John 11:49

Joh 11:49-52. One of them, named Caiaphas, &c. — While some of the council seemed apprehensive of the danger of attempting any thing against Jesus, and, as is probable from Joh 12:42, urged the unlawfulness of what was proposed to be done, from the consideration of Christ’s innocence and miracles, Caiaphas, who, among the many sudden revolutions which happened in the government about that time, was high- priest that year — That memorable year in which Christ was to die; said unto them, Ye know nothing at all — Of what the present urgency of affairs requires. He reproves their slow deliberation in so clear a case; and treats them as persons unacquainted with the nature of government, which, he signified, required that certain acts of injustice should not be scrupled at, when they were expedient for the safety of the state: and that they might easily find out a remedy for their present perplexity in the death of this Jesus, who occasioned such an alarm. It is justly observed by Dr. Campbell, that it was not with ignorance of the subject about which they were deliberating, the doctrine and miracles of our Lord, nor with ignorance of the law, for the punishment of offenders of all denominations, that Caiaphas here upbraids them, but with the want of political wisdom. They were in perplexity; he signified, they knew not what to resolve upon, or what measure to adopt in a case which was extremely clear: namely, “that though their putting Jesus to death could not be vindicated by strict law or justice, it might be vindicated from expediency and reasons of state; or, rather, from the great law of necessity, the danger being no less than the destruction of their country, and so imminent, that even the murder of an innocent man (admitting Jesus to be innocent) was not to be considered as an evil, but rather as a sacrifice every way proper for the safety of the nation. May we not reasonably conjecture, that such a manner of arguing must have arisen from objections made by Nicodemus, who, as we learn from Joh 7:50, &c., was not afraid to object to them the illegality of their proceedings? or, by Joseph of Arimathea, who was also one of them, and concerning whom we have this honourable testimony, (Luk 22:50-51,) that he did not concur in their resolutions?” It is expedient that one man should die for the people — Doubtless, Caiaphas said this from a principle of human policy; nevertheless, the evangelist assures us, that his tongue was overruled by God to speak these words, and that, in uttering them, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation — The nation of the Jews; and that he should gather together in one — Namely, in one church; the children of God that were scattered abroad — Through all nations and ages. That is, as God was wont anciently to communicate his oracles to the high-priest, clothed with the pontifical garments; so he inspired these words into Caiaphas, who now bore that office, though he was not sensible himself of the inspiration, and meant what he said in a different sense from what God intended should be signified by it. And thus Caiaphas gave, unawares, as clear a testimony to the priestly, as Pilate did to the kingly, office of Christ.

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

John

CAIAPHAS

Joh 11:49 - Joh 11:50.

The resurrection of Lazarus had raised a wave of popular excitement. Any stir amongst the people was dangerous, especially at the Passover time, which was nigh at hand, when Jerusalem would be filled with crowds of men, ready to take fire from any spark that might fall amongst them. So a hasty meeting of the principal ecclesiastical council of the Jews was summoned, in order to dismiss the situation, and concert measures for repressing the nascent enthusiasm. One might have expected to find there some disposition to inquire honestly into the claims of a Teacher who had such a witness to His claims as a man alive that had been dead. But nothing of the sort appears in their ignoble calculations. Like all weak men, they feel that ‘something must be done’ and are perfectly unable to say what. They admit Christ’s miracles: ‘This man doeth many miracles,’ but they are not a bit the nearer to recognising His mission, being therein disobedient to their law and untrue to their office. They fear that any disturbance will bring Rome’s heavy hand down on them, and lead to the loss of what national life they still possess. But even that fear is not patriotism nor religion. It is pure self-interest. ‘They will take away our place’-the Temple, probably-’and our nation.’ The holy things were, in their eyes, their special property. And so, at this supreme moment, big with the fate of themselves and of their nation, their whole anxiety is about personal interests. They hesitate, and are at a loss what to do.

But however they may hesitate, there is one man who knows his own mind-Caiaphas, the high priest. He has no doubt as to what is the right thing to do. He has the advantage of a perfectly clear and single purpose, and no sort of restraint of conscience or delicacy keeps him from speaking it out. He is impatient at their vacillation, and he brushes it all aside with the brusque and contemptuous speech: ‘Ye know nothing at all!’ ‘The one point of view for us to take is that of our own interests. Let us have that clearly understood; when we once ask what is “expedient for us,” there will be no doubt about the answer. This man must die. Never mind about His miracles, or His teaching, or the beauty of His character. His life is a perpetual danger to our prerogatives. I vote for death!’ 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, restrained by no conscience, and speaking out cynically the thought that is floating in all their minds, but which they dare not utter, is master of the situation, and the resolve is taken. ‘From that day forth’ they determined to put Him to death.

But John regards this selfish, cruel advice as a prophecy. Caiaphas spoke wiser things than he knew. The Divine Spirit breathed in strange fashion through even such lips as his, and moulded his savage utterance into such a form as that it became a fit expression for the very deepest thought about the nature and the power of Christ’s death. He did indeed die for that people-thinks the Evangelist-even though they have rejected Him, and the dreaded Romans have come and taken away our place and nation-but His death had a wider purpose, and was not for that nation only, but that also ‘He should gather together in one the children of God that are scattered abroad.’

Let us, then, take these two aspects of the man and his counsel: the unscrupulous priest and his savage advice; the unconscious prophet and his great prediction.

I. First, then, let us take the former point of view, and think of this unscrupulous priest and his savage advice. ‘It is expedient for us that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.’

Remember who he was, the high priest of the nation, with Aaron’s mitre on his brow, and centuries of illustrious traditions embodied in his person; set by his very office to tend the sacred flame of their Messianic hopes, and with pure hands and heart to offer sacrifice for the sins of the people; the head and crown of the national religion, in whose heart justice and mercy should have found a sanctuary if they had fled from all others; whose ears ought to have been opened to the faintest whisper of the voice of God; whose lips should ever have been ready to witness for the truth.

And see what he is! A crafty schemer, as blind as a mole to the beauty of Christ’s character and the greatness of His words; utterly unspiritual; undisguisedly selfish; rude as a boor; cruel as a cut-throat; and having reached that supreme height of wickedness in which he can dress his ugliest thought in the plainest words, and send them into the world unabashed. What a lesson this speech of Caiaphas, and the character disclosed by it, read to all persons who have a professional connection with religion!

He can take one point of view only, in regard to the mightiest spiritual revelation that the world ever saw; and that is, its bearing upon his own miserable personal interests, and the interests of the order to which he belongs. And so, whatever may be the wisdom, or miracles, or goodness of Jesus, because He threatens the prerogatives of the priesthood, He must die and be got out of the way.

This is only an extreme case of a temper and a tendency which is perennial. Popes and inquisitors and priests of all Churches have done the same, in their degree, in all ages. They have always been tempted to look upon religion and religious truth and religious organisations as existing somehow for their personal advantage. And so ‘the Church is in danger!’ generally means ‘my position is threatened,’ and heretics are got rid of, because their teaching is inconvenient for the prerogatives of a priesthood, and new truth is fought against, because officials do not see how it harmonises with their pre-eminence.

It is not popes and priests and inquisitors only that are examples of the tendency. The warning is needed by every man who stands in such a position as mine, whose business it is professionally to handle sacred things, and to administer Christian institutions and Christian ritual. All such men are tempted to look upon the truth as their stock-in-trade, and to fight against innovations, and to array themselves instinctively against progress, and frown down new aspects and new teachers of truth, simply because they threaten, or appear to threaten, the position and prerogatives of the teachers that be. Caiaphas’s sin is possible, and Caiaphas’s temptation is actual, for every man whose profession it is to handle the oracles of God.

But the lessons of this speech and character are for us all. Caiaphas’s sentence is an undisguised, unblushing avowal of a purely selfish standpoint. It is not a common depth of degradation to stand up, and without a blush to say: ‘I look at all claims of revelation, at all professedly spiritual truth, and at everything else, from one delightfully simple point of view-I ask myself, how does it bear upon what I think to be to my advantage?’ What a deal of perplexity a man is saved if he takes up that position! Yes! and how he has damned himself in the very act of doing it! For, look what this absorbing and exclusive self-regard does in the illustration before us, and let us learn what it will do to ourselves.

This selfish consideration of our own interests will make us as blind as bats to the most radiant beauty of truth; aye, and to Christ Himself, if the recognition of Him and of His message seems to threaten any of these. They tell us that fishes which live in the water of caverns come to lose their eyesight; and men that are always living in the dark holes of their own selfishly absorbed natures, they, too, lose their spiritual sight; and the fairest, loftiest, truest, and most radiant visions {which are realities} pass before their eyes, and they see them not. When you put on regard for yourselves as they do blinkers upon horses, you have no longer the power of wide, comprehensive vision, but only see straight forward upon the narrow line which you fancy to be marked out by your own interests. If ever there comes into the selfish man’s mind a truth, or an aspect of Christ’s mission, which may seem to cut against some of his practices or interests, how blind he is to it! When Lord Nelson was at Copenhagen, and they hoisted the signal of recall, he put his telescope up to his blind eye and said, ‘I do not see it!’ And that is exactly what this self-absorbed regard to our own interests does with hundreds of men who do not in the least degree know it. It blinds them to the plain will of the Commander-in-chief flying there at the masthead. ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see’; and there are none who so certainly will not see as those who have an uneasy suspicion that if they do see they will have to change their tack. So I say, look at the instance before us, and learn the lesson of the blindness to truth and beauty which are Christ Himself, which comes of a regard to one’s own interests.

Then again, this same self-regard may bring a man down to any kind and degree of wrongdoing. Caiaphas was brought down by it, being the supreme judge of his nation, to be an assassin and an accomplice of murderers. And it is only a question of accident and of circumstances how far that man will descend who once yields himself up to the guidance of such a disposition and tendency. We have all of us to fight against the developed selfishness which takes the form of this, that, and the other sin; and we have all of us, if we are wise, to fight against the undeveloped sin which lies in all selfishness. Remember that if you begin with laying down as the canon of your conduct, ‘It is expedient for me,’ you have got upon an inclined plane that tilts at a very sharp angle, and is very sufficiently greased, and ends away down yonder in the depths of darkness and of death, and it is only a question of time how far and how fast, how deep and irrevocable, will be your descent.

And lastly, this same way of looking at things which takes ‘It is expedient’ as the determining consideration, has in it an awful power of so twisting and searing a man’s conscience as that he comes to look at evil and never to know that there is anything wrong in it. This cynical high priest in our text had no conception that he was doing anything but obeying the plainest dictates of the most natural self-preservation when he gave his opinion that they had better kill Christ than have any danger to their priesthood. The crime of the actual crucifixion was diminished because the doers were so unconscious that it was a crime; but the crime of the process by which they had come to be unconscious-Oh how that was increased and deepened! So, if we fix our eyes sharply and exclusively on what makes for our own advantage, and take that as the point of view from which we determine our conduct, we may, and we shall, bring ourselves into such a condition as that our consciences will cease to be sensitive to right and wrong; and we shall do all manner of bad things, and never know it. We shall ‘wipe our mouths and say: “I have done no harm.”‘ So, I beseech you, remember this, that to live for self is hell, and that the only antagonist of such selfishness, which leads to blindness, crime, and a seared conscience, is to yield ourselves to the love of God in Jesus Christ and to say: ‘I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.’

II. And now turn briefly to the second aspect of this saying, into which the former, if I may so say, melts away. We have the unconscious prophet and his great prediction.

The Evangelist conceives that the man who filled the office of high priest, being the head of the theocratic community, was naturally the medium of a divine oracle. When he says, ‘being the high priest that year, Caiaphas prophesied,’ he does not imply that the high priestly office was annual, but simply desires to mark the fateful importance of that year for the history of the world and the priesthood. ‘In that year’ the great ‘High Priest for ever’ came and stood for a moment by the side of the earthly high priest-the Substance by the shadow-and by His offering of Himself as the one Sacrifice for sin for ever, deprived priesthood and sacrifice henceforward of all their validity. So that Caiaphas was in reality the last of the high priests, and those that succeeded him for something less than half a century were but like ghosts that walked after cock-crow. And what the Evangelist would mark is the importance of ‘that year,’ as making Caiaphas ever memorable to us. Solemn and strange that the long line of Aaron’s priesthood ended in such a man-the river in a putrid morass-and that of all the years in the history of the nation, ‘in that year’ should such a person fill such an office!

‘Being high priest he prophesied.’ And was there anything strange in a bad man’s prophesying? Did not the Spirit of God breathe through Balaam of old? Is there anything incredible in a man’s prophesying unconsciously? Did not Pilate do so, when he nailed over the Cross, ‘This is the King of the Jews,’ and wrote it in Hebrew, and in Greek, and in Latin, conceiving himself to be perpetrating a rude jest, while he was proclaiming an everlasting truth? When the Pharisees stood at the foot of the Cross and taunted Him, ‘He saved others, Himself He cannot save,’ did they not, too, speak deeper things than they knew? And were not the lips of this unworthy, selfish, unspiritual, unscrupulous, cruel priest so used as that, all unconsciously, his words lent themselves to the proclamation of the glorious central truth of Christianity, that Christ died for the nation that slew Him and rejected Him, nor for them alone, but for all the world? Look, though but for a moment, at the thoughts that come from this new view of the words which we have been considering.

They suggest to us, first of all, the twofold aspect of Christ’s death. From the human point of view it was a savage murder by forms of law for political ends: Caiaphas and the priests slaying Him to avoid a popular tumult that might threaten their prerogatives, Pilate consenting to His death to avoid the unpopularity that might follow a refusal. From the divine point of view it is God’s great sacrifice for the sin of the world. It is the most signal instance of that solemn law of Providence which runs all through the history of the world, whereby bad men’s bad deeds, strained through the fine network, as it were, of the divine providence, lose their poison and become nutritious and fertilising. ‘Thou makest the wrath of men to praise Thee; with the residue thereof Thou girdest Thyself.’ The greatest crime ever done in the world is the greatest blessing ever given to the world. Man’s sin works out the loftiest divine purpose, even as the coral insects blindly build 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.

Then, again, this second aspect of the counsel of Caiaphas suggests for us the twofold consequences of that death on the nation itself. This Gospel of John was probably written after the destruction of Jerusalem. By the time that our Evangelist penned these words, the Romans had come and taken away their place and their nation. The catastrophe that Caiaphas and his party had, by their short-sighted policy, tried to prevent, had been brought about by the very deed itself. For Christ’s death was practically the reason for the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth. When ‘the husbandmen said, Come! let us kill Him, and seize on the inheritance,’ which is simply putting Caiaphas’s counsel into other language, they thereby deprived themselves of the inheritance. And so Christ’s death was the destruction and not the salvation of the nation.

And yet, it was true that He died for that people, for every man of them, for Caiaphas as truly as for John, for Judas as truly as for Peter, for all the Scribes and the Pharisees that mocked round His Cross, as truly as for the women that stood silently weeping there. He died for them all, and John, looking back upon the destruction of his nation, can yet say, ‘He died for that people.’ Yes! and just because He did, and because they rejected Him, His death, which they would not let be their salvation, became their destruction and their ruin. Oh! brethren, it is always so! He is either ‘a savour of life unto life, or a savour of death unto death!’ ‘Behold! I lay in Zion for a foundation, a tried Stone.’ Build upon it and you are safe. If you do not build upon it, that Stone becomes ‘a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence.’ You must either build upon Christ or fall over Him; you must either build upon Christ, or be crushed to powder under Him. Make your choice! The twofold effect is wrought ever, but we can choose which of the two shall be wrought upon us.

Lastly, we have here the twofold sphere in which our Lord’s mighty death works its effects.

I have already said that this Gospel was written after the fall of Jerusalem. The whole tone of it shows that the conception of the Church as quite separate from Judaism was firmly established. The narrower national system had been shivered, and from out of the dust and hideous ruin of its crushing fall had emerged the fairer reality of a Church as wide as the world. The Temple on Zion-which was but a small building after all-had been burned with fire. It was their place, as Caiaphas called it. But the clearing away of the narrower edifice had revealed the rising walls of the great temple, the Christian Church, whose roof overarches every land, and in whose courts all men may stand and praise the Lord. So John, in his home in Ephesus, surrounded by flourishing churches in which Jews formed a small and ever-decreasing element, recognised how far the dove with the olive-branch In its mouth flew, and how certainly that nation was only a little fragment of the many for whom Christ died.

‘The children of God that were scattered abroad’ were all to be united round that Cross. Yes! the only thing that unites men together is their common relation to a Divine Redeemer. That bond is deeper than all national bonds, than all blood-bonds, than community of race, than family, than friendship, than social ties, than community of opinion, than community of purpose and action. It is destined to absorb them all. All these are transitory and they are imperfect; men wander isolated notwithstanding them all. But if we are knit to Christ, we are knit to all who are also knit to Him. One life animates all the limbs, and one life’s blood circulates through all the veins. ‘So also is Christ.’ We are one in Him, in whom all the body fitly joined together maketh increase, and in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth. If we have yielded to the power of that Cross which draws us to itself, we shall have been more utterly alone, in our penitence and in our conscious surrender to Christ, than ever we were before. But He sets the solitary in families, and that solemn experience of being alone with our Judge and our Saviour will be followed by the blessed sense that we are no more solitary, but ‘fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God.’

That death brings men into the family of God. He will ‘gather into one the scattered children of God.’ They are called children by anticipation. For surely nothing can be clearer than that the doctrine of all John’s writings is that men are not children of God by virtue of their humanity, except in the inferior sense of being made by Him, and in His image as creatures with spirit and will, but become children of God through faith in the Son of God, which brings about that new birth, whereby we become partakers of the Divine nature. ‘To as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name.’

So I beseech you, turn yourselves to that dear Christ who has died for us all, for us each, for me and for thee, and put your confidence in His great sacrifice. You will find that you pass from isolation into society, from death into life, from the death of selfishness into the life of God. Listen to Him, who says: ‘Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice: and there shall be one flock’ because there is ‘one Shepherd.’

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11:49 Caiaphas was the ruler of the high council from AD 18–36. He worked for ten years alongside Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea (AD 26–36; see 18:29), keeping the peace with Rome.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Joh 11:49. Τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου) in that year, a memorable one, as being that in which Jesus was about to die. It was the first and chiefest year in the seventy weeks [Daniel 9], the fortieth before the destruction of Jerusalem, and one celebrated also in Jewish history for various reasons. Even before this year, and after it, Caiaphas was high priest. At the time that John was writing his gospel, it was remembered, how great and how remarkable that year had been, and what a leading part Caiaphas had taken among the opponents of the Gospel. Thrice the Evangelist notes the high priesthood of Caiaphas as being in this year: in this passage, and at Joh 11:51, and at ch. Joh 18:13. Comp. Act 6:6, “Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest.”—ὑμεῖς, ye) The high priest reproves the slowness in resolve of his fellow-counsellors, and, sure in his purpose, affirms that the matter can be most easily accomplished: that it is not the people who should be attacked; but that it is Jesus alone, who must be taken out of the way. Caiaphas abuses the strength of mind, which arose from prophecy,[304] for the purpose of a mere political affirmation.

[304] Given him supernaturally as high priest.—E. and T.

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

Joh_11:49-50. Caiaphas, however, solves this question of helplessness, censuring his colleagues on account of the latter, since the means to be adopted had been clearly put into their hands by circumstances.

εἷς τις] unus quidam. Comp. Mar_14:47; Mar_14:51, et al.; Bernhardy, p. 442. This one alone was a man of counsel.

Καϊάφας] see on Mat_26:3; Luk_3:2.

τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου] He was high priest of that year. The previous and following time is left out of consideration, not, however, negatived, but simply that remarkable and fatal year is brought into prominence. Comp. Joh_18:13. The supposition of an annual change in the office cannot be ascribed (against Bretschneider, Strauss, Schenkel, Scholten) even to a Pseudo-John, considering his manifest acquaintance elsewhere with Jewish affairs; but to appeal to the fact that the high priests were frequently changed in those times, and that actually before Caiaphas several were only a year in office, Josephus, Antt. xviii. 2. 2 (Hengstenberg), is least of all applicable in the case of Caiaphas, who was already in office, A.D. 25. Again, the assumption of an alternative holding of the office by Annas and Caiaphas, in virtue of a private agreement (comp. on Luke, loc. cit.; so Baur, ascribing this view to the Pseudo-John, and Maier[95]), is as purely arbitrary (see Bleek, p. 257) as the pretended allusion to the change of Asiarchs (Gfrörer).

ὑμεῖς] you, people.

οὐκ οἰδατε ΟὐΔΈΝ] that you can still ask: ΤΊ ΠΟΙΟῦΜΕΝ.

ΟὐΔῈ ΛΟΓΊΖ.] (see critical notes): nor do ye consider that, etc. The proud, discourteous style of this address evinces passionate feeling generally, not exactly the manner (Josephus, Bell. ii. 8. 14) of Sadduceeism (Hengstenberg, Godet); from Act_5:17 it is by no means clear that Caiaphas was a Sadducee.

ἡμῖν] for us Sanhedrists.

In ΣΥΜΦΈΡΕΙ, ἽΝΑ, as in Joh_16:7, the conception of divine destination is expressed: that it is of advantage to us that one man must die, etc.

ὑπέρ] in commodum, in order that the people may be preserved from the destruction which threatens them, Joh_11:48.

ἀπόληται] through their subjugation, and the overthrow of the national independent existence.

Observe the interchange of ἜΘΝΟς (the people as a nation) and λαός (the people as a political, here theocratic, community).

The principle itself, which regarded in itself may be moral and noble, is expressed in the feeling of the most ungodly and selfish policy. For similar expressions, see Schoettgen and Wetstein. To refer the scene to a legend afterwards current among the Christians (Weizsäcker), is opposed to the earnest narrative of the evangelist.

[95] Here, too, belongs the supposition of Ebrard (apud Olshausen), that the two alternated with each other in the offering of the annual sacrifice of atonement. And that John means to say that in that year this function fell to Caiaphas. But he does not say so.

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 11:49 . Εἷς δέ τις ἐξ αὐτῶν Καϊάφας . “But a certain one of them, Caiaphas.” Winer (p. 146) says that τὶς does not destroy the arithmetical force of εἷς . This may be so: but the use of εἷς in similar forms is a peculiarity of later Greek. Caiaphas (Mat 26:3 ) is a surname = Kephas, added to the original name of this High Priest, Joseph. He held office from A.D. 18 to 36, when he was deposed by Vitellius. ἀρχιερεὺς ὢν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου , “being High Priest that year,” not as if the writer supposed the high priesthood was an office held for a year only, but desiring to emphasise that during that marked and fatal year of our Lord’s crucifixion Caiaphas held the position of highest authority: as if he said “during the year of which we speak Caiaphas was High Priest”. “Non vocat anni illius pontificem, quod annuum duntaxat esset munus, sed quum venale esset transferretur ad varios homines praeter Legis praescriptum.” Calvin. And Josephus ( Ant. , xx. 10) reminds us that there were twenty-eight high priests in 107 years. Ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἰδατε οὐδέν . “Ye [contemptuous] know nothing at all,” οὐδὲ λογίζεσθε , “nor do ye take account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and the whole nation perish not”. The ἵνα clause is the subject of the sentence, “that one man die for the people is expedient”; as frequently, cf. Mat 10:25 ; Mat 18:6 , Joh 16:7 , 1Co 4:3 . On the use of ἵνα in this Gospel see Burton’s Moods and Tenses , 211 219. Caiaphas enounced an unquestionably sound principle (see Wetstein’s examples); but nothing could surpass the cold-blooded craft of his application of it. He saw that an opportunity was given them of at once getting rid of an awkward factor in their community, a person dangerous to their influence, and of currying favour with Rome, by putting to death one who was claiming to be king of the Jews. “Why!” he says, “do you not see that this man with His eclát and popular following, instead of endangering us and bringing suspicion on our loyalty, is exactly the person we may use to exhibit our fidelity to the empire? Sacrifice Jesus, and you will not only rid yourselves of a troublesome person, but will show a watchful zeal for the supremacy of Rome, which will ingratiate you with the imperial authorities.”

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

The raging and mad company of the false Church, persuade themselves that they cannot be in safety, unless he is taken away, who only upholdeth the Church: And so likewise judgeth the wisdom of the flesh in worldly affairs, which is governed by the spirit of giddiness or madness.

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

Verse 49. Caiaphas being the high priest that same year] By the law of Moses, Ex 40:15, the office of high priest was for life, and the son of Aaron's race always succeeded his father, But at this time the high priesthood was almost annual: the Romans and Herod put down and raised up whom they pleased, and when they pleased, without attending to any other rule than merely that the person put in this office should be of the sacerdotal race. According to Josephus, Ant. xviii. c. 3, the proper name of this person was Joseph, and Caiaphas was his surname. He possessed the high priesthood for eight or nine years, and was deposed by Vitellius, governor of Judea. See Clarke on Lu 3:2.

Ye know nothing] Of the perilous state in which ye stand.

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

49. Then one of them, named Caiaphas. It was a short consultation, for Caiaphas did not allow them to hesitate long. He holds out that there is but one way of purchasing safety, and that is, to slay an innocent man. To what a pitch of wickedness do men proceed, who, destitute of the fear of God, form their plans rather from the judgment of their flesh than from the word of God, and who confidently believe that they will derive advantage from that which is not permitted by the Author of every blessing. For what Caiaphas meant may be thus expressed. “They must provoke the wrath of God, in order that they may be happy and prosperous.” Wherefore, let us learn never to separate what is useful from what is lawful, since we ought not to expect any prosperity or success but from the blessing of God, which is promised not to wicked and rebellious persons, who ask assistance from the devil, but to believers who sincerely walk in their ways, (Psalm 91:11.) And yet there was some plausibility in this argument, for the public advantage ought always to have the preference. But — as I have already said — a people is no better protected by the unjust death of an innocent man, than the whole body of a man is protected, when you only cut his throat, or pierce his breast with a sword.

Who was the high priest of that year. He does not call him the high priest of that year, as if he meant that the office was annual, and lasted only for a year; but because it had become a gift that could be purchased with money, and was conveyed to various persons contrary to the injunction of the Law. God did not intend that this dignity should be terminated but by the death of him who held it; but, in consequence of trouble and confusion in public affairs, the Romans frequently changed the priests according to their fancy.

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.

(49) And one of them, named Caiaphas.—Comp. Notes on Mat_26:3; Luk_3:2. His proper name was Joseph, and the name Caiaphas is the Syriac form of Cephas. He, like Peter, took the name of “Rockman,” as a title to indicate his work! For the succession of high priests at this time, see Jos. Ant. xviii. 2, § 2. Caiaphas himself was priest from A.D. 26-36.

Being the high priest that same year.—The words occur again in Joh_11:51 and in Joh_18:13. They are used with a solemnity of meaning to express “that fatal and decisive year.”

Ye know nothing at all.—There had probably been various suggestions made by different members of the Sanhedrin which seemed to him to miss the mark, or to fall short of the one means which would have a successful issue.

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

49. Caiaphas] This was a surname; ‘who was called Caiaphas’ Mat_26:3 (where see note on the Sanhedrin). His original name was Joseph. Caiaphas is either the Syriac form of Cephas, a ‘rock,’ or, according to another derivation, means ‘depression.’ The highpriesthood had long since ceased to descend from father to son. Pilate’s predecessor, Valerius Gratus, had deposed Annas and set up in succession Ismael, Eleazar (son of Annas), Simon, and Joseph Caiaphas (son-in-law of Annas); Caiaphas held the office from a. d. 18 to 36, when he was deposed by Vitellius. Annas in spite of his deposition was still regarded as in some sense high-priest (Joh_18:13; Luk_3:2; Act_4:6), possibly as president of the Sanhedrin (Act_5:21; Act_5:27; Act_7:1; Act_9:1-2; Act_22:5; Act_23:2; Act_23:4; Act_24:1). Caiaphas is not president here, or he would not be spoken of merely as ‘one of them.’

that same year] This has been urged as an objection, as if the Evangelist ignorantly supposed that the highpriesthood was an annual office,—a mistake which would go far to prove that the Evangelist was not a Jew, and therefore not S. John. But there is no ‘same’ in the Greek (comp. Joh_1:33, Joh_4:53, Joh_5:9; Joh_5:11), and ‘that year’ means ‘that notable and fatal year.’ The same expression recurs Joh_11:51 and Joh_18:13. Even if there were not this obvious meaning for ‘that year,’ the frequent changes in the office at this period would fully explain the insertion without the notion of an annual change being implied. There had been some twenty or thirty high-priests in S. John’s lifetime.

Ye know nothing at all] An inference from their asking ‘What do we?’ It was quite obvious what they must do. The ‘ye’ is contemptuously emphatic. The resolute but unscrupulous character of the man is evident.

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.

And one of them, named Caiaphas,.... See Gill on Mat 26:3, See Gill on Luk 3:2, See Gill on Joh 18:13.

being the high priest that same year; the high priesthood originally was not annual, but for life; but towards the close of the second temple, it came into the hands of the king, to appoint who would to be high priest (o); and it became venal; it was purchased with money; insomuch that they changed the priesthood once a twelve month, and every year a new high priest was made (p) now this man being in such an high office, and a man of no conscience, and of bad principles, being a Sadducee, as seems from Act 4:6, who denied the resurrection of the dead, and was unconcerned about a future state; and having no restraint upon him, in a bold, haughty, and blustering manner,

said unto them, ye know nothing at all; ye are a parcel of ignorant and stupid creatures, mere fools and idiots, to sit disputing and arguing, pro and con about such a fellow as this; what is to be done is obvious enough, and that is to take away this man's life, without any more ado; it matters not what he is, nor what he does; these are things that are not to be considered, they are out of the question; would you save the nation, destroy the man; things are come to this crisis, that either his life must go, or the nation perish; and which is most expedient, requires no time to debate about.

(o) Misn. Yebamot, c. 6. sect. 4. (p) T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 8. 2. Juchasin, fol. 139. 1.

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

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

Ver. 49. Ye know nothing at all] Why no: you know all, Caiaphas, all the assessors are but asses to you. Hoc est superbire, quasi super alios ire. This fellow would have made a fine duke of Russia, by whom it is cautionated that there be no schools, lest there should be any scholars but himself. So the Gnostics bragged that they were the only knowing men. (Irenaeus.) And the Jesuits at this day tell us that the empire of learning is confined to their territories. Penes nos est imperium literature. (Eudaem.)

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.

Caiaphas - See the notes at Luk 3:2.

Being high-Priest that same year - It is probable that the office of high priest was at first for life, if there was no conduct that rendered the person unworthy the office. In that case the incumbent was removed. Thus Abiathar was removed by Solomon, 1Ki 2:27. Subsequently the kings, and especially the conquerors of Judea, claimed and exercised the right of removing the high priest at pleasure, so that, in the time of the Romans, the office was held but a short time. (See the Chronological Table.) Caiaphas held the office for about 10 years.

Ye know nothing at all - That is, you know nothing respecting the subject under consideration. You are fools to hesitate about so plain a case. It is probable that there was a party, even in the Sanhedrin, that was secretly in favor of Jesus as the Messiah. Of that party Nicodemus was certainly one. See Joh 3:1; Joh 7:50-51; Joh 11:45; Joh 12:42; “Among the chief rulers, also, many believed on him,” etc.

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

But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest, &c. He said not this, says the evangelist, of himself, but as the high priest of that year. The spirit of prophecy was given him, and he foretells that Jesus was to lay down his life both for the nation of the Jews, and for all mankind. The gift of prophecy itself does not make a man holy. It was also given to the wicked Balaam. (Numbers chap. xxiv.) (Witham) --- It is supposed that he exercised the sacrificial office alternately with his father-in-law, Annas, who, as we have seen in Luke iii. 2. was also high priest. (Bible de Vence)

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 high priest by the Divine law was to be but one, and he the eldest son of Aaron’s house; nor was he to be for a year, but for his life, as appeareth by a multitude of texts in the books of Moses: but all things were now out of order in the Jewish church; they were under the power of the Romans; all places, especially that of the high priest, were bought and sold amongst them: some say they had two high priests, others say but one, only he had an assistant, called by that name, that had a partnership in the honour. After Herod’s time there was no regard to the family of Aaron, or the Asmoneans, but the Romans made what high priest they pleased; so as Josephus tells us, that the Jews, who had but thirteen high priests from Aaron’s to Solomon’s time, which was six hundred and twelve years; nor more than eighteen in four hundred and sixty years after, to the captivity of Babylon; nor more than fifteen from thence to the time of Antiochus, which was four hundred and fourteen years; had twenty eight between the time that Herod began to reign and Jerusalem was destroyed; of which this Caiaphas was one, and certainly the chief, (if there were two at this time), and consequently the president of their great court, whom all attended to, and his words went a great way with the rest. He charges the rest of the council with folly, as not considering what was fit to be done.

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

49. One… Caiaphas—See note on Mat_26:3.

Ye know nothing— Thus far there had been hesitation, but Caiaphas forces a decision in dictatorial terms worthy his bloody counsels.

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

But a certain one of them, (named) Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all. Among the divided interests and irresolute fears of the Pharisees, who had not made up their minds as to the right course to pursue, "one of them," i.e. of the council, a man of firm will and hectoring disposition, had a clear though devilish purpose of political expediency, and a stern resolve, if he could, to repress the inconvenient manifestation of religious earnest-ness Caiaphas. We know that Annas is spoken of as arciereuv in Joh_18:15, Joh_18:19. And Annas and Caiaphas are both said to be "high priests". (Luk_3:2) In Act_4:6 Annas is spoken of as high priest, Caiaphas being associated with "John and Alexander." This becomes more comprehensible when we learn from Josephus ("Ant.," 18:2. 2 and 4. 3) that Valerius Gratus (in the year A.D. 14) had deprived Annas (or Hanan, Ananias, Ananas) of the office, "when he had held it for seven years." So great, however, was the influence of Annas, that, either to consult his temper or that of the people, who would consider him the legal high priest, the office was conferred upon members of his family in succession, first on Ishmael, then on Eleazer the son of Ishmael, then on Simon his son, and finally on Joseph Caiaphas (who is declared by St. John (Joh_18:13) to be the son-in-law of Annas, thus explaining his appointment on the one hand, and the continued influence on the other of the unscrupulous Annas, who was high priest de jure). Joseph Caiaphas held the office from A.D. 25 to A.D. 36, and thus throughout the ministry of Jesus. The apostle"s remark (repeated Joh_18:13) that he was "high priest that same year" has been set down by Strauss, Scholton, and others to ignorance on the part of the writer of the Hebrew law of the priesthood. This is excessively improbable, even with a late author of the second century, who evidently knew as much concerning Judaea and its history as the author of the Fourth Gospel did indubitably possess. It is enough that the evangelist singles out "that memorable year" (Lucke, Meyer and Lunge, etc.) of the death of Christ; and remarks on the man who was holding the position at this solemn time, with obvious reference to the fact that now for many years the functions of the high priest were discharged only at the pleasure of the Roman governor, who might, as Caiaphas himself said, abolish the office altogether if he chose arbitrarily to do so. The first words of Caiaphas, "Ye know nothing at all," are brusque, rough, imperious, but are quite akin to what we know elsewhere of the manners of the man (Josephus, "Bell. Jud:," 2:8:14), and of the aristocratic clique of which he was the head.

The counsel of Caiaphas.

We have here recorded the witness of the earthly to the heavenly High Priest, of human guile to superhuman innocence and goodness, of worldly policy to disinterested benevolence; of personal, selfish ambition to Divine and ardent love. The Sanhedrin as a whole had testified to the reality of our Lord"s miracles; Caiaphas here testified to the sacrificial offering and the world-wide mediation of Christ. And it may be noted that, not long after, Pilate bore witness to his Divine royalty.

I THE INTENTION OF CAIAPHAS IN HIS PREDICTION OF CHRIST"S VICARIOUS DEATH. To understand this we must notice:

1. The character of the high priest himself. Caiaphas was a Sadducee, who is said to have bought his sacred office; he was the nominee of the Roman authorities, and acted in public business under the influence of Annas, his father-in-law. We do not wrong him in deeming him pre-eminently a politician, whose aim was the maintenance of the existing order of things, and the repression of any popular display of feeling, and especially any symptom of disaffection or disorder.

2. The position of Jesus at this critical period of his ministry. His miracles, and especially the raising of Lazarus, had produced a great impression; the courage and hopes of his adherents were raised; the number of his disciples and admirers was increasing, and consequently the fears of his enemies were aroused, and their hatred was intensified. Jesus was the great Figure in the view of all classes of the people. The hopes of some and the fears of others centered in the Prophet of Nazareth.

3. Such being the character of the high priest, and such the position occupied by Jesus in the public estimation, it is evident what was the meaning of the remarkable language which Caiaphas used. In their hearts, the Jewish leaders would have rejoiced if a great Deliverer, such as they expected their Messiah to be, had risen up among them had emancipated Israel from a foreign yoke, and had provided for themselves posts of honor and power under the new dynasty. But they saw that Jesus was not the Deliverer they hoped for. They thought it likely that his preaching and teaching might lead to insurrection, which the Romans would certainly repress with severity. They preferred to retain such self-government as still lingered among them, such dignity and honors as were still allowed them, rather than risk the repression, the humiliation, the subjection, to which an unsuccessful insurrection would lead. Hence, the counsel of Caiaphas. He was for immediate, stringent, and violent measures. Having no sympathy with the profound teaching and spiritual aims of Jesus, looking upon religion only in the light of statecraft, Caiaphas advocated the ruthless destruction of him who was the occasion of so much anxiety and selfish fear. His policy was to crush Jesus, to propitiate the Romans, and to keep his own position until the advent of the expected Deliverer. Let the innocent Jesus be sacrificed; but let the nation be saved, or rather the rulers, who ever thought more of themselves than of those whom they governed. After all, Jesus was but one, and they were many. With no care for truth, for righteousness, for religion, for God, the degenerate leaders of the chosen people sacrificed to worldly policy him whom the Father had consecrated and sent into the world.

II THE INTENTION OF GOD, PUTTING A DEEPER MEANING INTO THE PREDICTION OF CAIAPHAS. It is true that genius often utters language which is susceptible of a meaning far deeper than appears on the surface. But according to the interpretation of the evangelist, Caiaphas, being high priest during that memorable year of sacrifice, was prophetically guided or overruled in his language. Thus it was foretold:

1. That Jesus"s death should have a bearing upon others. It is true that no man dieth unto himself. But Jesus so lived and so died as to secure the salvation of those whose nature he assumed. For others he lived, and for others he died.

2. That Jesus should die for his own nation. He came to his own. He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And though he was rejected and cast out, he did not die in vain, as far as his own people were concerned, The first converts made after his ascension were for the most part Jews. The apostles were themselves Hebrews, and some of them were ministers to the circumcision. True, the nation as a whole refused the Savior, and for that refusal they suffered the most terrible disasters. But their fall was the rise of the Gentiles, and the time is yet to come when the Jews shall be gathered in.

3. That Jesus should die for the spiritual Israel. "Not for that nation only." To this conception Caiaphas could not rise; but St. John, by Divine inspiration, read this meaning into his words. No doubt, St. Paul did very much to enlarge the general conception entertained regarding the objects of Christ"s mission to earth. He showed how Christ had broken down the middle wall of partition, and had made of Jew and Gentile "one new humanity." Thus the mystery which had been hidden was disclosed; that the salvation of God is for all, irrespective of race and privilege. The text makes it manifest that, in this view of Christianity, St. John was in perfect sympathy with the apostle of the Gentiles.

4. That the death of Jesus should issue in the union in Christ of all the scattered children of God. This fifty-second verse is one of the sublimest in the whole compass of revelation. Not only shall the children of the Jewish dispersion be reunited. All lowly, faithful, prayerful, obedient hearts in every land shall come under the mighty sway of Christ"s precious cross. Christ is the divinely appointed head of the ransomed race; in him its true unity shall be realized, and in him the benevolent purposes of the Father shall be completely and eternally fulfilled. T.

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

That year - That memorable year, in which Christ was to die. It was the last and chief of Daniel's seventy weeks, the fortieth year before the destruction of Jerusalem, and was celebrated for various causes, in the Jewish history. Therefore that year is so peculiarly mentioned: Caiaphas was the high priest both before and after it. Ye know nothing - He reproves their slow deliberations in so clear a case.

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

The foregoing verses acquainted us with the apprehension which the chief priests had of the necessity of taking away the life of our blessed Savious; Lest the Romans should take away both their place and nation.

Now here in these verses Caiaphas the high priest delivers his opinion for the preventing of this danger; he tells the rest, that they ought not to to boggle at the matter, but come to a positve and peremptory resolution to provide for the public safety, right or wrong: and that it is a great folly to prefer one man’s life, thoguh ever so innocent, before a nation’s welfare; a most wicked and devilish speech; as a judge he regarded not what was lawful, but as a wicked politician, he consulted what was expedient; he declares, that one man, though ever so good and holy, though ever so just and innocent, had better die, than a whole nation suffer; as where it is in any case unlawful to do evil that good may come.

Learn hence, That although it be the duty of all persons to pray for, and endeavour after, the public welfare of a church and nation, whereof they are members; yet it is altogether unlawful to promote the greatest national good, by wicked and unlawful means.

Observe farther, How God over-ruled the tongue of Caiaphas beyond his own intention, prophetically to foretell that great good, which, by our Saviour’s death, should redound to the world, and that the fruit and benefit of his death should not only extend to the Jews, but to the Gentiles also; and that he should gather in one body, or church, all that truly believe in him, though far and wide dispersed upon the face of the earth.

Hence learn, 1. That the spirit of prophecy did fall sometimes upon very bad men, and God has been pleased to reveal some part of his mind to the worst of men. Thus Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar had in their dreams a revelation form God, what things he intended to do.

Learn, 2. That it is consistent with the holiness of God, sometimes to make use of the tongues of the worst of men, to publish and declare his will. Caiaphas here, though a vile and wicked man, was influenced by God to prophecy and speak as an oracle. Almighty God may, when he pleases, employ wicked men this way, without any prejudice to his holiness. This Caiaphas spake not of himself, but, being high priest that year, he prophesied, that Jesus should die for that nation.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

49. Caiaphas, being high priest that year. The year the Savior died. He was a Sadducee, crafty, cruel, sensual, had been high priest for fifteen years, and was deposed three years later. Ye know nothing at all. Don't understand what the crisis requires.

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.

a certain man among them

This is a way to introduce a new character to the story. If you have a way to do this in your language, you can use it here. (See: Introduction of New and Old Participants)

You know nothing

This is an exaggeration that Caiaphas uses to insult his hearers. AT: "You do not understand what is happening" or "You speak as though you know nothing" (See: Hyperbole and Generalization)

than that the whole nation perishes

Caiaphas implies that the Roman army would kill all of the people of the Jewish nation if Jesus is allowed to live and cause a rebellion. The word "nation" here is a synecdoche that represents all of the Jewish people. AT: "than that the Romans kill all the people of our nation" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information and Synecdoche)

translationWords

Caiaphas

high priest

people group

nation

perish

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

49. Καϊάφας. This was a surname; τοῦ λεγομένου Καϊάφα Mat 26:3 (where see note on the Sanhedrin). His original name was Joseph. Caiaphas is either the Syriac form of Cephas, a ‘rock,’ or (according to another derivation) means ‘depression.’ The high-priesthood had long since ceased to descend from father to son. Pilate’s predecessor, Valerius Gratus, had deposed Annas and set up in succession Ismael, Eleazar (son of Annas), Simon, and Joseph Caiaphas (son-in-law of Annas); Caiaphas held the office from A.D. 18 to 36, when he was deposed by Vitellius. Annas in spite of his deposition was still regarded as in some sense high-priest (Joh 18:13; Luk 3:2; Act 4:6), possibly as president of the Sanhedrin (Act 5:21; Act 5:27; Act 7:1; Act 9:1-2; Act 22:5; Act 23:2; Act 23:4; Act 24:1). Caiaphas is not president here, or he would not be spoken of merely as ‘one of them.’

τ. ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου. This has been urged as an objection, as if the Evangelist ignorantly supposed that the high-priesthood was an annual office,—a mistake which would go far to prove that the Evangelist was not a Jew, and therefore not S. John. But ‘that year’ means ‘that notable and fatal year.’ The same expression recurs Joh 11:51 and Joh 18:13. Even if there were not this obvious meaning for ‘that year,’ the frequent changes in the office at this period would fully explain the insertion without the notion of an annual change being implied. There had been some twenty or thirty high-priests in S. John’s lifetime.

ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδ. οὐδ. An inference from their asking ‘What do we?’ It was quite obvious what they must do. Ὑμεῖς is contemptuously emphatic. The resolute but unscrupulous character of the man is evident. We find similar characteristics in the Sadducean hierarchy to which he belonged (Act 4:17; Act 4:21; Act 5:17-18). Josephus comments on the rough manners of the Sadducees even to one another: Σαδδουκαίων δὲ καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους τὸ ἧθος ἀγριώτερον (B. J. II. Joh 8:14).

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.

49-52.] The counsel is given in subtilty, and was intended by Caiaphas in the sense of political expediency only. But it pleased God to make him, as High Priest, the special though involuntary organ of the Holy Spirit, and’ thus to utter by him a prophecy of the death of Christ and its effects. That this is the only sense to be given, appears from the consideration that the whole of vv. 51. 52 cannot for a moment be supposed to have been in the mind of Caiaphas; and to divide it and suppose the latter part to be the addition of the Evangelist, is quite unjustifiable.

ἀρχ. τ. ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου—repeated again, ch. 18:13.

He was High Priest during the whole Procuratorship of Pontius Pilate, eleven years: Jos. Antt. xviii: 2. 2, and 4.3.

In τοῦ ἐν. ἐκ. there is no intimation conveyed that the High Priesthood was changed every year, which it was not: but we must understand the words as directing, attention to ‘that (remarkable) year,’ without any reference to time past or to come. That year of great events had Caiaphas as its High Priest. See on ver. 57.

οὐκ οἴδ οὐδ.] Probably various methods of action had been suggested.

Observe λαός here, the usual term for the chosen people (reff.), and then ἔθνος, when it is regarded as a nation among the nations: cf. also ver. 52. Meyer otherwise: hut Scripture usage is as above.

ἀφʼ ἑαυτ. οὐκ εἶπ.] not merely of himself, but under the influence of the Spirit, who caused him to utter words, of the full meaning of which he had no conception.

ἀρχ. ὢν ἐπροφ.] There certainly was a belief, arising probably originally from the use of the Urim and Thummim, that the High Priest, and Indeed every priest, had some knowledge of dreams and utterance of prophecy. We find it in Jos. B. J. iii. 8. 3, and Philo de Creat. Principum, 8, vol. ii. p. 367. The latter says ὁ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἱερεὺς εὐθύς ἐστι προφήτης. That this belief existed, may account for the expression here; which however does not confirm it in all cases, but asserts the fact that the Spirit in this case made use of him, as High Priest, for this purpose. This confirms the above view of τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου, here again repeated. See on ver. 49.

ὅτι ἤμελ.…, the purport (unknown to himself) of his prophecy. And τοῦ ἔθν. is guarded from misunderstanding by what follows.

τὰ τέκ. τ. θεοῦ … are the τασσόμενοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, the τέκνα θ of ch. 1:12, among all nations: see ch. 10:16.

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

49. εἷς δέ τις ἐξ αὐτῶν. For ἐκ before a gen. pl. in sentences of this kind, see on 1:40.

καϊάφας, ἀρχιερεὺς ὤν. The office of high priest, under the ancient Hebrew laws, was for life; but in Roman times the high priest only held his position at the pleasure of the imperial authority. He might be high priest for one year only, or for a term of years, according as he pleased his Roman masters. Annas was high priest from 6 a.d. to 15 a.d., when he was deposed by the procurator Valerius Gratus. But he retained his influence throughout his life, and several of his sons held the office after him. In the year 18 a.d., Joseph Caiaphas (as Josephus calls him), the son-in-law of Annas, succeeded to this great position, which he held until 36 a.d., thus being high priest throughout the whole period of Pontius Pilate’s procuratorship. His name is not mentioned by Mk., but he appears as the principal person at the trial of Jesus in Mat 26:57; see further on 18:19f.

The phrase ἀρχιερεὺς ὢν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου is applied to him thrice (v. 51, 18:13) by Jn. This does not imply that Jn. supposed mistakenly that the high priest was appointed annually, like the Asiarchs. But the phrase is repeated with emphasis, “high priest in that fateful year” (for such a use of ἐκεῖνος, cf. 1:40, 20:19), because Jn. thinks it so remarkable that the high priest, whose duty it was to enter the holy of holies and offer the atonement for that year, should unconsciously utter a prophecy of the efficacy of the Atonement which was presently to be offered on the Cross. This was the acceptable year of the Lord.1

ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε οὐδέν κτλ. The council was an informal one, and Caiaphas was not presiding. But he speaks very sharply to the other members, for their irresolution. “You people” (ὑμεῖς is contemptuous) “know nothing at all”; you do not understand that it is in your interests that the man should die. Why hesitate about it? This is the obvious policy. Caiaphas was evidently a strong man, who knew his own mind; and the sharpness of his speech provides an illustration of what Josephus says about Sadducee manners: “The behaviour of the Sadducees to one another is rather rude, and their intercourse with their equals is rough, as with strangers” (Bell. Jud. II. viii. 14). For the relation of the Sadducee or priestly party to the Pharisees, see on 7:32.

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

Caiaphas. A Sadducee, who held the office for eighteen years.

That year. This has been cited to show that John is guilty of a historical error, since, according to the Mosaic law, the high priesthood was held for life. The occurrence of the phrase three times (vv. 49, 51) is significant, and, so far from indicating an error, goes to connect the office of Caiaphas with his part in accomplishing the death of Christ. It devolved on the High Priest to offer every year the great sacrifice of atonement for sin; and in that year, that memorable year, it fell to Caiaphas to be the instrument of the sacrifice of Him that taketh away the sin of the world. Dante places Caiaphas and his father - in - law, Annas, far down in Hell in the Bolgia of the Hypocrites :

"to mine eyes there rushed One crucified with three stakes on the ground. When me he saw, he writhed himself all over, Blowing into his beard with suspirations; And the friar Catalan who noticed this, Said to me : 'This transfixed one whom thou seest, Counselled the Pharisees that it was meet To put one man to torture for the people. Crosswrise and naked is he on the path, As thou perceivest; and he needs must feel, Whoever passes, first how much he weighs; And in like mode his father - in - law is punished Within this moat, and the others of the council, Which for the Jews was a malignant seed." " Inferno, " 23, 110 - 129..

Dean Plumptre suggests that the punishment described by the poet seems to reproduce the thought of Isa 51:23.

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