TODAY'S GOSPEL READING....

At the church service today, the subject was the wrath of Caiaphas. The gospel example given was John 18:12-23, with the parts about Peter taken out. It read a little something like this:
Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officals arrested Jesus. They bound him and brought him first to Annas, who was the father in law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be good if one man died for the people.
Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teachings.
"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I have always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said."
When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. "Is this the way you answer the high priest?" he demanded.
"If I said something wrong," Jesus replied. "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?" Then Annas sent him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high priest.
The sermon followup (questions to think about in the week ahead) also referenced the following passage from John 11:49-50.
Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up. "You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than the whole nation perish."

The study question did not, however, mention the following line, which I feel is significant:
He did not say this on his own, but as the high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.
Nor the next, which also is significant, but did not seem to go with the rest of the passage:
So from that day on they plotted to take his life.

During the sermon, I found myself trying to put the pieces of this puzzle into a congruent whole that matched where the minister was going with it. Personally, I don't think the first part, the actual reading, demonstrated any wrath on Caiaphas' part. Rather, it was Annas that Jesus was brought to, and a guard who smacked him, and even in the subsequent passages there is very little about Caiaphas. This Gospel seems to leave out some details about what may or may not have transpired between Jesus and Caiaphas - it hints that after this incident in front of Annas, Jesus was taken to see Caiaphas, but then, after an interjection about Peter again, the story picks right up with Jesus being taken to Pontias Pilate. In Luke, there is even less detail.

The referenced verse from John 11 doesn't really show, to me, wrath or rage on Caiaphas' part, either. It is true that at first the verse reads as if Caiaphas would have Jesus die for the greater good, but then it contradicts that, as if he did not say this in anger at all, but simply as part of a prophecy regarding the way the situation would play out. Then, however, the text switches to suggesting that the Sanhedrin would then cause the prophecy to come true by their own actions, by plotting the death of Jesus.

Interestingly, the Gospels of Matthew and Mark tell a more detailed version of the same events. In those two books, there is an account of the interaction between Caiaphas and Jesus (Matthew 26:57-68, Mark 53-64).

I do see the wrath of Caiaphus here, in these lines:

Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"

"I am", said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need more witnesses?" he asked. "You have heard thie blasphemy. What do you think?"

They all condemned him worthy of death.

Mark 14: 60-65

However, I am postulating a theory on Caiaphas. What if, instead of playing the bad guy, he is simply serving his role in God's plan? What if it truly is happening according to the prophecy?

After all, the events have unfolded much like the prophecies found in the stories of David, the Psalms. None of it has been much of a surprise for Jesus, who himself prophesized his own death three times on the way to Jerusalem. It happened much like he said it would, when speaking to his disciples, like here in Mark 10:33-34:

"We are going up to Jerusalem," he said, "and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later, he will rise."

I think it is easy to look at Caiaphas and see wrath, see the baseness of human emotion that pushed him to seek the death of Jesus. I see greed, in Judas, who turned him in. I see fear in Peter, a desire to avoid a mortal death and in return, betray his friend and leader. However, in all of them, I see men playing a role in a human drama in a pivotal political scene, with God's direction. What if it was the voice of God that inspired the prophecy of Caiaphas mentioned in John 11: 51? Without these men's weaknesses, the greatest moment for us sinners would not have happened. (Maybe we exclude Peter on that one - however, what purpose would it have served for him to be crucified along with Jesus for admitting him? He had greater work to do on the earth yet following the death of Christ). In the death of Jesus, we were saved, and the grace of God became available to us through him, and his sacrifice. Without these men, this might not have happened, and then where would we all be? What if it happened exactly as it was orchestrated, with the "bad men" led by God's hand?

We know God is powerful, and awesome. We have seen the amazing things he can do. He alone chose this place, and this time, to send his Son. He lead him right into the hornet's nest, a political drama about to unfold that would set the course of history. Do we think it was by accident? The prophecy of Caiaphas did turn out true - this one man died, and it brought the scattered children of God together and made them one, saved through the blood of the lamb.

The sermon given that day suggested that Caiaphas was acting out of selfish, worldy pursuits, instead of for a higher purpose. I think that in fact, he played the role that he was fated to play, and simply brought about the circumstances where we would be made anew in the grace of God through his Son, Jesus.

It was, in fact, according to the prophecy. The prophecies of Jesus himself about his own death, Caiaphas' forecast, the striking coincidences in the Psalms, to me lay out a grand design. Who are we to question God's plan? It makes me think that maybe even the bad experiences, even the people we question about and are repulsed by their actions, are here in our lives for a reason.