As we continue our Lenten exploration of individuals important to Jesus’ Passion, this week’s post examines Caiaphas.
Among the individuals who participated in Jesus’ trial, crucifixion, and death most Christians view Caiaphas with special distaste. His actions are frequently accounted as having been equally as odious as those of Judas and Pilate. He is seen as instrumental in Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion, and therefore deserving of the deepest ignominy.
Why is this so? And are there lessons we might learn from one so despised?
Caiaphas the man.
From information contained in Scripture and other ancient sources, we know the following about Caiaphas.
The Sanhedrin was the closest thing to a ruling body the Jews had. It was considered the High Court of Jewish religious and sectarian law (see Post 35, February 8, 2019). The recognized leader of the body was always the Jewish Temple’s High Priest.
All Priests of the Temple were members of the Sadducee sect (see Post 35). John and Matthew tell us that Caiaphas was High Priest when Jesus was arrested [John 11:49, Matthew 26:57]. Therefore, Caiaphas was a Sadducee.
Since the beginning of the Roman occupation, the High Priest of the Temple had been appointed by the local Roman governor. According to the ancient historian Josephus, Caiaphas had been appointed to his position by Valerius Gratus (Pilate’s immediate predecessor) in 18 A.D. Pilate kept him in office, where he served until Pilate was removed as governor in 36 A.D. He was succeeded by one of Annas’ sons, Theophilius Annas in 37 A.D.
Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas, who preceded him as High Priest. Their relationship is mentioned in Luke, John and Acts. Caiaphas’ wife had at least five brothers, all of whom served as High Priest at one time or another (also according to Josephus).
We don’t have any information concerning Caiaphas’ family life, or his history before or after his tenure as High Priest.
Caiaphas the Priest and Agent of Rome.
As the High Priest of the Temple, Caiaphas would have held considerable authority and responsibility. The Sadducees were responsible for operation of and all activities held within the Temple. The Temple was the religious and social center of Jewish society, and its High Priest would have been accorded significant respect and deference by all Jews of the time.
Also, the High Priest was the most senior member of the Sanhedrin; the body of Jews Rome used as a buffer between its administrators and the Jewish people (see Post 35). Rome expected the Sanhedrin to report any sedition or blooming rebellion against its authority that the assembly became aware of. In other words, as long as the Sanhedrin acted as a buffer to and a spy on the Jews, it could continue to exist and function.
Since both the High Priest and the Sanhedrin depended on Rome for their respective positions and authorities, they had powerful incentives to cooperate with Rome and to promote Rome’s interests.
According to Josephus, Caiaphas was the longest-lasting High Priest of Jesus’ time, so we can safely infer that he maintained a strong working relationship with the Roman authorities during his tenure.
Caiaphas as Jesus’ Nemesis.
Once he became aware of Jesus and His activities, it didn’t take Caiaphas long to identify Jesus as an existential threat to himself and to the Sanhedrin. Members of the Sanhedrin had been watching Jesus with increasing alarm as His popularity and fame grew. And, His triumphant entry into Jerusalem at the beginning of Passover absolutely convinced them that Jesus could no longer be ignored or tolerated.
They said to Caiaphas, “Here is the man working all these signs…and what action are we taking? If we let him go in this way everybody will believe in him and the Romans will come and suppress the Holy Place (the Temple) and our nation.” [John 11:47-48]
In other words, they were afraid of two consequences if Jesus was to be allowed to remain free. One, was that they were afraid that they would lose the spiritual leadership of the people and be supplanted by Jesus; loss of place, power, prestige, and authority. And, two, they were afraid that the Romans would perceive Jesus’ popularity as a threat or challenge to Rome’s authority. And, if they came to that conclusion, Rome had a demonstrated history of putting down even supposed rebellions with extreme violence. Both of these concerns were well justified.
But Caiaphas responded, “You do not seem to grasp the situation at all…one man should die for the people rather that the whole nation…perish.” [John 11:50] Caiaphas had quickly perceived the same threat as had the members of the Sanhedrin, but he’d already jumped to the conclusion that silencing Jesus would not be possible. The only way to remove the threat that Jesus represented was to have Him killed.
It was true that Caiaphas was convinced that to allow Jesus to live would be to flirt with catastrophe for the Jews. But his real concern was for his own position, authority, and reputation. All he’d accomplished could be lost at the whim of the Roman governor. Caiaphas knew that Rome would not tolerate his allowing a rebellion (real or perceived) to foment while he was the High Priest. Jesus had to go.
Caiaphas the Instigator.
Caiaphas knew that Jesus had to be brought to trial in front of the Sanhedrin and he quickly convinced the assembly to have Jesus arrested and brought before them. But he was crafty. He recognized how popular Jesus was with the Jewish populace, so he didn’t want the Sanhedrin to be seen as the group responsible for Jesus’ death. An angry reaction against the Temple or the Sanhedrin by the populace might have caused riots in the streets and resulted in an even larger problem.
However, if he could goad Jesus into admitting that He was indeed the Messiah or the king of the Jews, he’d have sufficient evidence against Him to deliver Jesus to the Romans on the grounds of sedition and treason. And, if Rome found Jesus guilty and sentenced Him to be crucified, Jesus’ death would be on Roman hands, not on his or the Sanhedrin’s.
He reasoned that Jesus’ death would solve both of his “problems.” He could not be criticized by the Romans for allowing a dangerous rabble-rouser to run free, and the threat that Rome might take punitive action against the Jewish populace would be averted.
The Verdict.
When Jesus was brought to him Caiaphas’ line of questioning was specifically intended to incite Jesus to claim the title of Messiah or King of the Jews. But Jesus never admitted to either of these claims. When asked directly by Caiaphas whether He was, “…the Christ (i.e. the Messiah), the Son of God.” Jesus answered, “It is you who say it.” Or, “you’re the one calling me that, not I.”
But then Jesus went on to say, “But I tell you that from this time onward you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of the Power…” While not a direct admission, this statement was close enough for Caiaphas. Caiaphas immediately went into a frenzy, tearing his robes and saying to the assembly, “…You have just heard the blasphemy. What is your opinion?” The assembled Sanhedrin answered, “He deserves to die.” [Matthew 26:63-66]
The rest of the story.
We know how events progressed from this point. Caiaphas appeared to have cleverly rid the Sanhedrin of Jesus and the threats He posed to its position and authority. Any animus the public might have felt over Jesus’ death would have been directed against the Romans, not the Temple or the Sanhedrin. He’d engineered a “win, win” scenario for himself and the Jewish religious leadership.
But then Easter came!
Caiaphas remained as High Priest of the Temple and the head of the Sanhedrin until Pilate was recalled to Rome in 36 A.D. At that point, he lost his position as High Priest and retreated into the fog of history.
Three Lessons Learned.
What can Caiaphas’ story teach us?
The first lesson I see is how transitory earthly power and authority is. Caiaphas was the son-in-law of one of the most powerful men in Judea, Annas. He had climbed the Jewish social/political ladder to its summit, and effectively become one of the rulers of Jewish society. But only three years after having engineered Jesus’ death, Caiaphas was dismissed, never to be heard from again. He had put his faith in his own political prowess, and it had failed him.
How often have we done the same thing; relying on our own intellect and resources to keep us safe, warm and dry? And then watching helplessly as life’s events sweep our efforts at stability, comfort, and safety away.
I see in Caiaphas a cautionary tale for us all. We would all do well to rely on Jesus and His providence rather than our own efforts and talents. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t use our abilities; just that we shouldn’t assume that they’re all we’re going to need. As the proverb says, “With Him, anything is possible. Without Him, nothing truly is.”
The second lesson I see is that we need to remain open to new opportunities that God places before us. As we’ve mused before, how different might history have been if Caiaphas had recognized the opportunity that Jesus presented instead of seeing Him as a threat?
Like Caiaphas we too have the choice of taking advantage of the opportunities God offers to us or not. Like him, we may have to look past our preconceptions, our prejudices, and our dearly held beliefs to see the truth of what God is offering. Growth is life. Ossification is death.
The last lesson I take away from Caiaphas’ story is that we shouldn’t be too quick to judge him. Caiaphas was a human being, no more subject to frailties and mistakes than any of the rest of us. We also fail God on a daily basis. I see Caiaphas’ poor decisions as eliciting more empathy from us than judgment.
We must remember, Jesus forgave him (as He does us all). “Lord, forgive them for they know not what they do.” [Luke 23:34] And if Jesus could forgive those who put Him on the cross, who are we to say that we should not forgive those who place us on ours? I leave you this week with that final thought.
God’s Blessings on You All.
Richard
March 29, 2019
