We have here recorded the witness of the earthly to the heavenly High Priest, of human guile to superhuman innocence and goodness, of worldly policy to disinterested benevolence; of personal, selfish ambition to Divine and ardent love. The Sanhedrin as a whole had testified to the reality of our Lord's miracles; Caiaphas here testified to the sacrificial offering and the world-wide mediation of Christ. And it may be noted that, not long after, Pilate bore witness to his Divine royalty.

I. THE INTENTION OF CAIAPHAS IN HIS PREDICTION OF CHRIST'S VICARIOUS DEATH. To understand this we must notice:

1. The character of the high priest himself. Caiaphas was a Sadducee, who is said to have bought his sacred office; he was the nominee of the Roman authorities, and acted in public business under the influence of Annas, his father-in-law. We do not wrong him in deeming him pre-eminently a politician, whose aim was the maintenance of the existing order of things, and the repression of any popular display of feeling, and especially any symptom of disaffection or disorder.

2. The position of Jesus at this critical period of his ministry. His miracles, and especially the raising of Lazarus, had produced a great impression; the courage and hopes of his adherents were raised; the number of his disciples and admirers was increasing, and consequently the fears of his enemies were aroused, and their hatred was intensified. Jesus was the great Figure in the view of all classes of the people. The hopes of some and the fears of others centered in the Prophet of Nazareth.

3. Such being the character of the high priest, and such the position occupied by Jesus in the public estimation, it is evident what was the meaning of the remarkable language which Caiaphas used. In their hearts, the Jewish leaders would have rejoiced if a great Deliverer, such as they expected their Messiah to be, had risen up among them - had emancipated Israel from a foreign yoke, and had provided for themselves posts of honor and power under the new dynasty. But they saw that Jesus was not the Deliverer they hoped for. They thought it likely that his preaching and teaching might lead to insurrection, which the Romans would certainly repress with severity. They preferred to retain such self-government as still lingered among them, such dignity and honors as were still allowed them, rather than risk the repression, the humiliation, the subjection, to which an unsuccessful insurrection would lead. Hence, the counsel of Caiaphas. He was for immediate, stringent, and violent measures. Having no sympathy with the profound teaching and spiritual aims of Jesus, looking upon religion only in the light of statecraft, Caiaphas advocated the ruthless destruction of him who was the occasion of so much anxiety and selfish fear. His policy was to crush Jesus, to propitiate the Romans, and to keep his own position until the advent of the expected Deliverer. Let the innocent Jesus be sacrificed; but let the nation be saved, or rather the rulers, who ever thought more of themselves than of those whom they governed. After all, Jesus was but one, and they were many. With no care for truth, for righteousness, for religion, for God, the degenerate leaders of the chosen people sacrificed to worldly policy him whom the Father had consecrated and sent into the world.

II. THE INTENTION OF GOD, PUTTING A DEEPER MEANING INTO THE PREDICTION OF CAIAPHAS. It is true that genius often utters language which is susceptible of a meaning far deeper than appears on the surface. But according to the interpretation of the evangelist, Caiaphas, being high priest during that memorable year of sacrifice, was prophetically guided or overruled in his language. Thus it was foretold:

1. That Jesus's death should have a bearing upon others. It is true that no man dieth unto himself. But Jesus so lived and so died as to secure the salvation of those whose nature he assumed. For others he lived, and for others he died.

2. That Jesus should die for his own nation. He came to his own. He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And though he was rejected and cast out, he did not die in vain, as far as his own people were concerned, The first converts made after his ascension were for the most part Jews. The apostles were themselves Hebrews, and some of them were ministers to the circumcision. True, the nation as a whole refused the Savior, and for that refusal they suffered the most terrible disasters. But their fall was the rise of the Gentiles, and the time is yet to come when the Jews shall be gathered in.

3. That Jesus should die for the spiritual Israel. "Not for that nation only." To this conception Caiaphas could not rise; but St. John, by Divine inspiration, read this meaning into his words. No doubt, St. Paul did very much to enlarge the general conception entertained regarding the objects of Christ's mission to earth. He showed how Christ had broken down the middle wall of partition, and had made of Jew and Gentile "one new humanity." Thus the mystery which had been hidden was disclosed; that the salvation of God is for all, irrespective of race and privilege. The text makes it manifest that, in this view of Christianity, St. John was in perfect sympathy with the apostle of the Gentiles.

4. That the death of Jesus should issue in the union in Christ of all the scattered children of God. This fifty-second verse is one of the sublimest in the whole compass of revelation. Not only shall the children of the Jewish dispersion be reunited. All lowly, faithful, prayerful, obedient hearts in every land shall come under the mighty sway of Christ's precious cross. Christ is the divinely appointed head of the ransomed race; in him its true unity shall be realized, and in him the benevolent purposes of the Father shall be completely and eternally fulfilled. - T.

When John Huss retired from the consistory of the Pope and cardinals, his lodging was encircled from that time by watchful sentinels; and a monk was let loose upon him, to ensnare him with dangerous questions — for Huss had protested that he had rather die than be justly condemned as a heretic; and that if convinced of error he would make full recantation. He had the shrewdness to "detect in the monk, who affected the utmost simplicity, one of the subtlest theologians of the day." Jesus therefore walked no more openly.

I. THE CONCEALMENT OF CHRIST'S PERSON. —

1. The reason of His retirement. The fresh outburst of hostility provoked by the raising of Lazarus. Christ never ceased to exercise a holy watchfulness over His personal safety. Not until His hour was come, and the Father gave the signal, would He expose Himself. Nor was it worth while to continue testifying to a generation that would not see or hear. Jerusalem's day of grace had closed, and He had withdrawn forever. When next He appeared in her streets it would be to fall a victim to her murderous hate, and thereby save a world.

2. The place of His seclusion. Ephraim in the neighbourhood of Bethel, about twenty miles to the northeast of Jerusalem, on the confines of the Judaean wilderness. It was a region full of great memories of Abraham, and Jacob (Genesis 12:8; Genesis 28:10-19; Genesis 35:14).

3. The occupation of Christ while at Ephraim. The time spent was about six weeks; and was spent we doubt not in instructing His disciples and preparing Himself for the end.

II. THE COMMOTION AT JERUSALEM ON ACCOUNT OF CHRIST'S PROLONGED ABSENCE (ver. 56).

1. The disappointed search. The country people hoped to find Christ in the Temple. There they had seen Him on earlier visits. This was the most natural place to look for Him, and is still. Nor will any who seek with their whole hearts look in vain,

2. The animated conversation. Not finding Christ they formed themselves into eager groups to talk about Him — the best object of talk, given a praiseworthy spirit, as seen in the Emmaus travellers, but not in Caiaphas or these idle and curious gossips.

3. The reduplicated question. They hardly anticipated His presence, because of the action of the Sanhedrim. But they were in error, showing how little reason is capable of understanding the movements of the God of grace. Christ had every reason for being present at the feast.

(T. Whitelaw, D. D.)

The most of them, it may be feared, neither knew nor cared anything about inward purity. They made much ado about the washings, etc., which formed the essence of popular Judaism, and yet they were willing in a few days to shed innocent blood. Strange as it may appear, these very sticklers for outward sanctification were found ready to do the will of the Pharisees and put Christ to death. Extremes like these meeting in the same person, are unhappily far from uncommon. Experience shows that a bad conscience will often try to satisfy itself by a show of zeal for the cause of religion, while the "weightier matters" of the faith are entirely neglected. The very same man who is ready to compass sea and land to attain ceremonial purity, is often the very man, who, if he had fit opportunity, would not shrink from helping to crucify Christ. Startling as these assertions may seem, they are abundantly borne out by plain facts. The cities where Lent is kept at this day with the most extravagant strictness, are the very cities where the carnival after Lent is a season of glaring excess and immorality. The people in some parts of Christendom, who make much ado one week about fasting and priestly absolution, are the very people who another week will think nothing of murder! These things are simple realities. The hideous inconsistency of the Jewish formalists in our Lord's time has never been without a long succession of followers. A religion which expends itself in zeal for outward formalities, is utterly worthless in God's sight. The purity that God desires to see is not that of bodily washing and fasting, of holy water and self-imposed asceticism, but purity of heart. Will worship and ceremonialism may "satisfy the flesh," but they do not tend to promote real godliness. The standard of Christ's kingdom must be sought in the Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 5:8; Colossians 2:23).

(Bp. Ryle.)

? — The question was doubtless asked from a variety of motives. Curiosity prompted it in many; the fame of Jesus had reached the town or village where they lived; they had heard of His power to heal the sick and raise to life the dead, and the miracle performed on Lazarus had been the talk of the place for weeks; they wished to see what He was like who did such wondrous things. This they thought was their only opportunity, so anxiously they asked whether He had yet come; and when answered in the negative, asked whether they thought He would. There were also some sullen, evil-eyed Pharisees, who gathered together in groups, argued the likelihood of His presence. But in all probability the vast majority of those who asked the question did so because they felt a true desire to see Him, and hear the words of His mouth. To be in His company was their chief inducement in journeying to Jerusalem. "Will He come to the feast?" is ever the language of God's people in all their gatherings; and the motive that prompts the question is that of intense desire for His presence and company. Let us then dwell upon the text not as the language of the Jew at the passover feast, but as the question of the saint in relation to every service. We will dwell first on THE QUESTION AND DIFFERENT REASONS FOR ASKING IT; secondly, we will GIVE OUR ANSWER AND THE REASONS FOR IT BEING SUCH AS IT IS; thirdly, MENTION SOME SIGNS INDICATIVE OF HIS BEING AT THE FEAST; AND LASTLY, TRY AND POINT OUT SOME WAYS TO ENSURE HIS COMPANY.

I. First then — THE QUESTION. It was, "Will He come?" They saw many others going up to the feast, but that sight satisfied them not. Ii is a happy thing to come to the feasts of the Lord, surrounded by family and friend s, and if He be present, their company lends an extra charm. But how, if He be absent? Can they supply His place? Ah, "No." The goodness of a meeting can never be reckoned by its numbers. A crowded house may be full without Christ, and the room with only the "two or three" may be full with Him. Nor will the respectability of those present. The best families in the land were doubtless represented in Jerusalem as well as the poorest. Yet their presence in no way lessened the desire for Christ's, the prosperity of the Church, or the value of its services. The child of God would sooner worship with the poorest and their Lord, than with the wealthiest without Him. Many of these Jews had come on purpose to see Him. The journey had been undertaken with this expectation. Let them see never such glorious sights, yet if they see not Him they must return to their homes disappointed men and women, the one design of their coming being unfulfilled. Say, child of God, has not the expectation of meeting your Lord been the sole motive power that has brought you here? There are many reasons prompting the question; dwell on one, and that is that we feel it will not be a feast at all if He does not come. No true child of God can feast on externals. Without Christ the feast is no better than a fast. Here is the touchstone whereby the true saint is discovered, and the formalist detected. The latter is satisfied with the temple — the people and the service. He never takes the trouble to seek Jesus or ask whether He be at the feast or no. He will desire his Lord's presence, moreover, because it is His being at the feast that gives him a spiritual appetite. Not only must Christ give us the food but He must also give us the appetite to desire the food; and this is most necessary, for the very choicest of food is insipid to the taste if appetite be wanting. This question was also asked, because they knew there were many reasons why He should stay away from the feast. The high priests were up in arms against Him. The Sanhedrim had determined His death. And do not we know of many things sufficient to make us doubt whether He can come into our company? Has He lived in our warmest heart's affections? Have we not to confess to a terrible amount of worldliness, coldness and indifference? Have we not often been ashamed of Him? Blushed to speak His name? Have we not also been often absent from the feast when He has been present? There is yet another cause sufficient to make us wonder whether He can come to the feast, and it is the many vows we have made at former feasts and broken.

II. Secondly, I WILL TRY TO GIVE THE ANSWER AND SOME REASONS FOR IT BEING WHAT IT IS. "Will He come to the feast?" I reply, "Yes, I think He will." Nay, "I believe He will." Yea, more, "I know He will." My reasons for giving such an answer are fourfold.

1. I think He will come to the feast because He loves it Himself Is it a joy to you to commune with Him? It is an equal joy to Him so to do. De you love His company? He also loves yours. It is no irksome work to Him to be in company with His people. Therefore, because it is His delight I think He will come to the feast.

2. I think moreover He will come because He has instituted the feast and invited us to it.

3. Very likely also these Jews entertained the hope He would come from the fact that He had often come before. May not we do the same? Cannot we call to mind many times when He has favoured us with His company at the feast, when we have been no more deserving of it than we are now.

III. WHAT ARE THE SIGNS OF HIS BEING AT THE FEAST?

1. A melting heart on account of sin. Our own unworthiness will appear great in proportion as we have communion with Christ. Self and Christ can never stand together, where He is, self lies in the dust. Pride will be trampled under foot, and every soul be filled with what John Newton termed "pleasing grief."

2. A second sign of His presence will be a joyful heart on account of pardon. When Christ visits His people, He not only makes them see the number of their sins, but also their complete pardon, and it is this double sight that prepares the soul for sweetest fellowship.

3. The third sign of Jesus being at the feast is an indifference and forgetfulness about all externals.

IV. And now fourthly and lastly. — I WILL TRY AND POINT OUT SOME WAYS TO ENSURE HIS COMPANY.

1. The first and most apparent way is by asking for it. Christ will never say "nay" to the united request of His people, and we may rest most assured, that when that united request is simply for His presence it will be granted.

2. Another way is by forgiveness. Nothing so surely hinders Christ's communing with us as an unforgiving spirit; where that is, the joy of fellowship cannot be. And now, poor sinner, ere we close, a word to you. Jesus is here, closer to each one of us than we are to the other. He is by your side. He has come up now to the feast. What will you do? What will you say to Him? Oh, invite Him to your feast; tell Him "you have nothing to offer Him but a broken heart and contrite spirit," and He will not despise that.

(A. G. Brown.)

I. CHRIST WILL CERTAINLY BE AT OUR FEASTS AS A JUDICIAL SPECTATOR. As God, He is everywhere. No walls or doors will keep Him out. He will know the moral character and bearing of every feast, and bring "every work to judgment," etc.

II. HE MAY COME AS A LOVING FRIEND.

1. He is preeminently social in His nature. "The Son of Man came eating and drinking."

2. He personally attended feasts when on earth.

3. He has promised to be present in the social gatherings of His people through all time. "If any man will love me," "Where two or three are gathered," etc. If He is not with you it is your fault. Have you invited Him? "Behold I stand," etc.

III. IF HE DOES NOT COME AS A LOVING FRIEND WE HAD BETTER NOT HAVE THE FEAST AT ALL. If He is absent —

1. It would be an affair unworthy of our natures.

2. It will be an affair pernicious to us.

(D. Thomas, D. D.).