John 11:51

And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(51) And this spake he not of himself.—There is a moral beauty in the Words, in spite of the diabolical intent with which they are uttered; and St. John adds the explanation that they had an origin higher than him who spake them. Writing after the events, he has seen them fulfilled, and regards them as an unconscious prophecy. Like another Balaam, Caiaphas was the oracle or God in spite of himself, and there is in his words a meaning far beyond any that he had intended.

Being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation.—He stood, therefore, in a relation which made him the official representative of God to the people, and gave him an official capacity to convey God’s truth. This was represented in the days of Samuel by the Urim and Thummim; and John, himself a Jew, still thinks of the high priest’s breast as bearing the oracle which declared the will of God, whatever unworthy human thoughts may have filled the heart beneath. It may be that another reference to the high priest’s office is present in these thrice-written words. It was the high priest’s duty to “enter within the veil,” and “make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year” (Leviticus 16). In that year the veil was rent, and the first step taken by which the holy place was destroyed, and the high priest’s office ceased to exist. With the destruction of the holy place the Jewish day of Atonement lost its significance, but the high priest that year, by his counsel and action in the Sanhedrin, was causing the sacrifice which should be presented by another high priest, in the Holy of Holies as an Atonement for the world—“Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption” (Hebrews 9:11-12).

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

11:47-53 There can hardly be a more clear discovery of the madness that is in man's heart, and of its desperate enmity against God, than what is here recorded. Words of prophecy in the mouth, are not clear evidence of a principle of grace in the heart. The calamity we seek to escape by sin, we take the most effectual course to bring upon our own heads; as those do who think by opposing Christ's kingdom, to advance their own worldly interest. The fear of the wicked shall come upon them. The conversion of souls is the gathering of them to Christ as their ruler and refuge; and he died to effect this. By dying he purchased them to himself, and the gift of the Holy Ghost for them: his love in dying for believers should unite them closely together.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Not of himself - Though he uttered what proved to be a true prophecy, yet it was accomplished in a way which he did not intend He had a wicked design. He was plotting murder and crime. Yet, wicked as he was, and little as he intended it, God so ordered it that he delivered a most precious truth respecting the atonement. Remark:

1. God may fulfill the words of the wicked in a manner which they do not wish or intend.

2. He may make even their malice and wicked plots the very means of accomplishing his purposes. What they regard as the fulfillment of their plans God may make the fulfillment of his, yet so as directly to overthrow their designs, and prostrate them in ruin.

3. Sinners should tremble and be afraid when they lay plans against God, or seek to do unjustly to others.

Being high priest that year - It is not to be supposed that Caiaphas was a true prophet, or was conscious of the meaning which John has affixed to his words; but his words express the truth about the atonement of Jesus, and John records it as a remarkable circumstance that the high priest of the nation should unwittingly deliver a sentiment which turned out to be the truth about the death of Jesus. Great importance was attached to the opinion of the high priest by the Jews, because it was by him that the judgment by Urim and Thummim was formerly declared in cases of importance and difficulty, Numbers 27:21. It is not certain or probable that the high priest ever was endowed with the gift of prophecy; but he sustained a high office, the authority of his name was great, and it was thence remarkable that he uttered a declaration which the result showed to be true, though not in the sense that he intended.

He prophesied - He uttered words which proved to be prophetic; or he expressed at that time a sentiment which turned out to be true. It does not mean that he was inspired, or that he deserved to be ranked among the true prophets; but his words were such that they accurately expressed a future event. The word "prophecy" is to be taken here not in the strict sense, but in a sense which is not uncommon in the sacred writers. Acts 21:9; "and the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy." See the Romans 12:6 note; 1 Corinthians 14:1 note; compare Matthew 26:68; Luke 22:64.

That Jesus should die - Die in the place of men, or as an atonement for sinners. This is evidently the meaning which John attaches to the words.

For that nation - For the Jews. As a sacrifice for their sins. In no other sense whatever could it be said that he died for them. His death, so far from saving them in the sense in which the high priest understood it, was the very occasion of their destruction. They invoked the vengeance of God when they said, "His blood be on us and on our children" Matthew 27:25, and all these calamities came upon them because they would not come to him and be saved - that is, because they rejected him and put him to death, Matthew 23:37-39.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

51. Caiaphas … prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation—He meant nothing more than that the way to prevent the apprehended ruin of the nation was to make a sacrifice of the Disturber of their peace. But in giving utterance to this suggestion of political expediency, he was so guided as to give forth a divine prediction of deep significance; and God so ordered it that it should come from the lips of the high priest for that memorable year, the recognized head of God's visible people, whose ancient office, symbolized by the Urim and Thummim, was to decide in the last resort, all vital questions as the oracle of the divine will.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

So far as this was a prophecy, he spake not of himself: take the words of Caiaphas in the sense that he spake them, they were such as might well enough come out of such a wretched mouth, speaking out of the abundance of a vile and wretched heart; Melius pereat unus quam unitas, That it was better that one man should die, let him be never so good, just, and innocent, than that for his sake mischief should come upon a nation. This was now suitable enough to the religion of such a high priest. But that in this (the words being capable of a double sense) Caiaphas should deliver a great truth, That this year one should die for the people; that is, The Messiah should be cut off, but not for himself, as we read, Daniel 9:26; this was no more from himself, than the words which Balaam’s ass spake were from itself. The Spirit of prophecy sometimes fell upon wicked men; God revealed to Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar (both of whom were pagans) the things which he intended to do. There was a time also when Saul (though a man rejected of God) did also prophesy; and the worst of the princes of Judah had a use of the Urim and Thummim. So also here, Caiaphas, though a vile and wicked man, was here influenced by God to prophesy, and speak an oracle. Nor are those words,

being high priest that year, superfluously put in; for it being consistent with the holiness of God, sometimes to make use of the tongues of the worst of men to declare his will, it seems agreeable to the wisdom of God in doing it, to make use of principal men, they being persons whose words are most likely to be regarded, and so make impression upon people. The papists would from hence infer the infallibility of the pope, because he is the high priest: but they ought to prove:

1. That the office of the pope hath any foundation in the word of God.

2. That this was a gift given to particular priests, and at particular times; for the Jewish high priests were fallible enough ordinarily; witness Aaron’s making the golden calf, and Urijah the altar after the pattern of Damascus, 2 Kings 16:10,11.

The words, being high priest, are not given as a reason why Caiaphas prophesied, though they are a good reason why God was pleased to choose his tongue, and overrule it beyond his own thoughts and intentions, to serve his design in this revelation. He did not prophesy intentionally, as designing such a thing, only materially: the matter of his words were indeed a Divine revelation, though his intention and scope was fit for none but a base, carnal politician. God made him a prophet in what he said, though he meant not so.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And this spake he not of himself,.... Not of his own devising and dictating, but by the Spirit of God; as a wicked man sometimes may, and as Balaam did; the Spirit of God dictated the words unto him, and put them into his mouth; nor did he use them in the sense, in which the Holy Ghost designed them:

but being high priest that year; by his office he was the oracle of God, and was so esteemed by the people, and therefore a proper person to be made use of in this way; and especially being high priest that year, in which the priesthood was to be changed, and vision and prophecy to be sealed up:

he prophesied; though he did not know he did, as did Pharaoh, Exodus 10:28, and the people of the Jews, Matthew 27:25.

That Jesus should die for that nation; these words, with what follows in the next verse, are the words of the evangelist, interpreting the prophecy of Caiaphas, according to the sense of the Holy Ghost that Jesus should die, which was contrary to a notion the Jews had imbibed, concerning the Messiah; see John 12:34. But Jesus the true Messiah must die; this was determined in the counsel of God, agreed to by Christ in the covenant of grace, foretold by the prophets from the beginning of the world, typified by sacrifices and other things, under the former dispensation, predicted by Christ himself, and accordingly came to pass; and upon the above accounts was necessary, as well as for the salvation of his people, who otherwise must have perished; and yet was free and voluntary in him, and a strong expression, and a demonstrative proof of his love to them: and not only this prophecy declared, that Jesus should die, but that he should die for that nation, for the nation of the Jews; not for every individual in it, for all of them were not saved by him; some received him not; they rejected him as the Messiah, Saviour, and Redeemer, and died in their sins; but for all the elect of God among them, the sheep of the house of Israel, to whom he was sent, and whom he came to seek and save; and whom he blessed, by turning them away from their iniquities, and by taking away their iniquities from them: and moreover, this prophecy suggests, that Jesus was to die, not merely as a martyr, to confirm with his blood the doctrine he preached, nor only as an example of courage, meekness, patience, and love, but for, or in the room and stead of his people, as their surety; giving his life a ransom and himself a sacrifice to the justice of God, for them; there by fulfilling the law and satisfying it, and appeasing the wrath of God on their account.

Geneva Study Bible

{8} And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

(8) Christ sometimes turns the tongues, even of the wicked, so that even in cursing they bless.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

John 11:51-52. Observation of John, that Caiaphas did not speak this out of his own self-determination, but with these portentous words—in virtue of the high priest’s office which he held in that year—involuntarily delivered a prophecy.[96]

The high priest passed in the old Israelitish time for the bearer of the divine oracle, for the organ of the revelation of the divine decisions,[97] which were imparted to him through the interrogation of the Urim and Thummim (Exodus 28:30; Numbers 27:21). This mode of inquiry disappeared, indeed, at a later time (Josephus, Antt. iii. 8. 9), as the high-priestly dignity in general fell gradually from its glory; nevertheless, there is still found in the prophetic age the belief in the high priest’s prophetical gift (Hosea 3:4), exactly as, in Josephus, Antt. vi. 6. 3, the idea of the old high-priesthood as the bearer of the oracle distinctly appears, and Philo, de Creat. Princ. II. p. 367, sets forth at least the true priest as prophet, and consequently idealizes the relation. Accordingly—as closely connected with that venerable and not yet extinct recollection, and with still surviving esteem for the high-priestly office—it was a natural and obvious course for John, after pious reflection on those remarkable words which were most appropriate to the sacrificial death of Jesus, to find in them a disclosure of the divine decree,—expressed without self-knowledge and will,—and that by no means with a “sacred irony” (Ebrard). Here, too, the extraordinary year in which the speaker was invested with the sacred office, carries with it the determination of the judgment; since, if at any time, it was assuredly in this very year, in which God purposed the fulfilment of His holy counsel through the atoning death of His Son, that a revelation through the high-priestly organ appeared conceivable. ἀρχιερ. ὤν certainly bears the main emphasis: but ΤΟῦ ἘΝΙΑΥΤ. ἘΚ. is again significantly added to it (not, as De Wette thinks, “mechanically, as it were”), as in John 11:49.[98] For Rabbinical passages on unconscious prophecies, see in Schoettgen, p. 349. The notion of prophecy, however, is different from that of the בַּת־קוֹל (against De Wette); comp. on John 12:27-28. The latter is a heavenly voice of revelation.

ὅτι] not: that, according to which what follows would directly state the contents of προεφήτ., but: he gave utterance to a prophecy in reference to the fact that (John 2:18, John 9:17, et al.). For what follows goes beyond that which the words of Caiaphas express.

ὙΠῈΡ ΤΟῦ ἜΘΝΟΥς] Caiaphas had said: ὙΠῈΡ ΤΟῦ ΛΑΟῦ; but John turns to the negative part of John 11:50 (κ. μὴ ὅλ. τὸ ἔθνος ἀπόλ.), because he wishes to set the Gentiles over against the Jews, and this separation is national. Comp. Luke 7:5; John 18:35. For the benefit of the nation Christ was to die; for through His atoning death the Jews, for whom, in the first instance, the Messianic salvation was designed, John 4:22, were to become partakers by means of faith in the eternal saving deliverance. But the object of His death extended still further than the Jews; not for the benefit of the nation alone, but in order also to bring together into one the scattered children of God. These are the Gentiles, who believe on Him, and thereby are partakers of the atonement, children of God (John 1:12). The expression is prophetic and, just as in John 10:16, proleptic,[99] according to the N. T. predestinarian point of view (Romans 9:24 ff; Romans 15:27; Galatians 3:14; Ephesians 1:9 ff.; Romans 8:29-30; Romans 11:25-26; Romans 16:25-26; Ephesians 3:4 ff.; Colossians 1:27; Acts 13:48; Acts 18:10), from which they appear as those who, in order to further their entrance into the filial state, are drawn by God (John 6:44), are given by the Father to the Son (John 6:37), and endowed with the inward preparation (John 6:65). Euth. Zigabenus rightly remarks: τέκνα μὲν οὖν τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ ἔθνη ὠνόμασεν ὡς μέλλοντα γενέσθαι. This likewise in answer to Hilgenfeld, Lehrbegr. p. 153, Evang. p. 297, according to whom the Gentiles, as natural children of God, who do not first become so through Christianity, are said to be meant (but see John 1:12, John 3:3; John 3:6, et al.). A filial state toward God out of Christ is opposed to the N. T., not only as Hilgenfeld puts it, from a Gnostic, dualistic point of view, but also, as Luthardt conceives it (comp. also Messner, Lehre der Ap. p. 330 f.), referring the essence of it only to the desire after Christ (Tholuck, Weiss, Godet, to the susceptibility). This is only the preliminary step to the filial state. The gathering into one, i.e. to a unity, to an undivided community, is not intended in a local sense; but, amid their local dispersion, they were to become united in a higher sense, in virtue of a faith, etc., through the κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, as one communion ἐν Χριστῷ. Chrysostom aptly remarks: ἓν σῶμα ἐποίησεν· ὁ ἐν Ῥώμῃ καθήμενος τοὺς Ἰνδοὺς μέλος εἶναι νομίζει ἑαυτοῦ. The uniting with the believing Jews (the ποιεῖν τὰ ἀμφότερα ἕν, Ephesians 2:14) is not spoken of here, but in John 10:16; here only the Christian folding together of the scattered Gentiles themselves. For the expression συνάγειν (and the like) εἰς ἕν, comp. Plat. Phileb. p. 378 C; Eur. Or. 1640, Phoen. 465.

[96] Here there is the conception of an unconscious prophecy, so far as that which Caiaphas spoke in another sense must yet, according to divine direction, typically set forth the substance and object of the redemptive death. See Düsterdieck, De rei propheticae naturâ ethicâ, Göttingen 1852, p. 76.

[97] See generally Ewald, Alterth. p. 385; Keil, Arch. I. p. 182.

[98] According to Tholuck, τ. ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκ. should be understood in the sense that the high priest himself was bound to explain that in this year a greater and more general collective sacrifice was to be offered than that offered by him once a year on behalf of the people (Hebrews 9:7). But how can this lie in τ. ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκ.? especially as ἀρχιερεὺς, κ.τ.λ., is said only to make the προεφήτ. explicable, but expresses nothing as to the relation of the high-priestly sacrifice. This also against Luthardt’s similar interpretation, I. p. 87.

[99] Calvin well remarks: “Filios ergo Dei, etiam antequam vocentur, ab electione aestimat, qui fide tandem et sibi et aliis manifestari incipiunt.”

Expositor's Greek Testament

John 11:51. Τοῦτο δὲ ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ οὐκ εἶπεν … προεφήτευσεν. ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ, “at his own instigation,” is contrasted with “at the instigation of God” implied in ἐπροφήτευσεν [Kypke gives interesting examples of the use of ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ in classical writers]. “None but a Jew would be likely to know of the old Jewish belief that the high priest by means of the Urim and Thummim was the mouthpiece of the Divine oracle.” Plummer. Calvin calls him “bilingual,” and compares his unconscious service to that of Balaam. John sees that this unscrupulous diplomatist, who supposed that he was moving Jesus and the council and the Romans as so many pieces in his own game, was himself used as God’s mouthpiece to predict the event which brought to a close his own and all other priesthood. In the irony of events he unconsciously used his high-priestly office to lead forward that one sacrifice which was for ever to take away sin and so make all further priestly office superfluous. He prophesied “that Jesus was to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but that also the children of God who were scattered in various places should be gathered into one”. ὅτι is rendered “because” by Weiss and others. Jesus was to die ὑπὲρ τὸ ἔθνος although not in Caiaphas’ sense; and His death had the wider object of bringing into one whole, of truer solidarity than the nation, all God’s children wherever at present scattered. Cf. John 10:16, Ephesians 2:14. The expression τὰ τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ is used proleptically of the Gentiles who were destined to become God’s children. So Euthymius. For the phrase συνάγειν εἰς ἕν Meyer refers to Plato, Phileb., 378, C, and Eurip., Orestes, 1640.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

51. not of himself] Like Saul, Caiaphas is a prophet in spite of himself.

being high priest] None but a Jew would be likely to know of the old Jewish belief that the high-priest by means of the Urim and Thummim was the mouth-piece of the Divine oracle. The Urim and Thummim had been lost, and the high-priest’s office had been shorn of much of its glory, but the remembrance of his prophetical gift did not become quite extinct (Hosea 3:4); and ‘in that fatal year’ S. John might well believe that the gift would be restored.

Bengel's Gnomen

John 11:51. Ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ, of his own self) as men, who deliberate, otherwise are wont.—σὐκ εἶπει, said not) By this is explained the verb εἶπεν, said, which was used in John 11:49.—ὑπερ τοῦ ἔθνους, for the nation) Caiaphas had said, ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ, for the people, John 11:50. But John does not now any longer call them λαόν, a people, since their polity was expiring.

Pulpit Commentary

Verses 51, 52. - The evangelist discerned the presence of a deeper meaning in his words not intended by himself. As Balaam and Nebuchadnezzar and even Pharaoh had uttered unconscious or unwilling prophecies, and as in all genuine prophecies there are meanings meant by God beyond what the utterer of them at all conceived possible. So here. This he spake not from himself: but being high priest that awful, critical year, he prophesied. The high priest was believed in ancient times to have the power of drawing from Urim and Thummim the Divine decisions as to future events (Exodus 28:30; Numbers 27:21, and Caiaphas, as priest-prophet, may thus have conveyed an awful and sublime truth through base and evil dispositions. Curious instances occur elsewhere (John 7:27, 35): "He saved others; himself he cannot save!" (Mark 15:31); when the people said, "His blood be upon us" (Matthew 27:25); when Pilate, by unconscious prophecy, ironically declared him to be "King of the Jews" (Matthew 27:37). Wunsche quotes a curious case of unconscious prophecy, which the rabbinical writers attributed to Pharaoh's daughter, when she forecast the future legislator in the infant derelict. The substance of the prophetic word extracted from his saying was that Jesus should die for the nation. Hengstenberg wisely says, "Caiaphas could not have spoken other than of the λαός." When John wrote, the difference between the λαός and the ἔθνη had vanished away. Israel had become an ἔθνος, like the rest. And not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one (λαόν) the children of God scattered abroad - constitute a new center, life-giving and sacred in the covenant of his blood (cf. 1 John 2:2, a very remarkable parallelism). Who are the τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ διεσκορπισμένα? According to some, the dispersed Israelites, but surely the passage corresponds with the "other sheep," of John 10:16, and refers to all who enter by living faith in him into the full realization of the Divine Fatherhood (see John 1:12 and Ephesians 2:14) and their own sonship. Christ is the true Union of Jew and Gentile. John 11:51