reflection

Your earlier point about Jesus acting only as directed by the Father fits here too. In John 2:16, Jesus says, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!” His zeal reflects the Father’s will to restore true worship, and the sign He offers (v. 19) aligns with the Father’s plan for His death and resurrection. The Holy Spirit’s role, while not explicit in this passage, is implied in Jesus’ empowered actions throughout John (e.g., John 1:32–33).

Conclusion

The temple cleansing in John 2 likely occurs early in Jesus’ ministry, distinct from the Synoptics’ later account, though some see it as the same event reordered for theological reasons. John uses it to establish Jesus’ authority and foreshadow His resurrection, setting up the themes of spiritual renewal in John 3. If you lean toward one cleansing, John’s early placement is likely thematic, not chronological, to highlight Jesus’ identity and mission from the outset.

The cleansing seemed to be a deliberate, controlled act since He took the time to make a whip from cord to drive them out.

You’re absolutely right that the cleansing of the temple in John 2:13–25 (NKJV) comes across as a deliberate and controlled act, especially with the detail that Jesus took the time to make a whip of cords. This observation highlights the intentionality behind His actions, which ties into both His character and the theological significance of the event. Let’s unpack this briefly, building on our previous discussion and your insight.

The Deliberate Act of Making a Whip

In John 2:15, the text says, “When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned their tables.” The detail that Jesus “made a whip of cords” (Greek: phragellion ek schoinion, a whip from ropes or rushes) suggests a purposeful, measured response rather than a spontaneous outburst of anger. Here’s why this matters:

  • Intentionality: The act of crafting a whip implies forethought. Jesus didn’t just react impulsively to the scene of merchants and money changers in the temple; He assessed the situation and prepared a tool to address it. This aligns with your earlier point about Jesus acting only as directed by the Father (John 5:19). His zeal for “My Father’s house” (John 2:16) was controlled and purposeful, reflecting divine judgment rather than human frustration.
  • Symbolic Authority: The whip wasn’t necessarily used to strike people (the text doesn’t say He hit anyone) but to drive out animals and disrupt the marketplace. This action symbolizes Jesus’ authority to purify worship and restore the temple’s purpose as a “house of prayer” (cf. Isaiah 56:7). It’s a prophetic act, like those of Old Testament prophets who used symbolic actions to convey God’s message.
  • Controlled Zeal: The reference to “zeal for Your house has eaten Me up” (John 2:17, quoting Psalm 69:9) underscores Jesus’ passion for God’s honor, but the deliberate crafting of the whip shows this zeal was disciplined, not reckless. It reflects His divine mission to confront corruption while remaining in alignment with the Father’s will.

Connection to His Ministry and Your Earlier Points

Your observation about the deliberate nature of the act strengthens the idea that Jesus operated under the Father’s direction, empowered by the Holy Spirit. The cleansing wasn’t a personal vendetta but a divinely ordained act to challenge the commercialization of worship, pointing to the greater reality of Jesus Himself as the new temple (John 2:19–21). This also connects to your earlier reflection on Jesus’ full humanity—His actions here show human effort (making the whip) combined with divine authority (driving out the merchants), modeling how believers, led by the Spirit, can act decisively for God’s purposes.

Theological Setup for John 3

As we discussed, John places this event early to establish Jesus’ authority and introduce themes of spiritual renewal, which flow into John 3. The deliberate nature of the cleansing reinforces this setup: Jesus isn’t just reacting to a problem but proactively asserting His role as the one who purifies and redefines worship, preparing the way for His teaching on being “born again” (John 3:3). The controlled yet bold act of cleansing the temple mirrors the clarity and authority with which He speaks to Nicodemus about spiritual transformation.

Addressing the Timeline

Your earlier question about the timing of the cleansing (early in John vs. late in the Synoptics) is also informed by this detail. The whip-making in John 2:15 is unique to John’s account, which may support the idea of two cleansings, as the Synoptics don’t mention this specific action. Alternatively, if it’s one event, John’s inclusion of the whip emphasizes the deliberate, authoritative nature of Jesus’ act to fit his theological purpose: presenting Jesus as the divine Son from the outset.

Final Thoughts

The detail of Jesus making a whip underscores that the temple cleansing was a calculated, Spirit-led act of righteous judgment, not a moment of uncontrolled anger. It reflects His submission to the Father’s will, His authority to purify worship, and His role as the true temple. This intentionality also sets the stage for the themes of renewal and divine authority in John 3.

Do you think it is possible that this cleansing is what got the attention of Nicodemus and had him come to Jesus in the next chapter?

That’s a great question, and it’s quite plausible that the temple cleansing in John 2:13–25 (NKJV) caught Nicodemus’ attention, prompting his visit to Jesus in John 3:1–21. Let’s explore this idea, connecting it to the text, the historical context, and the theological flow of John’s Gospel, while keeping your earlier points about Jesus’ deliberate actions and submission to the Father in view.

Why the Temple Cleansing Could Have Drawn Nicodemus

  1. Nicodemus’ Profile and Context:
    • Nicodemus is introduced in John 3:1 as “a man of the Pharisees” and “a ruler of the Jews,” likely a member of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish governing council. As a religious leader, he would have been deeply invested in the temple’s operations and sensitive to any disruption there.
    • The temple cleansing was a bold, public act in Jerusalem during Passover (John 2:13), a time when the city was crowded with pilgrims. Jesus’ deliberate act of making a whip, driving out merchants, and overturning tables (John 2:15) would have been a shocking spectacle, likely sparking debate among the religious elite. As a Pharisee and leader, Nicodemus would almost certainly have heard about or witnessed this event.
  2. Textual Clues:
    • John 2:23 notes that “many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did” in Jerusalem during the Passover feast. While the temple cleansing isn’t explicitly called a “sign” in John 2, Jesus’ statement about destroying and raising the temple (v. 19) is later understood as a sign of His resurrection (v. 21). Nicodemus, in John 3:2, says, “We know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” The plural “signs” could include the temple cleansing (as a prophetic act) and possibly other unrecorded miracles in Jerusalem, suggesting it caught his attention.
    • The transition from John 2:24–25 (“Jesus… knew what was in man”) to John 3:1, where Nicodemus approaches Him, implies a connection. Nicodemus’ nighttime visit (likely to avoid scrutiny) suggests he’s intrigued but cautious, possibly because the cleansing raised questions about Jesus’ authority.
  3. Theological and Thematic Flow:
    • As we discussed, the temple cleansing establishes Jesus’ divine authority and zeal for true worship, challenging the religious establishment. Nicodemus, as a Pharisee, represents that establishment, yet he’s drawn to Jesus, perhaps because the cleansing revealed a unique authority (John 2:16, “My Father’s house”) that piqued his curiosity.
    • The cleansing’s focus on purifying worship and pointing to Jesus as the new temple (John 2:19–21) sets up John 3’s theme of spiritual rebirth. Nicodemus comes seeking understanding, and Jesus redirects him from external religious observance (like temple rituals) to internal transformation (“You must be born again,” John 3:3). The cleansing could have been the catalyst that made Nicodemus question the old system and seek Jesus out.
  4. Cultural and Historical Context:
    • The temple was the heart of Jewish religious life, and the money changers and merchants were part of a system tolerated (or even supported) by the religious authorities, including some Pharisees and Sadducees. Jesus’ act of cleansing the temple was a direct challenge to this system, likely provoking varied reactions—anger from some, intrigue from others. Nicodemus, as a thoughtful leader, might have seen Jesus’ zeal and authority as evidence of divine backing, prompting him to investigate further.
    • The deliberate nature of Jesus’ act (making the whip, as you noted) would have stood out as a prophetic statement, not just a random outburst. For a learned Pharisee like Nicodemus, familiar with Old Testament prophets, this could have recalled figures like Jeremiah, who confronted temple corruption (e.g., Jeremiah 7:11, echoed in the Synoptic accounts of the cleansing).

Alternative Possibilities

While the temple cleansing is a strong candidate for catching Nicodemus’ attention, other factors could have contributed:

  • Other Signs: John 2:23 mentions multiple signs during the Passover, so Nicodemus might have been responding to a combination of Jesus’ actions, including the Cana miracle (John 2:11) if news of it had spread.
  • Jesus’ Teaching: As a “teacher of Israel” (John 3:10), Nicodemus might have heard Jesus teaching in Jerusalem, which, combined with the cleansing, prompted his visit.
  • General Reputation: Jesus’ growing fame (even early in His ministry) could have reached Nicodemus, with the cleansing as a pivotal moment that pushed him to seek a private audience.

Tying to Your Earlier Points

Your observation about Jesus’ deliberate, controlled act (making the whip) supports the idea that the cleansing was a calculated display of divine authority, not mere anger. This would have been especially striking to someone like Nicodemus, who valued learning and authority. Your belief that Jesus acted only as directed by the Father (John 5:19) and through the Spirit’s power also fits: the cleansing was a Spirit-led act of judgment, revealing Jesus’ divine mission, which Nicodemus partially recognizes (“a teacher come from God,” John 3:2). The cleansing could have been the spark that led Nicodemus to grapple with Jesus’ identity, setting up the deeper revelation in John 3 about spiritual rebirth and the Son of Man (John 3:13–15).

Conclusion

It’s very likely that the temple cleansing, with its bold and deliberate nature, drew Nicodemus’ attention and prompted his nighttime visit in John 3. The event’s public nature, its challenge to the religious system, and its display of Jesus’ authority would have resonated with a curious and thoughtful leader like Nicodemus. John’s placement of the cleansing before the Nicodemus encounter supports this, as it sets up Jesus’ identity as the one who brings a new kind of worship and salvation, which Nicodemus begins to explore.