John 11:47-53 People of the Passion: Caiaphas, The Schemer Midweek Lenten Service #1 Ash Wednesday March 6, 2011 Then the chief priest and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. "What are we accomplishing?" they asked. "Here is this man performing many miraculous signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." 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 that the whole nation perish." He did not say this on his own, but as 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. So from that day on they plotted to take his life. (NIV) As we begin our Lenten sermon series titled "People of the Passion" we're going to begin by looking at the person some might well argue is the greatest villain of the Passion History. But it's probably not who you think. It's not Judas, always listed last of the 12 disciples, often with an ominous explanatory note along the lines of "who betrayed him." It's not Pilate, who was everything a judge is not supposed to be. It's Caiaphas. It was Caiaphas who got this whole thing started. Without Caiaphas, Judas and Pilate would not have entered the picture. Without Caiaphas, Judas would not have had a buyer for Jesus. Without Caiaphas, Jesus would never have been put on trial before Pilate. But that alone is not what makes Caiaphas such a terrible villain. It's that Caiaphas was a schemer. ************ Caiaphas was the high priest, but don't think of men like Aaron when you hear that. Don't think of men humbly and reverently approaching God's altar to sacrifice an animal as a symbolic confession of faith in the perfect, "once for all" sacrifice for sin that would be made by the coming Messiah. For that matter, don't even think of a descendant of Aaron at all. By this time the position of high priest had become a political position. High priests weren't chosen according to the line of succession that God had instituted, but they were instead chosen by the Romans, who installed and deposed high priests with some regularity, depending on how malleable the priest was or was not. So if you wanted to be and remain the high priest, you learned how to play the political game. You learned how to backslap, do backroom deals, and say things you didn't necessarily mean in order to hold onto the position. And high priest was a pretty good position. It was certainly the most influential position a Jew could have in Judea. As the religious leader (even if he wasn't actually very religious) Caiaphas commanded the respect of the people and controlled the considerable proceeds of the temple treasury. He was also the president of the Jewish ruling council, the Sanhedrin, so he had political power that was unparalleled among the Jews. Caiaphas had figured out how to get to the top, and now he had to figure out how to stay on top. He had to scheme. So he, along with the Pharisees, called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. The problem, as Caiaphas saw it (and, as our text indicates, the way the entire Sanhedrin saw it), was, in a word, Jesus. It was bad enough that he had driven the moneychangers from the temple (John 2:13- 17--an action he would repeat very shortly after this meeting--see Matthew 21:12-13) and, in doing so, had threatened Caiaphas' bank account. It was even worse that he had openly condemned the corruption of the Jewish leaders. But worst of all, he was causing a stir among the people. And if there was one thing the Romans didn't like, it was a stir among the Jews. A stir among the Jews often led to a rebellion by the Jews--a rebellion the Romans would then be forced to put down. So the Romans expected the Jewish leaders--the high priest, the Sanhedrin--to keep the Jewish people in line. If they couldn't keep the Jewish people in line-- well, then they'd bring in another high priest who could do better. Or perhaps they'd just get rid of the Sanhedrin altogether. So when this Jesus started doing miracles and becoming popular not only out in the backcountry of Galilee but also in the population and civilization center of Israel--Jerusalem-- even going so far as to raise someone from the dead (John 11:38-44)--when that happened, the Jewish leaders got concerned. If things intensified from here…well, listen to their own words: "If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." As Caiaphas listened, he appears to have done so with some growing irritation. The group had correctly assessed the problem, but they hadn't come up with a solution that involved anything more substantive than fretting and hand-wringing. Angrily, Caiaphas spoke up: "You know nothing at all!" And then he presented his scheme--a scheme which we rather suspect he had in mind well before the meeting had even been called to order: "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." It doesn't take a lot of reading between the lines to see what Caiaphas was saying-Jesus had to be killed. But remember what I said before about the high priest being a political position. Caiaphas had learned politics. Therefore he--like any good schemer-knew how to sell his scheme, knew how to dress such a horrible, selfish plan in the clothing of seemingly noble motives. He portrays it as a noble, patriotic course of action--a difficult one, to be sure (I picture him sadly shaking his head as he indicates the need for Jesus to die), but the best choice available under the circumstances--a choice that was made with the good of thousands of people in mind. "In the form of a question his appeal would go like this: 'Will you permit the whole nation of the Jews, with all its glorious past, to be struck from the roster of nations? Surely, to preserve God's people and to save our great nation from destruction, the sacrifice of one man's life is not too high a price to pay. Consider well the course of action I propose: one man in the place of all. It is not only a wise course. It is a noble one.'" (Franzmann) The more honest appeal would have gone like this: "I am willing to do anything necessary in order to maintain my position as high priest. If someone-even an innocent person- has to die in order to accomplish it, well, so what." Really, Caiaphas was no less repulsive, no less loathsome a man than the King Herod who was alive when Jesus was born--the King Herod who had some of his own family members killed because he wanted to insure that they did not plot against him, the King Herod who had innocent babies slaughtered because he did not want to lose his position, and if someone had to die, well, then someone had to die. (Matthew 2:1-18) In fact, perhaps Caiaphas was worse because he attempted to portray his selfish evil as an act of selfless patriotism. And then factor in that the high priest-whose position was intended to be a picture of the coming Messiah--was now calling for that Messiah to be killed! Truly Caiaphas the Schemer is a horrible villain! But we ought not miss the opportunity to see ourselves and our schemes in Caiaphas. We see positions of power and privilege or chances for pleasure and wealth slipping away from us, and we scheme like crazy about how to keep them. It's better, we say, that we figure out a way to stab someone else in the back in order to climb the ladder at work than that they stab us in the back. It's unfortunate that someone gets hurt by my relationship choices, but that's a side effect of my scheme to be happy and "fulfilled." Sometimes a couple of your eggs have to be broken because I was hungry for an omelet. And those things aren't simply schemes to set aside others. They're schemes to set aside God and his commands. "No, it's not good that I drink that much-but don't you know that it's better for one man to be hung over rather than that he deal with his stress by going ballistic on all those around him?" "Yes, it's easy for you to sit there and judge me, but you know nothing at all! You would see things differently if you were in my shoes. You'd understand that sometimes God's rules need to be broken--let's say 'set aside'--in order to accomplish a greater good." However we say it--"It's unfortunate that I have to make this choice at the moment.