Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 3:1 - 3:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_3:1-2. Prominence is now given to a specially important narrative, connected by the δέ which continues the discourse,—a narrative belonging to that first sojourn in Jerusalem,—viz. the conversation with Nicodemus, wherein Jesus more fully explains His person and work. No intimation is given of any inner connection with what precedes (Lücke: “now comes an instance of that higher knowledge possessed by Jesus;” De Wette, Lange, Hengstenberg: “an illustration of the entire statement in Joh_2:23-25;” Tholuck: “an instance of the beginnings of faith just named;” Luthardt: “from the people collectively, to whom Jesus had addressed Himself, a transition is now made to His dealing with an individual;” Ewald: “Nicodemus appears desirous to make an exception to the general standing aloof of men of weight in Jerusalem”).
ἄνθρωπος ] in its most ordinary use, simply equivalent to τὶς ; not “un exemplaire de ce type humain que Jésus connaissait si bien” (Godet). It is quite independent of Joh_2:25, introducing a new narrative.
Νικόδημος , a frequent name as well among the Greeks (Demosth. 549. 23, and later writers) as among the Jews ( ðÇ÷ÀãÈí or ðÇ÷ÀãÄéîåÉï , see Lightfoot and Wetstein). We know nothing certain of this man beyond the statements concerning him in St. John (comp. Joh_7:50, Joh_19:39).[148] The Nicodemus of the Talmud was also called Bunai, must have survived the destruction of Jerusalem, and was known under this latter name as a disciple of Jesus. See Delitzsch in the Zeitschr. f. Luther. Theol. 1854, p. 643. The identity of the two is possible, but uncertain. The so-called Evangelium Nicodemi embraces, though in a doubtful form, two different treatises, viz. the Acta Pilati and the Descensus Christi ad inferos. See Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr. p. 203 ff.
ἄρχων ] He was a member of the Sanhedrim, Joh_7:50; Luk_23:13; Luk_24:20.
He came to Jesus by night,[149] being still undecided, in order to avoid the suspicion and hostility of his colleagues. He was not a hypocrite (as Koppe in Pott, Sylloge, IV. p. 31 ff., holds), who pretended to be simple in order to elicit from Jesus some ground of accusation; a circumstance which, if true, John would not have failed to state, especially considering what he says of him in Joh_7:50 and Joh_19:39 : he was, on the contrary, though of a somewhat slow temperament, a man of honourable character, who, together with others ( οἴδαμεν , comp. ὑμᾶς , Joh_3:7), was in a general way convinced by the miracles of Jesus that He must be a divinely commissioned and divinely supported Teacher, and he therefore sought, by a confidential interview, to determine more exactly his to that extent half-believing judgment, and especially to find out whether Jesus perhaps was the very Messiah. His position as a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrim shows how strongly and honestly he must have felt this need. Comp. Joh_12:42.
For the entire section see Knapp, Scripta var. arg. I. 183; Fabricius, Commentat. Gott. 1825; Scholl in Klaiber’s Studien, V. 1, p. 71; Jacobi in the Stud. u. Krit. 1835, 1; Hengstenberg in the Evang. K. Z. 1860, 49; Steinfass in the Meklenb. Zeitschr. 1864, p. 913.
That the disciples, and John in particular, were with Jesus during the interview, has nothing against it (as De Wette and most others think), for Nicodemus came to Jesus by night only through fear of the Jews; and the vivid and peculiar features, with the harmonious characteristics of the narrative, even if touched up by the pen of John, confirm the supposition that he was a witness. If not, he must have received what he relates from the Lord Himself, as it impressed itself deeply and indelibly upon his recollection. As to the result of the interview, nothing historically to be relied upon has come down to us, simply because there was no immediate effect apparent in Nicodemus. But see Joh_7:50, Joh_19:39.
ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐλήλ . διδάσκαλος ] that thou art come from God as teacher. The expression implies the thought of one divinely sent, but not the idea of the Logos (as Bretschneider holds).
ταῦτα τὰ σημεῖα ] emphatic, haecce tanta signa.
ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ ὁ θεὸς μετʼ αὐτοῦ ] ὅτι οὐκ ἐξ οἰκείας δυνάμεως ταῦτα ποιεῖ , ἀλλʼ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ , Euthymius Zigabenus. From the miracles (Joh_2:23) Nicodemus thus infers the assistance of God, and from this again that the worker of them is one sent from God.
[148] According to Baur, p. 173, he is a typical person, representing the believing and yet really unbelieving Judaism, just as the Samaritan woman (chap. 4) represents believing heathendom; thus leaving it uncertain how far the narrative is to be taken as fact. According to Strauss, the whole owes its origin to the reproach that Christianity made way only among the common people (notwithstanding 1Co_1:26-27). weisse rejects at least the truth of the account, which De Wette designates “a poetical, free, and highly spiritualized reproduction.” See on the other hand Brückner. According to Hilgenfeld, the whole conversation cannot be understood “unless we view it from the evangelist’s standing-point;” according to which, we see that the design is simply and solely to explain how Christianity essentially distinguished itself from Judaism. According to Scholten, we have here set forth the power of Christianity triumphing over the slowness of heart and prejudices of the learned,—this merely, without any historical basis of fact in the story.
[149] A symbolical reference to “the still benighted mind” must not be attributed to this simple historical statement (against Hengstenberg).