Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 11:51
And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
51. not of himself ] Like Saul, Caiaphas is a prophet in spite of himself.
being high priest ] None but a Jew would be likely to know of the old Jewish belief that the high-priest by means of the Urim and Thummim was the mouth-piece of the Divine oracle. The Urim and Thummim had been lost, and the high-priest’s office had been shorn of much of its glory, but the remembrance of his prophetical gift did not become quite extinct (Hos 3:4); and ‘in that fatal year’ S. John might well believe that the gift would be restored.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Not of himself – Though he uttered what proved to be a true prophecy, yet it was accomplished in a way which he did not intend He had a wicked design. He was plotting murder and crime. Yet, wicked as he was, and little as he intended it, God so ordered it that he delivered a most precious truth respecting the atonement. Remark:
- God may fulfill the words of the wicked in a manner which they do not wish or intend.
- He may make even their malice and wicked plots the very means of accomplishing his purposes. What they regard as the fulfillment of their plans God may make the fulfillment of his, yet so as directly to overthrow their designs, and prostrate them in ruin.
- Sinners should tremble and be afraid when they lay plans against God, or seek to do unjustly to others.
Being high priest that year – It is not to be supposed that Caiaphas was a true prophet, or was conscious of the meaning which John has affixed to his words; but his words express the truth about the atonement of Jesus, and John records it as a remarkable circumstance that the high priest of the nation should unwittingly deliver a sentiment which turned out to be the truth about the death of Jesus. Great importance was attached to the opinion of the high priest by the Jews, because it was by him that the judgment by Urim and Thummim was formerly declared in cases of importance and difficulty, Num 27:21. It is not certain or probable that the high priest ever was endowed with the gift of prophecy; but he sustained a high office, the authority of his name was great, and it was thence remarkable that he uttered a declaration which the result showed to be true, though not in the sense that he intended.
He prophesied – He uttered words which proved to be prophetic; or he expressed at that time a sentiment which turned out to be true. It does not mean that he was inspired, or that he deserved to be ranked among the true prophets; but his words were such that they accurately expressed a future event. The word prophecy is to be taken here not in the strict sense, but in a sense which is not uncommon in the sacred writers. Act 21:9; and the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. See the Rom 12:6 note; 1Co 14:1 note; compare Mat 26:68; Luk 22:64.
That Jesus should die – Die in the place of men, or as an atonement for sinners. This is evidently the meaning which John attaches to the words.
For that nation – For the Jews. As a sacrifice for their sins. In no other sense whatever could it be said that he died for them. His death, so far from saving them in the sense in which the high priest understood it, was the very occasion of their destruction. They invoked the vengeance of God when they said, His blood be on us and on our children Mat 27:25, and all these calamities came upon them because they would not come to him and be saved – that is, because they rejected him and put him to death, Mat 23:37-39.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 51. This spake he not of himself] Wicked and worthless as he was, God so guided his tongue that, contrary to his intention, he pronounced a prophecy of the death of Jesus Christ.
I have already remarked that the doctrine of a vicarious atonement had gained, long before this time, universal credit in the world. Words similar to these of Caiaphas are, by the prince of all the Roman poets, put in the mouth of Neptune, when promising Venus that the fleet of AEneas should be preserved, and his whole crew should be saved, one only excepted, whose death he speaks of in these remarkable words:-
“Unum pro multis dabitar caput.”
“One life shall fall, that many may be saved.”
Which victim the poet informs us was Palinurus, the pilot of AEneas’s own ship, who was precipitated into the deep by a Divine influence. See VIRG. AEn. v. l. 815, c.
There was no necessity for the poet to have introduced this account. It was no historic fact, nor indeed does it tend to decorate the poem. It even pains the reader’s mind for, after suffering so much in the sufferings of the pious hero and his crew, he is at once relieved by the interposition of a god, who promises to allay the storm, disperse the clouds, preserve the fleet, and the lives of the men; but, – one must perish! The reader is again distressed, and the book ominously closes with the death of the generous Palinurus, who strove to the last to be faithful to his trust, and to preserve the life of his master and his friend. Why then did the poet introduce this? Merely, as it appears to me, to have the opportunity of showing in a few words his religious creed, on one of the most important doctrines in the world; and which the sacrificial system of Jews and Gentiles proves that all the nations of the earth credited.
As Caiaphas was high priest, his opinion was of most weight with the council; therefore God put these words in his mouth rather than into the mouth of any other of its members. It was a maxim among the Jews that no prophet ever knew the purport of his own prophecy, Moses and Isaiah excepted. They were in general organs by which God chose to speak.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
So far as this was a prophecy, he spake not of himself: take the words of Caiaphas in the sense that he spake them, they were such as might well enough come out of such a wretched mouth, speaking out of the abundance of a vile and wretched heart; Melius pereat unus quam unitas, That it was better that one man should die, let him be never so good, just, and innocent, than that for his sake mischief should come upon a nation. This was now suitable enough to the religion of such a high priest. But that in this (the words being capable of a double sense) Caiaphas should deliver a great truth, That this year one should die for the people; that is, The Messiah should be cut off, but not for himself, as we read, Dan 9:26; this was no more from himself, than the words which Balaams ass spake were from itself. The Spirit of prophecy sometimes fell upon wicked men; God revealed to Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar (both of whom were pagans) the things which he intended to do. There was a time also when Saul (though a man rejected of God) did also prophesy; and the worst of the princes of Judah had a use of the Urim and Thummim. So also here, Caiaphas, though a vile and wicked man, was here influenced by God to prophesy, and speak an oracle. Nor are those words,
being high priest that year, superfluously put in; for it being consistent with the holiness of God, sometimes to make use of the tongues of the worst of men to declare his will, it seems agreeable to the wisdom of God in doing it, to make use of principal men, they being persons whose words are most likely to be regarded, and so make impression upon people. The papists would from hence infer the infallibility of the pope, because he is the high priest: but they ought to prove:
1. That the office of the pope hath any foundation in the word of God.
2. That this was a gift given to particular priests, and at particular times; for the Jewish high priests were fallible enough ordinarily; witness Aarons making the golden calf, and Urijah the altar after the pattern of Damascus, 2Ki 16:10,11.
The words, being high priest, are not given as a reason why Caiaphas prophesied, though they are a good reason why God was pleased to choose his tongue, and overrule it beyond his own thoughts and intentions, to serve his design in this revelation. He did not prophesy intentionally, as designing such a thing, only materially: the matter of his words were indeed a Divine revelation, though his intention and scope was fit for none but a base, carnal politician. God made him a prophet in what he said, though he meant not so.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
51. Caiaphas . . . prophesied thatJesus should die for that nationHe meant nothing more thanthat the way to prevent the apprehended ruin of the nation was tomake a sacrifice of the Disturber of their peace. But in givingutterance to this suggestion of political expediency, he was soguided as to give forth a divine prediction of deep significance; andGod so ordered it that it should come from the lips of the highpriest for that memorable year, the recognized head of God’s visiblepeople, whose ancient office, symbolized by the Urim and Thummim, wasto decide in the last resort, all vital questions as the oracle ofthe divine will.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And this spake he not of himself,…. Not of his own devising and dictating, but by the Spirit of God; as a wicked man sometimes may, and as Balaam did; the Spirit of God dictated the words unto him, and put them into his mouth; nor did he use them in the sense, in which the Holy Ghost designed them:
but being high priest that year; by his office he was the oracle of God, and was so esteemed by the people, and therefore a proper person to be made use of in this way; and especially being high priest that year, in which the priesthood was to be changed, and vision and prophecy to be sealed up:
he prophesied; though he did not know he did, as did Pharaoh,
Ex 10:28, and the people of the Jews, Mt 27:25.
That Jesus should die for that nation; these words, with what follows in the next verse, are the words of the evangelist, interpreting the prophecy of Caiaphas, according to the sense of the Holy Ghost that Jesus should die, which was contrary to a notion the Jews had imbibed, concerning the Messiah; see Joh 12:34. But Jesus the true Messiah must die; this was determined in the counsel of God, agreed to by Christ in the covenant of grace, foretold by the prophets from the beginning of the world, typified by sacrifices and other things, under the former dispensation, predicted by Christ himself, and accordingly came to pass; and upon the above accounts was necessary, as well as for the salvation of his people, who otherwise must have perished; and yet was free and voluntary in him, and a strong expression, and a demonstrative proof of his love to them: and not only this prophecy declared, that Jesus should die, but that he should die for that nation, for the nation of the Jews; not for every individual in it, for all of them were not saved by him; some received him not; they rejected him as the Messiah, Saviour, and Redeemer, and died in their sins; but for all the elect of God among them, the sheep of the house of Israel, to whom he was sent, and whom he came to seek and save; and whom he blessed, by turning them away from their iniquities, and by taking away their iniquities from them: and moreover, this prophecy suggests, that Jesus was to die, not merely as a martyr, to confirm with his blood the doctrine he preached, nor only as an example of courage, meekness, patience, and love, but for, or in the room and stead of his people, as their surety; giving his life a ransom and himself a sacrifice to the justice of God, for them; there by fulfilling the law and satisfying it, and appeasing the wrath of God on their account.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Not of himself (‘ ). Not wholly of himself, John means. There was more in what Caiaphas said than he understood. His language is repeated in 18:14.
Prophesied (). Aorist active indicative of . But certainly unconscious prophecy on his part and purely accidental. Caiaphas meant only what was mean and selfish.
That Jesus should die ( ). Imperfect active of in indirect discourse instead of the usual present retained after a secondary tense () as sometimes occurs (see 2:25).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1 ) “And this spake he not of himself,” (touto de aph’ heautou ouk eipen) “However he did not speak (this) of himself,” that he was to die for the nation, but that Christ was to do so, to save the nation from political oblivion. Yet his subtle advice, was in truth a prophecy, that Jesus should die, not for the nation only, but also for the sins of the whole world, Isa 53:8; 1Jn 2:2.
2) “But being high priest that year,” (alla archeireuson ton eniautou ekeinou) “But being or presiding as high priest of that time,” when the collusion against Jesus was being further hardened against Jesus, after He had raised Lazarus from the dead, and after many Jews who saw it had believed in Him, Joh 11:45.
3) “He prophesied that Jesus,” (epropheteusen hoti lesous) “He prophesied (to them) that Jesus,” the object of their malice and fears, whom they hated without a cause, Heb 7:26; Psa 35:19; Psa 69:4; Joh 15:24-25; Joh 17:14.
4) “Should die for that nation; (emellen apothneskein) huper tou ethnou) “Was about to die on behalf of the nation,” to be put to death, to save the nation from an insurrection, inferring that Jesus was building a political dynasty that if not destroyed, by these religious administrators themselves, would lead to their own demise, as a nation, by the Romans, Joh 11:48, Caiaphas was saying, accuse Jesus of ulterior political motives against both the Roman government and us. Beat Him at the game; File this complaint with Caesar, and ingratiate ourselves with him, and we will save our nation and our jobs, see? Jesus did die, not only for that nation, but also for the sins of the whole world, thus terminating the office of this Messiah-rejecting-Caiaphas, the high priest, Joh 3:16; 1Ti 2:4-6; 2Pe 3:9.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
51. Now he spoke this, not of himself. When the Evangelist says that Caiaphas did not speak this of himself, he does not mean that Caiaphas — like one who was mad, or out of his senses — uttered what he did not understand; for he spoke what was his own opinion. But the Evangelist means that a higher impulse guided his tongue, because God intended that he should make known, by his mouth, something higher than what occurred to his mind. Caiaphas, therefore, might be said, at that time, to have two tongues; for he vomited out the wicked and cruel design of putting Christ to death, which he had conceived in his mind; but God turned his tongue to a different purpose, so that, under ambiguous words, he likewise uttered a prediction. God intended that the heavenly oracle should proceed from the high priest’s seat, that the Jews might have less excuse. For, though not one person in the whole assembly had his conscience moved, yet they afterwards perceived that their insensibility was not entitled to forgiveness. Nor did the wickedness of Caiaphas prevent his tongue from being the organ of the Holy Spirit, for God looked at the priesthood which he had instituted rather than at the person of the man. And this was the reason which I glanced at, that a voice uttered from a lofty place might be more distinctly heard, and might have greater reverence and authority. In the same manner, God intended to bless his people by the mouth of Balaam, on whom he had bestowed the spirit of prophecy.
But it is highly ridiculous in the Papists to infer from this that we ought to reckon as an oracle whatever the Roman high priest may think fit to pronounce. First, granting what is false, that every man who is a high priest is also a prophet, still they will be under the necessity of proving that the Roman high priest is appointed by the command of God; for the priesthood was abolished by the coming of one man, who is Christ, and we no where read that it was afterwards enjoined by God that any one man should be the ruler of the whole Church. Granting to them, in the second place, that the power and title of high priest was conveyed to the Bishop of Rome, we must see of what advantage it was to the priests that they accepted the prediction of Caiaphas In order to concur in his opinion, they conspire to put Christ to death. But far from us be that kind of obedience which drives us to horrid apostacy by denying the Son of God. With the same voice Caiaphas blasphemes and also prophesies. They who follow his suggestion despise the prophecy, and adopt the blasphemy. We ought to guard against the same thing happening to us, if we listen to the Caiaphas of Rome; for otherwise the comparison would be defective. Besides, I ask, Must we conclude that, because Caiaphas once prophesied, every word uttered by the high priest is always a prophecy ? But soon afterwards Caiaphas condemned as blasphemy (Mat 26:65) the most important article of our faith. Hence we conclude, that what the Evangelist now relates was an extraordinary occurrence, and that it would be foolish to adduce it as an example.
That Jesus would die. First, the Evangelist shows that the whole of our salvation consists in this, that Christ should assemble us into one; for in this way he reconciles us to the Father, in whom is the fountain of life, (Psa 36:9.) Hence, also, we infer, that the human race is scattered and estranged from God, until the children of God are assembled under Christ their Head. Thus, the communion of saints is a preparation for eternal life, because all whom Christ does not gather to the Father remain in death, as we shall see again under the seventeenth chapter. For the same reason Paul also teaches that Christ was sent, in order
that he might gather together all things which are in heaven and in earth, (Eph 1:10.)
Wherefore, that we may enjoy the salvation brought by Christ, discord must be removed, and we must be made one with God and with angels, and among ourselves. The cause and pledge of this unity was the death of Christ, by which he drew all things to himself; but we are daily gathered by the Gospel into the fold of Christ.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(51) And this spake he not of himself.There is a moral beauty in the Words, in spite of the diabolical intent with which they are uttered; and St. John adds the explanation that they had an origin higher than him who spake them. Writing after the events, he has seen them fulfilled, and regards them as an unconscious prophecy. Like another Balaam, Caiaphas was the oracle or God in spite of himself, and there is in his words a meaning far beyond any that he had intended.
Being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation.He stood, therefore, in a relation which made him the official representative of God to the people, and gave him an official capacity to convey Gods truth. This was represented in the days of Samuel by the Urim and Thummim; and John, himself a Jew, still thinks of the high priests breast as bearing the oracle which declared the will of God, whatever unworthy human thoughts may have filled the heart beneath. It may be that another reference to the high priests office is present in these thrice-written words. It was the high priests duty to enter within the veil, and make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year (Leviticus 16). In that year the veil was rent, and the first step taken by which the holy place was destroyed, and the high priests office ceased to exist. With the destruction of the holy place the Jewish day of Atonement lost its significance, but the high priest that year, by his counsel and action in the Sanhedrin, was causing the sacrifice which should be presented by another high priest, in the Holy of Holies as an Atonement for the worldChrist being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption (Heb. 9:11-12).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
51. Not of himself But by impulse from a higher power.
High priest prophesied John clearly implies that the prophetic impulse was connected with the pontifical office. Whether this was a popular notion or not is not, as some assume, the question. It is John’s idea of the fact. It was the high priest who anciently drew responses from the Urim and Thummim. Both Josephus and Philo are quoted by Alford as sustaining the belief that the priesthood was occasionally prophetic. The momentary gift belonged not to the impious man but to the office. Nor did he even know the supernatural import of his own expression. The devil instigated his thoughts, but God overruled his words. As Pilate, (Stier in substance says,) the representative of the secular power, testified by the superscription to Jesus as King, so Caiaphas, the head of the ecclesiastical system, symbolized Jesus as the true priest and sacrifice. That year In Joh 18:13, the phrase is, of that same year. The words do not imply that the high-priesthood was an annual office; but Caiaphas was high priest “of that memorable year.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Joh 11:51-52 . Observation of John, that Caiaphas did not speak this out of his own self-determination, but with these portentous words in virtue of the high priest’s office which he held in that year involuntarily delivered a prophecy . [96]
The high priest passed in the old Israelitish time for the bearer of the divine oracle, for the organ of the revelation of the divine decisions, [97] which were imparted to him through the interrogation of the Urim and Thummim (Exo 28:30 ; Num 27:21 ). This mode of inquiry disappeared, indeed, at a later time (Josephus, Antt . iii. 8. 9), as the high-priestly dignity in general fell gradually from its glory; nevertheless, there is still found in the prophetic age the belief in the high priest’s prophetical gift (Hos 3:4 ), exactly as, in Josephus, Antt . vi. 6. 3, the idea of the old high-priesthood as the bearer of the oracle distinctly appears, and Philo, de Creat. Princ . II. p. 367, sets forth at least the true priest as prophet, and consequently idealizes the relation. Accordingly as closely connected with that venerable and not yet extinct recollection, and with still surviving esteem for the high-priestly office it was a natural and obvious course for John, after pious reflection on those remarkable words which were most appropriate to the sacrificial death of Jesus, to find in them a disclosure of the divine decree, expressed without self-knowledge and will, and that by no means with a “sacred irony” (Ebrard). Here, too, the extraordinary year in which the speaker was invested with the sacred office, carries with it the determination of the judgment; since, if at any time, it was assuredly in this very year, in which God purposed the fulfilment of His holy counsel through the atoning death of His Son, that a revelation through the high-priestly organ appeared conceivable. . certainly bears the main emphasis: but . . is again significantly added to it (not, as De Wette thinks, “mechanically, as it were”), as in Joh 11:49 . [98] For Rabbinical passages on unconscious prophecies, see in Schoettgen, p. 349. The notion of prophecy, however, is different from that of the (against De Wette); comp. on Joh 12:27-28 . The latter is a heavenly voice of revelation.
] not: that , according to which what follows would directly state the contents of ., but: he gave utterance to a prophecy in reference to the fact that (Joh 2:18 , Joh 9:17 , et al .). For what follows goes beyond that which the words of Caiaphas express.
] Caiaphas had said: ; but John turns to the negative part of Joh 11:50 ( . . .), because he wishes to set the Gentiles over against the Jews, and this separation is national . Comp. Luk 7:5 ; Joh 18:35 . For the benefit of the nation Christ was to die; for through His atoning death the Jews, for whom, in the first instance , the Messianic salvation was designed, Joh 4:22 , were to become partakers by means of faith in the eternal saving deliverance. But the object of His death extended still further than the Jews; not for the benefit of the nation alone, but in order also to bring together into one the scattered children of God . These are the Gentiles , who believe on Him, and thereby are partakers of the atonement, children of God (Joh 1:12 ). The expression is prophetic and, just as in Joh 10:16 , proleptic , [99] according to the N. T. predestinarian point of view (Rom 9:24 ff; Rom 15:27 ; Gal 3:14 ; Eph 1:9 ff.; Rom 8:29-30 ; Rom 11:25-26 ; Rom 16:25-26 ; Eph 3:4 ff.; Col 1:27 ; Act 13:48 ; Act 18:10 ), from which they appear as those who, in order to further their entrance into the filial state, are drawn by God (Joh 6:44 ), are given by the Father to the Son (Joh 6:37 ), and endowed with the inward preparation (Joh 6:65 ). Euth. Zigabenus rightly remarks: . This likewise in answer to Hilgenfeld, Lehrbegr . p. 153, Evang . p. 297, according to whom the Gentiles, as natural children of God, who do not first become so through Christianity, are said to be meant (but see Joh 1:12 , Joh 3:3 ; Joh 3:6 , et al .). A filial state toward God out of Christ is opposed to the N. T., not only as Hilgenfeld puts it, from a Gnostic, dualistic point of view, but also, as Luthardt conceives it (comp. also Messner, Lehre der Ap . p. 330 f.), referring the essence of it only to the desire after Christ (Tholuck, Weiss, Godet, to the susceptibility ). This is only the preliminary step to the filial state. The gathering into one , i.e. to a unity , to an undivided community, is not intended in a local sense; but, amid their local dispersion, they were to become united in a higher sense, in virtue of a faith, etc., through the , as one communion . Chrysostom aptly remarks: . The uniting with the believing Jews (the , Eph 2:14 ) is not spoken of here, but in Joh 10:16 ; here only the Christian folding together of the scattered Gentiles themselves . For the expression (and the like) , comp. Plat. Phileb . p. 378 C; Eur. Or . 1640, Phoen . 465.
[96] Here there is the conception of an unconscious prophecy, so far as that which Caiaphas spoke in another sense must yet, according to divine direction, typically set forth the substance and object of the redemptive death. See Dsterdieck, De rei propheticae natur ethic , Gttingen 1852, p. 76.
[97] See generally Ewald, Alterth. p. 385; Keil, Arch. I. p. 182.
[98] According to Tholuck, . . should be understood in the sense that the high priest himself was bound to explain that in this year a greater and more general collective sacrifice was to be offered than that offered by him once a year on behalf of the people (Heb 9:7 ). But how can this lie in . .? especially as , . . ., is said only to make the . explicable, but expresses nothing as to the relation of the high-priestly sacrifice . This also against Luthardt’s similar interpretation, I. p. 87.
[99] Calvin well remarks: “Filios ergo Dei, etiam antequam vocentur, ab electione aestimat, qui fide tandem et sibi et aliis manifestari incipiunt.”
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
DISCOURSE: 1670
THE PROPHETIC COUNSEL OF CAIAPHAS
Joh 11:51-52. This spake he not of himself: but being high-priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
IT is often found that the people who are not humbled and converted by the Gospel, are irritated and incensed by it; and that, to justify their rejection of its truths, they become persecutors of those who preach it. When their prejudices are once excited, nothing will allay them. However exemplary a minister may be in his conduct, however benevolent in his purposes, however wise and discreet in his exertions, he cannot escape their censure, or ward off their hatred. Rather than he should pass without censure, the very best actions of his life shall be brought against him as grounds of accusation. The abundance of his labours and the success of his endeavours shall be reported as matters worthy of blame, and shall be made the grounds of inveterate persecution. It was thus when our blessed Lord himself ministered on earth. His wisdom or benevolence none can doubt: yet was he a butt of contradiction [Note: .] to all around him. He had just wrought a stupendous miracle in raising from the grave a man who had been dead four days, and who, in that climate, must have begun to putrefy. Would any one suppose that this should give offence? yet behold, some who were present, went and made the miracle an occasion of grievous complaint; insomuch that the high-priest instantly convened a council, in order to concert measures for preventing a repetition of such offences in future. After some of the chief-priests had offered their opinions, the high-priest himself, in a very contemptuous and dictatorial tone, decided the point at once; and determined, that private, should give way to public, good: this, he said, common policy required; and therefore it was expedient to destroy the author of this benevolent act, lest the popularity which he had acquired by means of it, should excite the jealousy of the Roman government, and call down their vengeance on the whole nation. This advice was immediately, though not unanimously [Note: Luk 23:51.], agreed to; (for any argument will suffice, when prejudice is the judge;) and means were instantly adopted for executing the decree. But the text informs us, that this advice, pronounced as it was with oracular authority, was indeed an oracle; though it was dictated by God in a very different sense from that in which it was intended by Caiaphas. We shall therefore illustrate it in both points of view:
I.
As intended by Caiaphas
Caiaphas meant only, that, as the state would be (in his apprehension) endangered by the popularity of Jesus, common policy required that they should destroy him at once. But what advice was this to come from a minister of religion, yea, from Gods high-priest!
1.
How unjust!
[Here was nothing criminal laid to the charge of our blessed Lord; yet was he to be treated as a criminal, and to be put to death as a malefactor. On what principle could this be justified. We do not hesitate to say, that nothing can warrant such a procedure. If a man think that he can benefit the State by exposing his own life, he is at liberty to do it; yea, every true Christian ought to be willing to lay down his life for the brethren: he should even account the sacrificing of his life in such a cause, to be rather a source of exultation and triumph, than of dread and sorrow [Note: 1Jn 3:16. Php 2:17.]. But no tribunal under heaven can take away the life of an innocent man: nor ought that which is radically unjust, ever to be sanctioned by legal authority.]
2.
How impious!
[It was acknowledged by Caiaphas himself, that Jesus had wrought miracles, many miracles; and miracles of such a nature as to carry conviction with them to every beholder [Note: ver. 47, 48.]. Now these miracles proved to demonstration, that Jesus was sent by God himself: they were the broad seal of heaven attesting his Divine commission. What then was the advice, but a direct opposition to God himself? There was not so much as an attempt to cover the impiety: a fear of mans displeasure was the avowed and only reason for the commission of it. To what a height of wickedness must that man have attained, who could offer such advice; and that council who could adopt it!]
3.
How absurd!
[The Jewish history might have shewn the council, that the Romans could not prevail against them any further than God authorized and empowered them to do so. Consequently, if they looked no further than to their temporal happiness, it was their wisdom rather to conciliate the favour of God by doing what was right, than to provoke him to anger by murdering his dear Son. Yet, so infatuated were they, as to fear the axe, rather than him that heweth therewith; and to draw down the certain displeasure of the Almighty, rather than incur the danger of displeasing a worm like themselves. The event proved the folly of their choice: for the very means they used to avoid destruction, brought down destruction upon them, and that too from the very persons whose favour they had so impiously courted. In the space of forty years, God executed upon them the most signal vengeance: he inflicted upon them the judgment he had warned them of: and made use of the Roman armies miserably to destroy those murderers, and to burn up their city [Note: Mat 21:38-41; Mat 22:7.].]
But we are told that Caiaphas spake this not of himself. He meant indeed what he said; but his words bear a very different construction,
II.
As dictated by God
Since the Jews had been brought under the Roman yoke, the high priesthood, instead of being continued to the end of life, was changed as often as the interests of the Roman government appeared to require it. It now happened, that, notwithstanding Annas, the predecessor of Caiaphas, was yet alive, Caiaphas was high-priest. And, as God in former times had enabled the high-priests, by means of the Urim and Thummim, to declare his will, it pleased him now so to overrule the mind of Caiaphas, that he should utter a prophecy, when of himself he designed nothing more than to give the most impious advice. And though this was certainly a remarkable instance of Gods interposition, it was by no means singular: for none of the prophets fully understood the import of their own words [Note: Compare Psa 22:16-18. with 1Pe 1:10-12.]: some prophesied without any direct intention on their part [Note: 1Sa 10:10-12.]; and others, in words most opposite to their own wishes [Note: Num 22:38. with 24:10.].
In this prophecy he unwittingly declared,
1.
The end of Christs death
[Be astonished, O heavens! this inveterate enemy of Christ, at the very moment when he proposed that he should be put to death, proclaimed, that it was not for his own sins, but for the good of others! How careful was God to clear the innocence of his Son, when, in addition to this wretched pontiff, he stirred up Judas who betrayed him, and Pilate who condemned him, and one of the malefactors that suffered with him, and the centurion who superintended his execution, to unite their testimony to this effect! With this prophecy of Caiaphas agree those of Daniel and Isaiah, that the Messiah was to be cut off, but not for himself [Note: Dan 9:26.]; that he was to be wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities [Note: Isa 53:5.]. Yes, he died, the just for the unjust [Note: 1Pe 3:18.]: he was a propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world [Note: 1Jn 2:2.].]
2.
The efficacy of it
[Caiaphas intimated, that if this Jesus were put to death, all cause of fear would cease, and the whole nation would enjoy both peace and safety. Blessed truth! provided only we believe in Jesus: we then indeed have nothing to fear from those who have enslaved us, or from those who seek our ruin: sin, Satan, death, and hell shall all be disarmed of their power. The whole Israel of God, wheresoever scattered, are the nation of whom Caiaphas unwittingly spake: they are a holy nation: they are interested in all that Christ has done or suffered: they are gathered into the one great community; partakers of one heavenly nature; members of one mystical body; and heirs of one eternal glory [Note: Rev 5:9.]. Caiaphas, thy words are true; they are tried to the uttermost; that Jesus, whom thou persecutedst, has by death destroyed death, and delivered those who were all their life-time subject to bondage [Note: Heb 2:14-15.].]
Infer
1.
How mysterious is the providence of God!
[That act which was in itself the most atrocious that ever was committed, was in its effects the best! How deep a mystery! the life of the world secured by the death of Gods only Son! But so it is still: Gods ways are in the great deep: and the very efforts which are made by men and devils for the destruction of his people, are instrumental to their establishment and growth in grace. And the time shall come when all the saints shall see as much reason to bless God for the malice exercised towards themselves in particular, as now they see to adore him for the accomplishment of his word in and by the Lord Jesus.]
2.
How rich his grace!
[For whom was it that Jesus died? it was for that nation; that nation that abused so many mercies, and persecuted so many prophets, and imbrued their hands in the blood of Gods only Son! Even Caiaphas himself, with all that were concerned in that unparalleled transaction, were free to accept of mercy, and, by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ upon their souls, to be cleansed from the guilt of shedding it. Nor are we excluded from the benefit. Whatever guilt we may have contracted, the way is open for us, if we desire reconciliation with our offended God: Not one that comes to him shall ever be cast out. Let this grace, this exceedingly rich grace, fill us with astonishment, and be now, as it certainly will be in the eternal world, the subject of our incessant praise.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
Ver. 51. This he spake, not of himself ] God spake through him, as through a trunk, or as the angel spake in Balaam’s ass. Wholesome sugar may be found in a poisoned cane, a precious stone in a toad’s head, a flaming torch in a blind man’s hand.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Joh 11:51 . . , “at his own instigation,” is contrasted with “at the instigation of God” implied in [Kypke gives interesting examples of the use of in classical writers]. “None but a Jew would be likely to know of the old Jewish belief that the high priest by means of the Urim and Thummim was the mouthpiece of the Divine oracle.” Plummer. Calvin calls him “bilingual,” and compares his unconscious service to that of Balaam. John sees that this unscrupulous diplomatist, who supposed that he was moving Jesus and the council and the Romans as so many pieces in his own game, was himself used as God’s mouthpiece to predict the event which brought to a close his own and all other priesthood. In the irony of events he unconsciously used his high-priestly office to lead forward that one sacrifice which was for ever to take away sin and so make all further priestly office superfluous. He prophesied “that Jesus was to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but that also the children of God who were scattered in various places should be gathered into one”. is rendered “because” by Weiss and others. Jesus was to die although not in Caiaphas’ sense; and His death had the wider object of bringing into one whole, of truer solidarity than the nation, all God’s children wherever at present scattered. Cf. Joh 10:16 , Eph 2:14 . The expression is used proleptically of the Gentiles who were destined to become God’s children. So Euthymius. For the phrase Meyer refers to Plato, Phileb. , 378, C, and Eurip., Orestes , 1640.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
prophesied. The Jews regarded any ex cathedra utterance of the High Priest as inspired. Here Caiaphas was used by God, as Salaam was (Num 22:38). See Act 2:23; Act 4:27, Act 4:28.
should die = was about to die.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Joh 11:51. , of his own self) as men, who deliberate, otherwise are wont.- , said not) By this is explained the verb , said, which was used in Joh 11:49.- , for the nation) Caiaphas had said, , for the people, Joh 11:50. But John does not now any longer call them , a people, since their polity was expiring.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 11:51
Joh 11:51
Now this he said not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation;-[He thought he spoke it of himself, but unwittingly he announced a prophecy, like Balaam, while wickedly counseling the death of Christ interprets the results of his death.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
being: Exo 28:30, Jdg 20:27, Jdg 20:28, 1Sa 23:9, 1Sa 28:6
he prophesied: Num 22:28, Num 24:2, Num 24:14-25, Mat 7:22, Mat 7:23, 1Co 13:2, 2Pe 2:15-17
that Jesus: Joh 10:15, Isa 53:5-8, Dan 9:26, Mat 20:28, Rom 3:25, Rom 3:26, 2Co 5:21, Gal 3:13, Gal 4:4, Gal 4:5, 1Pe 2:24, 1Pe 3:18
Reciprocal: Num 22:9 – God Num 23:5 – General 1Sa 19:23 – the Spirit 1Ki 13:20 – the word of the Lord Eze 28:14 – and I Joh 18:13 – that 1Jo 2:2 – for the
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1
Such a use of the high priest as stated in the preceding verse was nothing new. (See Lev 10:11; Deu 17:9; Mal 2:7.) As time went on after the writings of Moses were completed, it was necessary occasionally to give the people further revelation of truth. That was done through the words of prophets or the lips of the priests as the passages cited show. That is why it says he spake this not of himself, which means it was not something that originated with him. The Holy Ghost (Spirit) was guiding him in this lofty speech, just as it had done to the prophets in Old Testament times. (See 2Pe 1:20-21.)
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
[He prophesied.] Is Caiaphas among the prophets? There had not been a prophet among the chief priests, the priests, the people, for these four hundred years and more; and does Caiaphas now begin to prophesy? It is a very foreign fetch that some would make, when they would ascribe this gift to the office he then bore, as if by being made high priest he became a prophet. The opinion is not worth confuting. The evangelist himself renders the reason when he tells us being high priest that same year. Which words direct the reader’s eye rather to the year than to the high priest.
I. That was the year of pouring out the Spirit of prophecy and revelation beyond whatever the world had yet seen, or would see again. And why may not some drops of this great effusion light upon a wicked man, as sometimes the children’s crumbs fall from the table to the dog under it; that a witness might be given to the great work of redemption from the mouth of our Redeemer’s greatest enemy. There lies the emphasis of the words that same year; for Caiaphas had been high priest some years before, and did continue so for some years after.
II. To say the truth, by all just calculation, the office of the high priest ceased this very year; and the high priest prophesies while his office expires.
What difference was there, as to the execution of the priestly office, between the high priest and the rest of the priesthood? None certainly, only in these two things: 1. Asking counsel by Urim and Thummim. 2. In performing the service upon the day of Expiation. As to the former, that had been useless many ages before, because the spirit of prophecy had so perfectly departed from them. So that there remained now no other distinction, only that on the day of Expiation the high priest was to perform the service which an ordinary priest was not warranted to do. The principal ceremony of that day was, that he should enter into the Holy of Holies with blood. When, therefore, our great High Priest should enter, with his own blood, into the Holiest of all, what could there be left for this high priest to do? When, at the death of our great High Priest, the veil that hung between the Holy and the Holy of Holies was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, there was clear demonstration that all those rites and services were abolished; and that the office of the high priest, which was distinguished from the other priests only by those usages, was now determined and brought to its full period. The pontificate therefore drawing its last breath prophesies concerning the redemption of mankind by the great High Priest and Bishop of souls, “that he should die for the people,” etc.
That of the apostle, Act 23:5; “I wist not that he was the high priest,” may perhaps have some such meaning as this in it, “I knew not that there was any high priest at all”; because the office had become needless for some time. For grant indeed that St. Paul did not know the face of Ananias, nor that Ananias was the high priest, yet he must needs know him to have been a magistrate, because he had his seat amongst the fathers of the Sanhedrim. Now those words which he quoted out of the law, “Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people,” forbade all indecent speeches towards any magistrate, as well as the high priest. The apostle, therefore, knowing Ananias well enough, both who he was, and that he sat there under a falsely assumed title of the high priest, does on purpose call him ‘whited wall,’ because he only bore the colour of the high priesthood, when as the thing and office itself was now abolished.
Caiaphas, in this passage before us, speaketh partly as Caiaphas and partly as a prophet. As Caiaphas, he does, by an impious and precipitate boldness, contrive and promote the death of Christ: and what he uttered as a prophet, the evangelist tells us, he did it not of himself; he spoke what himself understood not the depth of.
The greatest work of the Messiah, according to the expectation of the Jews, was the reduction or gathering together the captivities. The high priest despairs that ever Jesus, should he live, could do this. For all that he either did or taught seemed to have a contrary tendency, viz. to seduce the people from their religion, rather than recover them from their servile state of bondage. So that he apprehended this one only remedy left, that care might be taken, so as by the death of this man the hazard of that nation’s ruin might blow over: “If he be the Messiah (which I almost think even Caiaphas himself did not much question), since he can have no hope of redeeming the nation, let him die for it himself, that it perish not upon his account.”
Thus miserably are the great masters of wisdom deceived in almost all their surmises; they expect the gathering together of the children of God in one by the life of the Messiah, which was to be accomplished by his death. They believe their traditional religion was the establishment of that nation; whereas it became its overthrow. They think to secure themselves by the death of Christ, when by that very death of his their expected security was chiefly shaken. O blind and stupid madness!
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Joh 11:51-52. But this spake he not of himself: but being high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one the children of God that are scattered abroad. The words are a prophecy: heartless and unscrupulous in meaning and intention, they are so controlled as to express profound and blessed truth. In the earlier days of the nation a prophetic spirit was ever believed to rest upon the high priest (comp. Exo 28:30, Num 27:21, Hos 3:4). When the office became degraded, and the high priest the servant of ambition and covetousness, prophetic guidance was no longer sought from him; but, as in the Old Testament we read of false prophets who in spite of themselves were compelled to be the medium of proclaiming Gods will, so is it here. We see now the significance of the words people and nation. He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation,i.e., for the Jews, henceforth but one of the nations of the world, ranked with the Gentiles whom they scorned. The object of this death should also be, that He might gather into one the children of God that are scattered abroad. This latter prophecy is found by the Evangelist in the word people of Joh 11:50, that one man should die for the people. No longer does this name belong to Jews alone. The sacrifice is offered in behalf of all the children of God, all to whom the Father offers sonship, gathered henceforth into one under the new name of the people of God. Compare the striking parallels in chap. Joh 7:35, Joh 10:16, Joh 17:20.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Vv. 51, 52. Now he did not say this of himself; but being high-priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but also that he might gather in one body the children of God who are scattered abroad.
This opinion of the high-priest was made especially remarkable by the contrast between the divine truth which it expressed and the diabolical design which inspired it. The evangelist calls attention to this. Some interpreters (Luthardt, Bruckner) deny that John ascribes the gift of prophecy here to the high-priest as such. It was not as high-priest, but as high-priest of that year, that Caiaphas uttered this prophetic declaration. But the relation between the present participle , being, and the aorist, , he prophesied, leads us naturally to the idea that the evangelist attaches to the office of Caiaphas the prophetic character of the words which he uttered at this moment. This must be acknowledged even if we are to find here only a Jewish superstition. In the Old Testament, the normal centre of the theocratic people is, not the royal office, but the priesthood. In all the decisive moments for the life of the people, it is the high- priest who is the organ of God for passing over to the people the decision with which its salvation is connected (Exo 28:30; Num 27:21; 1Sa 30:7 ff.). It is true that this prerogative came not from a prophetic gift, but from the possession of a mysterious power, the Urim and Thummim. It is also true that from the time of the captivity, and even from the reign of Solomon, there is no longer any question of this power (see Keil, Bibl. Archaeol., p. 191). But the high-priest nevertheless remained by reason of his very office the head of the theocratic body, and this in spite of the moral contrast which might exist between the spirit of his office and his personal character.
If the heart of the high-priest was in harmony with his office, his heart became the normal organ of the divine decision. But if there was opposition in this personage between the disposition of his heart and the holiness of his office, it must be expected that, as in the present case, the divine oracle would be seen coming from this consecrated mouth in the form of the most diabolical maxim. What, indeed, more worthy of the Divine Spirit than to condemn His degenerate organ thus to utter the truth of God at the very moment when he was speaking as the organ of his own particular interest! Without attributing to Caiaphas a permanent prophetic gift, John means to say that, at this supreme moment for the theocracy and for humanity, it was not without the participation of the Divine activity that the most profound mystery of the plan of God was proclaimed by him in the form of the most detestable maxim. John has already more than once remarked how the adversaries of Jesus, when speaking derisively, were prophesying in spite of themselves: No one knows whence he is (Joh 7:27). Will he go and teach the Greeks (Joh 7:35)? If the devil often travesties the words of God, it pleases God sometimes to parody those of the devil, by giving to them an unexpected truth. This divine irony manifested itself in the highest degree on this occasion, which was the prelude to the accomplishment of the most divine mystery under the form of the most monstrous act.
According to some interpreters, the is not a direct complement of the verb he prophesied. Meyer: he prophesied as to the fact that … Luthardt, Weiss, Keil: he prophesied, seeing that really Jesus was to… Joh 11:52 is what has led them to these explanations, because this verse goes in fact beyond the import of the saying of Caiaphas. But it is quite unnatural to take this word: he prophesied, in an absolute sense: John certainly did not mean to insist so especially on this idea of prophecy. The meaning is simply: he declared prophetically that to… As to Joh 11:52, it is an explanatory appendix, which John adds in order to indicate that in the divine thought the force of the expression: one for all, had a far wider application than that which Caiaphas himself gave it. John never forgets his Greek readers, and he loses no occasion of recalling to them their part in the accomplishment of the divine promises. If we take into consideration the parallelism between this Joh 11:52 and the saying of Joh 10:16, we shall have no hesitation in applying the term children of God to heathen predisposed to faith through the revelation of the Logos (Joh 1:4; Joh 1:10); the sense is the same as that in which John uses the expressions: to be of God (Joh 8:47), to be of the truth(Joh 19:37). The term children of God naturally involves an anticipation; it designates the actual condition of these future believers from the point of view of its result which was to come. Meyer, Luthardt and others prefer to explain this term from the standpoint of the divine predestination. But we should be obliged to infer from this that all the rest of the heathen are the objects of an opposite predestination.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Verse 51
That is, he was led by the divine Spirit to utter words susceptible of a prophetic interpretation,–so different from the meaning which he intended to convey.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
11:51 {8} And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
(8) Christ sometimes turns the tongues, even of the wicked, so that even in cursing they bless.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
John interpreted Caiaphas’ words for his readers. He viewed Caiaphas’ statement as a prophecy. He spoke God’s will as the high priest even though he did not realize he was doing so. Caiaphas’ motive was, of course, completely contrary to God’s will, but God overruled to accomplish His will through the high priest’s selfish advice.
Caiaphas unconsciously prophesied that Jesus would die as a substitute for the Israelite nation (cf. Isa 53:8). The outcome of His death would be the uniting of God’s children scattered abroad, non-members of Israel as well as Jews, into one body, namely, the church (cf. Joh 4:42; Joh 10:16; Eph 2:14-18; Eph 3:6; 1Pe 2:9). Ultimately it would unite Jewish and Gentile believers in the messianic kingdom (cf. Isa 43:5; Eze 34:12).