Annas (Anʹnas), whose Hebrew name means “Showing Favor” or “Gracious,” served as high priest beginning about 6 or 7 C.E., appointed by Quirinius, the Roman governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). His term extended until approximately 15 C.E., when he was deposed by the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus. Annas thus held office during the time when Jesus, at the age of twelve, engaged the teachers in the temple, astonishing them with His understanding of the Scriptures (Luke 2:42–49). Though removed from official office, Annas retained the dignity, influence, and power of high priest emeritus, functioning as the dominant voice of the Jewish priestly aristocracy. His position was strengthened by the fact that five of his sons, as well as his son-in-law Caiaphas, each later served as high priests. Because of this continuing prominence, the Gospels appropriately refer to Annas as one of the “chief priests” (Matthew 26:3; Luke 3:2).

When Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, He was first brought to Annas for a preliminary examination before being sent to Caiaphas for formal trial before the Sanhedrin (John 18:13). Annas’s name appears at the head of the list of religious rulers who opposed the apostles in the early years of the Christian congregation (Acts 4:6). His enduring influence extended far beyond his tenure, marking him as the true patriarch of a dynasty of priestly corruption and Roman collaboration.

The house of Annas was wealthy and powerful, deriving its influence largely through control of the sacrificial system and temple commerce. The sale of animals for sacrifice and the exchange of money within the temple courts—practices that had turned Jehovah’s house into “a cave of robbers” (John 2:13–16; Matthew 21:12–13; Mark 11:15–17; Luke 19:45–46)—were under his control. This exploitation of the sacred precincts for profit made Annas and his associates bitter enemies of Jesus, whose cleansing of the temple on two occasions directly threatened their lucrative operations. Annas’s hostility toward Jesus was therefore not merely theological but deeply economic and political.

Further animosity stemmed from doctrinal differences. If, as most scholars conclude, Annas belonged to the Sadducean sect, his opposition to Jesus and the apostles would have been intensified by the preaching of the resurrection. The Sadducees denied both the resurrection and the existence of angels or spirits (Acts 23:8), while Jesus not only taught resurrection hope but also demonstrated it unmistakably by raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11:43–44). The apostles likewise continued to proclaim “Jesus and the resurrection” (Acts 4:2), a doctrine that struck at the very heart of Sadducean unbelief.

Annas thus stands as a symbol of religious hypocrisy and corrupt ecclesiastical authority—a man who outwardly bore the name “gracious,” yet inwardly was marked by pride, greed, and spiritual blindness. His interference in the trial of Jesus reveals the dark intertwining of religious ambition and political manipulation that characterized Jerusalem’s priestly elite under Roman occupation.

Caiaphas: The Diplomat of Rome and Chief Persecutor of Christ

Joseph Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas (John 18:13), was appointed high priest by the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus around 18 C.E. and served until about 36 C.E., an unusually long tenure made possible by his skill in maintaining good relations with Roman authority. Luke 3:2 lists “Annas and Caiaphas being high priests,” reflecting both Annas’s lingering influence and Caiaphas’s official position.

Caiaphas’s extended service indicates his adeptness at navigating the delicate political balance between Jewish religious interests and Roman control. As a Sadducee (Acts 5:17), he was part of the aristocratic priestly class that valued stability, wealth, and cooperation with the occupying power. His alliance with Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea, served the mutual interests of both parties: Pilate required a compliant high priest to manage local religious tensions, while Caiaphas needed Roman backing to secure his political dominance over rival priestly families.

During Jesus’ ministry, Caiaphas emerged as one of His most implacable enemies. When the Sanhedrin gathered to discuss how to silence Jesus after the resurrection of Lazarus, Caiaphas declared, “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish” (John 11:49–50). Though spoken from political expediency, this statement carried prophetic weight, for, as John observes, “he did not say this of his own originality, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation” (John 11:51). Yet Caiaphas’s heart was far from divine truth; he used this reasoning to justify judicial murder in the name of national preservation.

At Jesus’ trial, Caiaphas presided over the unlawful nocturnal proceedings of the Sanhedrin. When Jesus affirmed His divine authority, saying, “You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven,” Caiaphas tore his garments and cried, “He has blasphemed!” (Matthew 26:64–65). This theatrical gesture signified the formal pronouncement of guilt according to Jewish law, paving the way for Jesus’ delivery to Pilate. During the ensuing events, Caiaphas was doubtless among those urging the crowd to demand Jesus’ crucifixion: “Impale him! Impale him!” (John 19:6, 15), and “We have no king but Caesar!” (John 19:15). In all this, Caiaphas revealed his allegiance to political expediency over truth, to Caesar over Jehovah, and to human power over divine righteousness.

Even after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, Caiaphas continued his campaign against the nascent Christian congregation. He participated in the arrest and trial of the apostles Peter and John, sternly commanding them to cease preaching in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:5–7, 17–18). When they refused, Caiaphas and his Sadducean allies had them flogged (Acts 5:40), yet the apostles “continued without letup every day in the temple and from house to house teaching and declaring the good news about the Christ, Jesus” (Acts 5:42). His rage was further inflamed when Stephen testified boldly before the Sanhedrin and accused them of resisting the Holy Spirit. Stephen’s stoning (Acts 7:54–60) likely took place under Caiaphas’s authority, and his approval extended to Saul of Tarsus, whom he empowered with letters to persecute Christians even beyond Jerusalem (Acts 9:1–2).

In time, however, Roman political fortunes shifted. Vitellius, the Roman governor of Syria, removed Pontius Pilate and soon afterward deposed Caiaphas from the high priesthood in 36 C.E., ending his long and bloodstained career. He fades from history thereafter, his name forever associated with the judicial murder of the Messiah and the persecution of His followers.

Historical and Archaeological Evidence

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus provides an external corroboration of the biblical record regarding both Annas and Caiaphas. According to Jewish Antiquities 18.26, Quirinius, the Roman governor of Syria, removed Joazar from the high priesthood and installed “Ananus [Annas] the son of Seth.” Later, as Josephus records (Ant. 18.33–35), Valerius Gratus deposed Annas, appointed several others in rapid succession, and finally installed “Joseph, who was called Caiaphas.” This confirms both the succession pattern and the Roman control over high priestly appointments during this turbulent era.

Josephus’s testimony aligns precisely with the chronological framework of the Gospels and Acts. Annas held office from 6–15 C.E., Caiaphas from 18–36 C.E. The overlap in Luke 3:2, where both are named as high priests, reflects the enduring influence of Annas even after his deposition. The family of Annas, in fact, dominated the Jerusalem priesthood for decades. Five of his sons—Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, and Ananus the Younger—each later occupied the office, cementing the family’s dynastic control over temple worship and politics.

Archaeological discoveries further substantiate the biblical and historical record. In 1990, Israeli archaeologists excavating a burial cave in southern Jerusalem uncovered an ornate family tomb containing twelve ossuaries. One richly decorated ossuary bore the inscription, in Aramaic, “Yehosef bar Qayafa,” meaning “Joseph son of Caiaphas.” The name corresponds exactly to that of the high priest mentioned by both Josephus and the New Testament. Inside the ossuary were the bones of a man approximately sixty years old, together with those of several family members. Most scholars agree that this tomb belonged to the family of the historical high priest Caiaphas.

The craftsmanship of the ossuary—fine limestone, floral rosettes, and geometric carvings—attests to the wealth and social status of the family. It offers striking confirmation that the figures portrayed in the Gospels were not literary inventions but real individuals who wielded power in first-century Jerusalem. The discovery also provides tangible evidence of the priestly aristocracy’s material affluence and of the truthfulness of the Gospel accounts, which portray Caiaphas as a man of political influence and economic privilege.

These converging lines of evidence—from the inspired biblical record, the writings of Josephus, and modern archaeology—leave no doubt concerning the historicity of Annas and Caiaphas. Together they represent the corrupt religio-political system that opposed the Messiah and sought to extinguish the light of divine truth. Yet their efforts only fulfilled the prophetic plan of Jehovah, who allowed their scheming to bring about the sacrificial death of His Son, “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

You May Also Enjoy

How Does Archaeology Support the Reliability of the New Testament?

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS