John 11:47

[(3) LIFE, TRUTH, LIGHT, AND LOVE MORE FULLY MANIFESTED. CORRESPONDING INCREASE OF THE UNBELIEF OF THE JEWS (continued).

(b) The council of the Jews. The decree of death against the Giver of Life (Joh_11:47-53).

(c) The withdrawal to Ephraim. Many seek for Jesus (Joh_11:54-57).

(d) The supper at Bethany. Mary, Judas, the chief priests (love, selfishness, hatred) (Joh_12:1-11).

(e) The entry into Jerusalem. The King and His people (Joh_11:12-19).

(f) The wider kingdom (Joh_11:20-36).

Certain Greeks would see Jesus. The firstfruits of the West (Joh_11:20-22).

The seed and the harvest. Life in death (Joh_11:23-26).

(f) The wider kingdom (continued).

The world-wide attraction of the Cross. Light in darkness (Joh_11:27-36).

(g) The final issue of the unbelief of the Jews.

(α) The writer’s own judgment (Joh_11:37-43)—

On no-faith (Joh_11:37-41);

On half-faith (Joh_11:42-43).

(β) The Judgment of Jesus (Joh_11:44-50).

The rejection of light (Joh_11:46); love (“that I might save the world,” Joh_11:47); truth (Joh_11:49); life (Joh_11:50).]

(47) Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council.—Matters have reached too serious a stage for them to allow further delay. Opponents have become believers; enemies have become friends; and there are men of their own rank, and men with whom they had taken counsel against Him, who have now believed. The Pharisees go in their difficulty to the chief priests, who were for the most part Sadducees, and they together summon a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.—The note of interrogation may be placed in the middle or at the end of the clause. The latter suits better the energy of their language. “What do we, seeing that this Man doeth many miracles?” They accept the testimony of the Jews who have come to them, and cannot longer throw doubt upon His miracles. The question is asked in the present tense; it is not a matter for future action. “What are we doing, seeing what this Man is doing?” They feel that they have been inactive but too long, while He has been daily gaining influence. The form of their question is a strange contradiction; they cannot but admit that He doeth many signs, and yet their pride will call Him by no name but the contemptuous “this Man!”

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_11:47-53

Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council

The Sanhedrim

I.

The NAME συνέδριον. Sanhedrin is more accurate than Sanhedrim, though this is more frequently used, and means a sitting together, an assembly.

II. SIGNIFICATION: the supreme, theocratico-hierarchical court of the Jews, resident at Jerusalem.

III. 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. Its president was ordinarily the High Priest who was assisted by a vice-president.

IV. SESSIONS.

1. Extraordinary: in urgent cases at the house of the High Priest.

2. Ordinary: held daily, with the exception of the Sabbath and feast days, of old in a session room adjoining the Temple, called Gazith, but from a period of forty years before the destruction of the Temple in places near the Temple mount.

V. MATTERS COMING UNDER THE COGNIZANCE OF THE COURT AS A FORUM. Matters concerning a whole tribe, a false prophet, the high priest, an arbitrary war, or blasphemy.

VI. PUNITARY POWER. Formerly infliction of capital punishment; stoning, burning, beheading, hanging, later, excommunication and recommendation for capital punishment.

VII. ADMINISTRATION. Connection with the minor courts; highest court of appeal from these; intercourse with them through surrogates and apparitors.

VIII. EXTENT OF AUTHORITY: legislation, administration, justice.

IX. HISTORY. According to the Talmudists, this court originated in the institution of Moses (Num_11:24). That probably was preclusive. So, too, the supreme court of Jehoshaphat (2Ch_19:8). Increased importance of this institution after the Exile. The γευουσία in the time of the Selucidae (2Ma_1:10); the first decided mention at the time of Antipater and Herod (Jos. Antiq. 14:9, 4). (J. P. Lanye, D. D.)

What do we

Men active for destruction

Alas! if only this question had been: What must we do to be saved? But, like all ungodly men, they are, as Augustine says, more active in devising ways to cause destruction than to escape destruction. What do we?--this man doeth many miracles! What a fearful antithesis is here! (R. Besser, D. D.)

It is ever in the way of those who rule the earth to leave out of their reckoning Him who rules the universe. (Cowper.)

The perplexity Jesus occasions His enemies

Man cannot come into the presence of truth and purity without shame and confusion. The Chief Priests and Pharisees felt this in the presence of Jesus. The subject suggested is--The perplexity Jesus occasions His enemies.

I. ONE SOURCE OF THEIR PERPLEXITY WAS FOUND IN HIS POSSESSION AND EXERCISE OF MIRACULOUS POWER. This man doeth many miracles. What should have been to them the strongest proof of the dignity of His character, and validity of His mission, only excited their jealousy and increased their fears. Unbelievers fear the power of Christianity, while they despise its teaching, and reject its author.

II. THEIR PERPLEXITY WAS INCREASED BY THE FAME AND SUCCESS OF HIS MISSION. If we let Him thus alone all men will believe on Him. The resurrection of Lazarus, added to the fame of Jesus, which had been increasing as He swept along in His career. His success recorded in verse

45. Nothing troubles infidels more than the tenacious life of Christianity,and its irrepressible extension.

III. THEIR PERPLEXITY REACHED ITS CLIMAX WHEN THEY DECIDED TO PUT HIM TO DEATH (Joh_11:53). Murder has ever been the miserable subterfuge of the tyrant--the ghastly policy of the weak and despotic. But what a condition of heart does this reveal--bewilderment, cowardice, cruelty. The man least disturbed was their victim. Calm and unmoved, Jesus pressed forward to finish His work.

IV. THE DEED BY WHICH THEY SOUGHT TO END THEIR PERPLEXITY ONLY INCREASED IT. To die was the object of Christs coming into the world. By

His death atonement was made for sin. The cruelty of the wicked defeats its purpose.

V. HOW VASTLY WAS THEIR PERPLEXITY INCREASED WHEN JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD! Learn

1. How vain and fatal a thing it is to fight against God.

2. That believing in Jesus is the readiest and only way of ending all perplexity concerning Him. (G. Barlow.)

The prime agents in the Crucifixion

In the events of the Passion three chief actors offer in individual types the springs of hostility to Christ. Blindness--the blindness that will not see--is consummated in the High Priest: weakness in the irresolute governor: selfishness in the traitor apostle. The Jew, the heathen, the apostate disciple form a representative group of enemies of the Lord. These men form a fertile study.

I. All that St. John records of CAIAPHAS is contained in a single sentence; and yet in that one short speech the whole soul of the man is laid open. The Council in timid irresolution expressed their fear lest the Romans might come, etc. (verse 48). They both petrified their dispensation into a place and a nation, and they were alarmed when they saw their idol endangered. But Caiaphas saw his occasion in their terror. For him Jesus was a victim by whom they could appease the suspicion of their conquerors (verse 49, etc.). The victim was innocent, but the life of one could not be weighed against the safety of a society. Nay, rather, it was as His words imply, a happy chance that they could seem to vindicate their loyalty while they gratified their hatred. To this the Divine hierarchy had come at last. Abraham offered his son to God in obedience to the Father in whom he trusted: Caiaphas gave the Christ to Caesar in obedience to the policy which had substituted the seen for the unseen.

II. Caiaphas had lost the power of seeing the truth: PILATE had lost the power of holding it. There is a sharp contrast between the clear resolute purpose of the priest, and the doubtful wavering answers of the governor. The judge shows his contempt for the accusers, but the accusers are stronger than he. It is in vain that he tries one expedient after another to satisfy the unjust passion of his suitors. He examines the charge of evil doing and pronounces it groundless; but he lacks courage to pronounce an unpopular acquittal. He seeks to move compassion by exhibiting Jesus scourged and mocked, and yet guiltless; and the chief priests defeat Him by the cry Crucify (Joh_19:6). He hears His claim to be a King not ofthis world and the Son of God, and is the more afraid; but his hesitation is removed by an argument of which he feels the present power Joh_19:12). The fear of disgrace prevailed over the conviction of justice, over the impression of awe, over the pride of the Roman. The Jews completed their apostasy when they cried, We have no king but Caesar; and Pilate unconvinced, baffled, overborne, delivered to them their true King to be crucified, firm only in this, that he would not change the title which he had written in scorn, and yet as an unconscious prophet.

III. Caiaphas misinterpreted the Divine covenant which he represented: Pilate was faithless to the spirit of the authority with which he was lawfully invested; JUDAS perverted the very teaching of Christ Himself. If once we regard Judas as one who looked to Christ for selfish ends, even his thoughts become intelligible. He was bound to his Master, not for what He was, but for what He thought that he would obtain through Him. Others, like the sons of Zebedee, spoke out of the fulness of their hearts, and their mistaken ambition was purified: Judas would not expose his fancies to reproof. St. Peter was called Satan, an adversary; but Judas was a devil, a perverter of that which is holy and true. He set up self as His standard, and by an easy delusion he came to forget that there could be any other. Even at the last he seems to have fancied that he could force the manifestation of Christs power by placing Him in the hands of His enemies (Joh_6:70; Joh_18:6). He obeys the command to do quickly what he did, as if he were ministering to his Masters service. He stands by in the garden when the soldiers went back, and fell to the ground, waiting, as it were, for the revelation of the Messiah in His Majesty. Then came the end. He knew the sovereignty of Christ, and he saw Him go to death. St. John says nothing of what followed; but there can be no situation more overwhelmingly tragic than that in which he shows the traitor for the last time, standing with those who came to take Jesus. (Bp. Westcott.)

One of them named Caiaphas being the high priest that same year … prophesied

A memorable year

If this circumstance had taken place in the palmy days of the theocracy, the expression would be incomprehensible; for, according to the Mosaic law, the high priesthood was held for life. But since the Roman supremacy, the rulers of the land, dreading the power derived from a permanent office, had adopted the custom of frequently changing one high priest for another. According to Josephus the Roman governor, Valerius Gratus, deprived Ananus of the high priesthood and conferred it on Ishmael, and afterwards deposing him made Eleazar, son of Ishmael, high priest. A year after he also was deposed, and Simon nominated in his stead, who, retaining the dignity for a year only, was succeeded by Joseph, surnamed Caiaphas. The latter continued in office from A.D. 24 to 36, and consequently throughout the ministry of Jesus. These frequent changes justify the expression of the Evangelist, and deprive criticism of any excuse for saying that the author of this Gospel did not know that the pontificate lasted for life. But since Caiaphas was high priest for eleven consecutive years, why did St. John three times over (verses 49, 51; 18:18) use the expression, that year? Because he desired to recall the importance of that unique and decisive year in which the perfect sacrifice terminated the typical sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood as exercised by Caiaphas. It devolved upon the high priest to offer every year the great atoning sacrifice for the sins of the people, and this was the office now performed by Caiaphas, as the last representative of the ancient priesthood. By his vote he, in some degree, appointed and sacrificed the victim who in that ever memorable year was to bring in an everlasting righteousness, etc. (Dan_9:24-27). (F. Godet, D. D.)

Unconscious prophecies

If some historian were to write that Abraham Lincoln was president of the United States that same year in which the great civil war broke out, would any be justified in imputing to him the mistake that the presidency was an annual office, or in concluding that the writer could not have been an American living at the time, and to whom the ordinary sources of information were open? And who has a right to ascribe to the words of St. John any further meaning than that Caiaphas was high priest then? Whether he had been so before, or should be after, was nothing to his present purpose. The oracular, even prophetic, character which his utterance obtained requires some explanation. That a bad man should utter words which were so overruled by God as to become prophetic, would of itself be no difficulty. He who used Balaam could use Caiaphas. Nor is there any difficulty in such unconscious prophecies as this evidently is. It exactly answers as such to the omina of Roman superstition, in which words spoken by one in a lesser meaning are taken up by another in a higher, and by him claimed to be prophetic of that. Cicero (De Divin. 1:46) gives examples: these, too, resting on the faith that mens words are ruled by a higher power than their own. How many prophecies of a like kind meet us in the history of the Crucifixion! What was the title over our Lord but another such scornful, yet most veritable prophecy? Or what, again, the purple robe and the homage; the sceptre and the crown?

The Roman soldiers did not mean to fulfil Psalm xxii when they parted Christs garments, etc., nor the Jewish mockers when they spoke those taunting words; but they did so none the less. And in the typical rehearsals of the crowning catastrophe in the drama of Gods providence, how many a Nimrod, Pharaoh, Antiochus and Nero--Antichrists that do not quite come to the birth--have prophetic parts allotted to them which they play out, unknowing what they do. We have an example of this in the very name Caiaphas, which is only another form of Cephas. But the perplexing circumstance is the attribution to him because He was the high priest of these prophetic words. But there is no need to suppose that St. John meant to affirm this to have been a power inherent in the high priesthood; but only that God, the extorter of the unwilling, or even unconscious, prophecies of wicked men, ordained this further: that he in whom the whole theocracy culminated, who was the Prince of the People (Act_23:5), for such, till another high priest had sanctified Himself--and his moral character was nothing to the point--Caiaphas truly was, should, because he bore this office, be the organ of this memorable prophecy concerning Christ, and the meaning and end of His death. (Archbishop Trench.)

Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people.

What is morally wrong can never be politically right. (C. J. Fox.)

Caiaphas

1. The resurrection of Lazarus had raised a wave of popular excitement. Any stir was dangerous, especially at Passover time, when Jerusalem would be filled with men ready to take fire from any spark. So a hasty meeting of the council was summoned to discuss the situation and to concert measures for repressing the nascent enthusiasm. Like all weak men, they feel that something must be done. Their fear is not patriotism or religion, but self-interest. They are at a loss what to do.

2. But there is one man who knows his own mind, and no restraint of conscience or delicacy keeps him from speaking it out. Impatient at their vacillation, he brushes it all aside with, Ye know nothing at all. The one point for us is our own interests. This Man must die. Never mind His miracles, teaching, character. He is a perpetual danger to our prerogatives. And so he clashes his advice down into the middle of their waverings, like a piece of iron into yielding water, and the strong man is master of the situation, and the resolve is taken (Joh_11:53).

3. But John regards this advice as prophecy. Caiaphas spoke wiser things than he knew. The Divine Spirit breathed in strange fashion and moulded his savage utterance into an expression of the deepest thought about Christs death. Consider

I. THE UNSCRUPULOUS PRIEST AND HIS SAVAGE ADVICE.

1. He was set by his office to tend the sacred flame of Messianic hope, with pure hands and heart to offer sacrifice for sin, and to witness for the truth. And see what he is! A crafty schemer, blind to Christs character and teaching, unspiritual, rude, cruel. What a lesson this speech and the character disclosed by it read to all who have a professional connection with religion. Priests of all churches have always been tempted to look upon religion as existing somehow for their personal advantage. And so the Church is in danger means my position is threatened; and heretics must be got rid of because their teaching is inconvenient, and new truth is fought against because officials do not see how it harmonizes with their preeminence.

2. All who professionally handle sacred things are tempted to look upon truth as their stock-in-trade, and to fight against innovations that appear to threaten the teachers position.

3. But the lessons are for all. This selfish consideration of our own interests

(1) Will blind us to the most radiant beauty of truth; aye, to Christ Himself. Fishes which live in the water of caverns lose their eight, and men who live in the dark holes of their own selfish natures lose their spiritual sight. When you put on regard for yourselves as they do blinkers on horses you lose the power of comprehensive vision, and only see straight forward upon the line marked out by self interests. Lord Nelson at Copenhagen put his telescope up to his blind eye at the signal of recall, and this is what selfishness does with hundreds who do not know it. There are none so blind as those who wont see; and there are none who wont see so certainly as those who have a suspicion that if they do they will have to change their tack.

(2) May bring a man down to any kind and degree of wrong-doing. Caiaphas was brought down by it from supreme judge to assassin. If you begin with it is expedient as the canon of your conduct you get on an inclined plane that tilts at a very sharp angle, and is sufficiently greased, and ends away in darkness and death, and it is only a question of time how far, fast, deep and irrevocable will be your descent.

(3) Has in it an awful power of so twisting and searing a mans conscience as that he comes to view the evil and never knows there is any wrong in it. Caiaphas had no conception that he was doing anything but obeying the dictate of self-preservation. The crime of the actual crucifixion was diminished because done unconsciously; but the crime of the process by which they came to be unconscious--how that was increased and deepened!

4. The only antagonist to this selfishness is to yield ourselves to the love of God in Christ, and to say, I live, yet not I, etc.

II. THE UNCONSCIOUS PROPHET AND HIS GREAT PREDICTION.

1. The Evangelist conceives that the high priest, being the head of the theocratic community, was naturally the medium of a Divine oracle. In that fateful year the great High Priest forever stood for a moment by the side of the earthly high priest--the Substance by the shadow--and by this offering of Himself deprived priesthood and sacrifice of all their validity. Caiaphas was in reality the last of the high priests, and those that succeeded him for less than half a century were but like ghosts. Solemn and strange that Aarons long line ended in such a man!

2. Being high priest he prophesied. And there was nothing strange in a bad mans prophesying. Balaam did; so did Pilate when he wrote the inscription, and the Pharisees when they said, He saved others.

3. The prophecy suggests

(1) The two-fold aspect of Christs death. From the human standpoint it was murder by forms of law for political ends. From the Divine point of view it is Gods great sacrifice for the sin of the world. The greatest crime is the greatest blessing. Mans sin works out the Divine purpose, even as the coral insects blindly building up the reef that keeps back the waters, or, as the sea in its wild impotent rage, seeking to overwhelm the land, only throws upon the beach a barrier that confines its waves and curbs their fury.

(2) The two-fold consequences of that death upon the nation itself.

(a) The thing which Caiaphas had tried to prevent was brought about by the deed itself. Christs death was the destruction, and not the salvation, of the nation.

(b) And yet it was true that He died for that people, for Caiaphas as truly as for John. You must either build upon Christ, the Foundation Stone, or be crushed into powder under Him.

4. The two-fold sphere in which that death works its effect. When John wrote the narrower national system had been shivered, and from out of the dust and ruin had emerged the firmer reality of a Church as wide as the world.

(1) The scattered children of God were to be united round the Cross. The only bond that unites men is their common relation to Christ. That is deeper than all the bonds of nation, blood, race, society, etc.

(2) Christs death brings men into the family of God. To as many as received Him, etc. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

Truth borne by strange witnesses

A flaming torch may be found in a blind mans hand. (J. Trapp.)

Caiaphas; or, a glance as government, human and Divine

I. AN INIQUITOUS POLICY IN THE GOVERNMENT OF MAN. At the meeting of the Sanhedrim two things were admitted--Christs mighty deeds; His power over the people, These admissions by enemies are important as evidence and significant as lessons. In relation to Caiaphass policy, note

1. That it was apparently adapted to the end. Christ was alienating the people from the institutions of the country, and shaking their faith in its authorities; and the most effective plan for terminating the mischief seemed to be to put Him to death.

2. Though seemingly adapted to the end it was radically wrong in principle. The Victim was innocent. The apparent fitness of a measure to an end does not make it right.

3. Being radically wrong it was ultimately ruinous. It brought upon them the judgments which broke up the Commonwealth. Let Governments study the policy of Caiaphas.

II. A STUPENDOUS FACT IN THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD. Caiaphas unconsciously predicts a feature of the Divine administration--that the death of Christ was necessary to the salvation of others.

1. Negatively. The death of Christ

(1) Does not change the mind of God in relation to man. It is the expression, proof, and medium of Gods love.

(2) Does not relax the claims of laws. Nothing can do this but annihilation.

(3) Does not mitigate the enormity of sin, but rather increases it.

(4) Does not change the necessary conditions of spiritual improvement--the intellectual study, heart application, and devotional practice of Divine truth.

2. Positively.

(1) It gives a new revelation of God.

(2) It gives new motives to obedience. Ye are not your own, etc.

(3) It supplies new helps to spiritual culture.

(a) The highest ideal--the character of Christ.

(b) The highest incentives--gratitude, esteem, benevolence.

(c) The highest Minister--Gods Spirit. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

The modern Caiaphas

Caiaphas appears in three characters.

I. As a WITNESS

1. To the truth of Christs miracles. He had every reason to deny it, and that he did not is certain evidence that he could not. In this he was wiser than his modern disciples, who admire Christs doctrines but deny His works. Eliminate the latter and you throw discredit on the authenticity of the former. If Christ be not risen (the greatest miracle), says Paul, preaching is false and faith vain. And if you get rid of Christs miracles, what about those of nature and man?

2. To the power of formality--the deep seated hatred of innovation which is in man. Christ was a mighty Phenomenon. He struck out a new line of thought and life, and those who do that must expect opposition. When Wilberforce began his career a nobleman pointed to a picture of the Crucifixion and said, That is the end of reformers. If you have not found it true it is because you have not tried to reform anything. Men hate to be disturbed in their sins.

3. To Christ as a disturbing force in history. He may be hated and crucified, but He cannot be ignored. He brings Divine tumult with Him, and divides the world into hostile camps. All kingdoms are shaken that His kingdom may be set up. From the days of Caiaphas to now the supreme question is,

What think ye of Christ? What are we to do? said the priest. How long halt ye? etc. If Christ be false then away with Him. But if He be true be honest enough to act on your conviction.

II. As a PROPHET. The gift of prophecy was supposed never to have died out of the Jewish priesthood. So when Caiaphas arose all voices were hushed as he said, It is expedient, etc. Mark how God raises the speech of a frantic bigot so that it becomes a prophecy of the atonement. Even as storm, wind, hail, etc., do Gods bidding no less than the sunshine, so God uses even evil men to do the very thing they oppose. What does sceptical criticism do for Christ but reveal that there is that which is above all criticism. The mountain is never so grand as when the storm gathers round it. And so Christ stands unshaken, triumphant amid the loud tempest and tumult of history. The wrath of men praises Him, etc.

III. As a PHILOSOPHER. He recognizes the sacrificial element which has always been at work in society. Do you turn to Leviticus and regard it as an obsolete record of curious ancient custom? If so you will never grasp its significance, which goes down to the root of human life. The word written across the Book is sacrifice. Life is built up of sacrifice. It is the law of motherhood and of love, the soul of heroism, the essence of nobleness. Ages sacrifice themselves for the race that follows. There is nothing Diviner than for a man to die for sins not his own. The world will never be redeemed until men are ready to die for it. Caiaphas defines the meaning of Christ in history. He is the Lamb of God. (W. J. Dawson.)

The counsel of Caiaphas

I. THE DEATH OF CHRIST AS A POLITICAL CRIME.

1. The real reason: because Christ would not be another Maccabaeus to achieve political emancipation.

2. The ostensible pretext: that He threatened to bring them into conflict with the Roman power, and thus imperilled their interests

3. The fatal blunder. All political crimes are blunders. The murder of Jesus brought about the destruction of the Jewish State.

II. THE DEATH OF CHRIST AS A DIVINE SACRIFICE.

1. Its substitutionary character. It was, and that according to the Divine intention, the death of one Man for the people. The Son of Man gave His life a ransom for many, and died the just for the unjust.

2. Its worldwide significance. Christ died not for Jews only but for Gentiles 1Jn_2:2).

3. Its ultimate design: that He shall gather, etc. (Joh_10:16).

The enlargement of the Spirit on Caiaphass prophecy

I. FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED.

1. The Jews.

2. The children of God scattered abroad.

(1) Then living.

(2) Throughout all time.

II. THE PURPOSE OF HIS DEATH CONCERNING THESE: to gather them into one. Christs dying is

1. The great attraction to our hearts.

2. The great centre of our unity.

(1) By the merit of His death recommending all in one to the favour of God.

(2) By the motive of His death drawing each to the love of every other. (M. Henry.)

Substitution

A certain town called Ekrikok was devoted to destruction for high treason. But it was allowed to redeem itself, partly by a fine and partly by one life being offered in expiatory sacrifice for the whole, which was accomplished in the person of a new slave, bought for the purpose. Mr. Waddell, the missionary, remonstrating on the subject with Old Egho Jack, the head of a great family, that personage asserted that it was impossible the affair could be settled without a death, for Egho law was the same as Gods law to Calabar, and he pointedly asked me if it were better for all Ekrikok to die, or for one slave to die for all the town? I thought of the words of Caiaphas, and of the value of life as a substitution and atonement for sin. A poor slave, bought in the market for a few hundred coppers, by his death redeemed a town, for which many thousands of money would have availed nothing. (Missionary Record of the U. P. Church.)

Substitution

In the time of Napoleon I a certain man agreed to join the ranks in the place of a comrade who had been drafted. The offer was accepted, the battle was fought, and the man was killed. Some time after another draft was made, and they wanted a second time to take the man whose substitute had been shot. No, said he, you cant take me; Im dead. I was shot at such a battle. Why, man, you are crazy. Look here, you got a substitute; another man went in your place, but you have not been shot. No, but he died in my place; he went as my substitute. They would not recognize it, and it was carried up to the Emperor; but the Emperor said the man was right. Napoleon I recognized the doctrine of substitution. (D. L. Moody.)

Vicarious atonement

Some 350 years B.C. a great chasm opened in the Forum of Rome, which the soothsayers declared could only be filled up by throwing into it Romes greatest treasure. Thereupon Mettus Curtius, a young and noble Roman knight, arrayed himself in full armour, and mounted his charger, and, declaring that Rome possessed no greater treasure than a brave citizen, leaped into the chasm, upon which the earth closed over him. (W. Baxendale.)

The sacrifice of one the salvation of many

At Ragenbach in Germany one afternoon a great number of people were assembled in the large room of the inn. The room door stood open and the village blacksmith, a pious, brave-hearted man, sat near the door. All at once a mad dog rushed in, but was seized by the smith with an iron grasp and dashed on the floor. Stand back, my friends, cried he. Now hurry out while I hold him. Better for one to perish than for all. The dog bit furiously on every side. His teeth tore the arms and thighs of the heroic smith, but he would not let go his hold. When all the people had escaped he flung the half-strangled beast from him against the wall, left the room and locked the door. The dog was shot; but what was to become of the man? The friends whose lives he had saved stood round him weeping. Be quiet, my friends, he said, dont weep for me: Ive only done my duty. When I am dead think of me with love; and now pray for me that God will not let me suffer long or too much. I know I shall become mad, but I will take care that no harm comes to you through me. Then he went to his shop. He took a strong chain. One end of it he rivetted with his own hands round his body, the other end he fastened round the anvil so strongly that no earthly power could loose it. Then he turned to his friends and said, Now its done! You are all safe. I cant hurt you. Bring me food while I am well and keep out of my reach when I am mad. The rest I leave with God. Soon madness seized him, and in nine days he died--died gloriously for his friends; but Christ died for His enemies. (R. Newton, D. D.)

Self-sacrifice

The plague was making a desert of the city of Marseilles; death was everywhere. The physicians could do nothing. In one of their councils it was decided that a corpse must be dissected; but it would be death to the operator. A celebrated physician of the number arose, and said, I devote myself for the safety of my country. Before this numerous assembly, I swear in the name of humanity and religion, that tomorrow at the break of day I will dissect a corpse and write down as I proceed what I observe. He immediately left the room, made his will, and spent the night in religious exercises. During the day a man had died in the house of the plague and at daybreak on the following morning the physician, whose name was Guyon, entered the room and critically made the necessary examinations, writing down all his surgical observations. He then left the room, threw the papers into a vase of vinegar that they might not convey the disease to another, and retired to a convenient place where he died in twelve hours. (Homiletic Monthly.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 11:47-48. Then gathered the chief priests, &c. — “The account which these men gave of Lazarus’s 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 Christ’s 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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 11:47. Τί ποιοῦμεν; 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.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 συνάγ. συνέδρ. 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 συνέδρ., must have been used.

τί ποιοῦμεν] 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.

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

οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρ.] contemptuously.

οὕτω] without interposing.

καὶ ἐλεύσονται, κ.τ.λ.] 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.).

ἀροῦσιν] they will take away (tollent, Vulgate), not equivalent to ἀπολέσουσιν (Euth. Zigabenus, Beza, Grotius, Lücke, 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: ἀφαρπάξουσι.

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

τὸν τόπον] is to be defined solely from the emphatic ἡμῶν; 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, Lücke, 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 (ἔθνος, Luk_23:2; Act_10:22, et al.) from the rule of the Sanhedrin, because it knew so badly how to maintain order.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 11:47 . The Pharisees at once acted on the information, συνήγαγον … συνέδριον . 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 τί ποιοῦμεν ; “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 ὅτι … ποιεῖ . The miracles are not denied, but their probable consequence is indicated.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The chief priests. Of the Sadducean party. This should be constantly kept in mind in reading both John's narrative and that of the Synoptists. The Sadducees, represented by the chief priests, are the leaders in the more decisive measures against Christ. Throughout this Gospel the form of expression is either the chief priests alone, or the chief priests and the Pharisees. The only mention of the Pharisees in the history of the passion is Mt 27:62, where also the expression is the chief priests and Pharisees. The chief priests are the deadly enemies of Christ (Mt 26:3, 14). Similarly, in the Acts, the opposition to the Christians is headed by the priests and Sadducees, who represent the same party. In the two instances where the Pharisees appear, they incline to favor the Christians (v. 34; Mt 23:6).

Joh 11:47A council [συνεδριον] . Correctly, and not the council, which would require the article. The meaning is, they called a sitting of the Sanhedrim; probably as distinguished from a formal meeting of that body.

What do we? The present tense, indicating an emergency. This man is at work teaching and working miracles, and what are we doing?

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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 συνέδριον 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 ποιοῦμεν, “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?” ῞Οτι : 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 ἡμῶν (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 ἔθνος, and not λαός, 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 ἐκεῖνος 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 διαλογίζεσθε in an intransitive sense and the following ὅτι 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 ὅτι the content of διαλογίζεσθε : “You know nothing and you do not consider that ...” The reading διαλογίζεσθε : “You do not know how to clear up by reasoning...” is preferable to the simple λογίζεσθε which results from negligence or from a mistaken correction. The reading ἡμῖν, for us, has fundamentally the same sense as the variant ὑμῖν, for you;but it somewhat better disguises the egoistic and personal character of the opinion expressed (comp. the ἡμῶν of Joh 11:48). The use of the terms λαός and ἔθνος 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.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Jews called the council Sanhedrin: and the word that John useth is Synedri.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

What do we? for this man doeth many miracles--"While we trifle, 'this man,' by His 'many miracles,' will carry all before Him; the popular enthusiasm will bring on a revolution, which will precipitate the Romans upon us, and our all will go down in one common ruin." What a testimony to the reality of our Lord's miracles, and their resistless effect, from His bitterest enemies!

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 47. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council] The Pharisees, as such, had no power to assemble councils; and therefore only those are meant who were scribes or elders of the people, in conjunction with Annas and his son-in-law Caiaphas, who were the high priests here mentioned. See Joh 18:13; Joh 18:24.

What do we?] This last miracle was so clear, plain, and incontestable, that they were driven now to their wit's end. Their own spies had come and borne testimony of it. They told them what they had seen, and on their word, as being in league with themselves against Jesus, they could confidently rely.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

47. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees assembled the council. Not less monstrous is the blindness of the priests, which is here described. If they had not been exceedingly stupid and brutish, they would at least have been impressed with some reverence for Christ, after so striking a demonstration of his Divine power. They now assemble deliberately and intentionally to bury the glory of God, at the sight of which they are constrained to be astonished. True, they do not openly proclaim that they wish to make war with God, but as they cannot extinguish Christ but by overturning the power of God, they unquestionably fight against that power openly by presumption and sacrilege. Infidelity indeed is always haughty, and despises God, but does not all at once break out to such an extent as to raise its horns against God. But when men have long struggled against God, the result at which they ultimately arrive is, that they endeavor to ascend above heaven, after the manner of the giants, without any dread of the Divine majesty; for they acknowledge that Christ doth many miracles And whence proceeds his great power? They therefore openly prepare to crush the power of God, which shines in the miracles of Christ. Yet God is not unemployed; but though he wink at them for a time, he laughs at their foolish arrogance, till the time come for executing his wrath, as it is said, (Psalm 2:4, 12.)

What do we? By these words they accuse themselves of sloth, as if they said that it is on account of their doing nothing, that Christ continues to make advances, because by active exertion they may stop his progress. Such is the confidence of wicked men, by which they lay claim to everything, as if it were in their power to do as they please, and as if even the result of the work depended on their wishes. And if the whole be duly weighed, they here employ their own industry as a shield against the Divine power, as if by perseverance they could vanquish God.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

47. a council] They summon a meeting of the Sanhedrin. Even the adversaries of Jesus are being converted, and something decisive must be done. The crisis unites religious opponents. The chief priests, who were mostly Sadducees, act in concert with the Pharisees; jealous ecclesiastics with religious fanatics (comp. Joh_7:32; Joh_7:45, Joh_18:3).

What do we?] Implying that something must be done.

this man] Contemptuous, as in Joh_9:16; Joh_9:24; comp. Joh_7:49.

doeth many miracles] It is no longer possible to deny the fact of the signs. Instead of asking themselves what these ‘signs’ must mean, their only thought is how to prevent others from drawing the obvious conclusion.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council,.... They convened the sanhedrim, the great council of the nation together, of which they were some of the principal members:

and said, what do we? that is, why is nothing done? why are we so dilatory? why do we sit still, and do nothing? or what is to be done? this now lies before us, this is to be considered and deliberated on:

for this man doth many miracles; this is owned, and could not be denied by them; and should have been a reason why they should have acknowledged him to have been the Messiah, and embraced him; whereas they used it as a reason, why they should think of, and concert some measures, to hinder and put a stop to the belief of him as such.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A council - A meeting of the Sanhedrin, or Great Council of the nation. See the notes at Mat 2:4. They claimed the right of regulating all the affairs of religion. See the notes at Joh 1:19.

What do we? - What measures are we taking to arrest the progress of his sentiments?

For this man doeth many miracles - If they admitted that he performed miracles, it was clear what they ought to do. They should have received him as the Messiah. It may be asked, If they really believed that he worked miracles, why did they not believe on him? To this it may be replied that they did not doubt that impostors might work miracles. See Mat 24:24. To this opinion they were led, probably, by the wonders which the magicians performed in Egypt Exo. 7; 8, and by the passage in Deu 13:1. As they regarded the tendency of the doctrines of Jesus to draw off the people from the worship of God, and from keeping his law Joh 9:16, they did not suppose themselves bound to follow him, even if he did work miracles.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The chief priests ... said: what do we? &c. as if they had said: why are we so slow, so remiss, and indolent in our proceedings against this man, when we daily see what numbers he draws after him by his miracles? (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

The chief priests and Pharisees were a great part of that great council amongst the Jews, which went under the name of the sanhedrim; and this (probably) was the council they gathered; for, Joh 11:49, we read, that Caiaphas, the high priest, the standing president of that court, was amongst them. The miracles wrought by Christ were the things that disturbed them, and they reflect upon themselves for conniving so long at him: what they should have improved (viz. the miracles which he wrought) to have begot or increased faith in them, they mention and misimprove to their destruction.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

47. A debate ensues upon the question, What do we? As yet, until Caiphas speaks, mild counsels may have prevailed.

Doeth many miracles—They do not, like modern sceptics, deny the miracles in order to destroy Jesus. They admit the work, and kill the worker lest all men should believe on him.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The chief priests and Pharisees therefore gathered a council. If a formal meeting of the great council, if "the Sanhedrin," had been summoned, the article would have been used. (On the Sanhedrin, see Winer, art. "Sanhedrin," in his "Bib. R. Wort.;" Lange, in loc.; Edersheim, vol. 2:553, etc. This name is Greek (though Hebraized in the Talmud), and signifies the supreme court of the people, resident in Jerusalem, consisting of seventy-one members, with a president, Nasi, and a vice-president, Ab-baith-den.) Extraordinary sessions of the Sanhedrin were called at the house of the high priest, but ordinary sessions in some rooms adjoining the temple. The points submitted to their cognizance were hierarchical and religious. They had at this time lost their actual power of inflicting capital punishment. They were a court of appeal from lower courts in the province, framed after the same model. Pharisees and Sadducees were alike to be found in their number. The family of Annas, his sons, and his son-in-law Caiaphas, were all Sadducees, and embraced the priestly part of the assembly. They were the most deadly enemies of Christ throughout. The Pharisees are scarcely again mentioned in the account of the Passion. The priestly Sadducean party became also bitter enemies of Christianity and of the Church during apostolic times. Here they take the initiative. And they said, What are we about? because this Man is (as we must admit) doing many signs, which will produce a perilous effect among the people. There were certain aspects and views both of the Pharisaic and Sadducean party with which our Lord"s teaching coincided. When he denounced ritualism, literalism, and tradition, and laid emphasis on moral law, he had to some extent the ear of the Sadducees; when he cleansed the temple of the priestly bazaar, when he rebuked the secular conceptions of Messianic glory, the Pharisees inwardly rejoiced. Nevertheless, they had both too many grounds of criticism and dislike not to combine against him. The council of the nation found it a delicate and difficult task to frame charges in which the entire authorities of the nation and the popular clamor could coincide.

A significant admission.

It was not before the public, but in the secret conclave of the Sanhedrin, that the Sadducean chief priests and the Pharisees made this very remarkable admission. Animated only by selfish considerations, these men looked the facts in the face. They regarded the position of Jesus in the light of their own interests, and accordingly proceeded to deal with his case with a brutal frankness and insensibility. It was no time for misrepresentation or self-deception. To this sincerity of wickedness we owe the valuable witness of those who were as competent as any of his contemporaries to judge of the validity of the claims of Jesus. "This man doeth many miracles.

I THE ADMISSION ACCOUNTS FOR THE FEARS AND THE MALICE OF CHRIST"S ENEMIES. Had Jesus been a mere teacher, he would not have excited the enmity which, as a matter of fact, encountered him. But he wrought mighty works, and by their means not only excited interest among the people, but acquired influence over them. That this influence might be used to the detriment of the religious leaders of the Jews was their chief dread with regard to Jesus. The exact ground upon which they might well fear him they did indeed misunderstand. Yet it was his possession of superhuman power which made him formidable to their imagination and to the foreboding of their guilty hearts. It was this authority which in fact, though in a different way from that expected by them, did prove fatal to their position, and subversive of their sway.

II THIS ADMISSION ESTABLISHES THE FACT OF CHRIST"S POSSESSION OF MIRACULOUS POWER. If it had been possible for these selfish and calculating ecclesiastics to do so, doubtless they would have denied the fact of Christ"s miracles. It was against their interests to admit it, could it with any plausibility be questioned. The witness of Christ"s friends to his superhuman power is valuable; than that of disinterested and impartial spectators is more so; but that of his avowed enemies is most valuable of all. They attributed his mighty works to an infernal power; but they never denied them. How can the conclusion be avoided that these signs and wonders did really take place?

III THIS ADMISSION AGGRAVATES THE GUILT OF THOSE WHO CONSPIRED TO SLAY CHRIST. There could be no question that the miracles of Jesus were for the most part obviously benevolent and merciful, and that this was well known to his enemies. What excuse then could they have for plotting his death? If he was not only a wise Teacher, but a popular Benefactor and Healer, his enemies, in conspiring to bring his ministry to a close, proved theft indifference to the welfare of the people, which Jesus so compassionately and powerfully promoted. It was not only that they slew "the Holy One and Just;" they slew the Self-denying and Compassionate.

IV THIS ADMISSION SHOULD SERVE TO CONVINCE THE SKEPTICAL THAT CHRIST WAS THE SON OF GOD. If men enter upon the consideration of Christ"s claims with the foregone conclusion in their minds that no miracle can by any power be wrought, then all evidence that may be adduced will be adduced in vain. But if they come with unprejudiced and candid minds, the testimony recorded in this verse must surely have weight with them. At all events, it may serve to show that the objections against our Lord"s claims advanced in these days are utterly unlike those advanced in his lifetime. There was keen criticism then, although of a different kind from that we meet with now. Then, the only ground on which our Lord"s authority was disputed was the very natural ground of the selfish interests of his enemies. It was thought expedient to bring his ministry to a close by violence, falsehood, and injustice. With such a method of opposition to Christ many modern unbelievers have no sympathy. But it is very hard to substantiate any other method of opposition, that is, upon the grounds of rational plausibility. Take the testimony of Christ"s worst foes, and deal fairly with it. And their admissions will be seen to preclude the possibility of impugning Christ"s authority. Nor must it be forgotten that the "many miracles" which Jesus wrought when here on earth were the earnest and the promise of those greater and more amazing moral miracles which from the throne of his glory he has been working through the long ages of the Christian dispensation. T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

What do we? - What? Believe. Yea, but death yields to the power of Christ sooner than infidelity.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

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.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [XCIV. Retiring Before the Decree].

XCIV. RETIRING BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN'S DECREE. (Jerusalem and Ephraim in Judæa.) 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 Arimathæa) 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]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

47. The chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council. The Sanhedrim met at once. The crisis was an alarming one. Unless something was done the nation would follow Jesus.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

General Information:

Because so many people have told them that Lazarus is alive again, the chief priests and Pharisees gather the Jewish council for a meeting.

Then the chief priests

"Then the leaders among the priests"

Then

The author uses this word to tell the reader that the events that begin in verse 47 are a result of the events of John 11:45-46.

What will we do?

It is implied here that the council members are talking about Jesus. AT: "What are we going to do about Jesus?" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

all will believe in him

The Jewish leaders were afraid that the people would try to make Jesus their king. AT: "everyone will trust in him and rebel against Rome" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

the Romans will come

This is a synecdoche for the Roman army. AT: "the Roman army will come" (See: Synecdoche)

take away both our place and our nation

"destroy both our temple and our nation"

translationWords

chief priests

Pharisee

council

miracle

believe

Rome

nation

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

47. συνέδριον. They summon a meeting of the Sanhedrin. Even the adversaries of Jesus are being converted, and something decisive must be done. The crisis unites religious opponents. The chief priests, who were mostly Sadducees, act in concert with the Pharisees; jealous ecclesiastics with religious fanatics (comp. Joh 7:32; Joh 7:45, Joh 18:3).

συνέδριον, common in the Acts and not rare in the Synoptists, occurs here only in S. John; and here only without the article, as meaning a meeting of the Sanhedrin, rather than the council itself. It is the Greek equivalent of Sanhedrin, which though plural in form is treated as a singular noun of multitude: see on Mat 26:3.

τί ποιοῦμεν; Not τί ποιῶμεν or ποιήσομεν, ‘What are we to do, if anything?’ But, What are we doing? i.e. something must be done, and we are not doing it.

οὗτος. Contemptuous: see on Joh 9:16.

πολλὰ π. σημεῖα. Πολλά is emphatic. It is no longer possible to question the fact of the signs. But instead of asking themselves what these signs mean, their only thought is how to prevent others from drawing the obvious conclusion. The contrast between their action and His (ποιοῦμεν … ποιεῖ) is probably intended by the Evangelist, if not by them.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

47. οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ φαρισαῖοι, sc. the principal members of the Sanhedrim (see on 7:32). From this time onwards, the chief priests take the lead in the arraignment of Jesus. These leaders summoned an informal council.

συνήγαγον … συνέδριον, the Ferrar cursives adding the explanatory gloss κατὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. This is the only occurrence of the word συνέδριον in Jn.

καὶ ἔλεγον τί ποιοῦμεν; “They were saying (to each other), What are we doing?” sc. Why are we doing nothing? The parallel Act 4:16 τί ποιήσωμεν; “What are we to do?” has a slightly different tinge of meaning. ποιοῦμεν in the present tense cannot be rendered “What shall we do?”1

ὃτι οὗτος ὁ ἂνθρωπος κτλ., “for this person is doing many signs”; the turn of phrase expressing contempt. For “many signs” in Jerusalem, cf. 2:23; but the reference here is to the report brought by those who had been present at the raising of Lazarus (v. 46).

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.