true and highest life-principle in self-sacrifice for Jesus' sake (cf. Gal 2-"). Self-suiTender to Jesus is made the principle of spiritual life, and as such it must be absolute, superseding even the desire for life itself. In stating such conditions of dis- cipleship, Jesus reveals a consciousness of His own si^milicance for men which transcends the present and partakes of the character of the truth which He proclaimed. Discipleship is thus drawn into and made part of that future in which He Him- self was conscious of holding a place of highest authority. His words set the present in closest relation with the future, since its true worth will then be revealed. The relation which men sustain to Him now will then have its intrinsic value made manifest by His attitude towards them. ' For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, and with his angels ; and then shall he render to every man according to his deeds.' This prophetic description of the mture closes with these words : 'Verily I say unto you. There be some here of them that stand by, which shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power' (so Mk. ; Lk. has simply 'till they see the kingdom of God'; Mt. more fully, 'till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom '). The words are pronhetic, and describe an experience in which some of those then in Jesus' company shall share. The object of this experience is in Lk.-Mk. the Kingdom, or the Kingdom (having) come (Mk. uses the perf. part. i\rj\veviav) in power. It seems thus to be conceived as a future but actually e.x- isting state or fact rather than event. In Mt. the same experience is described, but the fact of the Kingdom's presence is as.sociated with or described in terms of the Son of Man's coming [epxit^d'oi') in His kingdom. In their context the words seem to refer to the Messianic kingdom, and to describe it in one of its eschatological aspects. The disciples had just confessed Jesus, who called Him.self the Son of Man, to be the Messiah, and He had de- clared that the Son of Man would come in glory. He now declares that some of those present will live to witness the coming of the Son of ^lan, the Messiah, in His kingdom ; by which we may under- stand the establishment of His kingdom in power. This, however, was to be realized in the Church ; for Jesus, in speaking of His intention with refer- ence to the future founding of His Church, had not only indicated the close relation of the Church to the Kiimilimi of Heaven, the one being the future manitc~latii)ii-liirui of the other, but also stated lliai Hi- llim-.ll! would build the Church, thus directly revealing His power in it. It is therefore not unnatural to understand the 'coming of the Son of Man in his kingdom ' or ' the kingdom (hav- ing) come in power ' as referring to the establish- ment of His Church, its equipment with power through the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost, and its activity in realizing the Kingdom under His direction. Others seek the fulfilment of Jesus' prophecy in the Transfiguration, His appearances to the disciples after the resurrection, or speci- fically in the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost, or in the fall of Jerusalem, or still more generally ' in some convincing proof that the ^Messiah's kingdom had been actually set up, as predicted by prophets and by Christ Himself' (Alexander, Matthew, p. 446).
LiTERATCBE. — Eeland, Palcrstina, ii. 918-922; Gu^rin, De- scription de la Palestine, ' GalUiSe,' ii. 308-323 ; SWP i. 95, 109-113; G. A. Smith, BGUL. 473-480; Bulil, GAP 238 0.; Bawkkcr, Pah-st ;,„■'. 201 1- ; SihiiiiT. HJP (Index); artt.
'C'r,- r • n'-:--N I .i.....,r- ,.'!,,...) in Hastinra' DB;
•i-.' I - ! - :i l'eter'(Schmiedel)
it, ; > (Outhe), 'Kirche'
(K ■ Herzot,''s PRE^;
H.l- ;/..„tom-<!,i. p.211f. ;
Zaiiii. ,-ri,t,.pinn„ .... .i;,..,........ . ...1,1, nil, Wonts of Jestts,
p. -I'^iS. ; Vos, The Talclunj 1/ Jtsiis ojncenuiwi the Kingdom
CAIAPHAS
CALENDAR, THE CHRISTIAN 251
of God and the Church, 140-168; Lowrie, The Church and its Organizatiim, 102-123 ; Hort, The Christian Ecctesia ; A. B. Bruce, The Trainimj of the Twelve, ch. xi.
William P. Armstrong.
CAIAPHAS (Kaid^as; according to Josephus, 'Joseph Caiaphas') was appointed high priest of the Jews in or soon after A.D. 18, and held office until lie was dejiosed by Vitellius about A.D. 36 (Jos. Ant. XVIII. ii. 2, iv. 3). He is referred to as the high priest in Lk 3= (witli Annas), Mt 26^- ", and is mentioned along with Annas, John, and Alexander among the heads of the Sanhedrin in Ac 4". The length of his rule, compared with the short periods allowed to his immediate predeces- sors, 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 cleath of Jesus. When, after the raising of Lazarus, the ' high priests and Pharisees ' held a meeting of the Sanhedrin (informal, as Caiaphas does not appea,r to have presided), it was Caiaphas who gave the ironically prophetic advice tliat it was expedient that one man should die for the people (Jn II'"). '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 pro- phet'; see also the remarks of Dale, The Atonement, p. 169 ft'. ), and had, as a matter of fact, been exercised by some of his predecessors in the office (Nu 27-')- The threefold repetition by St. John of the state- ment that Caiaphas was high priest ' that same year ' (AV ; RV ' that year ') has been made the ground of charging the Fourth Evangelist with Ignorance of tlie fact that the high priest might hold office for more than one jear. But tliis criti- cism rests on a misapprehension of the phrase (t-oO iviavToO iKebov), whicli emphasizes not the date, but the character of tlie year = ' that fateful year' (cf. Jn 20>» Mk 4»=).