11:49,50
Caiaphas, who was the high priest that year, spoke up. He seems to be a very pompous man, full of himself. For he begins his speech with the words “You know nothing at all”. Clearly he didn’t think much of his fellow priests and scribes. As far as he was concerned the correct line of action was clear. Jesus had to be killed, “it [was] better that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish”. Now up to a point, from his own perspective, he was right. If killing Jesus would avoid a Roman crackdown then it could be argued that it was better for the nation as a whole. This is taking a purely pragmatic view, and we can see the flaws in the pragmatic view. Leaving aside Jesus for a moment (hope you don’t mind). The pragmatic view may have bought some time for a short while, but we know that in AD 70 Jerusalem was destroyed. So taking a pragmatic view, without any consideration for righteousness, is a deeply flawed approach. Is it ever right to take a pragmatic approach? Yes, but only if righteousness is given proper consideration.
11:51-53
Caiaphas may have had a high opinion of himself, but he did not know what he was saying. He was not speaking of his own accord, but was actually prophesying. He prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, but not in the way he thought. Jesus would also die for the children of God all over the world. “So from that day on they made plans to put Him to death”. It is ironic that it was the raising of Lazarus that set the Jews on this road, and it would lead to a much greater resurrection.
No comments:
Post a Comment