John 7:50-52

“ Nicodemus, who came to him before by night and who was one of them, says to them, 51. Does our law then condemn a man before hearing from him and taking knowledge of what he does? 52. They answered and said to him, Art thou, then, thyself also, a Galilean? Search and see that out of Galilee arises no prophet. ”

The part which Nicodemus plays on this occasion is the proof of the advance which has been made in him since his visit to Jesus. This is noticeably indicated by the apposition, “who came to Jesus before. ” The omission of these words in the Sinaitic MS. is probably owing to a confounding of αὐτούς and αὐτόν. Νυκτός, by night, is omitted by the Alexandrian authorities; but we may hold that it has for its aim to bring out the contrast between his present boldness and his former caution. The πρῶτου or πρότερον, before, which the Alexandrian authorities read in place of νυκτός, likewise establishes the contrast between his present conduct and his previous course. The second apposition: who was one of them, ironically recalls their own question, John 7:48: “Has any one of the rulers...”?

The term ὁ νόμος, the law, John 7:51, is at the beginning of the sentence; it contains a cutting allusion to the claim of the rulers that they alone have knowledge of the law (John 7:49). The subject of the verbs ἀκούσῃ and γνῷ is the law personified in the judge.

We see in John 7:52 how passion regards and judges impartiality. It discovers in it the indication of a secret sympathy, and in this it is not always mistaken. The Sanhedrim maliciously assume in their reply that one cannot be an adherent of Jesus without being, like Him, a Galilean: “It must be that thou art His fellow-countryman to give up thyself thus to His imposture.” The last words which the narrative places in the mouth of Jesus' adversaries seem to contain an assertion which is contrary to the facts of the case; for, it is claimed, several prophets, Elijah, Nahum, Hosea, Jonah, were of Galilean origin. Hence the conclusion has been drawn (Bretschneider, Baur) that the members of the Sanhedrim, who must have known their own sacred history, could not have uttered these words, and that it is the evangelist who has wrongly attributed to them this error. If the perfect ἐγήγερται, has arisen, is read, we might with some writers understand the thought thus: “And see that a prophet has not (really) arisen in Galilee (in the person of this man).” There would thus be an allusion to the title prophet of Galilee, which was frequently given to Jesus. But this does not obviate the difficulty.

For there still remains the phrase ἐρεύνησον καὶ ἴδε, search and see that..., which implies that the fact has not yet occurred. The more probable reading, the present ἐγείρεται, does not arise, also does not set aside the difficulty; for the proverb: “no prophet arises in Galilee” can only be an axiom resulting, according to them, from Scriptural experience (“search and thou shalt see”). The attempt at a complete justification of this appeal to history must be given up. Undoubtedly, the Galilean origin of three of the four prophets cited (Elijah, Nahum, Hosea) is either false or uncertain; see Hengstenberg. Elijah was of Gilead; Hosea, of Samaria, which cannot be identified with Galilee; Nahum, of El-Kosh, a place whose situation is uncertain. But Jonah remains. His case is an exception which passion might have caused the rulers to forget in a moment of rage and which, if it had been mentioned in the way of objection to the rulers, would have been set aside by them as an exception confirming the rule. Notwithstanding this isolated fact, Galilee was and still continued to be an outcast land in the theocracy. Westcott: “Galilee is not the land of prophets, still less of the Messiah.” The gravest thing which they forget, is not Jonah, it is the prophecy Isaiah 8:22 to Isaiah 9:1, where the preaching of the Messiah in Galilee is foretold.