§31 The Verdict against Jesus (John 11:45–54)
The public ministry of Jesus, which began with the cleansing of the temple (2:13–22), exhibits throughout features that in the Synoptics had been associated with Passion week in Jerusalem: first, his practice of teaching in the temple (e.g., 7:14–8:59; 10:22–39; cf. Luke 21:37–38), and second, the theme implicit within that teaching that both he and his audience are involved in a trial, calling their respective witnesses and seeking vindication (e.g., 5:30–47; 8:12–20).
Compared to the synoptic records of Jesus’ trial before the Jewish ruling Council, or Sanhedrin, (cf. Mark 14:53–65; 15:1; Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–2; Luke 22:66–71), this is a long trial indeed. If there is anything corresponding to his momentous self-disclosure before the high priest (Mark 14:62; Matt. 26:64; cf. Luke 22:69), it is the exchange in Solomon’s Colonnade in the temple in 10:22–39. Even here, Jesus points back to claims made earlier, whether in word or deed (10:25). The trial of Jesus recorded in the synoptic Gospels is often divided into two trials: a “Jewish trial” and a “Roman trial.” John’s Gospel, however, replaces the Jewish trial with more about Jesus’ public ministry. Only the Roman trial, the hearing before Pilate, is left for the Passion narrative (18:33–38; cf. Mark 15:2–4; Matt. 27:11–14; Luke 23:1–5). But in order to be concluded, a trial must reach a verdict. Verses 47–53 record the “verdict” of the Sanhedrin against Jesus, not a formal or official verdict, but simply the final determination that he must die.
The verdict comes as a direct result of the raising of Lazarus. The Jews who had been mourning at the house of Martha and Mary are split into two groups over the miracle. Many believed in Jesus but some went and told the Pharisees what he had done (v. 45; though the word “division” or “schism” is not used, the situation recalls the “divisions” mentioned in 7:43; 9:16; and 10:19–21; cf. also the dispute described in vv. 36–37, within this very company of mourners). It was the report of the unbelieving faction to the Pharisees that precipitated the gathering of the Sanhedrin. The Pharisees and chief priests were alarmed, not simply by the raising of Lazarus, but by the many miraculous signs Jesus was performing (v. 47). They feared a mass movement based on faith in Jesus and consequent reprisals by the Roman government (v. 48; that revolutionary ideas were abroad is shown by the attempt in Galilee to make Jesus a king by force, 6:15).
The proposal of Caiaphas the high priest (vv. 49–50) is not quite so obvious as it might first appear. His intent is not merely to do away with Jesus before he brings down on Israel the wrath of Rome, but to maneuver Rome itself into doing away with him. Better for Rome to destroy one man than the whole nation. In this sense, according to Caiaphas, Jesus must die for the people (v. 50).
The narrator seizes on the phrase die for the people and gives it a quite different interpretation in verses 51–52. He gives himself the liberty to do this on the grounds that Caiaphas (as high priest) must have been a prophet as well; consequently his words are from God and have a deeper meaning than appears on the surface. Jesus will die for the Jewish nation (as the good shepherd, who “lays down his life for the sheep” v. 51; 10:11, 15). As shepherd, too, he will take the scattered children of God and bring them together and make them one (v. 52; cf. 10:16). Jesus’ death is redemptive; by it the Jewish people have an opportunity to be spared—spared not merely from political destruction, as Caiaphas hoped, but spared from death itself (cf. v. 26). More than that, Jesus’ death is unifying; by it all who believe, of every race, will not only receive eternal life, but will (with the Jews) be gathered into a single community, safe from all external dangers (10:16, 28–29; cf. 17:11, 20–23). This is the vision of Jesus in John’s Gospel, a vision the Gospel writer has taken up and—through the eyes of Caiaphas—made his own. The writer’s assumption is that Caiaphas’ words far transcended his personal knowledge and intent. Like Balaam (cf. Num. 24) he spoke more wisely than he knew, and his evil designs were turned to a divine purpose.
Verses 51–52 interrupt the record of the Council. On the advice of Caiaphas, the religious authorities made their decision to take his (Jesus’) life (v. 53). In a practical sense, the outcome was nothing new. The authorities had been “determined to kill him” ever since the first confrontation over the Sabbath law (5:18), and from that time on Jesus had been a wanted man. Again and again the terminology used is that they were “trying to kill” him (7:1, 19, 25; 8:37, 40), a phrase more suggestive of mob violence than of formal judicial proceedings. He had called “the Jews” murderers, and children of the first murderer, the devil (8:44) The Sanhedrin “verdict” simply made final a murderous intent that had been present all along.
For one last time the familiar pattern of flight from danger to a place of relative seclusion repeats itself. This time the retreat is a village called Ephraim near the desert (v. 54), a place, in all likelihood, where Jesus had stayed before (like the Bethany east of the Jordan) and where he knew he could find refuge.
11:47 / The Sanhedrin, highest ruling body among the Jews in Judea, was composed of the chief priests, the elders or lay nobility of the people, and the scholars or scribes (including Pharisees), and was presided over by the ruling high priest. This body had the final authority in both the religious and secular affairs of the Jews as long as its decisions did not encroach on the authority of the Roman procurator. It is debated whether at this time the Sanhedrin had the authority to carry out the death penalty (the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7 suggests that it did, but John 18:31 is customarily cited as evidence that it did not; see the discussion of 18:31).
What are we accomplishing? This expression (a present indicative rather than a deliberative subjunctive) can be read as a rhetorical question, with the implied answer “Nothing. Yet the context (v. 48) suggests that it may be deliberative in meaning: “What shall we do?” (GNB).
11:48 / Everyone will believe in him. Cf. the use of similarly sweeping language in 1:7; 3:26; 12:32, and esp. 12:19. The “universalism” is not merely a groundless fear on the part of the priests and Pharisees (cf. 12:11) but belongs to the Gospel writer’s perspective. Yet such language is not intended literally. For the Gospel writer, it simply points in a general way to the accomplishment of God’s will in the mission of Jesus and of his followers.
Our place. The term could refer either to the holy place (i.e., the temple), or to the holy city of Jerusalem. It is likely, on the basis of contemporary usage, that the temple is meant; e.g., Acts 6:13–14; 7:7, and esp. John 4:20.
11:49 / That year (cf. v. 51; 18:13): There is no suggestion that the high priest served only one year. Such an inference would be mistaken. In theory, the high priest served for life (cf. Num. 35:25), and in practice he served either for life or until the Romans deposed him. Caiaphas served no less than eighteen years (cf. Josephus, Antiquities 18.35, 95). The phrase that year is probably used rhetorically, in the sense of “that fateful year of our Lord’s Passion”; cf. “that day” (v. 53), and “that time” (19:27), both of events related to Jesus’ Passion.
11:51 / He prophesied: The narrator seems to assume that Jewish high priests had the gift of prophecy. Josephus attributes prophecy to John Hyrcanus who was high priest from about 135 to 104 B.C., but with some indication that this was, if not unique, at least not the general rule (War 1.68–69; Antiquities 13.299–300). An earlier high priest, Jaddua, had received a revelation in connection with the visit to Jerusalem of Alexander the Great, and Alexander himself had received a corresponding revelation (Antiquities 11.327, 333–334). But the narrator is not so much concerned with generalizing about the prophetic powers of high priests as simply interpreting one specific utterance as a prophecy. The fact that Caiaphas was high priest made it slightly more appropriate for the narrator to do so, and he seized the opportunity.
11:52 / Scattered children of God. The term is here a designation for those who had been chosen for salvation (contrast 1:12, where the term denotes what people become as a result of believing in Jesus). Children of God is the equivalent to “sheep” (specifically the “other sheep … not of this sheep pen,” in 10:16). A more remote metaphor that may have contributed to the choice of language here is that of the church as broken bread “scattered on the mountains” that was “gathered together and made one” (Didache 9.4; cf. John 6:12–13).
11:54 / No longer moved about publicly among the Jews: The situation corresponds closely to that described in 7:1, except that in that instance Jesus stayed in Galilee.
A village called Ephraim: The exact location of this place is unknown. Eusebius in the fourth century located it about twenty miles north of Jerusalem and five miles east of Bethel (Onomasticon 28.4; 90.19). The sixth-century Madeba map also places “Ephron or Ephraea: the Lord was there” northeast near Rimmon, in the hill country adjoining the Jordan valley. If these traditions are correct, “Aenon near Salim” (3:23) would be some distance to the north, and it is possible (though it cannot be proven) that Ephraim is where Jesus’ disciples carried on a baptizing ministry (3:22). Modern identifications of the site have centered on either the Arab village of et-Taiybe (once called “Afra”) or the valley of Ain Samniya slightly to the northeast.
With his disciples: It is uncertain whether the disciples with whom Jesus stayed were the same group of disciples that traveled with him to Bethany (cf. 11:16) or a community of disciples who lived in Ephraim or both. Probably Thomas and his companions joined Jesus in his retreat, but if Ephraim was familiar territory, there may have been a group of disciples there who provided them lodging. (cf. 3:22, 26; 4:1).