Jesus’ interaction with Nicodemus in John 3 is often used (correctly) by Latter-day Saints and others as biblical evidence for baptismal regeneration. For a discussion, see:
Baptism,
Salvation, and the New Testament, Part 4: John 3:1-7
Some often ask if Nicodemus was sincere in
his questioning of Jesus. In a recent volume, Protestants E. Randolph Richards
and Richard James wrote the following, affirming the sincerity of Nicodemus in
light of the cultural context of the time:
Nicodemus: not an
honor contest. Questions were often a means to make an honor challenge . . . The
result was a verbal joust as each side tried to show they were the ones who
embodied in a superior way the values the community held. This is likely why,
in John 3, Nicodemus comes to Jesus at night. Nicodemus probably thinks that if
he asks Jesus a question in public, it could become an honor contest. Nicodemus
doesn’t want to get into an honor contest. He has a genuine question.
Similarly, when the disciples can’t figure out what Jesus is talking about, they
remain quiet until the crowds leave: “After he had left the crowd and entered
the house, his disciples asked him about this parable” (Mk 7:17; see also Mk
10:10). They want clarification, not honor. That’s why the Gospel writers take
the time to tell us they don’t ask in front of the crowd. Nicodemus is likely doing
the same thing.
Jesus has just
cleared the temple in John’s story. He is asked to produce a sign, and he doesn’t
do one—at least not one the authorities or the crowd like (Jn 2:18-19). It is
in this context that a member of the Sanhedrin (Jn 3:1; 7:50) enters the
picture. It is likely the market had been recently relocated inside the temple
because of a squabble within the Sanhedrin. It is easy to see why some wouldn’t
like this and why at least some would have initially applauded a prophetic denunciation.
They would have cheered at Jesus’ public critique of putting the market within
the temple walls. It looked like something Elisha might have done. But they
would also have been very disappointed Jesus produced no miraculous sign to
demonstrate he had this authority.
Nicodemus represents
others (“we know,” Jn 3:2), possibly those who opposed the market’s new
location inside the temple. Nicodemus was a Pharisee, and Pharisees cared a lot
about ritual purity. Nicodemus notes Jesus is a teacher come from God
who does miraculous signs, such as what the crowd demanded publicly. Nicodemus
comes at night because he wants a private meeting to sort out their confusion.
Perhaps Nicodemus and some colleagues are mystified, even frustrated, because
Jesus failed to defend himself with a miraculous sign, which they know he can
do (“the signs you are doing,” Jn 3:2). They are unsure whether Jesus was unable
at that moment or unwilling at that moment to perform a sign. Nicodemus’s
reasoning might be: “If God withheld a miraculous sign, perhaps it was because
had overstepped his bounds, which would mean God doesn’t mind the market being
inside the temple.” Nicodemus has a genuine theological question. The Gospel of
John doesn’t delve into Nicodemus’ theological quandary. The Gospel tells the
Nicodemus story for another reason. John has just noted: “But Jesus, on His
part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, and because He
did not need anyone to testify concerning man (anthrōpos), for He
himself knew that was in man (anthrōpos)” (John 2:24-25 NASB). Then in
the next sentence, John writes, “Now there was a man (anthrōpos) of the
Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews” (John 3:1 NASB). Nicodemus
becomes the first example of Jesus knowing what’s in the heart of man (anthrōpos).
The Samaritan women in John 4 becomes another. (E. Randolph Richards and
Richard James, Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes: Patronage,
Honor, and Shame in the Biblical World [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic,
2020], 167-69)
