they were cheering. They were still in the twilight of their old Jewish expectations. They supposed that the moment had at last come when the hopes which they eherislied would be realized, and when before the crowds as.sembled for the l'as.sover Jesus would at last i)ut Himself forward as the Leader for whom they were waiting. Nothing, however, came of this seeming appeal to their enthusiasm. A few dLscourses in the temple, jjartly levelled against the religious authorities they were nio.st accustomed to rever- ence, but containing not a word of incitement against the Komans. and that was all. What wonder if their enthusiasm died away, and if in some of the fiercer among them it changed t'l bitter and angry ilisappointment ! Doubtless .some of these Zealot.s mingled with those who eried 'Crucify him, crucify him'; it was natural that Ihey should prefer one of their own trade, like Harabbas ; but the crowds in Jerusalem at I'luss- over time were so great that many of these fanatics may have had no per.sonal acquaintance with Je.sus at all. The choice between Jesus and Harabbas would .seem to them a choice between a mock leader, a dreamer of dreams, who offered them notliing but words, and a true son of the people who had shown himself ready to grip the sW'Ord in the good cause.
(fc) The Traitor. — It is possible that Judas Iscariot may have shared something of these feelings. In the lists of the apostles he is usually named next to a Zealot. The long cour.se of triiiii- ing which he had undergone may have failed to purge his mind of the carnal expectations of his countrymen. It may have been a sudden acci .ss of disa])pointment, greater than ever before, be- cause the hopes by which it had been preceded had been greater, which impelleil him to seek his interview with the members of the ■'>anheih'in. It has even been suggested that he did wlial he did in order to compel his Master to declare Ilini- .self, and with the belief that He would at last exert for the deliverance of the nation the sujier- natural powers with which He was endowed. I'or this we have no sulhcieiit wariani ; aiul we are told expressly (Jn l^" HV text and most (Minims, i that Judas was guilty of petty )iilfering from the common fund, and therefore may infer that he was accessible to the temptations of avarice. Still, few men act from motives that they cannot at least make plausible to them.selves: so that a mixture of ob.stinate and misguided patriotism is more probable than pure malignity. If Judas had not been at lea.st capable of better things, it is not likely that he would have been chosen to be one of the Twelve.
(r) The Pharisees. — By this time between Jesus and the Pharisees there is open war. Insidious questions are still put to Him, but only in order to 'ensnare him in his talk' (Alt 22i°||). And on His side Jesus replied to their treachery by the sternest deniniciations. It need not be supposed that all 'scribes and Pharisees' were equally the object of these. We know that Xicodemus and Joseph of Arimatha'a were members of the Sanhedrin ; we do not know that they belonged to the party of the Pharisees, but we cannot doubt that there were some Pharisees like-niin<leil with lliein ; ju.st as we learn from the Acts that after the Hesurrection a number of the ' priests ' (Ac fi" ) and at least some Pliarisees (ib. 15°) became Christians.
(d) The Sadducees. — With the last week of our Lord's life, or rather, if we may trust St. John as far back as the Feast of Tabernacles (Jn 7"), a new party comes into prominence. The Sanhedrin begins to take official action against Jesus ; and, although the Pharisees had some footing in that
JESUS CHRIST
JESUS CHRIST
633
body, its policy was more deteriuined by the Sad- diicees, to whom belonged most of the ' chief priests,' and in particular Caiaphas, the acting liigh priest, and his yet more inlluenlial father- in-law and predecessor Annas. As ai;ainst Jesus the two parties of Pharisees and Sadducees acted together, but their motives were dilYerent. The I'liarisees were jealous for their authority and traditions which were openly iissailed. The Sad- ducees themselves rejected these traditions, — they were seltish politicians, who played their own game. Their molto was i/iiiitn non Miicere. They dreaded any kind of disturbance which might give the liiinians an excuse to take the jjower out of their liands (cf. .In IV*). It is curious to note how from this time onwards the bitterest opposi- tion conies from the Sadducees, while leading I'liarisees are neutral or even favourable (Ac 4**-^
(e) Pilalf. — The position of things is this. The .Tews (I.e. primarily the Sanhedrin) were bent upon bringing about tlie death of .Jesus. Now they themselves had not the power of life and deatii (.III 18»i). According to the Talmud, they lost it forty years before the destruction of .Jerusalem, which would be about this very time. It is prob- able, however, that they did not long continue to posse.ss it after the annexation of .ludiea by the Koinans. This being the case, they could only act through the instrumentality of the Komau governor. This necessitated the putting forward of different reasons from those that really weighed with themselves. Rather we should "say that there were really three sets of reasons: (i.) The real motive of the Sanhedrin wa.s jealousy of its own authority, — on the part of the Sadducees fear of (listurbance, on the part of the Pharisees re- sentment of the attacks upon themselves and their traditions, and with some of the most patriotic among them perhaps disgust at a Mes- siah who was not a Messiah in any sense which they could comprehend. (ii.) The ostensible reason, which with some may have been sincere enough, was the charge of blasphemy against God. This I'liarge they tried to bring home, but for a time could not (Sik 14*^11), until at hust they caught at the confession of .Fe.sus Himself. On the strength of this lie w;is condemned (.Mk \i^-'»). (iii.) This charge, however, Wiis not one which they could bring before the governor, and there- fore they changed their ground. St. Luke, who in all these scenes draws upon special and good information, states the accu.salion with more pre- cision than the other Synoplists. ' We found this man perveitliig our nation, and forbiiUling to give tribute to Ciesar, and .saying that he himself is Christ a king' (or 'an anointed king,' UVm ; Lk 2:i-).