Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - John 11:45 - 11:57
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
(Joh_11:45-57.)
47Then [Therefore] gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council [the Council, or, the Sanhedrin] and said, What do we [shall we do, or, are we to do]? for this man doeth [worketh] many miracles [signs]. 48If we let him thus alone [thus go on], all men [omit men] will believe on [in] him; and the Romans shall [will] 49come and take away both our place and nation. And [a certain] one of them, named [omit named] Caiaphas, being the [omit the] high priest that same [omit 50same] year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor [do ye] consider that it is expedient for us [for you], that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not [and not the whole nation perish]. 51And this spake he [he spoke] not of [from] himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied [gave the high-priestly prophetic decision] that Jesus should [was about to] die for that [the] nation; 52And not for that [the] nation only, but that also he should [that he might also] gather together in [into] one [body, or, people] the children of God that were [are] scattered abroad.
53Then [Therefore] from that day forth they took counsel together for [omit for] to put him to death. 54Jesus therefore walked no more [longer] openly [freely] among the Jews; but went [departed] thence unto a [into the] country near to [omit to] the wilderness, unto a city called Ephraim, and there continued [so-journed, 55abode] with his [the] disciples. And [Now] the Jews’ passover [the passover of the Jews] was nigh at hand [omit nigh, or, at hand]: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves. 56Then sought they [They sought therefore] for Jesus, and spake [said] among themselves, as they stood in the temple, What think ye, that he will not come to the feast? 57Now both [omit both] the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment [issued commandments or, ordered], that, if any man [any one] knew where he were [was], he should shew it [give information, or, make it known], that they might take [seize] him.
Joh_11:47. The high priests and the Pharisees therefore assembled the Sanhedrin.—See Comm. on Matthew, chap. 5 p. 113, Am. Ed.; Winer, Art. Synedrium.
1. The Name: óõíÝäñéïí , talmudic: ñַðְäֵãְøִéê , Sanhedrin.
2. Signification: the supreme, theocratico-hierarchical Court of the Jews, resident at Jerusalem.
3. Composition and organization. It consisted of seventy-one members forming three classes (chief priests, elders, scribes). At that time it was composed of Pharisaic and Sadducean elements (Caiaphas, the high-priest, belonged to the Sadducean party). The Sanhedrin had a president ( äַðָּùִׂéà ), ordinarily the high-priest, who was assisted by a vice-president ( àַá áֵּéú ãִּéï ). There is not sufficient proof that a third functionary, styled çָëָí , stood at the left of the high-priest (Vitringa).
4. Sessions. Extraordinary: in urgent cases at the house of the high-priest. Ordinary: held daily (with the exception of the Sabbath and feast days), of old in a session room adjoining the temple, called Gazith, but in later times (from a period of forty years before the destruction of the temple) in places near the temple-mount.
5. Matters coming under the cognizance of this court as a forum: Matters concerning a whole tribe, a false prophet, the high-priest, or an arbitrary war, or blasphemy.
6. Punitory power. Formerly: Infliction of capital punishment (stoning, burning, beheading, hanging); later: excommunication and recommendation for capital punishment.
7. Administration. Connection with the minor courts; highest court of appeal from these; intercourse with them through surrogates and apparitors.
8. Extent of authority: Legislation, administration, justice.
9. History. According to the Talmudists this court originated in the institution of Moses, Num_11:24. That, probably, was but prelusive. So, too, the Supreme court of Jehoshaphat, 2Ch_19:8. Increased importance of this institution after the exile. The ãåñïõóßá in the time of the Seleucidæ (2Ma_1:10); the first decided mention at the time of Antipater and Herod (Joseph. Antiqu., XIV. 9, 4). A session of the Sanhedrin is called.
What shall we do [or, What are we to do, ðïéïῦìåìí ]?—The indicative, i.e., something must be done.—For this man.—Implacable hatred. They no longer protest against the many signs of Jesus; but nevertheless they contemptuously
say: this man. Doubtless the expression—many miracles, is also intended to obliterate the simple recognition of the grand raising of the dead. At the same time an expression of fear that He would perform yet other miracles.
Joh_11:48. If we let Him thus alone.—The policy of fear and anti-christianity. It is a wicked and empty fear that all will believe on Him; a wicked and empty fear that thence troubles will arise that will cause the Romans to invade the country; a wicked and empty fear that they will then make an end of the Jewish commonwealth. There is, moreover, in each one of these considerations a co-operative element of falsehood; hence it is likewise a trebly hypocritical fear And a fear, in sooth, which thinks itself justified by its motives, in carrying on hostile proceedings against a prophet of God, a doer of many miracles. In fine, a fear that occasions the very mischief it considers itself bound mischievously to avert. Weisse and Strauss have regarded this hierarchical portrait as an improbable one. Analogies at once suggest themselves; for instance, Ultramontanism confounds the Reformation with Anabaptism, Socialism, Communism, Antichristianity,—and is itself the parent of those very things which it seeks to foist upon the other.
They will take away both our place and nation [ êáὶôὸíôüðïíêáὶôὸἔèíïò ]. Áñïῦóéí according to Euthymius and many others, ἀðïëÝóïõóéí , according to Nonnus and others: they will wrest from us; this certainly is more in accordance with their egotistical sentiment which considers everything lost when the hierarchical rule is gone. Tholuck is in favor of: annihilate,—because Judea was already a Roman province. But the hierarchy still exercised rule. Our, ἡìῶí . Meyer: placed first, with the emphasis of egotism. Ôὸí ôüðïí variously construed: 1. As the temple, as the central sanctuary (Origen, Lücke [De Wette, Hengstenberg] and others, after Act_6:13; 2Ma_5:19); 2. as the country, “Land und Leute” [Luther] country and people—(Bengel, Luthardt, and others); 3. as the holy city [the seat of the Sanhedrin and the whole hierarchy], in favor of which, 2Ma_3:18; 2Ma_3:30. Chrysostom, Meyer. Be it observed that the temple with the holy mountain and the holy city form a concrete unit, as the residence of the theocratical hierarchy. However, the expression is also an unconscious prophecy, like the subsequent remark of Caiaphas.
Joh_11:49. And a certain one of them, Caiaphas. ÊáúÜöáò . See Comm. on Matt. Mat_26:3. Also Luk_3:2. It must be observed that the Sadducees, to whom Caiaphas belonged, have already begun to take part in the hostility against Jesus; having probably long despised Him, their active enmity is doubtless excited by the raising of Lazarus. They now, in the person of Caiaphas, take the foremost rank in the persecution; subsequently we see them for a time take the lead even of the Pharisees in hostility towards the Christian Church (Act_4:1-2).
Being high-priest that year [ ôïῦ ἐíéáõôïῦ ἐêåßíïõ ]. Different interpretations:
1. Bretschneider, Strauss [Schenkel, Scholten]: It is the erroneous idea that the high-priestly office changed hands from year to year. [But whoever was the writer of this Gospel, he shows sufficient familiarity with Jewish customs and localities throughout, to manifest that he was incapable of making such a mistake.—P. S.]
2. Baur: The Pseudo-John supposed Caiaphas and Hannas to have discharged the office alternately [very arbitrary].
3. Tholuck: “The repetition of ô . ἐíéáõôïῦ ἐê . Joh_11:49; Joh_11:51; Joh_18:13 cannot be understood otherwise than thus: namely, that the high-priest who once in the year offered the joint sacrifice for the people (Heb_9:7), must himself declare that in that year a greater and more universal joint sacrifice should be offered.” Yet John himself refers the saying not to the high priestly, but to the prophetic position of the high-priest.
4. Lücke: In that memorable year, the deathyear of the Redeemer, Caiaphas was at the head of affairs (and the Evangelist deemed it superfluous to add to the mention of this fact a reference to the duration of the office). This suffices; yet the expression undoubtedly contains also an intimation to the effect, that the high-priestly-office was debased at that time by the frequent alternations it sustained. See Leben Jesu.
Ye know nothing at all. ÏὐêïὐäÝí . As he is aware that he is giving utterance to the inmost wishes of the greater part of them, he can, with an appearance of righteous indignation, revile them, without apprehending the taking of much offence.
Joh_11:50. Nor consider that it is expedient [ óõìöÝñÝé ] for us—us of the Sanhedrin—that one man should die for the people [ ἵíá —according to divine purpose— åἶò ἄíèñùðïò ἀðïèÜíῃ ὑðὲñ ôïῦ ëáïῦ , and not the whole nation perish, êáὶ ìὴ ὃëïí ôὸ ἔèíïò ἀðüëçôáé . Thus the Jewish priesthood expired with an unconscious and unwilling prophecy of Christ’s atoning death, which it typically foreshadowed. Stier and Luthardt see in this a sublime irony of a most special Providence in the very centre of the world’s history.—P. S.] The ὑðÝñ , in commodum, for the benefit, becomes also an ἀíôß , instead of, in consequence of the concluding clause: “and that not the whole nation ( ëáüò , the whole mass of the people) perish. “Analogous sentences are collected by Schöttgen and Wetstein.” The devilishness of this pseudo-political maxim as conceived by Caiaphas, is contained in the idea that Jesus shall be a guiltless and involuntary sacrifice to secure the good of the nation. This diabolical notion causes the proposition to assume, in this sense, an ultra-heathenish, superstitious and lying aspect. It is the completed idea of the most revolting heathen Moloch-sacrifices, into which Israel lapses when at the very acme of its legalistic zeal for putatively pure Judaism. See Leben Jesu, II., p. 1138.
Joh_11:51. But being high-priest that year, he prophesied—i.e., unconsciously to himself, the wicked decree, as he apprehended it, had the significancy of an official prediction, and, as such, a higher sense. Various interpretations:
1. In the sense of áַּúַÎ÷åֹì (De Wette). There is undoubtedly something of a kindred nature in the Bath Kol; yet that is here insufficient, and it belongs to another sphere. See Herzog’s Real-Encyklopædie [I. 719].
2. An involuntary prophecy, like that of old, contained in the involuntary blessing of Balaam (Lücke, Tholuck). The cases are certainly allied; they differ, however, in that in the ease of Balaam, a distinction must be made between his common consciousness and his inspired mood (wherefore his words of blessing are not susceptible of a double interpretation, as is his character), while in Caiaphas we have to distinguish between his consciousness and the unconscious expression, mirroring a higher truth, and hence bearing a double meaning.
3. A sentence in accordance with the appointment of the high-priest, to prophesy by the Urim and Thummim, i.e., to utter the decision assignable to divine causality. Leben Jesu 2, 2, p. 1137. [So also Alford. This view is confirmed by the repetition of the phrase ἀñ÷éåñåὺò ὤí ôïῦ ἐí . ἐê . But this reference to the Urim and Thummim does not exclude the second view.—P. S.] “The high-priest,” says Meyer, “was considered in ancient Israelitish times as the bearer of the divine oracle, the organ of divine revelation (Ewald, Antiquities, p. 385 sq.), which he obtained by examination of the Urim and Thummim (Exo_28:30; Lev_27:21). It is true that this examination was discontinued in later times (Joseph. Ant. III., 8, 9)—the high-priestly office being in all things shorn of its glory; yet even in the prophetic age there still existed a belief in the prophethood of the high-priest (Hos_3:4); we find also in Josephus Antiq. VI., 6, 3, the ancient high-priesthood represented as the bearer of the oracle,” etc., [p. 444 f., 5th ed.] The high-priest was not the organ of divine revelation, but of divine decision; for the people whose king was God, must be able in all cases to have the mandate of its King. Now the decision was, if auspicious (as Philo, idealizing the priest, represents him as a prophet), a prophecy of blessing; but if the high-priest was an unenlightened man, his oracle became the utterance of a curse. The decision might also, in itself, be the fountain sometimes of fortune, sometimes of misfortune. But even in the latter case there was attached to it the blessing of a divine judgment, that brought deliverance to the pious (rabbinical passages of unconscious predictions in Schöttgen).
That Jesus was about to die [ ἥìåëëåíἀðïèíÞóêåéí ]. Ὅôé . The subsequent observation is not merely a pious reflection of John, as Lücke represents it; it is declaratory of the decisive providence of God, which caused the wicked decree to be so worded that it must express at the same time, unconsciously to the speaker, a divine sense, containing the real doctrine of salvation,—the doctrine of the redemption of man by the death of Jesus. To die for the nation.—The ὑðὲñôïῦëáïῦ (Joh_11:50), with its hierarchico-national sound, is here changed, in accordance with the last words of Caiaphas, into ὑðὲñ ôïῦ ἔèíïõò .
Joh_11:52. And not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one [people] the children of God that are scattered abroad.—Christian universalism, conditional, however, upon divine ordinance, as defined in the Bible, and upon human faith.—[Joh_11:52 is an addition of the Evangelist to the unconscious prophecy of Caiaphas to prevent a limitation of the benefits of Christ’s death; comp. 1Jn_2:2 : “He is the propitiation for our sins; not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”] The children of God. Interpretations:
1. The future children of God. [Among the heathen. Prophetic and proleptic, like 10:16]. (Euthymius [ ὡò ìÝëëïíôá ãåíÝóèáé ], Meyer [Alford, Trench: Those who should hereafter become His children. So also Calvin, in a predestinarian sense (to which Meyer assents): Filios ergo Dei, etiam antequam vocentur, ab electione æstimat.—P. S.]
2. Children of God, who are longing for Christ (Messner [Tholuck, Luthardt, Godet]).
3. Children of God by nature, who are such without first becoming so through Christ (Hilgenfeld [contrary to 1:12; 3:3, 6, etc.])
4. The children of God generally, among the Jews,—they being in reality scattered by the hierarchy, jealous for the ëáüò ,—as among the heathen, whose religious men have been scattered abroad since the building of the tower of Babel. The antithesis is: dying for the nation as a unit; dying in order to the gathering of the people of God from all places whither they have been scattered. The fundamental idea is the bringing together (this expression does not refer to place) of all the children of God into one, i.e., into one nation, in antithesis to the ëáüò of Caiaphas. Comp. Eph_2:14. In that passage the fundamental idea is the union of believing Jews and Gentiles, as Joh_10:16; here the fundamental thought is the union of the scattered sheep. Caiaphas said: the nation is perishing—therefore He must die; John says: He, doubtless, has by His death created the true, real ëáüò . Christ is the union of this people.
Joh_11:53. From that day forth they held assemblies of their council, having in view His death: meetings for the murder of Christ. Before this time inferior courts, as well as the Sanhedrin itself, have occasionally sought to bring about His death (chh. 5 and 8); before now, individual Pharisees have sought to thrust Him aside by means of their standing tribunal of zealotism (chh. 9 and 10); before this, too, His adherents have been threatened with excommunication,—have been actually excommunicated (John 9) Now the question how He shall be put to death, becomes a settled and ever recurring subject of debate in the Sanhedrin. It is clear that Jesus has long been considered by them as under the ban; apparently, fear of the people has deterred them from inflicting public and formal excommunication upon Him, although this is involved in the mandate issued subsequently to this session.
Joh_11:54. To a city called Ephraim.—Jesus can no longer appear openly among the people without exposing Himself to the danger of being seized and prematurely sacrificed. It only remains to Him to reflect upon the true way of sacrifice. For this purpose He retires to the city of Ephraim, a small place, whence He can easily withdraw into the wilderness for security and contemplation.—Into the country.—The country in antithesis to Jerusalem.—Into a region near the wilderness.— Ἔñçìïò generally denotes the wilderness of Judea. In reality, however, it is a uniform desert tract between Jerusalem or the hill-country of Judea and the valley of the Jordan; its centre is formed by the wilderness of Judea between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea, to the right of the brook of Kidron; this wilderness is continued southwards in the deserts of Engeddi, Siph and Maon, and northwards in those of Tekoa, Jericho (with Mt. Quarantania) and Ephraim, which last appears as the northern extension of the whole desert region of Judea. Thus it was, in effect, one wilderness in which Christ dwelt at the beginning and the close of the years of His ministry. Ephraim was probably situated not far from Bethel, since it is several times associated with Bethel in historical events and records. With regard to the site of Bethel, it is Robinson’s belief that he recognized it in the ruins of Beitîn (Biblical Researches, II., p. 127 [Am. ed., vol. I., p. 449]). “Bethel,” he remarks, “was a border city between Benjamin and Ephraim; at first assigned to Benjamin, but conquered and afterwards retained by Ephraim. According to Eusebius and Jerome, it lay twelve Roman miles from Jerusalem, on the right or east of the road leading to Sichem or Neapolis (Nâbulus). From Beitîn to el-Bîreh we found the distance to be forty-five minutes, and from Bîreh to Jerusalem three hours, with horses.” In an easterly direction, not far from Bethel, Robinson passed the night at the village of Taiyibeh. “Here the proximity of the wilderness was plainly discernible.” In particular, there is here a rocky valley, “overgrown with furzy plants and sage, interspersed with the fragrant Zaeter.” For a description of the desert itself see Robinson. The village of Taiyibeh is considered by some to be identical with the ancient Ephraim [the same with Ophrah (Jos_18:23; 1Sa_13:17) and Ephron (2Ch_13:17) of the Old Testament. So besides Robinson, Van de Velde and Stanley. The latter says (Sinai and Palestine, p. 210): ‘Further still, the dark conical hill of Taiyibeh, with its village perched aloft, like those of the Apennines, the probable representative of Ophrah of Benjamin, in later times ‘the city called Ephraim,’ to which our Lord retired, ‘near to the wilderness,’ after the raising of Lazarus.”—P. S.]
Since Jesus was now resolved to repair to Jerusalem with the next Galilean and Peræan paschal caravan, i.e. since but one step remained for Him to surrender Himself publicly to the Messianic hope entertained by the pious among the people and now purified by Him,—possessing a distinct foresight, however, of the death resulting upon this step, accompanied by the succumbing of the party of believers to the hierarchical party—(see Leben Jesu II., p. 1140)—Ephraim was the place exactly fitted for a temporary sojourn. Hence He could at need withdraw into the desert; here He could collect His disciples and prepare them for the last journey (see Comm, on Matthew, p. 360, Am. Ed.); here He could join either the caravan coming across Samaria to Bethel or the one passing through Jericho on its way from Peræa (see Tholuck, p. 316). Comp. Jos_15:61; Jos_16:1; Jos_18:22; 2 Kings 2. It was in the vicinity of Jericho, according to the Synoptists, that Jesus attached Himself to the festive train from Peræa, having, it is probable, previously received His friends from the Galilean company that passed through Samaria.
Joh_11:55. And the passover of the Jews was at hand. The nearness of this feast occasioned many to go out of the Jewish country ( ÷þñá not simply that region, as Bengel supposes, but the country in contrast to Jerusalem) beforehand up to Jerusalem, because they had to purify themselves (Lightfoot) before the feast, by means of the prescribed sacrifices and ablutions (Num_9:6; 2Ch_30:17 ff.).
Joh_11:56. They sought therefore for Jesus. We gather from this, in the first place, how eagerly all the people were expecting the appearance of Jesus at the feast. They had hoped to find Him already in Jerusalem. Hence, then, it likewise follows that no special reference is had to people from the country about Ephraim. We therefore translate the ὅôé ïὐ ìὴ ἔëèῃ : that He will not come (with Meyer), but not: that He has not come (Vulgate and others). Some appear to take it for granted from the condition of things that He will not come, while others question this decision. Manifestly, it is like a sort of betting whether He will come or not. The occasion of this conduct was the mandate of the high-priest, which had been spread abroad throughout the land by means of special orders of the Sanhedrin (see the Textual note) and in accordance with which every one who knew of the abode of Jesus, was bound to give information of it. This mandate—a kind of interdict—of course presupposes excommunication. There seems to have been at that time not a single traitor among the peasants and dwellers in the deserts of Ephraim. Subsequently, however, this decree formed a point for Judas to fasten on. He probably silenced his conscience at first with the cry, that he must be an “obedient son” of the hierarchical Church, or a “loyal subject” of the spiritual authorities. The decree may be regarded as the result of the session Joh_11:47 (comp. Joh_11:53, Meyer). The anteposition of äåäþêåéóáí , with reference to the decree, is emphatic. We must observe that this edict was at all events designed as an interdict,—a fact of special importance to the friends of Jesus; no one should receive Him into his house without giving information of Him, i.e. without hostility to Him. In all probability the command was issued with a particular view to the family of Lazarus. See Joh_12:10.
2. The Jews who go from Bethany, from the grave of Lazarus, to the Pharisees, to show them what Jesus has done, are thus become precursors of Judas; in a general sense, types of apostates. They all come—from Bethany; they all go—to the Pharisees; they all, with hostile intent, report what Jesus has done.
3. The council of blood. The policy of fear. It occasions what it means to avert. The policy of timidity became a policy of intimidation, terrorism. Probably the rough words of Caiaphas to his colleagues were further serviceable in terroristically beating down any attempt on the part of the friends of Jesus, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, to dwell upon His many miracles (comp. Gerlach on this passage). It is not likely that these men had any share in the subsequent determined deliberations of the Council of Blood. Once they expressed their positive disapprobation (see Luk_23:51), probably on this very occasion. To this the minute account of this session is no doubt attributable.
4. On the road of ultra-Judaism the Jews have relapsed into the worst heathenism. Pursuant to the counsel of Caiaphas, they relapsed, as regards their intentions into the Moloch-sacrifice. After the destruction of Jerusalem, at the conquest of Massada, into the suicidal despair of the Hindus (Josephus, De bello jud., VII. chh. VIII. IX.); with their Talmud into a mythology which, in comparison with that of Greece and Home, is utterly odious. Thus, too, Christian Judaism [Romanism] usually relapses into the most abominable heathenism.
5. Even Caiaphas, then, has with tolerable plainness set forth the maxim: the end justifies the means.
6. The extinction of the Old Testament office of high-priestly prophecy in the sentence of Caiaphas. Caiaphas must unconsciously sketch the principal features of Christian dogmatics and soteriology. The fearful double meaning of his speech with regard to his intention and the meaning of the Spirit. What it proves: 1. Pro_16:1 : Man is master of his intention; that is his own; not so, however, the full import of his words. In the domain of speech the cooperating and counteracting rule of divine providence begins. 2. The symbolical ministry becomes, even in its ungodly tendency, an unconscious prophecy of the real ministry of the Spirit; the false, official high-priest a prophet of the true High Priest and His sacrifice. In what relation do these types stand to the former typism? They are types moulded by the irony of divine dispensation from the elements of human perversity. The school of truth is perfected in the mouth of these wicked priests, while the school of falsehood is perfected in their heart. Hence they are able to blaspheme with words of prayer, to prophesy with words of demoniacal policy. Caiaphas prophesied. “Roman Catholics apply this to popes; popes, though wicked, might still be the organs of truth, as Stolberg remarks in his History of the Religion of Jesus. Our church teaches only—that the Word of God and the Sacraments retain their own virtue even when administered by unregenerate preachers.” Heubner. But here also a relative soundness of the Church as a body must be assumable.
7. The Urim and Thummim are likewise expressive of the truth that decision and resolution are needful in all cases, while, on the other hand, endless vacillation is the greatest evil. Therefore God hardens Pharaoh’s heart with the view of expediting matters, and Judas also receives the command, “What thou doest, do quickly.” The temporal hardening of the people of Israel, however, was designed to prevent their eternal obduracy, Romans 9-11.
8. The work of Christ, regarded by His enemies as a scattering and destroying of the ancient people of God, resulted in the creation of a new and real people of God, gathered from abroad.
9. Christ in the wilderness at the beginning and the end of His career. In the beginning He resolved not to appear publicly under the title of the Messiah, to avoid the Messianic conception of His nation. Now the time had come for Him to issue from the desert for the purpose of surrendering Himself to the Messianic faith of His people, in the state of purification to which He had brought it.
10. Christ the subject of interest and conversation with all the people, while they are occupied with services of ordinances and legal works of purification. How is this? An ultra-montane mind cannot rid itself of the thought of the Evangelical Confession; moreover, the friends of Jesus are present in the camp of legality.
11. The mandate of the Supreme Council: the interdict. Men should show where Christ was. Soon He showed Himself and afterwards all Christian church-steeples pointed upwards to Him. And thus Luther is no longer hidden in the Wartburg, but is everywhere proclaiming himself to the hierarchy.
Starke, Hedinger: How wise worldly-minded people and knavish men think themselves, when they imagine that they are able to quench the word and kingdom of Christ by their false, famous strokes of state!—Cramer: It is possible even for councils and assemblies of the learned to err.—It is never well to make church matters affairs of state.—Zeisius: The Jews thought that if they did but put Christ out of the way, their repose and prosperity would be lastingly secured, and it was thus that they lost both their temporal and spiritual good things.—Bibl. Wirt.: God often punishes the wicked with calamities which they thought they had averted.—Canstein: It is almost a daily occurrence for men to plunge into disaster while essaying to ward off some imaginary evil.—Ibid.: It is the way of worldly-minded politicians to measure all things by the standard of profit and gain, not by that of truth, righteousness and justice; and this, while in most cases the prosperity of the country is declared to be the grand reason for such a course, though in reality they are actuated by nothing but selfishness.—Osiander: The false church is cruel and blood-thirsty.—O happy country, that receives the Son of God in His persecution!
Gerlach: “That He should die instead of the whole nation, a cleanse-offering, as it were, to avert the ruin that else would threaten the entire nation.—It seems that superstition was mingled with the unbelief of the Sadducee, or that he feigned it while in company with the Pharisees. (Not the Sadducees, however, but the Essenes, were at variance with the old system of sacrifices).—Not merely for the Jews whom Caiaphas meant, but also that He should gather God’s elect into His flock from among the heathen, whilst this wicked high-priest believed that the dispersion of His followers would be the natural accompaniment of His death. (Quite right. This, however, is the first antithesis present to the mind of the evangelist: In the sense of Caiaphas the meaning is: if Christ die, the Jewish nation lives, in the ordinary sense,—while the higher sense of the ambiguous expression was; if Christ die, the nation lives as a redeemed people, and thus a great nation is formed from the scattered children of God).—Lisco: The decision of Caiaphas, that the end justifies the means, that necessity is here an excuse for injustice.—They feel that one must fall: the kingdom of purity and truth, or the kingdom of falsehood and hypocrisy; and this last, in their avaricious lust of dominion, they desire to save.
Gossner: They are forced to say it themselves: this man doeth many miracles. This is true, to be sure,—but—of what consequence is a single man? (thinks Caiaphas) it is the many, to whom regard is due. The world cares nothing for the small ones of the earth; it thinks: what if they be unjustly dealt with, so long as the others are satisfied?
Joh_11:55. To His last hour He was a faithful church-goer and observer of religion. If He for once missed a feast-day, the people immediately inquired: where is He?
Joh_11:57. They wished to prepare themselves a festive joy, and to do God a service by slaying His Son at the Passover.—He should show it. An obedient son of the devil was Judas, who conscientiously obeyed this command of hell and delivered Jesus into their hands. “The church hath commanded it.” Thus Judas might (fain would) think.
Heubner: The assembly should have met for the recognition of Jesus. It was the duty of the Supreme Council to be the first to accept Jesus and to call upon the nation to accept Him. But from this very college proceeded the rejection of Jesus. The power of self-interest, and avarice, make men blind to the strongest proofs of divine power,—deaf to the voice of God.
Joh_11:49-50. How are the weal of the masses and the right of the individual to be united? Impure state-craft never discovers the right means for accomplishing such a result.—The same words have an entirely different sense in the mouth of the wicked and the meaning of the Holy Ghost.
Joh_11:54. This concealment of Jesus also belonged to His state of humiliation. The Light that lightened all men must withdraw itself.—Often it was a hidden country, valley, that received Christ’s faithful ones until the wrath of the enemy was overpast.
Schleiermacher: Evil should be overcome only by good. But to do evil that good may come is the grossest perversity and the worst depravity into which man can fall.—Involuntarily he prophesied, and in uttering the counsel of human depravity, he declared at the same time the counsel of eternal wisdom and love,—the counsel of Him who gave His Son for us while we were yet sinners.
Besser, Joh_11:43 : They went their way to the Pharisees who were a net spread, Hos_5:1.—Once, on the threshold of the Promised land, Israel was blessed through the prediction of a prophet who would fain have cursed; him the strength of the Lord overpowered, putting words into his mouth which confirmed the promise made to the Patriarchs and renewed through Moses, Num_23:24. Thus Caiaphas, willing to curse, must now, a second Balaam, on the threshold of the New Covenant, pronounce a blessing upon the true Israel, confirming the prediction of the law and the prophets concerning the expiatory death of the Lamb (see, however, the note to Joh_11:51).—“Caiaphas and Pilate condemned Jesus, but both must testify of Him in words exceeding the sense which they consciously attached to them; here Caiaphas witnesses to the high-priestly death of Christ,—there Pilate testifies to His kingdom, in the superscription of the cross” (Bengel).—John reads the names of many scattered ones already written in God’s heart as children; he gazes with opened eyes into the holy mission movement of the whole reconciled world, which movement shall not end until all that the Father hath given the Son are brought together.
[Craven: From Origen: Joh_11:47. This speech an evidence of their audacity and blindness.
Joh_11:51. Not every one who prophesies is a prophet, as not every one who does a just action is just.
Joh_11:54. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews: It is praiseworthy when struggles are at hand (pressed upon us) not to avoid confession or refuse to suffer; and it is no less praiseworthy to avoid giving occasion for such trial. If we do not avoid our persecutor, when we have the opportunity (without sin), we make ourselves responsible for his offence.——From Gregory: Joh_11:50-53. That which human cruelty executed against Him, He turned to the purposes of His mercy.——From Augustine: Joh_11:47-48. They were afraid of losing temporal things and thought not of eternal life, and thus they lost both.
Joh_11:54. He would show by example that believers do not sin by retiring from the sight of persecutors.——From Chrysostom: Joh_11:51. The power of the Holy Ghost in drawing forth a prophecy from a wicked man.—The virtue of a (divinely appointed) office.
Joh_11:56. His enemies made the feast time, the time of His death.——From Alcuin: Joh_11:56. Men may seek Jesus with bad intent.—From Theophylact: Joh_11:55-57. While engaged in purifications they were plotting our Lord’s death.—From Burkitt: Joh_11:45-46. The different effects produced by this miracle.
Joh_11:48. Opposers of Christ color their enmity with specious pretences.
Joh_11:50. A most wicked speech: as a judge he regarded not what was lawful but as a politician consented to what was (apparently) expedient.—It is unlawful to (strive to) promote the greatest national good by unlawful means.
Joh_11:51. It is consistent with the holiness of God to make use of the worst of men in declaring his will.
Joh_11:53. The baneful effects of evil counsel, especially from leading men.——From M. Henry: Joh_11:47. The witness of the Sanhedrin for Christ.
Joh_11:48. The success of the gospel the dread of its adversaries. When men lose piety they lose courage. Pretended fears are often the color of malicious designs.
Joh_11:49-50. Carnal policy commonly sets up reasons of state in opposition to rules of justice.—That calamity which we seek to escape by sin, we take the most effectual course to bring upon us.—That the welfare of communities is to be preferred before that of individuals, is a true or false maxim as it may be employed; it is expedient and honorable for an individual to hazard his life for his country, but it is devilish for rulers to put an innocent man to death under color of consulting the public safety.
Joh_11:51. Caiaphas prophesied—1. God often employs wicked men as His instruments; 2. prophecy in the mouth is no infallible evidence of grace in the heart.
Joh_11:51-52. The enlargement of the Evangelist on the prophecy, teaching—1. for whom Christ died, (1) the Jews, (2) the children of God scattered abroad, (a) then living, (b) throughout all time; 2. the purpose of His death concerning these, to gather them together in one.—Christ’s dying is—1. the great attractive of our hearts; 2. the great centre of our unity, (1) by the merit of His death recommending all in one to the favor of God, (2) by the motive of His death drawing each to the love of every other.
Joh_11:53. Evil men confirm themselves and one another in ill practices by conference.
Joh_11:57. It is an aggravation of the sins of rulers when they make their subjects the instruments of their unrighteousness.—From Scott: Joh_11:47-57. No devices of man can derange the purposes of God; whilst hypocrites and worldlings pursue their own projects, Christ still communes with His disciples (Joh_11:54) and orders all things for His own glory and their salvation.—From Barnes: Joh_11:50-51. God may—1. fulfill the words of the wicked in a way they do not intend; 2. make their wicked plots the means of accomplishing His purposes.—From A Plain Commentary (Oxford): Joh_11:51. The unworthiness of the individual does not affect the sanctity of his office.—From Ryle: Joh_11:46. Seeing miracles will not necessarily convert souls, Luk_16:31.
Joh_11:47-57. The power of unbelief; ecclesiastical rulers are often the foremost enemies of the gospel. Joh_11:50. What is morally wrong can never be politically right.
Joh_11:53. The conclusions of great ecclesiastical councils are sometimes wicked.
Joh_11:54. Christ retires Himself for a season before His last great work; it is well to get alone and be still, before we undertake any great work for God.
Joh_11:55. What importance bad men sometimes attach to outward ceremonial. The religion which expends itself in zeal for outward formalities is worthless.——From Owen: Joh_11:52. Gathered in one, i.e., into one spiritual nation or people.
[Joh_11:47-50. The blinding power of hate.
Joh_11:54. Christ never acted recklessly nor in bravado, nor in the spirit of one seeking martyrdom; He did Himself from danger when duty did not require exposure.]
Footnotes:
Joh_11:45.—[ Ïἱ ἐëèüíôåò is the true reading, supported by Origen, and adopted by Alford, Tischendorf, etc., instead of ôῶí ἐëèüíôùí of Cod. D.—P. S.]
Joh_11:47.—[ óõíÝäñéïí means the Sanhedrin, the great council of the Jews. See Exeg.—P. S.]
Joh_11:50.—[Tischendorf (ed. 1869), Alford, Westcott and Hort read ὑìῖí in accordance with B. D. L., etc., instead of ἡìῖí . Lange follows here the text. rec.—P. S.]
Joh_11:53.—[Tischendorf supplies óõíåâïõëÝõóáíôï by ἐâïõëÝõóáíôï in accordance with Sin. B. D.—P. S.]
Joh_11:57.— êáὶ is omitted by Lachmann and Tischendorf in accordance with many Codd. Yet it is recommended by Cod. D. and others, and was perhaps omitted because men failed to recognize the great intensification of the persecution of Jesus expressed in this mandate. Since the decree in question must be disseminated throughout the land, we also consider the reading ἐíôïëÜò , in accordance with B. M., etc., to be correct. [The first êáß after äåäþêåéóáí , which in the E. V. is rendered both, must be rejected on the authority of à . A. B. K. L. M. U. X., Alford, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort.—P. S.]
Joh_11:57.—[The singular ἐíôïëÞí of the text. rec. as a correction (because but one is mentioned) must be set aside for the plural ἐíôïëÜò , orders, on the authority of Cod. Sin. and B., etc.—P. S.]
[Sanhedrin is more accurate than Sanhedrim, though this is more frequently used (even by Alford). The rabbinical attempts to trace it to a Hebrew root are futile (see Buxtorf, sub verb.); it is formed from the Greek óõíÝäñéïí ( óýíåäñïò , ἕäñá ), a sitting together, an assembly, a council. Winer’s article is more scholarly than the article Sanhedrim in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. Lange has conveniently brought together all the necessary information on the subject.—P. S.]
[Alford: Our local habitation and national existence.—P. S.]
[So also Grotius, Ewald, Bäumlein, Godet.—P. S.]
[So also Meyer and Alford. Comp. 18:13, where the expression is repeated.—P. S.]
[Lange follows Lachmann in reading ἡìῖí . But the true reading is ὑìῖí , for you, see Text. Notes.—P. S.]
[There is here a slight mistake, as will he seen by referring to the Greek text. Caiaphas uses ëáüò in the first, and ἔèíïò in the last clause. Meyer distinguishes between ἔèíïò , the people as a nation, and ëáüò , the people as a political or theocratic society. Or, to speak more accurately, ëáüò usually signifies the chosen people (Mat_1:21; Mat_2:4; Mat_2:6, etc.), ἔèíïò , a nation among the nations (comp. below Joh_11:52 ïὐ÷ ὑðὲñ ôïὐ ἔèíïõò ìüíïí ); Mat_24:7, “nation against nation;” 25:32, “all nations,” etc.). Yet ëáüò is also used for a great crowd or multitude, like ὅ÷ëïò , Joh_8:2; Luk_23:27, “a great company of people,” etc.—P. S.]
[The Talmudic term, Bath Kol, lit., “the daughter of the voice,” means the echo of a heavenly voice of revelation, or a divine oracle which the Rabbins imagined to receive, or which they were accustomed to derive from accidental circumstances and lots. It arose after the extinction of the prophecy and is a bastard substitute for it. John would not use of this the verb ἐðñïöÞôåõóåí .—P. S.]
[So also Trench and Wordsworth. Similar instances of involuntary prophets or witnesses to the truth we have in Pharaoh, Saul, Nebuchadnezzar, Pilate.god uses bad men as well as good ones for His own ends; He can speak wisdom even through the mouth of an ass, and confound the philosophers. Trench says: “There is no difficulty in such unconscious prophecies as this evidently is. How many prophecies of the like kind,—most of them, it is true, rather in act than in word, meet us in the whole history of the crucifixion! What was the title over our blessed Lord, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews,’ but another such scornful and contemptuous, yet most veritable prophecy? Or what again the robe and the homage, the sceptre and the crown? And in the typical rehearsals of the great and final catastrophe in the drama of God’s providence, how many Nimrods and Pharaohs, antichrists that do not quite come to the birth, have prophetic parts allotted to them, which they play out, unknowing what they do; for such is the divine irony; so, in a very deep sense of the words,
‘Ludit in humanis divina potentia rebus,’ ”—P. S.]
[De creat. princ. II., p. 367.]
[Luther’s translation reads differently from our English version, viz: “Man indeed proposeth in his heart, but from the Lord cometh what the tongue shall speak.”]