7:45-46 When the officers of the temple guard returned to the Sanhedrin without Jesus, the Sanhedrin members asked why they had not arrested Him (cf. v. 32). The officers replied that no man (Gr. anthropos, emphatic in the Greek text) had ever spoken as Jesus did (cf. v. 15). They, too, spoke more truly than they knew. Jesus was more than a man. Jesus' authority and wisdom obviously impressed them as much as the other people. They had gone to arrest Jesus with their weapons, but Jesus had arrested them with His words.
It may seem unusual that these officers would so weakly admit that they had failed in their mission, but they were not hardened Roman soldiers who carried out their orders as automatons. They were Levites whose interests were mainly religious. Their statement is another witness to the true identity of Jesus.
7:47-48 The Pharisaic leaders implied that the officers were ignorant, that none of the real thinkers and leaders in the nation had accepted Jesus. The rulers were the Sanhedrin members, and the Pharisees were the official teachers. They implied that all the leaders without exception believed that Jesus was a deceiver, but that was not true. Already Nicodemus had privately voiced his belief that Jesus was a teacher who had come from God (3:2), and many others of the leaders believed in Jesus (cf. 12:42). This was a clear case of intimidation. Again John's irony is apparent. The proudly wise are clearly the fools (cf. 1 Cor. 1:26-31).
7:49 The rulers claimed knowledge of the law that was superior to that of the common people (Gr. ochlos, crowd or mob) who accepted Jesus. They condescendingly judged the officers' opinion of Jesus as worthy only of the uneducated. If more of these leaders had taken the time to listen to Jesus as Nicodemus did, they may have formed a different opinion of how well He fulfilled the law. Pride in one's knowledge often results in spiritual blindness. The mob was supposedly under God's curse since they did not obey it (Deut. 28:15). Really it was the leaders who were under His curse for not believing in Jesus (3:36).
7:50-51 All this blind prejudice became more than Nicodemus could bear. Finally he questioned condemning Jesus out of hand without first listening to Him (cf. Acts 5:34-39). He did not defend Jesus. That may have been too threatening. He did raise an objection to his colleagues' procedure on the grounds of fair play (cf. Deut. 1:16-17). Nicodemus' word of caution does not necessarily indicate that he had become a believer in Jesus, though he may have been (cf. 19:38-39). The most we can say is that he was willing to defend Jesus' rights.
7:52 Nicodemus' colleagues did not reply rationally but emotionally. They had already decided Jesus' case without hearing Him. They did not want to listen to any information that might prove that He was who He claimed to be. They replied to Nicodemus' challenge with contempt and accused him of being a despised Galilean himself since he sought to defend another Galilean. Unable to refute the logic of Nicodemus' argument they attacked his person, an old debating tactic designed to win an argument but not to arrive at the truth.
It is unclear if they meant that no prophet ever came from Galilee or that the Prophet (Deut. 18:15) would not come from there. Obviously Jonah and Nahum had come from Galilee, so it seems unlikely that they meant that. Moses did not predict where the Prophet would come from. As mentioned above, the Jews of Jesus' day seem to have regarded the Prophet and Messiah as two different individuals. The messianic Son of David would come from Bethlehem, but where would the Prophet come from? If the Sanhedrin had taken the trouble to investigate Jesus' origins thoroughly, they would have discovered than He had not come from Galilee originally.
People still let prejudice (prejudging) and superficial evaluation blind them to the truth.
