Selwyn continues to look at the requirement that Jesus’ death had to be violent (blood sacrifice), official and certified.
If one single individual had killed Jesus, many would have ‘dismissed it as an unfortunate incident, and not considered it to be a revelation of the real character of the human race.’
As Selwyn says: Caiaphas, the High Priest of Israel – God’s representative on earth, said: “You know nothing at all! You do not realise that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” (John 11:49-50). Later in John’s Gospel (18:14), we see this referred to again: “Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be good if one man died for the people.” I think the reason why John draws the reader’s attention to it more than once, was because it is important to be aware of the official view of Israel’s leaders. In addition, the people accepted this view, for we read in Matthew 27:25; “Let his blood be on us and on our children!”. In any way you would like to view Jesus’ death – you should reach the conclusion that his sacrifice reflected the general view of the nation – from the leader of the nation, down to the average person in the street.
How many times do we see governments making decisions which ignore the plight of a few for the well-being of the many? This popular, low-risk behaviour of ‘politicians’ was evident in Israel at the time of Jesus’ death, as it is in, most nations today! Do you agree?
The nature of Jesus’ death is as relevant today as it was 2000 years ago – this generation would kill Jesus in the same way (an official death) because we are driven by the same sinful desires, as they were … as they say – some things never change! What are your views?
The official deed of a nation
Selwyn continues to look at the requirement that Jesus’ death had to be violent (blood sacrifice), official and certified.
If one single individual had killed Jesus, many would have ‘dismissed it as an unfortunate incident, and not considered it to be a revelation of the real character of the human race.’
As Selwyn says: Caiaphas, the High Priest of Israel – God’s representative on earth, said: “You know nothing at all! You do not realise that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” (John 11:49-50). Later in John’s Gospel (18:14), we see this referred to again: “Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be good if one man died for the people.” I think the reason why John draws the reader’s attention to it more than once, was because it is important to be aware of the official view of Israel’s leaders. In addition, the people accepted this view, for we read in Matthew 27:25; “Let his blood be on us and on our children!”. In any way you would like to view Jesus’ death – you should reach the conclusion that his sacrifice reflected the general view of the nation – from the leader of the nation, down to the average person in the street.
How many times do we see governments making decisions which ignore the plight of a few for the well-being of the many? This popular, low-risk behaviour of ‘politicians’ was evident in Israel at the time of Jesus’ death, as it is in, most nations today! Do you agree?
The nature of Jesus’ death is as relevant today as it was 2000 years ago – this generation would kill Jesus in the same way (an official death) because we are driven by the same sinful desires, as they were … as they say – some things never change! What are your views?