The little we see of Nicodemus in Scripture is more than sufficient to tell the amazing tale of this man. And it is an amazing tale. Reading back through John’s introduction of Nicodemus in John 3, I was struck by how many of the most resonant words of Jesus were delivered to him that night. It was to him, for example, that John 3:16 was spoken. Think about that, for just a moment! The most well-known of Jesus’ proclamations, in many ways the cornerstone message of evangelism. God loves the world ! He gave His Son to save it! And this comes after that opening salvo discussing the need for rebirth in the Spirit! I shall look more at the things Nicodemus heard that first night, but before I get to that, there are things we should have settled, as it were, on background.

One matter that is a little bothersome, perhaps, is that John is the only one to mention this man. It becomes particularly problematic in that his description of Joseph and Nicodemus working together on the burial seems so clearly at odds with Luke’s explanation of why the women went off to prepare embalming materials. Fausset’s suggests that the reason John alone covers this man’s part in the Gospel story is because he was a man known to John. The theory goes that since John knew the high priest, he would be likely to know other members of the Sanhedrin. Indeed, there is even the supposition that the first meeting between Nicodemus and Jesus had occurred in John’s house. That theory bothers me, but it may only be for lack of knowledge. Seems to me, though, a rather odd thing that a family of fishermen in Galilee would have a house in Jerusalem. To turn it around a bit, it’s hard for me to imagine that a family rich enough to have a second home here in Jerusalem would be spending all its time fishing the northern lake. That’s hard work and dangerous! Wouldn’t they hire out the work and reap the profits?

Be that as it may. For one reason or another, John is familiar with the household of Caiaphas, and it is not unreasonable to think he would also be somewhat familiar with others on the Council. Assuming this is the case, John is somewhat uniquely positioned to observe how faith develops in Nicodemus. Mind you, it would be rather like watching the character develop in a distant cousin. You only see him once or twice a year, so the changes stand out more. John, assuming this whole scenario accurate, would only have seen Nicodemus when Jesus happened to bring the disciples to Jerusalem, which, so far as can be discerned, appears to have only happened for Passover, and perhaps one or two of the other major feast days. But, as John has thus seen these snapshots of Nicodemus’ growing faith, it would stand out to him as something noteworthy. Most everybody else he knew was either a disciple like himself, traveling together with Jesus throughout those three years, or somebody who came to faith after the Resurrection. There just hadn’t been that many opportunities to observe the growth pattern like this.

The ISBE takes up that thread of thought regarding the way Nicodemus is shown growing in faith as we survey the three times he appears in the Gospel. That would, by the way, effectively mark out the three Passovers Jesus observed during His active ministry period. That being the case, let me offer another perspective on why John might bring him up, which is that he also demonstrates by his own growing faith the overall development of that ministry. The ISBE suggests that when we first meet Nicodemus, he has a belief that is purely intellectual, and it is this problem that Jesus is addressing as they talk. The immediate impact of that lesson is not visible. After all, it will be a year or so before we see Nicodemus again. When we do, he may not be a man of overt faith, but he is a man in whom faith is producing its fruits. He is growing. In this third year, we see him, as it were, in full flower.

In some ways, we might see the development of faith amongst the population at large as having followed a similar trajectory. In that early period, it may not have been an intellectual pursuit for most of the populace, but neither was it particularly spiritual. They wanted healing. They wanted meals. They wanted a hero to chase out the Romans. Religion barely entered into it. By the second year, those same tendencies were still in evidence, but there was also a growing understanding that this Man was sent from God not merely to ride roughshod over the invaders, but He came with a message. He came to teach. By the third year, as we saw back in the Triumphal Entry, faith was solid. Identifying with Jesus was the thing. Mind you, it didn’t last very long. The fruit, it seems, withered on the vine for most. But, there is something of a parallel there. It’s not one I would care to push too hard, but it’s a thought, anyway.

Meanwhile, back at Nicodemus: In three years, he has gone from “You’re a fine teacher, sir,” to “You are worthy of all honor, even in death, Son of God.” Don’t you doubt it! I cannot even begin to imagine that these two members of the Sanhedrin would have risked themselves over a corpse, however fine the teaching had been. No. They had to have understood that this Man was something more than just a man, something more, even, than just a prophet. This was the King they were seeing honored in death. Something tells me that they also understood that this King wasn’t going to stay dead. It seems to me there would have to have been some recognition of that fact to move men like this to action. The women would have acted regardless. Their association with Him was already known, and they had no particular reputation or livelihood to be concerned about. But, Nicodemus? If the stories of his later years are true, it would seem that not only did he have much to risk, but that having risked it, he lost it all. If so, rest assured that he counted it all loss well before it was taken. He counted it all loss as we watch him here at the grave.

Now then, let us go back to that first meeting. I find that encounter most intriguing, and given that it is the catalyst for the Nicodemus we find at the cross here, it is well worth considering more deeply. Looking back across my notes, I see that the studies I did on John 3 covered several studies across several weeks. There is something to be said for revisiting that passage as more of an organic whole, as well as observing it with the benefit of whatever wisdom I may have obtained in the intervening years.

So, we are introduced to Nicodemus, a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin. At some point, I reached the conclusion that he was not of Aaron’s line, so would not have actually served in temple. It’s not clear to me how I had arrived at this conclusion, but let it stand. Neither are we given any clear indication as to what exactly motivates him as he comes to Jesus by night. The fact that it is by night would seem to indicate that he was not here on official business. He is not another enemy combatant come to spar with Jesus over the fine points of theology. No. I think we can take his opening gambit at face value. “We know You come from God as a teacher” (Jn 3:2). Who exactly he means by ‘we’ is unclear. If he indicates prevailing sentiment on the Sanhedrin, they certainly have an odd way of acting on that knowledge! Is it a royal we? Perhaps. Or perhaps it indicates that there is at least a minority contingent in the Sanhedrin that recognizes Jesus as legitimate. Whatever the case, Nicodemus at least counts Jesus a godly man and true.

This opening honor, it seems, Jesus rebuffs. That’s great, Nicodemus. Not that I need your validation. But, let me tell you this: You’ll never see the kingdom of God if you’re not reborn. Really, is it any wonder that Nicodemus was confused by that response? Now, to be fair, it’s entirely possible that a goodly portion of their conversation is being skipped over in John’s account. After all, what we are given in these 21 verses could have transpired at the doorway, so little time would their speaking have taken. But, the tenor of the discussion suggests they took more time, that Nicodemus had time to ponder a bit, and to respond with more questions. For all that, is it even thinkable for that culture that he would not have been offered tea, and perhaps other refreshment?

But, Jesus drives right in (at least as we are given the encounter) with subject matter deeper than He has even broached with His own disciples. It may be a matter of the Teacher adjusting His material to the capacities of His student. This man was a Pharisee, a purported expert on Law and righteousness. Surely, he should be able to understand the significance! But, no. In all fairness, I don’t think Jesus expected him to get it. Honestly, without the benefit of a fair amount of Christian training, would you? Would you react any differently? What? Born again? What sort of nonsense is that? Should I just climb back in my mother’s womb (God rest her soul)? Talk sense, man!

And, of course, Jesus does. One supposes His purpose here was to test the sincerity of this man’s desire to know God. So, we have Jesus’ explanation of Spiritual rebirth, this time stated in terms that are designed to trigger understanding. Ah! That’s what You’re on about. Flesh can only bear flesh, and Spirit must bear spirit (Jn 3:6). The full impact of that might have taken a month or two to set in, but at least it is now clear that Jesus is not just spouting nonsense. He is making a point. For the Pharisee, that point (once recognized) would be very hard indeed to accept. Flesh cannot produce spirit. Works cannot produce righteousness. That righteousness must already be there so as to demonstrate itself in works. That requires the Spirit. It will be awhile before that part of the picture is made completely clear, but the fundamental point here is very much a corrective for the Pharisee lifestyle. All of those observations and careful regulations will not produce the first, smallest drop of righteousness! They’re not bad things to do, don’t get me wrong! They’re just not enough. It takes the Spirit, and the Spirit is God. Him you cannot direct. He goes where He wills, has compassion on whom He deigns to have compassion. And, so, too, are those born of the Spirit. You don’t know from the physical evidence that there has been this rebirth, nor are you equipped to see where it will lead. You must be born of the Spirit to assess the spiritual.

And comes that most characteristic of responses to Jesus: “How can these things be?” Mary had said much the same when Gabriel came with news of the child she would bear. Zacharias had responded with very similar words when told he would sire John in his old age. It is not necessarily a note of skepticism, but rather a desire to understand. I think we can take it thus with Nicodemus. I see what You’re driving at Jesus, but I don’t really understand how that would come about.

How I would love to have indication of Jesus’ attitude as He responds to that! Was it incredulity at how poorly equipped Israel’s spiritual leaders were to lead? Was it more of a wry amusement? I rather like to think it was the latter. Jesus, after all, likely had at least an inkling that Nicodemus was soil in which the seed of faith would grow. That being the case, I tend to hear more of a loving jab here than a derisive dismissal. Oh, Nicodemus. How will you teach those in your charge if you can’t understand it yourself? If you can’t understand this, which remains in earthly terms, how are you going to fair if I try and teach you of heavenly matters? But, let us try (Jn 3:9-11).

Notice that! He doesn’t just give up on Nicodemus. In spite of that comment, He is proceeding to do just that, to speak of heavenly matters. Oh, He continues to provide the earthly parallels. How else will He ever convey higher truths, if all recognizable point of reference is removed? You have to start with what the student knows and build upon it. He knows that. But, look where it leads! He is handed one of the earliest, clearest declarations that Jesus is indeed God Incarnate. No one has ascended to heaven except the Son of Man Who came down from heaven. Wow! That had to get the antennas tuned in! Oh, and by the way, that Son of Man must be lifted up, just like that serpent staff Moses set up in the wilderness (and for the same cause!) Israel has sinned again, and unless this Son of Man is set before their eyes in so emblematic a form, they will never see their way to salvation.

Two thoughts here, before moving on: First, while Nicodemus was unlikely to understand that Jesus was talking about His crucifixion at the time, you can bet this conversation was replaying in his thoughts as the Council discussed turning Jesus over to the Romans, and all the more as they clamored for His crucifixion! Unlike the disciples, I suspect he got it. I suspect that’s why we find him coming to the cross already prepared for the burial. Second, this point continues the same logical thread that Jesus began with the discussion of spiritual rebirth. Out there in the desert, Israel had sinned to so great a degree that God was determined to erase them from history and start over. But, Moses interceded, and the sign was given: A serpent upon a staff. Look upon it and be healed, saved. Refuse it and perish. Israel was once again in that same state of sin, a sin so deep that extinction was a very real possibility (but God!). And once again, there was One who interceded on her behalf. Only this time, it would be the very One Who interceded who was set up on that staff: The Son of Man Who descended from heaven.

Now, we don’t know how long it took Nicodemus to put all this together in his thoughts. But, he is not a stupid man. The implications here do not slip by him unnoticed. This Son of Man: He descends from heaven. This can only mean one thing: He was in heaven. And, if He was in heaven, who is He? Whose Son? Not man’s, certainly! No, some of those scenes from Daniel are coming to mind. That Son of Man – this Son of Man, then – is eternal! And, note well that other point: He who descended from heaven has ascended into heaven (or will). Whoa! If he was getting this stuff figured out, it’s far less of a wonder that he would find the corpse of this Jesus worthy of so great a sacrifice.

But, Jesus isn’t done yet. Nicodemus, you fear God. You are so concerned with the possibility of offending Him lest He smite you, but get this: God’s love not just for you but for the whole world (which is just as guilty and in just as great a danger of destruction as Israel) is so all-encompassing that He gave His only Son to save them. He did this not only to prevent them from perishing, but so that they would have eternal life! Let’s see Moses do that one! And, dig this, my man: He didn’t send the Son to judge the world (not yet), but to save it! And here’s the thing: It’s about belief. He who believes in this Son is saved, not judged. But, those who reject Him? Judged already, because it is God they have rejected, not some lowly itinerate teacher from Galilee. Are you getting this, Nicodemus? You may not understand it now. In fact, odds are against it. But, go home. Ponder on it. Pray about it. Seek understanding, even as you have begun to do tonight, and you will see that when I say, “Truly, truly,” I mean it! You can take all this to the bank. Choose life, sir! Choose life!

And then, there is that matter of light and darkness. This, as some would frame it, is something of a comment on Nicodemus’ actions. You have come under cover of darkness, but you have come to the Light. Yes, Nicodemus, the Light has come into the world, but the world prefers its darkness. Where are you in that spectrum, hmm? See, it is the evildoer who prefers darkness, because they know they have evils to hide. Do you consider your visit here evil? Is that why you hide it? Oh! But, the ones who practice truth come to the Light. They let it show so that their truly good deeds (not these worthless works, but the works God is doing through them) can be clearly seen as “having been wrought in God” (Jn 3:21).

Poor Nicodemus! The crisis is upon him. The Light is shining so brightly as to blind his vision. What shall he do? How will he respond? It may have seemed to him, in the first reaction to this conversation that Jesus was determined to keep him as much in the dark mentally as he had sought to be under cover of dark in the physical aspect of his coming here. Jesus does not make it easy to understand. Ever! Oh, His meaning is simple enough, and clear enough if one is willing to put in the effort. But, there will be that need to put in the effort. He’s not spoon feeding here. He’s teaching.

Worse still, it has been a very long time since the leaders of Israel had been required to deal with a prophet. Nicodemus may not have been a priest, but he was a teacher. These leaders were no longer used to being brought up short by the prophetic counselor for God. They had not heard a rebuke from on high for a long time, were pretty sure they were the final authority. How were they to deal with it? They’d forgotten. It was going to take some practice to get back to where they could hear God’s rebuke in this fashion and respond appropriately.

That said, it is clear that Nicodemus did not reject the message out of hand. He recognized that there was Truth here, even if he wasn’t getting it at the moment. I do think he went home knowing this much: Jesus had made some towering claims as to His person. That being the case, he would have to consider carefully what he had heard. If Jesus was lying in those claims, then his fellow Counselors were right, and He must be destroyed out of the land. But, if Jesus was speaking Truth! Well! That was more serious still. It would be wise, then, to consider His message most carefully, particularly as the Way He points out is so at odds with what the Pharisees practice. He may have found that other Way rather enticing, particularly as it was a way of God’s love reflected, rather than God’s wrath feared. Which would you prefer? But, in the near term, at least, Nicodemus still had his status to worry about, and as we see with our next encounter, that still weighed in the balance for him.

That next encounter comes on or after “the last day, the great day of the feast”, that being the Feast of Booths. It could not have been long after, for Jesus is apparently still in Jerusalem, and the Council has thought to take this opportunity to have Him arrested. They sent out the guards, but the guards came back empty handed. Worse still, they came back deeply impressed! “Never did a man speak as He speaks” (Jn 7:46). This, of course, enrages the leaders who, in what might be supposed to be a display of their true colors, berate the general populace of Israel as benighted fools who are cursed by God because they don’t know the Law. Of course, as Pharisees, they feel quite certain of their own deep and intimate knowledge of that Law, and are convinced it is impossible they should be wrong in any regard.

As with most encounters that we are presented, there is very little said by which we might discern Nicodemus’ attitude as he reacts to this. But, he reacts. They have clearly prejudged Jesus and, had their officers brought Him in, any trial He might have had would have been a mockery. That this assessment was accurate would be proven beyond doubt the following year. But, Nicodemus chooses to remind his fellow councilors of the Law they claim to uphold so well. Hey! Shouldn’t we hear His testimony before we judge Him? Shouldn’t we be investigating His actions rather than condemning them out of hand? That is, after all, what our Law says.

Well! Now their attitude is in full display! What? Are you from Galilee, too, Nicodemus, that you are so ignorant as to question our decisions? Go search those Scriptures, mister. You’ll find no prophet coming from Galilee in its pages. OK. Let it be noted, as several articles point out, that they are as incorrect here as in their interpretation of the Law. Scripture does indeed make note of prophets who came from Galilee. One might also ask, and what if it hadn’t? Did that somehow justify their view that so large a portion of the nation of Israel ought to be excluded from Israel’s faith? Not a little bit proud of being a Jerusalemite are we?

Then, I think, we must consider the attitude they have shown towards their countrymen in general. Granted, this is something of the standard Pharisaic view of the non-Pharisee: Jews in name only, as we might formulate it today. Even amongst Pharisees there were ranks, and each rank higher had a bit of disdain for those who were lower. But, here’s the thing: These are not just Pharisees, they are the Sanhedrin. They are the chief priests. They are the ones in charge of Israel’s spiritual development and training. If, then, their fellow countrymen are so accursedly ignorant, whose fault might that be? Who has been sleeping on the job that they know so little as to be easily led astray by the likes of this Jesus? By their own words, it would seem to me, they stand condemned.

I would not be surprised if some of this line of thought were not crossing Nicodemus’ mind as he sat with his peers on this occasion. He has tried to bring them around to their duty and to righteousness, but they will have none of it. Again, we don’t know whether Nicodemus was timid in bringing up this matter, or whether he spoke heatedly. Contrary to many of the articles, I am inclined to suspect the latter. One didn’t rise to the Sanhedrin by timidity, I don’t imagine. Further, having worked for a group of Israelis before, I can’t say I recall finding a timidity in any one of them. Politeness, yes, even perhaps a touch of deference, but timidity? No. Even simple discussions tended to be carried on with more heat than might seem normal to us in the West.

What we might expect to hear, could we catch the nuances of that situation, is a touch of loving concern, even in the midst of the heat. I think it quite possible that Nicodemus really is hot about this total disregard for the Law being shown by Law enforcement. It’s his reputation as well as theirs, after all. And, what’s more, the seed of the Spirit, that rebirth which happened last year quite in spite of himself, is growing. He has become a child of the Light, however much may remain to be developed before he reaches his maturity. He has brought light to bear on the darkness of his fellow councilors, and what is revealed is ugly as sin.

If there was anything shaky about his faith before this meeting, I think we can be assured of this much: By the time he left, any doubts he had about his coworkers were gone and any debate as to his newfound faith was gone with those doubts. Whether he had seen such display from them before or not, it hadn’t registered in times past. Now, and especially as their venom was turned on him, it was painfully obvious. This is what they were like. This is what these oh-so-pious men became when the eyes of the public were no longer on them. This, he would have to admit, was what he was like. This is what all their rules and traditions and proud affectations of righteousness produced. It wasn’t righteousness, was it? It wasn’t even anything laudable. It was sin plain and simple.

What was it Jesus had said that night? What is born of flesh is flesh? Indeed. And here was the proof of it played out live on stage for him. Surely, there was no sign of any birth of the Spirit to be found in that council chamber. And, the lack of God’s presence in their deliberations (such as they were) was obvious. Yes, for Nicodemus this had been a very teachable moment, and it seems clear from the final encounter we have with him that the lesson was learned very well indeed.

Something else that we might want to bear in mind is that just as Nicodemus had settled his views of his fellow councilors on this occasion, it’s quite probable that they had settled on certain suspicions about him, as well. He left them a man more firm in his faith, but he left them a marked man, as well. Of course, any doubts those councilors may have had as to his affinity with the Christ would be settled next year at the cross.

Coming to this final encounter, it’s clear that Jesus’ words have gotten through to Nicodemus. He has seen his reflection in the Sanhedrin and therefore come to recognize the lack of spiritual value in their traditions. What he does now may still seem a work, coming as he does with expensive ointments for honoring the dead. But, that’s just it: He’s no longer acting in an attempt to appease an angry God by his careful observance of the proprieties. He’s acting out of a loving respect for this One Who was sent of God.

Bear in mind that he is still a Councilor. He has been privy to their plans and machinations. It would not seem to be in any doubt that he, like Joseph, had not consented to these plans, had not voted in favor. But, because he was there, he knew what was coming, and because he knew what was coming, he could be prepared in advance. At least, that is what appears to me to be the case. Joseph may have been taken by surprise to find Jesus dead on the cross when he arrived. But, Nicodemus had watched the run up to this event, so he had gone out to purchase the needed materials. Perhaps he knew Joseph as a brother in Christ. It seems likely at this point. How else do they connect to work together on this burial?

While the articles I’ve read suggest Joseph was likely a resident of Jerusalem as well as Nicodemus, I have to wonder about that. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t. This being the Passover week, the city was assuredly going to be crowded, though. It somehow suits, in my imagination, that Joseph had arranged to stay with Nicodemus, and it is thus that the two have connected.

See, there is this passing through my mind: Mary and Mary go to their place to prepare these same burial ointments. Whether this meant making purchases and then mixing them or what, exactly, we are not told. But, we are told that the Sabbath has begun before they finish, so they set aside their work and rest. Nicodemus, it seems, had everything at the ready when Joseph came. Maybe Joseph already knew, maybe he had rushed straight to Pilate’s place to get permission. But, they couldn’t have taken much time at all to return and finish the task of burial. Thus, I suppose Nicodemus to have been ready and waiting when Joseph arrived, so that the two could return immediately.

What, then, can I say about this man in conclusion? His timidity has been suggested, but even McClintock and Strong suggest this may have been nearer to prudence. For my own part, I would say I see him as more bold than not. It took boldness to even come to Jesus by night that first time. It took boldness, certainly, to stand in the face of his fellows and point out their error. And, it was boldness in the midst of hopelessness for him to come out this Sabbath eve to bury a dead man of little apparent consequence. The aforementioned McClintock and Strong article concludes thus: “Even when the power of Christ's love, manifested on the cross, had made the most timid disciples bold, Nicodemus did not come forward with his splendid gifts of affection until the example had been set by one of his own rank and wealth, and station in society.” I have to say that nothing yet in the narrative has suggested any particular boldness amongst those timid disciples. Indeed, apart from John, they are hardly to be found. And, considering some of their later actions, abandoning all hope to go fishing, there is little there to suggest some new strength of faith in them. No! These are the acts of those who have, however temporarily, lost all faith.

Nicodemus, on the other hand, is right there at the grave. He has not shown any hesitation, not this time! He may have kept his association with Jesus guarded in life, but he will not do so in death. And rest assured, the actions of these two men were not known to the Apostles alone. They would be just as well known, if not better known, to the Sanhedrin. When the time came to wonder where the body had gone, these two would be high on the list of suspects. Timidity? May we be so timid!