The Breaking Point

Have you ever been there? That proverbial fork in the road, that moment of truth, where a decision is made that will impact the rest of your life?

King David experienced his fork in the road, his moment of truth when the prophet Nathan stuck a bony finger in his face and said, “You are the man!” (2 Sam. 12:7). By this act, the prophet exposed the king’s secret sin and called him to account.

2 Samuel 12:7–9 NASB95

Nathan then said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord God of Israel, ‘It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul. ‘I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these! ‘Why have you despised the word of the Lord by doing evil in His sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon.

David’s moment of truth offered him two choices, and only two: silence the prophet permanently, or else repent. It was a choice between power and truth. He could have become like his predecessor, Saul, who jealously clutched his power and wielded it to hunt down the Lord’s anointed one (1 Sam. 16:13), hoping to murder him. Instead, David proved to be very different from Saul; David was a man after God’s own heart (1 Sam. 13:14) despite his awful sins. He chose to submit to the truth and then rest in its inevitable reward: release from turmoil, freedom from fear, and eventually, peace with God (Pss. 32; 51).

The public ministry of Jesus was a three-year moment of truth for the religious leaders of first-century Israel. The Word of God, who had been promised for centuries, now stood before them in flesh and blood, truth incarnate. They denied the truth, disputed the truth, marginalized the truth, and even tried to silence the truth, but Jesus will not be set aside or put off. He leaves no compromising middle way. Each individual must decide what to do with Him. Deny or submit? Reject or believe? Embrace Him and experience freedom, or kill Him and preserve the illusion of power?

After Jesus exercised power over death, many religious leaders began to break ranks and believe in the Son of God (John 11:45). Therefore, the custodians of religious power in Jerusalem could no longer put off the question of Jesus.

1. The gathering of the council, 11:47-48.

By the time of Jesus, the Jews had instituted what may be considered a provisional government in anticipation of the Messiah, who would rule as king. Until then, they vested the high priest with all the rights and privileges of a monarch (1 Maccabees 14:35–49) with the understanding that he should step aside when the Christ came to claim His rightful place on the throne of Israel. Except during the reign of Herod the Great, who had himself named “King of the Jews” by Rome, the high priest traditionally guided the nation as its provisional leader. Throughout its history, Israel also looked to a body of elders for day-to-day leadership, a council known as the Sanhedrin, which served as both parliament and supreme court. This ruling council of seventy learned men set Jewish policy (within limits established by Rome) and ruled on civil and criminal court cases.

The Sanhedrin placed a high priority on maintaining the uneasy balance between Rome’s desire to dominate its subjects and the yearning of the Jewish people for independence. Normally the high priest (who was appointed by Rome) and the Sanhedrin (who advocated for independent-minded Jews) engaged in a kind of public rivalry, each pretending to work against the other, yet neither really wanting anything different. Change of any kind would threaten to strip everyone of their power

The council met in order to decide what they should do with Jesus; He bore all the scriptural credentials and produced all the right “signs” of the Messiah, yet He lacked an army. The little they had done had not worked. The disdain they had for Jesus is reflected in the common designation “this man.”

The potential political ramifications are summarized in verse 48.

They fear the response of the people.

If they do not put an end to this, they said everyone will believe in him, suggesting that they truly fear the response of the people to Jesus.

They fear the response of Rome.

To side with Jesus, “this man,” (as they understood the role of the Christ) was to defy Rome. But to defy Rome without an army was to invite the worst kind of death. Roman generals were known to line the roads of rebel cities with the crucified bodies of its men and women and to sell their children into slavery.

They were concerned for their religious liberty and, more personally (and selfishly), their own power as the ruling council.

2. The prophecy of Caiaphas, 11:49-54.

Throughout much of its history, the high priest presided over the Sanhedrin, acting as its moderator and official voice, but that ended around 200 BC when the council felt the need for a balance of powers. At that time, they created the office of Nasi to preside over the council and the office of Av Bet Din, “Head of the House of Law,” to preside over matters involving the law. At the time of Jesus, the Nasi was a descendant of the legendary Jewish teacher Hillel.

For the high priest to attend a special meeting of the Sanhedrin was not unprecedented, but it did suggest something extraordinary was occurring, much like the President of the United States attending a special meeting of Congress.

The high priest “that year” was Caiaphas, the corrupt son-in-law and figurehead of the true power in the temple, Annas.

A. Caiaphas’ announcement to the council, 11:49-50.

When Caiaphas heard the debate, he issued an unwitting prophecy. His statement to the council, with its dual emphatic pronoun and emphatic double negative, is contemptuous, rebuking the Sanhedrin for not taking their logical observations and concerns to their obvious conclusion.

While Caiaphas was not a genuine man of God, he ironically spoke a profound truth. He merely suggested they make Jesus the fall guy if Rome should seek someone to blame for the agitation of the crowds.

B. John’s inspired interpretation, 11:51-52.

John points to the theological truth of Jesus’ substitutionary death for the sins of believers in Israel and of Gentile nations abroad.

Isaiah 53:11 NASB95

As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.

Jesus said He would lay down His life for the sheep.

John 10:11 NASB95

“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.

John 10:14 NASB95

“I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me,

It was his alone to give; there was no authority (Jewish or Roman) that could take it from Him.

John 10:17–18 NASB95

“For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. “No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”

Caiaphas was simply repeating what Jesus Himself had already prophesied.

C. The effect of Caiaphas’ announcement, 11:53-54.

By the end of the meeting, the religious leaders had decided upon their official disposition concerning Jesus. Submitting to the truth would require them to cede their power, which they refused to do. Therefore, because they wouldn’t accept the truth that Jesus is the Messiah, they officially decided to kill Him.

Little did they know that their plan made that day had always been the plan of God. As Peter would soon say to the Jerusalem crowd in regard to Jesus,

Acts 2:23 NASB95

this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

Jesus avoided contact with the religious officials for the time being, though not out of fear. He simply had no need for further discussion. The die had been cast. The breaking point had been reached, the point of no return. Each man associated with the official powers of the nation had made up his mind, one way or another. The next time He would encounter the religious authorities of the temple, it would be in an official capacity. Soon He would enter Jerusalem as King Jesus, the Messiah, arriving to claim the throne of Israel and to assume command of His temple.

The exact location of the town “Ephraim” has been lost to history; however, the name may refer to Ephron, an ancient site near present-day et-Taiyibeh, about a day’s walk northeast of Jerusalem.

3. Anticipation near the Passover, 11:55-57.

Now the die has been cast and as Passover nears, people from the country are making their way to Jerusalem for the feast, arriving early enough to purify themselves as mandated by the law.

Numbers 9:6–12 NASB95

But there were some men who were unclean because of the dead person, so that they could not observe Passover on that day; so they came before Moses and Aaron on that day. Those men said to him, “Though we are unclean because of the dead person, why are we restrained from presenting the offering of the Lord at its appointed time among the sons of Israel?” Moses therefore said to them, “Wait, and I will listen to what the Lord will command concerning you.” Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If any one of you or of your generations becomes unclean because of a dead person, or is on a distant journey, he may, however, observe the Passover to the Lord. ‘In the second month on the fourteenth day at twilight, they shall observe it; they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. ‘They shall leave none of it until morning, nor break a bone of it; according to all the statute of the Passover they shall observe it.

To avoid waiting 30 days following Passover because of uncleaness, the pilgrims started arriving earlier to participate in ceremonial cleansing one week before Passover.

The number of pilgrims arriving in Jerusalem and the temple complex starting asking about Jesus, debating whether He would come to the upcoming feast or not. They already seem to be aware of the rising animosity of the religious leaders; now the orders of the chief priests and Pharisees to inform of Jesus’ location so they might seize Him are being circulated, alerting both the pilgrims and the residents of Jerusalem that the Sanhedrin has decided to take decisive action against Jesus.

In describing the last days of Jesus’ public ministry in Jerusalem, John’s matter-of-fact tone underscores a terrifying reality. The religious leaders had willfully rejected the truth of Jesus Christ, so He gave them over to their self-delusion. Theologians call this “judicial abandonment.” This tough-love decision on the part of God is not a passive releasing, but an active “giving over” for the purpose of redemption. When the Lord hands someone over to his or her sin, you can be sure of this: the consequences are grave. It is a defining moment in which a person will either break down in repentance or remain stubbornly rebellious, even in the face of damnation.

One application: Seek the truths you most fear to find; they hold the greatest promise of freedom and the gravest threat of destruction.

This prompts several searching questions. Ponder each one seriously.

What truths have you been resisting?

What voice have you been silencing or keeping at a distance to avoid hearing what you instinctively know to be true?

How has the Lord confronted you lately?

Have you drowned out your own conscience with activity, or work, or relationships, or some other kind of escape?

Do you ignore the inner voice of reason warning you to stop some behavior you know to be wrong?

I urge you to answer each question—honestly. Heed the truth; choose the freedom it brings, or unimaginable destruction will certainly follow.