John 11:50, commentary and pictures

Caiaphas as high priest argued that it was politically expedient for one innocent man to die for the people rather than let His growing following provoke Rome and cost the rulers their place, power and nation. He spoke this after the raising of Lazarus in open daylight before many witnesses had given unanswerable proof that Jesus is the Son of God, which hardened rejecters of light into more determined murderers in heart. Without understanding his own words he prophesied the true mission of the Redeemer, that Jesus would die not for Israel only but to gather God's scattered children into one. His counsel meant that Christ's death would meet the purpose prefigured in every sacrifice, bringing the types and shadows to their reality and closing the Aaronic priesthood. That same reasoning that it is better for the few to suffer than for whole nations to be thrown into confusion will be urged again to condemn and decree death against those who hallow the Sabbath of the fourth commandment when church and state combine to enforce Sunday observance.

Setting and Human Reasoning

The saying belongs to the council's response to the raising of Lazarus, Christ's crowning miracle performed by God's plan after Lazarus had died and been laid in the tomb. It was done in the full light of day before a crowd of witnesses and gave clear, unquestionable evidence of divine power that Jesus is the Son of God, sufficient to convince any mind under the control of reason and enlightened conscience. Many who saw it were led to believe in Jesus and glorified God.

Those who had again and again rejected light would not yield even to overwhelming evidence, but being hardened in unbelief they went away immediately to tell the priests and rulers what Jesus had done. In jealousy, hatred, and hardness of heart their hate grew deadlier because of the very miracle that should have convinced them, and they became more determined to destroy Him and stop His work. They were already murderers in heart, watching for every opportunity to kill Him, seeking pretexts to destroy Him and prevent His influence, though their attempts had so far failed. Their response to the evidence of His Messiahship, including His miracles, was not to accept the light but to hate it and try to extinguish it by killing Him, choosing darkness over light in opposition to God's law.

It was Caiaphas, the high priest that year, who counseled that it was expedient for one man to die for the people so that the whole nation would not perish. He judged by political expediency, meaning to protect a corrupt priesthood and preserve its power, place, influence, and authority. He urged this course even though Jesus was innocent.

The leaders feared that Jesus' growing following, miracles, and denunciations would draw the people away from them and weaken their authority and influence. They were alarmed that they could not undo the effect of the raising of Lazarus on the people, and the Sadducees concluded that only His death could stop His denunciations after their claim that the dead could not be raised had collapsed. They feared that unrest among the followers would cost them Roman favor and the authority they still held, and that He would gain authority as king, so they considered it safer for one man to die than for the nation to suffer. Though the council was divided and some questioned the wisdom of killing Him, their counsel served their own interests and they plotted to seize and condemn Him secretly. They also decided Lazarus must die, because his return from the dead testified to Jesus' power and his life could renew belief in Jesus, turn the people back from human traditions, and bring disaster upon the rulers.

They thus condemned One they knew to be innocent and sinless, reasoning that His sacrifice might preserve their power and restore national strength and unity. They judged His death politically expedient to keep the nation from perishing and from Roman destruction, while ignoring that their own sins and iniquity were bringing judgment upon Jerusalem. Their hypocrisy was later exposed when, to accomplish His destruction, they were willing to sacrifice the nation's very existence. Their shedding of His sinless blood was part of the bloodshed that helped bring the doom of Jerusalem.

Unwitting Prophecy Fulfilled

The counsel that one man should die so the whole nation would not perish made the death of Jesus appear necessary, and that necessity was bound up with the fulfillment of prophecy. The words were spoken without grasping their true significance, for the speaker had lost sight of the sacred meaning of sacrifice. What was intended was to shield guilt and to allow the nation to continue in sin, not to save people from sin. The aim was to protect a corrupt priesthood and preserve its power by putting Christ to death.

Unknowingly the utterance prophesied His mission as Redeemer, testifying that Jesus would die for the nation. That death was not for Israel only, but to gather God's scattered children into one. In this the speaker twisted the truth, proposing the death of the innocent to preserve the nation and the rulers' authority while the deeper meaning pointed to redemption.

The meaning carried by the words was that Christ's death would fulfill the purpose for which the Jewish sacrificial system was instituted. Christ had been prefigured in every sacrifice, and His death would bring its types and shadows to their reality. Thus the need for those types and shadows would end, and the Aaronic priesthood would be brought to its close. The leaders intended His death to prevent Him from gaining authority and becoming king. God overruled their crime for His own glory and for humanity's good, so that His death made Him the Redeemer of mankind and Saviour of the whole world and of the fallen race and brought about His reign. As with Joseph's brothers, whose crime in selling him brought about the very outcome they sought to prevent, so their act produced what they tried to stop, yet this providential use did not lessen the guilt of those who murdered Him.

Warning for Final Crisis

The reasoning once used by the rulers to justify putting Christ to death eighteen hundred years ago will be brought forward again in the final controversy over the Sabbath. That crisis will come when religious and secular authorities have combined to enforce the observance of Sunday. At that time a small minority will persistently refuse to yield to the popular demand. It will then be urged that the few who stand in opposition to an institution of the church and a law of the state ought not to be tolerated. Their refusal to obey will be portrayed as a threat to public order, and it will be claimed that it is better for them to suffer than for whole nations to be thrown into confusion and lawlessness.

This reasoning will appear conclusive. It will lead to a decree finally issued against those who hallow the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, denouncing them as deserving of the severest punishment. After a certain time the decree will give the people liberty to put them to death. Romanism in the Old World and apostate Protestantism in the New will pursue a similar course toward those who honor all the divine precepts. The same opposition of the rulers is repeated whenever religious ministers resist the truth and work against those who are advancing God's cause.