In the third chapter of John, we are introduced to a man, Nicodemus, who is a Pharisee. However, I wonder if this is his name, or if it is a description of a man, whom the Gospel narrator wishes to keep anonymous? The Greek word, Nicodemus (G3530) has essentially the same meaning of those referred to as Nicolaitans (G3531) in Revelation 2:6, 15,[1] and the one called Nicolas (G3532) in Acts 6:5. Each Greek word has the meaning of victory, lord or ruler of the people. The words have a relationship with nikao (G3528), which means to overcome, something the believer in Christ is called to do through the blood of Christ. Indeed, there seems to be a struggle in the world between it and the believer, each seeking to overcome the other, the believer overcoming through Christ, while the world overcomes through intimidation and violence.
I don’t believe Nicodemus is the man’s name. Rather, I think he is among the Jewish authorities who reject Christ and intimidate the people into trusting them instead of Christ. However, this man is having second thoughts. He wishes to understand Jesus before he rejects him, if, indeed, he would do so. So, who is Nicodemus really? At this point, we can only guess, if, indeed, he is named elsewhere in the New Covenant text.
We meet Nicodemus for the first time in John 3:1. None of the Synoptic writers mention him, and the recorder of John’s Gospel mentions him only here in chapter three and then again in John 19:39 during the burial of Jesus and refers to him with the plural pronoun in John 19:40, 42. Otherwise we never hear of Nicodemus again, by this name. As I mentioned above, he was a Pharisee and one of the rulers at Jerusalem, who rejected Jesus (John 2:18, 20). However, while they questioned Jesus’ authority, Nicodemus wanted to get to know him, believing he was sent by God (John 3:2). Nevertheless, the text reveals that Nicodemus was afraid to openly say so, and visited Jesus under the cover of darkness. In other words, he didn’t want his association with Jesus to be known by the powerful authorities who rejected him (cp. John 2:18, 20).
Nicodemus addresses Jesus as Rabbi (John 3:2), and we understand this to mean he believed Jesus was a legitimate teacher who had come from God. Moreover, Nicodemus based his understanding of Jesus by admitting his miracles were signs enough that would prove Jesus’ heavenly authority. No one could do what Jesus did, unless the Lord God was with him doing those things through him. So why didn’t the other authorities admit what Nicodemus saw so clearly?
Some of Jesus’ parables indicate that the Jewish authorities did know (Matthew 21:38; Mark 12:7; Luke 20:14), but their worldview of God indicated, if they were able to thwart Jesus’ influence over the people, they could enjoy the power of having the people choose them over God, himself, without any negative consequences. Consider the fact that the Sadducees didn’t believe in a resurrection (Mark 12:18). Paul argues that, if there is no resurrection, Christ is of little or no benefit to anyone (1Corinthians 15:13, 19). So, if the Sadducees’ worldview was correct, it would be better, if everyone simply enjoyed their lives, today, as much as possible (Luke 12:19; 1Corinthians 15:32). There would be no advantage of a righteous life over an unrighteous one, and power would be a great advantage to anyone in authority, and the philosophy, the survival of the fittest, would be an effective rule for the day.
On the other hand, the Pharisees, who did believe in a resurrection, were also among the rulers. So, why did they reject Jesus? After all, Nicodemus was among those rulers, and he did believe Jesus was the Messiah, albeit he didn’t want his colleagues among the ruling class to know his position concerning Jesus.
Josephus, the Jewish historian who wrote in the first century AD, tells us that the Pharisees considered “themselves highly (skillful) in the law of their fathers, and made men believe they were highly favored by God… greatly opposing kings… and soon elevated to a pitch of open fighting and doing mischief…”[2] Many of them were zealots and sought to overthrow the Roman rule of their homeland.
With this in mind, it is difficult to understand how a Pharisee, who continues to hold this worldview, could support a Messiah who spoke of loving one’s enemies and praying for one’s persecutors (Matthew 5:44). One simply cannot hold to the idea of opposing foreign rule and receiving Jesus as one’s Messiah. It simply doesn’t work. Although the Apostles did believe violence would be necessary to put Jesus on David’s throne (cp. Matthew 26:51; Luke 22:36, 38), Jesus didn’t teach such a thing (Matthew 26:52). Therefore, even the Pharisees, who looked for a resurrection, rejected Jesus, because they believed his methods would soon incur the wrath of Rome, which would end in disaster for the nation (John 11:46-48). Therefore, Nicodemus was, indeed among the minority of the ruling class who considered Jesus the Messiah.
_______________________________________________
[1] See my earlier studies of the Nicolaitans in my study of the Apocalypse: The Nicolaitans at Ephesus and Who Were the Nicolaitans?
[2] Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews 17.2.4 (41)
Smoodock's Blog 