John 11:50

You do not realize ¹  that it is more to your advantage to have one man ²  die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.” ³ 

You do not realise that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."

nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish."

Why should the whole nation be destroyed? Let this one man die for the people."

Can't you see that it's to our advantage that one man dies for the people rather than the whole nation be destroyed?"

You do not see that it is in your interest for one man to be put to death for the people, so that all the nation may not come to destruction.

You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed."

"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."

You do not realize ¹  that it is more to your advantage to have one man ²  die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.” ³ 

¹ tn Or “you are not considering.”

² tn Although it is possible to argue that ἄνθρωπος (anqrwpo") should be translated “person” here since it is not necessarily masculinity that is in view in Caiaphas’ statement, “man” was retained in the translation because in 11:47 “this man” (οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, outo" Jo anqrwpo") has as its referent a specific individual, Jesus, and it was felt this connection should be maintained.

³ sn In his own mind Caiaphas was no doubt giving voice to a common-sense statement of political expediency. Yet he was unconsciously echoing a saying of Jesus himself (cf. Mark 10:45). Caiaphas was right; the death of Jesus would save the nation from destruction. Yet Caiaphas could not suspect that Jesus would die, not in place of the political nation Israel, but on behalf of the true people of God; and he would save them, not from physical destruction, but from eternal destruction (cf. 3:16-17). The understanding of Caiaphas’ words in a sense that Caiaphas could not possibly have imagined at the time he uttered them serves as a clear example of the way in which the author understood that words and actions could be invested retrospectively with a meaning not consciously intended or understood by those present at the time.