Caiaphas - Matt 26:57-64; Mark 14:53-62; Luke 22:54-70; John 18:24

Annas sends Jesus to Caiphas’ palace, not Caiaphas’ personal home as I had previously believed. In an article onwww.bible-history.com it describes the Palace of Caiaphas as a place “where informal meetings of a small Sanhedrin were held.” It makes sense that there would be a main meeting hall for official business, but for a “palace” named for the high priest at the time, that wouldn’t be a fitting place for any regulated Jewish business. The fact that Jesus’ trial is taking place in the middle of the night in an unofficial venue detracts from the whole idea that Jesus is a criminal and is legitimately being tried as such.

We know that Caiaphas’ father in law is still extremely influential in the day to day politics of Jewish life, and it seems that Annas is the one who gave the order since the guards brought Jesus back to his house first, but what kind of guy was Caiaphas? The IM provides background saying, “Caiaphas was the high priest from A.D. 18 to 36 and was the son in law of Annas, who was the high priest from A.D. 7 to 14. Caiaphas belonged to the Sadducees. During New Testament times, the position of high priest had become a corrupt political appointment rather than a legitimate priesthood office. Caiaphas held the position longer than any other high priest in New Testament times, indicating his close cooperation with Roman government leaders like Pontius Pilate.
Caiaphas’s responsibility as high priest included controlling the temple treasury and overseeing temple rituals, which mad him considerable money. Because of these temple responsibilities, he probably would have regarded the Savior’s cleansing of the temple courtyard as a challenge to his authority and a threat to his wealth. After the Savior raised Lazarus from the dead, Caiaphas stated that it was necessary to put Jesus to death, and he possibly even led out in the conspiracy. As high priest, Caiaphas presided over the Sanhedrin and was one of the main interrogators of Jesus Christ on the night of His arrest.”
Another really interesting insight into Caiaphas’s corruption was pointed out by one of the articles I read about him. The article pointed out that when Jesus told the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, when the rich man asked is he could go back and give a message to his five brothers who he feared would make his same mistakes. The article suggested that these five brothers might be a reference to the five brothers in law of Caiaphas that would also be chief judge. This would make this condemnation exceedingly personal for Caiaphas and I wonder if that was really Jesus’ intention, which it seems like it might, and if Caiaphas picked up on it.
It must have been a strange feeling for Jesus to be standing as a criminal in the same “court room” where he was rightfully the judge. I try to think of an equivalent to our day, and it would probably be similar to a morally impeccable judge being sentenced to death by the very people who took his seat away from him. Looking at it like that, that kind of irony happens all the time. It’s like someone said, “with a corrupt government, the only place for an honest man is in jail.”
There are no actual charges against Jesus, of course, so “the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death.” The IM comments that their need to find someone who is willing to make something up is “implying that they were unable to find credible witnesses, that their case against Him was weak, and that their actions were premeditated.” I don’t know why they would care about proper procedure right now since they aren’t following any of the rules, maybe to assuage their own guilt or to make Jesus’ murder look more proper to his supporters, but whatever the reason, they are desperate for someone to say something against him. Despite their search, they “found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none.”
Mark says that there were “many (who) bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.” The IM comments, “Since the law of Moses required at least two corroborating witnesses to convict anyone of a capital offense, the charges against Jesus were invalid.” What a circus, people who were angry with Jesus bringing up all types of stories but not being able to make sense of what each other were saying. Finally, they settled on one charge, brought by “two false witnesses,” who said, “this fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.”
I don’t know why that is so inflammatory, but who knows right? And yes, Jesus did say that but he was being metaphoric while prophesying of his resurrection, speaking of the temple of his body. During these trials for blasphemy, I think that Caiaphas is used to having people begging and pleading for their lives, yelling and screaming their innocence in order to clarify what they meant. This makes sense as those other people weren’t willingly giving up their lives, but Jesus was so his calm demeanor was probably startling to the Jewish leadership. This is demonstrated by Caiaphas when he “arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee?” And Jesus says nothing. But Jesus said nothing.
This always was difficult for me to understand, back when I didn’t understand that Jesus was choosing his death so that he could save us all. I wondered why Jesus didn’t protest his innocence, but now that I know more about the atonement, I can see that any answer he would have given could have appeared in any way as groveling, or pleading for his life. Answering would have been interpreted as a disputation of his guilt, while silence would have been an incredibly powerful sign of control and firmness of position. The IM says, “The Savior remained silent, refusing to dignify the falsehoods with any response.”
Caiaphas is not pleased by Jesus’ calm and demands, “Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus answered, “I am. And ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” This answer is much more significant that Jesus just saying, “yeah I am the Messiah.” The IM points out that “in making this statement, the Savior drew upon scriptural prophecy, including Daniel 7:13-14, which declares that ‘the Son of man’ will come in the clouds of heaven,’ and Psalms 110:1, which declares that the Messiah will sit at the right hand of God. This testimony that Jesus gave about Himself clarified His mission as the Messiah- the ‘the Son of man.’”
If Jesus simply answered, “yeah I’m your Savior,” he could have been accused of being crazy, or narcissistic, simply trying to have power in some way. But because Jesus rooted his declaration of his Godhood within the scriptures, he is pointing out to those rejecting him that they are waiting for a Messiah and that not only is he the one they’ve been waiting for, but also proves his claim by showing the fulfillment of scripture. I love when New Testament stuff ties into Old Testament stuff. This statement by Jesus wouldn’t have been subtle, the chief priests would have recognized his words as a claim for the throne of Israel.
The IM also points out, “The Savior’s testimony also warned the council, even as they were judging Him, that the time would come when He would be enthroned and sit in judgment on them. The savior’s answer shows that He looked beyond the immediate suffering to the future victory, particularly His ascension to His Father and His future coming in glory.” Keeping an eternal perspective would have been the only way that Jesus would have been able to endure the horrific realities of the atonement. Even with all they were doing to him, he still warned them of their wicked ways. It must have felt pretty ironic for Jesus to advise the Sanhedrin to repent, which was facilitated by the same man they were trying to murder.