Jeremiah in the first reading was no exception to Jesus' observation that no prophet is acceptable in his own country. Jeremiah's relations turned against him because he supported a religious reform which would lead to the closing of a local sanctuary.

In the Gospel Jesus is well received by some ordinary people. The temple guards ran a risk by not arresting him and by speaking favourably of him to the chief priests and Pharisees. Nicodemus showed his admiration in a nuanced fashion for Jesus and in so doing incurred the insults and suspicion of those same leaders.

The oposition to Jesus was two-tiered. Some people opposed Him because He didn't fit into their preconceived idea of the kind of Messiah they wanted Him to be. He upset their assumptions and feelings of security. In a somewhat similar way Jeremiah had upset local self interest. Such opposition is to some degree understandable

The opposition of the chief priests and Pharisees is more difficult to fathom. To John, seeing the whole episode in the light of his possession of the full truth about Jesus, their guilt was clear. They had sinned against the light. This sin may have been due in part to the arrogance with which they looked down on "the crowd" which did not know the Law. Their opposition to Jesus is indeed mysterious. Did it spring from a deep-seated pride to which all of us are liable? Is there in me a craving for an autonomy which would reject what is most fundamental in life?