‘But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being High Priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you take account of the fact that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people and that the whole people perish not”. Now he did not say this of himself, but being High Priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one the children of God that are scattered abroad.'
‘But a certain one of them.' This confirms the unofficial nature of the gathering. Had it been the official Sanhedrin he would have been the chairman. Here he is just one of the conspirators.
‘Caiaphas, who was High Priest that year --'. ‘That year' refers in John's thought to the year which above all years stood out in John's mind, that year in which Jesus was crucified. Thus it means ‘in that fatal year'. Whenever he speaks of Caiaphas he uses the phrase. He can never forget the part that Caiaphas played in the death of Jesus. It is not suggesting that he thought that the High Priest was appointed yearly (Caiaphas was in fact High Priest from 18 AD - 36 AD). Indeed the fact that the writer was almost certainly connected with the High Priest in some way (see John 18:15-16) establishes this beyond any real doubt.
‘-- said to them, ‘You do not know anything. You seem not to understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish'. Again the words as a whole are ironic. It would appear that some were speaking cautiously in Jesus' favour. So Caiaphas brusquely puts them right. ‘You do not know anything. You seem not to understand.' He was impatient with their attitudes and was suggesting a judicial act of execution as the only way forward to save the nation. The man was a disturber of the situation in Jerusalem and the best thing to do was get rid of Him, and quickly. But what he did not realise was that what he was saying was in fact partly true, that Jesus would indeed die for the people in another way in order to fulfil Isaiah 53. We would say he spoke better than he knew. John puts it in terms of unconscious prophecy. He sees it as being somehow an act of God, and who would deny it? But Caiaphas was not all that inspired, otherwise he might also have prophesied the future destruction of the nation in 70 AD, partially as a result of the actions of men supported by some of the Council.
‘And not for the nation only, but also that he might gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad'. John was mindful that his readers also benefited from the death of Jesus. His death was of far wider significance than simply for the purpose of saving the Jewish nation. It was for all who would become the children of God by receiving Him (John 1:12).
‘Scattered abroad'. There may be in mind here the scattering of the nations in Genesis 11. But essentially the thought was of Jews scattered around the world, partly as a result of exile, and partly for other reasons. Now God would gather them together in Him.