How much did Caiaphas understand about Jesus? John 11:49-52

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Joseph_Botwinick, Nov 28, 2006.

  1. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    I might be reading this wrong, but it almost sounds as if Caiaphas might have had some understanding of who Jesus was as the Messiah. I am quite sure I have probably read this before, but this is the first time this part has actually jumped out at me. What are your thoughts about this passage? Was Caiaphas, indeed, acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah?

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  2. gaultzilla

    gaultzilla
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see how it could mean anything else...If he prophesied and was indeed correct as he was, the knowledge came from the Holy Spirit.
     
  3. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it's possible that Caiaphas did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. The passage indicates that his prophecy was given by God, but the Old Testament prophets also prophesied about future events without knowing a lot of what they were prophesying about.

    Even the prophets who foretold the Messiah did not know his name would be Jesus. Nor did David in the Messianic Psalms.

    I wonder if Isaiah, in Chapter 53, knew that his prophecy was Messianic, or did he think it was something else?

    Don't you think that we see that some OT writings were Messianic only in hindsight?
     
  4. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    I bleieve he did know or considered seriously that Jesus was the Messiah.

    In John 3 good ol' Nick. made an interesting statement:
    "...'WE' know that..." Who is the 'we' he is refering to - The Pharisees of whom Caiaphas was one.

    I think however Jesus did not conform to their version and view of the Messiah nor to the who and how He would come. In light of this they rejected what did not conform to their understanding or better - thier selfish desires. Though they could never 'prove' He was not the Messiah (and they tried constistantly- which again shows they knew who He was) they did everything they could to discredit Him from being considered by others the Messiah (even to the point of holding a mock trial with false accussers).
    By this we also can see just how deeply their (the religious Rulers) rejection of God had gone. They would kill the person who in all points was scipturally identified as the Messiah so they could maintian their false religious pretenses and continue to hold power.
    Basically I guess you could say they figred they didn't need a Messiah as they were good enough already. Besides if He did take power and this Messiah was so incredibly knowledgable about the Word of God - of what use would the Pharisees be. They woud be removed from their position of authority and power and be held to the Truth as everyone else now that there is someone who can refute their false piety, and reveal their false holyness.

    If you think about it, knowing who He truly was is the VERY reason they did what they did.

    >>>EDITED IN<<<
    However I do not think they truly UNDERSTOOD who and what the Messiah was to be; much like the rest of the Israel at that time.
     
    #4 Allan, Nov 29, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 29, 2006
  5. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think what he said was intended to hold a different meaning but what he said was prophetic in its truth regardless of intent. Much like the phrase stated to Jesus while on the Cross. "He could save other but He can not save Himself" How true a statement that is however the intent was do defame Him but we know It was the Glory of Him.

    So when Caiaphas stated the above he more than likely was meaning:
    "It is better for this man to die in our place than to have the whole Nation perish"

    >>>EDITED - REMOVED<<<
    The statement made in vs. 48 by the Pharisees Counsil and that statement of Caiaphas are directly refering to a Roman Edict of that day called Religio Licitae.
    .
    Basically this means: (a legal religion) It was Roman policy to grant freedom to all EXISTING religions in the lands the Romans conquered but to BAN NEW Religions for fear of relious turmoil. Once a religion (christianty for example) was identified as not part of the existing ones but distinct it was pursecuted with all authority even to the death (as ordered) of its adherents.

    If the Roman Government found out a new Religion was in the Jewish Territories they come in force and severly punish and persecute the Jews till the new religion was forced or killed out and or take away their right to be a Nation and leave them a homeless people with no land heritage.

    So though Caiaphas might have intended something as a smear it was used by God for good to reveal Gods Son AND God control.
     
    #5 Allan, Nov 29, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 29, 2006
  6. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are correct about the OT prophets. The only difference I see here is that we see Caiaphas actually mentioning Jesus by name in his prophecy:

     
  7. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Caiaphas' statement is an example of John's used of irony in his gospel. On several occasions John quotes a spritually unenlightened person who makes a statement in which they intend no spiritual meaning at all, yet ironically, their statement is profoundly true in a way that they did not intend.

    Other examples are in John 2:10, John 3:4 (though this one may not be quite as clear), John 4:15, John 9:25, John 11:16, John 19:14.

    Because John uses this device on several occasions, I do not think that Caiaphas was aware of the significance of what he was saying.
     
  8. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,075
    Likes Received:
    102
    Caiaphas was a Sadducee, not a Pharisee.
     
  9. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you, I forgot about that. :tonofbricks:

    As a Hight Priest he met often with the both and where this is scripture is quoted from it speaks of him going aside with the Pharrisees. I guess for some reason I placed him in print within that group.
     

Share This Page

Loading...