Saturday 23 March 2024

 

John 11:45-56
Caiaphas said: it is better for one man to die

Christ before the High Priest,

Painting by Gerard van Honthorst (1592–1656),

Painted in 1617,

Oil on canvas

© National Gallery, London

Gospel Reading

Many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary and had seen what Jesus did believed in him, but some of them went to tell the Pharisees what Jesus had done. Then the chief priests and Pharisees called a meeting. ‘Here is this man working all these signs’ they said ‘and what action are we taking? If we let him go on in this way everybody will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy the Holy Place and our nation.’ One of them, Caiaphas, the high priest that year, said, ‘You do not seem to have grasped the situation at all; you fail to see that it is better for one man to die for the people, than for the whole nation to be destroyed.’ He did not speak in his own person, it was as high priest that he made this prophecy that Jesus was to die for the nation – and not for the nation only, but to gather together in unity the scattered children of God. From that day they were determined to kill him. So Jesus no longer went about openly among the Jews, but left the district for a town called Ephraim, in the country bordering on the desert, and stayed there with his disciples.


The Jewish Passover drew near, and many of the country people who had gone up to Jerusalem to purify themselves looked out for Jesus, saying to one another as they stood about in the Temple, ‘What do you think? Will he come to the festival or not?’

Reflection on the painting

Our painting is by Gerard van Honthorst, painted around 1617. It is very atmospheric, depicting Christ’s trial before the Sanhedrin, with Caiaphas seated by the table. If one were to draw two diagonal lines, one from each corner, the lines would meet at the very middle of the painting, the location of the lit candle, the light.  Its shimmering flame illuminates the faces of Christ and Caiaphas, but not much else. The picture hints at why, when he worked in Rome between 1610 and 1620 (when he painted this canvas), Honthorst’s nickname was Gherardo della Notte (Gherardo of the Night). He indeed employs a dramatic use of chiaroscuro, a technique characterised by strong contrasts between light and dark, to focus the viewer's attention on the central figures of Christ and the high priest.


Christ stands with his hands bound. Caiaphas is depicted with a furrowed brow and a skeptical, accusatory gaze. Between them, on the table, lies an open book, symbolising the Law under which Christ is being interrogated. Caiaphas had organised a plot to kill Jesus. He presided over the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus, which followed his arrest in Jerusalem and happened prior to Jesus' appearance before Pontius Pilate. Caiaphas and the Sandrehin were fearful that their own influence and power would diminish if they let Jesus live. Caiaphas voices in our reading what many of them were thinking: Jesus had to die! Caiaphas justifies this course of action by saying that it was 'better for one man to die rather than have the nation torn apart'. Thus the stage is set for Holy Week.


Pragmatism is a quality that is often admired in political leaders. Caiaphas is an example of a rather deadly form of political pragmatism. Jesus was a threat and therefore should be eliminated. This particular individual is expendable for the sake of the nation as a whole. That outlook of considering one individual as expendable for the sake of the perceived good of the majority is not unique to the time and place of Jesus. It has always been around and still is. It is opposite to the outlook of Jesus. For Jesus, the individual was everything. Jesus is the good shepherd who calls his own by name; he called Lazarus from the tomb by name; he called Zacchaeus down from his tree by name; he called Mary Magdalene outside the empty tomb by name. The individual was of infinite value to Jesus. The Lord calls each of us by name; we are each precious in his sight, no matter what the rest of the world thinks of us.

by Father Patrick van der Vorst

5 comments:

  1. On March 22nd, Gene Vincent wrote:

    "Detterling you have a long history, both on the TES website and on my blog, of twisting others' words to suit your own nefarious purposes. Perhaps the most pernicious example of this concerns what I wrote about Delia. I wrote about mounting Delia from behind Doggy-style. You twisted this to make it appear that I had sodomised her." GENE

    To which outstandingly crass, tone-deaf and dazzlingly nasty remarks, I replied:

    "Because claiming that you had fucked my wife from behind was so much more tasteful than claiming you had sodomised her, wasn't it, Gene? a delicacy of expression to rival Jane Austen herself? you nasty, dirty minded little twat.

    Only you, the nasty bastards' nasty bastard, could make such a dazzlingly crass remark. And you know perfectly well that I I knew perfectly well that you had not claimed to sodomise my wife. My repeated allegations were simply my way of paying you out in your own dud and bogus coinage - you find a way of inflicting pain and, when it works, you repeat it ad infinitum. If you can't take it, you shouldn't hand it out."

    All of which was beside the point of Gene's vain and fruitless attempt to defend the indefensible Joseph Ratzinger.

    Challenged four times to go ahead and disprove the facts below, Gene has instead resorted to his usual tactics of posting a new thread on an unrelated topic to try to push his humiliation down the page. What's the matter, Gene? the cat got your tongue?

    You cannot go on denying facts, and these are the facts of the case regarding Ratzinger's involvement in concealing and enabling the continued sexual abuse of children by Fr. Stephen Kiesle between the years 1981 - 1988. These are the facts of the case, and they are not in dispute.

    FACT: Kiesle himself asked the Vatican that he be unfrocked in 1981.
    FACT: Ratzinger did nothing about this for four years.
    FACT: in 1985, Ratzinger then refused to unfrock Kiesle on the grounds that to so would do no good to the church and bring detriment to faithful Catholics.
    FACT: In 1985, Ratzinger also sought to minimise the vileness of Kiesle’s crimes by describing the rape and buggery of young children as of “grave significance” rather than as the vicious and unforgivable assaults they were.
    FACT: Ratzinger then did nothing for two years - two years during which Kiesle, still in holy orders, continued to rape and bugger small children using his post as Youth Minister at St Joseph’s, Penole to get access to his victims.

    Those are FACTS, Gene. And they place responsibility for Kiesle’s actions during those six years on Ratzinger.

    I will not apologise for telling the truth, and I will go on telling it until you acknowledge that it is the truth.

    In the meantime, I continue to wait for your answer to this:

    "Detters can we leave A.N. WILSON and ARIANNA HUFFINGTON behind?"

    Not until you have dealt honestly with this example of your lying bastardy:

    'Gene writes beautifully - something not always the case with authors of trail-blazing literary works.' [A.N. WILSON]

    'I was enthralled. A new star has shot into the literary firmament. [ARIANNA HUFFINGTON]

    When you are going to admit that you have made these reviews and their authors up? Make no mistake: I am going to keep on asking until you tell the truth, or I lose patience, inform Mr Wilson and Ms Huffington and let nature take its course.

    Reply

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Utter bollocks."

    One day you may view this totally differently.

    Detters have you ever read 'The Magic Mountain' by Thomas Mann? As a young man I did and thought it was utter bollocks. Years later I read it again and thought very differently.

    One day in the future you may read Phil Lawler's article and feel very differently about it.

    GENE

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gene, do stop it. Your pathetic attempts to have the last word after the total humiliation you have undergone would make me feel sorry for you did I not loathe you and everything you stand for.

    As for Thomas Mann, pull the other one, it's got bells on. Als nächstes werden Sie uns erzählen, dass Sie Mann auf Deutsch gelesen haben, obwohl Sie auf Englisch kaum kohärent sind.

    And lies, half truths, innuendos and casuitry are not changed into truth, objectivity and logic by re-reading. Mr Lawler's article is tendentious bollocks and will always be so.

    On March 22nd, Gene Vincent wrote:

    "Detterling you have a long history, both on the TES website and on my blog, of twisting others' words to suit your own nefarious purposes. Perhaps the most pernicious example of this concerns what I wrote about Delia. I wrote about mounting Delia from behind Doggy-style. You twisted this to make it appear that I had sodomised her." GENE

    To which outstandingly crass, tone-deaf and dazzlingly nasty remarks, I replied: "Because claiming that you had fucked my wife from behind was so much more tasteful than claiming you had sodomised her, wasn't it, Gene? a delicacy of expression to rival Jane Austen herself? you nasty, dirty minded little twat.

    Only you, the nasty bastards' nasty bastard, could make such a dazzlingly crass remark. And you know perfectly well that I I knew perfectly well that you had not claimed to sodomise my wife. My repeated allegations were simply my way of paying you out in your own dud and bogus coinage - you find a way of inflicting pain and, when it works, you repeat it ad infinitum. If you can't take it, you shouldn't hand it out."

    All of which was beside the point of Gene's vain and fruitless attempt to defend the indefensible Joseph Ratzinger.

    Challenged four times to go ahead and disprove the facts below, Gene has instead resorted to his usual tactics of posting a new thread on an unrelated topic to try to push his humiliation down the page. What's the matter, Gene? the cat got your tongue?

    You cannot go on denying facts, and these are the facts of the case regarding Ratzinger's involvement in concealing and enabling the continued sexual abuse of children by Fr. Stephen Kiesle between the years 1981 - 1988. These are the facts of the case, and they are not in dispute.

    FACT: Kiesle himself asked the Vatican that he be unfrocked in 1981.
    FACT: Ratzinger did nothing about this for four years.
    FACT: in 1985, Ratzinger then refused to unfrock Kiesle on the grounds that to so would do no good to the church and bring detriment to faithful Catholics.
    FACT: In 1985, Ratzinger also sought to minimise the vileness of Kiesle’s crimes by describing the rape and buggery of young children as of “grave significance” rather than as the vicious and unforgivable assaults they were.
    FACT: Ratzinger then did nothing for two years - two years during which Kiesle, still in holy orders, continued to rape and bugger small children using his post as Youth Minister at St Joseph’s, Penole to get access to his victims.

    Those are FACTS, Gene. And they place responsibility for Kiesle’s actions during those six years on Ratzinger.

    I will not apologise for telling the truth, and I will go on telling it until you acknowledge that it is the truth.

    In the meantime, I continue to wait for your answer to this:

    "Detters can we leave A.N. WILSON and ARIANNA HUFFINGTON behind?"

    Not until you have dealt honestly with this example of your lying bastardy:

    'Gene writes beautifully - something not always the case with authors of trail-blazing literary works.' [A.N. WILSON]

    'I was enthralled. A new star has shot into the literary firmament. [ARIANNA HUFFINGTON]

    When you are going to admit that you have made these reviews and their authors up? Make no mistake: I am going to keep on asking until you tell the truth, or I lose patience, inform Mr Wilson and Ms Huffington and let nature take its course.

    ReplyDelete