Therefore also there follows: 'So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together,' and so on. He said, then, that many were those who believed because of seeing the events concerning Lazarus; but he indicated that fewer, as it were, were those who were not such, saying: 'But some of them went away,' and so on.
But pay attention also to what is about to be said, whether it can move us regarding those who came to Mary and, having seen what he did, believed in him; for it is written: 'Many, then, of the Jews who came to Mary and saw what he did believed in him.'
And especially, on account of the anagogical interpretation, I am moved to think that perhaps all those who 'saw' — that is, who beheld and understood what Jesus did — believed in him; whereas those who went away to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done, since it is not testified of them that they 'saw,' perhaps did not have that which is said in praise concerning those who believed, namely, 'they saw.'
For it could have been written, if indeed these too had seen, that some of them went away to the Pharisees and told them what they had seen Jesus having done, or what they had seen and Jesus did.
But as it is, 'they saw' is nowhere said concerning these who went to the Pharisees, but is said concerning those who believed, who had indeed come to Mary and had seen what Jesus did; on account of whom, I think, he also said: 'But I said it because of the crowd standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.'
At the same time, also consider concerning this whether you can say that those who came to Mary and saw what Jesus did and believed in him were alone meant, being indeed many, when we say that these were the crowd standing around Jesus, on account of whom he said: 'Father, I thank you that you have heard me; but I knew that you always hear me.'
For if he said these things because of the crowd standing around, that they might believe that the Father had sent him, and, in saying this, was not speaking to the Father as one of the men who are ignorant of the future would speak, but said this because of the crowd standing around, that they might believe that you sent me — then perhaps those who came to Mary and saw what he did and believed in him were alone the crowd standing around Jesus, while the rest neither saw what he did nor stood around him. — 'So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said: What are we to do, since this man performs many signs? If we let him go on thus, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.'
XII. As to the literal sense: the Pharisees and the chief priests saw that, because of the greatness of the marvelous powers Jesus had performed, it was possible for the whole people of the Jews to be led into faith in him, and, having been led, to despise the bodily Levitical and priestly worship in that place — so that this might become an occasion, since the Jews would no longer be attending to the place, for it to be given over by the Savior to the Romans — both the place regarded by them as holy, and the whole Jewish nation — the Jews no longer, in every way, wishing to preserve the profession of being themselves Jews.
Then, since they preferred, before all things, the worship and the place and the constitution of the nation to those things that might be judged to be better than these, for this reason they plot against Jesus, that they might not allow him to live.
In the same way, I think, they also said 'this man' with a view to diminishing his glory; for they disbelieved even what had been said earlier concerning his being God — at the time when they wished to stone him as though for blasphemy, saying to him, 'You, being a man, make yourself God,' when, according to his own love for mankind, he answered, teaching that everyone to whom the word of God came is called god by God, since the prophetic scripture that declared this cannot be loosed or set aside.
It is possible, from what is said by the Pharisees and the chief priests, to discern in them both an admission of their own wickedness and a blindness about it: an admission, in that they testified concerning him both that he had performed many signs and that they were able to plot against one who had performed such great signs, as though he who is being plotted against in such great measure could do nothing on his own behalf; but this very thing was, no less, also blind: for according to the fact that he performed many signs, it followed that he was superior to the plot of those unwilling to let him go — unless, indeed, they also believed that, though he performed signs, he was not for that reason able to do everything, out of a lack of power; so that for this reason he would not be able to do everything, nor even to deliver himself from the plot arising from them.
They, then, were planning not to let him go, thinking that by this they would hinder both those who believe in him, and the Romans who were about to take away their place and their nation.
But since 'the Lord scatters the counsels of nations and sets at naught the plans of peoples,' nonetheless they did not let him go; and God raised him up and released him, and all the nations were made subject to him, and the Romans came and took away their place.
For where now is that which they call the sanctuary? And they also took away the nation, casting them out from the place and scarcely permitting them to be wherever they wished, even in the dispersion.
But if one must venture also to give an anagogical interpretation of these words, we shall say that the nations received the place of those of the circumcision; for 'by their transgression, salvation has come to the nations, so as to provoke them to jealousy'; and for the nations, the Romans were taken as representatives, called 'the ruled,' named from 'those who rule.'
And the nation, too, was taken away by those from the nations; for the people has become 'not a people,' and those of Israel are no longer Israel, and the seed has not attained to their becoming children. And the cause of these things is the many signs of Jesus, and that the Father released him, he having become greater than the plot of the chief priests and Pharisees who conspired together against him.
The chief priests and all the bodily worship among the Jews, and the Pharisees and all the teaching according to the letter of the law, plot against Jesus, that is, against the truth; and the type wishes, in order that it may continue to stand, to hinder the manifestation of the truth — just as the flesh also desires against the Spirit.
But the Spirit, which desires against the flesh, being stronger, and the true high priesthood of our Savior, and his spiritual teaching, dissolve the council of the chief priests and Pharisees who plot against him.
One must suppose that these things also happen even now, which one can see among those who, by means of the constitution of bodily Judaism, wish to overthrow the spiritual teaching of Christ. — But one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them: 'You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.' Now he did not say this of himself, but, being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also that he might gather together into one the children of God who were scattered abroad.
XIII. It is not the case that, if someone prophesies, that person is a prophet. Caiaphas, at any rate, being high priest that year, prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also that he might gather together into one the children of God who were scattered abroad; yet he was not, for all that, also a prophet.
And if Balaam also prophesied the things recorded in Numbers, saying: 'The word that God puts into my mouth, that I will speak,' and having spoken the things beginning from 'From Mesopotamia he sent for me,' and so on, it is clear that he was not a prophet; for he is recorded as being a diviner.
But it is not the case that if someone pursues what is righteous, that person is righteous. This you will understand by attending to 'you shall pursue what is righteous, righteously' — if indeed 'righteously' is not placed before 'you shall pursue what is righteous' in vain. For it is possible, I think, to pursue what is righteous, but not righteously; for indeed, those who do a work fitting in itself, for example toward the poor, in order to be glorified by men, have done something that is righteous, yet not from a disposition of righteousness but from vainglory.
And I think that, analogously to 'you shall pursue what is righteous, righteously,' one might say: 'you shall pursue what is temperate, temperately'; and 'you shall pursue what is courageous, courageously'; and 'you shall pursue what is wise, wisely'; and correspondingly with the remaining virtues.
And it is for this reason, I think, that in the prophecies it is continually said concerning the prophets, 'Jeremiah the prophet said,' and whatever is similar to this; and those skilled concerning names say that it is not the case that if someone does something medical, or one of the things contributing to health, that person is a physician; nor, if someone has done something related to building, is that person a builder.
From what has been recorded concerning Caiaphas, who prophesied concerning the Savior, it is possible to clarify that even a wicked soul sometimes admits of prophesying.
For the wickedness of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year when our Savior accomplished the dispensation that consists in suffering on behalf of men, is accused by the evangelists: for Matthew says: 'Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said: What are you willing to give me, and I will deliver him to you? And they weighed out to him thirty pieces of silver'; and a little after: 'Behold,' he says, 'Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and elders of the people.'
In these things, then, we understand that Caiaphas too is to be numbered among the chief priests, since he is attested as having been high priest that year. And clearly, after this, Matthew says: 'Those who had seized Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and elders had gathered'; and a little after he adds:
'Now the high priest and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put him to death; and they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. But afterward two came forward and said: This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days. And the high priest stood up and said to him: Do you answer nothing? What is it that these men testify against you? But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him: I put you under oath by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus says to him: You have said it; but I say to you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest tore his garments, saying: He has blasphemed; what further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard his blasphemy. What do you think? And they answered and said: He is deserving of death.' And then again, after other things:
Then, after the resurrection — in the account concerning Mary Magdalene and the other Mary: 'Behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers, saying: Say that his disciples came by night and stole him while we were asleep; and if this should be heard by the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.'
Luke recorded that Satan entered into Judas, who was called Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve, and he went and conferred with the chief priests and captains how he might betray him to them. Then a little after: 'Jesus,' he says, 'said to the chief priests and captains of the temple and elders who had come against him: Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs?' And a little after: 'Having seized him, they led him away and brought him into the house of the high priest.' And still a little after: 'The chief priests and the scribes stood, vehemently accusing him.'
And again a little after: 'As day came, the assembly of the elders of the people was gathered, both chief priests and scribes, and they led him away into their council.'
But Mark says that Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went to the chief priests that he might betray him. And when they heard it, they rejoiced and promised to give him money. And a little after: 'While Jesus was still speaking, Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, arrives, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the scribes and the Pharisees and elders.' And a little after —
Then again a little after: 'The high priest stood up and questioned Jesus, saying: Do you answer nothing? What is it that these testify against you? But he was silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest questioned him a second time, saying: Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus answering says to him: You have said it; that I am, and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven. And the high priest immediately tore his garments.'
Then a little after: 'In the morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes and the whole council, held a consultation, and having bound Jesus, led him away and delivered him to Pilate.' Then a little after: 'The chief priests accused him of many things, but he answered nothing.'
We have set these things out at greater length in order to establish, through the many testimonies of all the evangelists, the outpouring of Caiaphas's wickedness, and that although he was striving to destroy Jesus, he nonetheless prophesied. That he indeed prophesied, John has clearly taught us.
But you will inquire whether, in every case, if anyone prophesies, he prophesies from the Holy Spirit, even though to some it may seem that the statement admits of no inquiry at all.
How is it not worthy of inquiry, seeing that David, after his sin concerning Uriah, being fearful lest the Holy Spirit be taken from him, says: 'Do not take your Holy Spirit away from me'? And if one also admits the saying, 'For the Holy Spirit of instruction will flee deceit, and will withdraw from thoughts without understanding,' it will clearly appear to be established that it flees from the soul that has become deceitful, even if it happened previously — before the deceit and the sin — to have been present there, that Holy Spirit.
In this way, too, the question about the Holy Spirit — whether it can exist even in a sinful soul — is worth inquiry, so that someone might say: since 'No one can say, Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Spirit,' and many even of sinners are disposed toward Jesus as toward the Lord, the Holy Spirit would then be present in them.
And perhaps, since those who sin after having obtained it would not obtain forgiveness, it is for this reason that it is said, concerning sins committed by someone before the Holy Spirit: 'Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven the sons of men.'
But concerning those who have stumbled after obtaining the Holy Spirit, it is said: 'But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness, either in this age or in the age to come.' For the one who sins, while it is present in the soul, blasphemes by deeds and words of sin against the Holy Spirit that is present.
In this way, someone will say, is also to be understood what is written in Hebrews in this manner: 'For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and tasted of the heavenly gift, and became partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away, to renew themselves again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put him to open shame.' For observe, in these words, the phrase 'having become partakers of the Holy Spirit.'
But to the contrary — that even if Caiaphas prophesied, the Holy Spirit was nonetheless not in him — one might cite the saying: 'For the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified.'
And if the Spirit was not present even in the apostles before Jesus was glorified, how much more was it not present in Caiaphas? And the Savior, having risen, breathed on the disciples and says to them: 'Receive the Holy Spirit,' and so on.
Someone, then, will boldly set forth the things about to be said, against the view that Caiaphas prophesied from the Holy Spirit; nevertheless he will say that even evil spirits are able to bear witness to Jesus and prophesy concerning him, or bear witness to him — as in the saying: 'We know who you are, the Holy One of God,' and the spirits that entreated him not to command them to depart into the abyss, and that said: 'Have you come to destroy us?'
And in the Acts of the Apostles it is written as well: 'It came to pass, as we were going to prayer, that a certain slave girl having a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much gain by fortune-telling. She, following after Paul and us, cried out saying: These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation.'
The one who makes use of these examples, then, will say that the word of the python-spirit falls short of prophecy in nothing, since it bore witness to the apostles and urged those who heard to believe, as regards the way of salvation being proclaimed.
But since we have also cited the case of Balaam, observe whether it can also be said of him that he did not speak from God but from an angel: 'For the angel of God,' it says, 'stood in the way to oppose him. And he himself had mounted his ass, and his two servants were with him. And the ass, seeing the angel of God standing opposed in the way, with his sword drawn in his hand, turned aside out of the way and went into the field. And Balaam struck the ass with his staff to direct her into the way. And the angel of God stood in the furrows of the vineyards, a wall on this side and a wall on that side.' Then a little after —
'The ass, seeing the angel of God, sat down under Balaam.' And again a little after: 'The angel of God said to him: Why did you strike your ass this third time? And behold, I have come out to oppose you, because your way is not straight before me; and the ass, seeing me, turned aside from me this third time; and if she had not turned aside from me, I would now have killed you and preserved her. And Balaam said to the angel: Lord, I have sinned, for I did not know that you stood opposing me in the way to meet me; and now, if it does not please you, I will turn back. And the angel of God said to Balaam: Go with the men; only the word that I shall speak to you, that you shall keep to speak.'
But you will say that, a little after, God appeared to Balaam, and Balaam said to him: 'I have prepared the seven altars, and have offered up a calf and a ram upon the altar.' And God put a word into Balaam's mouth and said: 'Return to Balak, and thus you shall speak.'
But you too should observe how both statements are true — both what is said by the angel in 'Whatever I shall speak to you, that you shall keep to speak,' and what is reported by Scripture, that 'God put a word into Balaam's mouth and said' —
In answer to all these things, the one who dares will say that also concerning Saul it is said: 'An evil spirit of God choked him.' But also a lying spirit went out and came to be in the mouth of all the prophets of Ahab, the Lord having said: 'Who will deceive Ahab?' and a lying spirit having gone out and said: 'I will deceive him.'
Let these things, then, be examined with regard to the passages, since anyone is able to consider for himself the conclusions following from the texts set forth, concerning how Caiaphas prophesied. Perhaps this too must be said regarding his prophecy: that since he was not holy, even if he did prophesy, <yet he did not prophesy from the Holy Spirit>.
But just as it is worthy of inquiry how Caiaphas prophesied, so too, in the First Book of Kingdoms, you will inquire how the messengers of Saul, sent against David, prophesied, and after them Saul himself.
For it is written: 'And it was told Saul, saying: Behold, David is at Naioth in Ramah. And Saul sent messengers to take David, and they saw the assembly of the prophets, and Samuel was standing, set over them.'
'And the Spirit of the Lord came upon the messengers of Saul, and they too prophesied. And it was told Saul, and he sent other messengers, and they too prophesied.'
'Where are Samuel and David?' And they said: 'Behold, at Naioth in Ramah.' And he went from there to Naioth in Ramah; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he went on his way, journeying and prophesying, until he came to Naioth in Ramah. And he stripped off his garments and prophesied before Samuel, and fell down naked all that day and all that night. For this reason they said: 'Is Saul also among the prophets?'
I think it necessary that these things too have been set forth, so that it may become clear how sinners prophesy, and whether from the Holy Spirit or from some other power — one that, at least as far as bearing witness to the truth is concerned, does not lie.
And again, in the First Book of Kingdoms, the diviners of the idols are found indicating matters concerning the ark, and saying that if the cows that had newly calved should go along the road to Joshua of Bethshemesh, this would signify that the plague upon the Philistines had come from God.
following day he was destined to be slain along with his sons. The precise matter, in these passages, will be seen by whoever is able to give a full account concerning the various powers, both worse and better — and, if there are also some intermediate ones, concerning these as well.
Again, in turn, the one who wishes to maintain that Caiaphas prophesied from an inferior power will say that it is nothing strange for an evil power to have spoken these things, seeing that even the devil is found, in what is recorded by the evangelists, not to have been altogether ignorant that Jesus was the Son of God, when he spoke to the Lord.
And he will say that a certain malice underlies the power that was at work in prophesying these things concerning the Savior; for its purpose was not to convince the hearers, but to incite the chief priests and Pharisees in the council against Jesus, that they might kill him — which was not a thing proper for the Holy Spirit to effect.
For observe whether it is not the case that either Caiaphas, or that which was at work in him to prophesy, wants to provoke the hearers to kill Jesus by means of the words: 'You know nothing, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.'
Is, then, the one who says 'it is expedient for us' — which was a part of his prophecy — speaking truly or falsely? For if he speaks truly, then Caiaphas and those in the council who were striving against Jesus are saved, once Jesus has died for the people, and they attain what is expedient. But if it is absurd to assert that Caiaphas and those in the council against Jesus are saved and have attained what is expedient by Jesus's death, it is clear that it was not the Holy Spirit that effected these words being spoken; for the Holy Spirit does not lie.
But he who wishes that which was at work in Caiaphas to be speaking truly even in this — I mean in asserting: 'It is expedient for us that one man should die for the people' — will hear the words 'It is expedient for us' in a deeper sense, on account of the doctrine concerning the end; and he will make use of the text: 'That by the grace' (or 'apart from') 'of God he might taste death for everyone,' and he will focus on 'for everyone' and 'apart from God, for everyone.'
He will also make use of the text: 'Who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe'; and he will note that this one is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, understanding in a special sense the taking away of the sin of the world, and not of a part of it.
And he who says that 'it is expedient for us that one man should die' is true will also say that the whole prophecy at this passage is true, beginning from 'You know nothing.' For indeed the Pharisees and chief priests who did not recognize Jesus knew nothing, since he was truth and wisdom and righteousness and peace. For he himself is our peace.
But these men, knowing nothing, also did not consider in what way it was expedient even for themselves that this one, insofar as he is man, should die for the people; for it is as man that Jesus died.
And since it is man who died, but truth and wisdom and peace and righteousness were not man — and concerning this one it is written, 'the Word was God' — it was not God the Word, and truth, and wisdom, and righteousness, that died; for the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, does not admit of death.
But it was for the people that this man died, the purest of all living beings, who bore our sins and infirmities, being able, having taken upon himself the whole sin of the entire world, to dissolve and consume and abolish it, since he committed no sin, nor was guile found in his mouth, nor did he know sin.
It is, I think, in accordance with this that Paul also spoke thus: 'He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him.' For he made him to be sin, though he knew no sin, in that, having himself sinned nothing, he took up the sins of all; and if one may dare to say it, he became — far more than his apostles — the offscouring of the world and the refuse of all, of whom they said: 'We have become as the offscouring of the world, the refuse of all, even until now.'