ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS

ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS

John 11:47-53

John 18:12-24

Matt 26:57-68

            In this series of articles on the Great Physician we have seen His mighty power in the healing of humanity, and watched the varying methods of His wondrous wisdom. On one or two occasions we have had to leave the article unfinished as to the result of what He did, as in the case of the young ruler.

            We come to this contemplation and for the next two considerations to the tragic side of our subject. We have to watch Him in the presence of what seems to be incurable humanity. I am referring to the article of Annas and Caiaphas, to that of Pilate, and to that of Herod. We have these three illustrations of men who came into contact with our Lord, but did not seem to have been healed.

            We take the article of Annas and Caiaphas together because they were so intimately related in their contact with Jesus. Indeed, this is the only way in which we see them in the New Testament. We may pause, however, by way of introduction to note certain facts with which we are familiar from sources outside the Biblical revelation. Josephus and other historians give us these particulars.

            Let us first of all remember that at that time the priests of the Jews were appointed by Roman procurators. That in itself is a revelation of the appalling degeneracy of the faith of thy Hebrews. The high priest, the successors of Aaron, were being appointed by an alien and pagan power. Annas had been made high priest by Quirinius, who was the governor of Syria. Taking our dating, we find that he was made high priest in A.D. 7. He was deposed from his office in A.D. 15 by Valerius Gratus. Thus the period of his high priesthood lasted for eight years. A revelation of how remarkable a man he was is found in the fact that although thus deposed from holding the actual office, he remained the dominant member of the priesthood. So much was this so that five of his sons and then his son-in-law, Caiaphas, held the position of high priest. During the whole period he was associated with them, and was the dominant power. Moreover, he retained the title long after he was officially deposed. At the beginning of the Book of the Acts we read: "And Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest."

            As a matter of fact, the historic fact was that he was not then holding the office of the high priesthood, but he was still so referred to. In the Gospel according to Luke, when referring to the coming of the Word of God to John, he says: "In the priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas."

            I repeat, these facts do reveal the remarkable influence of this man.

            Caiaphas we need not tarry with, because we have said all there is to be said concerning him. He was a son-in-law of Annas. He held the position of high priest by Roman appointment from A.D. 18 to A.D. 36. He was ultimately deposed by Vitellius.

            Thus we see these two men, and the position they occupied. This accounts for what we find in the New Testament references to the priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas. While Caiaphas was the titular priest, Annas was the active priest. This double priesthood covered the whole period of the ministry of our Lord, and, indeed, the previous period of the ministry of John the Baptist.

            These men were of the Sadducean party. We remind ourselves of that with which we are familiar, that there were two Schools theologically, that existed and were active all through the ministry of John and of Jesus, that of the Pharisees and that of the Sadducees. These were bitterly opposed to each other theologically and religiously and politically. At last they formed a coalition in order to encompass the death of Jesus, but there was a very radical difference between them. The Sadducees were the rationalists in religion. They believed neither in angel, nor spirit, nor resurrection. These two men, Annas and Caiaphas belonged to that party. From the very beginning of the ministry of Jesus they were evidently definitely opposed to Him. They were exerting a remarkable power over the people, and by employing certain methods they had become enormously wealthy. From Roman history we learn that when the Romans seized Jerusalem they found over two and a half million sterling, stored by Annas. Our Lord's denunciation applied specially to these men, when He said: "Is it not written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? But ye have made it a den of robbers."

            In that connection we are told: "And the chief priests and the scribes heard it, and sought how they might destroy Him; for they feared Him, for all the multitude were astonished at His teaching."

            Annas was behind all this gathering of money, and he had amassed his wealth by the sale of requisites for Temple sacrifice. Caiaphas was his partner in the business, and these were those centrally denounced in the scathing terms employed by our Lord. They had made the house of God "a den of robbers."

            Turning from these historic facts gathered outside the New Testament let us glance for a few moments at the occasions where they appear in the New Testament in chronological order. Annas is referred to four times, Caiaphas seven.

            Annas is first named when Luke was dating the coming of the Word of God to John. He is never referred to again in chronological sequence until we see Jesus led before him after His arrest in the Garden. There we see Him causing the binding of Jesus, and sending Him to Caiaphas, who was the titular high priest. We see him next in the Acts with the Sanhedrim, when the apostles were arraigned before that body, after the resurrection of our Lord. These are the appearances of Annas.

            When we turn to Caiaphas we find him at the beginning with Annas, named as one of the high priests, when the Word of God came to John. The next reference to him is to an occasion perhaps two or two and a half years later, when we find him addressing the Sanhedrim concerning Jesus, on an occasion when they were consulting as to what could be done to silence Him. We hear Caiaphas deliver one of the most polished, finished, clever and damnable addresses that politician ever uttered, and that is saying much. Reduced to its simplest meaning he declared that there was only one way to deal with the situation, and that was to bring about the death of the Lord. This, the Council decided to do, postponing His arrest until after the feast.

            Our next view of Caiaphas is in the darkness of the early morning when he received Jesus as a prisoner, as He was sent to him by his father-in-law, Annas. Following that he is seen presiding over the illegal trial of Jesus; and finally sending Him to Pilate. The last glimpse we have of him is when he is present with Annas in the Sanhedrim, when the apostles were arraigned before him after the resurrection.

            Thus these men appear before us always acting together and Annas as the inspiring genius, if we may debase a great word by calling him a genius. It was Renan who said if guilt is to be attached to anyone on the human level, it must be to Annas. Nevertheless, they were acting together in consort and in agreement.

            We ask, then, what are the facts revealed concerning these men as we see them in the light of history outside the Bible, and in the revelation of them we have in the passages we have referred to?

            We see them first as two religious degenerates, men who were prostituting a Divine office to personal ends. They were men of remarkable worldly wisdom, as witness the speech of Caiaphas, to which we have referred. In that speech Caiaphas had introduced what he said by the statement to the whole Sanhedrim, "Ye know nothing at all." He then went on to declare that it was expedient that one man should die rather than that a nation should perish. His meaning was perfectly clear, that unless Jesus was compelled to cease His teaching, and in order to that end, put to death, Rome would take away the nation from them, that is, from the influence exerted by this high priestly party. The speech was characterized by worldly wisdom. It was the language of the astute and clever politician. I repeat what I have said; they were religious degenerates, prostituting a Divine office for personal ends.

            They were spiritually moribund, or dead, for moribund means dying, or near to dead. It would be more correct to say that they were dead. They had no understanding of God; they had no sense of the Divine activity in the midst of which they were living. Jesus, the Son of God, was acting for God, and God was acting through Him. As Peter declared on the day of Pentecost: "Jesus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God unto you by powers and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you."

            God was acting through Him, but these men had no consciousness of the fact. Intellectually they believed in God, in the living God, but practically they were unconscious of His nearness and His activity. Their constant and consistent hostility to Jesus resulted from this blindness in the presence of Divine activity. By His teaching and His actions He was necessarily interfering with their earthly interests, and therefore their opposition. In them we have an appalling picture of what humanity will come to.

            We now turn to watch our Lord dealing with them as He came into contact with them. There may be a slight difference in the matter of interpretation at this point, because the passage in John which declares that the high priest asked Him of His disciples and of His teaching is believed by some to refer to Annas, and by some to Caiaphas. It is possible that one cannot be finally dogmatic concerning the matter. Yet I want to say definitely that to me there is no difficulty at all. I have no doubt whatever that when they arrested Jesus they brought Him first to Annas, and that seems to be revealed very clearly by the fact that it is declared in that connection that Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas.

            It was Annas, therefore, who asked Him concerning His disciples and His teaching. The statement is a very simple one, but it is quite evident what it intended. He was asking from Jesus inferentially as to what His purpose really was, what it was that He was seeking for Himself and through the disciples He had gathered about Him. He was at least suggesting that there was something seditious, something secret in the methods of Jesus, that He was disseminating teaching which might bring insurrection and trouble. That is what the question meant. There is no doubt that he said more than is reported, but the report covers the whole of the investigation.

            We are first impressed by the fact that when Jesus answered, He made no reply about His disciples. That fact may have many meanings. We are bound to admit that there was nothing very good to say about them at that moment. One of them was betraying Him. Another would very soon declare he did not know Him. Nevertheless it seems to me the fact that He did not reply to the question about His disciples was rather that He would not involve them in trouble. Already in the Garden He had charged those about to arrest Him, not to arrest His disciples. "If therefore ye seek Me, let these go their way."

            The only reference He made to them in His reply to Annas was a reference to their witness. He declared that what He had taught had been taught iri the synagogues and in the Temple courts where al! the Jews gathered. There had been nothing clandestine about His teaching. Said Jesus to Annas, "Why askest thou Me?"

            One is inclined to wonder where the emphasis lay in that question. Perhaps on the "Why," as though He should tell Annas that he already knew what His teaching was. Be that as it may, He denied emphatically the suggestion lurking in the question of Annas.

            Evidently He had spoken with sternness, for someone standing near, struck Him, and asked Him how He dared to speak thus to the high priest. Our Lord made no reply to the question, but reaffirmed the truth of what He had declared concerning His teaching; and asked why if He had told the truth, He was thus smitten. Annas had gone as far as he dare, and therefore he sent Him to Caiaphas.

            Thus we see our Lord now in contact with Caiaphas. We start by remembering that the intention of Caiaphas had already been clearly revealed in the speech before the Sanhedrim. His opportunity had now come to see the intention carried out, and it had come in an illegal assembly. That it was an illegal assembly we cannot stay here and now to argue; but as a matter of fact, everything in the trials of Jesus, both in the priestly court of Caiaphas and now in the civil court of Pilate, was distinctly illegal. Every principle of law was violated. I may say in passing that those who care to go fully into the matter may profitably consider a booklet published by George Newnes and Co., by Lord Craigmyle, on the matter. Caiaphas had waived the technicalities of the law which provided that no man might be put on trial on the day of his arrest, and at last had Jesus arraigned before him.

            As the trial proceeded, witnesses were called, but they were false witnesses, and not one of them was able to contribute anything that could help Caiaphas to formulate a charge against Jesus which would ensure His death. One alleged that He had said: "I am able to destroy the Temple of God, and to build it in three days."

            The falsity of the declaration is at once proved by reference to what He had really said. He had declared that they would destroy, and that He would raise it again. Nevertheless when these false witnesses were heard, our Lord made no reply. He had no answer to give to lying lips.

            Then driven to desperation, Caiaphas put Jesus on oath. It is of the utmost importance that we notice this carefully. The words which Caiaphas used were of the nature of a legal formula: "I adjure Thee by the living God that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God."

            Thus we see them face to face, Caiaphas the representative of the priesthood of the Hebrew people, appointed by Rome, the titular head of the priesthood, and the Son of God, ostensibly arraigned before him. Caiaphas adopted the legal phraseology of the Hebrew people, introducing the supreme fact of the Hebrew faith, in the term "the living God." What he asked was that on oath Christ should declare whether or not He was the Messiah, the Son of God. Thus Jesus is seen standing before this representative of the Hebrew people, this degenerate, steeped in selfishness, now rich by the robbery of the poor, and He hears this man take upon his lips the name of the living God, as he adopted the formula of the oath.

            Then occurred that which must forevermore be an amazing and never to be forgotten thing. Right there, at the end of the ministry, close to the end of His life, Jesus replied, and He did so by accepting the form of the oath. His answer was a formula, as was Caiaphas' adjuration. He replied, "Thou hast said." The form to us is somewhat different to our own manner of speech, but it was exactly the language of one who claimed to answer the question by an affirmation. Said Caiaphas, in effect, I put you on oath, are you the Christ? Are you the Son of God? And Jesus replied at once, accepting the terms of the oath, and claiming that He was the Messiah, and the Son of God, as His followers had already confessed.

            But He said more: "Nevertheless, I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."

            The word "Nevertheless" is arresting. Expositors seem to have found some difficulty in explaining the meaning. I suggest that He had seen something in the face of Caiaphas, something of incredulity manifesting itself. They did not believe Him, in spite of the fact that He had made His affirmation on oath. If that were so, we have a natural explanation of the "Nevertheless." Nevertheless, in spite of your incredulity, you shall see the Son of man coming in His glory. Thus before that court He reaffirmed the declaration He had made at Caesarea Philippi to His disciples when He had declared to them that Peter had made the confession that He was the Messiah, "the Son of the living God," that He was going to the Cross, but that He would come in His glory, and the glory of the father, and of the angels.

            It is at least possible that Caiaphas knew of that confession of Peter, and the answering affirmations of Jesus had become the common conviction of the disciples. It is possible that he knew that they believed Him to be the Christ, the Son of the living God. Therefore, on this occasion, he put Him on oath on that matter; and our Lord had replied, and had declared there, as He did at Caesarea Philippi, that henceforth, that is, at some future time, the Son of man would come in His glory. Then Caiaphas had done all that he could in his own court, and in the morning he sent Him to Pilate, and so passes out of the picture.

            This is indeed a terrible picture. It is that of two men prostituting a Divine office for personal enrichment, and to the enslavement of their fellows. We remember how constantly in the course of His teaching our Lord had denounced such action, how He had pronounced unutterable woes upon them for doing these very things, binding heavy burdens upon men's shoulders that they themselves were not lifting with their little fingers, that for a presence they were making long prayers while they devoured widows' houses. In Annas and Caiaphas we see these men finally prostituting a Divine office; and our Lord's action in connection therewith. He asserted on oath the truth concerning His mission and His nature, declaring there in the hour when everything seemed closing around Him, the certainty of His ultimate victory.

            Thus the article of these two men ends, and we stand face to face with the awe-inspiring fact that it is possible for the human soul to come into such condition that it remains unmoved in the presence of the most stupendous spiritual truth. We learn also that to such attitudes of life issuing, and persisted in, the Christ has nothing to say.