Caiaphas
CAIAPHAS
High priest of the Jews, A. D. 27 to 36. He was a Sadducee, and a bitter enemy of Christ. At his palace the priests, etc., met after the resurrection of Lazarus, to plot the death of the Savior, lest all the people should believe on him. On one of these occasions, Joh 11:47-54, he counseled the death of Christ for the political salvation of the nation; and his words were, unconsciously to him, an inspired prediction of the salvation of a lost world. These plots against Christ, Mat 26:1-5 Mar 14:1 Luk 22:2, led to his seizure, and he was brought first before Annas, formerly high priest, who sent him to Caiaphas his son-in-law. See ANNAS. Caiaphas examined Christ before the assembling of the Sanhedrin, after which the trial went on, and Christ was condemned, mocked, and transferred to Pilate for sentence and execution, Mat 26:57-68 Mar 14:53-72 Luk 22:54-71 Joh 18:13-27 . Not content with procuring the death of the Savior, Caiaphas and his friends violently persecuted his followers, Mal 4:1-6 5:17,33. But a few years after the ascension of Christ, and soon after the degradation of Pilate, Caiaphas also was deposed from office by the Roman proconsul Vitellius. Like Balaam of the Old Testament, he is a melancholy instance of light resisted, privilege, station, and opportunity abused, and prophetic words concerning Christ joined with a life of infidelity and crime and a fearful death.
Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary
Caiaphas
()
Caiaphas, or Joseph Caiaphas, was appointed high priest in a.d. 18 by Valerius Gratus, and held office till a.d. 36, when he was removed by Vitellius (Jos. Ant. xviii. ii. 2, iv. 3). He was son-in-law of Annas (cf. article Annas). Like most of the priests at this period, Caiaphas was a Sadducee in religion. By his masterly policy of conciliating his Roman masters he was able to retain his office for an unusually long period. His craft and subtle diplomacy as well as his supreme disregard for justice and religion are revealed in the advice he gave to the assembled Sanhedrin after Jesus had won the people by the raising of Lazarus-It is expedient that one die for the people (Joh 11:50). Caiaphas saw clearly that if a popular movement in favour of Jesus were aroused, his power and position under Rome would be at an end, and he sought at once to give effect to his own advice. The trial of Jesus in his presence was a travesty of all legal procedure. Failing to obtain evidence from witnesses, he adjured the prisoner to declare whether or not He was the Messiah; and on Jesus declaring He was, the pious hypocrite rent his clothes, shocked at the blasphemy of the answer. Caiaphas is a type of the wily ecclesiastical opportunist, who places the success of himself and the institution he represents before all claims of truth or justice. Such a character is always ready to persecute, and in the Apostolic Church Caiaphas appears as a bitter persecutor of the apostles (Act 4:6). He is probably the high priest referred to in Act 5:17-21; Act 5:27; Act 7:1; Act 9:1 who imprisoned Peter and John, presided at the trial of Stephen, caused the persecution recorded in Acts 8, and gave Saul of Tarsus letters to Damascus to apprehend the Christians there.
Literature.-Josephus, passim; Schrer, GJV [Note: JV Geschichte des jdischen Volkes (Schrer).] 4 ii. [1907] 256, 271; article Caiaphas in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) (MClymont) and Dict. of Christ and the Gospels (C. A. Scott); E. Nestle, The Name Caiaphas, in Expository Times x. [1898-99] 185; W. M. Clow, In the Day of the Cross, 1898, p. 9ff., J. B. Lightfoot, Sermons in St. Pauls Cathedral, 1891, p. 75; A. Maclaren, Christ in the Heart, 1886, p. 255.
W. F. Boyd.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
Caiaphas
According to Josephus (Antiquitates, XVIII, iv, 3), Caiphas was appointed High-Priest of the Jews by the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus, the predecessor of Pontius Pilate, about A.D. 18 (Ant., XVIII, ii, 2), and removed from that office by the procurator Vitellius, shortly after he took charge of affairs in Palestine, A.D. 36 (Ant., XVIII, iv, 3). During this period the famous Annas, father-in-law of Caiphas (John 18:13), who had been high-priest from A.D. 6 to 15, continued to exercise a controlling influence over Jewish affairs, as he did when his own sons held the position. This explains the rather puzzling expression of Luke 3:2, epi archiereos Anna kai Kaiapha (under the high-priest Annas and Caiphas; cf. Acts 4:6). Caiphas was certainly the only official high-priest at the time St. Luke refers to, at the beginning of the public life of Christ; but Annas still had his former title and a good deal of his former authority. The role assigned him in the trial of Christ, in John 18, points to the same continued influence. In the measures taken by the Jewish authorities to do away with Jesus, Caiphas certainly had the most discreditable part. After the raising of Lazarus, the priests and Pharisees held council to determine what was to be done in view of the manifest signs of the Prophet of Nazarus and what they were pleased to consider the danger resulting to the country. The words of Caiphas, the high-priest of that year, are reported by St. John: “You know nothing. Neither do you consider that it is expedient to you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not” (11:49-50). They show a disdain for others, and a determination to get rid of this man who was displeasing to him, without any consideration of the justice of his cause. But while we may see in the declaration of Caiphas the manifestation of very unworthy sentiments, we are warned by St. John that it was prophetical. The high-priest expressed in a striking way the meaning of the sufferings of the Man-God (John 11:51-52), though he could not have realized the full import of those mysterious words. The death of Jesus being resolved upon, the most unscrupulous means were employed in order to bring it about, and Caiphas is chiefly to blame. The meeting determined upon by the princes of the priests and the elders of the people, “that by subtilty they might apprehend Jesus”, was held in the house of Caiphas (Matthew 26:3-5). The hill south of Jerusalem where this house is said by tradition to have stood is called the “Hill of Evil Counsel”. As high-priest, Caiphas was the official head of the Sanhedrin, and consequently responsible for the travesty of a trial to which Christ was submitted by the Jewish authorities, before they handed Him over to Pilate and stirred up the people to demand his death.
After the death of Jesus, Caiphas continued to persecute his followers. When Peter and John were brought before the Council after the cure of the lame man at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple (Acts 4:6 sqq.), Caiphas was still high-priest, since he was removed A.D. 36 or 37. We can say with almost equal certainty that he was the high-priest before whom St. Stephen appeared (Acts 7:1), and that it is from him that Saul obtained letters authorizing him to bring the Christians of Damascus to Jerusalem (Acts 9:1-2). At a time when high-priests were made and unmade by officials of Rome, and when the principal quality required seems to have been subserviency, it is no credit to the character of Caiphas to have enjoyed their favour so long. Josephus mentions his rule in connection with a series of acts of Vitellius which were agreeable to the Jews. We are not told what became of him after his deposition.
———————————–
W.S. REILLY Transcribed by Matthew Reak
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IIICopyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Caiaphas
(, perhaps from the Chald. , depression), called by Josephus (Ant. 18:2, 2) Joseph Caiaphas (, ), was high- priest of the Jews in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, at the beginning of our Lord’s public ministry (Luk 3:2), A.D. 25, and also at the time of his condemnation and crucifixion (Mat 26:3; Mat 26:57; Joh 11:49; Joh 18:13-14; Joh 18:24; Joh 18:28; Act 4:6), A.D. 29. The Procurator Valerius Gratus, shortly before his leaving the province (A.D. 25), appointed him to the dignity, which was before held by Simon ben-Camith. He held it during the whole procuratorship of Pontius Pilate, but soon after his removal fromthat office was deposed by the Proconsul Vitellius (A.D. 36), and succeeded by Jonathan, son of Ananus (Joseph. Ant. 18:4, 3). Some in the ancient Church confounded him with the historian Josephus, and believed him to have become a convert to Christianity (Assemani, Biblioth. Orient. 2:165). His wife was the daughter of Annas, or Ananus, who had formerly been high-priest, and who still possessed great influence and control in sacerdotal matters, several of his family successively holding the high- priesthood. The names of Annas and Caiaphas are coupled by Luke, Annas and Caiaphas being the high-priests; and this has given occasion to no small amount of discussion. Some maintain that Annas and Caiaphas then discharged the functions of the high priesthood by turns ; but this isnot reconcilable with the statement of Josephus. Others think that Caiaphas is called high-priest, because he then actually exercised the functions of the office, and that Annas is so called because he had formerly filled the situation. But it does not thus appear why, of those who held the high- priesthood before Caiaphas, Annas in particular should be named, and not Ishmael, Eliazer, or Simon, who had all served the office more recentlythan Annas. Hence Kuinol and others consider it as the more probable opinion that. Caiaphas was the high-priest, but that Annas was his vicar or deputy, called in the Hebrew , sagans. Nor can that office be thought unworthy of a man who had filled the pontifical office, since the dignity of sagan was also great. Thus, for instance, on urgent occasions he mighteven enter the Holy of Holies (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. ad Luk 3:2). Nor ought it to seem strange or unusual that the vicar of a high-priest should be called by that name. For if, as it appears, those who had once held theoffice were after by courtesy called high-priests, with greater justice might Annas, who was both a pontifical person and high-priest’s vicar, be so called. In fact, the very appellation of high-priest is given to a sagan by Josephus (Ant. 17:6, 4). (See the commentators on Luk 3:2, particularly Hammond, Lightfoot, Kuinol, and Bloomfield.) SEE ANNAS. Caiaphas belonged to the sect of the Sadducees (Act 5:17). (See Hecht, De Sadducceismo Caiaphce, Bud. 1718.) SEE HIGH-PRIEST.
The wonderful miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead convinced many of the Jews that Christ was sent fromi God; and the chief priests and the Pharisees,. alarmed at the increase of his followers, summoned a council, and pretended that their liberties were in danger; that the Romans would become jealous of them, and that their destruction was inevitable if something were not done at once to check his progress. Caiaphas was a member of the council, and expressed his decided opinion in favor of putting Jesus to death, as the only way of saving the nation from the evils which his success would bring upon them. His language was, Ye know nothing at all; nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not (Joh 11:49). This counsel was wicked and unjust in the highest degree; but as there was no offense charged, it seemed the only plausible excuse for putting Christto death. The high-priest’s language on this occasion was prophetic, though he did not intend it so. The evangelist, in giving an account of this extraordinary occurrence, enlarges on the prophetic language of the high- priest, and shows the extent and blessedness of the dispensation of mercy through Jesus Christ. Nothing of this, however, was in the mind of the cruel and bigoted high-priest. After Christ was arrested, he was first takenbefore Annas, who sent him to his son-in-law Caiaphas, who probably lived in the same house; he was then arraigned before Caiaphas, and an effortwas made to produce false testimony sufficient for his condemnation. This expedient failed; for though two persons appeared to testify, they did not agree, and at last Caiaphas put our Savior himself upon oath that he should say whether he was indeed the Christ, the Son of God, or not. The answer. was, of course, in the affirmative (q.v.), and was accompanied with a declaration of his Divine power and majesty. The high-priest pretended to be greatly grieved at what he considered the blasphemy (q.v.) of our Savior’s pretensions, and forthwith appealed to his enraged enemies to say if this was not enough. They answered at once that he deserved to die, and then, in the very presence of Caiaphas, and without any restraint from him, they fell upon their guiltless victim with insults and injuries. As Caiaphas had no power to inflict the punishment of death, Christ was taken from him to Pilate, the Roman governor, that his execution might be duly ordered (Mat 26:3; Mat 26:57; Joh 18:13; Joh 18:28). The bigoted fury of Caiaphas exhibited itself also against the first efforts of the apostles (Act 4:6).
Treatises more or less general on the character and conduct of Calaphas in the above transaction have been written in Latin by Baumgarten-Crusius- (Opusc. p. 149 sq.), Hase (Brem. 1703, also in Iken’s Thesaur. 2:549 sq.), Hecht (Buding. 1719), Haufen (Viteb. 1713), Hoder (Upsal, 1771), Hofmann (in Menthenii Thes. 2:216-222), Lungershausen (Jea. 1695), Saltznann (Argent. 1742), Scharbau (Lubec, 1715), Schickendanz (Fcft. and V. 1772), Weber (Viteb. 1807), Seltner (Altdorf, 1721); in French by Dupin (Paris, 1829). See also Evans, Script. Biog. 2:257.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Caiaphas
the Jewish high priest (A.D. 27-36) at the beginning of our Lord’s public ministry, in the reign of Tiberius (Luke 3:2), and also at the time of his condemnation and crucifixion (Matt. 26:3, 57; John 11:49; 18:13, 14). He held this office during the whole of Pilate’s administration. His wife was the daughter of Annas, who had formerly been high priest, and was probably the vicar or deputy (Heb. sagan) of Caiaphas. He was of the sect of the Sadducees (Acts 5:17), and was a member of the council when he gave his opinion that Jesus should be put to death “for the people, and that the whole nation perish not” (John 11:50). In these words he unconsciously uttered a prophecy. “Like Saul, he was a prophet in spite of himself.” Caiaphas had no power to inflict the punishment of death, and therefore Jesus was sent to Pilate, the Roman governor, that he might duly pronounce the sentence against him (Matt. 27:2; John 18:28). At a later period his hostility to the gospel is still manifest (Acts 4:6). (See ANNAS)
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
CAIAPHAS
As Jewish high priest in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus, Caiaphas is chiefly remembered for his part in the crucifixion of Jesus. He was son-in-law of the former high priest Annas (Joh 18:13), he became high priest before Jesus began his ministry (Luk 3:2), and he was still high priest in the days of the early church (Act 4:6).
During the time of Jesus, the members of the Sanhedrin (the Jewish Council) became increasingly hostile to him as they saw his fame growing. They feared that, if the Jews accepted Jesus as their Messiah and rebelled against Rome, the Romans would respond by crushing the Jews (Joh 11:47-48). Caiaphas, as leader of the Sanhedrin, suggested they get rid of Jesus. In his view, one mans death would save the nation. The words of Caiaphas had a prophetic meaning that he did not realize; for Jesus death would indeed be a means of salvation, not just for Jewish people, but for people of all nations (Joh 11:49-52).
Acting upon the advice of Caiaphas, the Jews plotted to arrest Jesus (Joh 11:53; Mat 26:3-5). In the middle of the night, only a few hours before the dawn of Passover day, they captured him and took him to the house where Annas and Caiaphas lived. He was questioned first by Annas (Joh 18:12-14) and then by the Sanhedrin, whom Caiaphas had assembled in his house (Mat 26:57-58).
In reply to a question from Caiaphas, Jesus said that he truly was the Messiah from heaven and he was about to receive his eternal kingdom. Caiaphas promptly accused him of blasphemy. Although the meetings conduct and verdict were illegal according to Jewish law, the Sanhedrin had no hesitation in condemning Jesus to death (Mat 26:59-66; Mar 14:61-64; see SANHEDRIN).
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Caiaphas
CAIAPHAS (; according to Josephus, Joseph Caiaphas) was appointed high priest of the Jews in or soon after a.d. 18, and held office until he was deposed by Vitellius about a.d. 36 (Josephus Ant. xviii. ii. 2, iv. 3). He is referred to as the high priest in Luk 3:2 (with Annas), Mat 26:3; Mat 26:57, and is mentioned along with Annas, John, and Alexander among the heads of the Sanhedrin in Act 4:6. The length of his rule, compared with the short periods allowed to his immediate predecessors, suggests that he proved a satisfactory and submissive agent of the Roman policy. By two of the Evangelists, St. Matthew and St. John, Caiaphas is specially connected by name with the procedure which led to the condemnation and death of Jesus. When, after the raising of Lazarus, the high priests and Pharisees held a meeting of the Sanhedrin (informal, as Caiaphas does not appear to have presided), it was Caiaphas who gave the ironically prophetic advice that it was expedient that one man should die for the people (Joh 11:50). St. John, contemplating that sentence years after, could not but feel that there was something in those words deeper than met the ear, a truth almost inspired, which he did not hesitate to call prophetic (F. W. Robertson, Sermons, i. 134). In saying that being high priest that same year he prophesied, the Evangelist does no more than claim for the theocratic head of the nation the function which might be supposed to be latent in his office (cf. the remark of Philo quoted by Westcott: the true priest is a prophet; see also the remarks of Dale, The Atonement, p. 169 ff.), and had, as a matter of fact, been exercised by some of his predecessors in the office (Num 27:21). The threefold repetition by St. John of the statement that Caiaphas was high priest that same year (Authorized Version ; Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 that year) has been made the ground of charging the Fourth Evangelist with ignorance of the fact that the high priest might hold office for more than one year. But this criticism rests on a misapprehension of the phrase ( ), which emphasizes not the date, but the character of the year = that fateful year (cf. Joh 20:19, Mar 4:35).
The resolution thus prompted took effect in the arrest of Jesus; but, as son-in-law to Annas, Caiaphas permitted the prisoner to be taken first before him (Joh 18:13) for a private examination. Whether this took place in the palace of Caiaphas, where Annas was living, or elsewhere, is not clear. It is also uncertain whether the Fourth Gospel contains any record of an examination of Jesus by Caiaphas. According to the reading and interpretation of Joh 18:24 in Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 , it does not; but it is held by some (e.g. Meyer and Edersheim, against Westcott) that Authorized Version may be correct, and that the high priest referred to in Joh 18:15; Joh 18:19; Joh 18:22 was Caiaphas. According to the narrative of the Synoptists, it was to Caiaphas the high priest, or the house of Caiaphas, that Jesus was led, and there, at the (irregular) meeting of the Sanhedrin at daybreak (Mat 26:59, Mar 14:55, Luk 22:66), Caiaphas presided; and it was he who brought the trial to a conclusion by declaring Jesus guilty of blasphemy, and demanding sentence upon Him.
Caiaphas appears again in Act 4:6 in company with Annas and others, as initiating the persecution of the Apostles, and in the later proceedings is probably the high priest referred to in Act 5:17; Act 5:21; Act 5:27; Act 7:1; Act 9:1.
Literature.On the name, Nestle in Expos. Times, x. [1899] p. 185. On the historical circumstances, Schrer, HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] ii. i. 182 f., 199; Andrews, Life of our Lord, 137, 505. On the ethical significance of Caiaphas attitude to Christ, F. W. Robertson, Sermons, i. 132; J. B. Lightfoot, Sermons in St. Pauls, 75; A. Maclaren, Christ in the Heart, 255; E. H. Gifford, Voices of the Prophets, 73; W. H. Simcox, Cessation of Prophecy, 278; H. H. Henson, Value of the Bible, 294; Expos. Times, iv. [1892] p. 49.
C. A. Scott.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Caiaphas
CAIAPHAS.Joseph Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas (Joh 18:13), was high priest between a.d. 18 and 36; and thus the memorable year of our Lords trial fell in the course of his pontificate (Joh 11:51; Joh 18:13). He was, like all the priestly order, a Sadducee; and he was a man of masterful temper, with his full share of the insolence which was a Sadducan characteristic. He figures thrice in the NT. 1. After the raising of Lazarus, the rulers, alarmed at the access of popularity which it brought to Jesus, convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin to determine what should be done. Caiaphas presided ex officio, and with a high hand forced a resolution that Jesus should be put to death (Joh 11:47 ff.). 2. He presided at the subsequent meeting of the Sanhedrin when Jesus was tried and condemned; and there again he displayed his character by his open determination to find Him guilty, and his shameless disregard of the forms of law in order to bring about that end (Joh 18:24, Mat 26:57-68 = Mar 14:53-65 = Luk 22:66-71). 3. He took part in the examination of Peter and John (Act 4:6).
David Smith.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Caiaphas
A name and person, memorable in Scripture from being overruled by God the Ho1y Ghost to deliver a prophecy the very reverse of his own wishes, and like another Balaam, to pronounce good when he intended evil. (See Joh 11:49-52)
Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures
Caiaphas
kaa-fas, ka-fas (, Kaiaphas; Caiaphas = Kephas (compare Dods in Expositor’s Greek Test, I, 803), and has also been interpreted as meaning depression): Caiaphas was the surname of Joseph, a son-in-law of Annas (compare Joh 18:13), who filled th e post of high priest from about 18-36 ad, when he was deposed by Vitellius (compare Josephus, Ant, XVIII, ii, 2; iv, 3). He is mentioned by Luke as holding office at the time of John the Baptist’s preaching in the wilderness (Luk 3:2).
Caiaphas took a leading part in the trial and condemnation of Jesus. It was in his court or palace that the chief priests (Sadducees) and Pharisees, who together constituted the Sanhedrin, assembled that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him (compare Mat 26:3, Mat 26:4; Joh 11:49). The regal claims of the new Messiah and the growing fame of His works had made them to dread both the vengeance of imperial Rome upon their nation, and the loss of their own personal authority and prestige (compare Joh 11:48). But Caiaphas pointed a way out of their dilemma: let them bide their time till the momentary enThusiasm of the populace was spent (compare Mat 26:5), and then by the single sacrifice of Jesus they could at once get rid of a dangerous rival and propitiate the frowns of Rome (compare Joh 11:49, Joh 11:50; Joh 18:14). The commentary of John upon this (Joh 11:51, Joh 11:52) indicates how the death of Jesus was indeed to prove a blessing not only for Israel but also for all the children of God; but not in the manner which the cold-blooded statecraft of Caiaphas intended. The advice of the high priest was accepted by the Sanhedrin (Joh 11:53), and they succeeded in arresting Jesus. After being led to Annas first (Joh 18:13), Jesus was conducted thence in bonds to Caiaphas (Joh 18:24), According to Mt He was led immediately upon His arrest to Caiaphas (Mat 26:57). Mk and Lk do not refer to Caiaphas by name. His conduct at this preliminary trial of Jesus (Mat 26:57-68), its time and its procedure, were almost entirely illegal from the standpoint of then existing Jewish law (compare JESUS CHRIST, TRIAL OF; and A. Taylor Innes, The Trial of Jesus Christ). False witnesses were first called, and when Jesus refused to reply to their charges, Caiaphas asked of Him if He were the Christ, the Son of God (Mat 26:63). Upon our Lord’s answering Thou hast said (Mat 26:64), Caiaphas rent his garments, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy (Mat 26:65). Upon this charge was Jesus found worthy of death (Mat 26:66). Caiaphas is also mentioned in Act 4:6 as being among those who presided over the trial of Peter and John.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Caiaphas
Caiaphas, whom Josephus calls Joseph Caiaphas, was high-priest of the Jews in the reign of Tiberius Caesar (Luk 3:2). We learn from Josephus that he succeeded Simon the son of Camith (about A.D. 27 or 28), and held the office nine years, when he was deposed. His wife was the daughter of Annas, or Ananus, who had formerly been high-priest, and who still possessed great influence and control in sacerdotal matters, several of his family successively holding the high-priesthood. The names of Annas and Caiaphas are coupled by Luke’Annas and Caiaphas being the high-priests;’ and this has given occasion to no small amount of discussion. The most probable opinion is that Caiaphas was the high-priest, and that Annas was his vicar or deputy. Caiaphas is the high-priest who rent his clothes, and declared Jesus to be worthy of death. When Judas had betrayed him, our Lord was first taken to Annas, who sent him to Caiaphas (Joh 18:13), who perhaps abode in another part of the same palace. What became of Caiaphas after his deposition in A.D. 38, is not known.
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
Caiaphas
High priest
Luk 3:2
Son-in-law of Annas
Joh 18:13
Prophesies concerning Jesus
Joh 11:49-51; Joh 18:14
Jesus tried before
Mat 26:2-3; Mat 26:57; Mat 26:63-65; Joh 18:24; Joh 18:28
Peter and other disciples accused before
Act 4:1-22
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Caiaphas
Caiaphas (k’ya-fas), depression. A high priest of the Jews, a.d. 27-36, and presided over the Sanhedrin at the tune of our Saviour’s trial. Joh 11:49; Joh 11:51. The office was formerly held for life, but at this time the high priest was appointed at the pleasure of the Roman government. The raising of Lazarus angered the Sanhedrin, and Caiaphas turned their thoughts toward the execution of the hated and feared teacher Jesus by deliberately advising his death on the plea of expediency. His language was unconscious prophecy. Joh 11:49-52. Caiaphas was deposed by the proconsul Vitellius, 36 a.d.
Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible
Caiaphas
Ca’iaphas or Ca-i’aphas. (depression). In full, Joseph Caiaphas, high priest of the Jews, under Tiberius. Mat 26:3; Mat 26:57; Joh 11:49; Joh 18:13-14; Joh 18:24; Joh 18:28; Act 4:6. The procurator, Valerius Gratus, appointed him to the dignity. He was son-in-law of Annas. See Annas.
Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary
CAIAPHAS
high priest in the time of Christ
Mat 26:3; Luk 3:2; Joh 11:49; Joh 18:14; Act 4:6
Fuente: Thompson Chain-Reference Bible
Caiaphas
high priest of the Jews, succeeded Simon, son of Camith; and after possessing this dignity nine years, from A.M. 4029 to 4038, he was succeeded by Jonathan, son of Ananas, or Annas. Caiaphas was high priest, A.M. 4037, which was the year of Jesus Christ’s death. He married a daughter of Annas, who also is called high priest in the Gospel, because he had long enjoyed that dignity. When the priests deliberated on the seizure and death of Jesus Christ, Caiaphas declared, that there was no room for debate on that matter, because it was expedient that one man should die for the people, that the whole nation should not perish,
Joh 11:49-50. This sentiment was a prophecy, which God suffered to proceed from the mouth of the high priest on this occasion, importing, that the death of Jesus would be for the salvation of the world. When Judas had betrayed Jesus, he was first taken before Annas, who sent him to his son- in-law, Caiaphas, who possibly lived in the same house, Joh 18:24. The priests and doctors of the law there assembled to judge our Saviour, and to condemn him. The depositions of certain false witnesses being insufficient to justify a sentence of death against him, and Jesus continuing silent, Caiaphas, as high priest, said to him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God! To this adjuration, so solemnly made by the superior judge, Jesus answered, Thou hast said; nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. On hearing these words, Caiaphas rent his clothes, saying, What farther need have we of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered, He is worthy of death. And as the power of life and death was not at this time in their hands, but was reserved by the Romans, they conducted him to Pilate, that he might confirm their sentence, and order his execution.
Two years after this, Vitellus, governor of Syria, coming to Jerusalem at the passover, was received very magnificently by the people. As an acknowledgment for this honour, he restored the custody of the high priest’s ornaments, to the priests, he remitted certain duties raised on the fruits of the earth, and deposed the high priest Caiaphas. From this it appears that Caiaphas had fallen under popular odium, for his deposition was to gratify the people.