Caiphas the Christian: A Strange Episode in John!

[Peter_Dawson]

46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.
47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees convened the Sanhedrin and said, “What are we going to do? This man is performing many signs.
48 If we leave him alone, all will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our land and our nation.”
49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing,
50 nor do you consider that it is better for you that one man should die instead of the people, so that the whole nation may not perish.”
51 He did not say this on his own, but since he was high priest for that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,
52 and not only for the nation, but also to gather into one the dispersed children of God. John 11:46-52.

 

[NotWorthy]

I would call it irony… Divine Irony.

Caiphas was in no way a Christian. He was simply looking out for his own political skin.

But, in prophesying that Jesus’ dying would save Israel from death at the hands of the Roman armies, his words were so close to the truth that Jesus’ dying would save Israel from death at the hands of the real enemy - Satan.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Did he have special powers of prophesy from God since he was high priest for the year?

 

[NotWorthy]

Did he have special powers of prophesy from God since he was high priest for the year?

It seems not, or he wouldn’t have brought false charges against Jesus.

I think this prophecy was a case of “even the blind hog can sometimes find the acorn”.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

It seems not, or he wouldn’t have brought false charges against Jesus.

I think this prophecy was a case of “even the blind hog can sometimes find the acorn”.

But it clearly states that SINCE he was high priest for that year, he prophesied that Jesus would die for all. It doesn’t say he accidently got it right.

 

[NotWorthy]

But it clearly states that SINCE he was high priest for that year, he prophesied that Jesus would die for all. It doesn’t say he accidently got it right.

No, it says he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation. The part after the comma, in my opinion, is John adding his own Holy Spirit-inspired opinion to the comment.

I could be wrong, however, it won’t be the first time (even in the last 10 minutes!!!). But I don’t recall any Scripture detailing that the High Priest had the gift of prophecy. As often as the High Priests opposed prophets in the Old Testament would seem to indicate that they couldn’t tell the difference between a prophecy and… well… you know!

 

[NotWorthy]

But it clearly states that SINCE he was high priest for that year, he prophesied that Jesus would die for all. It doesn’t say he accidently got it right.

There’s two things I’d like to add. For of all, look at verse 18:14 of John. It was Caiaphas who had counseled the Jews that it was better that one man should die rather than the people. Caiphas was simply trying to protect Israel and was not prophecying for all the world. Blind hogs and acorns.

Secondly, regarding “SINCE he was high priest for that year**”**, it seems that John is trying to highlight that Caiaphas was the High Priest who put Jesus to death. John repeats this phrase 3 times. He claims it in John 11:49, 51, and 18:13.

Here’s what Agape Bible Study says of this verse:

The number 3 always indicates importance, fullness or completion, and in the New Covenant—the Most Holy Trinity. The mention of 3 of anything in Scripture like 3 days or 3 men usually means that the event that follows is of great significance. But a series of a repeated phrase links those phrases together with the number of times repeated adding significance.

The High Priest Caiaphas is linked to Jesus’ sacrificial death. In the Old Covenant system it is the High Priest who makes the most important yearly sacrifice for the sins of the people at during the Feat of Yom Kippur—the Day of Atonement. In the early fall of that year, 30AD Caiaphas chose the lamb and sacrificed it on the Feast of Yom Kippur for the sins of the people. In that same year in March he will chose the True Lamb and will be instrumental in offering His sacrifice for the sins of the world! This is why John uses the phrase 3 times. Jesus sacrificial death will be the full and complete sacrifice which all other animal sacrifices prefigured. There is also the ironic connection between this last High Priest of the Old Covenant being instrumental in the “investiture” through the baptism of blood of the High Priest of the New Covenant, Jesus the Messiah.

For a little further background on our good Caiaphas

Joseph Caiaphas was appointed high priest by the Roman governor Valerius Gratus in 18AD and was deposed by Roman governor Vitellius in 36AD; the same year governor Pilate was recalled to Rome. Caiaphas may have been the first to suggest that Jesus would have to be killed to prevent a revolt. The plans for Jesus’ arrest were made in Joseph Caiaphas’ house [Mathew 26:3ff] and Jesus’ inquisition before the Sanhedrin[m] was held there [Matthew 26:57ff ; Mark 14:53ff; and Luke 22:54ff]. Caiaphas also was present with the priests at the trial of Peter and John in Acts of Apostles 4:6 even though Annas is called the high priest in that passage, indicating that perhaps he still ruled through Caiaphas. The writings of the first century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, corroborates the Biblical account of Caiaphas’ tenure as high priest at this time.

Thanks for bearing with me.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

There’s two things I’d like to add. For of all, look at verse 18:14 of John. It was Caiaphas who had counseled the Jews that it was better that one man should die rather than the people. Caiphas was simply trying to protect Israel and was not prophecying for all the world. Blind hogs and acorns.

Secondly, regarding “SINCE he was high priest for that year**”**, it seems that John is trying to highlight that Caiaphas was the High Priest who put Jesus to death. John repeats this phrase 3 times. He claims it in John 11:49, 51, and 18:13.

Here’s what Agape Bible Study says of this verse:

For a little further background on our good Caiaphas Thanks for bearing with me.

Thanks, that actually make a lot of sense now!

 

[NotWorthy]

Thanks, that actually make a lot of sense now!

You mean I might be right?!?!? :bounce:

Well, that just proves my point. Sometimes even the blind hog finds the acorn!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You mean I might be right?!?!? :bounce:

Well, that just proves my point. Sometimes even the blind hog finds the acorn!

Actually, I think you’re pretty smart!

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Prophets were often unaware of the future fulfillment of their words which they related to a current event, e.g. Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman* shall conceive and bear* a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el.

in which Matthew recognizes the fuller meaning.Matthew 1:22-23

All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23* “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us).

 

[patrick457]

I would call it irony… Divine Irony.

Caiphas was in no way a Christian. He was simply looking out for his own political skin.

But, in prophesying that Jesus’ dying would save Israel from death at the hands of the Roman armies, his words were so close to the truth that Jesus’ dying would save Israel from death at the hands of the real enemy - Satan.

Good point!

Temple personnel mostly belonged to the Sadducean party, which represented the priestly aristocracy and the upper-class families and landholders of Judea. On a historical level, Caiaphas was particularly concerned about Jesus causing a ruckus for political and religious reasons: His acts as well as His recent ruckus in the Temple market upset the status quo.

There are a number of things that would be lost in the case of such an event, such as the Sadducees’ influence. The Sadducees were politically liberal, aligning with whoever held the upper hand at the time to protect their wealth and their interests: they had an agreement with Rome to help ‘keep the peace’; in return, the Romans would let them be on their way for the most part.

In those days, anyone who claimed to be a king-messiah could be potentially a sword-wielding rebel who will try to bring the Kingdom by force of arms and encourage others (mainly the common folk who are tired with the Romans and the upper-classes treading on them with their figurative iron boots) to rally to them, as various revolts have taught the Romans. It’s pretty much suicide for anyone to publicly proclaim themselves as messiah. This is one of the reasons why Jesus spoke of His messianic role privately at first and used metaphors when talking to ‘outsiders’: the term is so drenched with political overtones that His enemies might find and turn Him in before it was time.

The other thing that Caiaphas was loath to lose was the Temple itself. The Sadducees were religiously conservative and thus more Temple-oriented, being very keen to protect the central role of the Temple cult and the priesthood in Judaism, in contrast to the more liberal Pharisees who tended to give more emphasis on the laity (“a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”).

The Sadducees (rather stubbornly) tried to hold on to things as they were done in past ages; the Pharisees were more welcome to ‘new’ ideas and doctrinal developments. Their placing less emphasis on the Temple and its cult is actually what enabled the Pharisees’ descendants to live on and found rabbinic Judaism. Caiaphas feared that if the Romans wreaked revenge over Judeans ‘to show them who’s boss’, they might set their eyes on the Temple. If the latter happens all will be over.

Ironically, everything that Caiaphas feared all happened in the First Jewish-Roman War (66-73 AD).

 

[rdscheirer]

Jesus told the Isrealites that the Temple would be destroted in 40 years.

 

[NotWorthy]

Jesus told the Isrealites that the Temple would be destroted in 40 years.

First of all, Jesus told only the Apostles, if I’m correct. Caiaphas or the Sanhedrin wouldn’t have known about this prophecy.

But what does that have to do with Caiaphas’ dual-meaning “prophecy”