and useless. Towards the end of His life Je.sus Christ makes no etiort to conceal His contempt for Pharisaism. He condemns the Pharisee on religious, not on political, grounds. It was as obvious to the Pharisee as to Jesus that their respective teaching was mutually antagonistic. There was no hope for Pharisaic religion if the teaching of Jesus prevailed. Paul discovered in his own way at a later stage that Pharisaism and Christianity were incompatible.
It was only towards the end of His life that the Sadducees became prominent in controversy with Jesus. They possessed neither the piety nor the patriotism of the Pharisees. They were interested in the continuance of the Temple and its worship, as the Pharisees were concerned with the continu- ance of the Synagogue and its service. They were interested in religion only in so far as it involved the continued existence of the Temple where they found their living. They were immovably con- servative, for they were anxious that the existing order of things should remain undisturbed. They were .supreme in the Sanhedrin, and they were favourable to Rome as long as they were secure in the enjoyment of the Temple revenue. As friends of Kome, they were naturally afraid of the growing popularity of Jesus. They knew the Jewish temperament, and they knew the disposi- tion of Kome. They were anxious that the re- ligious and political situation should remain undis- turbed, that they might continue to enjoy the privileges which Roman rule extended to theiu. After the raising of Lazarus and the impression which it made upon the people, the high priests and Pharisees were thrown into consternation, for they feared that the disturbance would attract tlie notice of the Roman representative, who would take away their place and their nation (Jn II'"'). Jesus' clearing of the Temple roused the anger of the Sadducees, for it interfered with vested interests. It was this act that moved them to compass His death (Mk 11"- '*). The only restraint was their fear of the people.
The charge of blasphemy was often on the lips of His Pharisaic adversaries, and from the Jewish point of view the indictment was perfectly intelli- "ible. To the Pharisees, who rejected the Messi- anic claims of Jesus, His utterances and His deeds were often blasphemous (Mk '2', Jn 5«- "), just as to His disciples who acknowledged Him to be the Messiah the attitude of the Jews was equally blasphemous (Mk 15•^^ Ac 13» 18" 19"). Any dis- paraging speech in reference to Jahweh was blasphemy, or any act which was disparaging to His dignity, e.g. Sennacherib's sneer that Jahweh was no better than the numerous gods of the nations which the Assyrian army had conquered (2 K 19'"). The worship of Jahweh with the rites of the Baalim was blasphemy, for it degraded Jahweh to the level of Baal (Ezk 20^). Any irreverent allusion to any institution connected with Jahweh came under the same condemnation, e.g. Jesus' alleged reference to the Temple (Mk 14^', Ac 6"). His violation of the sacredness of the Sabbath was of the same nature (Nu 15*^, Jn IQSi. 3"). When Jesus arrogated to Himself the right to forgive sins, He encroached upon the pre- rogatives of Deity, and He was guilty of blasphemy (Mk 2', Mt 9^). John adds that His assumption of Divinity was provocative of violent opposition. The high priest, at the trial of Jesus, put to Him the question, ' Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed,' or ' the Son of God?' (Mk 14«, Mt 26«''). It was a definite challenge whether He was the Messiah or not. The answer was equally clear and emphatic, and the charge of blasphemy was at once raised. The alternatives were clear— Jesus was the Messiah, or else He was a blasphemer, and as
PEKSECUTIO^'
PKKSKCUTlUK
173
such worthy of death (Lv 24'^). This was tho tecliniojil charge against Jesus, but it is obvious tliat His wIioIl' teaching was antagonistic to and subversive of tlie religious formalism and narrow nationalism of the Pliarisee no less than thescejiti- cisni and worldliness of the Sadducee. But tho Sanhedrin could not inflict cajiital punishment without the conlirmation of the Konian governor. It was therefore necessary to put in an indict- ment of a dirt'erent character in order to make sure of the verdict. The prosecutors held that accord- ing to Jewish law (Lv '24'"') Jesus was guilty of death, for He made Himself 'Son of God' (Jn 1'.)'). It would not be ditlicult to make out that His claims to be the 'Messiah ' or ' King of the Jews' constituted not only blasphemy but high treason, and the Roman Emperor was exceedingly sensitive on the question of Imsa mnjcstas or higli treason. The main object of the prosecution was to bring home the charge of high treason as the only indict- ment that would move Pilate to conlirm the verdict of the Sanliedriu. Luke sums up the tliree points in the indictment. (1) Perverting the nation. This was a charge of seditious agitation. His adversaries knew what they were about when they suggested that He was trying to work up a revolt in Palestine. (2) Forbidding the payment of tribute to Ca;sar. Jesus Christ had recently discriminated between duty to God and obliga- tions to Cresar, and His words suggested the existence of a sphere to which the authority of Caesar did not extend. (3) Making Himself to be Messiah, king. The Jewish leaders raised the cry of blasphemy over the claim. It was the political aspect of the claim which they emphasized before Pilate. The insinuation of the mob, that Pilate would not uphold the authority of Csesar if he released Jesus, stung the Roman governor to the quick and materially helped to get his confirma- tion of the findings of the banhedrin. It is obvious that, as far as Pilate was concerned, everything depended upon the significance of the Messianic claim made by Jesus, and accepted by His accusers for their own purpose, at His trial.' In their desperate efforts to secure an adverse verdict the Jews were prepared to trample underfoot the national expectation of a Messiah — ' We have no king but Ciiesar.' They knew what charge would carry weight before the proconsul. It is obvious that Pilate was moved by the charge. The Jewish world at the time was full of unrest, and insurrec- tions were not uncommon./ The Jews repeated the charge, in their opposition to Paul at Thessalonica. They knew that would get a hearing from the representative of Caesar (Ac 17'). It is obvious that the Jews were actuated in their opposition to Jesus Christ by motives which were partly nationalistic and partly religious, whilst Pilate, the Imperial representative, was concerned mainly with the political aspects of the situation. ^