John 11:47–53

[JonC]

John 11:47–53 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”

But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.”

Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they planned together to kill Him.


@Martin Marprelate offered part of John 11:50
( it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish)
as proof that Christ is our substitute.

@DaveXR650 argued that the concept of substitution is in the passage.

I contend that this is in no way substitution and in fact disproved their theory.

Do let's look at the passage and what is being said

 

[JonC]

First - the reason this is important is it describes Christ dying for us.

"Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad"

 

[JonC]

Here was the concern:

"If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation."

Here was the conclusion:

"You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.”


Here is the prophecy:

"he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad."

Here was their action:

"So from that day on they planned together to kill Him."

 

[JonC]

The concern was that if Jesus was allowed to continue then Rome would destroy the nation.

The conclusion was that it would better for one man (Christ) to die than the nation perish (Rome destroy the nation).

This is not substitution. It does not meet the definition of substitution.

It is sacrificing one of their own (a Jew) to the worldly powers (Rome) so that the nation would not be destroyed.

 

[JonC]

Scripture then tells us that this was a prophecy - it pointed to Jesus dying for men.

If Scripture is correct then this is not a substitution but Jesus dying for us.

 

[37818]

@JonC,

How is the othewise understood penal proxy disallowed?

 

[JonC]

@JonC,

How is the othewise understood penal proxy disallowed?

It is disallowed by the passage itself.

Caiaphas' comment was in response to the concern the impact of Jesus' ministry. Rome would take note and destroy the nation. It is better that one die for the nation than the nation perish.

The one dying is not presented as a substitute. The killing of Jesus is instead presented as a measure to prevent Rome from destroying the nation by ending what was a perceived threat to the peace.

(It was to stop Jesus' ministry, thereby preventing Rome from destroying the nation).


It is impossible in that passage for it to be speaking of substitution at all.

Then you have Scripture linking this to Christ as a prophecy.

 

[37818]

It is disallowed by the passage itself.

It is impossible in that passage for it to be speaking of substitution at all.

How? Just because you think and say so?
I see the penal proxy, and you full well know why I do.
Isaiah 53:6. Ezekiel 18:4. Isaiah 53:12. Psalms 22:1. Mark 10:45. 1 Timothy 2:6. John 19:28. Etc.

The wage received being death, of the soul. By John 19:28 already done, after penal proxy, so His soul is not dead.

After penal proxy. John 19:30. Luke 23:46 Acts of the Apostles 2:27-31.

 

[JonC]

How? Just because you think and say so?
I see the penal proxy, and you full well know why I do.
Isaiah 53:6. Ezekiel 18:4. Isaiah 53:12. Psalms 22:1. Mark 10:45. 1 Timothy 2:6. John 19:28. Etc.

The wage received being death, of the soul. By John 19:28 already done, after penal proxy, so His soul is not dead.

After penal proxy. John 19:30. Luke 23:46 Acts of the Apostles 2:27-31.

Uh....no. Because by definition that is not substitution.

The argument was that if the Jews allow Christ to continue His ministry then Rome would destroy the nation.

The solution was that it was better to kill one man for the nation.

It is simply not substitution. It is impossible for that to be substitution.

@Martin Marprelate quoted Caiaphas and said it was substitute.

He was wrong.


If you are hiding a criminal, sure you will be caught and go to jail, so you give up the criminal....that is not substitution.


Do I know you see substitution? Yes, I know that. You are reading substitution into the passage.

 

[Silverhair]

How? Just because you think and say so?
I see the penal proxy, and you full well know why I do.
Isaiah 53:6. Ezekiel 18:4. Isaiah 53:12. Psalms 22:1. Mark 10:45. 1 Timothy 2:6. John 19:28. Etc.

The wage received being death, of the soul. By John 19:28 already done, after penal proxy, so His soul is not dead.

After penal proxy. John 19:30. Luke 23:46 Acts of the Apostles 2:27-31.

@37818 you are looking back at this and reading to the text what you think is there whereas they were looking forward and as Caiaphas said it's better to get rid of the trouble maker than to have Rome take away what we have. That is not substitution that is just self preservation.

 

[37818]

Uh....no. Because by definition that is not substitution.

The argument was that if the Jews allow Christ to continue His ministry then Rome would destroy the nation.

The solution was that it was better to kill one man for the nation.

It is simply not substitution. It is impossible for that to be substitution.

@Martin Marprelate quoted Caiaphas and said it was substitute.

He was wrong.


If you are hiding a criminal, sure you will be caught and go to jail, so you give up the criminal....that is not substitution.


Do I know you see substitution? Yes, I know that. You are reading substitution into the passage.

1 Corinthians 2:8, ". . . Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. . . ."

How? Just because you think and say so?
I see the penal proxy, and you full well know why I do.
Isaiah 53:6. Ezekiel 18:4. Isaiah 53:12. Psalms 22:1. Mark 10:45. 1 Timothy 2:6. John 19:28. Etc.

The wage received being death, of the soul. By John 19:28 already done, after penal proxy, so His soul is not dead.

After penal proxy. John 19:30. Luke 23:46 Acts of the Apostles 2:27-31.

Pay attention to how and where the proxy actually takes place.

 

[37818]

@37818 you are looking back at this and reading to the text what you think is there whereas they were looking forward and as Caiaphas said it's better to get rid of the trouble maker than to have Rome take away what we have. That is not substitution that is just self preservation.

1 Corinthians 2:8, ". . . Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. . . ."



Pay attention to how and where the proxy actually takes place.

How? Just because you think and say so?
I see the penal proxy, and you full well know why I do.
Isaiah 53:6. Ezekiel 18:4. Isaiah 53:12. Psalms 22:1. Mark 10:45. 1 Timothy 2:6. John 19:28. Etc.

The wage received being death, of the soul. By John 19:28 already done, after penal proxy, so His soul is not dead.

After penal proxy. John 19:30. Luke 23:46 Acts of the Apostles 2:27-31.

 

[JonC]

1 Corinthians 2:8, ". . . Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. . . ."



Pay attention to how and where the proxy actually takes place.

First you have to establish a substitution took place. You have not yet.

Here is the passage again (to keep you on topic):

John 11:47–53 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.”



The problem was that if Christ continued then Rome would destroy the nation. Caiaphas said it would be better to kill Jesus for the nation than to allow the nation to be destroyed.

@Martin Marprelate said that is substitution.

But it isn't. By definition it isn't.

 

[Silverhair]

@37818 What do we see in the verses that you posted.

Christ bore our sins, they were laid on Him, He cried out that He was forsaken, He was a ransom X2, He was thirsty, He finished the plan of salvation, He died and He was raised.

In what way do you think those verses would require you think He was a substitute?

 

[37818]

First you have to establish a substitution took place. You have not yet.

I have, and you are in intentional intellectual denial. And you know you are. ". . . Isaiah 53:6 . . . ." Etc.

 

[37818]

@37818 What do we see in the verses that you posted.

Christ bore our sins, they were laid on Him, He cried out that He was forsaken, He was a ransom X2, He was thirsty, He finished the plan of salvation, He died and He was raised.

In what way do you think those verses would require you think He was a substitute?

As a proxy.

 

[JonC]

I have, and you are in intentional intellectual denial. And you know you are. ". . . Isaiah 53:6 . . . ." Etc.

Uh....no.

Write out the following on a piece of paper:

Here was the concern:

"If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation."

Here was the conclusion:

"You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.”

That simply is not substitution. The plan was not to kill Jesus instead of killing the nation. It was to kill Jesus in order to prevent Rome from destroying the nation due to the impact they feared His ministry would have.

That is simply not Substitution.

It is killing one man for the nation, so that the nation would not perish. But not as a substitute. It was because they feared Rome would take notice and destroy the nation.

If anything, it was a sacrifice (kill one man for the nation so that Rome would not destroy the nation).

 

[JonC]

As a proxy.

No. For it to be proxy the man being killed would represent the nation, would be killed in place of the nation.

That is not the case.

The argument is that Jesus is causing problems. Rome will take notice and destroy the nation. It is better that one man die for the nation than the nation be destroyed. So they will kill Jesus which prevents a rebellion and avoids Rome destroying the nation.

That is not proxy. That is not substitution.

 

[Van]

From Calaphas"s point of view, it is better to kill one person whose misbehavior's consequence will cost the life of the nation, than to do nothing and suffer the loss of the nation.

To support Christ's death as a substitutionary death for the nation, the point of view would be, it is better to kill one innocent person, than for guilty nation to die. This passage, John 11:47-53, does not in the slightest present Christ's substitutionary death for the sins of the many.

 

[Silverhair]

As a proxy.

Surely you can do better than that for an answer. Flesh out your comment.