(A) Introduction. (Read the reference)

In this passage John describes the sequel to the raising of Lazarus. The great miracle had both good and bad results. Some people put their faith in Jesus and others did not. This is the inevitable consequence of God deciding to make salvation dependent upon faith. God always knew that so long as men's will was left free then some would believe and some would not.

(B) Growing Faith.

Jesus continued to attract believers long after the disappointment of losing supporters following his discourse on the 'Bread of Life'. John keeps reminding us that in spite of the fury of the opposition many believed in him. They believed in him as Messiah, the one sent from God, both Son of Man and God. Jesus was a phenomenon. The crowd eagerly anticipated his arrival at the Passover. People asked each other: What do you think? Isn't he coming to the Feast at all?" Jesus was exciting. He made things happen. However, none of those who believed in Jesus, including his disciples, had any idea he was going to offer him self as a sacrifice for sin, rise triumphant from the dead and ascend into heaven.

Whenever a church is growing and exciting things are happening it will always attract many shallow believers. It will often draw them in from other, apparently stagnating, fellowships.

(C) The immediate reaction of the Sanhedrin.

(1) The surprising admission
The members of the Sanhedrin - elders, scribes and priests - all agreed: "Here is this man performing many miraculous signs." v47. The enemies of Jesus could no longer deny that he performed miracles.

Many unbelievers fear the power of Christianity while despising its teaching and rejecting its author. That is why godless dictators like Stalin and the militant leaders of other faiths persecute Christians. That is why the Japanese rulers in the 17th century eradicated Roman Catholicism and closed their borders to Europeans.

(2) The frustration of Christ's opponents.
The majority view in the Sanhedrin was: "If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him." v48. This is a clear acknowledgment that for all their efforts, especially from the Pharisees, they had failed to undermine and discredit Jesus.

This frustrates Christ's critics to this day. Jesus remains undiscredited and his influence throughout the world grows and grows. Only in self-satisfied and complacent Western Europe is the church in decline.

(3) The defeatism of the Sanhedrin.
Most members of the Sanhedrin believed that if popular support for Jesus grew then: "The Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." v48. The Jewish leadership realised that Jesus was no Judas Maccabaeus. He had no hope of leading a successful campaign against the Romans. Jesus had not consulted or co-operated with them. He had no armed forces, no political organisation or nous. They envisaged Jesus stirring up a wild, disorganised, ill-conceived revolt of enthusiastic idealists that would be easily crushed by the Romans. This would lead to the Romans taking all power to them selves and disbandoning the Sanhedrin.

The thing that frightened the elders, scribes and chief priests most was that the Romans would take away their place. They would lose what power they still retained. The selfish obsession with their own interests blinded the Jewish politicians to the goodness, grace and truth of Jesus.

It was self-interest that led to the silversmiths of Ephesus opposing the ministry of Paul. As more and more were converted to Christianity and the sale of silver shrines to Artemis declined Demetrius was determined to silence the apostle to the Gentiles. See exposition on the riot in Ephesus. In the 19th century the proprietors of gin palaces were among the most determined opponents of William Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army. As more and more drunks and alcoholics were converted so sales of gin declined - to the fury of its purveyors.

(4) The misjudgement of the Sanherin.
The Jewish politicians failed to realise that the last thing Jesus wanted to do was lead a revolt against the Romans. They completed misunderstood the purposes of Jesus. There were opportunities to lead a popular uprising after the feeding of the 5000 and triumphant entry into Jerusalem that Jesus turned down.

The attitude of the priests was totally alien to that of Jesus. They were spiritually dead and their outlook was almost entirely secular. Most of the priests were Sadducees and neither believed in miracles or the resurrection from the grave. They were essentially political animals and had no idea what Jesus was hoping to accomplish.

Christian leaders should avoid meddling in politics. Jesus did not and does not depend upon political power to extend his kingdom. He has the power! Oh yes he has the power! It is by the power of his saving work that he draws men to him. His kingdom is extended by the wonder working power of the precious blood of the lamb.

(D) The leadership of Caiaphas.

(1) His character.
He was:

(a) Arrogant. Caiaphas said to his colleagues: "You know nothing at all." v49. Prof William Barclay translates the High Priest's comment: "You are witless, brainless creatures." He was rude, dismissive and intimidating like so many enemies of the truth.

(b) Decisive. Caiaphas knew what he wanted done. He didn't dither but made his policy very clear: "It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole people perish." v50. Caiaphas was no more racked by doubt than Joseph Stalin or Adolph Hitler.

(c) Ruthless. There was an obvious remedy to the situation as Caiaphas saw it: "It is better for you that one man die for the people." He carried the day - "So from that day on they plotted to take his (Jesus') life." v53.

Ruthlessness is much admired in our day and age - the politician who ruthlessly reforms the health service, the headmaster who cuts out the dead wood amongst his staff or even the pastor who gets rid of the geriatric organist and choir that can't sing. I hate it. I remember the words written of Jesus by Isaiah the prophet: A bruised reed he will not break, and a smouldering wick he will not snuff out. Mt12v20. I love those words. It is as well for me that Jesus does not break the bruised reed.

Arrogant, decisive and ruthless men are incredibly dangerous to Christianity and take some opposing. Thank God for brave Christians who stand firm against determined, cruel opponents; men like William Booth and his Hallelujah lassies in the East End of London.

(2) His immorality.

(a) Caiaphas abandoned principle to do what was expedient. He considered the means justified the end!

If power is not controlled by a commitment to justice, truth and compassion all sorts of abuses will ensue. We see in politics the results of abandoning principle to do what is expedient. There is no doubt that the Labour party leadership was more concerned with going to war with Iraq and supporting its American allies than telling the truth. There never were any weapons of mass destruction. The consequences have been inglorious!

The church is not immune from abandoning principle to expediency. Whenever church members are discussing a controversial issue and someone says: "If we do so and so people will leave," the church is entering the dangerous waters of expediency. Church decisions should not be made to retain a wealthy supporter, pacify the militants or keep the majority happy - but on principle. A fellowship has to act in obedience to Jesus and in love.

I knew of a church that voted on whether to call Mr X to the pastorate. The candidate did not receive the required 70% of the votes. The disappointed majority put pressure on the dissenting minority. Some made it clear that unless there was a new vote and sufficient people changed their minds to reach the 70% necessary to appoint Mr X as pastor they would leave the fellowship. I was friendly with some who expressed doubt in Mr X's abilities. They honestly believed that Mr X was not up to the task. It would be no kindness to install him in a job he was incapable of doing. However, under pressure, they changed the way they voted and Mr X became pastor of the church. Sure enough the poor man proved insufficient for the ministry. And who were the first to leave? Those who had threatened to go elsewhere if he wasn't appointed! Within two years Mr X had gone. My friends did what was expedient but it brought no long term benefits to their church.

(b) Caiaphas was duplicitous. He pretended to be concerned for the good of the nation whereas he was only interested in maintaining his power base, status and wealth.

It is easy to cloak selfishness in the garb of public spiritedness and patriotism. It is also possible to promote a policy on the basis that it is good for the church whereas the true motivation is that it is good for me. My brother accepted the invitation to pastor a small church in Clapham. Not long after Paul began his duties the elderly Christians who had been keeping the church going, left. They wanted a pastor, any pastor, so that they could shuffle off their responsibilities. Many folk who are keen for a pastor to be engaged want him to do the jobs they don't want to do them selves.

(c) Caiaphas abused his position. He was God's high priest. Every year he went into the holy of holies in the temple to make atonement for the sins of his people. He didn't really care about that. He regarded religion as existing for his personal advantage. It gave him status. Like many other worldly clerics he enjoyed dressing up! The sacrificial system provided him with a good living. See exposition on Jesus clearing the temple. The chief priest had authority and respect. He was listened to. It galled Caiaphas that the people were beginning to pay more attention to a Galilean carpenter than to him.

Throughout history men have valued their high position in the church for the very same reasons as Caiaphas. They will defend those positions rather than lose status, income, authority and respect. Rarely will a religiously professional take lessons from an amateur despite the fact that their Lord was a glorious amateur.

(E) God is not thwarted.

(1) Jesus' rejection by the Jews resulted in the destruction of the Jewish state. The temple and sacrificial system - the scarlet thread running through Judaism - were destroyed. In murdering Jesus the Sanhedrin neither preserved the nation nor the essential ingredient of Judaism. The priests, through their envy and hatred of Jesus, brought an end to the priesthood.

(2) The death of Jesus, so deliberately engineered by the Jews, was in the will and purpose of God. John wrote: "But as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one." v52.

Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of the world. God desires none other. He died to abolish all distinctions - between Jew and Greek, male and female, slave and free - all are made one in Christ Jesus their Lord. It is a bitter irony for those so proud to be God's chosen people that through Christ's death everyone who believes in him is given the right to be a child of God.