John 11: 49
But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that
year, said to them, "You know nothing at all. Nor do
you understand that it is better for you that one man
should die for the people, not that the whole nation
should perish."  

He did not say this of his own accord, but being high
priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die
for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also
to gather into one the children of God who are
scattered abroad. 
"----------------------------

Brothers+

Was Caiaphas considering, in a cynical way, that it
was better to sacrifice the popular healer than to
have Rome come punish Judah for allowing the rise of
another Judas Maccabaeus?

Or, was Caiaphas the human equivalent of Balaam's Ass?

Or is there another choice?  (Both and. . . )

If we select number 1, it seems to me that would put
Caiphas' statement in conflict with John's explanation
that follows Caiaphas' words.

The Balaam's Ass alternative may bring some harmony to
the statement and John's interpretation of the event,
but seems not to be the obvious meaning of Caiphas'
statement.  

Many commentatorss take the line that I've described
as the Balaam's ass description of Caiphas words. 
"The high-priest expressed in a striking way the
meaning of the sufferings of the Man-God (John
11:51-52), though he could not have realized the full
import of those mysterious words."

The saying by Caiaphas comes in the section of John
that lays out the players in the Passover Plot against
Jesus.  Caiphas throughout is pictured as a ruthless
opponent of the Truth.  It seems strange that the
Evangelist would have labeled Caiphas's statement as a
prophecy when Caiaphas' intent was contrary to John's
interpretation.

The only alternative that I can think of that allows 
the Balaam's Ass alternative as the correct one is if
we posit that John was using an anagogical hermeneutic
akin to the hermeneutical method of some of the
Patristic writers.

This is not an idle question.  If we assume an
anagogical or Balaam's Ass interpretation of Caipahas
words then while Caiaphas  is thinking of Jesus' death
in place of the destruction of the nation by Rome,
John sees the divine intent that Jesus die in place of
the nation for their sin. Here, along with John 1:29,
is the clearest expression in John's  Gospel of Jesus'
death as dealing with sin. John focuses on the cross
as revelation, but here  he also affirms the cross as
atonement.  

In this part of John's Gospel, it seems to me one
can't approach literally, for John clearly is
interpreting the words of Caiaphas to strengthen his
argument for atonement.

Another difficulty is that John ascribea to the high
priest's office a prophetic role whereas all the other
references to Caiaphas and the priests in the Gospels
and Acts indicate they were anything but  Godly
teachers; they pay no honor to the high priests as
interpreters of the law, or the prophets, or the will
of God.

For example:

Matthew 23:27
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for
ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed
appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead
men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
 
Acts 23:3
Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou
whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the
law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the
law?

Anagogical hermeneutic is not popular in some circles,
but I believe that there are examles of Jesus' use of
such an interpretation. 

What do you think?

Charles+
Church of the Good Shepherd, Indianapolis