John 11:49Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

This was shown both by the veil that was torn and by the voice of Christ, who said, “Behold, your house is left to you desolate” (Mt 23:38). Likewise Josephus, who lived a little later, said that certain angels, still remaining with them in expectation of their correction, left them. As long as the vineyard still existed, everything remained. But as soon as they killed the Heir, things were no longer so, and they perished. And God, taking from the Jews as from an ungrateful son the bright garment, gave it to good servants from among the Gentiles. He left them poor and naked.

For he foretells how great the blessings were of which Christ’s death became the cause. He says what he did not know, and glorifies God like Balaam, under necessity, since he possessed the dignity of high priest. Thus the prophecy was as it were given not to him, but to the sacred office. Or else: Caiaphas must not be regarded as having received prophetic grace because what he said later happened and was fulfilled. For what some people say is often fulfilled, though they say it without knowing that it must surely come to pass. Therefore Caiaphas says that the death of Christ will be for the Jews alone, while the Evangelist says that it was for all mankind. This is because all of us are called the race and children of God, since He is Father of all. As Creator, He begot and brought into being that which did not exist. It is also because from the beginning we were honored by being created according to His image. We received dominion over all things on earth, were counted worthy of faith in God, and tasted life and sweetness in Paradise. But Satan scattered us, not allowing us to remain in the same condition, and in various ways turning man away from devotion to God. Christ again brought all in and gathered all through faith into one fold, the Church. He subjected all to one yoke, since all became one: Jews, Greeks, barbarians, Scythians. They are transformed “into one new man” (Eph 2:15) and worship one God. Caiaphas did not say this by the prophetic Spirit, for the prophetic Spirit does not plot against Christ. Rather, by a certain accidental concurrence with what was real and future, he was permitted to touch such foreknowledge because he was high priest. Thus, by his mouth, what had until then been hidden from men and unknown was proclaimed.

We have already taught that the Spirit prophesies future things even through evil men. The Evangelist, however, attributed this to the divine mystery, since that man was pontiff, that is, high priest. But one may ask why Caiaphas is called pontiff “of that year,” when God established one high priest, to whom another succeeds after his death. Yet it should be known that, because of ambitions and canvassing among the Jews, it was later established that there should be many high priests, who carried out the service by yearly succession. Indeed, it is said also of Zechariah: “While he was serving before God in the order of his division, according to the custom of the priesthood, it fell to him by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense” (Lk 1:8-9). From this it is clear that there were many priests, and all became high priests in turn, for no one could burn incense except the high priest (cf. Ex 30:7). It is also possible that each year there were many ministers, whom others succeeded the following year. From these, someone was chosen by lot to burn incense.

So then, what did Caiaphas foretell? “That Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who were scattered abroad” (Jn 11:51-52).

John presents Caiaphas' decision in this form, evidently because he learned it from those present in the Sanhedrin who were disposed toward Jesus, such as Nicodemus and Joseph. In relating this, they could not pass over the fact that they had opposed the general opinion. Yet they were repelled by the words of the high priest, which all accepted. How faithful the Evangelist is to his sources.

The supreme government of the people of God accepted his voice. They resolved to put the Son of God to death. Yet they had not decided exactly how or when to carry it out. In general, they did not wish to delay for long.

This is what the raising of Lazarus led to, not of itself, but through the ever-increasing malice of Jesus' enemies. In itself it was an extraordinary miracle of the Savior. It also completed the series of His most glorious deeds.

It was as though this miracle called forth, in proportion to its greatness, an entirely opposite decree from the Sanhedrin. The cave of Bethany gave up its dead man, so that another cave might hide within itself the One who had emptied it.

Thomas, when he said to his fellow disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with Him," with our Teacher, was not mistaken, at least concerning his Teacher. Jesus Himself, going to Lazarus' tomb, wept.

It seems He wept not only for the dead man whom He meant to raise. He also wept for the malice of men who were soon preparing a tomb for Him. So later He wept over Jerusalem, as He approached it as the meek King.

He saw before Him what was coming. When He went into Judea, He could say, "I have power to lay down My life for My sheep." When He gave up His spirit, shook the earth, and raised the dead, He could say, "I have power to take it again."

What moved Him to surrender Himself into the hands of His enemies? It was that, by the Father Himself and by His own love, He was appointed to be the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world.

They will also take from the Jewish people even the small political independence it had so far enjoyed under Roman rule. Then the high priest Caiaphas said: “Why so much discussion? It is better, of course, that one man should die for the people than that the whole nation should perish in the event of an uprising. Therefore, whoever this Jesus may be, He must be put to death as soon as possible.” These words came from a malicious heart. But the thought expressed in them, that Jesus should die for the people, was true. Thus the impious lips of Caiaphas, because he was high priest that year, involuntarily uttered a prophecy. For in antiquity the high priest was an organ of divine revelation (Ex 28:30; Num 27:21). For by the decree of God, Jesus Christ truly had to die for the salvation of mankind. “And not for the nation only,” the Evangelist observes, “but also to gather into one the children of God who were scattered abroad.” That is, Christ had to die not only for the salvation of the Jewish people. He died in order to make one universal Church of Christ from all people throughout the whole world (cf. 10:16). After this judgment of Caiaphas, the Sanhedrin made the final decision to kill Jesus.

The messianic movement, which now clearly threatens to break out, will undoubtedly draw the Romans. They will appear with their legions, close the temple, destroy all national institutions, and first of all the Sanhedrin. They will deprive the people of every independence and, in case of resistance, ravage the land with fire and sword. Therefore, Caiaphas concluded with ominous solemnity: “It is better for us that one man should die for the people than that the whole nation should perish.” Caiaphas’s thought was clear to all. He plainly demanded the death of Christ as the necessary condition for the salvation of the people. Yet he himself did not understand what lofty prophecy he was uttering. He foretold “that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who were scattered abroad.”

They were chosen for an indefinite time, and their replacement at this period depended on the Roman ruler of Judea and on his personal discretion. In ancient times the high priesthood was for life. It happened that some were high priests for less than a year, but most for longer. Thus, according to Josephus (Antt. XVIII, 2, 2), “the Roman governor Valerius Gratus took the high priesthood from Ananus and gave it to Ishmael. After a short time he removed him also and appointed Eleazar, son of Ananus. After a year had passed he removed him also and appointed Simon. This man was again high priest for no more than a year, and Joseph, called Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Ananus, became his successor.” Caiaphas held the office of high priest for about eleven years, from A.D. 25 to 36. By the expression “being high priest that year,” which the Evangelist repeats several times (Jn 11:49, 51; 18:13), he wishes only to indicate the special importance of that year alone. It was unique among other years, the year in which the true High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ, suffered and died. He does not mark the previous or subsequent years of Caiaphas’s high priesthood, having in view only that one year. “You know nothing at all”: you show yourselves ignorant of the whole matter, foolish and uncomprehending, if you are still wondering what you should do (Jn 11:47).

They did not need such a One as Christ Jesus, who preached self-denial, turned hearts not to earth but to heaven, and exposed the vices of the people’s leaders. “If we let Him alone,” they say, “the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” Base hypocrites attribute their own unclean thoughts and desires to Jesus. They say that Jesus wants to be an earthly king, and that His followers are ready to rebel against Roman authority. Therefore they received the very thing they expected. Thirty years later the Romans truly took and destroyed the city, and scattered the people throughout the whole world. This happened precisely because, after slandering heavenly innocence and putting Him to death, they rebelled against Roman authority. “But one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said: You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is better for us that one man should die, and not that the whole nation should perish.” “High priest that year” means that Caiaphas was presiding that year, as in verse 51. But this does not exclude the thought that he had also been high priest before that. Caiaphas held power throughout the whole proconsulship of Pilate. After Pilate’s removal, he was deposed by the proconsul Vitellius (Winer, Realworterbuch, 2nd ed., 1, 759). “You know nothing at all”: you understand nothing; you are darkened men. The words are sharp and reveal a troubled soul. Who, then, troubled Caiaphas? Since this was now a full assembly of the Sanhedrin, there were certainly such members as Nicodemus (Jn 3:2; 7:50; 9:16), Joseph of Arimathea, and others like them. The resurrection of Lazarus strengthened the respect of such members for Jesus, verse 45. They did not fail to say a few words on behalf of Jesus in the Sanhedrin. These very words drove Caiaphas out of himself. In a movement of anger, he pronounced the sentence that Jesus must die, lest the whole nation perish.

According to Flavius Josephus, Joseph Caiaphas was appointed high priest by the authority of the proconsul of Judea, Valerius Gratus, Pilate’s immediate predecessor. During twelve years as proconsul, from A.D. 15 to 27, Valerius Gratus replaced four high priests: Ananias, Ishmael, Eleazar, and Simon, the predecessor of Caiaphas. The high priesthood had long since lost its important significance. Both the Idumean kings and the Roman proconsuls appointed Jewish high priests by their own authority, quite arbitrarily and most often through bribery. Nevertheless, the high priest, though unworthy, was a servant of God. He stood before God in prayer for the people, clothed in the sacred vestments (Flavius Josephus 18:7), and he was an instrument of God. For “there is no authority except from God” (Rom 13:1). Therefore it pleased God to choose him so that by his mouth, as representative of the Jewish people, a prophecy would be pronounced, though unconsciously. It concerned the meaning, for all people, of the coming death of our Lord Jesus Christ. “It is better,” says the high priest, “that one man should die for the people (laos), and not that the whole nation (ethnos) should perish.” In the word laos, people, individual persons composing the mass are meant. Ethnos signifies the order of national life, the whole people as a distinct tribe and race. In this sense ethnos is also used of all other peoples: “the beginning of nations, Amalek,” it says in Num 24:20. Compare, still more generally, Gen 10:32. Yet in this saying of Caiaphas, laos, according to the speaker’s understanding, meant exclusively the people of Israel, the chosen people. But in the prophecy he unconsciously pronounced, this word received an all-embracing human meaning, incomprehensible to Caiaphas himself. The Evangelist explains it, saying that Caiaphas uttered the prophecy that the Lord Jesus was pleased to die for the people, “and not for the people only,” in the sense Caiaphas understood. “but also to gather into one the children of God who were scattered abroad.” Striking is the prophecy pronounced by Caiaphas, for it shows how the Lord’s own enemies were instruments of God for the glorification of God incarnate. They were also instruments for the establishment of faith in the Crucified One, who “bore our sins and infirmities and diseases.”