The scripture is saying that the high priest had revelation Jesus would become the ultimate Passover sacrifice. Was it from God? We could go 'round and 'round. Does the scripture say it was from God? Yes.
I think you have to temper these things with an understanding that John was written years and years after Jesus' lifetime. Probably 50 or 60 years after. And, it was patterned after the framework of the other 3 gospels, Mark being the first one written in approximately A.D. 70.
So, starting in vs 51 John states that "he" (refering to Caiaphas) "did not say this on his own" and that assumption is that Caiaphas received the phophesy from God. The 2 points of the profecy: a. that he die for the nation and b. gather together the children of God.
So, given that this prophecy was from God and was accurately voiced to the Sanhedrin (though it seems to me that Caiaphas received the prophecy prior to this meeting - debatable) that the Sanhedrin took it upon itself to kill Jesus. Should the Sanhedrin have infered from the prophecy that God was directing them to do the deed?
So, starting in vs 51 John states that "he" (refering to Caiaphas) "did not say this on his own" and that assumption is that Caiaphas received the phophesy from God. The 2 points of the profecy: a. that he die for the nation and b. gather together the children of God.
So, given that this prophecy was from God and was accurately voiced to the Sanhedrin (though it seems to me that Caiaphas received the prophecy prior to this meeting - debatable) that the Sanhedrin took it upon itself to kill Jesus. Should the Sanhedrin have infered from the prophecy that God was directing them to do the deed?
KJV John 11:47-53
47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.
========================================
NASB John 11:47-53
47 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many [l]signs. 48 If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.” 51 Now he did not say this [m]on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. 53 So from that day on they planned together to kill Him.
========================================
NIV John 11:47-53
47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.
“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”
49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”
51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life.
So, starting in vs 51 John states that "he" (refering to Caiaphas) "did not say this on his own" and that assumption is that Caiaphas received the phophesy from God. The 2 points of the profecy: a. that he die for the nation and b. gather together the children of God.
So, given that this prophecy was from God and was accurately voiced to the Sanhedrin (though it seems to me that Caiaphas received the prophecy prior to this meeting - debatable) that the Sanhedrin took it upon itself to kill Jesus. Should the Sanhedrin have infered from the prophecy that God was directing them to do the deed?
Ok, having seen what it says in sufficient context to understand it,
and taking as a given this was all factually accurate,
let's summarize.
The people saw Jesus perform another miracle. Some people were angry and told the
Pharisses that Jesus was performing miracles. The Pharisees & friends were concerned
that Jesus performing miracles would lead to Jesus becoming popular and a big deal,
and that would lead to the Romans cracking down on what they currently looked at as
a quiet, quaint, long-standing religion. No concern that all the miracles they
couldn't produce being produced by someone else meant something concerning God Almighty,
just political and social considerations. (I've seen people, and that sounds authentic
to me-people are stupid, short-sighted, narrow-minded, and only hear what they expect
to hear, much of the time.)
The exception was the High Priest, Caiaphas. The prophecy he delivered was one that
said
“You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”
(I agree with him on both counts.)
So, the prophecy was true, and could be taken to mean more than one thing.
The actual meaning? Jesus dying for their entire nation (etc.)
The meaning they took? It's better for Jesus to die than their nation to die.
The result was their deliberate plan to murder Jesus being worked up, finalized,
and executed.
What was the question again?
("Should the Sanhedrin have infered from the prophecy that God was directing them to do the deed?")
There's several possible directions to go with this, I'll try to answer them all.
Did God Almighty tell them to murder Jesus?
No-it was a statement of action and consequences, albeit only partly-informative.
It didn't include pages of context that might have made them reconsider, MAYBE.
Did the Sanhedrin think they were being directed to kill Jesus?
Obviously-the result of that was them planning to do that very thing.
Did the Sanhedrin think they were being directed BY GOD ALMIGHTY to kill Jesus?
I seriously doubt it. This Sanhedrin's religious concerns were confined, at most,
to the ceremonial, the traditional, and the sociopolitical, and excluded the sacred.
(Big miracles are virtually absent for a long time, then in the space of a year,
we see 2 prophets suddenly rise up and at least the latter performs big miracles.
They didn't discuss the existence of miracles regardless of the eyewitnesses-
they discussed the ramifications of people following someone who could perform
the miracles but not the miracles themselves. I would expect they only saw
the "high priest" as a religious counselor who expressed the will of religious
people, and relaying their POV to the Sanhedrin.
SHOULD the Sanhedrin think that they were being directed BY GOD ALMIGHTY to kill Jesus?
That's actually the toughest question on the list, and the most open to interpretation
and opinion. IF they thought it was a real message from God (and that such messages
existed), then we go back to what, exactly, is being said.
Based on that, I still agree they were know-nothings. But if they had been
know-somethings, they STILL shouldn't have thought it was an official prophecy
because it wasn't on official God Almighty letterhead.
("Hear the word of the Lord: " and so on.)
It was phrased-deliberately I say- so that even if they HAD 2 brain cells to rub together
between them, that they still wouldn't think there was a full-blown prophecy being
38 Then Jesus, again greatly disturbed, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, already there is a stench because he has been dead four days.” 40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?” 41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upward and said, “Father, I thank you for having heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.” 43 When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth, and his face wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”
The Plot to Kill Jesus
45 Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what he had done. 47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the council, and said, “What are we to do? This man is performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.” 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.” 51 He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God. 53 So from that day on they planned to put him to death.
I was going top post this, this morning with an additional commentary that I wrote, but my computer turned into a puter and the Internet crashed before I posted it. Perhaps I breathed on my puter wrong. Anyway this should be clear when reading this in context. Jesus raising Lazarus was a prophetical taste of Jesus being raised from the dead in the near future. This was 3 days after his death and sacrifice with his death being planned in the next verses. And these verses relate well to Paul's writings that Jesus died for both Jews and Gentiles with one united body of Christ as a result.
However, the political/religious leaders of the nation of Israel only wanted their own political power and this is clear to me in these verses. As a result the nation of Israel along with the Roman empire who had slavery and other bad things both came to an end in the near future. A new nation of Israel only began again in the year 1948. I hope the leaders of this new nation now have a better attitude now than these leaders did. However, at least the high priest Calaphas had an attitude of service in wanting what was good for their nation and all of humanity. And he saw his nation getting destroyed if they did not change. And they did not and the nation along with the nation over them Rome both were destroyed and came to an end in the next few centuries.
Yes, some ignorance also by the pharisees, but this was primarily a result of their own political greed. Even with Jesus healing and helping people they only cared about their own political/religious power and not what was good for their people. Jesus got in arguments all the time with these selfish people.
Mark.S, There's alot that can be said about how it all ended up and is ending up to this very day. You have made a very good point, if Caiaphas was correct, then did it save the nation of Israel: not then (because the Roman's did their deed at that time against Israel), but maybe now, since there is a state for the Jews - yet, I don't think it's about the Jews, anymore.
That said, I will get back to the original question: Was the prophesy by Caiaphas correct (I see that most think, yes). But did Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin think that it was their obligation to fulfill that prophesy by planning the murder of Jesus. The issue regarding Lazarus plays volumes into what the Sanhedrin and Caiaphas feared.
So, WordWolf, you said alot of good stuff, very good stuff, but still did not get to the final point. You said, in essence, that the Sanhedrin did not think they were being directed to kill Jesus but is not that what Caiapas was leading them to do and what they determined to do, eventually? (of course by the hands of the Romans, so let's not go down that road - just needed to stipulate for other readers).
My question is still the same: it's the prophecy of Caiaphas (consensus is that it was from God, assumming we believe the Bible) - should the Sanhedrin have infered that it was their job to see that Jesus was killed for the sake of the nation and the gathering together of Israel.
I would also like to entertain that Caiaphas got this prophecy before this meeting with the Sanhedrin and that he (Caiaphas) was only paraphrasing it to the Sanhedrin with his (Caiaphas's) personal spin.
51 He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God.
I think Caiaphas was speaking truthfully and that God was revealing to him at least some truth regarding the ultimate salvation for mankind through the death and then later the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As for the pharisees. They were just selfish political people that only cared about their own political power and merely pretended to be religious. People like them was why the nation of Israel ended in a few centuries and then was directly under the Roman empire and NOT an actual independent nation. Also this was God's plan of salvation and not man's plan. The only one in these verses among the Jews with sense and compassion for mankind was Caiaphas. Because of this God was able to work in his heart and teach him. And these verses show that the Pharisees only killed Jesus for their own political power. Sometimes God can even use the dealings of evil for his ultimate goal of good for all.
Mark.S, I am with you on most of what you say but gee-by-golly, Caiaphas had a good heart, I gotta question that point.
Still, back to the original point, that prophesy was from Caiaphas - did he influence the cause for the death of Jesus and (as an added extra) did he get such prophesy prior to the meeting with the Sanhedrin and spin the thing to ensure the death of Christ.
Mark.S, I am with you on most of what you say but gee-by-golly, Caiaphas had a good heart, I gotta question that point.
Still, back to the original point, that prophesy was from Caiaphas - did he influence the cause for the death of Jesus and (as an added extra) did he get such prophesy prior to the meeting with the Sanhedrin and spin the thing to ensure the death of Christ.
Caiaphas was a Sadducee and High Priest. and was as evil and corrupt as they come. I doubt that God could get anywhere near his heart or teach him much of anything. Jesus was a threat to the religious, political, and social power of the Jewish leaders, particularly the Sadducees who did not believe in an afterlife and denied the resurrection of the dead. Neither did they believe in consequences or rewards after death. Jesus teachings were in opposition to the beliefs and teachings of the Sadducees. Were the all the people to follow Jesus, both the Sadducees and Pharisees feared they would lose their "place".
That Caiaphas could prophesy something real from God and then twist it to aid in the conspiracy of murder should be no big surprise.... and has nothing to do with having a good heart or being teachable. Didn't Balaam prophesy God's words? What happened shortly afterward?
Did Caiaphas spin the prophesy and influence the cause for the death of Jesus? Seems pretty clear to me that he did. But wasn't this all God's plan in motion?
It arose from the conviction that such an event had actually already taken place with the resurrection of Jesus from among the dead. The resurrection is proof that Jesus is who he claimed to be, and that his sacrifice was pleasing to God. As long as Jesus lay in the tomb, he was just another tragic religious figure who suffered a martyr’s death.
In fact, Paul tells us that the resurrection is the greatest display of God’s power ever to be demonstrated, nor can it ever be surpassed. Our decree of judicial perfection in the eyes of God comes not through Jesus’ death for our sins, but through our union with Jesus’ resurrection life.
Our decree of judicial perfection in the eyes of God comes not through Jesus' death for our sins, but through our union with Jesus' resurrection life.
A union with Jesus resurrected life would not be possible unless he first died on the cross . The death of Jesus and his resurrection cannot be separated. It's a package deal, Without the remission of sins through the blood of Jesus on the cross there could be no salvation.
Caiaphas was the High Priest. Was it not the High Priest''s duty to offer up sacrificial lamb at Passover? Did Caiaphas as High Priest unwittingly offer up Jesus as the Passover :Lamb?
Judicial satisfaction for sins is what reconciliation is all about, God is not counting, reckoning, imputing, or charging people’s sins to their account, and for a very good reason, he charged those sins to his son’s account.
The doctrinal transaction called Justification has to do with God recognizing someone to be righteous. God will recognize those who take him at his word, concerning the price Christ became on their behalf, to resolve God’s justice for their sins. Justification is a recognition of righteousness that comes from God to those who believe God, it does not go away, it does not abate over time, it is ours forever.
Judicial satisfaction for sins is what reconciliation is all about, God is not counting, reckoning, imputing, or charging people's sins to their account, and for a very good reason, he charged those sins to his son's account.
The doctrinal transaction called Justification has to do with God recognizing someone to be righteous. God will recognize those who take him at his word, concerning the price Christ became on their behalf, to resolve God's justice for their sins. Justification is a recognition of righteousness that comes from God to those who believe God, it does not go away, it does not abate over time, it is ours forever.
What does any of the above have to do with Caiaphas and his prophecy? Anything?
Judicial Satisfaction? .... Doctrinal transaction? ....Sound like terms that might be used in a soteriology class for lawyers and computer programmers. .
Are you here to dump theological dissertations and opinions? Or are you capable of real human discourse and discussion?
The program that God set aside, yes Calaphas's Prophecy came true, but this is age of grace, once this age is over with, God will go back to the program he established with the nation of the Israelites. By the way, Jesus's blood fell on God's Ark, the one Moses had built, not on wood! The blood of the passover had to be put on the Ark of God.
A ransom for all - was not testified until Paul proclaimed it, the revelation of the secret, which was kept secret since the world began. If a person believes Jesus Christ died for their sins, but does not believe that God’s justice was satisfied when Christ died for those sins, that person has not believed Christ died for their sins according to the scriptures, Christ’s death was pictured in the scapegoat sacrifice of the Israelites program.
Leviticus 16:21-22, Christ was made to be sin for us, the issue is not that of sinners making God’s son become their Savior through the avenue of a present-day forgiveness of sins, but in believing that the son of God became their Savior the day he took their sins, the entirely of that sin debt upon himself.
Those who believe God’s message to us through Paul, are now ambassadors of this wonderful news which our apostle calls the glorious gospel of the grace of God.
The program that God set aside, yes Calaphas's Prophecy came true, but this is age of grace, once this age is over with, God will go back to the program he established with the nation of the Israelites. By the way, Jesus's blood fell on God's Ark, the one Moses had built, not on wood! The blood of the passover had to be put on the Ark of God.
A ransom for all - was not testified until Paul proclaimed it, the revelation of the secret, which was kept secret since the world began. If a person believes Jesus Christ died for their sins, but does not believe that God’s justice was satisfied when Christ died for those sins, that person has not believed Christ died for their sins according to the scriptures, Christ’s death was pictured in the scapegoat sacrifice of the Israelites program.
Leviticus 16:21-22, Christ was made to be sin for us, the issue is not that of sinners making God’s son become their Savior through the avenue of a present-day forgiveness of sins, but in believing that the son of God became their Savior the day he took their sins, the entirely of that sin debt upon himself.
Those who believe God’s message to us through Paul, are now ambassadors of this wonderful news which our apostle calls the glorious gospel of the grace of God.
What does any of the above have to do with Caiaphas and his prophecy? Anything?
No.
Are you here to dump theological dissertations and opinions? Or are you capable of real human discourse and discussion?
Apparently, not capable-or simply unwilling- to have a discussion.
This is a thread about Caiaphas' prophecy.
We're at least TRYING to discuss that.
If all you want to post about is whatever you want to post about,
you already have a thread for that.
If you're posting on this thread, it's expected that it be in some way
related to the actual subject of the thread.
Otherwise, it would be reasonable for us to conclude you're either trolling
or here solely for advertising.
(That's not even addressing factual errors, which would address a derail
It looks like Caiaphas may have been a poophet, along with being a high priest of Israel. Jesus knew about himself being the sacrifice for all of mankind. Even poophets can sometimes be part of this goal. God may have placed some words in his head. Perhaps it was through Caiaphas' bad side, but nevertheless what he spoke turned out to be true, the death and sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the sins of mankind. Also according to Matthew 26:3-4, Caiaphas plotted the arrest of Jesus.
3 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, 4 and they schemed to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him.
NIV
Also Caiaphas according to Matthew 26:57-68 was a participant in the illegal trial of Jesus.
And sometimes even a donkey can speak at least according to Numbers 22:28-30. So it is not surprising that even a poophet can sometimes give words of prophecy. It is O.K. to giggle now.
John 11
51 He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God. 53 So from that day on they planned to put him to death.
Could Calaphas's prophecy be about the Romans? It would be better for the Romans to kill one person, than to have the Romans kill the nation.
A good question, but it is clear to me that these religious people, primarily wanted to preserve their own political/religious power. Secondary would be to preserve their own nation of Israel. However, unlike these religious ruling people, Jesus did not have a goal of gaining political power like they feared. He was there for service. With these people under the Sanhedrin having the highest religious authority during Jesus' earthly life seeing his service and people appreciating it. They feared that Jesus would be able to start his own nation and not be under their religious authority and not be under the nation of Rome. The Romans wanted Israel under them and Caiaphas allowed for this, which was why the Roman authorities chose him as high priest. However, Jesus did not have this goal during his earthly life of starting his own nation with all under him.
Regarding the fear these Jewish religious people showed here, the opposite happened and the Jews lost their temple of worship and their nation with a war against the Romans in A.D. 70. The first revolt against the Romans by the Jews was in A.D. 66. Four years later in A.D. 70, the Romans under emperor Titus marched into Jerusalem, and destroyed their temple and city and brought the Jewish state to an end. Thereafter the Jews became a religious group that was scattered across Europe and Asia, while God's message of redemption and salvation was committed to the Christian church spiritually seen by Paul as the body of Christ. Years later the Romans lost their nation also.
Here is Jesus' prophetic prediction of this. Jesus Predicts the Destruction of the Temple
13 Then as He went out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, “Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!”
2 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
In going back to the initial questions posed, I will provide this commentary reference from Spirit and Truth Fellowship International (John W. Schoenheit):
11:51. “Now he did not say this of himself.” Before the Day of Pentecost God could place His gift of holy spirit upon people so that they would accomplish His work. This is a good example. Caiaphas, though not a godly man, was still High Priest and God placed holy spirit upon him at least so that he could give an accurate prophecy about Jesus, which then became a prime motivator for them to seek his death (see v. 53). This is an example of how God works in history to bring about His purposes without the need of perfect foreknowledge. God, by His power, can influence things He wants accomplished.
11:53.“plans.” The middle voice of the verb indicates they worked together (cp. NASB).
11:54. “Ephraim.” A city close to the Arabah desert, about 13 miles (20 km) NNE of Jerusalem. From here Jesus went north through Samaria, into Galilee, across the Jordan River, traveled south through Perea, crossed the Jordan River again and came to Jericho,
11:56.“were seeking.”zeteō (#2212 ζητέω), “to seek.” The verb is in the imperfect tense, active mood, so the Jews were seeking Jesus. Caiaphas had given a prophecy that one man should die for the nation instead of the nation being destroyed, and so the Jews were now zealously seeking to kill Jesus.
“Surely he will not come to the feast?” The form of the question assumes strongly that Jesus will “absolutely not” (the Greek uses two negatives for emphasis: ou mê) dare to come this time (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament). The translation in many modern versions loses the fact that the question expects a “no” answer. This shows that the people knew their leaders were trying to arrest and kill Jesus, and so they assumed that he would know that too, and not show up at Passover.
Now that commentary introduces many questions but I would like to stay on thread.
I also re-pose the earlier question: did Caiaphas receive the prophecy prior to his statement to the sanhidren - something in the reading of this text draws me to that thought.
Hey, teachmevp, I am glad to see you in some actual dialouge: I would like to hear more about the Roman's twist to this - I know how they fit in but the profecy directly, not seeing it yet. I will grant that the profecy may have had very far reaching ramifications (the gathering of the nation?).
This is an example of how God works in history to bring about His purposes without the need of perfect foreknowledge. God, by His power, can influence things He wants accomplished.
I have trouble taking "experts" seriously when they can write that with a straight face.
(snip)
I also re-pose the earlier question: did Caiaphas receive the prophecy prior to his statement to the sanhidren - something in the reading of this text draws me to that thought.
{snip)
That reminds me, was this the question you thought I didn't address earlier in the thread?
I did my best to cover everything you MIGHT have meant, and you said I still hadn't answered it.
In other news,
the simplest way to read this is that the prophecy was given at that time when addressing those
people specifically, since they were the intended audience.
And that he spoke truly, but they "heard" that realpolitik strategy was to kill Jesus to keep
the Romans off their backs. So, the Sanhedrin got what they thought was exactly what they wanted
Recommended Posts
Raf
In asking this question, are you assuming the Bible to be true?
John 11:51-52 seems pretty clear to me. Do you have any reason to doubt the authenticity of the verse?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The scripture is saying that the high priest had revelation Jesus would become the ultimate Passover sacrifice. Was it from God? We could go 'round and 'round. Does the scripture say it was from God? Yes.
I think you have to temper these things with an understanding that John was written years and years after Jesus' lifetime. Probably 50 or 60 years after. And, it was patterned after the framework of the other 3 gospels, Mark being the first one written in approximately A.D. 70.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
Yes, Raf, I am assumming that the Bible is true.
So, starting in vs 51 John states that "he" (refering to Caiaphas) "did not say this on his own" and that assumption is that Caiaphas received the phophesy from God. The 2 points of the profecy: a. that he die for the nation and b. gather together the children of God.
So, given that this prophecy was from God and was accurately voiced to the Sanhedrin (though it seems to me that Caiaphas received the prophecy prior to this meeting - debatable) that the Sanhedrin took it upon itself to kill Jesus. Should the Sanhedrin have infered from the prophecy that God was directing them to do the deed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
KJV John 11:47-53
47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.
========================================
NASB John 11:47-53
47 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many [l]signs. 48 If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.” 51 Now he did not say this [m]on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. 53 So from that day on they planned together to kill Him.
========================================
NIV John 11:47-53
47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.
“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”
49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”
51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, having seen what it says in sufficient context to understand it,
and taking as a given this was all factually accurate,
let's summarize.
The people saw Jesus perform another miracle. Some people were angry and told the
Pharisses that Jesus was performing miracles. The Pharisees & friends were concerned
that Jesus performing miracles would lead to Jesus becoming popular and a big deal,
and that would lead to the Romans cracking down on what they currently looked at as
a quiet, quaint, long-standing religion. No concern that all the miracles they
couldn't produce being produced by someone else meant something concerning God Almighty,
just political and social considerations. (I've seen people, and that sounds authentic
to me-people are stupid, short-sighted, narrow-minded, and only hear what they expect
to hear, much of the time.)
The exception was the High Priest, Caiaphas. The prophecy he delivered was one that
said
“You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”
(I agree with him on both counts.)
So, the prophecy was true, and could be taken to mean more than one thing.
The actual meaning? Jesus dying for their entire nation (etc.)
The meaning they took? It's better for Jesus to die than their nation to die.
The result was their deliberate plan to murder Jesus being worked up, finalized,
and executed.
What was the question again?
("Should the Sanhedrin have infered from the prophecy that God was directing them to do the deed?")
There's several possible directions to go with this, I'll try to answer them all.
Did God Almighty tell them to murder Jesus?
No-it was a statement of action and consequences, albeit only partly-informative.
It didn't include pages of context that might have made them reconsider, MAYBE.
Did the Sanhedrin think they were being directed to kill Jesus?
Obviously-the result of that was them planning to do that very thing.
Did the Sanhedrin think they were being directed BY GOD ALMIGHTY to kill Jesus?
I seriously doubt it. This Sanhedrin's religious concerns were confined, at most,
to the ceremonial, the traditional, and the sociopolitical, and excluded the sacred.
(Big miracles are virtually absent for a long time, then in the space of a year,
we see 2 prophets suddenly rise up and at least the latter performs big miracles.
They didn't discuss the existence of miracles regardless of the eyewitnesses-
they discussed the ramifications of people following someone who could perform
the miracles but not the miracles themselves. I would expect they only saw
the "high priest" as a religious counselor who expressed the will of religious
people, and relaying their POV to the Sanhedrin.
SHOULD the Sanhedrin think that they were being directed BY GOD ALMIGHTY to kill Jesus?
That's actually the toughest question on the list, and the most open to interpretation
and opinion. IF they thought it was a real message from God (and that such messages
existed), then we go back to what, exactly, is being said.
Based on that, I still agree they were know-nothings. But if they had been
know-somethings, they STILL shouldn't have thought it was an official prophecy
because it wasn't on official God Almighty letterhead.
("Hear the word of the Lord: " and so on.)
It was phrased-deliberately I say- so that even if they HAD 2 brain cells to rub together
between them, that they still wouldn't think there was a full-blown prophecy being
spoken at that moment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Jesus Raises Lazarus to Life
38 Then Jesus, again greatly disturbed, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, already there is a stench because he has been dead four days.” 40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?” 41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upward and said, “Father, I thank you for having heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.” 43 When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth, and his face wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”
The Plot to Kill Jesus
45 Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what he had done. 47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the council, and said, “What are we to do? This man is performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.” 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.” 51 He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God. 53 So from that day on they planned to put him to death.
I was going top post this, this morning with an additional commentary that I wrote, but my computer turned into a puter and the Internet crashed before I posted it. Perhaps I breathed on my puter wrong. Anyway this should be clear when reading this in context. Jesus raising Lazarus was a prophetical taste of Jesus being raised from the dead in the near future. This was 3 days after his death and sacrifice with his death being planned in the next verses. And these verses relate well to Paul's writings that Jesus died for both Jews and Gentiles with one united body of Christ as a result.
However, the political/religious leaders of the nation of Israel only wanted their own political power and this is clear to me in these verses. As a result the nation of Israel along with the Roman empire who had slavery and other bad things both came to an end in the near future. A new nation of Israel only began again in the year 1948. I hope the leaders of this new nation now have a better attitude now than these leaders did. However, at least the high priest Calaphas had an attitude of service in wanting what was good for their nation and all of humanity. And he saw his nation getting destroyed if they did not change. And they did not and the nation along with the nation over them Rome both were destroyed and came to an end in the next few centuries.
Yes, some ignorance also by the pharisees, but this was primarily a result of their own political greed. Even with Jesus healing and helping people they only cared about their own political/religious power and not what was good for their people. Jesus got in arguments all the time with these selfish people.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
Mark.S, There's alot that can be said about how it all ended up and is ending up to this very day. You have made a very good point, if Caiaphas was correct, then did it save the nation of Israel: not then (because the Roman's did their deed at that time against Israel), but maybe now, since there is a state for the Jews - yet, I don't think it's about the Jews, anymore.
That said, I will get back to the original question: Was the prophesy by Caiaphas correct (I see that most think, yes). But did Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin think that it was their obligation to fulfill that prophesy by planning the murder of Jesus. The issue regarding Lazarus plays volumes into what the Sanhedrin and Caiaphas feared.
So, WordWolf, you said alot of good stuff, very good stuff, but still did not get to the final point. You said, in essence, that the Sanhedrin did not think they were being directed to kill Jesus but is not that what Caiapas was leading them to do and what they determined to do, eventually? (of course by the hands of the Romans, so let's not go down that road - just needed to stipulate for other readers).
My question is still the same: it's the prophecy of Caiaphas (consensus is that it was from God, assumming we believe the Bible) - should the Sanhedrin have infered that it was their job to see that Jesus was killed for the sake of the nation and the gathering together of Israel.
I would also like to entertain that Caiaphas got this prophecy before this meeting with the Sanhedrin and that he (Caiaphas) was only paraphrasing it to the Sanhedrin with his (Caiaphas's) personal spin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
51 He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God.
I think Caiaphas was speaking truthfully and that God was revealing to him at least some truth regarding the ultimate salvation for mankind through the death and then later the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As for the pharisees. They were just selfish political people that only cared about their own political power and merely pretended to be religious. People like them was why the nation of Israel ended in a few centuries and then was directly under the Roman empire and NOT an actual independent nation. Also this was God's plan of salvation and not man's plan. The only one in these verses among the Jews with sense and compassion for mankind was Caiaphas. Because of this God was able to work in his heart and teach him. And these verses show that the Pharisees only killed Jesus for their own political power. Sometimes God can even use the dealings of evil for his ultimate goal of good for all.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
Mark.S, I am with you on most of what you say but gee-by-golly, Caiaphas had a good heart, I gotta question that point.
Still, back to the original point, that prophesy was from Caiaphas - did he influence the cause for the death of Jesus and (as an added extra) did he get such prophesy prior to the meeting with the Sanhedrin and spin the thing to ensure the death of Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Caiaphas was a Sadducee and High Priest. and was as evil and corrupt as they come. I doubt that God could get anywhere near his heart or teach him much of anything. Jesus was a threat to the religious, political, and social power of the Jewish leaders, particularly the Sadducees who did not believe in an afterlife and denied the resurrection of the dead. Neither did they believe in consequences or rewards after death. Jesus teachings were in opposition to the beliefs and teachings of the Sadducees. Were the all the people to follow Jesus, both the Sadducees and Pharisees feared they would lose their "place".
That Caiaphas could prophesy something real from God and then twist it to aid in the conspiracy of murder should be no big surprise.... and has nothing to do with having a good heart or being teachable. Didn't Balaam prophesy God's words? What happened shortly afterward?
Did Caiaphas spin the prophesy and influence the cause for the death of Jesus? Seems pretty clear to me that he did. But wasn't this all God's plan in motion?
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
It arose from the conviction that such an event had actually already taken place with the resurrection of Jesus from among the dead. The resurrection is proof that Jesus is who he claimed to be, and that his sacrifice was pleasing to God. As long as Jesus lay in the tomb, he was just another tragic religious figure who suffered a martyr’s death.
In fact, Paul tells us that the resurrection is the greatest display of God’s power ever to be demonstrated, nor can it ever be surpassed. Our decree of judicial perfection in the eyes of God comes not through Jesus’ death for our sins, but through our union with Jesus’ resurrection life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
A union with Jesus resurrected life would not be possible unless he first died on the cross . The death of Jesus and his resurrection cannot be separated. It's a package deal, Without the remission of sins through the blood of Jesus on the cross there could be no salvation.
Caiaphas was the High Priest. Was it not the High Priest''s duty to offer up sacrificial lamb at Passover? Did Caiaphas as High Priest unwittingly offer up Jesus as the Passover :Lamb?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
:offtopic:/> How did I come to miss this interesting thread when it was first started?? :doh:/>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Judicial satisfaction for sins is what reconciliation is all about, God is not counting, reckoning, imputing, or charging people’s sins to their account, and for a very good reason, he charged those sins to his son’s account.
The doctrinal transaction called Justification has to do with God recognizing someone to be righteous. God will recognize those who take him at his word, concerning the price Christ became on their behalf, to resolve God’s justice for their sins. Justification is a recognition of righteousness that comes from God to those who believe God, it does not go away, it does not abate over time, it is ours forever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
What does any of the above have to do with Caiaphas and his prophecy? Anything?
Judicial Satisfaction? .... Doctrinal transaction? ....Sound like terms that might be used in a soteriology class for lawyers and computer programmers. .
Are you here to dump theological dissertations and opinions? Or are you capable of real human discourse and discussion?
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
The program that God set aside, yes Calaphas's Prophecy came true, but this is age of grace, once this age is over with, God will go back to the program he established with the nation of the Israelites. By the way, Jesus's blood fell on God's Ark, the one Moses had built, not on wood! The blood of the passover had to be put on the Ark of God.
Edited by teachmevpLink to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
A ransom for all - was not testified until Paul proclaimed it, the revelation of the secret, which was kept secret since the world began. If a person believes Jesus Christ died for their sins, but does not believe that God’s justice was satisfied when Christ died for those sins, that person has not believed Christ died for their sins according to the scriptures, Christ’s death was pictured in the scapegoat sacrifice of the Israelites program.
Leviticus 16:21-22, Christ was made to be sin for us, the issue is not that of sinners making God’s son become their Savior through the avenue of a present-day forgiveness of sins, but in believing that the son of God became their Savior the day he took their sins, the entirely of that sin debt upon himself.
Those who believe God’s message to us through Paul, are now ambassadors of this wonderful news which our apostle calls the glorious gospel of the grace of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
No.
Apparently, not capable-or simply unwilling- to have a discussion.
This is a thread about Caiaphas' prophecy.
We're at least TRYING to discuss that.
If all you want to post about is whatever you want to post about,
you already have a thread for that.
If you're posting on this thread, it's expected that it be in some way
related to the actual subject of the thread.
Otherwise, it would be reasonable for us to conclude you're either trolling
or here solely for advertising.
(That's not even addressing factual errors, which would address a derail
off the topic.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Have we considered that the prophesy may have been ex post facto (after the fact)?
For instance, I hereby prophesy that America will someday have a black president.
What? It's already happened? I must be a prophet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
It looks like Caiaphas may have been a poophet, along with being a high priest of Israel. Jesus knew about himself being the sacrifice for all of mankind. Even poophets can sometimes be part of this goal. God may have placed some words in his head. Perhaps it was through Caiaphas' bad side, but nevertheless what he spoke turned out to be true, the death and sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the sins of mankind. Also according to Matthew 26:3-4, Caiaphas plotted the arrest of Jesus.
3 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, 4 and they schemed to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him.
NIV
Also Caiaphas according to Matthew 26:57-68 was a participant in the illegal trial of Jesus.
And sometimes even a donkey can speak at least according to Numbers 22:28-30. So it is not surprising that even a poophet can sometimes give words of prophecy. It is O.K. to giggle now.
John 11
51 He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God. 53 So from that day on they planned to put him to death.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Could Calaphas's prophecy be about the Romans? It would be better for the Romans to kill one person, than to have the Romans kill the nation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
A good question, but it is clear to me that these religious people, primarily wanted to preserve their own political/religious power. Secondary would be to preserve their own nation of Israel. However, unlike these religious ruling people, Jesus did not have a goal of gaining political power like they feared. He was there for service. With these people under the Sanhedrin having the highest religious authority during Jesus' earthly life seeing his service and people appreciating it. They feared that Jesus would be able to start his own nation and not be under their religious authority and not be under the nation of Rome. The Romans wanted Israel under them and Caiaphas allowed for this, which was why the Roman authorities chose him as high priest. However, Jesus did not have this goal during his earthly life of starting his own nation with all under him.
Regarding the fear these Jewish religious people showed here, the opposite happened and the Jews lost their temple of worship and their nation with a war against the Romans in A.D. 70. The first revolt against the Romans by the Jews was in A.D. 66. Four years later in A.D. 70, the Romans under emperor Titus marched into Jerusalem, and destroyed their temple and city and brought the Jewish state to an end. Thereafter the Jews became a religious group that was scattered across Europe and Asia, while God's message of redemption and salvation was committed to the Christian church spiritually seen by Paul as the body of Christ. Years later the Romans lost their nation also.
Here is Jesus' prophetic prediction of this. Jesus Predicts the Destruction of the Temple
13 Then as He went out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, “Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!”
2 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
NKJV
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
In going back to the initial questions posed, I will provide this commentary reference from Spirit and Truth Fellowship International (John W. Schoenheit):
11:51. “Now he did not say this of himself.” Before the Day of Pentecost God could place His gift of holy spirit upon people so that they would accomplish His work. This is a good example. Caiaphas, though not a godly man, was still High Priest and God placed holy spirit upon him at least so that he could give an accurate prophecy about Jesus, which then became a prime motivator for them to seek his death (see v. 53). This is an example of how God works in history to bring about His purposes without the need of perfect foreknowledge. God, by His power, can influence things He wants accomplished.
11:53.“plans.” The middle voice of the verb indicates they worked together (cp. NASB).
11:54. “Ephraim.” A city close to the Arabah desert, about 13 miles (20 km) NNE of Jerusalem. From here Jesus went north through Samaria, into Galilee, across the Jordan River, traveled south through Perea, crossed the Jordan River again and came to Jericho,
11:56.“were seeking.”zeteō (#2212 ζητέω), “to seek.” The verb is in the imperfect tense, active mood, so the Jews were seeking Jesus. Caiaphas had given a prophecy that one man should die for the nation instead of the nation being destroyed, and so the Jews were now zealously seeking to kill Jesus.
“Surely he will not come to the feast?” The form of the question assumes strongly that Jesus will “absolutely not” (the Greek uses two negatives for emphasis: ou mê) dare to come this time (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament). The translation in many modern versions loses the fact that the question expects a “no” answer. This shows that the people knew their leaders were trying to arrest and kill Jesus, and so they assumed that he would know that too, and not show up at Passover.
Now that commentary introduces many questions but I would like to stay on thread.
I also re-pose the earlier question: did Caiaphas receive the prophecy prior to his statement to the sanhidren - something in the reading of this text draws me to that thought.
Hey, teachmevp, I am glad to see you in some actual dialouge: I would like to hear more about the Roman's twist to this - I know how they fit in but the profecy directly, not seeing it yet. I will grant that the profecy may have had very far reaching ramifications (the gathering of the nation?).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I have trouble taking "experts" seriously when they can write that with a straight face.
That reminds me, was this the question you thought I didn't address earlier in the thread?
I did my best to cover everything you MIGHT have meant, and you said I still hadn't answered it.
In other news,
the simplest way to read this is that the prophecy was given at that time when addressing those
people specifically, since they were the intended audience.
And that he spoke truly, but they "heard" that realpolitik strategy was to kill Jesus to keep
the Romans off their backs. So, the Sanhedrin got what they thought was exactly what they wanted
to hear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.