The "Price" of Raising Lazarus
April 12, 2025 - Saturday of the Fifth Week of Lent
John 11:45–56
Raising Lazarus was the final and greatest sign Jesus performed during His ministry, surpassed only by His resurrection. One might imagine that, upon hearing of Lazarus emerging from the grave at Jesus’ command, everyone would come to believe in Christ. Yet that was not the case; instead, that greatest sign sealed the fate of Jesus and set in motion the events leading to His death.
The Sanhedrin, the highest authoritative and governing body in first-century Judaism, was composed of the high priest, his extended family, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees. Rather than embracing faith, they feared that Jesus’ miracles would cause others to believe in Him. They were also concerned that His growing influence among the people might provoke a punitive response from the Romans.
According to Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, Caiaphas—whose name was Joseph—served as high priest for 18 years (Ant. 18.35; 18.95; cf. Luke 3:2). Appointed by the Roman prefect Valerius Gratus in 18 AD, Caiaphas was also the son-in-law of Annas (cf. John 18:13), who had served as high priest for nine years from 6 to 15 AD.
The Gospel writer presents Caiaphas’ political wisdom in sacrificing Jesus as a prophetic act. It was prophesied that “Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not only for the nation, but also to gather into one the dispersed children of God.” The scope of Jesus’ atoning death is not limited to one nation—it embraces the entire world. As 1 John 2:2 affirms, Jesus “is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”
Historically, Jesus’ death did indeed delay the Roman destruction of Israel by 40 years. The Romans did not come that year “to take away both our land and our nation,” but they returned 40 years later, ultimately destroying the land and dispersing the nation. Caiaphas’ political wisdom did not prevent the nation's downfall. This raises a profound question: Is it better for one man to die in place of the people, temporarily sparing the nation? Or is it justifiable to sacrifice an innocent person so that others might preserve their privileges and enjoy a state of questionable peace? What do you think?