‘The chief priests therefore, and the Pharisees, gathered a council and said, “What are we going to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him thus alone all men will believe on him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation”.’

Meanwhile the Pharisees who received the news decided that something must be done. Jesus was becoming a danger. And so their leaders went to the chief priests, and suggested to them that it was time to act together. It seems incredible that in the face of this great public act the leaders did not gather in order to back Jesus’ ministry. But they had so hardened themselves against Jesus that they did not even consider that as an option. They did not want the status quo affected, especially by Someone Who, if He was right, would consign their own carefully built up ideas to the waste bin. Their ideas were more important to them than the truth.

‘Gathered a council.’ Not an official one but an unofficial one made up of the enemies of Jesus. Incredible though it may seem, from first to last they were angry rather than impressed. They were fearful that what He had done might win men to His cause and result in an insurrection, with the consequence being that their own position might be undermined in the eyes of the Romans so that they lost even more power. Fear makes men behave irrationally. He was disturbing the peace and people were getting excited. This could start off another rising and they would be the losers. It was necessary to do something quickly.

Had Jesus sided with them more positively it might have been different, but they could not conceive of God working through any but themselves, nor would they allow it. Thus all they could now think of was the harm that He might do by becoming too popular and bringing a reaction from the Romans, resulting in the destruction of the Temple and the nation (Joh 11:47-48). The idea is ironic, for that is precisely what would result from the actions of some of their own within forty years.

‘Our place and our nation.’ They were concerned more for their own positions and status than for their countrymen. They did not want anyone to upset how things stood. ‘Our place’ might have in mind the Temple, or it might have in mind their position on the Sanhedrin and where it met. But they did not need to worry. The ruthless Caiaphas knew exactly what to do.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Council of the Jews concerning Christ’s Removal.

The prophecy of Caiaphas:

v. 47. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council and said, What do we? For this man doeth many miracles.

v. 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.

v. 49. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,

v. 50. nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

v. 51. And this spake he not of himself, but, being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation,

v. 52. and not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

The matter of the raising of Lazarus was deemed so important that an immediate meeting of the Sanhedrin seemed advisable. Here the chief priests, who were Sadducees, and their enemies, the Pharisees, came together in perfect harmony, since the object was to remove the hated Nazarene. When the meeting had been assembled, they asked one another the frank question: Here this man is doing many signs and miracles, and what are we doing about it? They could not deny the fact that miracles were being performed by Jesus, but they hardened their hearts as to their meaning and purpose. Their one concern was as to the possible consequences to themselves and to the Jewish nation as a political unit. If they would take no steps to hinder this ministry of miracles, the result would be that all the common people would believe in Him as the Messiah. The chances were that they would then proclaim Him king of Judea, and this, in turn, would result in the Jews’ losing the last remnant of political power and standing. The Romans would simply come and destroy the city and lead the people away into captivity. The Jewish leaders did not know that they were thereby stating the fate of both city and nation which came upon them because of their rejection of the King of Grace. But while the members of the Sanhedrin were thus debating the question, Caiaphas, the high priest of that year, arose and made a statement amounting to a solution of the problem as it lay before them. He told them: Ye know nothing at all. They were talking nonsense and offering no sensible means for removing the difficulty. They did not consider the most obvious mode of procedure. The most expedient thing would obviously be to have this one man, who, in their opinion, was responsible for the agitation and unrest among the people, die. As Caiaphas put the matter: It is expedient for you that one man die for, in the stead of, the people, and the whole nation perish not. Here was cold-blooded craftiness; for the suggestion evidently was to have Jesus put to death as quickly as possible. By sacrificing Jesus, they would both rid themselves of a troublesome person and give to the Roman authorities an evidence of their loyalty. But aside from their meaning for the situation at that time, the words of Caiaphas, as the evangelist points out, were an unconscious, but none the less glorious prophecy. Jesus should die, not only for Israel, but for the whole world, and His death should result in a gathering and final uniting into one great spiritual communion of all that would believe on Him and thus receive the benefit of His death. In all nations of the earth are such as will become the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. They were at that time still scattered far and wide, but as the preaching of the Gospel has reached them, they have turned from their idols to the living God and have joined the communion of saints.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Joh 11:47-48. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, The account which was given of Lazarus’s resurrection raised the indignation of the rulers to the highest pitch. They assembled the sanhedrim, or great council of the nation forthwith, and, after consultation, blamed one another for having suffered Jesus to go so long unpunished: but this miracle being too evident to be denied, as indeed all his miracles were, they did not, even in their most private conferences, say or insinuate to one another, that their displeasure and opposition proceeded from his passing false miracles upon the ignorant vulgar; they rather condemned him upon the truth and notoriety of his miracles, pretending that they were designed to establish a new sect in religion, which might endanger, not their church only, but their state, our place, , our temple (see Act 6:14; Act 21:28.) and nation. Thus, though the Pharisees were his sworn enemies, they could not help giving him an ample testimony, even in full court. If we let him thus alone; say they, all men will believe on him, &c. “If we do not bestir ourselves to prevent it, the common people, astonished at his miracles, will certainly set him up for Messiah; and the Romans, on pretence of their rising in rebellion, will take away both our liberty and religion.” They entered therefore into a resolution for putting Jesus to death at all hazards. But those politicians were taken in their own craftiness; for, while they proposed, by killing Jesus, to avoid the destruction of their temple and city, the sin which they committed in killing the Prince of Life was so great, that God, in his just indignation, made the very people, whose resentment they proposed to avoid by this wicked measure, the instruments of his vengeance. He brought the Roman armies against them, who destroyed the murderers, and burnt up their city; leaving, in that dreadful catastrophe, an awful warning to all statesmen to beware of prosecuting unjust measures, on pretence of consulting thegood of the nation whose affairs they direct. Again, the members of the Jewish council were not at all unanimous in their resolution of putting Jesus to death. Some of them, who were his disciples, (see ch. Joh 12:42.) particularly Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea, urged the unlawfulness of what they purposed to do, from the consideration of his miracles and his innocence; but the high-priest Caiaphas treated Christ’s friends in the council with contempt, as weak, ignorant people, who were unacquainted with the nature of government, “which,” said he, “requires that certain acts of injustice should not be scrupled at, when they are expedient for the safety of the state.”

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Joh 11:47-48 . Now, since Jesus had, even according to the testimony of His earlier opponents, even raised a dead man, the matter becomes too serious for the Pharisees to permit them to look on any longer without taking a decisive step. The chief priests (with whom they have accordingly communicated) and they themselves summon a sitting of the council, i.e . a sitting of the Sanhedrin. On . . comp. Diod. Sic. ii. 25. Not to be translated: they assembled the Sanhedrin . The article in that case, as throughout, where it is expressed with ., must have been used.

] What are we to do? The Indic , is used (see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp . p. 176 A); for that something must now definitively be done, was undoubted. Comp. Act 4:15-16 .

] the simple for , as statement of the ground of the question.

.] contemptuously.

] without interposing.

, . . .] so they fear, in keeping with the political view of the Messiah. Comp. Joh 6:15 . And they really fear it (against Strauss, Weisse, who here see an invention); they do not merely delude themselves with it (Luthardt); nor do they wish to give to their proper motive (envy, Mat 27:18 ) only another colour (Calvin, Hengstenberg). Now, when they saw the last outbreak before their eyes, their calculation must necessarily be shaped according to the popular conception of the Messiah, and according to the effects which this notion would produce upon the mass (uproar, etc.).

] they will take away ( tollent , Vulgate), not equivalent to (Euth. Zigabenus, Beza, Grotius, Lcke, De Wette, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, and several others), which is less appropriate to the egoistic sense, which is concerned about the withdrawal of their own power . Nonnus well remarks: .

] correlative to , placed first with the emphasis of egoism , though not as genit. of separation ( away from us ), since such a construction with is only poetical (Khner, II. p. 160); but: the place and nation belonging to us .

] is to be defined solely from the emphatic ; our place, i.e . the holy city (Chrysostom, Grotius, Ewald, Baeumlein, Godet), the residence of the Sanhedrin and of the entire hierarchy. Hence neither: the country (so most commentators, as Luther: “country and people”), nor: the temple (Maldonatus, Lcke, De Wette, Maier, B. Crusius, Hengstenberg). The latter is neither to be supported by Act 6:13 , nor by passages like 3 Esdr. 8:78; 2Ma 5:19 ; Mat 23:38 . The Sanhedrists apprehend that the Romans, who had, indeed, acquiesced in great part hitherto in the hierarchical constitution of the Jews, and the spiritually political sway of the Sanhedrin, would enter Jerusalem, and remove the city as well as the people ( , Luk 23:2 ; Act 10:22 , et al .) from the rule of the Sanhedrin, because it knew so badly how to maintain order.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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. (54) Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples. (55) And the Jews’ passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves. (56) Then sought they for Jesus, and spake among themselves as they stood in the temple, What think ye, that he will not come to the feast? (57) Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him.

Everything here is very interesting, but I have already exceeded my limits, and therefore shall only detain the Reader with requesting his attention to what the Evangelist hath recorded, of the memorable prophecy of Caiaphas.

It is worthy the closest attention of the Reader, that the dying Patriarch Jacob should have left so memorable a prophecy, concerning the gathering of the people to Shiloh. Gen 49:10 . And that here again, as if to remind the Church of God of it, after so many ages had run out, God the Holy Ghost, who taught the faithful Jacob to utter such a prophecy; should have put the fellow of it in the mouth of this infidel Caiaphas to the same amount. But what cannot the Lord accomplish? By friend, or foe, the Lord, will bring about his holy will, as best suits his sovereign purpose. Even the Wrath of man shall praise him. Psa 76:10 . Reader! do not overlook the sweet feature in both prophecies. To Him (the Shiloh, said Jacob,) shall the gathering of the people be! He shall gather together in one, (the Evangelist explains was the burden of Caiaphas’ prophecy) the children, of God that were scattered abroad. Yes! this is the first, and ultimate design of the whole Covenant of grace. Christ hath a people, his children; yea, the children of God, for God hath from all eternity given them to him. In this time-state, they were lost, were scattered abroad. My Sheep (saith the Lord by the spirit of prophecy,) wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill; yea my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them: Eze 34:6 . But to Him, they must all be gathered. Not an hoof shall be left behind. Exo 10:26 . In that day that the great trumpet shall be blown, they shall come which were ready to perish. Isa 27:13 ; Joh 6:37 .

But what a wonderful subject, that God the Holy Ghost should make use of such a monster of iniquity, to utter so blessed a prophecy. True indeed the man meant what he said, in a very different sense. Yes! But there is the blessedness of the Lord’s working by contrary means; and rendering that, which he meant for evil, to be productive of the greatest good. And Scripture abounds with unconscious instances to the same amount. The sons of Jacob selling Joseph, Gen 45:7-8 . Haman, for the destruction of Mordecai. Est 7:10 . And infinitely more, and above all, the Jews crucifying the Lord of life and glory! Act 2:23 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.

Ver. 47. Then gathered the chief priests ] Like unto this was the Council of Trent gathered on purpose to suppress Christ in his true worshippers, and carried by antichrist with such infinite guile and craft, without any sincerity, upright dealing and truth, as that themselves will even smile in the triumphs of their own wits (when they hear it but mentioned), as at a master stratagem.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

47. ] Their words may be read two ways; with, or without, a question after . (1) is the ordinary way. (2) as in A.V.R., ‘What do we, seeing that, because, this man doeth many miracles?’

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Joh 11:47 . The Pharisees at once acted on the information, . The chief priests, who were Sadducees, and the Pharisees, their natural foes, but who together composed the supreme authority, “called together a meeting of the Sanhedrim”. The keynote of the meeting was struck in the words ; “What are we doing?” i.e. , why are we doing nothing? The indicative, not the deliberative subjunctive. The reason for shaking off this inertia is . The miracles are not denied, but their probable consequence is indicated.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 11:47-53

47Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. 48If 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.” 49But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, 50nor 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.” 51Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, 52and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. 53So from that day on they planned together to kill Him.

Joh 11:47 “the chief priests and the Pharisees, convened a council” This refers to the Sanhedrin, the supreme court of the Jews in Jerusalem. It had 70 local members. The high priests were of the political, religious persuasion known as the Sadducees, who accepted only the writings of Moses and denied the resurrection. The Pharisees were the more popular, legalistic religious group that affirmed (1) the entire OT; (2) the ministry of angels; (3) and the afterlife. It is amazing that these two antagonistic groups would combine for any purpose. See SPECIAL TOPIC: PHARISEES at Joh 1:24. See Special Topic: The Sanhedrin at Joh 3:1.

“For this man is performing many signs” The reference to Jesus as “this man” is a derogatory way of not mentioning His name. It is also amazing that in the presence of such great miracles, like the raising of Lazarus, that their preconceived bias had blinded their eyes so completely (cf. 2Co 4:4).

Joh 11:48 “If” This is a third class conditional sentence which means potential action.

“all men will believe in Him” Jealousy as well as theological disagreement was the source of their distrust and fear of Jesus. The “all” may have referred even to the Samaritans and Gentiles (cf. Joh 10:16). There was also a political aspect to their fear (i.e., Roman control).

“the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation” This is one of those ironic prophecies of John’s Gospel, for this was fulfilled literally in A.D. 70 under the Roman general (later Emperor) Titus.

The political reality of Roman domination was an integral part of Jewish end-time (eschatological) hope. They believed that God would send a religious/military figure, like the Judges of the OT, to physically deliver them from Rome. Several Messianic pretenders started rebellions in Palestine to accomplish this very expectation.

Jesus claimed that His kingdom was not a temporal/political reign (cf. Joh 18:36), but a spiritual reign that would be consummated globally in the future (i.e., revelation). He claimed to fulfill the OT prophecies, but not in a literal, Jewish, nationalistic sense. For this He was rejected by most Jews of His day.

Joh 11:49 “Caiaphas, who was the high priest that year” The high priesthood was meant to be a lifelong position passed on to one’s children (cf. Exodus 28), but after the Romans became the conquerors, it was sold to the highest bidder because of the lucrative trade available on the Mount of Olives and in the temple area. Caiaphas was high priest from A.D. 18-36 (son-in-law of Annas, High Priest from A.D. 6-15).

Joh 11:50-52 This is another example of John’s irony. Caiaphas preaches the gospel!

Joh 11:50 “one man should die for the people” The OT background for this is the Jewish view of “corporality.” One person (good or bad) could affect the whole (i.e., Adam/Eve; Achan). This concept came to be an underpinning of the sacrificial system, especially the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16), where one innocent animal bore the sin of the nation. This becomes the Messianic concept behind Isaiah 53. In the NT the Adam/Christ typology of Rom 5:12-21 reflects this concept.

Joh 11:51

NASB, REV,

NET”that Jesus was going to die”

NKJV, NIV,

REB”that Jesus would die”

NRSV”that Jesus was about to die”

NJB”that Jesus was to die”

The NIDOTTE, vol. 1, p. 326, has a good comment about the theological use of the verb mell (“must,” “to have to,” “to be certain”) when used of God’s will for Christ’s redemptive work.

1. Mar 10:32

2. Mat 17:22

3. Luk 9:31; Luk 9:44; Luk 24:21; Act 26:23

4. Joh 7:39; Joh 11:51; Joh 12:33; Joh 14:22; Joh 18:32

It is also used of the necessity of Judas’ betrayal

1. Luk 22:23

2. Joh 6:71; Joh 12:4

Luke, in Acts, uses it for prophetic fulfillment (i.e., Act 11:28; Act 24:15; Act 26:22). All of the redemptive events were in the hands of God (cf. Act 2:23; Act 3:18; Act 4:28; Act 13:29)!

Joh 11:52 “He might also gather together into one the children of God” This seems to be an editorial comment by John which could be parallel with Joh 10:16. It could refer to

1. Jews living outside Palestine

2. half-Jews like the Samaritans

3. Gentiles

Option #3 seems best. Whichever it is, Jesus’ death will bring a unity to “believing” humanity (cf. Joh 1:29; Joh 3:16; Joh 4:42; Joh 10:16).

Joh 11:53 “So from that day on they planned together to kill Him” This is a recurrent theme in John (cf. Joh 5:18; Joh 7:19; Joh 8:59; Joh 10:39; Joh 11:8).

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

council. Greek sunedrion. The Sanhedrin was the supreme national court. See Mat 5:22. It consisted of seventy-one members, originating, according to the Rabbis, with the seventy elders, with Moses at their head (Num 11:24). Its sittings were held in the “stone chamber” in the temple precincts.

What do we? = What are we about? i.e. something must be done. this man. See Joh 11:37, but “man” (App-123.) is ex-pressed here.

miracles = signs (Greek. semeion). A characteristic word in John’s Gospel. See p. 1511 and App-176.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

47.] Their words may be read two ways; with, or without, a question after . (1) is the ordinary way. (2) as in A.V.R., What do we, seeing that,-because,-this man doeth many miracles?

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Joh 11:47. ; what do we?) What they ought to have done was, not to have thus held deliberations, but to have believed. But the truth is, death itself sooner yields to the power of Christ than unbelief.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Joh 11:47

Joh 11:47

The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many signs.-They gathered the Jewish Sanhedrin together to consult of the matters. They admitted that many signs were wrought by Jesus. In this they admitted that Lazarus was raised from the dead. Testimony that cannot be questioned infuriates the hearts of those determined not to believe.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. 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. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And 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. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples. And the Jews passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves. Then sought they for Jesus, and spake among themselves, as they stood in the temple, What think ye, that he will not come to the feast? Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him.

We have considered the raising up of Lazarus, that greatest of all our Lords signs and miracles, indicating His power over death, proving that He was indeed the Messiah who was to come into the world not only to deliver Israel but to be a means of blessing to all nations and the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham.

One would have thought that surely so marvelous a sign would have spoken to the hearts of even the worst enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ, proving to them that this Man who was going about among them in so lowly a way, doing such wondrous works of mercy, was truly Immanuel. But no, if mens consciences are not awakened, if men are determined to resist the truth, miracles will not win them to Christ.

Do you remember the story that Jesus told concerning the rich man? We read that he died and went to hell, and in hell he lifted up his eyes-that man who had enjoyed every privilege and opportunity on earth, but who had only lived to gratify his own desires-and began to pray for his five brethren. What a family: six brothers, one in hell and five on the way! And he cried and prayed to Abraham, whom he could see in Paradise, and said, Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame (Luk 16:24). When told that was impossible, he said, I pray thee then, send him to my five brethren that they come not to this place of torment (see vv. 27-28). And Abraham said, They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them (v. 29). That is, they have the Word of God, the Old Testament. Let them read and believe their Bibles. But the rich man replied, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, [then would they] repent (v. 30). But the answer came back with crushing force: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead (v. 31).

What a solemn truth we have unfolded here! If men are determined to take their own way, if they will not bow to the testimony of the Word of God, then signs and wonders will never reach their hardened hearts and bring them to repentance. These scribes and Pharisees had set themselves against the Word of God. They had rejected every message, and the raising of Lazarus only stirred them up to make them feel they were likely to lose their hold on the people. They foresaw a possible uprising among the populace to make Jesus King, and the result would be the sending of the Roman legions to enforce Caesars will upon them at the point of the sword.

They said, Now, what are we going to do about it? You would have thought they would have said something like this: We must turn to God and confess our sins and face our iniquity. We must get right with God. The resurrection power of Jesus proves that He is one with the Father. But no, they said, This thing is likely to draw men after Him. We must take an active stand against this man and His miracles.

For this Man doeth many miracles (Joh 11:47). They had already dared to tell the crowd that He did the miracles by the power of Beelzebub, thus blaspheming against the Holy Spirit who was working through Him. Now they said, If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him (v. 48). Just think of it! They were afraid to have people believe in Jesus.

I invited a lady sometime ago to a gospel meeting. She said, I am afraid to go for fear I will be converted. Afraid! Afraid that one might get right with God! I remember a gentleman well up in business circles out on the West Coast. I said to his wife one day, I have not seen your husband for quite a while. Has he lost his interest? She said, Well, he is afraid to come. For when he comes and hears the Word, it takes him nearly two weeks to get over it. How we ought to cherish the least evidence that the Spirit of God is speaking to any of us! There are people in this world today, I am afraid, who have heard the last message from the Word of God they will ever hear. It is a solemn thing when God ceases to speak to a soul.

But these Pharisees were determined to have their own way and to reject Christ. They said, We must break His influence over the people. Otherwise the Romans will destroy our city and nation. And notice this, the very thing they dreaded was the thing that happened. But it happened, not because the people believed on Jesus, but because they refused His grace. They spurned Him when presented as the Prince of Peace. When Pilate said, Shall I crucify your King? they said, We have no king but Caesar (19:15). What happened? Jesus was crucified, rejected of men, died there on Calvarys cross for a worlds redemption.

But what about the nation? Not long after the Romans did indeed come and take away their place and scattered them throughout the world. And all the suffering and the sorrows they have gone through have been the sad result of their not knowing the day of their visitation.

So the very thing that these Pharisees thought they would avoid by rejecting Jesus was the thing that came upon them because they refused Him. So shortsighted are men, so unable to see into the future, that they spurn the testimony that God Himself has given.

As they were debating this thing, one of them took the leadership-Caiaphas, who was the high priest that year. That in itself indicates the objection of the people to the Roman authority. According to Gods original institution, when a son of Aaron was inducted into the office of high priest he remained in it until his death. But the nation had fallen so low that the Romans sold the office of high priest from year to year to the highest bidder. At this particular time Caiaphas was high priest. There were several other men who had been high priests but had been set to one side.

So now Caiaphas, the high priest that year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all (v. 49). That is a good way, somebody has said, when you want to shut out any argument. Just begin, You know nothing at all. You dont know what you are talking about. You cannot reason with folks like that. They know it all, and they wont admit for a moment that you have any information which might be of any value to them. I think Jobs friends were something like that. You recall he answered them on one occasion, Ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you (Job 12:2). That is, You think no one knows anything but you.

That was the stand Caiaphas took: Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not (v. 49-50). And in this you hear the voice of a contemptible, dastardly politician. He knew that Jesus was innocent of the charges that were being brought against Him. He should have been the deliverer of the innocent, but he, for policys sake, was against Jesus. He reasoned, We must get Him out of the way or we shall suffer, so the best thing is to get rid of Him. Bring false charges, if need be, in order that the nation may be saved. It was dastardly advice. Yet the marvelous thing is that God was behind it all, and overruled it to work out His own plan. We do not for one moment condone the speech of Caiaphas, but, on the other hand, we have the testimony of the Holy Spirit here to tell us that he was saying more than he really knew. The reason he spoke as he did was because of selfishness, but that which he thereby proposed, in a higher sense than he could ever understand, was to work out the purpose of God in the redemption not only of Israel but of a needy world.

We read here, This spake he not of himself (v. 51a). That is, he thought he was giving them advice of a political nature, but the Spirit of God was overruling and controlling him beyond his own thought. To think the Spirit of God could use a wicked man like that! In the case of Balaam, who loved the wages of unrighteousness, we have three chapters in the book of Numbers containing some of the most glorious prophecies in the Bible, which came from his unhallowed lips. God was overruling for blessing.

So God was overruling here, and He used a bad man, a time-serving politician, to utter a tremendous truth. This spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation (v. 51). He did not know it, but the Spirit of God was speaking through those unclean lips. He prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation, though not in the sense that he meant. He meant that the death of this innocent man would be used to save the nation from the Romans. It did not do that, for the Jews were carried away in due time. But the prophecy was true in the sense that He was to become the great sin offering, taking the blame for that nations guilt upon Himself, that load of sin, and bearing it before God and enduring the judgment that sin deserved. This was what Isaiah saw when, looking down through the ages with the eyes of faith, he said, He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all (53:5).

One man should die for the people. Here was the great Kinsman-Redeemer who looked upon His own nation, sold under sin, and said, I will pay the price in My own precious blood, and so He gave Himself a ransom for all. But His death was not only for that nation. We read: That Jesus should die for that nation, and not for that nation only, but that he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad (vv. 51b-52). That is, the work of our Lord Jesus Christ on Calvary was not to be simply for the nation of Israel. It was for that nation. He did come to bear the sins and guilt of that nation; He did come to redeem His own people. But He also said, Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one [flock], and one shepherd (Joh 10:16). Those other sheep are the Gentiles, the nations outside of Israel, the nations which at that time did not have any written revelation from God. They had no Bible, no prophets, and no teachers. They had the testimony of creation and had turned away from that. Because of this God had given them up to all kinds of sin and uncleanness, yet His heart went out to them. He had settled it that His blessed Son would give Himself a ransom for all. Oh, the amazing grace, that God should send Jesus and that Jesus should gladly come to die for a guilty world. We read, This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners [and the apostle Paul could add]; of whom I am chief (1Ti 1:15). We sing today,

Saved by the blood of the crucified One,

Ransomed from sin and a new life begun;

Sing praise to the Father, and praise to the Son,

Im saved by the blood of the crucified One.

We dare to say that there is no sinner in all the world today so vile and guilty. But if he will come in the merit of that sacrifice on the cross, God will receive him to Himself, freely forgive him, and give him a new life. Am I addressing anyone who has not realized that He died to gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad? Wherever you are today, if you are bowed down beneath the sense of your sin and guilt, if your conscience is accusing you before a holy God and you are saying, Oh, that I knew how I might make my peace with God, how I might get right with Him, you do not have to make peace with Him yourself. Jesus made peace by the blood of His cross. Come to Him with a broken and a contrite heart. Confess your iniquity and trust Him as your Savior. You may know His redeeming grace today. You may come just as you are.

But notice further, in connection with the account of this effort to railroad the Son of God to a felons death on the part of men who knew Him to be innocent, we read, Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death (Joh 11:53). There was no softening of the heart nor any sense of their own wickedness. Sin is such a hardening thing. We are warned against the danger of being hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. The only way to deal with sin is to face it honestly before God, who alone can give salvation from its power through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Following this, we are told that Jesuswalked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples (v. 54). The hour had not yet come that He was to be delivered up to death, so He labored on, ministering in another district.

And we are told the Jews Passover was at hand. That is a strange expression as we noticed before-the Jews Passover. It was originally a feast of the Lord, but they were going on with the outward observances while rejecting the Christ of whom the feast spoke. I think we see something like this at the present time. I am afraid that there are thousands of people who are very punctilious about church membership and attendance on divine service, who lay great stress on Christian ordinances such as the sacred ordinances of baptism and the Lords Supper, and yet are in their hearts rejecting the Savior of whom these things speak. God, who looks down upon them, sees them as empty rites and ceremonies that men in the flesh are carrying out and that avail them nothing because they are refusing the Lord Jesus Christ.

Think of the solemnity, for instance, of observing the Lords Supper and taking the bread and wine that speak of a crucified Savior while rejecting that Savior, refusing to trust Him, spurning His grace, eating and drinking judgment to ones own soul, not discerning the Lords body. Let us be honest and face things as they actually are before Him.

The Jews Passover was nigh at hand. Many went out of the country up to Jerusalem to purify themselves. These were country people, not the people of the city who had rejected Him, and it is of some of these we read, The common people heard him gladly (Mar 12:37).

And as they came to keep the feast of the Passover, they wondered, Shall we get an opportunity to see Him? They were anxious to see Him and listen to His teaching. They sought for Him and spoke among themselves: What think ye, that he will not come to the feast? (Joh 11:56). Oh, yes, He would be there. In a little while they would see Him, but alas, all His wondrous grace would not change the attitude of the leaders.

We read, Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should show it, that they might take him (v. 57). What for? That they might test His claims and face things honestly before God and decide whether this was really the Messiah or not? Oh, no, not that. They gave commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should show it, that they might take him and arrest Him, and thus bring about His death. How little they realized that one was yet to come forward who would betray Him to them, and that one numbered among His own!

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

gathered: Psa 2:2-4, Mat 26:3, Mat 27:1, Mat 27:2, Mar 14:1, Luk 22:2, Act 4:5, Act 4:6, Act 4:27, Act 4:28, Act 5:21

What: Joh 12:19, Act 4:16, Act 4:17, Act 5:24

Reciprocal: Exo 8:19 – This is Num 23:23 – What hath 1Ki 12:26 – Now shall 2Ki 6:13 – spy where Psa 58:2 – in heart Psa 62:4 – consult Psa 83:5 – For Pro 29:8 – Scornful Jer 29:27 – therefore Hos 6:9 – so Hab 2:12 – him Mat 2:3 – he Mat 5:22 – the council Mat 10:17 – councils Mat 21:15 – when Mat 21:16 – Hearest Mat 21:38 – This Mat 22:34 – they Mat 28:12 – General Mar 10:2 – the Pharisees Mar 12:7 – This Mar 15:31 – He Luk 6:11 – communed Luk 19:39 – rebuke Luk 20:14 – let Joh 3:2 – for Joh 7:26 – Do Joh 7:32 – Pharisees heard Joh 9:13 – General Joh 10:25 – the works Joh 11:53 – they Joh 12:10 – General Joh 15:24 – If Act 2:22 – a man Act 5:17 – the high

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

7

This council was the Sanhedrin, the highest court the Jews were allowed to have in the time of Christ. Upon the report brought to the Pharisees from the tomb of Lazarus, they became alarmed and called a special session of the council. For detailed information about the Sanhedrin, see the note with comments on Mat 26:3.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

These concluding verses of the eleventh chapter of John, contain a melancholy picture of human nature. As we turn away from Jesus Christ and the grave at Bethany, and look at Jerusalem and the rulers of the Jews, we may well say, “Lord, what is man?”

We should observe, for one thing, in these verses, the desperate wickedness of man’s natural heart. A mighty miracle was wrought within an easy walk of Jerusalem. A man four days dead was raised to life, in the sight of many witnesses. The fact was unmistakable, and could not be denied; and yet the chief priests and Pharisees would not believe that He who did this miracle, ought to be received as the Messiah. In the face of overwhelming evidence they shut their eyes, and refused to be convinced. “This man,” they admitted, “does many miracles.” But so far from yielding to this testimony, they only plunged into further wickedness, and “took counsel to put Him to death.” Great, indeed, is the power of unbelief!

Let us beware of supposing that miracles alone have any power to convert men’s souls, and to make them Christians. The idea is a complete delusion. To fancy, as some do, that if they saw something wonderful done before their eyes in confirmation of the Gospel, they would at once cast off all indecision and serve Christ, is a mere idle dream. It is the grace of the Spirit in our hearts, and not miracles, that our souls require. The Jews of our Lord’s day are a standing proof to mankind that men may see signs and wonders, and yet remain hard as stone. It is a deep and true saying, “If men believe not Moses and the Prophets, neither would they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.” (Luk 16:31.)

We must never wonder if we see abounding unbelief in our own times, and around our own homes. It may seem at first inexplicable to us, how men cannot see the truth which seems so clear to ourselves, and do not receive the Gospel which appears so worthy of acceptation. But the plain truth is, that man’s unbelief is a far more deeply-seated disease than it is generally reckoned. It is proof against the logic of facts, against reasoning, against argument, against moral suasion. Nothing can melt it down but the grace of God. If we ourselves believe, we can never be too thankful. But we must never count it a strange thing, if we see many just as hardened and unbelieving as the Jews.

We should observe, for another thing, the blind ignorance with which God’s enemies often act and reason. These rulers of the Jews said to one another, “If we let this Christ alone, we shall be ruined. If we do not stop His course, and make an end of His miracles, the Romans will interfere, and make an end of our nation.” Never, the event afterward proved, was there a more short-sighted and erring judgment than this. They rushed madly on the path they had chosen, and the very thing they feared came to pass. They did not leave our Lord alone, but crucified and slew Him. And what happened then? After a few years, the very calamity they had dreaded took place: the Roman armies did come, destroyed Jerusalem, burned the temple, and carried away the whole nation into captivity.

The well-read Christian need hardly be reminded of many such like things in the history of Christ’s Church. The Roman Emperors persecuted the Christians in the first three centuries, and thought it a positive duty not to let them alone. But the more they persecuted them, the more they increased. The blood of the martyrs became the seed of the Church.-The English Papists, in the days of Queen Mary, persecuted the Protestants, and thought that truth was in danger if they were let alone. But the more they burned our forefathers, the more they confirmed men’s minds in steadfast attachment to the doctrines of the Reformation.-In short, the words of the second Psalm are continually verified in this world: “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD.” But “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall have them in derision.” (Psa 2:4.) God can make the designs of His enemies work together for the good of His people, and cause the wrath of man to praise Him. In days of trouble, and rebuke, and blasphemy, believers may rest patiently in the Lord. The very things that at one time seem likely to hurt them, shall prove in the end to be for their gain.

We should observe, lastly, what importance bad men sometimes attach to outward ceremonial, while their hearts are full of sin. We are told that many Jews “went up out of the country to Jerusalem, before the Passover, to purify themselves.” The most of them, it may be feared, neither knew nor cared anything about inward purity of heart. They made much ado about the washings, and fasting, and ascetic observances, which formed the essence of popular Jewish religion in our Lord’s time; and yet they were willing in a very few days to shed innocent blood. Strange as it may appear, these very sticklers for outward sanctification were found ready to do the will of the Pharisees, and to put their own Messiah to a violent death.

Extremes like this meeting together in the same person, are unhappily far from uncommon. Experience shows that a bad conscience will often try to satisfy itself by a show of zeal for the cause of religion, while the “weightier matters” of the faith are entirely neglected. The very same man who is ready to compass sea and land to attain ceremonial purity, is often the very man, who, if he had fit opportunity, would not shrink from helping to crucify Christ. Startling as these assertions may seem, they are abundantly borne out by plain facts. The cities where Lent is kept at this day with the most extravagant strictness, are the very cities where the carnival before Lent is a season of glaring excess and immorality. The people in some parts of Christendom, who make much ado one week about fasting and priestly absolution, are the very people who another week will think nothing of murder! These things are simple realities. The hideous inconsistency of the Jewish formalists in our Lord’s time has never been without a long succession of followers.

Let us settle it firmly in our minds that a religion which expends itself in zeal for outward formalities, is utterly worthless in God’s sight. The purity that God desires to see is not the purity of bodily washing and fasting, of holy water and self-imposed asceticism, but purity of heart. Will-worship and ceremonialism may “satisfy the flesh,” but they do not tend to promote real godliness. The standard of Christ’s kingdom must be sought in the sermon on the mount: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” (Mat 5:8; Col 2:23.)

==================

Notes-

v47.-[Then gathered…priests…Pharisees…council.] This council was probably the great Sanhedrim, or consultative assembly of the Jewish Church. It was for purely ecclesiastical, and not for civil or political purposes. It is the same assembly before which, it is conjectured with much show of reason, our Lord made His defense, in the fifth chapter of this gospel. On receiving the tidings of the astounding miracle which had been wrought at Bethany, our Lord’s bitterest enemies, the chief priests and Pharisees, seem to have been alarmed and enraged, and to have felt the absolute necessity of taking decided measures to check our Lord’s progress. Ecclesiastical rulers, unhappily, are often the foremost enemies of the Gospel.

[And said, what do we?] This question indicates perplexity and irritation. “What are we about? Are we going to sit still, and let this new Teacher carry all before Him? What is the use of trifling with this new heresy? We are doing nothing effectual to check it. It grows: and we let it alone.”

[For this man doeth many miracles.] This is a marvelous admission. Even our Lord’s worst enemies confess that our Lord did miracles, and many miracles. Can we doubt that they would have denied the truth of His miracles, if they could? But they do not seem to have attempted it. They were too many, too public, and too thoroughly witnessed, for them to dare to deny them. How, in the face of this fact, modern infidels and skeptics can talk of our Lord’s miracles as being impostures and delusions, they would do well to explain! If the Pharisees who lived in our Lord’s time, and who moved heaven and earth to oppose His progress, never dared to dispute the fact that He worked miracles, it is useless to begin denying His miracles now, after eighteen centuries have passed away.

Let us note the desperate hardness and wickedness of man’s heart. Even the sight of miracles will not convert any one, without the renewing grace of the Holy Ghost.

Brentius remarks that the simple answer to the question of this verse ought to have been, “Our duty is to believe at once that this worker of many miracles is the Christ of God.”

v48.-[If we let Him thus alone.] This means, “If we continue to treat Him as we do now, and take no more active measures to put Him down; if we only dispute, and reason, and argue, and cavil, and denounce Him, but let Him have His liberty, let Him go where He pleases, let Him do what He pleases, and preach what He pleases.”

“Thus” can only mean “as at present, and hitherto.”

[All men will believe on Him.] This means the bulk of the population will believe that He is what He professes to be,-the promised Messiah. The number of His adherents will increase, and faith in His Messiahship will become contagious, and spread all over Palestine.

The word “all,” in this sentence, must evidently not be taken literally. It only means “the great mass of the people.” It is like “all men come unto Him,” said by the angry disciples of John the Baptist about Christ. (Joh 3:26.) When men lose their tempers, and talk in passion, they are very apt to use exaggerated expressions.

[The Romans come…take away our place…nation.] The process of reasoning by which the Pharisees arrived at this conclusion, was probably something of this kind. “This man, if let alone, will gather round Him a crowd of adherents, who will proclaim Him a Leader and King. This our governors, the Romans, will hear and consider it a rebellion against their authority. Then they will send an army, deal with us as rebels, destroy Jerusalem and the temple, and carry away the whole Jewish nation, as the Babylonians did, into captivity.”

In this wretched argument it is difficult to say which appears most prominent, ignorance or unbelief.

It was an ignorant argument. The Pharisees ought to have known well that nothing was further from our Lord’s teaching than the idea of an earthly kingdom, supported by an armed force. He always proclaimed that His kingdom was not of this world, and not temporal, like Solomon’s or David’s. He had never hinted at any deliverance from Roman authority. He distinctly taught men to render to Csar the things that were Csar’s, and had distinctly refused, when appealed to, to be “a Judge or divider” among the Jews. Such a person, therefore, was not the least likely to excite the jealousy of the Romans.

It was an unbelieving argument. The Pharisees ought to have believed that the Romans could never have conquered and put down our Lord and His adherents, if He really was the Messiah, and could work miracles at His will. The Philistines could not overcome David, and the Romans could not have overcome David’s greater Son. By their own showing, the Jewish nation would have had protection enough in the miracle-working power of our Lord.

That there was an exception throughout the East, at the time of our Lord’s ministry, that some remarkable person was about to arise, and become a great leader, is mentioned by Roman historians. But there is no evidence that the Roman Government ever showed jealousy of anyone who was merely a religious teacher, like our Lord, and did not interfere with the civil power.

The plain truth is, that this saying of the Pharisees looks like an excuse, caught up as a weapon against our Lord, and a pretext for stirring up enmity against Him. What they really hated was our Lord’s doctrine, which exposed their own system, and weakened their authority. They felt that “their craft was in danger.” But not daring to say this publicly, they pretended a fear that He would excite the jealousy of the Romans, and endanger the whole nation. They did just the same when they finally accused Him to Pilate, as One that stirred up sedition, and made Himself a King. It is no uncommon thing for wicked people to assign very untrue reasons for their conduct, and to keep back and conceal their true motives. Demetrius, and his friends at Ephesus, said that the temple of the great goddess Diana was in danger, when in reality it was their own “craft” and their own “wealth.” The Jews at Thessalonica who persecuted Paul, pretended great zeal for “the decrees of Csar,” when their real motive was hatred of Christ’s Gospel. The Pharisees here pretended fear of the Romans, when in reality they found the growing influence of Jesus pulling down their own power over the people.

Calvin observes, “They double their wickedness by a plausible disguise,-their zeal for the public good. The fear that chiefly distressed them was, that their own tyranny should be destroyed: but they pretend to be anxious about the temple and worship of God.”

Bucer compares the Pharisees’ pretended fear of the Romans to the absurd fears of the consequence of printing and literature, which the Papists used to express at the period of the Reformation.

Flacius remarks, that “through fear of Csar, God is despised and His Son crucified, and this under pretext of preserving religion, the temple, and the nation. Human wisdom preserves itself by appeasing man and offending God!”

Ferus remarks that the council entirely forgot that “Rulers, whether the Romans or any others, are not a terror to good works, but to evil. If the Jews had believed and obeyed God, they had nothing to fear.”

That the leading Jews at Jerusalem had a strong suspicion that Jesus really was the Messiah, in spite of all their outrageous enmity and unbelief, is evident not only from comparison of other places, but from their nervous anxiety to get rid of Him. They knew that Daniel’s seventy weeks were run out. They could not deny the miracles that Jesus did. But they dared not follow out their convictions, and draw the conclusion they ought to have drawn. They willingly shut their eyes against light.

How miserably mistaken the policy of the Pharisees proved to be, it is needless to say. If they had let Jesus alone, and allowed His Gospel to be received and believed, Jerusalem, humanly speaking, might have stood to this day, and the Jews might have been more mighty and prosperous than in the days of Solomon. By not letting Jesus alone, and by killing Him, they filled up the measure of their nation’s sin, and brought destruction on the temple, and scattering on the whole people.

“Take away,” applied to “our place” here, must mean “destroy.”* Thus Mat 24:39-“The flood took them all away.”

*[This sentence read somewhat obscurely in the book, because the word PLACE did not have quotation marks around it; these have been added, and also the word “our” (from the Text) has been included to help it read better. The original sentence reads thus: “Take away,” applied to place here, must mean “destroy.”]

Some, as Heinsius and Bloomfield, think that “our place” means the city, Jerusalem.

Some, as Olshausen and Alford, think that “our place” means “our country.”

Others, as Maldonatus, Hutcheson, Poole, and Hammond, with whom I entirely agree, think “our place” means the temple. (Compare Act 6:13-14.) Lampe thinks this view is proved by Mic 1:3.

Calvin observes how many people in his day were always hanging back from helping the Protestant Reformation, from the very same motives as these Jews,-the fear of consequences. “We must consult public tranquility. There are dangers in the way.”

v49.-[And one of them, named Caiaphas.] This man, by comparing Act 5:17, would seem to have been of the sect of the Sadducees. We also know that he was son-in-law to Annas, of whom Josephus specially mentions that he was a Sadducee. If this view be correct (and Guyse, Gill, Scott, and Lampe agree with me in it), it rather accounts for the contemptuous way in which he seems to speak in replying here to the saying of the Pharisees. It is remarkable, however, to observe how Pharisees and Sadducees, who disagreed on so many points, were agreed in hating and opposing Christ. Formalists and skeptics, in all ages, make common cause against the Gospel.

[Being…high priest…same year.] This expression shows the disorder and irregularity which prevailed in the Jewish Church in our Lord’s time. According to the law of Moses, the office of high priest was tenable for life. In the last days of the Jews, the office seems to have been obtainable by election, and to have been held with great variety of term. Caiaphas was high priest when John the Baptist began his ministry, and Annas with him. (Luk 3:2.) He was also high priest after the Day of Pentecost, and before the persecution of Stephen. No wonder Paul says, on a subsequent occasion, of Ananias, “I did not know that he was the high priest.” (Act 23:5.)

Poole remarks, “After Herod’s time there was no regard to the family of Aaron, but the Romans made what high priests they pleased. Josephus tells us that the Jews had thirteen high priests from Aaron to Solomon, which was 612 years; eighteen from Solomon to the Babylonian captivity, which was 460 years; fifteen from the captivity to Antiochus, which was 414 years; but they had no less than twenty-eight between the time that Herod began to reign and Jerusalem was destroyed, which was less than a century.”

[Said…Ye know nothing at all.] The word rendered “ye” is here emphatic in the Greek. It seems not unlikely that it expresses Caiaphas’ contempt for the ignorance and helplessness of the Pharisees’ question. “You and all your party do not understand what the situation of things requires. You are wasting time in complaints and expressions of vexation, when a sterner, severer policy is imperatively demanded.”

Chrysostom remarks, “What others made matter of doubt, and put forth in the way of deliberation, this man cried aloud shamelessly, openly, and audaciously. One must die.”

Pearce thinks that some of the Jews in council must have talked of only putting a stop to Christ’s preaching, as they afterwards tried to stop the Apostles (Act 4:18), but that Caiaphas ridiculed such weak counsel, and advised more violent measures. May we not suppose that Nicodemus and others spoke in favor of our Lord?

v50.-[Nor consider.] The word thus rendered is almost always translated “reason,” and is nowhere “consider,” except here. It seems to imply that Caiaphas wished the Pharisees to know that they had not reasoned out and properly weighed the right thing to be done. Hence this perplexity. He would now show them the conclusion they ought to have come to.

[It is expedient…one…die…whole…perish not.] Caiaphas’ conclusion is short and decisive. He gives it elliptically. “This Man must die. It is far better that one should die, whether innocent or not, for the benefit of the whole nation, than that the whole nation should be brought into trouble and perish. You are thinking that if we do not let this Man alone, and interfere, we are injuring an innocent person. Away with such childish scruples. Let Him be put out of the way. It is expedient to kill Him. Better He should die to save the nation from further trouble, than live, and the nation be brought into trouble by Him.”

I cannot suppose that Caiaphas meant anything more than this. He simply argues that Christ’s death would be a public benefit, and that to spare Him might bring destruction on the nation. Of the full meaning that His words were capable of bearing, I do not believe he had the least idea.

Let us carefully note here what crimes and sins may be committed on the ground of expediency. None are so likely to be tempted to commit such sins as rulers and governors. None are so likely to do things unjust, dishonest, and oppressive, as a Government under the pressure of the spurious argument that it is “expedient” that the few should suffer, rather than the many should take harm. For political expediency Christ was crucified. What a fact that is! Ought we not rather to ask always what is just, what is right, what is honorable in the sight of God? That which is morally wrong can never be politically right. To govern only for the sake of pleasing and benefiting the majority, without any reference to the eternal principles of justice, right, and mercy, may be expedient, and please man; but it does not please God.

Calvin observes, “Let us learn never to separate what is useful and expedient from what is lawful, since we ought not to expect any prosperity and success but from the blessing of God.”

Ecolampadius remarks that we must never do evil that good may come. “If you could, by the slaying of one good man, work the saving of many, it would be unlawful.

Poole observes, “Never was anything spoken more diabolically. Like a wretched politician, concerned for nothing but the people’s safety, Caiaphas saith not ‘it is lawful,’ but ‘it is expedient’ for us that one Man, be He never so good, never so innocent and just, should die.”

Doddridge remarks, “When will the politicians of this world learn to trust God in His own ways, rather than to trust themselves and their own wisdom, in violation of all rules of truth, honor, and conscience?”

v51, v52-[And this spake he not of himself, etc.] These two verses contain a parenthetical comment by John, on the address of Caiaphas to the Pharisees. It is a peculiar passage, and not without difficulty. That a man like Caiaphas should be said to prophesy, and that his prophecy should be of so wide and extensive a character, is undoubtedly strange. I offer a few remarks that may help throw light on the passage.

That God can employ a wicked man to declare prophetical truth, is clearly proved by the case of Balaam. But the positions of Balaam and Caiaphas were very different.

That the Jewish high priest at any time possessed, by virtue of his office, the power of predicting things to come, I can nowhere find. David certainly speaks of Zadok as “a seer.” (2Sa 15:27.) The high priest’s ephod conveyed a certain mysterious power to the wearer, of foreseeing things immediately near. (1Sa 23:9.) The “urim and thummin,” whatever they were, which dwelt in the breastplate of the high priest, appear to have given the wearer peculiar powers of discernment. But even they were withdrawn at the destruction of the first temple. In short, there is an utter absence of proof that a Jewish high priest, in the time of our Lord, had any power of prophesying.

I believe that the verses before us are very elliptical, and require much to be supplied in order to convey the meaning of John. The only satisfactory sense I can put upon the passage will be found in the following free paraphrase.

[This spake he not of himself.] He spoke these words, though he was not aware of it, under the influence of an overruling power, making him say things of far deeper meaning than he was conscious of himself. As Ecolampadius says, “God used him as an instrument.” (See Isa 10:15.)

[But being high priest that year, he prophesied.] He spoke words which as the event showed afterwards, were eminently prophetical; and the fact that they fell from his lips when he was high priest, made them more remarkable, when afterward remembered and noted.

[That Jesus should die for that nation.] He actually foretold, though the fulfillment was in a manner very different from his intentions, that Jesus would die for the benefit of the Jewish nation.

[And not for that nation only, etc.] And He also foretold what was practically fulfilled afterwards, though in a way marvelously unlike what he thought,-that Jesus would not only die for the Jewish nation, but for the benefit of all God’s children at present scattered all over the world.

The utmost, in fact, that I can make of John’s explanatory comment, is that he remarks on the extraordinary manner in which Caiaphas’ words proved true, though in a way that he never intended, wished, or expected. He lets fall a saying on a great public occasion, which comes from his lips with great authority, on account of his office as high priest. That saying was afterwards fulfilled in the most marvelous manner by the overruling providence of God, but in a way that the speaker never dreamed of. The thing was afterwards remembered and remarked on; and it seemed, says John, as if being high priest that year, he was miraculously compelled by the Holy Ghost to prophesy the redemption of mankind, at the very time that he thought he was only speaking of putting Christ to death. Caiaphas in short meant nothing but to advise the murder of Christ. But the Holy Ghost obliged him unconsciously to use words which were a most remarkable prediction of Christ’s death bringing life to a lost world.

The Greek word rendered “should die,” would be more literally, “was about to die.” It simply expresses a future coming event.

The “children of God scattered abroad,” I believe, means the elect of God among the Gentiles. They are put in contrast with “that nation,” or “the nation,” as it would be more literally rendered.

The “gathering together in one,” I believe to be that final gathering of all Christ’s members which is yet to come at His second advent. (See Eph 1:10; Joh 12:32; Gen 49:10.)

Lightfoot says, the Jews thought the greatest work of Messiah was to be the “reduction, or gathering together of the captivities.”

I leave the passage with a very deep sense of its difficulty, and desire not to press my views on others dogmatically, if they are not satisfied with them.

Chrysostom remarks, “Caiaphas prophesied, not knowing what he said; and the grace of God merely made use of his mouth, but touched not his accursed heart.”

Musculus and Ferus remark how striking the resemblance is between Caiaphas unintentionally using language fulfilled in a sense totally unlike what he meant, and the Jews saying of Christ to Pilate, “His blood be on us and on our children.” They little knew the awful and tremendous extent of the saying.

The absurdity of the Roman Catholic claim, that the Pope’s words and decrees are to be received as partially inspired because of his office, on the ground of this passage, is noted and exposed by all the Protestant commentators of the seventeenth century.

Lightfoot thinks we should lay great emphasis on the expression, “that same year,” and justly so.-He observes that it was the very year when the high priest’s office ended, the veil was rent, and the Jewish dispensation wound up, and the Mosaic priesthood abrogated by Christ’s becoming manifestly our Priest.-He thinks Paul, in Act 23:5, “I wist not that he was the high priest,” may have meant “that he did not know there was any high priest at all.”-He also observes that this very year at Pentecost, the Holy Ghost was poured out as the spirit of prophecy and revelation in an extraordinary measure. What wonder if “that year” the last high priest, like Balaam, should prophesy.

v53.-[Then from that day…counsel…death.] We see here the result of Caiaphas’ counsel. His stern, bold, outspoken proposal carried all the council with him, and even if Gamaliel, Nicodemus, and Joseph were there, their voices were silenced. From that very day it became a settled thing with the Jewish leaders at Jerusalem, that Jesus was to be put to death.

The only difficulty was to find the way, the time, and the means of doing it, without creating a tumult. The great miracle just wrought at Bethany would doubtless increase the number of our Lord’s adherents, and make it necessary to use caution in carrying out the murderous plan.

The conclusions of great Ecclesiastical Councils are seldom wise and good, and sometimes are wicked and cruel. Bold, forward, unscrupulous men, like Caiaphas, generally silence the quieter members, and carry all before them.

v54.-[Jesus therefore walked…Jews.] From this time our Lord found it necessary to give up appearing openly at Jerusalem, and came there no more till the week of his crucifixion. He knew the result of the Council just held, either from His own Divine knowledge, or from the information of friends like Nicodemus; and as His time was not fully come, he retired from Juda for a season.

The expression “no more,” is literally “not yet.” It must mean “no more at present.”

May we not learn from our Lord’s conduct, that it may be a duty sometimes not to court danger or death? There are seasons when it is a duty to retire, as well as seasons for going forward. There are times to be silent, as well as times to speak.

Hutcheson remarks, “It is lawful for Christ’s servants to flee when their death is decreed by enemies, and the persecution is personal.”

[Went thence…wilderness…Ephraim…disciples.] Nothing whatever is known for certain of the distinct locality to which our Lord retired, or of the city here named. It seems, purposely, to have been a quiet, isolated, and little frequented place. The probability is that it was beyond Jordan, in Perea, because when our Lord came to Jerusalem the last time He passed through Jericho.

Ellicott suggests that Ephraim was a town also called Ophrah, about twenty miles north of Jerusalem, on the borders of Samaria. He also thinks that on leaving Ephraim those words of Luke (Luk 17:11) come in, which say, that our Lord “passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.” After that he thinks He went through Perea, to Jericho. But I am not satisfied that he proves these points.

It is worth noticing that our Lord chose a scene of entire quiet and seclusion as His last abode, before going up to His last great season of suffering at the crucifixion. It is well to get alone and be still, before we take in hand any great work for God. Our Savior was not above this. How much more should His disciples remember it! In saying this, I would not be thought to commend the ostentatious “retreats” of the Romish Church and its followers. It is of the very essence of Christian retirement, if it is to be profitable, that it should be without parade, and should not attract the notice of men. The life of the Eremite has no warrant in Scripture.

When it says that our Lord continued or tarried at Ephraim “with His disciples,” it is worth noticing that we do not hear a word of any public works that he did there. It looks as if He devoted the last few quiet days that remained before His crucifixion, to uninterrupted communion with the Father, and private instruction of His disciples.

v55.-[And…Jews’ passover…nigh at hand.] This expression, like many others in John’s Gospel, shows that he wrote for the Church generally, and for many readers who were not familiar with Jewish feasts and customs.

[And many went…country…before…passover.] This seems mentioned as a simple matter of custom among the Jews, and not as a thing done this year more than any other. They always did so; and thus drew together, for seven days before the passover, a larger collection of people at Jerusalem than at any other time of the year. Hence the crowds and expectation when our Lord appeared. He had been talked of by people from all parts of Palestine.

[To purify themselves.] This refers to the ceremonial washings, purifications, and atonements for ceremonial uncleanness, which all strict Jews were careful to go through before eating the passover. (See 2Ch 30:18-19.) It is impossible to read the book of Leviticus carefully, and not to be struck with the almost endless number of ways in which an Israelite could become ceremonially unclean, and need going to the priest to have an atonement made. (See Num 9:6-11.) That the Pharisees, in such matters, added to legal strictness by their absurd scrupulosity, such as “straining at a gnat,” as if the dead body of such an insect could defile them, we cannot doubt: but the simple law as it stood was a yoke that was very hard to bear. No wonder that thousands of devout Jews came anxiously before the passover to Jerusalem, to be made ceremonially clean and fit for the feast.

It is worth noting how singularly particular men are sometimes about forms and ceremonies and outward correctness, while they coolly plan and execute enormous crimes. The Jews, zealous about “purifying” themselves while they were planning the murder of Christ, have had imitators and followers in every age of the Church. Strictness about forms and ceremonies, and utter recklessness about gross sin, are found quite compatible in many hearts.

v56.-[Then sought they…Jesus, and spake, etc., etc.] The persons here mentioned seem to me to have been the Jews from all parts of Palestine, mentioned in the last verse, who had come up to prepare for the passover. The fame and history of our Lord were probably so great throughout Palestine, that one of the first inquiries the comers would make of one another would be about Him. And as they stood in the temple court, waiting for their turn to go through ceremonial purification, or talking with old friends and acquaintances who had come up, like themselves, from the country, Jesus would probably be a principal topic of conversation.

[What think ye…that…not come…feast?] This is mentioned as one of the principal inquiries made by the Jews of one another. Our Lord, on a former occasion, had not come up to the passover. (See Joh 6:1-71.) They might, therefore, naturally feel doubtful whether He would come now.

It is noteworthy that the question admits of being taken as one, or divided into two distinct ones.

Some think that it means, “What think ye of the question, whether He will come to the feast or not?”

Others hold that it means, “What think ye of Christ, and especially of His position at this time? Do you think that He will not come to the feast?” I myself prefer this view.

It is noteworthy that the very question with which our Lord confounded the Pharisees a few days after, as recorded in Mat 22:42, begins with precisely the same Greek words as those here used, “What think ye of Christ?”

v57.-[Now both…priests…Pharisees, etc., etc.] This verse shows the first steps which had been taken after the session of the Council which adopted the advice of Caiaphas to kill Jesus. A general order had been given that if any man knew where Jesus lodged in Jerusalem, he was to give information, in order that He might be apprehended.

I cannot help thinking myself that this order must only have referred to Jerusalem, and the house where our Lord might lodge when He came to the passover, if He did come. I cannot suppose that our Lord’s enemies could be ignorant where He was between the miracle of Bethany and the passover.

But I fancy they dared not run the risk of a tumult or rebellion, which might be caused if they sent into the rural districts to apprehend Him. Indeed, it is doubtful whether the jurisdiction of the priests and Pharisees extended beyond the walls of Jerusalem, and whether they could lay hands upon our Lord anywhere outside the city. This may have been the reason why He often lodged at Bethany.

Musculus here discusses the question, whether obedience to the powers that be, obliges us to give up a man to those who are seeking to apprehend him. He answers, “Decidedly not; if we believe him to be an innocent man.”

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

Joh 11:47. The chief priests and the Pharisees therefore gathered a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many signs. Here, probably for the first time in this Gospel, we read of a meeting of the Sanhedrin,not a formal meeting, but one hastily summoned in the sudden emergency that had arisen. (See the note on chap. Joh 7:32.) The question What do we? is not so much deliberative (What are we to do?) as reproachful of themselves, What are we doing? This man (a designation of dislike or contempt) is working many miracles and we do nothing,take no steps to prevent the evil that must follow! The Evangelist is careful to preserve their testimony against themselves; in the moment of their rage they acknowledge the many signs of Jesus, and confess themselves without excuse.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Joh 11:47-48. Then gathered the chief priests, &c. The account which these men gave of Lazaruss resurrection, raised the indignation of the rulers to the highest pitch. They called a council forthwith, and after consultation blamed one another for having suffered Jesus to go so long unpunished. But this miracle being too evident to be denied, as all his miracles indeed were, they did not, even in their most private conferences, say or intimate to one another, that their displeasure and opposition proceeded from his passing false miracles upon the ignorant vulgar. They rather condemned him upon the truth and notoriety of his miracles; pretending that they were designed to establish a new sect in religion, which might endanger, not their church only, but their state. They said, What do we? What, indeed? Why, you resist the truth, confirmed by the most astonishing and convincing miracles ever wrought: you show that death itself yields to the power of Christ sooner than infidelity. For this man doeth many miracles Thus, though they were his sworn enemies, they could not help giving him an ample testimony, even in full court. If we let him thus alone If we suffer him to go on thus uncontrolled. But how can you prevent his going on? How can you control one who walks on the water, calms the winds and waves with a word, and with a word cleanses the lepers, heals the sick, and raises the dead? All men will believe on him And ought they not? Will they not be justified if they do, nay, and inexcusable if they do not? And are not you inexcusable in not believing on him? Surely for this very reason, that he does so many miracles, all salutary and tending to the good of mankind, and with such evidence of a divine power as you yourselves think is likely to draw all men to believe in him, you should acknowledge him to be the true Messiah, and profess yourselves his disciples, subjects, and servants. But the Romans will come If we suffer this man to proceed thus, and continually to increase the number of his followers, it will give such umbrage to the Romans, that, on pretence of an insurrection being raised in the country, they will send a powerful army and destroy both our place, our temple, and nation Both our church and state. Will overturn both our religious and civil constitution. Were they really afraid of this? or was it a mere pretence, a fair colour only for their conduct? Certainly it was no more. For they could not but know, that he who raised the dead was able to conquer the Romans. They entered, however, at this time, immediately after this most astonishing of all Christs miracles, this most convincing of all the evidences he had given of his being the Messiah, into a resolution of putting him to death at all hazards. But those politicians were taken in their own craftiness; for while they proposed, by killing Jesus, to avoid the destruction of their temple and city, the sin which they committed in killing him was so great, that God, in his just indignation, made the very people, whose resentment they proposed to avoid by this wicked measure, the instruments of his vengeance. He brought the Roman armies against them, who destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city; leaving, in that dreadful catastrophe, an awful warning to all statesmen, to beware of prosecuting unjust measures, on pretence of consulting the good of the nation, whose affairs they direct. Macknight.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Vv. 47-50. The chief priests and Pharisees therefore gathered an assembly, and they said, What shall we do? For this man does many miracles. 48. If we let him alone, all will believe on him, and the Romans will come and they will destroy both our place and nation. 49. But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high-priest of that year, said to them: You know nothing at all, 50 and you do not consider that it is better for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.

The resurrection of Lazarus was not the cause of Jesus’ death; but it occasioned and hastened the decree of His condemnation. The cup was full; this made it overflow. The Pharisees are specially named because they were the instigators of this hostile meeting (Joh 11:46; John 9:45); but it was the chief priests who officially convoked it.

The absence of the article before might be explained by supposing that John is here using this word as a proper name. It is more natural, however, to take the term in the general meaning of assembly or council, which it has also in the profane Greek. The present , what do we takes the place of a future; it makes prominent the imminence of the danger. It is absolutely necessary to do something, but what? : because of the fact that. His doing must decide ours. The fear expressed in Joh 11:48 was not without foundation. The least commotion might serve the Romans as a pretext for depriving the people of Israel of the remnant of independence which they still enjoyed, and in that case what would become of the power of the Sanhedrim? The disquietude of the rulers has reference especially to the destruction of their power. This is emphatically expressed by the position of the pronoun (of us, our) before the two substantives. Jesus reproduced this thought of the rulers in the words of the laborers in the vineyard, Mat 21:38 : Let us kill him and secure the inheritance. Jerusalem, Israel, belong to them. Our place naturally designates the capital, as the seat of their government, rather than the temple (Lucke, de Wette, etc.), or the whole of Judea (Bengel). In the first sense, this term is also more naturally connected with the following expression: our nation; that which we govern from this place. As they speak from a political point of view, contrasting nation with nation, they employ the term , and not , which is the name of honor for the people of Israel.

The expression: one of them, hardly allows us to suppose that Caiaphas was presiding over the assembly. Although, indeed, it seems now to be proved that the high-priest was at the same time president of the Sanhedrim (Schurer, Lehrb. der N. T. Zeitgesch., p. 411), we must not forget that this was not a regular meeting (Joh 11:47). In the midst of a company of irresolute spirits, who are wavering between conscience and interest, an energetic man, who boldly denies the rights of conscience and unscrupulously puts forward reasons of state, has always the chance of carrying his point. If this had occurred in the best days of the theocracy, the expression: High- priest of that year, would be incomprehensible; for, according to the law, the pontificate was for life. But, since the Roman dominion, the masters of the country fearing the power which a permanent office gives, had adopted the custom of frequently replacing one high-priest by another.

According to Josephus (Antiq., 18.2. 2), the Roman governor Valerius Gratus took away the high-priestly office from Ananus and conferred it on Ishmael; then, having deposed the latter a little while afterwards, he established as high-priest Eleazar, the son of Ananus: after a year had elapsed, he deposed this last person and nominated Simon in his place; he held the office only one year, and Joseph, surnamed Caiaphas, was made his successor. Caiaphas remained in office from the year 25 to the year 36 of our era; consequently, the entire ministry of Jesus was passed under his pontificate. These frequent changes justify the expression of the evangelist, and deprive criticism of the right to assert that the author of our Gospel was ignorant of the fact that the high-priesthood, from its foundation, was a life-office. But if Caiaphas had been high-priest for eleven official years, how could St. John use three times (Joh 11:49-51; Joh 18:13) the expression: High-priest of that year? We find the pronoun used here in the particularly emphatic sense which it has so frequently in this Gospel; not, that more remote year, in opposition to some other nearer one, but, that unique, decisive year, in which the Messiah was put to death and the priesthood, with the theocracy, came to its end. The apostrophe of Caiaphas to his colleagues has a certain character of rudeness.

This feature, as Hengstenbergobserves, agrees with the behavior of the Sadducean sect to which Caiaphas belonged; comp. Act 4:6; Act 5:17, and Josephus, Antiq., 20.9. 1. In Bell. Jud., 2.8, 14, this historian says: The Pharisees are friendly to each other, and cultivate harmony among themselves with a view to the common benefit; but the manners of the Sadducees are much more rude both towards each other and towards their equals, whom they treat as strangers. Hengstenbergtakes in an intransitive sense and the following in the sense of because: You do not consider, seeing that it is more advantageous that … But it is more natural to make the clause which begins with the content of : You know nothing and you do not consider that … The reading : You do not know how to clear up by reasoning… is preferable to the simple which results from negligence or from a mistaken correction. The reading , for us, has fundamentally the same sense as the variant , for you;but it somewhat better disguises the egoistic and personal character of the opinion expressed (comp. the of Joh 11:48). The use of the terms and in Joh 11:50 is not arbitrary. The first (corresponding to the Hebrew am) designates the multitude of individuals forming the theocratic nation, in opposition to the single individual who is to perish, while the second, answering to goi, designates Israel as a political body in contrast with the foreign nationality, that of the Romans.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

XCIV.

RETIRING BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN’S DECREE.

(Jerusalem and Ephraim in Juda.)

dJOHN XI. 47-54.

d47 The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a council [called a meeting of the Sanhedrin], and said, What do we? [Thus they reproach one another for having done nothing in a present and urgent crisis. As two of their number (Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimatha) were afterwards in communications with Christians, it was easy for the disciples to find out what occurred on this notable occasion.] for this man doeth many signs. [They did not deny the miracles, therefore their conduct was the more inexcusable.] 48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him [they found that despite the threat of excommunication, Jesus was still winning disciples under the very shadow of Jerusalem]: and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation. [The course of Jesus seemed to undermine Judaism, and to leave it a prey to the innovations of Rome. It is uncertain what is meant by the noun “place.” Meyer says it refers to Jerusalem; Luecke to the temple; while Bengel says that place and nation are a proverbial expression, meaning “our all;” but the Greek language furnishes no example of such proverbial use. It is more likely that place refers to their seats in the Sanhedrin, which they would be likely to lose if the influence of Jesus became, as they feared, the dominant power. They [527] feared then that the Romans would, by removing them, take away the last vestige of civil and ecclesiastical authority, and then eventually obliterate the national life.] 49 But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year [that notable, fatal year; he was high priest from A.D. 18 to A.D. 36], said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor do ye account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. [His words are a stinging rebuke, which may be paraphrased thus: “If you had any sense you would not sit there asking, ‘What do we?’ when there is but one thing to do; viz.: Let Jesus die and save the people.” Expediency, not justice, is his law.] 51 Now this he said not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation; 52 and not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one [ Gal 3:28, Col 3:11] the children of God that are scattered abroad. [The expression “not of himself” is a very common Hebrew idiom for “not of himself only.” God had a meaning in his words different from his own. In earlier, better days the high priest had represented the divine headship of the nation, and through him, by means of the Urim and Thummin, the inspired oracles and decisions had been wont to come. This exalted honor had been lost through unworthiness. But now, according to the will of God, the high priest prophesies in spite of himself, as did Balaam and Saul, performing the office without the honor.] 53 So from that day forth they took counsel that they might put him to death. [Thus, acting on the advice of Caiaphas the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus without a hearing and sought means to carry their condemnation to execution. Quieting their consciences by professing to see such political dangers as made it necessary to kill Jesus for the public welfare, they departed utterly from justice, and took the course which brought upon them the very evils which they were professedly seeking to avoid.] 54 Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews, but departed [528] thence into the country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there he tarried with the disciples. [Ephraim is supposed to be the city called Ophrah at Jos 18:23 and Ephraim at 2Ch 13:19. Dr. Robinson and others identify it with the village now called et Taiybeh, which is situated on a conical-shaped hill about sixteen miles northeast of Jerusalem and five miles east of Bethel. It is on the borders of a wilderness, and commands an extensive view of the Jordan valley. Here Jesus remained till shortly before his last Passover.]

[FFG 527-529]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

CONDEMNATORY VERDICT OF THE SANHEDRIN

Joh 11:47-54. Then the chief priests and Pharisees convened the Sanhedrin, and continued to say, What shall we do? because this man is performing many miracles. If the leading ministers and Church authorities had not stood in the way of the people, Israel would have received Jesus unanimously, turned evangelists, and preached Him to the world, bringing on the millennium long ago. The truth of the matter is clear. The high priests, Pharisees, and Sanhedrin had so yielded to Satan and grieved the Holy Spirit as to superinduce the departure of the latter, and the actual, diabolical possession of the former, till they had crossed the dead-line and were unconvincible.

If we thus let Him alone, all will believe on Him. What a frank confession of the truth, if they had not meddled with them and obstinately stood between the people and Jesus, they would all have believed on Him. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Jesus. The present holiness movement, like that of Luther, Wesley, and others, is Jesus again walking upon the earth in His spiritual manifestation, inviting the people to enter the kingdom of holiness, as He did in the days of His incarnation. If let alone, the Churches would en masse seek holiness, and inundate the world with salvation. The leading preachers are still in the way, as in the days of Christ.

The Romans will come, and take away both our place and nation. Thirty- three years Judea had been a Roman province, every vestige of their former freedom swept away. They were looking for Christ, and all believed that He was to be the King of the Jews when He came; in which case they knew that mighty Rome would be arrayed against them, with her invincible armies, and their only chance to have their own king was to conquer the Romans, an utter impossibility, as they ruled the whole world in one vast, consolidated despotism. This prophecy actually did come true. Though they rejected Christ, they erelong revolted against the Romans, and fought for their independence till literally exterminated, with the exception of a few poor people, driven away to the ends of the earth; while the Romans not only destroyed Jerusalem, but desolated all Palestine. So the very calamities they here deprecate as an excuse for the rejection of Christ, actually overtook them.

And a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, You do not know nor consider that it is profitable to you that one man may die for the people, and not the whole nation perish. This prophecy is literally true, and yet you see it was uttered by that wicked high priest, whom Satan had captured. The next verse explains it. He spoke this, not from himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but that He may gather together in one the children of God which had been scattered abroad. The elect of God have been in all nations, in all ages, as will be revealed when the assembled universe shall stand before the Great White Throne. Before Jesus came on the earth in His Incarnate Personality and preached the gospel, the Holy Spirit revealed Jehovah i.e., God in Christ to the humble, sincere, true, and appreciative souls of every age and nation, who, in the absence of the written Word and a knowledge of the Incarnate Redeemer, walking in the light of nature, conscience, providence, and the Holy Spirit even the savage, in his primeval wilds, seeing God in the clouds and hearing Him in the winds,

Whose soul proud science never taught to stray Far as the solar walk or milky-way,

were accepted of God, like Cornelius, the heathen Roman centurion. The advent of Christ marked a signal epoch in the history of redemption, after which no soul who stubbornly rejects Him can be saved; meanwhile the Christhood of Jesus becomes the great dogma on which the visible Church is built in all the world. However differing in non-essential matters, she must be a unit on the Christhood of Jesus. (Mat 16:18.) In this instance, we have a demonstrative proof that the gifts of the Spirit are not invariably limited to the sanctified nor to the regenerated, as here we have a demonstrative case, in which the gift of prophecy, pronounced by Paul the most important, is conferred on Caiaphas, for the moment, who at that time was leading the Council against Jesus, and ready to sign His death-warrant, which he did a few days afterward.

Therefore from that day they counseled in order that they may kill Him. Ebouleusanto, counseled, is in the aorist tense, which means an instantaneous and complete performance, setting forth the fact that the Sanhedrin, on that occasion, passed a formal verdict condemning Him to death. So potent and overwhelming was the popular influence, superinduced by the resurrection of Lazarus, that they, after deliberate counsel and consideration, came to the conclusion that, despite all they could do, the people would rally and crown Him King, thus precipitating on them a war with the Romans, which could only end in their extermination. Consequently they concluded that it was better for one to die than that multitudes should perish, a verdict so common among the Orientals; meanwhile, the spirit of prophecy coming on Caiaphas, the high priest, in a thrilling proclamation of a clear Messianic prophecy setting forth the vicarious atonement. Thus we see a strange combination of concurrent events: the true prophecy of Caiaphas, inspired by the Holy Ghost, proclaiming the necessity for one to die for the people rather than that all perish, and at the same time the seventy sages constituting the Sanhedrin corroborating that prophecy from a purely selfish and secular consideration, illustrating how wonderfully God makes the wrath of man to praise Him, and restrains the remainder of wrath; i.e., when the wrath of man can no longer be made subservient to the glory of God, then He puts His hand on it and restrains it altogether. Therefore, Jesus no longer was walking about among the Jews, but departed thence into the country near the desert, into the city called Ephraim, and there abode with His disciples. Ephraim here is identical with Ephron in O. T. After that condemnatory verdict of the Sanhedrin, immediately following the resurrection of Lazarus, finding it unsafe to abide among the Jews, He retired to this quiet, rural retreat on the border of the desert, known in the N. T. as the wilderness of Judea. I have journeyed through it four times.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

11:47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a {g} council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.

(g) The Jews called the council sanhedrin: and the word that John uses is Synedri.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The official response 11:47-53

The raising of Lazarus convinced Israel’s leaders that they had to take more drastic action against Jesus. John recorded this decision as the high point of Israel’s official rejection of God’s Son so far. This decision led directly to Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

John’s "Therefore" or "Then" ties this paragraph directly to what precedes in a cause and effect relationship. The chief priests, who were mostly Sadducees, and the Pharisees, who were mostly scribes, assembled for an official meeting. The chief priests dominated the Sanhedrin, but the Pharisees were a powerful minority. The third and smallest group in the Sanhedrin was the elders, who were landed aristocrats who had mixed theological views.

The Sanhedrin members felt that they had to take some decisive action against Jesus because the more miracles He performed the greater His popular following grew. Ever more of the Jews were concluding that Jesus was the Messiah. Their present tactics against Jesus needed adjusting or He might destroy them.

It is interesting that they admitted privately that Jesus had performed many signs, though publicly they had earlier asked Him to produce some to prove His claims (Joh 2:18; Joh 6:30). Someone in the Sanhedrin, perhaps Nicodemus, must have reported this confession of their selfish reasons for killing Jesus to the disciples later.

"It has always been the case that those whose minds are made up to oppose what Christ stands for will not be convinced by any amount of evidence." [Note: Ibid., p. 502.]

The reference to "our place" was probably to the position of authority they occupied. A popular uprising resulting from the Jews’ belief that Israel’s political deliverer had appeared might bring the Romans down hard on Israel’s leaders and strip them of their power. These rulers viewed Israel as their nation rather than God’s nation, and they did not want to lose control of it or their prestige as its leaders (cf. King Saul). No one mentioned the welfare of the people in such an event (cf. Joh 10:8).

"The rich man in hades had argued, ’If one went unto them from the dead, they will repent’ (Luk 16:30. Lazarus came back from the dead, and the officials wanted to kill him!" [Note: Wiersbe, 1:338.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)