THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY Return this book on or before the Latest Date stamped below. A charge is made on all overdue books. U. of I. Library Ancient Jerusalem. Drawn after Ordnance Survey by Captain Wilson. The map shows a possible location of Calvary, the Via Dolorosa, the (Jastle Antonia, and the Pretorium, Herod’s Palace Aceldama; the traditional site of the Holy Sepulchre and of the Via Dolorosa. O High PrieBt'8 House. 8. Agrippa’s Palace. 1. Temple of Solomon, ) 9. Acra. 2. Palace of Soiommi, y ^ ■Pn^ar>a Pool Amygdalon, or Pool of Heze- 8. Added on by Herod. J raiace. 4. The Tower Antonia. . 11. Herod’s Castle and Palace. 5. Antonia (,The Castle). 12. Bethesda. (3. Cloisters joining Antonia toTemple 13. Bridge built by Herod. 7. Xystus. 14. Lower City. Jesus was first led from Gethsemane to the High Priest’s house [] (page 7Sb wl'.ich stood ill the uppei’ city of Josephus. Then to the Council Caamber ad- joining the Temple, marked []1 (page 96). Here the trials before the Sanhedrim took place. He was then led to Fort Antonia (Marked 5,) (page U6). Here the trials before Pilate took place. He was then led to Herod’s Palace (Marked 11,) (pare 1-8). Here He was outraged by Herod. Ho was then led back to Fort An- tonia (]^igol 4). Here He was scourged and delivered up to death, and thence was He ;ed out to Calvary. MAY 27 1919 ^*)Ne have not followed Cunningly Devised Fables.” THE HOLY DEATH. A CRITICAL EXPOSITION THAT IS Told us in the New Testament Narratives Concerning the Trial, Condemnation and Death of : Jesus of NazaTieth, .. — BY — REV. H. M. P/^YNTER, A. M., AUTHOR OF 'The Shadow on the Hearth,” “A Kenovated Earth,” “Our Duty in the Present Crisis,” “Brief History of THE War in Missouri,” “The Holy Supper,” “The Holy Sor- row,” &c. SECOND EDITION. CHICAGO. C. H. W'hiting, 137 Wabash Avenue. 1883. Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1883, by KEV. H. M. PAYNTER, In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. GALLOP BROS., PRINTERS, fl5 S. HALSTED ST.. CHICAGO, z o 6 ?^ THE HOLY DEATH, ? O) ryj 5 ii PREFACE. Christianity rests on a historical basis. The traces which it has left on Jewish and heathen literature, are too many and deep to allow its reality to be called in question. The Talmud of Babylon gives the names of three of the Apostles, Matthew, Thaddeus and James. The Talmud of Jerusalem says: ^‘The name of Jesus is forbidden. It were better to die than to hear that name.” In defaming, it admits His miraculous power, or, at least. His claim to it. Josephus, in the annals of his times, speaks of a movement which he cannot under- stand, and to which he is indifferent. But he recogniz- es the fact. His statement about James, the Lord’s brother, (Ant. xix, 9, 1) has not been questioned : ^‘Annas, the high priest, assembled the Sanhedrim, and brought before it James, the brother of Him who is called Christ, and having charged him with breaking the laws, delivered him over to be stoned.” And his well-known passage (Ant. xviii, 3, 3) though questioned by some, is recognized as authentic by Renan : “In those times ap- peared Jesus, a wise man, the author of extraordinary acts, having for disciples those who love truth. He gathered around Him many Jews and Greeks. They did not renounce the love they had pledged to Him, even after Pilate had condemned Him to the cross, at the demand of the chiefs of the nation. The body of the Christians who have called themselves by His name, have remained faithful to Him to this day.” While the Jews reject Him as Messiah, there is, perhaps, not Ill an intelligent one who denies the reality of His exis- tence, and the reason and manner of His death. The heathen testimonies are unassailable. Pliny, proconsul to Bythinia, speaks (Lib. x, Ep. 98) of Chris- tianity as a fact, and points out the vital connectiou between it and its author, Jesus: ^^They sing a hymn to Christ, as if to God.” Seutonius, historian of the Csesars, though confounding Christians with Jews, recognizes the existence of this new power, and links its beginning to Christ. (Claudius, 25.) And Tacitus, in a passage, which Gibbon declares ‘‘the most skeptical criticism is bound to respect,” declares that, “in A. D, 65, the Christians in the great city of Eome formed a party large enough to attract attention; and that their author was Christ, who had been put to death by cru- cifixion, in the reign of Tiberius Nero, and by order ot the procurator, Pontius Pilate.” (Annals xv, 44.) A custom, perhaps an imperial order, required pro- vincial governors to transmit to Rome an account of all important proceedings. It is not improbable that Pilate sent to Rome an account of the trial and condemnation of Jesus. If so, the record has never been found. But it is mentioned, as a fact, by Justin Martyr in his address to the Emperor, Pius Antoninus, by Tertullian, in his Apology, and by Eusebius, in his History. The last writer adds that the papers included an account of the Resurrection of J esus. The authenticity and genuineness of the Gospels, though violently assailed, are too strongly supported to be set aside. But no criticism has yet dared to deny the genuineness and authenticity of Paul’s letter to the Romans, and his first one to the Corinthians. These must have been written before his imprisonment. This was about A. D. 62. They could not have been wu’it- ten later than A. D. 62, perhaps as early as A. D. 50, iv tliat is, from twenty to thirty years after Jesus’ death. ITie facts he mentions were well-known. He, himself, had been preaching them for many years. To these undeniable facts he appeals, as proofs of his statements. These facts embrace the trial, condemnation, death and resurrection of Jesus. And they are appealed to within, at the outside, thirty years after their occurrence. Our present study, therefore — and this remark, ap- plied also to the two previous pamphlets — is truly called a historical study. We have the facts. Let us seek to find out their import and bearing. As the ground has often been gone over, I need not cover the pages with authorities. Whenever I have obtained anything that would help me to a clearer or fuller understanding of the subject, I have freely used it, and gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness. I have arranged the continuous narrative after a careful and repeated study of the Four Gospels. May the Great Head of the Church graciously use this work in His cause, and to His praise. Chicago, September, 1883. H. M. Payhter. THE HOLY DEATH. PRELIMIHARY STUDY. Why was Jesus hated so bitterly, and by whom? SeCTIOI!^ I. The story of Jesus’ death has been often told. It cannot be told too often. It is one of surpassing inter- est. It tells of the voluntary closing of a life and teaching inexpressibly precious to God, infinitely valu- able to man. Yet they aroused the deadliest hate. To us this seems strange. Why was He pursued with such a hate? Why condemned to a death of such pro- longed and exquisite agony? Let us study the causes of this hate, and trace its progress from its inception in the first year of Jesus’ ministry, down to its result in the awful tragedy which culminated, on man’s part, in the cross, on J esus’ part, in the atonement and res- urrection. This hate had its home in the leading classes. These embodied the literature, law, culture, and were the ex- ponents of the morals and religion of the land. Their infiuence over the people was unbounded; and it ultimately voiced its hate in the cry of the mob, “Crucify.” Even before the opening of Jesus’ ministry there was a ferment in the Sanhedrim, occasioned by the questioning of the people whether or no John Baptist VI THE HOLY DEATH. was the Messiah (Luke iii, John i). God alone can communicate the truth which man needs, and alone give that testimony to it which cannot be mistaken. His prophets were furnished with evidence of their di- vine call — which was always given by them, and by the Prophet of all prophets, as He declared (John x, 37, 38, &c.,) and as Hicodemus, the well-disposed mem- ber of the Sanhedrim, recognized. This evidence every J ew had a right, under the law, to demand of a prophet on his appearance. How much more had the Sanhe- drim, in which, according to the Mosaic constitution, the political and ecclesiastical jurisdictions were lodged. (Deut. xiii, 1, sq.; xviii, 20, sq. ; Ezek. xiii, 1, sq.;) They could lawfully demand, as subsequently of Jesus, so now of John, to show his credentials. And in Jan- uary — February, A. D. 27, that body sent a deputa- tion of Priests and Levites, the two classes employed in the Temple service — the Priests to make an official ex- amination of his claims, the Levites, as Temple-police, to arrest Him, if required. They returned with the report of John’s words: am not the Messiah. But One is here, whom you know not, who is as superior to me as a master is superior to a servant.” During the Passover of that year (April 11-18), that body, by being brought into direct collision with Him, learned more ot Him of whom John spoke. He, in the meantime, had gathered a few disciples, and had, by a miracle, shown His Messianic power and glory. (John i, 33-44; ii, 1-14.) But He had not taught, nor made any public manifestation of Himself. An ancient THE HOLY DEATH. VII prophecy had declared that the Messiah would inaugu- rate His ministry in Jerusalem by coming suddenly into the Temple and purifying it. (Mai. iii, 1.) The hour had now come. (John ii, 4.) The Paschal solemnities had be- gun. The people were in the Temple-courts. Adja- cent thereto was a vast open space, enclosed on its four sides with coloiiades, called the court of the Gentiles. This outmost space, which went around the whole Tem- ple, was laid with colored stones, and begirt with beautiful halls. On the stone lattice, which went all the way around between it and the Temple, were Greek and Latin inscriptions, which forbade all, not Jews, to go nearer the sacred building, on pain of death. (Bell. Jud. vi, 2. 4.) In this court was a market, where ani- mals and doves were sold for the sacrifices, and where the foreign coins were exchanged for the half- shekel re- quired for the Temple. (Ex. xxx, 13.) This profanation of the Temple, this disturbance of the awful stillness of the place of the quiet prayer of the worshippers, and of the devout spirit of the multitudes watching the priestly service — doubly wrong, because done under the guise of religion — was a dreadful shock to Jesus’ conscience as a Jew, and to His heart as the Son. There was a recognition in all classes of the Jewish church of the fact that the reforming vocation stood higher than the external right (Num. xxvii, Tal- mud) and that any one acting as a prophet, or under the divine impulse, had a right to interfere with ex- isting abuses. Jewish history abounds in illustrations of its exercise (Lange, m Iogc\ So acted Jesus now. Vlll THE HOLY DEATH. (John ii, 13-17). In His conscious dignity as Son of Him to whom the Temple belonged in His right as prophet, and duty as the Messiah — unannounced as yet as such — He entered into the court to assert His rights, and execute His duty — as declared in the Old Testa- ment delineation of Him (Matt, xxi, 13; comp. Is. Ivi, 7; Jer. vii, 11). He made a whip, eh sclioinioon^ oi the rushes, littered down for the cattle to lie on. With it as an instrument. He drove out all the beasts. And with it, as a symbol of authority and judgment. He drove out the traders, and brokers as well, then overthrew their tables, saying, ^‘Take these things hence. Make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise.” Their acqui- escence arose, partly from their evil conscience in the matter, and, partly, from their impression of His moral majesty and power. For, as He disarmed the bands, (John vii, 46; xviii, 6), so He drove out the unholy trafficers from the precincts of the Temple, by the impression of His personality. He, Himself, was the mighty miracle. This act, and the words, ^^My Father,” were an appeal to the conscience of the people; and, while a stinging re- buke to their wickedness, were also a distinct challenge to the theocratic rulers. They were a public announce- ment of His Messiahship — the import of which, the Jews, with the report of the deputation to John before their eyes, could not doubt nor misunderstand.? If they accept it, it will be a moral victory over them which will make the theocracy the center of the Mes- sianic Kingdom. If they reject it, they wnll reject and THE HOLY DEATH. ix kill Him, and the theocracy will come to an end. This traffic may have been justified on the plea of neces- sity. Long continued custom may have given it recog- nition as lawful. But no trace of it is in the Old Tes- tament. It was an unseemly mingling of sacred and common transactions, a transferring of the turmoil of the market to the Holy Courts, a violation of the spirit of the law, a degradation of the idea of worship, and a depravation of the conscience of the trafficers, and of those who sold them the privilege. And by the devout worshippers, who regarded only the sanctity of the Temple, Jesus’ act must have been heartily approved. But it aroused the resentment of the High Priest and his family, by whom the traffic was sanctioned, and in whose gains — so say Jewish authorities — they shared. They felt insulted. They became His permanently bitter enemies. They knew that, legally, only a member of the Sanhedrim, or a prophet, could correct abuses, (Grotius), and that Jesus was not the former, but only a Galileean peasant, having no public authority. They, therefore, i. e., the Jews, daring not to challenge the right or propriety of the act, demanded a sign — such as great prophets gave in support of great acts of zeal — of His divine call. Jesus, in answer, gave an obscure allusion to His own resurrection — the great fact to which He always referred when asked for a sign of His mission: ‘‘Des- troy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Nothing was dearer to the Jews than the inviola- bility of the Temple. And the fact that this saying was X THE HOLY DEATH. treasured up, and used as most serious, though false, testimony against Him on His trial, and was the occa- sion of their bitterest scorn when He hung on the cross, shows how deeply the word struck the heart of the hierarchical party. This incident introduces us to the first party that showed hostility to Jesus. Etymologically, the term Ioudaio% Jews, describes the members of the tribe ot Judah. But as most of those who returned from the captivity belonged to this tribe, the word became the name of the nation, as the theocratic people. This is the meaning of the word in the seventeen mentions of it in the Synoptists, and in four places in John, (ii, 13; iii, 1; iv, 22; xiii, 33). He, elsewhere, uses it only as a designation of the hierarchical chiefs, the Sanhedrim, as the representatives of the nation, or of the Sanhedrists, their followers. It is with him, the synonym of the relentless hostility to Jesus, of which the Sanhedrim was the centre (v, 10; vii, 1; viii, 31; x, 24; xviii, 12, 14; com. xi, 47-53), and which began, not with the people, nor the Pharisees, but with the spiritual heads of the nation. It was aroused by His rebuke of their connivance with wrong, shown in His first, and it was consummated by His second cleansing of the Temple. As then judicially, so now morally, they rejected Him as the Messiali. Deep was the impression, however, which His mira- cles (wrought at this time in the city,) made upon the public mind. Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrim, sought His acquaintance, and recognized Him as a THE HOLY DEATH. XI Teacher come from God. Many in the city believed on, and many disciples in the Judean province were baptized by, Him. But the masses were waiting for the rulers, and they had not yet taken action. The in- terruptions, however, of His labors in the country (John iii, 25,) as in the city, indicated quite clearly what that action would be, when His claims were more pro- nounced, and His aims were better understood. In the March or April following, the secretly cher- ished, became outspoken, hostility. Jerusalem was the scene, the Jews the actors, the feast of Burim, or Pass- over, the time, and the healing of an impotent man, with the command to him to take up his Kraibaton^ small couch, or rug, and walk, the occasion of it. (John v.) Carrying burdens on that day was forbidden by the law. (Ex. xxxi, 13-17; Heh. xvii, 21, 22; Jer. xvii, 21, 22.) But the traditions forbade the carrying of a bed (Talmud), and the healing of the sick (Luke xiii, 14.) And the Jews, i. members of the Sanhedrim, said, therefore, to the man, “It is the Sabbath day; it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.’’ The man’s answer was simple and sufficient. His Healer had told him to do it. The power to heal in- volved the power to suspend the Sabbath law, which, like the healing, was God’s work. And in transferring the blame from the man to Jesus, the Jews showed that they recognized this fact. But indifferent to this signal proof of His power, and to His act of mercy on the body, and work of grace in the soul, of the sufferer, they were profoundly stirred by this daring contraven- Xll THE HOLY DEATH. tion of their Sabbatical statutes. They saw that it was a setting aside of their whole system of legal righteous- ness. It demanded attention. Jesus was a dangerous man. “They gought to persecute,” i, e., judicially in- jure Him, break His influence, get Him out of the way. A council was called — for the question whether such things were lawful must come before the theocratical authorities for decision. By their order He was ar- rested and brought before, not the Little Sanhedrim, for it had no criminal jurisdiction, but the Great one. He was put upon trial. This fact is seen in the use of the verb, diohein (v. 16). It has here the double mean- ing of (a) persecute, then, and continually, afterwards ; and (b) try, by a judicial process, as in Luke xxi, 12, (Greek) (Lange, Godet, Meyer). The accusation was, that, epoiei (imperfect) He “continually was doing” these- things; (see Mark i, 21, 23, 30, for previous instances) an 1 by His principles and example, eluen (imperfect), was dissolving the Sabbath — a strong word, indicating its complete disappearance (v. 16). And the two charges, (a) healing, (b) commanding the man to carry His bed, were craftily combined in the single indictment of Sabbath-breaking. Jesus was ready to join issue. This was the first time that He had, in J erusalem, broken with the rigid Rabbinical observance of the Sabbath. Of this, as also of all traditional interpretations. His action was an em- phatic condemnation. And His answer to the indict- ment was both triumphant and sublime. He does not here take the ground, “It is lawful to do good on that THE HOLY DEATH. Xlll day,” blit the loftier position of His relation to the Lord of the Sabbath: ^^My Father worketh until now, and I work also.” His absolute equality with the Father, and their co-ordinate working, give Him exaltation above the Sabbath law and conformity, hence, in His working, with that law. This answer enraged the Sanhedrim. They could not, for some reason, find Him worthy of death under this charge. They now bring forward a second and graver one, blasphemy, the penalty for which was death (Lev. xxi, 16). It was founded on His words, Theon patera idion^ ^^God His own Father,” which they rightly understood to declare peculiar, personal Sonship, and equality of dignity and nature with God; ison heauton poioon to Theo^ “making Himself equal witTi God.” To them believing that the Messiah Himself would be only a man, though an extraordinary one, this was shocking blasphemy; doubly so, here, for it made God a partici- pator in Jesus’ crime of Sabbath-breaking. It is clear from Jesus’ words, “Ye sent unto John,” (v. 33), that His address (vs. 18-47) was spoken before the Tribunal, and in His self-vindication from this charge. The point of it is, dunatai ho huios apK^ eauton^ the Son is able to do nothing from Himself;” (V. 19). There is unity of action founded on unity of being — the perfect self-communication of the Father to the Son. Because of relationship to the Father, and from the nature and necessity of the case, the Son can do nothing from Himself, so cannot sin, L e., break the Sabbath law. XIV THE HOLY DEATH. After Jesus’ first reply, the Sanhedrim ^‘sought the more to kill Him.” The mallon^ the more, of verse 18, shows that the real, but concealed, intention to kill, of verse 16, implied in ^^persecute,” (the ^^sought to kill” of verse 16, is an interpolation), had now passed into the formal one of declaring Him worthy of death for blasphemy. But it does not seem to have passed into a judicial decision. The hour for that had not yet come. And His second vindication compelled them to let Him go — not because their Judgment was convinced, or their hostility was abated, for the whole scene had rapidly de- veloped their unbelief, rejection and hostility, but — ^be- cause, for some reason, they could not hold Him. They decided — so we infer from the increasing hostility that His subsequent acts of healing on the Sabbath aroused —that such acts, as He did, were unlawful. And they let Him know that if He was again found in Judea, they would re-arrest Him, and put Him to death. (John vii, 1, 26-32.) Because of these acts, the priests lost their opportu- nity of being used in His service. Their priesthood was set aside. And they, and the people in their cor- porate capacity as in covenant with God, must suffer loss. For these acts showed that nothing He could do, or say, would ever convince the rulers of His divine character and mission, or change their relentless hate. By their de- cision He was excluded from Judea. Henceforth the Holy City could be no safe abode for Him. Hence- forth, did He go up to the feasts, it must be with His life in His hands. He saw what the end would be. raE HOLY DEATH. XV The seat of the theocracy was to he the center of resist- ance. This would go on increasing in power while He lived. Under the withering influence of this decision, the outward admiration, or passive indifference of its popu- lation — completely under the council of the priests — would rapidly pass into doubt, disbelief, readiness to sup- port the rulers in any act of violence. The struggle between Him and them must, from its very nature, be a deadly one. He had precipitated it. It would not stop until it ended in His death in Jerusalem. (Luke xiii, 33, sq.) Every time He was in the city. He, when face to face with ^^the Jews,’’ manifested His glory most brilliantly. This both incensed and hardened them more and more. They obliged Him to keep up an in- cessant conflict. (And to this are we indebted for those lengthy and precious discourses in John v-xi.) Henceforth they sent their emissaries, who so constant- ly watched His steps, disturbed Him in Galilee, and seized every occasion to destroy His reputa- tion and His work. (Matt, xvi, 12; Mark iii, 22, vii, 1; Luke v, 17, vi, 1 3.) Immediately upon His return to Galilee, April, A. D. 28, Jesus went into the synagogue at Nazareth, and addressed the people. His human parentage, child- hood, occupation, and lack of the education obtained in the Kabbinical schools, were familiar facts. There may have been a secret dislike of Him, because, though among, He was not of, them. His words now excite. His prophetic claims enrage, them. They assailed Him, and would have killed Him, had He not escaped. (Lk.iv.) XVI THE HOLY DEATH. This attack proved but the ebullition of fierce and cruel men; and was not repeated. Not so, however, was the cool antagonism of the Pharisees. Those in Jerusalem had already manifested their feelings. Je- sus’ public appearance in the city. His cleansing of the Temj)le, His miracles, and His growing popularity, seen in the great numbers that came to Him for bap- tism, increased their uneasiness and envy. They began to take serious account of this One, who might be more independent and formidable than John. (John iv, 1-3.) And at once they would have acted, had not He, to quiet the agitation, left Judea, and returned to Galilee. This was in December, A. D. 27. In the following summer they, the Pharisees, came prominently forward as active foes. Nor did their agitation cease until it reached that point where His death was inevitable. They were the second great party opposed to Jesus. They, and the Sadducees, were not a sect, in the proper sense of that term, but one of the parties, rather, into which the nation was divided. (Gratz. Gest, der JudeUy iii, 81). The name — the Greek form of the Hebrew perucheirby the Separated — originated in the era of the captivity. It was the title given, or assumed, of those who opposed those who favored the mingling of the Jews with foreigners. (Smith’s Bib. Die. Art. Phar.^ These would denationalize and paganize the nation. Those would keep it pure. To them conscious of its high desti- ny, this mingling, and subjection to a foreign yoke, were alike odious. The yoke they could not prevent. They had to bear it, with but brief intervals, down to the time of THE HOLY DEATH. XVI 1 Christ, and were yet bearing it when He lived. But they ^ would not be slaves to their conquerors. They would not debase their blood by intermarriage. They would keep patriotism an ever-living flame. All this could be done only by keeping the theocracy flourish- ing. And it could flourish only by a rigid keeping of the law, and of all the traditions. These were living ideas. Around these a strong party, called Pharisees, was speedily gathered. Their influence rapidly spread. They became, and continued, the leaders (Matt, xxiii, 2), to whom the people looked as guides and examples. Through their influence came, out of the two facts above mentioned, that political and religious situation which was throughout the land when Jesus appeared. From that intimate association of those ideas, piety had gradually become confounded with patriotism. Then it lost its place as an end, most excellent in itself, and was regarded only as the means of keeping patriotism alive. Thus it lost its hold on the heart. And in its place there grew up, under Pharasaic teaching, that brood of vices which called forth Jesus’ most emphatic condemnation. This condition of things was stereotyped by that magnificent outbreak of patriotism under the Macca- bees, which, while it made the people a nation of patri- ots, so hardened their character that they might be crushed, but could not be changed. This outbreak also,un- der Pharasaic teaching, changed entirely the people’s idea of the Messiah. He, unlike the One whom the prophets had foretold, was to be an earthly King full of grandeur. XVlll THE HOLY DEATH. and a warrior sweeping all foreign rule from tlie land. He was to conquer universal peace by the sword, make men happy through his legislation, and give the chosen people wealth beyond computation. (Presse- nse’sZ^y^ of Jesus ^ *^4:.) This idea, the burden of the Hebrew Sibylline leaves, was perpetuated and in- tensified in the national mind by being linked to the fanatic patriotism which the book of Judith kept alive. Patriotism was the animating principle of the later Pharisees, and must be that of their Messiah. The triumph of monotheism being, as they regarded it, the triumph of their ideal, they held it fast as the means to this end. To it, as personified in Jesus, they could not, however, but be bitterly opposed. The first Pharisees were men of great purity of char- acter, of noble mind, and of exalted worth. They ear- nestly opposed everything inconsistent with the ritual and with the written law. Their nobility of character, pas- sionate patriotism, and strict adherence to the Mosaic institutions, gave them a deservedly supreme infiuence. This infiuence the party possessed in the days of Jesus. It had so powerful a hold on the minds of the people, and had so worked on the national pride, tliat it practically, as a sort of a religious aristocracy, dominated over all classes. Even the hierarchy, through Sadducean, yielded to its tyranny. Eulers resisting its dictation were discredited. Those of them who believed on Je- sus, dared not confess Him, for fear of its wrath. The people less strong could not stand up against this force. The well-meaning ones of John ix, who desired to own THE HOLY DEATH. XIX JesHS, but for the sake of personal safety, bring the matter immediately to the spiritual chiefs — as did the man of John v- — are but samples of the power of this odious influence. And the only One who stood up against it found the reward of His courage and faithful- ness in the cry: ^^Crucify Him! Crucify Him!” This galling tyranny resulted from the ascendency which the party had obtained through that which was then, and had been for centuries, its chief distinction, viz: regard for the oral law — a series of unwritten in- terpretations, handed down from Moses, it was said, and which was needed to complete, explain and enforce the written law. This system, when not puerile, was vicious. It led its adherents into the discussion, not of laws of vital importance to man, but of scholastic and trivial questions. (Mishna, ITebamoth^ 1-4. DavTcei^ Ham-Mishna, pg. 56.) It nourished, not intrinsic excellence, but self-complacency and spiritual pride. It made its devotees the most intense formalists that the world has ever known. In embracing every detail of religious and daily life, it treated men as children, and laid on them ^^burdens too heavy” — so Jesus said — “to be borne.” The result was disastrous to sound piety and elevated morality. Formal devotion took the place of the former, heartless observance of petty, rigid rules, and a great show of attitudes and of clothes, the place of the latter. Everything was sacriflced to the letter, and to the external. Worldly ends and success were sought through religious means. Dissimulation and lust were XX THE HOLY DEATH. allowed in their own members, so that they were done in secret, and God was not publicly dishonored. (Jahr hundert des Heils^ ii, 166-170.) Except its genuine patriotism, the whole thing was hollow. Its adherents were penetrated by their beliefs, devoted to the theoc- racy, and, in their own way, very devout. But the Pharisee’s prayer showed their pretense. Thoroughly conscious of their own worth, they needed to ask noth- ing from God. Thanking Him that they had abund- ance of wealth, and perfection of character, they looked with disdain on others. But, with some noble excep- tions, they were hypocrites, i. mask- wearers, outside religious, within full of all uncleanness. They and Jesus held some beliefs in common. But this fact could not blind Him to their unrealities. To Him, the word of God alone was authoritative. They made it void by their traditions, which either strangled its freedom, or directly opposed its teachings. He called for right actions from right motives, and for purity of soul. They cherished outward purity, and boasted of a righteousness which was merely a bald and mechanical egotism. Between His teaching, exposi- tions of the law and prophets, and His and their life, there could be neither accord nor sympathy. As to be- liefs and conduct, the nature and essence of religion, the law, the rule of life, the relation of God to man, and of man to God, and the authority of tradition, the antag- onism was radical, sharp, direct and unyielding. He exposed their true character. They looked on Him with mingled amazement, horror and hate. They never THE HOLY DEATH. xxi felt that they were wrong and He was right. Hence they rejected Him, and His words. They saw that His success was the downfall of traditionalism. And re- garding it as the life of J udaisin, they felt that it was better that He, rather than it, should die. And our in- vestigation, as it proceeds, will show how the antagon- ism of thought passed with them into the antagonism of act. The conflict at Jerusalem had aroused them to action. They, and the doctors of the law, were present at Capernaum, in large numbers. (Matt, ix, 2-8 ; Mark ii, 2-12; Luke v, 17-26.) They had come together out of every town of Galilee and Judea, to meet those from Jerusalem. They were aware of Jesus’ growing influ- ence and reputation, that His fame was spread abroad everywhere, and that He was the object of intense in- terest, and of great curiosity. They came to judge Him and His mission by personal observation. They saw a paralytic set down before Him. They heard Him say, ‘‘Take courage, my son, (Matt. Greek) thy sins are forgiven thee.” (Luke.) The form of Jesus’ expression intimates that it was a challenge to the Pharisees and scribes. They instantly accepted it. It was a welcome word to their heresy-hunting souls. They “reasoned in their hearts,” they “murmured with their tongues,” “This man blasphemeth: for who, save God, can forgive sins?” Jesus heard their words and understood their mur- murings. Jesus had the power to, and, with equal ease, could, pardon or heal. But it is very much easier to confound the person who claims the power to heal — un- less he actually does it — than the one who claims the XXll THE HOLY DEATH. power to forgive sins. He, therefore, to convince the people that He possessed the power to forgive sins, gave an imposing physical demonstration of the moral fact. He showed, by and through the cure of the body, that He both had the power to, and actually did, forgive the sins, of the paralytic. The Pharisees were silenced. They could do nothing. But they were the more irritated, and watched Him more closely. His imputed blasphemy did not touch their personal feelings, prejudices, or cherished convic- tions. These, however, were, a few days later, shocked by His utter disregard of their traditionalism as to the Sabbath. (Matt, xii, 1-8; Mark ii, 21-28; Luke vi, 1-6.) They saw Him start from Capernaum on a Sabbath day. They watched to see whether His walk would be longer than the law allowed. They saw His hungry disciples plucking, and rubbing in their hands, some grain. This was contrary to their canons. (Lightfoot, Meyer, on Matt, xii, 2, sq.) They found fault with Him for al- lowing it. His unanswerable justification of their con- duct and His two declarations ; (a) that the Sabbath was j^.. made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; and, (b) that the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath; exci- ted their intense hostility, as His healing of the im- potent man, and His cleansing of the Temple, had aroused the wrath of the hierarchy. When, therefore, on the following Sabbath, He entered into the Syna- gogue, they watched Him with malicious gaze, to see if He would heal any one. ‘‘^Is it,” said He, ^dawful to do good, and to save life, on the Sabbath? You will take a THE HOLY DEATH. XXlll sheep out of a pit on that day. How much better is a man than a sheep. It is, therefore, lawful to do good on that day.” And He, to vindicate this principle for ail time, healed a man before them on that day. (Matt, xii, 9-12; Mark iii, 1-7; Luke vi, 6-12.) They were again silenced, but filled with rage. They now had ground for an accusation. A council of their own members was held. As before in J udea, A. D. 27, by the Jews, so now in Galilee, A. D, 28, His death was determined upon. And they at once took council with the Herodians, of Capernaum, how to accomplish it. These were a political party which originated under Herod the Great, whom many of them regarded as the Messiah, and whose half-heathen dynasty they sustained. (Lightfoot.) They hated the Roman dominion over Judea. Yet because they desired Herod’s family to possess kingly power, they^ held that Rome’s rule was lawful and just, and that the Herodian family’s rule under it was a pledge of the national existence. Their hope was, that should Judea become free, Herod’s house could then, above all other claimants, sit on the throne. They cared little for either religion, or morality, or for the law. They accepted the compromise between the ancient faith and heathen civilization which that family sought to reaU ize as the highest consummation of Jewish hopes. They strongly disliked the rigid observance of the Mosaic ritual and ethics. Hence they welcomed that family’s libertinism, and aided its efforts to heathenize the land. Thus they, by foreign corruptions, as the Pharisees by native traditions, helped on the work of undermining XXIV THE HOLY DEATH. the national faith, and destroying the national power. We are not informed what was their motive for joining in this conspiracy. With them Jesus had nothing in common, as is clear from His solemn warning against their Sadducean -leaven given at a later day. (Matt, xvi, 6, with Mark xiii, 15.) They cared nothing for His supposed disregard of the Sabbath, but were jealous, of Him, perhaps, as said to be a claimant for David’s throne. Or, the secret of their action was, perhaps, that against their lives and teaching. His own were a continuous and solemn rebuke. The conspiracy failed, because Jesus, as soon as He knew of it, withdrew from that place. But it was not abandoned, rather it was made stronger. The impres- sion which the raising of the widow’s son made upon the people was widespread and profound. It must be counteracted, and could be,^ c>nly, by the organization into one compact body, of all the opposition in Galilee. This was the object, so it seems, that brought down, in the autumn of that year, a deputation of scribes from Jerusalem. (Matt, xii, 22-37; Mark iii, 19-30.) The Chief Priests were Sadducees. But the scribes, while writers and teachers by profession, were Pharisees in sentiment and party connection. (Com. Matt, xii, 24, with Mark iii, 12. See Alexander in loco,) And these two were constantly joined together in hostility to Jesus. (Matt, v, 20; xii, 8; xv, 1; xxiii, 2-29; Mark ii, 16; vii, 5; Luke vi, 7; John vii, 3, &c.) They now united with the Pharisees, resident in Capernaum, in watching Him. In their presence He cast a demon THE HOLY DEATH. XXV ont of one blind and dumb, and immediately the man spoke and saw. At once the astonished people ask, ‘^Is not this David’s Son?”' This Messianic title given Him — now for the first time — instantly aroused the malignant feelings of the scribes. They could not deny the miracle, but they imputed it to Satanic agency: “He casts out demons by Beelzebub.” And, subse- quently, when the blind men addressed Him by the same title, and were healed, the Pharisees repeat the calumny (Matt, ix, 27, 34). As this virtually included all that He said and did, it was a sweeping charge that the Spirit of God, who rested on Him, was the spirit of Beelzebub. And this explains the severity of Jesus’ un- answerable reply. (Matt, xii, 26-37; Mark iii, 23-30; Luke xi, 17-23.) Thus, to the opprobrious charges, “He has broken the Sabbath,” “He has blasphemed,” they now add this, the third, “He is in league with evil spirits.” To this, a few days later, they added a fourth. Jesus’ call of Levi, the publican, to the most intimate relations with Himself, was a great mortification to their personal and party pride; and, because of the odiousness of the publicans, a grievous offense to the public weal. They were a proof and badge of hated Gentile domination, and of consequent national degradation. They were, as the agents of oppression and robbery, outcasts, hated and despised. To call one of them to be a disciple, and then an apostle, was to say that publicans could receive the truth, and were as good as Pharisees. While this sore was yet rankling in their breasts. XXVI THE HOLY DEATH. they learned that Jesus had actually accepted an invi- tation to dine at Levi’s house. (Matt, ix, 10-17 ; Mark ii, 15-22; Luke v, 29-39.) It was a great feast, given to honor Jesus, and also to give Him an opportunity to meet Levi’s own class, publicans, in social intercourse. A great company of them was present. Jesus’ presence showed a high regard for them. And it was also an open rebuke of the Pharisees’ exclusiveness. They were present. They saw Him eat with publicans and sin- ners (Mark x, 16). This was an outrage against which they remonstrated angrily with His disciples — as they did afterwards when He went into Zaccheus’ house, Luke xix — ^^Why eats and drinks, your Master, with men of evil lives, who regard not * the traditions, and who are servants of Kome?” And this anger was in- creased by Jesus’ answer to them: ^^God will have mercy, and not sacrifice;” ^^the whole need not a physi- cian, but the sick;” ‘^Icame, not to quarrel with rulers, but to save;” ‘^not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” They dared not stop Him in His work. His reputa- tion and influence with the people was now — Apr.-Oct. A. D. 29 — very great. It seemed as if success would crown His labors. But appearances could not deceive His clear-seeing eye. He saw that the hostility was unyielding; that His popularity rested on no solid basis; that the more clearly and fully He made known His Mes- sianic character, the more would people fall away, and be ready — though now they would make Him King (John vi) — to join in the cry, ^^Crucify;” that the nation THE HOLY DEATH. XXVll wonld not receive Him; and that He must suffer many things, and he set at naught. All this, He said, for the sake of the faithful few, to whose instruction He now largely devoted Himself. He kept Himself secluded. He would not array the rulers and chief men against Himself, needlessly. Yet their rage grew fiercer with every opportunity it had to express itself. Those of the scribes who had previously visited Ca- pernaum, had returned with bitter feelings, aroused by their discomfiture. Meantime, reports had been brought to the city of the stupendous miracle of the feeding of i the five thousand, and of the desire of the excited people to make Jesus King. His enemies were greatly %larmed and agitated. The impression on the public mind must be effaced. Jesus’ growing popularity must be checked. A deputation of the scribes and Phari- sees, as representatives of the whole body of the scribes and Pharisees of the city, was — summer of A. D. 29 — sent down from the Synagogue in Jerusalem to Caper- naum. This was the first time the Pharisees in the city are found united with those in Galilee against Him. To their wakeful eye and ear, however, nothing comes, . save the puerile fact that His disciples eat with un- washen hands. This, because a transgression against the traditions of the elders, was an offense to the Phari- sees rather than to the scribes, who, Jesus saw, from this incident, would continue His enemies. In His re- ply, so full of severity, and which offended them the more. He openly charged them with being hypocrites, and with setting aside, by their traditions, the com- xxvn 1 THE HOLY DEATH. mandments of God. (Matt, xvi, 20; Mark iii, 1-23.) In these two incidents the scribes are seen for the first time as a party, the third, hostile to Jesns. Henceforth their activity in bringing about the death of J esns, was very great and infiuential. They were called gramma- teis^ writers, and sopJierim^ wise men. They had been a distinct class in the nation from an early day. Their position and importance, after the captivity, were higher than those of the High Priest. (Ez. v, 12.) And after the time of Malachi they became a yet more im- portant element in society. With him the Spirit’s \ ' vivifying, purifying gales ceased to blow over the peo- ple. As a consequence, the religious life became stag-y nant, and the ritualis tic element petrified. The reign< ■^of the letter began. Tradit ion followed with its w ith- 1 ering infl uence. Judaism became a dead organizations -Then the scribes became a powerful corporation. The people regarded them as having taken the place of the prophets, and their influence was unbounded. The praises bestowed upon them by Sirach (xxxix, 1-1 9)^ about 200 B. 0., is such as no mortal deserves. The Targums apply to them the Messianic promises. The ‘‘Book of Principles” avers that the crown they wear is higher than that worn by High Priest or King, that heaven is only a school of Babbis, and that honoring a Rabbi is honoring God. (Pirke, Aboth, pg. 581, 683.) This praise wh’ch the scribes, as a class, continued to claim, was originally bestowed upon “the Great Sanhe- drim,” as the immediate successors of Ezra were called. These were men venerated, because zealous for every- THE HOLY DEATH. xxix thing that concerned the law, and whose one aim was to promote reverence for it, and to make it the ground- work and life blood of the nation’s life. They wrote it out, and classified its precepts. They were both the custodians and expounders of the sacred writings. (Schubert.) And that they might make them, by liv- ing obedience, a living reality to society and state, they kept them continually before the people. They, more than any other class, represented the people’s relig- , ious life. They drew to themselves nearly all the en- ergy of thought of Judaism, and gave it that form which it had when J esus appeared. (Pressense’s Life of Jesus Christ.) From about B. 0. 300, however, that force was, un- happily, in the wrong direction. Then the scribes be- gan to give decisions on the law, and also new precepts. These latter, called “The Words of the Scribes,” formed a new system of casuistry. And though this com- pletely inverted the right relation of the moral and ceremonial laws, yet it, through the infiuence of the scribes, was considered worthy of greater authority and honor than the law itself. Hence, an offense against it was graver, and more severely to be punished than an offense against the law. Some scribes were transcribers merely; others, readers and interpreters of the law; and others, lawyers in the lower courts. The more distinguished filled three high offices: (a) they expounded in the synagogues; (b) they sat in the Sanhedrim ; to which, as a class, they had a right (though all of them were not members, Winer) XXX THE HOLY DEATH. and of which they formed a constituent part; (c) and they taught in the schools and universities, of which there were 84. (Lightfoot’s Works, ix, 306.) Those of them competent and authorized to teach the Gemara, were called nomodidasTceloi^ doctors of the law. (Luke V, 17.) Their text hooks were the Targums and Talmuds* Out of them they taught the law, and their own ethi. cal system; and portrayed their promised Messiah. Not a Sufferer was He to be: that idea had no place in their system, and was abhorrent to all their thoughts: but a mighty King descended from David and born in Bethlehem, who would re-conqner Palestine, and restore the kingdom to Israel. (Gfroerer, ii, 216, 246.) Their learning, labors and high social position gave them a moral authority, and a political influence, greater than that of any other class. To them Herod referred the question where Christ should be born. Once, when the people were about to proclaim Jesus as the Messi- ah, their influence checked the movement. And they must bear a large share of the guilt of His death. No wonder they were insufferably self-conceited and vain. In the graphic delineation of them in the gos- pels, we see their strut and airs. In public life they went about in long robes, with broad, blue fringe, sought, and received, the title of Rabbi, the reverential kiss of scholars, the salutation of the crowd in the market- place, and the chief seats in the synagogues. (Matt, xxiii.) In social life, the seat of honor at feasts must be theirs. By pretense of great piety, and show of long prayers, they acquired an influence over wealthy THE HOLY DEATH. XXXI widows. Then, under pretense of advancing their in- terests, they, who boasted that they loved the law and truth of God too well to teach for pay (Schurer, Neutest Zertgest^ pg. 443), devoured their wealth. (Matt, xxiii.) To their instruction from Moses, Jesus commanded obedi- dience. (Matt, xxii, 2.) To their own dicta His teaching was, in its deepest principles, strongly opposed. And the chief features of their portrait, as drawn by Him, pride, hypocrisy and coveteousness. He exposed in all their hideousness. They were divided into two chief schools, that of Beth Hillel, arid that of Beth Shammai. Hillel lived to be 120 years old, and may have been one of the doctors {i. ^., expounders of the Gemara, and actual members of the Sanhedrim), before whom Jesus was talking when 12 years old. He, and Gamaliel, His grandson, were, successively, the head of this school during Jesus’ whole ministry. There were members of this school who were placed by the side of prophets, and who were among the instruments by which the wisdom of God was teaching men. The Hillels were men of patience, peace and humanity. They were advocates of toleration. They were interested, not in political af- fairs, but in the study of the law, deeds of kindness, and the mission of Israel. To this school those scribes belonged— so it seems — ^who were favorably disposed towards Jesus, respected Him as a Teacher, were not far from the Kingdom of God, and though too timid to take a stand against the firm and determined spirit of Sad- ducean priests and scribes of the school of Shammai, yet xxxii THE HOLY DEATH. they took no part in His trial and death. (Matt, xxii, 34; Mark x, 17; xii, 34; John iii, 1; vii, 51; xii, 42. The Shammai men, seemingly strict, were secnlar, rich, luxuriant, self-indulgent, and tainted with deep and incurable, though unconscious, hypocrisy. They were a political party, fierce, fanatical, vindictive, and furnished the Zealots, so prominent in the days of Ju- dea’s dissolution. (Rabbi Wise, Hist. Heh.^ pg. 47, 48.) They constantly appealed to popular passions, and to the sword to decide their way. While to its politic adaptation to the feelings of the people, to its cleaving to tradition, to its want of instruction of a higher life, of the school of Hillel, Jesus’ teaching presented a strong contrast, yet in much fie and it was on com- mon ground. But to the teaching, life and spirit of the school of Shammai, Jesus was in direct antagonism. And their hostility to Him was very pronounced from the first. Didaskalos is the ^ord used in the gospels as the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew word. Rabbi. (J ohn i, 38; XV, 16.) It is — except in Luke ii. 46, doctors, and in John iii, 2, teacher — invariably translated, master. It was the name given to one competent to teach, and belonged — as did nomodidasTcalos^ doctor of the law, Luke V, 17 — to the scribes. Yet this title was appro- priated by Jesus Himself (Matt, xxvi, 9; Luke xvii, 11), and given to Him by others. And though the scribes themselves, the Hillels, perhaps, gave it to Him, yet the appropriation of it by Him to Himself, which could not but excite the envy and anger of the Shammais, THE HOLY DEATH. XXXlll His calling disciples around Him, and the widespread and profound astonishment and impression made upon the people by His teaching and miraculous cures, all combined to fasten the attention of the opposing scribes most closely upon Him. In the summer of A. D. 28, as we have seen, they were present, at Capernaum, from all parts of the land, to judge for themselves. They had already been offended at Jesus’ refusal to allow one of their number to follow Him. (Matt, viii, 19, 20.) Now their hostility, aroused by His presuming to for- give sins, was increased by the impression His miracle of healing made on the people: ^^They were amazed, filled with fear, glorified Grod.” They noted His tireless activity as a teacher in the synagogues, and on the streets. They were aware that His great addresses came from One never taught in their schools, that He handled the whole range of sub- jects which they claimed as their exclusive domain, and much that was beyond their range, that He kept away from them and rejected their scholastic interpretations, that He taught with an authority which they could not command, and with an infiuence which they could neither deny nor obtain. This unexpected invasion of their prerogatives brought Him into collision with them. His growing influence stung their pride. His success, they saw, was their overthrow. He must be stopped. Individual effort would fail. And as a result of deliberated action, they sent the first depu- tation from Jerusalem into Galilee — the narrative of which we have already studied. XXXIV THE HOLY DEATH. In the meantime — summer of A. D. 29 — another party first appeared amon^ Jesns’ foes. (Matt, xvi, 1-12; Mark viii, 10-15.) The Sadducees were as prominent in the nation as were the Pharisees; and if with the people less, with the rul- ers, they were more influential than their great antag- onists. They arose about the same time, and are first mentioned by Sirach (hi, 33; viii, 1; xiv, 9; xvii, 26). They took their name, some say, from Tzaddok^ right- eous, and rested their claims for distinction on their zeal for morality (Mishna) as the Pharisees did on their zeal for the exact observance of tradition, and of the letter of the law. Others say that they were founded by Zaddok, took his name, and ever followed his max- im, ^^Sever not thyself from the majority” (Talmud).. But if they began with the supreme obligation of mor- ality, and of the written law, they had, in the time of Christ, far declined from their original principles. Their characteristics are mentioned in the New Testa- ment, only when, and as they came into contact with Jesus’ teaching. But these are bad enough. They denied any spirit, any resurrection, any direct action to God on human beings or affairs, any extra-mundane sphere for the play of human thought. ^‘The leaven of the Sadducees” is the phase by which Jesus expresses their subtle and evil influence. Josephus also sketches them. They were rationalistic moralists. They had a hard and narrow heart, and regarded men as tools for their own purposes. They were haughty, arrogant^ severe. They were voluptuous egotists, who lived only THE HOLY DEATH. XXXV for pleasure, and desired only the material advantages of power. Made np, as a party, of nobles and priests of high rank, and con&titnting a kind of spiritual aristocracy, they aimed at culture, and high social influence. If the Pharisees were fanatically patriotic, the Sadducees were indifferent to their country’s fate. They were the party of the foreigner. Setting aside the fervency and austerity of true Judaism, and proclaiming liberalism in human affairs, they found in Herod and his family, men after their own heart. These princes had a de- praved conscience, and were men without deep convic- tions, destitute of true principle, enemies of true devo- tion, and parasites of Pome. All this suited the Sad- ducees exactly. They readily submitted to their yoke, flattered them, courted them, and sustained them in their life and rule. (Jos. Ant, xviii, 11. Geiger Tin- schrift^ pg. 104). Though, as a party, they were not directly charge- able with Jesus’ death, yet in the Sanhedrim they were all powerful. ‘^Only the Levitically clean,” i, 6., priests, Levites, and those whose daughters might marry priests, ^^could sit as judges in capital cases.” (Mishna.) And these, at the time of Jesus’ trial, were, almost without exception, Sadducees. (Acts v, 17.) Up to this time they had looked upon Jesus with in- difference, if not contempt. He had not come into collision with them. But they may have been set against Him by the ^members of the Sanhedrim. Or His teaching may have aroused their hostility. Now they unite with the Pharisees against Him. They XXX vi THE HOLY DEATH. tempt Him to give a sign from heaven. He refused. Then turning to His disciples He warned them to beware of the leaven of the Sadducees, which He calls the leaven of Herod. The plot to destroy Him secretly (see pg. 23j was confined to the Pharisees of Capernaum and its vicinity. Between them, and the Pharisees of Jerusalem, who had also pronounced against Him, an active correspon- dence had been carried on. A deputation of the syna- gogue in the city, representing all the resident Phari- sees and scribes, had already appeared in Galilee, to consult with those there how to end Jesus’ work and life at once. (See pg. 27.) How the Sadducees appear. Thus all the leading classes — the enemies in Galilee and those in Jerusalem, the Judaism of the School and Temple — were arrayed against Him in solid column. With the exception of the nobler type of Judaism — which, whether or not receiving Him as Messiah, were free from all hostility — the conspiracy was general. And the reasons for this hostility and rejection, as they appear thus far, may be briefiy summed up. The lowliness of His birth and parentage, as contrasted with His claims (John vii, 27, 41); His utter setting aside of class distinctions, rejecting one scribe who proffered his assistance, and selecting His apostles from the poor and lowly; His exercise of authority over the Temple, and His exhibition of power; His claims to be the Messiah — a fact which they viewed with amazement and horror; His calling sinners to repentance; His as- sociation with publicans, whom they regarded as trait- THE HOLY DEATH. XXXVll ors to the nation, and false to God, and with sinners, whom they regarded as Pariahs — both acts being a shock to their deepest convictions and prejudices; His great and growing influence with the people, and with some great families, as Jairus’; His constant exposure of all unreality, which was a constant rebuke of their hypocracy; and the fact, especially, that His life and teaching, unless neutralized, would be a death-blow to their influence, honor, and sources of wealth; all these things helped to swell the tide of hostility. To these must be added His supposed offense against the Sabbath. On this point He and the chiefs of the nation were in con- stant collision. Legal institutions had surrounded that day with the most solemn sanctions. It was regarded hf all Jews as holy, and as essential to faith and worship. It had been made for man. In the multiplicity of earthly toils and burdens, he so scatters himself that he is in danger of losing collectedness and rest of spirit. He, hence, needs to collect himself anew. And the design of the Sabbath rest and worship was to restore the human spirit, distracted by earthly cares, to the harmony of the Divine Spirit, God. But the Pharisees, forgetful of this design, and not content with the legal sanctions, hedged it round by the most minute and cumbrous regulations, confounded in the public mind their tyrannical prescriptions with God’s sanctions, constituted themselves censors as to its lawful observ- ance, and ruled men with it as a rod of iron. By their rigid traditional rules, they, practically, made man for the Sabbath. Instead of a day of rest, it became a day xxxviii THE HOLY DEATH. of most intolerable weariness. Against, not the obliga- tion and right regard, but this idolatry of the day, Jesus protested by act and word. He would restore the day to its original design. But His disregard of their rules they regarded as violations of God’s sanc- tions, and so as evidence that He was not the Messiah. His protests aroused their envenomed hate. They found fault with His disciples for eating with unwashen hands. They ascribed His power to Beelzebub. They constantly sought accusations against Him. His teach- ing was the death-knell of ceremonialism, so of their cherished ideas, forms and authority. They would not yield, so could not but be determined and vindictive foes. But not at once could they accomplish their bloody purpose. For nothing as yet — neither His acts nor words, nor their efforts — had damaged His popu- larity. This prevented His foes from hurting Him. They could only wait and watch until some act on His part, or some charge in the people, should put Him into their power. All this Jesus knew. In the summer of A. D. 29, He began to show to His disciples that He must go up to Jerusalem, and there be rejected of the elders, chief priests and scribes, suffer many things from them, and be killed. And in the following autumn, and in March, A. D. 30, He repeats the announcement of Ilis death, with the additional words of His betrayal, and of the readiness of the chief priests to negotiate for it. (Matt, xvi, 21; xvii, 22, 23; Mark viii, 31; ix, 30, 31; Luke ix, 22, 43, 44.) Hot the Pharisees, nor Herodians, nor THE HOLY DEATH. XXXIX the Sadducees, as a party, but elders, priests and scribes, and they alone, were to be the active agents in the deed of death. Besides the special motives of each class — • the priests, becanse He laid greater stress on obedience than sacrifice; the elders, becanse He jndged tradition by revelation; the scribes, becanse He maintained the spirit instead of the letter of the law — all shared a common hatred to One who constantly shocked their prejndices, and hnmbled their pride. Fnrther, they .were, the rnlers. The ntter incompatability of their rnle with that seen in the teaching of Jesns, convinced them that if He sncceeded they mnst abdicate sover- eignty over the pnblic mind, and snbmit to become His followers. Fnrther, they had a dread of innovation, and a real fear of offending the Boman power. The national existence was on a precarions foundation. Caesar conld, by a word, annihilate both it and the re- ligions constitntion. They feared that Jesns might head a tnmnlt, and this Pilate wonld pnt down merci- lessly. We resnme the narrative. Jesns’ brothers recognized His claims and works; bnt conld not receive Him, with whom they had been familiar from childhood, as the Messiah. ^ Why, if snch,” said they, ^^fear to appear in the capital,' and let the rulers decide upon yonr claims?” ^‘Go ye,” said He, ‘‘1 go not yet, np to the feast.” Bnt soon after, (Oct., A. D. 29), ^‘He went np in. secret,” i, e, not with the pilgrims, bnt alone, incognito, by an ob- scnre path, and as a non-participant spectator. The hostiles in Jernsalem, whose feelings were well-known xl THE HOLY DEATH. to the citizens, had sought Him from the beginning of the feast. Where,” said tliev; “is ekinos. that man?” Tliey had stirred up a great ferment about Him. And they so terrorized the people, that feelings found ex- pression in murmurings only. The battle of words, “He is a good Man,” “Hay, He deceiveth the people,” was carried on in an undertone. Neither party dared speak out before the rulers had spoken. And had Je- sus appeared in the midst of this ferment there might have been an explosion. But after it had calmed, and all were in the Temple keeping the feast. He, knowing that only when surrounded by a crowd, part of whom venerated Him as the Son of David, could He be free from arrest, appeared suddenly In their midst, and taught, for the first time, publicly, in Jerusalem. (John vii.) He brought before ton ochlon^ the common people, and the rulers also, (a) His doctrine and mis- sion (John vii, 25-30), and, (b) His approaching end, and its conseqnences to the Jews (v. 31-36). The Jews, i. the Sanhedrists, scribes, perhaps, recog- nized His knowledge and ability to teach. But as no one