Did Nicodemus believe in Jesus?

[Neostarwcc]

What we know from scripture is that Nicodemus at the very least recognized Jesus as a prophet because he recognized that only God or someone sent by God could do the miracles and teach as he did. We know that he was open to listening to Jesus and we know that he was astonished and bewildered by many of the things that Christ had taught him.

He also was at Christ's crucifixion and made sure that Jesus got a typical Jewish burial so he clearly had a high view of Christ and perhaps considered him a friend and a fellow Jew worthy of such a sacred burial. But after that the Bible is kind of silent on what happened to Nicodemus. Was the man saved and chosen by God? Did he believe in the things that Jesus taught him or did he only respect him?

Since Nicodemus could recognize that Jesus was sent by God and should have had divine authority it might be likely that he believed in him or at the very least believed in the things that Jesus said and considered him to be a prophet. But really Nicodemus's ultimate fate can only he guessed and nobody aside from God and those currently with God know for sure exactly what Nicodemus believed in. But since the Bible mentioned him and gave us clues in John 3 I think it might be possible that he believed in him.

 

[The Liturgist]

The answer is yes, and he is venerated as an important saint in the Orthodox Church and all other ancient and liturgical churches.

In addition, there is a psuedepigraphical apocryphal gospel not of Gnostic origin, and not heretical or offensive to piety, if I recall, unless I am confusing it with a different one, attributed to him.

 

[bling]

Matt. 27:57 As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus.
Mark 15:43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body.
Luke 23:50 Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man.
John 19:38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. 39 He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.
Joseph seems to be partners in this whole plot and Joseph was a disciple.
Are you part of the saved if you are a believer (disciple), but not willing to confess Jesus as the Messiah? Now maybe they did later confess, but it seems right now they are unwilling because they would be kicked out of the leadership?

 

[Rose_bud]

What we know from scripture is that Nicodemus at the very least recognized Jesus as a prophet because he recognized that only God or someone sent by God could do the miracles and teach as he did. We know that he was open to listening to Jesus and we know that he was astonished and bewildered by many of the things that Christ had taught him.

He also was at Christ's crucifixion and made sure that Jesus got a typical Jewish burial so he clearly had a high view of Christ and perhaps considered him a friend and a fellow Jew worthy of such a sacred burial. But after that the Bible is kind of silent on what happened to Nicodemus. Was the man saved and chosen by God? Did he believe in the things that Jesus taught him or did he only respect him?

Since Nicodemus could recognize that Jesus was sent by God and should have had divine authority it might be likely that he believed in him or at the very least believed in the things that Jesus said and considered him to be a prophet. But really Nicodemus's ultimate fate can only he guessed and nobody aside from God and those currently with God know for sure exactly what Nicodemus believed in. But since the Bible mentioned him and gave us clues in John 3 I think it might be possible that he believed in him.

Hey there
When I started studying the book of John, I understood it overall as a court case, ie John was trying to get me to believe the key verse... namely John 20:30-31...

So I viewed it in this way... every miracle performed is to demonstrate that Jesus is God.. in a way it became evidence... exhibit A, ie who can turn water into wine? Only God has absolute power over the elements. Exibit B, Who has authority in the temple?.. etc...

And every conversation with those in the book is to hear their testimony.. that is I tried to place them on a stand.. cross questioning them to hear what they had to say about Jesus.. did they believe he was just a man, just a Prophet, just the Son of Mary, just a carpenter... who was he? ...
it's the tension in the book... everyone wants to know who He is..

We see Nicodemus encountering Him at night, John makes it clear to include this everytime he talks of Nicodemus.. later Nicodemus defends Jesus when they are confused about whether He is a Prophet from Galilee, but remember Jesus shared that He was a light to Nicodemus... alluding to the light that would come from Galilee...(Isaiah 9:1-2).. so not Just a Prophet but a Light.

I think for Nicodemus that tension is not resolved but comes close to it when He dies and is buried...we don't read of Nicodemus post the resurrection in John, I think this is intentional... As we only truly believe when we include the resurrection. The same for us, the ressurrection is the 'nail in the coffin' pun intended that He is God. It is what cements us in the truth that He is who he says He is. It's the bedrock of our Christian faith and our hope.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Hey there
When I started studying the book of John, I understood it overall as a court case, ie John was trying to get me to believe the key verse... namely John 20:30-31...

So I viewed it in this way... every miracle performed is to demonstrate that Jesus is God.. in a way it became evidence... exhibit A, ie who can turn water into wine? Only God has absolute power over the elements. Exibit B, Who has authority in the temple?.. etc...

And every conversation with those in the book is to hear their testimony.. that is I tried to place them on a stand.. cross questioning them to hear what they had to say about Jesus.. did they believe he was just a man, just a Prophet, just the Son of Mary, just a carpenter... who was he? ...
it's the tension in the book... everyone wants to know who He is..

We see Nicodemus encountering Him at night, John makes it clear to include this everytime he talks of Nicodemus.. later Nicodemus defends Jesus when they are confused about whether He is a Prophet from Galilee, but remember Jesus shared that He was a light to Nicodemus... alluding to the light that would come from Galilee...(Isaiah 9:1-2).. so not Just a Prophet but a Light.

I think for Nicodemus that tension is not resolved but comes close to it when He dies and is buried...we don't read of Nicodemus post the resurrection in John, I think this is intentional... As we only truly believe when we include the resurrection. The same for us, the ressurrection is the 'nail in the coffin' pun intended that He is God. It is what cements us in the truth that He is who he says He is. It's the bedrock of our Christian faith and our hope.

Yes it's very clear that Nicodeemus saw Jesus as a prophet at the very least and he would have to have believed in Jesus's resurrection to have been saved. The Bible never states whether or not he believed in Jesus's resurrection merely that he clearly viewed Jesus in a high regard. His salvation might be possible but he would have had to believe that the unbelievable things that he heard and saw from Christ were in fact, true. That he was in fact God in the flesh and whether or not he rose from the dead because without the resurrection there is no hope for mankind and Christ was just a prophet. Because it should have been very clear to the Jewish people and Nicodemus that he at the very least, was a prophet because only a prophet or God could have done the things that Jesus had done.

 

[The Liturgist]

Once again, all traditional Christian churches venerate Nicodemus as a saint, and holy tradition records him as being one of the followers of Christ, along with St. Joseph of Arimathea.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

My thoughts. I believe Nicodemus gradually becomes a believer. Evidence suggests in the first encounter with Jesus, he is not a believer. However, by Nicodemus’ third encounter recorded my John, he is seen preparing Jesus body for his burial…. a strong suggestion he is a believer.

In the preceding pericope of John’s gospel, it is revealed Jesus has an inherent distrust of those who follow him specifically due to His performing signs. “Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing. But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them…” John 2:23

Jesus had a hard time trusting some individuals who believed in him and followed him through out his three year ministry (possibly false beliefs) because of His miracles. Jesus knew their belief was probably a thin, superficial belief. It wasn’t based on anything other than an admiration of the spectacular. Knowing this, Jesus did not entrust Himself to them. They saw great signs and on account of that had some understanding of who Jesus was, but they did not actually receive and rest upon Him for salvation. It was a primarily signs-based faith and not a primarily gospel-based faith.

These followers of Jesus possibly could be a close equivalent of the Parable of the Sower, specifically referencing the seeds cast upon the thorns, rocks, and roadway. Or maybe, Simon Magnus who believed and was baptized fell away due to his desire to possess supernatural gifts.

So in John 3:1, Nicodemus comes to Jesus because of his performing miracles. And John’s readers are curious at this initial encounter with Nicodemus whether he is a believer that Jesus is the Messiah or not.

Jesus allows John’s readers to make that determination by using the greek word γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν as a Double Entendra which means either born from above or born again; John’s readers know they are "born from above" as stated in his Prologue (John 1:12-13).

John tells his readers that all "who believed in His name" are given "the right to become children of God." Most of us, upon reading this, would assume that this "right to become children of God" comes through adoption. John, however, is saying much more. Here in verse 13, we find that it is not adoption that John is speaking of, but birth. This is the new birth or regeneration. John says: "Children born...". We are "born of God", given a new birth. This has staggering implications. First, a new birth implies that God is the source. Just like natural birth form parents, the new birth is of God Himself. Second, new birth implies a drastic change; New birth, however, gives rise to a new person, a new creation. As Paul wrote: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (II Cor. 5:17). Those who experience the new birth have new appetites, new desires, new strengths, new talents, new values, as they are "born of God” or “born from above.”

However, there is a second category of humanity John speaks about in the Prologue: the world (John 1:10-11). When the Word came into the world, there was a separation between the people who accepted him, and those who rejected him (v10). John uses the word 'world' in two ways: The wide usage would be Jesus made the physical world and his mission was to the world (3:16), but the world rejected him. The narrow usage of the “world” is the unbelieving culture that was opposed to Jesus and his disciples. He was not only rejected by the world, but also by his own people (v11). John uses the term “the Jews” as a mostly negative phrase to describe the Jewish leaders who rejected him as their Messiah.

Jesus just floats a statement to Nicodemus and allows him to choose the meaning of the double entendra from himself….I say to you, unless one is γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus replies with a naturalistic understanding of the double entendre.. “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”

This statement by Nicodemus says a lot. As a high-ranking Pharisee, Nicodemus was the ancient equivalent of a politician and professor all rolled into one. Jesus breaks through Nicodemus’ self-reliance by showing him that he doesn’t understand religion as well as he might think. John’s readers know Nicodemus is an unbeliever as he inquired about Jesus’ miracles. Nicodemus doesn’t know Jesus is the Messiah. For the Jews, especially the Pharisees (like Nicodemus) believed they were children of God, due to being Children of Abraham. Towards the end of Jesus’ three year ministry, this rejection from the Jewish leadership was so profound, Jesus calls them spiritual children of the Devil for the “Devil is their father’ (John 8:44).

John’s readers know immediately which category they are in: they are born from above…they are children of God and born of God (John 1:12-13). Nicodemus predictively is an unbeliever at this point and takes a naturalistic understanding of Jesus usage of ἄνωθεν

Jesus now reveals he is the Messiah to Nicodemus, but he does it cryptically by referencing the OT. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Additionally, Jesus speaks of the Spirit vs. 7-8 which should give Nicodemus a massive hint to what Jesus is speaking of.

Nicodemus doesn’t understand what Jesus is speaking, so he states “How can these things be?” At which point, Jesus thunders severe criticism at him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?” Nicodemus, as a teacher of Israel should have known “born of water and the Spirit” is a major Messianic theme in the OT but completely fails to comprehend it.

When Jesus stated “one born of water and the spirit” he clearly is referring to one of the most well known Messianic prophecies of the OT.

• Ezekiel 36:24-27 For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

This prophecy in the immediate context assures the exiles in Babylonia the land of Judah will be restored. It’s greater fulfillment is in the New Covenant. There will be spiritual cleansing, renewal (a new heart), and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. John’s prologue does address some of these aspects of New Covenant for all people via the new birth.

Whereas the phrase γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος alludes to being physically born a Jew , Jesus clearly states that this is not enough to become part of God’s (new) kingdom. Those, then, who are born of Israel need to also be born again of the Holy Spirit with the water which is baptism. This points to the regeneration caused by the Holy Spirit, having the salvation of God’s people in mind. It therefore indicates here that, in future, the true Israelites (people of God) will not only be the Jews, but ‘everybody’ who believes in Jesus – those who are born of the Spirit. Whereas the Jews have thought that being born a Jew was good enough for them to enter the kingdom of God, Jesus adds that ‘born of the Spirit’ or being was required in the ‘new dispensation’ to become part of God’s people.

 

[epostle]

The answer is yes, and he is venerated as an important saint in the Orthodox Church and all other ancient and liturgical churches.

In addition, there is a psuedepigraphical apocryphal gospel not of Gnostic origin, and not heretical or offensive to piety, if I recall, unless I am confusing it with a different one, attributed to him.

" a psuedepigraphical apocryphal gospel not of Gnostic origin"? Hmm... you're going 100 miles an hour on my 10 mile an hour brain. I had no choice but to consult the omniscient (?) Google god, breaking down one word at a time.

When these books were first studied, scholars realized that they could help to provide a context for the understanding of the origins of Christianity. No longer was rabbinic Judaism to form the primary basis for comparison with the earliest Christian literature, but rather the Jewish literature of the Second Temple Period, and particularly the Pseudepigrapha, could contribute much insight, making the Jewish origin of Christianity more comprehensible.​

​

The contribution of the study of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha to the understanding of the New Testament should not be underrated. The approach to Jesus that is typified by Schweitzer’s Quest of the Historical Jesus (1964) - using the context of "Jewish apocalyptic" to help understand his activity - would not have been possible without the discovery of the Pseudepigrapha. As a result of these studies, we now have insight into types of Judaism and religious ideas within the Jewish tradition that would otherwise have remained lost.​

​

Jewish Virtual Library​

 

[Rose_bud]

My thoughts. I believe Nicodemus gradually becomes a believer. Evidence suggests in the first encounter with Jesus, he is not a believer. However, by Nicodemus’ third encounter recorded my John, he is seen preparing Jesus body for his burial…. a strong suggestion he is a believer.

Hi there,

I appreciate this thoughtful response.

I agree a strong suggestion but never made explicit. We are unfortunately not told by John in the text that Nicodemus believed that Jesus is the Messiah. My thoughts are that this may have been intentional allowing the original reader to wrestle with this understanding but also us as modern readers to wrestle with the text concerning our own belief in light of the resurrection about who He is.

In the preceding pericope of John’s gospel, it is revealed Jesus has an inherent distrust of those who follow him specifically due to His performing signs. “Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing. But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them…” John 2:23

Jesus had a hard time trusting some individuals who believed in him and followed him through out his three year ministry (possibly false beliefs) because of His miracles. Jesus knew their belief was probably a thin, superficial belief. It wasn’t based on anything other than an admiration of the spectacular. Knowing this, Jesus did not entrust Himself to them. They saw great signs and on account of that had some understanding of who Jesus was, but they did not actually receive and rest upon Him for salvation. It was a primarily signs-based faith and not a primarily gospel-based faith.

These followers of Jesus possibly could be a close equivalent of the Parable of the Sower, specifically referencing the seeds cast upon the thorns, rocks, and roadway. Or maybe, Simon Magnus who believed and was baptized fell away due to his desire to possess supernatural gifts.

I'm in partial agreement with the above. John specifically chose these particular signs as it pointed too much more than the miracles itself, but to the God of the impossible miracles (John 20:30-31). If we believe in Him, life is received. For those with eyes to see.

What the original audience should have seen is that He is the same God that had delivered the Israelites out of Egypt. The God who revealed Himself through might and power. What they should have seen is a type of Moses but also the I AM walking in their midst. A Prophet like Moses. (Deuteronomy 18:15-18) Although the prophecy is given to the original audience in Sinai, with the near fulfilment in Joshua son of Nun. Its “far” fulfilment is seen in Christ.

But with all of these signs, what does it mean? Or rather what should be the response to this? ... Turn aside to pay attention. It was what Moses did when he saw the burning bush.

But even in the wilderness, some believed and others not, their actions and attitude toward Him betraying them even though they saw the miracles he performed in Egypt.

The gospel itself would be shared by word, signs and deed (As evident by the Holy Spirit working through the apostles in Acts). For signs enabled by the Spirit are a testimony to His Power. I don’t believe we continue looking for signs and miracles when we know who He is. Ironically, it becomes evidence of unbelief.

Every sign that John shares is interwoven with a belief or a confrontation. Water turned to wine speaks much about the blessing in their midst, with the new wine allusions to the kingdom in the OT. Also John is deliberate in mentioning which jars it was that was filled with wine. But John the Baptist understood who the ‘true’ bridegroom was who offered the wine, when His disciples were arguing with a Jew about ceremonial washings (John 3:24-28). Although John the Baptist also had his moments of doubt.

So in John 3:1, Nicodemus comes to Jesus because of his performing miracles. And John’s readers are curious at this initial encounter with Nicodemus whether he is a believer that Jesus is the Messiah or not.

Jesus allows John’s readers to make that determination by using the greek word γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν as a Double Entendra which means either born from above or born again; John’s readers know they are "born from above" as stated in his Prologue (John 1:12-13).

John tells his readers that all "who believed in His name" are given "the right to become children of God." Most of us, upon reading this, would assume that this "right to become children of God" comes through adoption. John, however, is saying much more. Here in verse 13, we find that it is not adoption that John is speaking of, but birth. This is the new birth or regeneration. John says: "Children born...". We are "born of God", given a new birth. This has staggering implications. First, a new birth implies that God is the source. Just like natural birth form parents, the new birth is of God Himself. Second, new birth implies a drastic change; New birth, however, gives rise to a new person, a new creation. As Paul wrote: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (II Cor. 5:17). Those who experience the new birth have new appetites, new desires, new strengths, new talents, new values, as they are "born of God” or “born from above.”

We are indeed a new creation, Born of the Spirit. I agree with this, born anew or born from above.

Another born in its metaphorical sense (see Thayers Greek Lexicon) could also be that of the Jewish understanding of the discipleship process, where the reference to “teacher” or rabbi is understood. That as a teacher of Israel, Nicodemus would of had many sons “born to him” (had many disciples), but here Jesus is asking the rabbi of Israel to be born again. Be taught the ways of God anew.

But I suppose Nicodemus response offers the key, Should I go back into the womb again?

As you say Jesus response is cryptic. This could most likely be the not so subtle/cryptic rebuke that Jesus offers Nicodemus regarding the born of flesh, and the wind blowing where it wills...

Ecclesiastes 11:5

As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things .

However, there is a second category of humanity John speaks about in the Prologue: the world (John 1:10-11). When the Word came into the world, there was a separation between the people who accepted him, and those who rejected him (v10). John uses the word 'world' in two ways: The wide usage would be Jesus made the physical world and his mission was to the world (3:16), but the world rejected him. The narrow usage of the “world” is the unbelieving culture that was opposed to Jesus and his disciples. He was not only rejected by the world, but also by his own people (v11). John uses the term “the Jews” as a mostly negative phrase to describe the Jewish leaders who rejected him as their Messiah.

In addition John also constantly contrasts light and dark/night. A concept introduced in the prologue (John 1:4-12) but further expressed to Nicodemus (John 3:19-21).

In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

To Nicodemus: This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

Nicodemus should have been familiar with this passage in Isaiah 9:1-2. The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of deep darkness a light has dawned. The honour given to Galilee.

It’s the defence of Jesus and his sympathies that makes one think he may be slowly starting to believe.

“Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them.” Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked, “Does our law condemn a man without first hearing him to find out what he has been doing?” They replied, “Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee.”

Not a Prophet but a Light, I posted this on another thread.

Jesus now reveals he is the Messiah to Nicodemus, but he does it cryptically by referencing the OT. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Additionally, Jesus speaks of the Spirit vs. 7-8 which should give Nicodemus a massive hint to what Jesus is speaking of.

Nicodemus doesn’t understand what Jesus is speaking, so he states “How can these things be?” At which point, Jesus thunders severe criticism at him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?” Nicodemus, as a teacher of Israel should have known “born of water and the Spirit” is a major Messianic theme in the OT but completely fails to comprehend it.



When Jesus stated “one born of water and the spirit” he clearly is referring to one of the most well known Messianic prophecies of the OT.

The OT poetic references to the dry bones and the new bodies being created with the Spirit bringing new life also alludes to this new process. Isaiah is also known for the many references to the newness of life, as God speaks of water and the Spirit.

We are indeed privileged to be able to be born from above, not from the will of man, but the will of God. A life sourced and empowered by the Spirit of God. Nicodemus was a Jew who was told he needed to be born again. The born again process is a requirement for all (Jew and Gentile) as you stated.